3 ms·

In most cases I think I'd agree. I'm suspicious here because of the other things I point out: 1. Google apparently not allowing Windows Phone to use YouTube A

In most cases I think I'd agree. I'm suspicious here because of the other things I point out: 1. Google apparently not allowing Windows Phone to use YouTube APIs, although everyone else seems to have access. 2. Google cutting EAS support. 3. Google explicitly stating they are not going to support Windows Phone 8. 4. FRAND patents against XBox. 5. The Google Maps debacle. Any of these by itself doesn't seem like a big deal, but all put together makes it look like an orchestrated plan by Google, rather than just bumbling Google engineers and incompetent PR people.

mtgx 14y ago
> Google apparently not allowing Windows Phone to use YouTube APIs, although everyone else seems to have access. What? Everyone who? Nobody has access to Google's Youtube API's. Android has a Youtube app because Google made it, and it's the same with iOS. WP will only have a Youtube app if Google makes it, and they won't, and nobody can force them to write for all platforms. Giving Microsoft access to them would mean giving them preferential treatment over anyone else. Obviously Google is not going to do that. > Google cutting EAS support. Microsoft has used those patents to threaten other Android manufacturers before or make them pay for them. Google wants everyone using Android to move away from EAS, and it makes perfect sense from their point of view, to cut costs for themselves and Android manufacturers, and to be less dependent on Microsoft's proprietary technologies. I'm not saying Google didn't do the Maps thing on purpose. Maybe they did. I'm just picking on these because you seem to think that somehow it's not Google's right to do all that.
- rbarooah 14y ago
  I don't see anyone saying it's not Google's right to do these things. People are simply saying that it looks as though Google is attacking Microsoft.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >I don't see anyone saying it's not Google's right to do these things. I've seen plenty of people claiming that they think it's an antitrust violation and arguing that regulators should go after them for it. Though I'm not sure when not supporting a small minority platform like Windows Phone became an antitrust violation; if it has then Microsoft had better get to work shipping that edition of Office for FreeBSD. Also, Google and Microsoft are competitors. And Microsoft has been attacking Google at every opportunity. I suppose using Microsoft as the standard for corporate citizenship is kind of a low bar, but you can only turn the other cheek so many times before some kind of response becomes an inevitability. Especially when you have such a large organization. People keep thinking that corporations are like individuals, as though the CEO and the full legal department approves every decision an engineer makes before pushing an incremental update to one of a thousand different products. Stories like this are completely plausible to have happened by accident or by a tiny minority of rogue individuals -- and then, multiply by tens of thousands of engineers, you see more than one such story because Microsoft PR turns every single one into front page news, and confirmation bias makes you believe it's the rule rather than the exception. Opposition research working as intended.
    - taligent 14y ago
      I don't think you've ever actually worked at a large organisation. Engineers don't unilaterally make decisions about what goes into a product or not. That is the purview of the Product Manager and I assure you that senior executives (possibly even the CEO) do sign off on major product decisions like which platforms to support.
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        I have no doubt that in many cases you will be able to find a piece of paper with a high level executive's signature on it or an email with that person CC'd for all manner of minutiae, and I'm sure if you're a lawyer then you like to make a big deal out of that kind of stuff. But the truth is, decisions get delegated. The CEO signs off on the VP's recommendation, which was really a mid level manager's recommendation, which really came from someone at the bottom of the totem pole. The degree to which each of the approvers actually decided anything as opposed to merely placing their trust in the subordinate's judgement at any given company is to a large degree a matter of personal preference, individual trust relationships and corporate culture. Moreover, there are rules and there are facts. Just because the CEO thinks he decided something doesn't mean that by the time the game of telephone is fully played, something distinctly different isn't going into the market. And in altogether too many cases, the first indication the top level executives get that something is awry is an article in the New York Times.
