9 ms·

The limits of Google’s openness

302 points by pablosanchez 13y ago

samspenc 13y ago
Looks like Microsoft disabled comments. Smart move, look at what happened to the previous one where they DID allow comments :p http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/01/03/the-ftc-and-google-a-missed-opportunity.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...
- creativityland 13y ago
  Quite outspoken Android users commenting it would seem. Wonder how YC will react to this post.
- Avalaxy 13y ago
  I can't imagine TechNet being so full of Microsoft-haters. Was this sponsored by HN/reddit/4chan or something?
  - velodrome 13y ago
    That's because Microsoft kind of screwed over its TechNet subscribers. In a way, they poisoned their TechNet community. There is a petition on change.org with almost 10,000 signatures. http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/continue-technet-or-create-an-affordable-alternative-to-msdn http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/continue-technet-or-cr...
    - xradionut 13y ago
      They have also tightened the screws and raised prices on the only alternative, MSDN subscriptions. Plus cranked the prices on SQL Server, fucked the GUI up in Windows, screwed the pooch on RT and back-peddled on the new Xbox, etc...
  - xradionut 13y ago
    Microsoft has made many recent decisions that have irritated or pissed off people including their customers and developers. In this case I understand that they have valid grievances with Google, but there's this German word, schadenfreude, that comes to mind. *schadenfreude requires a HN Enterprise reply agreement before being used in a post. :)
  - GoNB 13y ago
    I thought Reddit was fairly pro-Microsoft? I mean, if we're talking Reddit as a whole and not /r/programming. Reddit has a lot of general users who use Windows, especially any gamers, so they take kindly more to Microsoft. I remember articles on Reddit that mocked Bing and most of Reddit seemed to support Microsoft.
devx 13y ago
It seems Google will allow them to build an HTML5 app, even though Microsoft has repeatedly breached their TOS multiple times (like allowing users to download the videos). If Microsoft's WP8 platform is so behind the times, it can't even make an HTML5 web-app possible, that's really Microsoft's problem. If I'm not mistaken all the other "native" Youtube apps on other platforms are Google's own apps, and it's also their prerogative to choose the platforms they want to make native apps on. For example, they haven't made one for Roku either, and it's the #1 media streaming box right now. So I don't see the problem here? EDIT: One other thing. Google told them from the beginning that they'll only allow an HTML5 app. So what does Microsoft do? They make a native app - again. And then Microsoft releases the native app to their store, without Google's approval, even though they were supposedly "collaborating" on this, and then seeds press releases to the media that Google-the-bad-guy blocked them "again" - like it was "completely unexpected" or something.
- madisp 13y ago
  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.
  - outside1234 13y ago
    You missed the news. Android is mostly owned by Samsung now.
  - nickconfer 13y ago
    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 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.
leaffig 13y ago
Curiously, Windows Phone is pretty much the only 'big' mobile platform where Google search is not the default.
- barista 13y ago
  No wonder Google is pissed about that
- Ives 13y ago
  It's a bit worse than that. There's a dedicated button on every Windows Phone (that I know of) used for searching with Bing. You can't change the search engine that's used, you just have to live with it. It's hard referring to something as a "default" search engine when you can't change to another search engine.
mjolk 13y ago
This whole thing is passive aggressive, but the best part is: >"Google objected on a number of grounds. We took our app down and agreed to work with Google to solve their issues..We enabled Google’s advertisements, disabled video downloads and eliminated the ability for users to view reserved videos. We did this all at no cost to Google, which one would think would want a YouTube app on Windows Phone that would only serve to bring Google new users and additional revenue." "We stopped breaking Google's ToS at _no cost_ to Google" Cry me a river, Microsoft.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  And after they stopped breaking Google's ToS, they decided to re-release the application that was breaking the ToS, and decided to cry foul on Google, for not liking that they re-released the old app.
broodbucket 13y ago
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.
- barista 13y ago
  Of course it doesn't matter much with the nokia mapping apps on the nokia phones being a better alternative.
  - HelloMcFly 13y ago
    Those apps are available on non-Nokia phones now too.
- sp332 13y ago
  Google Maps works OK (not great) if you install the official Google app and search for a place name. http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/store/app/google/220bfbf2-ee02-496c-a656-651a6c0c6518 http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/store/app/google/220bfbf2-...
  - HelloMcFly 13y ago
    I've subsequently found that Nokia Here maps work every bit as well for me as Google Maps ever did when I had my Android.
- ihsw 13y ago
  From what I recall, the issue was with users having "phone" in their user agent rather than "Windows Phone 8."
- Coincoin 13y ago
  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.
etchalon 13y ago
Ah, corporate pettiness. Is there no end to the fun you create?
erbo 13y ago
M$: "Google also says that we are not complying with its 'terms and conditions.' What Google really means is that our app is not based on HTML5. The problem with this argument, of course, is that Google is not complying with this condition for Android and iPhone." Google's T&Cs that M$ is citing, it would seem to me, apply to third-party use of YouTube data. Since Google wrote the Android and iOS YouTube apps, this is not "third-party use." Google makes the rules for YouTube, and can therefore bypass them with impunity. M$ cannot. Presumably, a Google-written YouTube app for WinPhone would also be allowed to be non-HTML5. However, I'm sure readers here have a pretty good grasp on the chances of that happening.
- indubitably 13y ago
  > Google makes the rules for YouTube, and can therefore bypass them with impunity. M$ cannot. Well, yeah. But for a company so heavily invested in HTML5 to demand another company apply it, while simultaneously not doing so themselves, is a little hard to stomach.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    I've ben using thé web app on iPhone and iPad recently, and I'm guessing thats not flash. Whats wrong with thé WinPhone browser that it xan't use that?
- yread 13y ago
  > M$ Heureka! My timemachine worked and I'm back in the 90s!
taylodl 13y ago
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 have blemishes and so far I can't determine who's really at fault here. The soap opera will continue, I'm sure.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  The article says that they decided to release the app over Google's objections: There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. [...] For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google long-term on an app based on HTML5. [...] Google, however, has decided to block our mutual customers from accessing our new app.
