
The limits of Google’s openness - pablosanchez
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/08/15/the-limits-of-google-s-openness.aspx
======
simonsarris
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
>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

~~~
mythz
YouTube isn't open source or open content, they're a business and their
services aren't free, they're subject to the wishes of YouTube and its content
owners.

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).

~~~
test-it
Crazy talk.

>> Knowingly breaking the law

Yeah, mythz's crazy anti-Microsoft law ...

MS argument here is that Google is pushing for open platforms and standards
when it's profitable for G and closing their own when not.

~~~
mythz
It's not argument, it's a carefully crafted anti-Google PR statement with the
goal of getting the public to do their own bidding for them, so they can get
Google to do as they wish and further their own competitive platform.

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

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

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

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

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

> 3\. Using YouTube's branding without permission.

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

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

[1]: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/jasmine-youtube-
client/id554...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/jasmine-youtube-
client/id554937050?mt=8)

~~~
y2bd
A nitpick, but although Jasmine is a native iOS application, when it comes to
actually playing a video, it opens a YouTube video embedded in a web view.
That is why you see the YouTube player for a brief moment before the video
starts.

~~~
itafroma
That's true; I updated my comment to clarify that. If that's the difference
between Google being okay with it and not, I guess I don't see where the chasm
of difference is:

* Microsoft claims they've enabled ads on YouTube videos. How, if they're not using the same technique as Jasmine?

* If they are using the same technique as Jasmine, why is that not enough? Why is Google still saying (or at least Microsoft is claiming that Google is still saying) the entire app must be HTML5?

* If the technique Jasmine uses does, in fact, satisfy Google's "HTML5" requirement, but for some reason Microsoft isn't using it (but somehow is playing ads anyway), why doesn't Microsoft just do it? Embedding a web view into a native app isn't exactly rocket surgery: why do they claim it's technically difficult and time consuming?

~~~
y2bd
Assuming they figured out how to display ads without using the embedded HTML5
player, a guess I can offer (as a WP user) as to why they don't is that if
they do, the video would launch in the default webview video player, which is
honestly pretty terrible. You can't even scrub through videos. The MS-built
YouTube application however had a much-more featured video player[1].

Quite a few WP applications that are video-centric (such as the non-MS YouTube
apps, Netflix, etc.) use their own much-improved video player. Even Microsoft
provides a better video player for usage in WP/W8 applications[2]. Making an
improved video player on a per-app basis probably would require a lot less
overhead than changing the system-wide video player.

This is all just a guess of course.

[1] [http://www.windowsphone.com/en-
gb/store/app/youtube/dcbb1ac6...](http://www.windowsphone.com/en-
gb/store/app/youtube/dcbb1ac6-a89a-df11-a490-00237de2db9e), check the
screenshots

[2]
[http://playerframework.codeplex.com/](http://playerframework.codeplex.com/)

------
mjolk
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
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.

------
forgotAgain
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.

~~~
CurtHagenlocher
As a Microsoft employee, I endorse this position.

~~~
ghayes
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.

------
taylodl
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.

~~~
rubberband
Sure it's in vogue to say Microsoft is "finally" getting their comeuppance
whenever something like this comes along, but I wonder how long they can be
held responsible for past sins.

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.

~~~
beagle3
> I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins.

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)

~~~
yuhong
designed?

~~~
sounds
Sure. What's your question about the threat UEFI Secure Boot poses to an open
PC platform and its ability to run GPLv3 software?

~~~
yuhong
My point is I see no evidence it was deliberately designed to do so, other
than on WinRT that they stupidly decided to lock down like iOS.

~~~
sounds
I'm deliberately saying "GPLv3" here.

If your laptop comes preloaded with Microsoft's signing key and is also set to
fast boot [1] so that you can't even get into the BIOS, your system does not
have the ability to run a GPLv3 OS. You can't get into the BIOS so you can't
change the fact that it refuses to run anything not signed by the Microsoft
key!

Yes, I know Linux is not GPLv3, but it is GPLv2 "or any later version." Also,
I already know that Windows 8 has a way to get to the BIOS (hold down shift,
click the restart button). Neither of those is a valid counter-argument.

[1]
[http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24869.html](http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24869.html)

~~~
yuhong
After you go into the BIOS using Win8, you should be able to disable fast
boot, secure boot, change between BIOS and UEFI boot modes etc.

~~~
sounds
That's what I said above.