      - nostrademons 14y ago
        I assume that the large organization you've worked at isn't Google. Product Managers don't unilaterally make decisions about what goes into a product or not. Most such decisions are made by consensus within the team (Eng + PM + UX), with the PM acting as the tiebreaker if the team can't reach consensus. Many product decisions are in fact made by engineers - a PM friend of mine once told me "The difference between Microsoft and Google is that at Google, engineers are expected to have product opinions." As for which platforms to support - it varies based on the scale of the project. There've been times I've made the call myself (as a TL), for smaller projects like doodles and easter eggs. For a larger product like Maps as a whole, I'd imagine a VP would sign off on it. Yes, in theory the CEO is responsible for everything that goes on at the company. As a matter of culture, though, Google tries to delegate as much decision-making power down to lower levels as possible, and then just deal with the inevitable screwups as they happen. It wouldn't be nearly as nice a place to work otherwise, nor would their "hire the best people and give them the tools and information to do their jobs" strategy work out. Yeah, PR flareups happen, but the team fixed the problem, and I bet we'll forget all about it by next week.
- magicalist 14y ago
  Yeah, my understanding was that they wanted much more information than is available through the Youtube API, presumably because the Youtube API was not designed to make a full Youtube client replacement, complete with the ability to "search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth". It's not clear to me why a phone vendor would be entitled to an API that provided that information, especially if theres a mobile web client available (that you don't get redirected from). I understand why a phone vendor would want it, but if Samsung started saying that their new Tizen deserved access to a more fully featured Youtube API, would they be getting any press?
  - rodion_89 14y ago
    From what I can tell there is nothing stopping anyone from making a decent YouTube app with their public API. https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_protocol https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_p... What exactly is missing that they want?
- xorgar831 14y ago
  > Microsoft has used those patents to threaten other Android manufacturers before or make them pay for them. Google wants everyone using Android to move away from EAS, and it makes perfect sense from their point of view, to cut costs for themselves and Android manufacturers, and to be less dependent on Microsoft's proprietary technologies. Sounds like a case of Microsoft's user lock-in strategy backfiring. They have had plenty of time to fix their IMAP implementation over the years, but it hasn't been a priority for some reason.
clark-kent 14y ago
The YouTube API in question only Apple and I remember TiVo had access to it at some point because they had deals with Google. I am sure a few other partners may have access today but it's not exactly everyone.
larkw 14y ago
> 2. Google cutting EAS support. As others pointed out already, android manufacturers are chased by Microsoft for patent royalty to support this proprietary thing (ironic?). It's costly and of no merit, thinking of standard IMAP protocol. http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/iplicensing/programs/exchangeactivesyncprotocol.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualprope... > 3. Google explicitly stating they are not going to support Windows Phone 8. by app, period. Why bother? > 4. FRAND patents against XBox. You can read the story behind this via http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130104031515319 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130104031515319. It's Microsoft's lawyers fxxked up and got backfire. IMHO, google/motorola is on the defensive, in good faith.