  - axus 13y ago
    Needing Google's permission to release an app on their own platform doesn't sound very open.
    - pritambaral 13y ago
      Not needing Google's permission to consume Google's content sounds very .... umm ... you decide.
      - interpol_p 13y ago
        Well if Google are claiming their platforms are open, then as long as Microsoft can comply with content providers (showing ads, etc), Google should not have a problem with them hooking into their platform? Google is not interested in "openness" except where it benefits them. They are just as controlling as Apple when it comes to their viable properties (and rightly so, but they should stop using "open" to describe their platforms).
outside1234 13y ago
Another too wordy document on Microsoft's part. The core of the issue is that Google is forcing Microsoft to jump through hoops that it is not forcing iOS devices to jump through. Its clear this is an anti-competitive action on Google's part and while they have that right (if they aren't a monopoly, which is increasingly unclear), they really can't claim with the other side of their mouth that they are open.
- cheald 13y ago
  Doesn't Google publish its own YouTube app on iOS now?
  - rsynnott 13y ago
    Yup, there is at least one major third-party one, though (Jasmine), which complies with the API requirements that Microsoft is apparently not willing to deal with (presentation of the actual video via HTML5, etc.)
    - cantankerous 13y ago
      Does Google abide by its own API usage restrictions? It might seem like a trite point, but it's important given that it publishes for the two dominant platforms. It'd be an easy way to edge out competing applications restricted to a less feature-rich toolset.
      - rsynnott 13y ago
        No, I don't think so. Certainly, Youtube for iOS lacks the behavioural problems that showed up when Jasmine shifted to HTML5 for the video pane
docdendrite 13y ago
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?
- mratzloff 13y ago
  Of course.
- briandear 13y ago
  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 difficult despite the ubiquitousness of Youtube. Also, Google isn't preventing Microsoft from creating a Youtube app, they are only requiring that it meet certain requirements. Since Microsoft is a direct competitor in the search (and therefore advertising) space, it's not unfounded that Google do what they're doing. I personally think it's crap, however Microsoft brought this on themselves by blatantly violating the Terms of Service. However, when all is said and done, Microsoft deserves it -- they are, after all responsible for Internet Explorer and while it isn't related to Youtube, they deserve to suffer for all of the hours and hours developers have spent trying to make their products compatible with that hell-demon of a browser.
  - docdendrite 13y ago
    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!
jmillikin 13y ago
It's my understanding that YouTube officially supports access via either a Flash applet or the HTML5 <video> 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 <video>-capable browser; assuming IE's capable of playing either H.264 or WebM, it should be relatively easy to build a YouTube app on top of it. Maybe there's some internal reason why an app can't easily embed an IE widget. [1] http://www.winrumors.com/no-flash-for-windows-phone-as-adobe-kills-off-mobile-development/ http://www.winrumors.com/no-flash-for-windows-phone-as-adobe...
- barista 13y ago
  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.
  - asdasf 13y ago
    Also note how sencha then went and re-created the new facebook app in html, showing that facebook was full of shit.
    - prostoalex 13y ago
      For one, Sencha's app doesn't allow commenting. For two, it doesn't support notifications, so "re-created" is a generous verb there.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Ah yes, comments. One of the hardest things to get right in HTML5. I have never seen it done well, you absolutely need native for that.
      - pritambaral 13y ago
        Sencha's app was a proof-of-concept. Their motivation was to show how and where facebook was "full-of-shit" which they did beautifully. If you read their respective articles, you can discern for yourself.
cygwin98 13y ago
GOOG is the new bully.
webwanderings 13y ago
Microsoft, build your own YouTube.
- sp332 13y ago
  They did. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10292031-75.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10292031-75.html
- hbbio 13y ago
  Even better, acquire the #2, DailyMotion. But that's impossible: the company is French, and partially owned by the French government which keeps its companies valuation as low as possible by forbidding US companies to acquire DailyMotion. Yahoo! wanted to buy the company, and the "French Productivity Minister", no joke, killed the acquisition.
simonsarris 13y ago
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 would be a tad antagonistic, seeing as the first version released contained no ads. One might suspect Microsoft wanted a PR fight more than they wanted a Youtube app, or that they wanted both. Alas, we can read for clues. The title of the article is: "The limits of Google’s openness" But the tags are: "marketplace, Windows Phone" It's not an article about Google now, is it? ~~~ The article doesn't help WP users. Instead they get no Youtube app while watching a hissy fit occur if they google (ha) to find out why the app is gone. I like both these companies, but for however-much of a PR stunt this is, Microsoft does not come out looking good.
- barista 13y ago
  >The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    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.
    - itafroma 13y ago
      > 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.
Kylekramer 13y ago
This has always been somewhat true, but this is a definitive sign open has lost all meaning. Now it means you have to allow third parties to use your resources to do what they like?
- sp332 13y ago
  Google requires MS to display ads based on information they won't release to them. That's not open.
quasque 13y ago
Rather hypocritical of Microsoft to complain. They're doing the same kind of thing to Google Mail users [1,2]. [1] http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/ILHhp40ze4A/0l1SHvUTz0sJ http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/ILHhp40ze4... [2] http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail-email/unable-to-send-mail-as-through-outlook-smtp/6f88fc11-16d9-4f56-9008-c65bc59bef5e http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail-em...
cad 13y ago
Google's becoming the new Microsoft.
tnuc 13y ago
Why doesn't Google write a youtube app for the windows phone? Google has written one for the iphone. Am I missing something with what is going on here? Disclaimer: I don't have a windows phone and have no intention of getting one.
- ntkachov 13y ago
  Your disclaimer probably says it all. Why bother when there just aren't that many people on windows phone. It seems like a matter of "who is helping who?". if Google didn't support the iPhone, there would be an outrage and people would move to other video service because of the number of people on iphone. If google didn't support android... well that would be silly, wouldn't it? But there aren't enough people on windows phone for it to matter to google, however, there are enough people on youtube for it to matter for microsoft.
