9 ms·

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 Youtub

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 13y ago
>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
- jmillikin 13y ago
  The original iOS app only showed videos that did not require ads. Microsoft's YouTube app used to work the same way, until they updated it to show all videos but still not show ads. EDIT: According to itafroma, the Apple-authored YouTube app for Apple TV will play all videos without ads.
  - itafroma 13y ago
    > The original iOS app only showed videos that did not require ads. That's not correct. The original iOS app played all videos, regardless of whether they were monetized, as long as the creator checked the "make available for mobile devices" option. It works the same with with the current Apple TV app: monetization options have no effect on videos' availability.
    - jmillikin 13y ago
      Are you sure? I believe I remember my iPad being unable to play videos with ads, and having such videos not even show up in search results. Separately, some videos would not play on mobile or when embedded, but those seemed to be much more rare.
      - itafroma 13y ago
        Yes, I'm quite sure. Load up any monetized video on Apple TV or any iOS device that's still running iOS 5 or earlier. It will work just fine and play no ads. Here's an example video I just tested to confirm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2HZWHimKas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2HZWHimKas On the web or in the official YouTube apps, there's a required pre-roll ad; on iOS5- and Apple TV, nothing.
- simonsarris 13y ago
  Google sorta did have an issue, and Apple's Youtube app it was built on borrowed time, under a "license". It was then (forcibly, or per-license) removed when Google decided its time was up, and notably before the Google Youtube app was finished. From Aug 2012: > Apple said in a statement that “our license to include the YouTube app in iOS has ended.” It added that owners of its devices would be able to use their Web browsers to view YouTube videos, and that Google was working on a new YouTube app that would be available through the Apple App Store. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/apple-to-remove-youtube-app-from-iphone-and-ipad/?_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/apple-to-remove-you...
  - saurik 13y ago
    That transition did not seem very positive for Google, although maybe the new app lets them monetize better; I'd be interested in hearing more detail about the various aspects of this deal. (I see what the massive theme community from Cydia cares about being themed, and while I insist that featured themes theme the YouTube icon, the feedback I get is that very few people actually bother to install the app now that it is separate. As for the website, it was the case that you could view YouTube's content from the website since at least the era of iPhoneOS 2.) I thereby would have assumed that the situation went in the other direction: Apple chose not to renew their license for YouTube, as they no longer felt it gave them enough value for the cost.
- corresation 13y ago
  Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that Today is not 2007, and Google has different motivators. It was also my understanding that Google worked alongside Apple on that original app, and then licensed the same to Apple, with the app being removed once that license expired. I don't know which of the two is in the wrong here, but Microsoft's history makes their protestations rather difficult to accept at face value. There are some gross misreporting occurring on this (the most common being "Google worked with Microsoft on new app and then banned it!", which it seems is entirely incorrect. Google worked with Microsoft on a new app...and then Microsoft decided to release the old, blocked one just to get the press rolling again).
- mythz 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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.
  - Anderkent 13y ago
    >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. And there's nothing wrong with that. Google might be doing a legal thing, but they're still doing the wrong thing. >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). I dont think not actively preventing them from doing the same thing your apps do is 'bending over backwards'. The other points are irrelevant. If you claim to be open, you must be open to everyone, not just the people you do not consider competitors.
- cloudwalking 13y ago
  Can you cite a source for "no issue with that" ?
- baddox 13y ago
  Didn't Apple and Google explicitly work closely together for the original YouTube app? I thought that Google even encoded all their videos to h.264 specifically so they could be easily viewed on iPhones (and subsequently other smartphones).
badman_ting 13y ago
Yes? It's about Google not making a YouTube app for a platform, so the platform vendor makes one themselves, which then gets blocked, leaving users in the middle.
- justina1 13y ago
  Google doesn't have to make a YouTube app for every platform, especially when people can still use YouTube via the browser on the phone. The Platform Vendor making the app ignored the rules for using that API and got blocked. Instead of changing it, they spend time deciding not to change it, release it again with only some of the issues fixed, and are then surprised when it gets rejected due to the outstanding issues already mentioned.
  - badman_ting 13y ago
    So we are in agreement then, this issue is indeed about Google. Cool.
  - pionar 13y ago
    They did change it, except for the one thing the provider of the so-called "open" API doesn't even do - HTML5. Why should Google hold MSFT to that standard when it doesn't even do it itself? I smell the same anti-trust bullying that MSFT did in the 90s and early 00s.
    - dkuntz2 13y ago
      Because it's their product. They're permitted to do whatever they want with it. They decided that they wanted a set of rules for when other people play with their toys. If Microsoft had followed the rules, instead of ignoring them, after saying they were going to follow the rules, it's their problem, not Google's.
      - improv32 13y ago
        > Because it's their product. They're permitted to do whatever they want with it. No, they're not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
beagle3 13y ago
I actually think Google's response is very civil and restrained. A much more suitable response would be to serve movies, but e.g. prefix every video by a 30 second "informercial" saying "You are using an unlicensed application. Please contact your OS vendor Microsoft, and inquire why they are not complying with the YouTube terms of service. Alternatively, you can use your Web Browser app to view YouTube. Incidentally, check the Android YouTube app when you can. It's awesome". Or maybe just every 10% of the views randomly. I suspect that would simultaneously get the message out, shame Microsoft, and get them to comply with terms & conditions in record time.
- sounds 13y ago
  Kudos for your hard work answering so many posts. Even if Google put the informercial in, this is Microsoft. They would probably write an article on technet about how unfair it was, then pretend everything was A-OK.
- kbaker 13y ago
  Except, Google might not be able to show that prefix video using the API MS is/was using, but they would be able to do it if MS supported the standard HTML5 iframe API...
  - beagle3 13y ago
    Even if it's a problem for them to prefix it, surely they can deliver it INSTEAD of the requested video.
bo1024 13y ago
So is there any less-biased explanation of what exactly the new app does and why Google blocked it? Or even a statement from Google?
- asterix9 13y ago
  From http://www.wpcentral.com/official-youtube-windows-phone-app-being-blocked-google http://www.wpcentral.com/official-youtube-windows-phone-app-... >Google said in a statement that the HTML5-based YouTube app still violates Google's terms of service, and therefore cannot be permitted to remain active. Google's statement: "Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service," says a spokesperson. "It has been disabled. We value our broad developer community and therefore ask everyone to adhere to the same guidelines." Sounds pretty vague and beating around the bush. Why don't they tell us why they're blocking the new app? After all, if they want to call themselves "open", can't they at least tell us the reason it's blocked?
leaffig 13y ago
>not serving ads on purpose. They couldn't include the ads because the YouTube API did not give them access to show ads. They did, however, include a download video option, on purpose which ironically made Windows Phone the best platform for a good YouTube app for a while. Just Nokia alone sold 20 million Windows Phones the past few quarters. Google's stated reason for no app sounds hollow when even Vimeo has an app. They do have the right to do whatever they want though, but claiming to be open and not evil requires a higher bar.

