Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/08/google-blocks-windows-phone-youtube-app-again-for-manufactured-reasons/

by pcj • 13 years ago

60 57 13 years ago

pcj• 13 years ago

I agree with this comment on the Ars thread[1]. I know this was discussed extensively here[2]. But, the comments on the thread seemed a bit biased towards one side.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/08/google-blocks-windows... [2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6220233

adrianlmm2• 13 years ago

With that logic, Google could block any other phone like the Ubuntu Edge for "business reasons", Google deserves to be sued for this anti-competitive behavior.

billnguyen• 13 years ago

its not anticompetitive to not allow a third party to release your product on their platform without following your rules (reasonable or not).

Hundreds of millions of dollars in engineering effort and bandwidth go into Youtube. In reality Google is completely within its rights to no do anything to support any platform it chooses not to. Why allow a platform and company to leech off that if they're not willing to. Microsoft is just trying to win in the court of public opinion here.

dkuntz23• 13 years ago

I'm not sure if it's Ars' commentary, or just the commenters, but it seems entirely sided towards Microsoft. Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame", and that Microsoft admits to re-releasing the application they previously pulled because it didn't follow the rules.

Plus, it seems like the author of the post fails to understand what Google wanted, and that Microsoft was being totally passive-aggressive in their blog post.

Dylan16807• 13 years ago

Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame", and that Microsoft admits to re-releasing the application they previously pulled because it didn't follow the rules.

What are you talking about? It says that in the article right here:

First, the advertising giant is demanding specifically that Microsoft rewrite the application to use HTML5. Microsoft doesn't elaborate on why Google has made this demand but points out that Google's own apps on iOS and Android do not use HTML5. The software company claims that this is a "manufactured" reason, invented only to ensure that the YouTube experience on Windows Phone is inferior to that on iOS and Android.

I agree that using an iframe is going to suck compared to directly playing the video. Do you disagree?

It's a 'simple' demand sure, but it's pointless, inconsistent with other platforms, and lowers quality.

Edit: Ugh, why is your comment still at the top when it is factually incorrect? Am I weird for compulsively downvoting factually incorrect comments?

dkuntz23• 13 years ago

I don't agree that an iframe would suck compared to directly playing the video.

If Microsoft can't write a browser with an acceptable video tag, it's their own fault, not an API provider's fault. Mozilla, Apple, and Google all seem to have been able to create browsers with good video tags, especially Apple and Google, who have great support on their mobile systems, which implies that Microsoft should be able to either write their own, or copy the Webkit or Gecko implementation.

It's not inconsistent with other platforms, because anyone who isn't Google is required to follow the same rules as Microsoft. The only difference between Android/iOS and Windows Phone in this instance is that Google isn't going to build a WP app. When they're making the application, they know when they're going to make a change to the entire system, nobody else does, unless they publicize it, and nobody has an incentive to make the switch unless Google is willing to be more proactive about making sure everyone follows more rules.

How does requiring one component, the video, lower quality? If Microsoft doesn't have a web view for WP, and requires applications to be entirely native or entirely web-based, how is that Google fault?

If Google let anyone use the same system they use for their own YouTube app, they'd have to have a grace period where applications could use the old system before updating to the new system, and they'd have to be proactive about making sure everyone uses the new system after their deadline. That's a whole lot more work than saying "follow our really simple rule of using a web view".

Google has every right to make their demand. Google has every right to enforce their rules. Google has every right to ignore their own rules. They have a good reason to have the video tag rule. If they weren't the ones actively developing YouTube, and the Android and iOS apps, they'd probably agree to following the video tag rule, because it makes sense.

----

As for your quote from the article, it doesn't say Microsoft re-released their application after agreeing to follow the rules. It doesn't mention that they're not willing the follow the rules. It just says they didn't follow the rules because they didn't like them.

There are several iOS and Android apps for YouTube that aren't the official app. They all seem to be able to follow Google's rules, and don't seem to be doing poorly.

cloudwalking• 13 years ago

The down arrow is for inappropriate or off-topic posts, not for opinions you disagree with...

revelation• 13 years ago

The simple reason for requiring them to embed it using HTML5 is that then YouTube can control the presentation, including advertisements. Otherwise they would have to constantly work with Microsoft to have them update their native code when they make changes.

It's the same reason Twitter has these guidelines for how you can display tweets.

jeady• 13 years ago

It may be worth noting that the author, Peter Bright, is the Microsoft editor for Ars. He also happens to have a strong anti-google bias - I can't remember any pieces he's written that portrayed Google in a favorable light.

teyc• 13 years ago

This is business. Microsoft would do exactly the same if the situation was reversed.