  - lotso 13y ago
    Except BB10 has a YouTube app.
    - fpgeek 13y ago
      Yes, an icon that opens up a link in the browser is a wonderful YouTube app Microsoft couldn't replicate: http://forums.crackberry.com/blackberry-10-apps-f274/why-there-no-real-youtube-app-bb10-839346/ http://forums.crackberry.com/blackberry-10-apps-f274/why-the...
- mh- 13y ago
  iPhone (and Android) have sufficiently-large userbases.
  - izaacj 13y ago
    BB10 has an YouTube app, and that's just a fraction of the marketshare that WP has, so that statement is invalid.
the_unknown 13y ago
I'd be more inclined to give Google a bit of leeway here if they hadn't already pulled out some petty behaviour against Windows Phone. This is somewhat similar to Google's blocking of Maps from the Windows Phone web browser. A feature that worked fine originally and once there was uproar from users came back and continued to work fine. Google is attempting to deny service to Windows Phone users to avoid competition in the handheld market. It isn't pretty and it does make me rethink my daily usage of Google services. Windows Phone users are Google customers too and I couldn't care less about their petty rivalry with some other mega-corp.
- beagle3 13y ago
  Microsoft is still threatening Android makers with lawsuits, and making way more money from Android patent extortion than from Windows Phone. There's a bully in the handheld wars, and it isn't Google.
mratzloff 13y ago
Some background for people who may not have followed this: In May, Microsoft released a YouTube app for Windows Phone that didn't show ads and allowed users to download videos. Google said no. Microsoft removed the download capability but didn't restore the ads. Google said no. Then the PR comes out that Microsoft and Google are working together on a new app. I'm guessing that was PR from Microsoft's side. Now Microsoft has tried to release an app that follows the rules but Google looks like they are being petty about it after Microsoft has repeatedly violated their terms of service. So Microsoft posts a blog article angling for FTC intervention, and here we are.
- HelloMcFly 13y ago
  Microsoft could not restore the ads because Google provided no API access to them. They weren't being contrary, they were making due with what they had.
  - beagle3 13y ago
    "Your honor, Microsoft did not provide me with a way to sell Windows 8 for $3, so I had to find my own way to crack it. It's not my fault, it's Microsoft's fault for not giving me any way to do that" Doesn't sound very convincing, does it?
    - BrandonY 13y ago
      Isn't that the basic argument Microsoft is making about "standards-essential patents" in the Microsoft v. Motorola suit?
  - davorak 13y ago
    I thought they were able, but only in they used an embedded webview like some IOS apps. So possible just not 100% native code like microsoft wanted. Is there no equivalent to embedded webivew for native windows phones?
forgotAgain 13y ago
Apple, Google, Microsoft: they each act like bullies when they have the upper hand and whine when someone else makes them dance. If you react emotionally to arguments between these companies (unless they pay you to) you should find something worthwhile to be angry about. They're all whores who would screw every customer they have for a dime. Use them any way you can but don't invest in them emotionally. It's a waste of your time.
- briandear 13y ago
  I guess people like being screwed, given the market caps.
  - test-it 13y ago
    Well 1st people often don't have an alternative (driver and app support of Windows, Google's search results quality). And 2nd people do like to be screwed, if that means less effort and lower risk. The vast majority of civilizations in human history were slave based, with the majority of people being slaves.
- CurtHagenlocher 13y ago
  As a Microsoft employee, I endorse this position.
  - ghayes 13y ago
    We, as consumers, may still identify with issues imposed (e.g. content owners charging extremely high prices to Netflex). I'm not saying Microsoft is right and Google is wrong. I'm saying that I agree that Google is not helping the ecosystem and should be shamed for it, in this one very specific instance.
doublestabdards 13y ago
Wow haters gonna hate.. If company names where swapped the cpitchforks would be out long time ago. Stay calssy hn
samarudge 13y ago
Not related to the article but Firefox (23.0) is giving me a mixed-content warning and blocking most of the CSS http://i.imgur.com/CWysR0Y.png http://i.imgur.com/CWysR0Y.png
munificent 13y ago
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 ads even when the content provider specifically required ads to be shown. 3. Using YouTube's branding without permission. I am but a lowly engineer and the actions of executives confuse me, but I don't see how Microsoft didn't realize the above was batshit crazy. I can only assume this is some sort of weird ploy. YouTube's entire business model is about getting content providers to put videos up there so that people will watch ads to see them. If you let people take videos off the site, or just skip the ads, that breaks the fundamental business proposition. This would be like me making an Android app called "Bing from Micrsoft" that let you perform bing searches but then stripped out all of the ads. Microsoft would shut that shit down, with good reason. > When we first built a YouTube app for Windows Phone, we did so with the understanding that Google claimed to grow its business based on open access to its platforms and content, a point it reiterated last year. "Open access to content" doesn't mean "ignore the requirements of the people who created that content". People make their livelihoods producing YouTube videos and the only way that money flows to those creators is because of ads. If you make a Windows Phone app that lets you watch Cooking with Dog without the ads, you aren't doing Francis any favors by giving out "open access" to his content. (Yes, I did just imply that they are the dog's videos. He is the host, after all.)
- itafroma 13y ago
  > 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/id554937050?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/jasmine-youtube-client/id554...
lnanek2 13y ago
Really annoying Google blocks IMs from other services now as well. Lots of people complain to me they can't IM Google users any more. Apparently Google removed server to server XMPP support, a standard open IM protocol, in favor of their own lock in protocols. Other products are following suit, Chromecast doesn't include support DLNA or other standards for example, but tries to force you to use Google proprietary stuff instead. In many cases this is a worse situation for users and only benefits Google by locking more people in and forcing more people to use services that aren't superior. Many people have their own media center or media server setups that are incompatible for example, like XBMC, a popular media center.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  > Really annoying Google blocks IMs from other services > now as well. Lots of people complain to me they can't IM > Google users any more. Apparently Google removed server > to server XMPP support, a standard open IM protocol, in > favor of their own lock in protocols. Google Talk still works, and still supports server-to-server XMPP federation. Some users have chosen to switch to Hangouts, which is a separate product (affiliated with Google+) that doesn't support federation. > Chromecast doesn't include support DLNA or other > standards for example I'm of mixed opinion on this. On one hand, it's obviously better to use an open standard when available. On the other, DLNA and UPnP and all the other associated standards were terrible. As a user I was never able to get my TV to stream music from my computer, and as a developer I couldn't wade through all the XML and acronyms to get something that worked. Sometimes "open standard" is code for "designd by committee, compliantly implemented by nobody".
