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

91–100 of 303 posts

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#91

Post by Kylekramer »

NegativeK wrote: post #83
beagle3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article makes it seem like Google was working with Microsoft on allowing a Youtube app until Microsoft said they didn't want to play by Google's rules and published an app anyway. I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#92

Post by epochwolf »

Coincoin wrote: post #64
broodbucket wrote: post #11

This is just like Google blocking Maps on Windows Phone; there's a video where someone changed the agent from "Windows Phone 8" to "Windows Phne 8" and suddenly maps.google.com actually worked. I'm not a Microsoft fan, but I do rather like my Windows Phone, and I wish they would stop squabbling so I can have a YouTube app and change the search engine from Bing.

At some point, google were sabotaging any page visited through their domain using WP8. It would proxy everything alla google translate and serve a text only version of the whole web under the pretext that "my phone's browser sucked and they were helping me". But it's ok as long as you pretend to do no evil.

That's because there was /\bPhone\b/ in the user-agent.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#93

Post by itafroma »

munificent wrote: post #77

Disclosure: I am a Googler, though not working on anything remotely near YouTube. Obvious caveat: this is just my personal opinion. > With this backdrop, we temporarily took down our full-featured app when Google objected to it last May If I remember right, this full-featured app included features like: 1. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider disallowed that. 2. Allowing users to not view…

> 1. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider disallowed that.

This was poor judgment from Microsoft, and as far as I can see, was addressed in this new version of the app.

> 2. Allowing users to not view ads even when the content provider specifically required ads to be shown.

Blocking on this basis alone is a double standard from Google. As others have pointed out, the iOS app developed by Apple never showed ads, even if the videos were monetized. Google never unilaterally revoked Apple's API access over it.

Though one could argue that they did and that's why iOS 6+ doesn't include it. But that doesn't explain why Apple TV, to this day, still plays all videos—even with required monetization—without ads. Why is it okay for Apple to do this, but not Microsoft? Why won't Google license YouTube API access on the same terms?

> 3. Using YouTube's branding without permission.

As above, why won't Google license this to Microsoft on the same terms as other competitors? Why is it tying a "must be HTML5" requirement to Microsoft alone, and no one else? Apple's Apple TV app isn't in HTML5 and uses the YouTube branding.

Heck, there's even a third-party app for iOS called Jasmine[1] that is a native app (embedding just the HTML5 video player inside the app as y2bd points out below) and uses YouTube branding. Why is Google making it more difficult for Microsoft to do the exact same thing? We're clearly not getting the full story from anyone here.

[1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/jasmine-youtube-client/id554...

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#94

Post by leaffig »

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…

>not serving ads on purpose.

They couldn't include the ads because the YouTube API did not give them access to show ads. They did, however, include a download video option, on purpose which ironically made Windows Phone the best platform for a good YouTube app for a while.

Just Nokia alone sold 20 million Windows Phones the past few quarters. Google's stated reason for no app sounds hollow when even Vimeo has an app. They do have the right to do whatever they want though, but claiming to be open and not evil requires a higher bar.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#95

Post by zobzu »

munificent wrote: post #77

Disclosure: I am a Googler, though not working on anything remotely near YouTube. Obvious caveat: this is just my personal opinion. > With this backdrop, we temporarily took down our full-featured app when Google objected to it last May If I remember right, this full-featured app included features like: 1. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider disallowed that. 2. Allowing users to not view…

Note that, according to point 1 & 2, adblockers should be forbidden by law and browsers should all include DRM by law.

HTML5 provides the video, the client just choose to stream me but can choose to save it as well, that's no constrain here. Likewise, the browser can choose to display whatever it pleases, adverts or not.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#98

Post by wslh »

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…

> If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem.

The problem is when you extrapolate this reasoning:

- Do you want support for nvidia cards on Linux?

- Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

- Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

And so on. I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. My mantra is: you can't reverse engineer the cloud.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#99

Post by majc2 »

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…

According to http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/video-websites YouTube gets 450,000,000 uniques against NetFlix who get 55,000,000. I'd argue there different markets and the key comparable would be dailymotion at 27,000,000. I think there is a good chance it'd pass the monopoly test.

Re: The limits of Google’s openness

#100

Post by HelloMcFly »

munificent wrote: post #77

Disclosure: I am a Googler, though not working on anything remotely near YouTube. Obvious caveat: this is just my personal opinion. > With this backdrop, we temporarily took down our full-featured app when Google objected to it last May If I remember right, this full-featured app included features like: 1. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider disallowed that. 2. Allowing users to not view…

> 2. Allowing users to not view ads even when the content provider specifically required ads to be shown.

This one isn't quite so clear. Microsoft had no way of showing ads, and Google provided them none. Google's "solution" for them was to direct them to a skinned version of mobile YouTube... which also didn't show ads.

Post reply on HN