barista 13y ago

>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

jmillikin 13y ago
The original iOS app only showed videos that did not require ads. Microsoft's YouTube app used to work the same way, until they updated it to show all videos but still not show ads. EDIT: According to itafroma, the Apple-authored YouTube app for Apple TV will play all videos without ads.
- itafroma 13y ago
  > The original iOS app only showed videos that did not require ads. That's not correct. The original iOS app played all videos, regardless of whether they were monetized, as long as the creator checked the "make available for mobile devices" option. It works the same with with the current Apple TV app: monetization options have no effect on videos' availability.
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    Are you sure? I believe I remember my iPad being unable to play videos with ads, and having such videos not even show up in search results. Separately, some videos would not play on mobile or when embedded, but those seemed to be much more rare.
    - itafroma 13y ago
      Yes, I'm quite sure. Load up any monetized video on Apple TV or any iOS device that's still running iOS 5 or earlier. It will work just fine and play no ads. Here's an example video I just tested to confirm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2HZWHimKas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2HZWHimKas On the web or in the official YouTube apps, there's a required pre-roll ad; on iOS5- and Apple TV, nothing.
simonsarris 13y ago
Google sorta did have an issue, and Apple's Youtube app it was built on borrowed time, under a "license". It was then (forcibly, or per-license) removed when Google decided its time was up, and notably before the Google Youtube app was finished. From Aug 2012: > Apple said in a statement that “our license to include the YouTube app in iOS has ended.” It added that owners of its devices would be able to use their Web browsers to view YouTube videos, and that Google was working on a new YouTube app that would be available through the Apple App Store. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/apple-to-remove-youtube-app-from-iphone-and-ipad/?_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/apple-to-remove-you...
- saurik 13y ago
  That transition did not seem very positive for Google, although maybe the new app lets them monetize better; I'd be interested in hearing more detail about the various aspects of this deal. (I see what the massive theme community from Cydia cares about being themed, and while I insist that featured themes theme the YouTube icon, the feedback I get is that very few people actually bother to install the app now that it is separate. As for the website, it was the case that you could view YouTube's content from the website since at least the era of iPhoneOS 2.) I thereby would have assumed that the situation went in the other direction: Apple chose not to renew their license for YouTube, as they no longer felt it gave them enough value for the cost.
corresation 13y ago
Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that Today is not 2007, and Google has different motivators. It was also my understanding that Google worked alongside Apple on that original app, and then licensed the same to Apple, with the app being removed once that license expired. I don't know which of the two is in the wrong here, but Microsoft's history makes their protestations rather difficult to accept at face value. There are some gross misreporting occurring on this (the most common being "Google worked with Microsoft on new app and then banned it!", which it seems is entirely incorrect. Google worked with Microsoft on a new app...and then Microsoft decided to release the old, blocked one just to get the press rolling again).
mythz 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  >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. And there's nothing wrong with that. Google might be doing a legal thing, but they're still doing the wrong thing. >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). I dont think not actively preventing them from doing the same thing your apps do is 'bending over backwards'. The other points are irrelevant. If you claim to be open, you must be open to everyone, not just the people you do not consider competitors.
cloudwalking 13y ago
Can you cite a source for "no issue with that" ?
baddox 13y ago
Didn't Apple and Google explicitly work closely together for the original YouTube app? I thought that Google even encoded all their videos to h.264 specifically so they could be easily viewed on iPhones (and subsequently other smartphones).