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    Is 'an Android OTA update replaces Google Talk with Hangouts without advance notice' your definition of 'chosen to switch'?
    - jmillikin 13y ago
      Every other XMPP client seems to have kept working fine.
skc 13y ago
Love Windows Phone, but Google's service, Google's rules.
maybe 13y ago
If Microsoft can't make an HTML5 app they are doomed.
t4nkd 13y ago
Youtube has had HTML5 opt-in for a while now, and it is certainly a technology used by their product: http://www.youtube.com/html5 http://www.youtube.com/html5
- comex 13y ago
  It is not used by their native iOS or Android apps.
t4nkd 13y ago
Youtube has had HTML5 opt-in for a while now, and it is certainly a technology used by their product: http://www.youtube.com/html5 http://www.youtube.com/html5
cantankerous 13y ago
This discussion brings up the point about how the usage requirements and restrictions of the API applies to third-parties and not Google itself. If Google, for example, wanted to keep the iOS platforms and Android platforms in an advantageous spot for whatever reason, they could just write the apps for those platforms themselves and say that the terms don't apply. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case. It sounds like Microsoft's application added features that even Google wouldn't give its own apps. However, the argument that Google is simply allowed to write its own apps, for its own platforms and them impose extra restrictions on third parties who use its APIs is anti-competitive. This is the kinda crap that got Microsoft in trouble in the first place. Again, I'm only speaking to the argument I see in the threads here, not the reality as it appears in the story. In reality, it appears Microsoft may have overstepped a bit.
wuliwong 13y ago
There are only a handful of people who actually know what transpired between these two corporations. I would guess that none of that small group actively comment on hacker news.
jorgecastillo 13y ago
You can down vote me all you want, but I feel zero sympathy for Microsoft. If their app is being blocked from YouTube is because they deserve it. Google has all the right to choose which third parties can access YouTube. Microsoft is in no positing to criticize the actions of other companies.
- asterix9 13y ago
  Agreed 100%, but my question is, can Google still [call itself]/[be considered] open and "not evil" ?
  - jorgecastillo 13y ago
    I'll take Google over Microsoft anytime. I believe there are no absolutes everything is relative, everything depends on the context, on our scale of values. Personally I don't care about such concepts as open or evil. If the actions of a company are illegal they should be punished. If they are not but they ought to be, you can try to build enough consensus to legislate on the matter. I personally feel more wronged by Microsoft than by Google, I've never been forced to use Google products. The pervasive dominance that Microsoft still holds on the desktop is poisonous. Until I am free to choose or not to choose Microsoft products I will feel wronged by Microsoft.
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    Definitely less then couple of years ago, but for a company this big, Google is pretty open and not evil.
umsm 13y ago
It seems like Microsoft and Google have switched places. I tend to trust Microsoft more these days.
will118 13y ago
The author was given the tricky task of padding out 60 or so words to nearly 1000, it's almost prose. The hypocrisy is truly hilarious, lambasting others for "Antitrust violations". They can still be the victim here though, I'm not ruling that out at all. Microsoft is truly synonymous with Antitrust in my mind, on an unparalleled level. With regards to Windows/Xbox/anything they can really. I don't think Google are playing fair here either, but MSFT are hitting new levels of childishness in my mind. If MSFT truly believe it's unfair, why not take them to court in CA for Antitrust? Take a shot at being on the side receiving the settlement for once.
- alextingle 13y ago
  Um, it is prose.
iunk 13y ago
So, if Microsoft blocks all Google sites and applications that would be fine?
- jorgecastillo 13y ago
  Is Microsoft giving copies of Windows for free now? No customer not even the most loyal, would accept this behavior from a product they paid for.
jfoster 13y ago
I wonder if the HTML 5 requirement might be Google trying to use the YouTube app as a bargaining chip when it comes to HTML 5 video codecs. Google & Microsoft have locked horns a bit in that area. History: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video
RivieraKid 13y ago
Perhaps if MS stopped extorting money from Android manufacturers, Google may be more willing to cooperate with the YouTube app.
phairoh 13y ago
What does Google even mean when they say that they want it HTML5? Do they want it as a web app? Running inside a WebBrowser control? Do they just want the video to be an HTML5 video tag? I feel there is some very important piece of information missing from this discussion.
thecodeore 13y ago
There are people that actually use Windows Phone? Who knew.....
alextingle 13y ago
Sounds like Microsoft is just experiencing Google's normal level of customer "support".
tn13 13y ago
Eventually both Google and Microsoft give a damn about openness. They all care about their own profits. "Openness" is just a cute cover. Microsoft's own track record in such things has been very bad (hint: Samba, Wine).
lurkinggrue 13y ago
Given this is Microsoft this feels ironic.
duncan_bayne 13y ago
Karma is a bitch, isn't it Microsoft? Remember when you were the dominant player back in the mid 90s? Does the term 'Halloween Documents' ring a bell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents > ... Document I suggests that one reason that open source projects have been > able to enter the market for servers is the use of standardized protocols. > It then suggests that this can be stopped by "extending these protocols and > developing new protocols" and "de-commoditize protocols & applications." > This policy has been nicknamed "embrace, extend, extinguish". Now all of a sudden Microsoft is the underdog, and you're whinging in public when the dominant player locks you out? Cry me a river. (Not that this is a defense of Google, mind you: I think MS is right on the money w.r.t. to their behaviour. Just saying that Google's tactics couldn't be employed against a more deserving target).
Sathi 13y ago
I think that Google has a Search app on Windows Phone. If the platform does not have the numbers, then why make the Search app? When Search app is released, why not release Youtube and other apps?

