7 ms·

Microsoft could extend Android with an open sourced replacement for the various Google Play Services. Paying for Microsoft to host a replacement services layer

• nabaraj 8y ago
  Google could simply block services like Gmail and YouTube. Microsoft tried it with Windows Phone.
  • xyzzyz 8y ago
    Google cannot block Gmail and YouTube. These are and will be accessible through web browser. What Google can do is not spend engineering time to build a special version of mobile app to support the platform, and block other apps that access them that don't conform to Terms and Conditions. (disclaimer: I work for Google on GCP)
    • jhasse 8y ago
      YouTube without an app is just not the same.
      • scarface74 8y ago
        It’s better. I deleted the YouTube app from my iPhone and iPad because I would rather use the website and if you click on a YouTube link it will launch the app. The YouTube app doesn’t support background playback without paying for YouTube Red and it doesn’t support picture in picture mode on the iPad - I use a third party app.
    • gsnedders 8y ago
      > Google cannot block Gmail and YouTube. These are and will be accessible through web browser. Well, through web browsers that Google chooses to support, given at least Gmail uses UA whitelisting (and, at various times, various non-Chrome Chromium based browsers have been excluded). If Google chooses not to support any browser that runs on the given system and blocks access to any other browser, then Google absolutely can block access to them.
      • bubblethink 8y ago
        Email is an open protocol. Anyone can write a client. All major ones work with Gmail. For YouTube, see newpipe. The main missing piece is Google maps (at least the navigation bit) which you can't legally get without explicit cooperation from Google.
        • JetSpiegel 8y ago
          Until Google deprecates IMAP for @gmail accounts. It's already disabled by default for new accounts.
          • deleted 8y ago
            [deleted]
          • icebraining 8y ago
            It's been disabled by default for years, as far as I know. Not sure why they'd deprecated it now. EDIT: A quick search shows it was always disabled by default, since 2007, when it launched.
            • TomMarius 8y ago
              Doesn't that support GP's argument? Seems like they really don't want anyone to use it, since the beginning.
              • vetinari 8y ago
    • cordite 8y ago
      Google services being refused on the windows mobile platform contributed greatly to its death. Who would ever make an app for something that doesn't even have youtube--when trashy tv boxes do? Who would get and keep a phone that doesn't have the apps they and their friends use?
      • briandear 8y ago
        Maybe I’m weird, but I probably use YouTube even less than twice a month.
        • ascorbic 8y ago
          You are. 18-34 year olds in the US spend an average of 19 hours per month watching videos on YouTube. https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-still-watch-tv-despite-cord-cutting-increases-2017-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-still-watch-tv-d...
      • kettlecorn 8y ago
        YouTube not being on Windows Phone is really Microsoft's fault. They wrote their own "YouTube" app that removed ads and allowed downloading videos. Google rightfully was like "No way" and Microsoft continued to be belligerant. Google didn't want to let Microsoft develop their own YouTube client because Google frequently changes how the YouTube client works. Microsoft could have wrapped the web client, but after they acted stupidly Google didn't want to further cooperate.
        • philliphaydon 8y ago
          Ah, YouTube API's do not supply ad's. Google refused to make an app for Windows Phone. MS created an app with the available API. Google didn't want to work with MS to address any issues Google had with it.
    • MikusR 8y ago
      Didn't google block various Amazon devices (like Echo Show) from accessing Youtube?
    • JamesBarney 8y ago
      If the terms and conditions were onerous enough that Microsoft could not conform to them then I feel like this rounds to "Google can effectively block the native consumption of YouTube and Gmail."
      • Phrodo_00 8y ago
        It's probably tied to the play store. If they want to have it in their version of Android, they should be able to install Youtube on those phones. If they want to roll their own, they'd probably end up in a similar situation as WP.
    • int_19h 8y ago
      YouTube website is not a replacement for a web app, and anyone who used the app on, say, Android would know. The most basic thing I expect from any YouTube mobile app is being able to play things in the background. Mobile browsers don't allow websites to do that, and for very good reasons. As for "don't conform to Terms and Conditions" ... well, if you guys don't offer an API to build a conforming app, then such a complaint is misleading, because there's no way to build one. So what you're really saying is that you will block all apps except your own, or made with your blessing. And then we're back to square one - your refusal to grant such a blessing to an app on a competing platform is abuse of your monopoly position wrt YouTube.
      • Ezhik 8y ago
        >Mobile browsers don't allow websites to do that Mobile browsers do allow that, YouTube just breaks that functionality for reasons unknown. They do it on mobile only as well, videos do play in the background when I use the desktop site.
        • iggldiggl 8y ago
          > They do it on mobile only as well, videos do play in the background when I use the desktop site. Or if you use a browser that supports add-ons and install something like https://addons.mozilla.org/android/addon/video-background-play-fix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/android/addon/video-background-pl... to block Youtube from accessing the APIs it uses to detect when a tab has been backgrounded. And the reasons aren't that unknown - if I'm not mistaken background playback is one of the selling points of a Youtube Premium (formerly Red) subscription.
  • GeekyBear 8y ago
    I'm honestly surprised that there isn't already an EU antitrust action in progress based on Google blocking YouTube access on Windows Phone and some of the Amazon Fire devices. It seems like YouTube should have more than enough market share for EU competition law to apply.
