9 ms·

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

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...
  - ppseafield 8y ago
    I didn't really buy the excuse either, and the demand that it be written with certain technologies seems quite ridiculous. But are you saying that they could force Google to reveal some of their internal API details for Microsoft to make a YouTube app, even if the mobile website had the service's full functionality?
    - vetinari 8y ago
      That would be a very dangerous precedent. If Microsoft could do that to Google, can we do that to other companies? Can we write custom Netflix clients for unsupported platforms too? Or for another services? That a deep rabbit hole to follow.
      - GeekyBear 8y ago
        Antitrust law is not applied randomly. You must have a large enough market share for it to apply, and you must be using that market share as a weapon against competitors in another market.
        m45t3r 8y ago
        > Antitrust law is not applied randomly. > You must have a large enough market share for it to apply, and you must be using that market share as a weapon against competitors in another market. I think Netflix is big enough for it, and yet they prohibit every custom client (thanks to DRM).
      - int_19h 8y ago
        I don't see what's so dangerous about that precedent. Google would basically be forced to either make an app, or enable someone else making such an app (e.g. by providing a public API). And it would only apply to companies that are so big, they act as a monopoly in some market segment. I don't see why forcing those to use open standards and documented APIs, so that everyone else can interop with them, is a bad thing. I mean, imagine this being applied to Facebook. I suspect that if you could do everything that you can on their website through an API, that alone would be sufficient to defeat the barrier to entry to the social network market that is practically insurmountable today, and thereby create more healthy competition. Isn't that a good thing?
bubblethink 8y ago
If you want to make a legal youtube app, you shouldn't use any youtube apis. You can only access things that a browser can access. That's how newpipe does it, and it works fine. I don't know if MS took that route.
- rahimnathwani 8y ago
  You're saying that using Newpipe to download a video doesn't break YouTube's TOS?
  - anticensor 8y ago
    You do not download videos under standard license, only download videos under CC-BY-SA (which do have download button on the web).
  - Iolaum 8y ago
    I don't know about Youtube's TOS, but Newpipe in it's github repo says that the app violates playstore TOS.
    - ufo 8y ago
      IIRC it is because Play Store terms of service are incompatible with the GPL license.
      - bubblethink 8y ago
        There are plenty of GPL apps on the play store. There was some drama over vlc in the apple store due to GPL concerns, but I don't remember if there was real merit to that. In any case, newpipe's issue is different. For one, it doesn't show ads. So that would disqualify it from playstore anyway. Playstore is google's walled garden afterall. That doesn't mean that newpipe is doing something illegal.
asveikau 8y ago
I think I am the only person on the internet who remembers this, but ten years ago Google had some damn good WinCE apps on the old Windows Mobile. The Google Maps was especially good, and saw updates well after iPhone had stolen everybody's hearts and minds. Then MS killed Win32 on mobile in favor of the Silverlight-based SDK for WP7. I always see that as the turning point. I imagine someone at Google seeing this forced rewrite and saying, why waste our time?
- m_mueller 8y ago
  Whoever signed off on WP7 sealed Microsoft‘s fate in mobile. Always easy in hindsight but I remember lots of angry articles by developers from back then - the signs were clear.
  - asveikau 8y ago
    I often felt they saw Apple being successful while being demanding of app devs, and erroneously thought that it either didn't matter or even more extreme that there was a causal relationship there. They didn't realize the need to counterbalance that arrogant attitude with better execution than they delivered. By this I mean only the app platform. WP7's built-in UI and apps got lots of praise for being buttery smooth because they weren't using .NET or Silverlight, they had a private ui framework.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      I had HTC HD2 and I sadly don't remember WP7 being smooth at all.
      - abawany 8y ago
        I had one too and as I recall, the highest OS one could run on it was WM 6.5, which was a completely different beast than W7+. I remember that the best improvement I made to this HD2 was install an early version of Android on it a few years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_HD2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_HD2
Shorel 8y ago
How is that ads are not in your list of reasons? I am sure they are the top priority for Youtube.
vezycash 8y ago
Google blocked WP users from Maps. Lied that WP's browser couldn't handle maps. It worked perfectly if user agent was changed. https://mashable.com/2013/01/05/google-maps-windows-phone/ https://mashable.com/2013/01/05/google-maps-windows-phone/