mtgx 14y ago

> Google apparently not allowing Windows Phone to use YouTube APIs, although everyone else seems to have access. What? Everyone who? Nobody has access to Google's Youtube API's. Android has a Youtube app because Google made it, and it's the same with iOS. WP will only have a Youtube app if Google makes it, and they won't, and nobody can force them to write for all platforms. Giving Microsoft access to them would mean giving them preferential treatment over anyone else. Obviously Google is not going to do that. > Google cutting EAS support. Microsoft has used those patents to threaten other Android manufacturers before or make them pay for them. Google wants everyone using Android to move away from EAS, and it makes perfect sense from their point of view, to cut costs for themselves and Android manufacturers, and to be less dependent on Microsoft's proprietary technologies. I'm not saying Google didn't do the Maps thing on purpose. Maybe they did. I'm just picking on these because you seem to think that somehow it's not Google's right to do all that.

rbarooah 14y ago
I don't see anyone saying it's not Google's right to do these things. People are simply saying that it looks as though Google is attacking Microsoft.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >I don't see anyone saying it's not Google's right to do these things. I've seen plenty of people claiming that they think it's an antitrust violation and arguing that regulators should go after them for it. Though I'm not sure when not supporting a small minority platform like Windows Phone became an antitrust violation; if it has then Microsoft had better get to work shipping that edition of Office for FreeBSD. Also, Google and Microsoft are competitors. And Microsoft has been attacking Google at every opportunity. I suppose using Microsoft as the standard for corporate citizenship is kind of a low bar, but you can only turn the other cheek so many times before some kind of response becomes an inevitability. Especially when you have such a large organization. People keep thinking that corporations are like individuals, as though the CEO and the full legal department approves every decision an engineer makes before pushing an incremental update to one of a thousand different products. Stories like this are completely plausible to have happened by accident or by a tiny minority of rogue individuals -- and then, multiply by tens of thousands of engineers, you see more than one such story because Microsoft PR turns every single one into front page news, and confirmation bias makes you believe it's the rule rather than the exception. Opposition research working as intended.
  - taligent 14y ago
    I don't think you've ever actually worked at a large organisation. Engineers don't unilaterally make decisions about what goes into a product or not. That is the purview of the Product Manager and I assure you that senior executives (possibly even the CEO) do sign off on major product decisions like which platforms to support.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      I have no doubt that in many cases you will be able to find a piece of paper with a high level executive's signature on it or an email with that person CC'd for all manner of minutiae, and I'm sure if you're a lawyer then you like to make a big deal out of that kind of stuff. But the truth is, decisions get delegated. The CEO signs off on the VP's recommendation, which was really a mid level manager's recommendation, which really came from someone at the bottom of the totem pole. The degree to which each of the approvers actually decided anything as opposed to merely placing their trust in the subordinate's judgement at any given company is to a large degree a matter of personal preference, individual trust relationships and corporate culture. Moreover, there are rules and there are facts. Just because the CEO thinks he decided something doesn't mean that by the time the game of telephone is fully played, something distinctly different isn't going into the market. And in altogether too many cases, the first indication the top level executives get that something is awry is an article in the New York Times.
    - nostrademons 14y ago
      I assume that the large organization you've worked at isn't Google. Product Managers don't unilaterally make decisions about what goes into a product or not. Most such decisions are made by consensus within the team (Eng + PM + UX), with the PM acting as the tiebreaker if the team can't reach consensus. Many product decisions are in fact made by engineers - a PM friend of mine once told me "The difference between Microsoft and Google is that at Google, engineers are expected to have product opinions." As for which platforms to support - it varies based on the scale of the project. There've been times I've made the call myself (as a TL), for smaller projects like doodles and easter eggs. For a larger product like Maps as a whole, I'd imagine a VP would sign off on it. Yes, in theory the CEO is responsible for everything that goes on at the company. As a matter of culture, though, Google tries to delegate as much decision-making power down to lower levels as possible, and then just deal with the inevitable screwups as they happen. It wouldn't be nearly as nice a place to work otherwise, nor would their "hire the best people and give them the tools and information to do their jobs" strategy work out. Yeah, PR flareups happen, but the team fixed the problem, and I bet we'll forget all about it by next week.
magicalist 14y ago
Yeah, my understanding was that they wanted much more information than is available through the Youtube API, presumably because the Youtube API was not designed to make a full Youtube client replacement, complete with the ability to "search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth". It's not clear to me why a phone vendor would be entitled to an API that provided that information, especially if theres a mobile web client available (that you don't get redirected from). I understand why a phone vendor would want it, but if Samsung started saying that their new Tizen deserved access to a more fully featured Youtube API, would they be getting any press?
- rodion_89 14y ago
  From what I can tell there is nothing stopping anyone from making a decent YouTube app with their public API. https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_protocol https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_p... What exactly is missing that they want?
xorgar831 14y ago
> Microsoft has used those patents to threaten other Android manufacturers before or make them pay for them. Google wants everyone using Android to move away from EAS, and it makes perfect sense from their point of view, to cut costs for themselves and Android manufacturers, and to be less dependent on Microsoft's proprietary technologies. Sounds like a case of Microsoft's user lock-in strategy backfiring. They have had plenty of time to fix their IMAP implementation over the years, but it hasn't been a priority for some reason.

clark-kent 14y ago

The YouTube API in question only Apple and I remember TiVo had access to it at some point because they had deals with Google. I am sure a few other partners may have access today but it's not exactly everyone.

larkw 14y ago

> 2. Google cutting EAS support. As others pointed out already, android manufacturers are chased by Microsoft for patent royalty to support this proprietary thing (ironic?). It's costly and of no merit, thinking of standard IMAP protocol. http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/iplicensing/programs/exchangeactivesyncprotocol.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualprope... > 3. Google explicitly stating they are not going to support Windows Phone 8. by app, period. Why bother? > 4. FRAND patents against XBox. You can read the story behind this via http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130104031515319 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130104031515319. It's Microsoft's lawyers fxxked up and got backfire. IMHO, google/motorola is on the defensive, in good faith.