Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The limits of Google’s openness

blogs.technet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#81

Post by beagle3 »

nickconfer wrote: post #16
madisp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love it how they never really say that Android == Google in the article and instead play it like the Youtube apps were somehow made by iPhone and Android OS/platform engineers.

The original iOS YouTube app was done by Apple. Google also has a YouTube API with easy code examples and resources for iOS developers, today. I have to agree with Microsoft here. It seems they are doing everything they can and getting no clear responses. It's funny because this is the same type of junk that happens to small dev companies submitting to app stores in general, however that doesn't make it right. And wh…

> It seems they are doing everything they can and getting no clear responses.

... except complying with Google's terms for displaying YouTube videos.

> And when you are talking YouTube, which pretty much has a monoppoly on many different types of video content online, it's quite ridiculous to say its ok for Google to do this in the long term.

It's definitely OK for google to do this for as long as they want, and then some. Windows Phone users are not blocked from accessing YouTube, so it's perfectly OK (and even if they were, it might arguably still be ok, but that's not even the case). They just have to spend 3 more seconds waiting for the first page to load.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#82

Post by jmillikin »

itafroma wrote: post #78
jmillikin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original iOS app only showed videos that did not require ads. Microsoft's YouTube app used to work the same way, until they updated it to show all videos but still not show ads. EDIT: According to itafroma, the Apple-authored YouTube app for Apple TV will play all videos without ads.

> The original iOS app only showed videos that did not require ads. That's not correct. The original iOS app played all videos, regardless of whether they were monetized, as long as the creator checked the "make available for mobile devices" option. It works the same with with the current Apple TV app: monetization options have no effect on videos' availability.

Are you sure? I believe I remember my iPad being unable to play videos with ads, and having such videos not even show up in search results. Separately, some videos would not play on mobile or when embedded, but those seemed to be much more rare.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#83

Post by NegativeK »

beagle3 wrote: post #66
badman_ting wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? It's about Google not making a YouTube app for a platform, so the platform vendor makes one themselves, which then gets blocked, leaving users in the middle.

Cry me a river. If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone. Just as it was the problem of users buying early Linux notebooks / eees and expecting it to run Windows software. And it's not like the WP users are left out in the rain. They can just use the browser to view YouTube videos. Lesse…

> There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone.

The argument is about openness, not about rights.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#85

Post by docdendrite »

briandear wrote: post #62
docdendrite wrote: post #21

Could this post be designed to provoke a reaction that might lead to (or contribute to pre-existing) FTC anti-trust inquiries about Google's practices?

The only thing is that this isn't anti-trust. If you want to use a google product, then you have to follow the google rules. I think the rules are a bit ridiculous, but YouTube doesn't have a monopoly on online videos. Well, except maybe cat videos.. so there might be a case in there somewhere. No app or company has a "right" to create Youtube apps. For anti-trust, one would have to prove a monopoly and they would be…

I'm not so sure. You don't have to prove a monopoly. You have to show a selective targeting of a competitor. Manufacturer's using Google as a search engine allegedly have a different set of standards for their YouTube app than manufacturer's that don't use Google as search default. Whether or not that's how things actually transpired, it sure smells awfully fishy to an FTC regulator. This isn't about following rules or APIs, it's about provoking regulatory authorities to investigate Google so they maneuver more conservatively. And watch, now that Windows app will be approved post haste!

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#87

Post by kllrnohj »

barista wrote: post #35
jmillikin wrote: post #23

It's my understanding that YouTube officially supports access via either a Flash applet or the HTML5 tag. Windows Phone doesn't support Flash[1], so the only option for writing a mobile app using the official API is to use HTML5. It's not obvious why using the HTML5 API is "impossible". Windows bundles a -capable browser; assuming IE's capable of playing either H.264 or WebM, it should be relatively easy to build a Y…

The experience you can provide with an HTML5 app are many times subpar as compared to a native app. Note how facebook abandoned their HTML5 app and went native.

YouTube's API only requires the video player itself to be in HTML5, the rest of the app can be native or whatever the hell you want. The engineering work here is youtube hands you an HTML snippet (specifically an ), and you plop that into a UIWebView where you want the inline video to be and you're done.

https://developers.google.com/youtube/iframe_api_reference

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#88

Post by zobzu »

beagle3 wrote: post #66
badman_ting wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? It's about Google not making a YouTube app for a platform, so the platform vendor makes one themselves, which then gets blocked, leaving users in the middle.

Cry me a river. If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone. Just as it was the problem of users buying early Linux notebooks / eees and expecting it to run Windows software. And it's not like the WP users are left out in the rain. They can just use the browser to view YouTube videos. Lesse…

And.. thats pretty much being closed. Point microsoft, not you, nor google. Go "cry your river" elsewhere.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#89

Post by bo1024 »

simonsarris wrote: post #31

A summary for those not following along at home: The Youtube app for Android is developed by Google The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google The Youtube app for Windows Phone is developed by Microsoft, with some reverse engineering, at first not serving ads on purpose. It is easy to argue that a Youtube app for Windows Phone would be nice for WP users. It is also easy to argue that MSFT writing such an app woul…

So is there any less-biased explanation of what exactly the new app does and why Google blocked it? Or even a statement from Google?

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#90

Post by rubberband »

taylodl wrote: post #18

Karma is finally biting Microsoft in the ass. Who else remembers the refrain "it ain't done 'til Lotus won't run!" from Microsoft's earlier years? Having said that, I would expect the "do no evil" company - directly referring to not being like Microsoft - to do the right thing, if, in fact Microsoft is being fully forthcoming in stating they have complied with all of Google's objections. In the end, both companies ha…

Sure it's in vogue to say Microsoft is "finally" getting their comeuppance whenever something like this comes along, but I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins.

Are we really going harp on Lotus Notes, or, heaven forbid, IE6, five or ten years from now?

Note that I think that the post from Microsoft is 90% self-serving. It's just a general thing I notice with Microsoft bashing.

Post reply on HN