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...
- ppseafield 8y ago
  I didn't really buy the excuse either, and the demand that it be written with certain technologies seems quite ridiculous. But are you saying that they could force Google to reveal some of their internal API details for Microsoft to make a YouTube app, even if the mobile website had the service's full functionality?
  - vetinari 8y ago
    That would be a very dangerous precedent. If Microsoft could do that to Google, can we do that to other companies? Can we write custom Netflix clients for unsupported platforms too? Or for another services? That a deep rabbit hole to follow.
    - GeekyBear 8y ago
      Antitrust law is not applied randomly. You must have a large enough market share for it to apply, and you must be using that market share as a weapon against competitors in another market.
      - m45t3r 8y ago
        > Antitrust law is not applied randomly. > You must have a large enough market share for it to apply, and you must be using that market share as a weapon against competitors in another market. I think Netflix is big enough for it, and yet they prohibit every custom client (thanks to DRM).
    - int_19h 8y ago
      I don't see what's so dangerous about that precedent. Google would basically be forced to either make an app, or enable someone else making such an app (e.g. by providing a public API). And it would only apply to companies that are so big, they act as a monopoly in some market segment. I don't see why forcing those to use open standards and documented APIs, so that everyone else can interop with them, is a bad thing. I mean, imagine this being applied to Facebook. I suspect that if you could do everything that you can on their website through an API, that alone would be sufficient to defeat the barrier to entry to the social network market that is practically insurmountable today, and thereby create more healthy competition. Isn't that a good thing?

bubblethink 8y ago

If you want to make a legal youtube app, you shouldn't use any youtube apis. You can only access things that a browser can access. That's how newpipe does it, and it works fine. I don't know if MS took that route.

rahimnathwani 8y ago
You're saying that using Newpipe to download a video doesn't break YouTube's TOS?
- anticensor 8y ago
  You do not download videos under standard license, only download videos under CC-BY-SA (which do have download button on the web).
- Iolaum 8y ago
  I don't know about Youtube's TOS, but Newpipe in it's github repo says that the app violates playstore TOS.
  - ufo 8y ago
    IIRC it is because Play Store terms of service are incompatible with the GPL license.
    - bubblethink 8y ago
      There are plenty of GPL apps on the play store. There was some drama over vlc in the apple store due to GPL concerns, but I don't remember if there was real merit to that. In any case, newpipe's issue is different. For one, it doesn't show ads. So that would disqualify it from playstore anyway. Playstore is google's walled garden afterall. That doesn't mean that newpipe is doing something illegal.

asveikau 8y ago

I think I am the only person on the internet who remembers this, but ten years ago Google had some damn good WinCE apps on the old Windows Mobile. The Google Maps was especially good, and saw updates well after iPhone had stolen everybody's hearts and minds. Then MS killed Win32 on mobile in favor of the Silverlight-based SDK for WP7. I always see that as the turning point. I imagine someone at Google seeing this forced rewrite and saying, why waste our time?

m_mueller 8y ago
Whoever signed off on WP7 sealed Microsoft‘s fate in mobile. Always easy in hindsight but I remember lots of angry articles by developers from back then - the signs were clear.
- asveikau 8y ago
  I often felt they saw Apple being successful while being demanding of app devs, and erroneously thought that it either didn't matter or even more extreme that there was a causal relationship there. They didn't realize the need to counterbalance that arrogant attitude with better execution than they delivered. By this I mean only the app platform. WP7's built-in UI and apps got lots of praise for being buttery smooth because they weren't using .NET or Silverlight, they had a private ui framework.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    I had HTC HD2 and I sadly don't remember WP7 being smooth at all.
    - abawany 8y ago
      I had one too and as I recall, the highest OS one could run on it was WM 6.5, which was a completely different beast than W7+. I remember that the best improvement I made to this HD2 was install an early version of Android on it a few years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_HD2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_HD2

Shorel 8y ago

How is that ads are not in your list of reasons? I am sure they are the top priority for Youtube.

vezycash 8y ago

Google blocked WP users from Maps. Lied that WP's browser couldn't handle maps. It worked perfectly if user agent was changed. https://mashable.com/2013/01/05/google-maps-windows-phone/ https://mashable.com/2013/01/05/google-maps-windows-phone/