302 points by pablosanchez 13y ago

Looks like Microsoft disabled comments. Smart move, look at what happened to the previous one where they DID allow comments :p http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/01/03/the-ftc-and-google-a-missed-opportunity.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...

creativityland 13y ago
Quite outspoken Android users commenting it would seem. Wonder how YC will react to this post.
Avalaxy 13y ago
I can't imagine TechNet being so full of Microsoft-haters. Was this sponsored by HN/reddit/4chan or something?
- velodrome 13y ago
  That's because Microsoft kind of screwed over its TechNet subscribers. In a way, they poisoned their TechNet community. There is a petition on change.org with almost 10,000 signatures. http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/continue-technet-or-create-an-affordable-alternative-to-msdn http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/continue-technet-or-cr...
  - xradionut 13y ago
    They have also tightened the screws and raised prices on the only alternative, MSDN subscriptions. Plus cranked the prices on SQL Server, fucked the GUI up in Windows, screwed the pooch on RT and back-peddled on the new Xbox, etc...
- xradionut 13y ago
  Microsoft has made many recent decisions that have irritated or pissed off people including their customers and developers. In this case I understand that they have valid grievances with Google, but there's this German word, schadenfreude, that comes to mind. *schadenfreude requires a HN Enterprise reply agreement before being used in a post. :)
- GoNB 13y ago
  I thought Reddit was fairly pro-Microsoft? I mean, if we're talking Reddit as a whole and not /r/programming. Reddit has a lot of general users who use Windows, especially any gamers, so they take kindly more to Microsoft. I remember articles on Reddit that mocked Bing and most of Reddit seemed to support Microsoft.

devx 13y ago

It seems Google will allow them to build an HTML5 app, even though Microsoft has repeatedly breached their TOS multiple times (like allowing users to download the videos). If Microsoft's WP8 platform is so behind the times, it can't even make an HTML5 web-app possible, that's really Microsoft's problem. If I'm not mistaken all the other "native" Youtube apps on other platforms are Google's own apps, and it's also their prerogative to choose the platforms they want to make native apps on. For example, they haven't made one for Roku either, and it's the #1 media streaming box right now. So I don't see the problem here? EDIT: One other thing. Google told them from the beginning that they'll only allow an HTML5 app. So what does Microsoft do? They make a native app - again. And then Microsoft releases the native app to their store, without Google's approval, even though they were supposedly "collaborating" on this, and then seeds press releases to the media that Google-the-bad-guy blocked them "again" - like it was "completely unexpected" or something.

madisp 13y ago
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.
- outside1234 13y ago
  You missed the news. Android is mostly owned by Samsung now.
- nickconfer 13y ago
  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 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.

leaffig 13y ago

Curiously, Windows Phone is pretty much the only 'big' mobile platform where Google search is not the default.

barista 13y ago
No wonder Google is pissed about that
Ives 13y ago
It's a bit worse than that. There's a dedicated button on every Windows Phone (that I know of) used for searching with Bing. You can't change the search engine that's used, you just have to live with it. It's hard referring to something as a "default" search engine when you can't change to another search engine.

mjolk 13y ago

This whole thing is passive aggressive, but the best part is: >"Google objected on a number of grounds. We took our app down and agreed to work with Google to solve their issues..We enabled Google’s advertisements, disabled video downloads and eliminated the ability for users to view reserved videos. We did this all at no cost to Google, which one would think would want a YouTube app on Windows Phone that would only serve to bring Google new users and additional revenue." "We stopped breaking Google's ToS at _no cost_ to Google" Cry me a river, Microsoft.

dkuntz2 13y ago
And after they stopped breaking Google's ToS, they decided to re-release the application that was breaking the ToS, and decided to cry foul on Google, for not liking that they re-released the old app.

broodbucket 13y ago

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.

barista 13y ago
Of course it doesn't matter much with the nokia mapping apps on the nokia phones being a better alternative.
- HelloMcFly 13y ago
  Those apps are available on non-Nokia phones now too.
sp332 13y ago
Google Maps works OK (not great) if you install the official Google app and search for a place name. http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/store/app/google/220bfbf2-ee02-496c-a656-651a6c0c6518 http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/store/app/google/220bfbf2-...
- HelloMcFly 13y ago
  I've subsequently found that Nokia Here maps work every bit as well for me as Google Maps ever did when I had my Android.
ihsw 13y ago
From what I recall, the issue was with users having "phone" in their user agent rather than "Windows Phone 8."
Coincoin 13y ago
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.

etchalon 13y ago

Ah, corporate pettiness. Is there no end to the fun you create?

erbo 13y ago

M$: "Google also says that we are not complying with its 'terms and conditions.' What Google really means is that our app is not based on HTML5. The problem with this argument, of course, is that Google is not complying with this condition for Android and iPhone." Google's T&Cs that M$ is citing, it would seem to me, apply to third-party use of YouTube data. Since Google wrote the Android and iOS YouTube apps, this is not "third-party use." Google makes the rules for YouTube, and can therefore bypass them with impunity. M$ cannot. Presumably, a Google-written YouTube app for WinPhone would also be allowed to be non-HTML5. However, I'm sure readers here have a pretty good grasp on the chances of that happening.

indubitably 13y ago
> Google makes the rules for YouTube, and can therefore bypass them with impunity. M$ cannot. Well, yeah. But for a company so heavily invested in HTML5 to demand another company apply it, while simultaneously not doing so themselves, is a little hard to stomach.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  I've ben using thé web app on iPhone and iPad recently, and I'm guessing thats not flash. Whats wrong with thé WinPhone browser that it xan't use that?
yread 13y ago
> M$ Heureka! My timemachine worked and I'm back in the 90s!

taylodl 13y ago

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 have blemishes and so far I can't determine who's really at fault here. The soap opera will continue, I'm sure.