4thjuly3• 13 years ago

Exactly, Microsoft already does something similar by reserving some of their APIs for their own use. There are others that are available to some (eg the carriers) but nobody else.

It's nothing new, they have had so-called 'private' APIs since the early days of Windows.

chx• 13 years ago

And Windows detected DR-DOS and crashed your computer to kill DR-DOS and MS paid a paltry $150M to Caldera later but they got to upkeep their monopoly in the PC market. Now they get a small serving of this medicine and it's far less sinister and they whine. Oh they irony.

ksk5• 13 years ago

It's nothing new, they have had so-called 'private' APIs since the early days of Windows

Point to a single "private" API. There is no such thing. Preemptive apologies if you're a non technical person as these things are obvious to most programmers so I don't really want to berate anyone for simply not having sufficient information.

manojlds• 13 years ago

But when MS does something like this and it comes out in the news, I don't see people commenting "Google would do exactly the same."

octatone2• 13 years ago

Yes, two wrongs make a right! It all makes sense now.

amanne4• 13 years ago

Microsoft is considered evil by many tech folks. What you're saying is Google is evil as well and we shouldn't expect better from them.

raverbashing• 13 years ago

Considering how much money MS makes for "licensing" of their patent in Android, this is the least they can expect.

Let's play a sad song on a tiny violin for them.

wslh2• 13 years ago

Besides that this was heavily commented a few hours earlier in another thread, everyone can play YouTube videos without ads via VLC.

Is VLC a YouTube application or not? Because it doesn't use HTML[5].

jbk• 13 years ago

Yes, but this is a hidden feature :)

wslh2• 13 years ago

Sorry ;-) I only want to thank you then!

afhof• 13 years ago

The Youtube lua script in VLC breaks often. If you don't keep your VLC at head it becomes very noticeable.

diminish• 13 years ago

just out of curiosity, are there official youtube apps on blackberry, new and old, Bada and the new comers like Jolla,FirefoxOS etc?

jbigelow76• 13 years ago

Do the proprietor's of those platforms want an "official" app that they are willing to put their own resources into developing? Remember, this is about Google cutting off an API key so Google isn't out any engineering/time/money resources, the "official" modifier is mostly marketing BS.

doublec• 13 years ago

Blackberry's BB10 OS uses the Web interface. It actually works quite well. Firefox OS also uses the web interface.

Microsoft's YouTube app on Windows phone is actually really nice. It's a pity Google keep trying to stop it.

dkuntz23• 13 years ago

FirefoxOS doesn't need a native or official YouTube app, because the entire thing is just web pages. If Google wanted to make something official, all they would need to do is add an app manifest file with some metadata about the app.

auctiontheory• 13 years ago

If nobody buys a Windows phone, is this just a theoretical argument about legal semantics?

pavlov• 13 years ago

Around 8 million Windows Phone devices were sold last quarter (March-June 2013). That's quite a few nobodies.

Steko2• 13 years ago

This whole thing is a giant nothingburger. There are plenty of Youtube apps for WP. The official one on iOS that got so much hype on release (and talk now regarding the lack of a WP version) is frankly awful compared to many of the alternatives and currently sits at 2 stars on the iOS store.

WP users be thankful you don't have either the MS port or an official Google one. From what I gather even if you had both, you'd still want to download Metrotube.

amanne4• 13 years ago

It's curious to see Google pull this.

From http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html

"At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important."

...

"To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors. There are different tactical approaches — razor companies make the razor cheap and the blades expensive, while the old IBM made the mainframes expensive and the software ... expensive too. Either way, a well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run — the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples — but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don't have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won't."

...

"In other words, Google's future depends on the Internet staying an open system, and our advocacy of open will grow the web for everyone - including Google."

The entire thing is a good read.

Steko2• 13 years ago

I'm all in agreement on the hypocrisy of Google's "open" bullshit train but isn't the central issue here that the gd brand mark for YouTube is simply not free to use?

I think Google is within their rights to put whatever limits they want in that area, even unreasonable ones.

And while 2/3 of HN is happy to swallow the open kool aid, last I checked MS wore big boy pants and surely they can do better than crying about their big unfair rival on their blog.

tlogan• 13 years ago

I think Google is wrong and fighting the wrong company. But not all Larries can become "the Larry".

jezfromfuture• 13 years ago

Do no evil , LAWL

Google blocks Windows Phone YouTube app again, for “manufactured” reasons

Related Stories