A summary for those not following along at home:<p>The Youtube app for Android is developed by Google<p>The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google<p>The Youtube app for Windows Phone is developed by Microsoft, with some reverse engineering, at first <i>not serving ads on purpose.</i><p>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.<p>Alas, we can read for clues.<p>The title of the article is: "The limits of Google’s openness"<p>But the tags are: "marketplace, Windows Phone"<p>It's not an article about Google now, is it?<p>~~~<p>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.<p>I like both these companies, but for however-much of a PR stunt this is, Microsoft does not come out looking good.
Disclosure: I am a Googler, though not working on anything remotely near YouTube. Obvious caveat: this is just my personal opinion.<p>> With this backdrop, we temporarily took down our full-featured app when Google objected to it last May<p>If I remember right, this full-featured app included features like:<p>1. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider disallowed that.<p>2. Allowing users to not view ads even when the content provider specifically required ads to be shown.<p>3. Using YouTube's branding without permission.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>> 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.<p>"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.<p>(Yes, I did just imply that they are the dog's videos. He is the host, after all.)
This whole thing is passive aggressive, but the best part is:<p>>"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."<p>"We stopped breaking Google's ToS at _no cost_ to Google"<p>Cry me a river, Microsoft.
Apple, Google, Microsoft: they each act like bullies when they have the upper hand and whine when someone else makes them dance.<p>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.<p>Use them any way you can but don't invest in them emotionally. It's a waste of your time.
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?<p>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.<p>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.
Rather hypocritical of Microsoft to complain. They're doing the same kind of thing to Google Mail users [1,2].<p>[1] <a href="http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/ILHhp40ze4A/0l1SHvUTz0sJ" rel="nofollow">http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/ILHhp40ze4...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail-email/unable-to-send-mail-as-through-outlook-smtp/6f88fc11-16d9-4f56-9008-c65bc59bef5e" rel="nofollow">http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail-em...</a>
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.<p>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.<p>So I don't see the problem here?<p>EDIT: One other thing. Google told them <i>from the beginning</i> that they'll only allow an <i>HTML5 app</i>. 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'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.<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.winrumors.com/no-flash-for-windows-phone-as-adobe-kills-off-mobile-development/" rel="nofollow">http://www.winrumors.com/no-flash-for-windows-phone-as-adobe...</a>
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.
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.
Looks like Microsoft disabled comments.<p>Smart move, look at what happened to the previous one where they DID allow comments :p
<a href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/01/03/the-ftc-and-google-a-missed-opportunity.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...</a>
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.<p>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.<p>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.
Some background for people who may not have followed this:<p>In May, Microsoft released a YouTube app for Windows Phone that didn't show ads and allowed users to download videos. Google said no.<p>Microsoft removed the download capability <i>but didn't restore the ads</i>. Google said no.<p>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.<p>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.<p>So Microsoft posts a blog article angling for FTC intervention, and here we are.
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.<p>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.
M$: "Google also says that we are not complying with its 'terms and conditions.' What Google really means is that our app is not based on HTML5. The problem with this argument, of course, is that Google is not complying with this condition for Android and iPhone."<p>Google's T&Cs that M$ is citing, it would seem to me, apply to third-party use of YouTube data. Since Google <i>wrote</i> 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.<p>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.
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.
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.<p>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.<p>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 author was given the tricky task of padding out 60 or so words to nearly 1000, it's almost prose.<p>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.<p>Microsoft is truly synonymous with Antitrust in my mind, on an unparalleled level. With regards to Windows/Xbox/anything they can really.<p>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.
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?
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?
Not related to the article but Firefox (23.0) is giving me a mixed-content warning and blocking most of the CSS <a href="http://i.imgur.com/CWysR0Y.png" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/CWysR0Y.png</a>
Why doesn't Google write a youtube app for the windows phone?
Google has written one for the iphone.<p>Am I missing something with what is going on here?<p>Disclaimer: I don't have a windows phone and have no intention of getting one.
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?<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents</a><p>> ... Document I suggests that one reason that open source projects have been<p>> able to enter the market for servers is the use of standardized protocols.<p>> It then suggests that this can be stopped by "extending these protocols and<p>> developing new protocols" and "de-commoditize protocols & applications."<p>> This policy has been nicknamed "embrace, extend, extinguish".<p>Now all of a sudden Microsoft is the underdog, and you're whinging in public when the dominant player locks you out?<p>Cry me a river.<p>(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).
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.<p>History: <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video" rel="nofollow">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video</a>
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.
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).
Youtube has had HTML5 opt-in for a while now, and it is certainly a technology used by their product: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/html5" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/html5</a>
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?
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.