    • azurezyq 8y ago
      If I remembered correctly, windows phone users can use web version of YouTube just fine. The app was not developed by Google and based on undocumented API. I'm not speaking for Google but if I'm building a streaming app, I won't like other people make "clones" without my permission or review. Reasons are: 1. Customers who meet bugs on these clones may blame me but it's actually bugs in these clones. 2. Compability may be a pain because I have no idea how these clones use my "API". This happens a lot when Mint is scraping webpages for data and fails on webpage redesigns. "something appears to be working" is a light year away from "what guaranteed to be working". 3. One solution may be building the official app for windows phones but it just doesn't financially work out. WP never got traction to justify the cost of migrating a big app like Youtube to some totally different platform. Might be chicken and egg problems though. What do you think can be solutions for the problems above? Standardization might help but online video site is not something you can easily carve out a "standard".
      • 3rdAccount 8y ago
        YouTube still works great on WP, but I've never tried looking for an app.
      • ppseafield 8y ago
        The problem that Google stated was the YouTube app for WP (written by Microsoft) did not display any ads. Microsoft countered that Google wouldn't make a YouTube app themselves. But of course no business is compelled to create apps for their platform.
        • GeekyBear 8y ago
          Under antitrust law, once you have a large enough market share in one area, you may not use that as a weapon against competitors in other areas. In the EU, a 40% market share is large enough to place your conduct under these restrictions, so actions that would be perfectly legal in the US can be quite illegal there. Also, the chance of the EU competition commission buying the advertising argument is approximately zero. >Microsoft agreed to Google’s terms and in version 3.2 of the YouTube app, released earlier this week, they had enabled Google’s advertisements, disabled video downloads and eliminated the ability for users to view reserved videos https://m.windowscentral.com/microsoft-responds-detail-google-blocking-youtube https://m.windowscentral.com/microsoft-responds-detail-googl...
• ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  This really isn't possible as long as Google has exclusive agreements with most of the manufacturers. I mean, maybe they could talk Dell and HP into making Android variants, but there's no way Samsung, Motorola, LG, etc. could join that party while Google's iron grip remains. And as the other commenter pointed out, Google will heavily disrupt access to things like Gmail, YouTube, etc. for people not using "proper" Android phones. That being said, the option may be available soon, since the EU and Russia have both fined and prohibited Google's agreements with manufacturers, and the Department of Justice is rumored to be considering opening an investigation here in the US.
  • walterbell 8y ago
    They could do it with the foldable Surface Phone that is in development.
    • ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      The foldable Surface is designed for Windows Core OS. Given how poorly Android has historically done with tablets or other non-phone form factors (nearly all unique Android devices have been purged from the market), I don't think that would work out well.
  • bubblethink 8y ago
    Yes, the antitrust ruling could make things very interesting. Samsung would definitely be interested in replacing various google play bits. They've tried and failed with tizen. This would give them another shot. Admittedly, samsung's crap is going to be far worse than google's play services, but in the long run, it may lead to more cross-compatibility and openness because devs aren't going to support every reimagination of play services.
    • ethbro 8y ago
      As terrible as Java shared development has been, it's at least a plausible model. "We give up the ability to monopolize this technology in exchange for creating an alternative that the marketplace accepts."
• konschubert 8y ago
  I think this disregards the fact that it is very hard to sell an app outside the play store.
  • giancarlostoro 8y ago
    Sounds like an opportunity for competitors to advertise their competing services. Especially under Microsofts wing it could get more exposure on the Windows Store as a result.
• jrs95 8y ago
  This doesn't help them get users on their services. It would just be another Fire Phone. The next step beyond their current strategy would be to sell devices (regardless of who manufacturers them) that come preloaded with both Google Play and their launchers and services.
• on_and_off 8y ago
  Hmm I wonder how viable that is. It is totally possible to reimplement play services, Amazon does it anyway. You would need to duplicate gmail and youtube though. And also kickstart an app store good enough so that all the apps 99% of the users are looking for are there. Even for a company as big as Microsoft, this looks like a huge task.
  • jshevek 8y ago
    I had hoped that one day we would have a well-maintained open source implementation maintained by a consortium including Amazon, Microsoft, Samsung, and others. Doesn't seem likely anymore.
    • TomMarius 8y ago
      It became an ad platform. As long as customers are OK with ads, it's not going to happen.
      • jshevek 8y ago
        As long as customers are OK with ads, I agree there won't be massive pressure to develop alternatives. But if other factors were changed, the necessary level of "I hate ad platforms" pressure might be reduced. I can imagine a world with only 10% of people using the alternative platform, but still having it survive. I think the larger problem with my vision is simply that its not in line with the visions of the various competitors I listed. Everyone believed they could create their own separate mobile fiefdom (Amazon's Android fork, Windows Phone, Tizen, etc).
  • caf 8y ago
    And also kickstart an app store good enough so that all the apps 99% of the users are looking for are there. This was precisely how Windows Phone failed, so...
    • GeekyBear 8y ago
      Forking Android is not the same thing as having a third completely incompatible platform when it comes to attracting third party apps.