jmillikin 13y ago
The article says that they decided to release the app over Google's objections: There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. [...] For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google long-term on an app based on HTML5. [...] Google, however, has decided to block our mutual customers from accessing our new app.
- axus 13y ago
  Needing Google's permission to release an app on their own platform doesn't sound very open.
  - pritambaral 13y ago
    Not needing Google's permission to consume Google's content sounds very .... umm ... you decide.
    - interpol_p 13y ago
      Well if Google are claiming their platforms are open, then as long as Microsoft can comply with content providers (showing ads, etc), Google should not have a problem with them hooking into their platform? Google is not interested in "openness" except where it benefits them. They are just as controlling as Apple when it comes to their viable properties (and rightly so, but they should stop using "open" to describe their platforms).

outside1234 13y ago

Another too wordy document on Microsoft's part. The core of the issue is that Google is forcing Microsoft to jump through hoops that it is not forcing iOS devices to jump through. Its clear this is an anti-competitive action on Google's part and while they have that right (if they aren't a monopoly, which is increasingly unclear), they really can't claim with the other side of their mouth that they are open.

cheald 13y ago
Doesn't Google publish its own YouTube app on iOS now?
- rsynnott 13y ago
  Yup, there is at least one major third-party one, though (Jasmine), which complies with the API requirements that Microsoft is apparently not willing to deal with (presentation of the actual video via HTML5, etc.)
  - cantankerous 13y ago
    Does Google abide by its own API usage restrictions? It might seem like a trite point, but it's important given that it publishes for the two dominant platforms. It'd be an easy way to edge out competing applications restricted to a less feature-rich toolset.
    - rsynnott 13y ago
      No, I don't think so. Certainly, Youtube for iOS lacks the behavioural problems that showed up when Jasmine shifted to HTML5 for the video pane

docdendrite 13y ago

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?

mratzloff 13y ago
Of course.
briandear 13y ago
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 difficult despite the ubiquitousness of Youtube. Also, Google isn't preventing Microsoft from creating a Youtube app, they are only requiring that it meet certain requirements. Since Microsoft is a direct competitor in the search (and therefore advertising) space, it's not unfounded that Google do what they're doing. I personally think it's crap, however Microsoft brought this on themselves by blatantly violating the Terms of Service. However, when all is said and done, Microsoft deserves it -- they are, after all responsible for Internet Explorer and while it isn't related to Youtube, they deserve to suffer for all of the hours and hours developers have spent trying to make their products compatible with that hell-demon of a browser.
- docdendrite 13y ago
  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!

jmillikin 13y ago

It's my understanding that YouTube officially supports access via either a Flash applet or the HTML5 <video> 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 <video>-capable browser; assuming IE's capable of playing either H.264 or WebM, it should be relatively easy to build a YouTube app on top of it. Maybe there's some internal reason why an app can't easily embed an IE widget. [1] http://www.winrumors.com/no-flash-for-windows-phone-as-adobe-kills-off-mobile-development/ http://www.winrumors.com/no-flash-for-windows-phone-as-adobe...

barista 13y ago
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.
- asdasf 13y ago
  Also note how sencha then went and re-created the new facebook app in html, showing that facebook was full of shit.
  - prostoalex 13y ago
    For one, Sencha's app doesn't allow commenting. For two, it doesn't support notifications, so "re-created" is a generous verb there.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Ah yes, comments. One of the hardest things to get right in HTML5. I have never seen it done well, you absolutely need native for that.
    - pritambaral 13y ago
      Sencha's app was a proof-of-concept. Their motivation was to show how and where facebook was "full-of-shit" which they did beautifully. If you read their respective articles, you can discern for yourself.

cygwin98 13y ago

GOOG is the new bully.

webwanderings 13y ago

Microsoft, build your own YouTube.

sp332 13y ago
They did. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10292031-75.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10292031-75.html
hbbio 13y ago
Even better, acquire the #2, DailyMotion. But that's impossible: the company is French, and partially owned by the French government which keeps its companies valuation as low as possible by forbidding US companies to acquire DailyMotion. Yahoo! wanted to buy the company, and the "French Productivity Minister", no joke, killed the acquisition.

simonsarris 13y ago

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 would be a tad antagonistic, seeing as the first version released contained no ads. One might suspect Microsoft wanted a PR fight more than they wanted a Youtube app, or that they wanted both. Alas, we can read for clues. The title of the article is: "The limits of Google’s openness" But the tags are: "marketplace, Windows Phone" It's not an article about Google now, is it? ~~~ The article doesn't help WP users. Instead they get no Youtube app while watching a hissy fit occur if they google (ha) to find out why the app is gone. I like both these companies, but for however-much of a PR stunt this is, Microsoft does not come out looking good.

barista 13y ago
>The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that
- jmillikin 13y ago
  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.
  - itafroma 13y ago
    > 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.

Kylekramer 13y ago

This has always been somewhat true, but this is a definitive sign open has lost all meaning. Now it means you have to allow third parties to use your resources to do what they like?

sp332 13y ago
Google requires MS to display ads based on information they won't release to them. That's not open.

quasque 13y ago

Rather hypocritical of Microsoft to complain. They're doing the same kind of thing to Google Mail users [1,2]. [1] http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/ILHhp40ze4A/0l1SHvUTz0sJ http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/ILHhp40ze4... [2] http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail-email/unable-to-send-mail-as-through-outlook-smtp/6f88fc11-16d9-4f56-9008-c65bc59bef5e http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail-em...

cad 13y ago

Google's becoming the new Microsoft.

tnuc 13y ago

Why doesn't Google write a youtube app for the windows phone? Google has written one for the iphone. Am I missing something with what is going on here? Disclaimer: I don't have a windows phone and have no intention of getting one.

