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.
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. Lesser experience, sure. I might care when Microsoft implements or makes it possible for others to implement e.g. SilverLight for linux.
edit: typos
The Platform Vendor making the app ignored the rules for using that API and got blocked.
Instead of changing it, they spend time deciding not to change it, release it again with only some of the issues fixed, and are then surprised when it gets rejected due to the outstanding issues already mentioned.
Heck, isn't this Microsoft's own point of view? Or do they have plans to write Office for Linux?
A much more suitable response would be to serve movies, but e.g. prefix every video by a 30 second "informercial" saying "You are using an unlicensed application. Please contact your OS vendor Microsoft, and inquire why they are not complying with the YouTube terms of service. Alternatively, you can use your Web Browser app to view YouTube. Incidentally, check the Android YouTube app when you can. It's awesome".
Or maybe just every 10% of the views randomly. I suspect that would simultaneously get the message out, shame Microsoft, and get them to comply with terms & conditions in record time.
Even if Google put the informercial in, this is Microsoft. They would probably write an article on technet about how unfair it was, then pretend everything was A-OK.
Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that
> Apple said in a statement that “our license to include the YouTube app in iOS has ended.” It added that owners of its devices would be able to use their Web browsers to view YouTube videos, and that Google was working on a new YouTube app that would be available through the Apple App Store.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/apple-to-remove-you...
The iOS app would've been developed in partnership and with the blessing of Google (aka Co that owns YouTube).
Microsoft had no such relationship with Google and instead chose to release their own unofficial YouTube app (first without ads) clearly violating the YouTube API TOS. Knowingly breaking the law and expecting a favorable outcome reminds me of "Queue Jumpers" who illegally enter Australia, they're not legally allowed to enter, but they continue to do so because the outcome is more favorable to their lively-hood when they do.
So Google blocks Microsoft, who wants to turn this into a anti-Google PR stunt and is openly crying foul trying to rally public support for their plight since they have no legal recourse.
Which is odd for Microsoft who loves exploiting the legal system to others detriment. I'm honestly shocked that Google isn't bending over backwards to help a competitor who is actively extorting the Android ecosystem through patent litigation (on tech created by Google), who makes more money on Android sales than even Google does (who has contributed significant resources into making Android).
EDIT: According to itafroma, the Apple-authored YouTube app for Apple TV will play all videos without ads.
Today is not 2007, and Google has different motivators. It was also my understanding that Google worked alongside Apple on that original app, and then licensed the same to Apple, with the app being removed once that license expired.
I don't know which of the two is in the wrong here, but Microsoft's history makes their protestations rather difficult to accept at face value. There are some gross misreporting occurring on this (the most common being "Google worked with Microsoft on new app and then banned it!", which it seems is entirely incorrect. Google worked with Microsoft on a new app...and then Microsoft decided to release the old, blocked one just to get the press rolling again).
> 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.)
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...
It has been mentioned else where in the thread that apple had licence from google to use youtube without ads and when that licence ended they removed the app from the market.
>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?
Apple may very well have a licence for this as they did previously with the iphone app.
> As above, why won't Google license this to Microsoft on the same terms as other competitors?
The article does not even say if Microsoft has been seeking such or if Google has denied them. If they are/have been seeking then the author of the article should have included this fact to make their argument stronger, but if it is there I missed it.
> 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.
Big players get more attention because they have a larger effect. It would be unprofitable and unproductive for its long term survival for google to pay equal attention to small players transgressing rules as they do larger players.
Google signed some sort of license with Apple for access to YT via that app, and when it was up, they pulled the app (despite there being no official Google YT app at the time) from iOS. It's very possible that the ATV app for YT is still under some sort of license with Google, which is why it can play videos ad-free.
I think this is purely a game of numbers, and if/when WP gets big enough that the additional income from eg. youtube outweighs the income generated from users who picks android next time.
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.
But should respect content owners preference for where and how their videos are shown.
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.
I really wouldn't be surprised to see this kind of legislation in 5-10 years, or sooner.
>"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.http://slashdot.org/story/05/08/02/2219208/the-dos-aint-done...
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.
They are still threatening Android handset makers with patent lawsuits, and in fact making more money from Android patent extortion than they are from Windows phone.
The whole UEFI Secure Boot requirement is designed to thwart Linux adoption under the guise of safety.
It is NOT sins of the past. The only reason they're not pulling another IE6 or Lotus Notes is because they aren't as dominant now, not because they aren't as evil. (The UEFI thing is on the same league of evil, if you ask me, just not as successful)
[1] http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/ILHhp40ze4...
[2] http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail-em...
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.
It kind of makes "open" another doublespeak term: we're Open, but terms and conditions apply...
Of course we can have debates on the semantics of the word "open": should it be assumed to mean tolerance?
Semantics aside, Google's "open" is marketing artifice, akin to Apple's many pompous adjectives for mundane or even inferior things ("beautiful", "revolutionary", "insanely great" etc.) or Microsoft's old message of empowerment ("where do you want to go today?") to sell an unremarkable but popular OS and productivity suite.
Why? The two customers are competitors and Microsoft has a history of just ripping off Google's services.
The current fight started when Microsoft released an update that showed all YouTube videos, without ads, ignoring the advertising-requirement flag.
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.
Isn't it more like Google is forcing them to write an HTML5 app by refusing to allow native app?
Google is allowing them to make an HTML5 app, and forbidding them from making a native app. They are not forcing them to do anything.
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...
the biggest problem with HTML 5 video is that it does not support adaptive bitrate streaming. notice that the desktop experience of YouTube still uses a flash player instead of an HTML 5 video player. notice that apple used QuickTime as their default player on their site.
in short, HTML 5 video player is an absolute last resort player.
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.
> 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.
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
Sometimes "open standard" is code for "designd by committee, compliantly implemented by nobody".
This is only partially true. Many folks had no choice.
For example, on Android, anyone who had automatic updates enabled was automatically upgraded to Hangouts. No choice involved, Talk simply worked one day, and was gone the next, replaced with an purposely-incompatible 'Hangouts' app.
Additionally, if your device doesn't have the Talk apk already on it, there's no user facing way to get it back. (you can only 'uninstall' Hangouts if it Talk shipped on your device. The 2013 Nexus for example, is blocked from installing Talk from the Play Store, and blocked from uninstalling Hangouts. Users have to either root, or hunt down the APK from random internet sites to get Talk back).
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/2...
There is a petition on change.org with almost 10,000 signatures.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/continue-technet-or-cr...
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. :)
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.
There's a bully in the handheld wars, and it isn't Google.
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.
Is there no equivalent to embedded webivew for native windows phones?
Doesn't sound very convincing, does it?
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.
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.
Heureka! My timemachine worked and I'm back in the 90s!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
It's hard referring to something as a "default" search engine when you can't change to another search engine.