------
quasque
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/ILHhp40ze4...](http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/ILHhp40ze4A/0l1SHvUTz0sJ)

[2] [http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail-
em...](http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail-email/unable-
to-send-mail-as-through-outlook-smtp/6f88fc11-16d9-4f56-9008-c65bc59bef5e)

------
devx
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.

~~~
jarjoura
Prerogative or not, it's still douchey of Google to outright block Microsoft.
The original Apple version of YouTube only shows videos that do not want
advertising (granted a smaller and smaller # of videos).

~~~
mjolk
>Prerogative or not, it's still douchey of Google to outright block Microsoft.

Why? The two customers are competitors and Microsoft has a history of just
ripping off Google's services _.

_[http://www.wired.com/business/2011/02/bing-copies-
google/](http://www.wired.com/business/2011/02/bing-copies-google/)

~~~
Refefer
Do two wrongs make a right?

~~~
mjolk
No, but Google doesn't owe Microsoft any favors.

~~~
sbuk
I genuinely don't get this line of thinking. This isn't about Google or
Microsoft, rather it's about the end user who is essentially a customer of
both parties. IMHO, Google aren't just screwing MSFT, they are screwing users,
which doesn't really hold with the image that they like to portray. It's
actually rather spiteful.

~~~
mjolk
How is it spiteful to the 7 people who own Windows phones?

This is Google saying "because of their behaviors, we don't want to allow them
to consume our services." Microsoft is trying to weasel this into good PR for
themselves, but the fact is this: Google has no obligation to people that are
not making them money. It is not their responsibility to keep people buying
Microsoft phones.

~~~
sbuk
> "How is it spiteful to the 7 people who own Windows phones?"

That is a snide comment that reveals much.

> 'This is Google saying "because of their behaviors, we don't want to allow
> them to consume our services."'

That right there. _That_ is spiteful. It's not Microsoft that they are
restricting, it's Google users; the very people that use YouTube. It's
certainly not the behaviour of the company that Google projects itself to be.
I totally agree that Google owe Microsoft nothing, but this has the potential
to do much harm to their image. A good check is to switch the protagonists
around and ask yourself how you would react then. I'm not suggesting for one
minute that were Microsoft to do the same it would be OK (or that indeed it
_is_ or _was_ OK). I'm suggesting that there appears to be a double standard
being applied to Microsoft from more that a few parties. Google cannot have
their cake _and_ eat it, as the saying goes...

Edit: Cleaned up my shameful grammar and spelling...

~~~
mjolk
>That is a snide comment that reveals much.

How so? It's not that popular a device.[0] If you work at Microsoft or have a
significant interest in them not failing, you might want to divulge your bias
here.

>That right there. That is spiteful. It's not Microsoft that they are
restricting, it's Google users; the very people that use YouTube.

You're treating YouTube as if it's water. It's a business.

>A good check is to switch the protagonists around and ask yourself how you
would react then.

If Microsoft cut off access to Bing from Android Phones (and if, for this
example, if Bing was as ubiquitous and useful as Google Search) due to Google
flagrantly violating ToS, I'd understand and be mad at Google for selling me a
device and then fucking me over by locking me away from a good service through
their posturing.

Microsoft is becoming less relevant, but they're still trying to act like the
big bully of yesteryear.

[0][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_share)

~~~
sbuk
> How so?

If you can't see it, there is no point explaining. There are significantly
more than 7 users.

> You're treating YouTube as if it's water. It's a business.

You are semantically correct. 2 issues though. If it's business, surely
developing a version for the device is worth the ad revenue. Also doesn't this
directly contradict the benevolent and altruistic business image that Google
like to project. Microsoft are trying to provide access to a popular service.
Google are blocking it on frankly extremely spurious grounds and refusing to
develop an app of their own (that I don't take issue with). For the final
time; _it 's about users_.

~~~
mjolk
>If you can't see it, there is no point explaining. There are significantly
more than 7 users.

I can see it. But you're acting as if Google just blackholed orphans from
getting food.

>Microsoft are trying to provide access to a popular service. Google are
blocking it on frankly extremely spurious grounds and refusing to develop an
app of their own (that I don't take issue with). For the final time; it's
about users.

Microsoft is trying to access a popular service while breaking the terms of
service. What guarantee does Google have that Microsoft won't try to pull more
shit in the future, requiring Google to take action in response (at a cost to
themselves)? Everything is opportunity cost; why should Google spend any more
time on Microsoft's phone's relatively small user base?