ntkachov 13y ago
Your disclaimer probably says it all. Why bother when there just aren't that many people on windows phone. It seems like a matter of "who is helping who?". if Google didn't support the iPhone, there would be an outrage and people would move to other video service because of the number of people on iphone. If google didn't support android... well that would be silly, wouldn't it? But there aren't enough people on windows phone for it to matter to google, however, there are enough people on youtube for it to matter for microsoft.
- lotso 13y ago
  Except BB10 has a YouTube app.
  - fpgeek 13y ago
    Yes, an icon that opens up a link in the browser is a wonderful YouTube app Microsoft couldn't replicate: http://forums.crackberry.com/blackberry-10-apps-f274/why-there-no-real-youtube-app-bb10-839346/ http://forums.crackberry.com/blackberry-10-apps-f274/why-the...
mh- 13y ago
iPhone (and Android) have sufficiently-large userbases.
- izaacj 13y ago
  BB10 has an YouTube app, and that's just a fraction of the marketshare that WP has, so that statement is invalid.

the_unknown 13y ago

I'd be more inclined to give Google a bit of leeway here if they hadn't already pulled out some petty behaviour against Windows Phone. This is somewhat similar to Google's blocking of Maps from the Windows Phone web browser. A feature that worked fine originally and once there was uproar from users came back and continued to work fine. Google is attempting to deny service to Windows Phone users to avoid competition in the handheld market. It isn't pretty and it does make me rethink my daily usage of Google services. Windows Phone users are Google customers too and I couldn't care less about their petty rivalry with some other mega-corp.

beagle3 13y ago
Microsoft is still threatening Android makers with lawsuits, and making way more money from Android patent extortion than from Windows Phone. There's a bully in the handheld wars, and it isn't Google.

mratzloff 13y ago

Some background for people who may not have followed this: In May, Microsoft released a YouTube app for Windows Phone that didn't show ads and allowed users to download videos. Google said no. Microsoft removed the download capability but didn't restore the ads. Google said no. Then the PR comes out that Microsoft and Google are working together on a new app. I'm guessing that was PR from Microsoft's side. Now Microsoft has tried to release an app that follows the rules but Google looks like they are being petty about it after Microsoft has repeatedly violated their terms of service. So Microsoft posts a blog article angling for FTC intervention, and here we are.

HelloMcFly 13y ago
Microsoft could not restore the ads because Google provided no API access to them. They weren't being contrary, they were making due with what they had.
- beagle3 13y ago
  "Your honor, Microsoft did not provide me with a way to sell Windows 8 for $3, so I had to find my own way to crack it. It's not my fault, it's Microsoft's fault for not giving me any way to do that" Doesn't sound very convincing, does it?
  - BrandonY 13y ago
    Isn't that the basic argument Microsoft is making about "standards-essential patents" in the Microsoft v. Motorola suit?
- davorak 13y ago
  I thought they were able, but only in they used an embedded webview like some IOS apps. So possible just not 100% native code like microsoft wanted. Is there no equivalent to embedded webivew for native windows phones?

forgotAgain 13y ago

Apple, Google, Microsoft: they each act like bullies when they have the upper hand and whine when someone else makes them dance. If you react emotionally to arguments between these companies (unless they pay you to) you should find something worthwhile to be angry about. They're all whores who would screw every customer they have for a dime. Use them any way you can but don't invest in them emotionally. It's a waste of your time.

briandear 13y ago
I guess people like being screwed, given the market caps.
- test-it 13y ago
  Well 1st people often don't have an alternative (driver and app support of Windows, Google's search results quality). And 2nd people do like to be screwed, if that means less effort and lower risk. The vast majority of civilizations in human history were slave based, with the majority of people being slaves.
CurtHagenlocher 13y ago
As a Microsoft employee, I endorse this position.
- ghayes 13y ago
  We, as consumers, may still identify with issues imposed (e.g. content owners charging extremely high prices to Netflex). I'm not saying Microsoft is right and Google is wrong. I'm saying that I agree that Google is not helping the ecosystem and should be shamed for it, in this one very specific instance.

doublestabdards 13y ago

Wow haters gonna hate.. If company names where swapped the cpitchforks would be out long time ago. Stay calssy hn

samarudge 13y ago

Not related to the article but Firefox (23.0) is giving me a mixed-content warning and blocking most of the CSS http://i.imgur.com/CWysR0Y.png http://i.imgur.com/CWysR0Y.png

munificent 13y ago

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 ads even when the content provider specifically required ads to be shown. 3. Using YouTube's branding without permission. I am but a lowly engineer and the actions of executives confuse me, but I don't see how Microsoft didn't realize the above was batshit crazy. I can only assume this is some sort of weird ploy. YouTube's entire business model is about getting content providers to put videos up there so that people will watch ads to see them. If you let people take videos off the site, or just skip the ads, that breaks the fundamental business proposition. This would be like me making an Android app called "Bing from Micrsoft" that let you perform bing searches but then stripped out all of the ads. Microsoft would shut that shit down, with good reason. > When we first built a YouTube app for Windows Phone, we did so with the understanding that Google claimed to grow its business based on open access to its platforms and content, a point it reiterated last year. "Open access to content" doesn't mean "ignore the requirements of the people who created that content". People make their livelihoods producing YouTube videos and the only way that money flows to those creators is because of ads. If you make a Windows Phone app that lets you watch Cooking with Dog without the ads, you aren't doing Francis any favors by giving out "open access" to his content. (Yes, I did just imply that they are the dog's videos. He is the host, after all.)

itafroma 13y ago
> 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/id554937050?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/jasmine-youtube-client/id554...

lnanek2 13y ago

Really annoying Google blocks IMs from other services now as well. Lots of people complain to me they can't IM Google users any more. Apparently Google removed server to server XMPP support, a standard open IM protocol, in favor of their own lock in protocols. Other products are following suit, Chromecast doesn't include support DLNA or other standards for example, but tries to force you to use Google proprietary stuff instead. In many cases this is a worse situation for users and only benefits Google by locking more people in and forcing more people to use services that aren't superior. Many people have their own media center or media server setups that are incompatible for example, like XBMC, a popular media center.

jmillikin 13y ago
> Really annoying Google blocks IMs from other services > now as well. Lots of people complain to me they can't IM > Google users any more. Apparently Google removed server > to server XMPP support, a standard open IM protocol, in > favor of their own lock in protocols. Google Talk still works, and still supports server-to-server XMPP federation. Some users have chosen to switch to Hangouts, which is a separate product (affiliated with Google+) that doesn't support federation. > Chromecast doesn't include support DLNA or other > standards for example I'm of mixed opinion on this. On one hand, it's obviously better to use an open standard when available. On the other, DLNA and UPnP and all the other associated standards were terrible. As a user I was never able to get my TV to stream music from my computer, and as a developer I couldn't wade through all the XML and acronyms to get something that worked. Sometimes "open standard" is code for "designd by committee, compliantly implemented by nobody".
- kevingadd 13y ago
  Is 'an Android OTA update replaces Google Talk with Hangouts without advance notice' your definition of 'chosen to switch'?
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    Every other XMPP client seems to have kept working fine.

skc 13y ago

Love Windows Phone, but Google's service, Google's rules.

maybe 13y ago

If Microsoft can't make an HTML5 app they are doomed.

t4nkd 13y ago

Youtube has had HTML5 opt-in for a while now, and it is certainly a technology used by their product: http://www.youtube.com/html5 http://www.youtube.com/html5

comex 13y ago
It is not used by their native iOS or Android apps.

t4nkd 13y ago

Youtube has had HTML5 opt-in for a while now, and it is certainly a technology used by their product: http://www.youtube.com/html5 http://www.youtube.com/html5

cantankerous 13y ago

This discussion brings up the point about how the usage requirements and restrictions of the API applies to third-parties and not Google itself. If Google, for example, wanted to keep the iOS platforms and Android platforms in an advantageous spot for whatever reason, they could just write the apps for those platforms themselves and say that the terms don't apply. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case. It sounds like Microsoft's application added features that even Google wouldn't give its own apps. However, the argument that Google is simply allowed to write its own apps, for its own platforms and them impose extra restrictions on third parties who use its APIs is anti-competitive. This is the kinda crap that got Microsoft in trouble in the first place. Again, I'm only speaking to the argument I see in the threads here, not the reality as it appears in the story. In reality, it appears Microsoft may have overstepped a bit.

wuliwong 13y ago

There are only a handful of people who actually know what transpired between these two corporations. I would guess that none of that small group actively comment on hacker news.

jorgecastillo 13y ago

You can down vote me all you want, but I feel zero sympathy for Microsoft. If their app is being blocked from YouTube is because they deserve it. Google has all the right to choose which third parties can access YouTube. Microsoft is in no positing to criticize the actions of other companies.

asterix9 13y ago
Agreed 100%, but my question is, can Google still [call itself]/[be considered] open and "not evil" ?
- jorgecastillo 13y ago
  I'll take Google over Microsoft anytime. I believe there are no absolutes everything is relative, everything depends on the context, on our scale of values. Personally I don't care about such concepts as open or evil. If the actions of a company are illegal they should be punished. If they are not but they ought to be, you can try to build enough consensus to legislate on the matter. I personally feel more wronged by Microsoft than by Google, I've never been forced to use Google products. The pervasive dominance that Microsoft still holds on the desktop is poisonous. Until I am free to choose or not to choose Microsoft products I will feel wronged by Microsoft.
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  Definitely less then couple of years ago, but for a company this big, Google is pretty open and not evil.

umsm 13y ago

It seems like Microsoft and Google have switched places. I tend to trust Microsoft more these days.

will118 13y ago

The author was given the tricky task of padding out 60 or so words to nearly 1000, it's almost prose. The hypocrisy is truly hilarious, lambasting others for "Antitrust violations". They can still be the victim here though, I'm not ruling that out at all. Microsoft is truly synonymous with Antitrust in my mind, on an unparalleled level. With regards to Windows/Xbox/anything they can really. I don't think Google are playing fair here either, but MSFT are hitting new levels of childishness in my mind. If MSFT truly believe it's unfair, why not take them to court in CA for Antitrust? Take a shot at being on the side receiving the settlement for once.

alextingle 13y ago
Um, it is prose.

iunk 13y ago

So, if Microsoft blocks all Google sites and applications that would be fine?

jorgecastillo 13y ago
Is Microsoft giving copies of Windows for free now? No customer not even the most loyal, would accept this behavior from a product they paid for.

jfoster 13y ago

I wonder if the HTML 5 requirement might be Google trying to use the YouTube app as a bargaining chip when it comes to HTML 5 video codecs. Google & Microsoft have locked horns a bit in that area. History: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video

RivieraKid 13y ago

Perhaps if MS stopped extorting money from Android manufacturers, Google may be more willing to cooperate with the YouTube app.

phairoh 13y ago

What does Google even mean when they say that they want it HTML5? Do they want it as a web app? Running inside a WebBrowser control? Do they just want the video to be an HTML5 video tag? I feel there is some very important piece of information missing from this discussion.

thecodeore 13y ago

There are people that actually use Windows Phone? Who knew.....

alextingle 13y ago

Sounds like Microsoft is just experiencing Google's normal level of customer "support".

tn13 13y ago

Eventually both Google and Microsoft give a damn about openness. They all care about their own profits. "Openness" is just a cute cover. Microsoft's own track record in such things has been very bad (hint: Samba, Wine).

lurkinggrue 13y ago

Given this is Microsoft this feels ironic.

duncan_bayne 13y ago

Karma is a bitch, isn't it Microsoft? Remember when you were the dominant player back in the mid 90s? Does the term 'Halloween Documents' ring a bell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents > ... Document I suggests that one reason that open source projects have been > able to enter the market for servers is the use of standardized protocols. > It then suggests that this can be stopped by "extending these protocols and > developing new protocols" and "de-commoditize protocols & applications." > This policy has been nicknamed "embrace, extend, extinguish". Now all of a sudden Microsoft is the underdog, and you're whinging in public when the dominant player locks you out? Cry me a river. (Not that this is a defense of Google, mind you: I think MS is right on the money w.r.t. to their behaviour. Just saying that Google's tactics couldn't be employed against a more deserving target).

Sathi 13y ago

I think that Google has a Search app on Windows Phone. If the platform does not have the numbers, then why make the Search app? When Search app is released, why not release Youtube and other apps?