Edit: Also, Microsoft phone users could just open a webbrowser.

~~~
sbuk
And if it'd been Microsoft (or for that matter Apple) doing the blocking there
would've been an enormous outpouring of indignation and scorn from the Open
Source crowd. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

> "But you're acting as if Google just blackholed orphans from getting food."

I disagree. My indignation is firmly rooted in Googles bare-faced hypocrisy.
[http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/](http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/)
This is hypocrisy. This is what Google want you to believe. Their behaviour
suggest that this is marketing bullshit on their part.

From where I'm standing Google are essentially harming their own users for
what seems like nothing more than malicious reasoning masked as T&C's. It is
they and no-one else who are getting fucked in all of this. I couldn't give a
shit about Microsoft. Do they deserve it? Yeah probably, karma and all of
that. I _do_ give a shit about the utter hypocrisy exhibited by Google and
their fans however. The double standards on display in this and other threads
on the 'net are astounding.

> "Also, Microsoft phone users could just open a web browser."

Indeed they could (funny, but when that was the response to the lack of Flash
on iPhones, it was mocked...). Or Google could just stop being hypocrites and
practice what they preach. We'll see snow in Hades first.

------
jmillikin
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...](http://www.winrumors.com/no-flash-for-windows-phone-as-adobe-kills-
off-mobile-development/)

~~~
barista
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.

~~~
kllrnohj
YouTube's API only requires the video player itself to be in HTML5, the rest
of the app can be native or whatever the hell you want. The engineering work
here is youtube hands you an HTML snippet (specifically an <iframe>), and you
plop that into a UIWebView where you want the inline video to be and you're
done.

[https://developers.google.com/youtube/iframe_api_reference](https://developers.google.com/youtube/iframe_api_reference)

~~~
AaronFriel
The issue then is that Google will complain that the rest of the app doesn't
adhere to all of Google's terms of services regarding displaying of ads, which
are difficult to implement without their blessing.

~~~
kllrnohj
There is no such ToS. Nor is there any "app must be HTML5" requirement.

------
broodbucket
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.

~~~
Coincoin
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.

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

------
lnanek2
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

      > 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".

~~~
maxsilver
> Some users have chosen to switch to Hangouts, which is a separate product.

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).

~~~
jmillikin

      > Users have to either root, or hunt down the APK from
      > random internet sites to get Talk back).
    

Or install a different XMPP client; Xabber (
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.xabber.and...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.xabber.android)
) seems to be popular.

------
samspenc
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/2...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/01/03/the-
ftc-and-google-a-missed-opportunity.aspx)

~~~
Avalaxy
I can't imagine TechNet being so full of Microsoft-haters. Was this sponsored
by HN/reddit/4chan or something?

~~~
velodrome
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-
cr...](http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/continue-technet-or-create-an-
affordable-alternative-to-msdn)

~~~
xradionut
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...

------
the_unknown
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
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
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
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
"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
Isn't that the basic argument Microsoft is making about "standards-essential
patents" in the Microsoft v. Motorola suit?

------
outside1234
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
Doesn't Google publish its own YouTube app on iOS now?

~~~
rsynnott
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
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
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

------
erbo
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
> 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
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?

------
jorgecastillo
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
Agreed 100%, but my question is, can Google still [call itself]/[be
considered] open and "not evil" ?

~~~
jorgecastillo
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.

------
cantankerous
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.

------
will118
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
Um, it _is_ prose.

------
Kylekramer
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
Google requires MS to display ads based on information they won't release to
them. That's not open.

------
docdendrite
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?

~~~
briandear
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
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!

~~~
tanzam75
You actually do have to show a monopoly. A monopoly is prohibited from doing
certain things that would be perfectly legitimate if a smaller competitor did
it.

Example 1: The EU required Microsoft to offer a version of Windows with a
browser choice screen. However, Apple does not have to offer an alternative to
Safari. Reason: Windows was a monopoly, but Mac OS X wasn't.

Example 2: The EU permitted Windows Phone and Windows RT to default to IE,
without offering a choice of other browsers. Reason: Windows Phone does not
have a monopoly of the smartphone market, and Windows RT does not have a
monopoly of the tablet market.

------
cad
Google's becoming the new Microsoft.

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

------
webwanderings
Microsoft, build your own YouTube.

~~~
hbbio
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.

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

------
samarudge
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)

------
tnuc
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
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
Except BB10 has a YouTube app.

~~~
fpgeek
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-
the...](http://forums.crackberry.com/blackberry-10-apps-f274/why-there-no-
real-youtube-app-bb10-839346/)

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

------
duncan_bayne
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).

------
jfoster
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)

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

------
cygwin98
GOOG is the new bully.

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

------
phairoh
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.

------
tn13
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).

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

~~~
jorgecastillo
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.

------
t4nkd
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
It is not used by their native iOS or Android apps.

------
Sathi
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?

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

------
wuliwong
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.

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

------
lurkinggrue
Given this is Microsoft this feels ironic.

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

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

~~~
Ives
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.