badman_ting 13y ago

Yes? It's about Google not making a YouTube app for a platform, so the platform vendor makes one themselves, which then gets blocked, leaving users in the middle.

justina1 13y ago
Google doesn't have to make a YouTube app for every platform, especially when people can still use YouTube via the browser on the phone. The Platform Vendor making the app ignored the rules for using that API and got blocked. Instead of changing it, they spend time deciding not to change it, release it again with only some of the issues fixed, and are then surprised when it gets rejected due to the outstanding issues already mentioned.
- badman_ting 13y ago
  So we are in agreement then, this issue is indeed about Google. Cool.
- pionar 13y ago
  They did change it, except for the one thing the provider of the so-called "open" API doesn't even do - HTML5. Why should Google hold MSFT to that standard when it doesn't even do it itself? I smell the same anti-trust bullying that MSFT did in the 90s and early 00s.
  - dkuntz2 13y ago
    Because it's their product. They're permitted to do whatever they want with it. They decided that they wanted a set of rules for when other people play with their toys. If Microsoft had followed the rules, instead of ignoring them, after saying they were going to follow the rules, it's their problem, not Google's.
    - improv32 13y ago
      > Because it's their product. They're permitted to do whatever they want with it. No, they're not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

beagle3 13y ago

I actually think Google's response is very civil and restrained. A much more suitable response would be to serve movies, but e.g. prefix every video by a 30 second "informercial" saying "You are using an unlicensed application. Please contact your OS vendor Microsoft, and inquire why they are not complying with the YouTube terms of service. Alternatively, you can use your Web Browser app to view YouTube. Incidentally, check the Android YouTube app when you can. It's awesome". Or maybe just every 10% of the views randomly. I suspect that would simultaneously get the message out, shame Microsoft, and get them to comply with terms & conditions in record time.

sounds 13y ago
Kudos for your hard work answering so many posts. Even if Google put the informercial in, this is Microsoft. They would probably write an article on technet about how unfair it was, then pretend everything was A-OK.
kbaker 13y ago
Except, Google might not be able to show that prefix video using the API MS is/was using, but they would be able to do it if MS supported the standard HTML5 iframe API...
- beagle3 13y ago
  Even if it's a problem for them to prefix it, surely they can deliver it INSTEAD of the requested video.

bo1024 13y ago

So is there any less-biased explanation of what exactly the new app does and why Google blocked it? Or even a statement from Google?

asterix9 13y ago
From http://www.wpcentral.com/official-youtube-windows-phone-app-being-blocked-google http://www.wpcentral.com/official-youtube-windows-phone-app-... >Google said in a statement that the HTML5-based YouTube app still violates Google's terms of service, and therefore cannot be permitted to remain active. Google's statement: "Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service," says a spokesperson. "It has been disabled. We value our broad developer community and therefore ask everyone to adhere to the same guidelines." Sounds pretty vague and beating around the bush. Why don't they tell us why they're blocking the new app? After all, if they want to call themselves "open", can't they at least tell us the reason it's blocked?

leaffig 13y ago

>not serving ads on purpose. They couldn't include the ads because the YouTube API did not give them access to show ads. They did, however, include a download video option, on purpose which ironically made Windows Phone the best platform for a good YouTube app for a while. Just Nokia alone sold 20 million Windows Phones the past few quarters. Google's stated reason for no app sounds hollow when even Vimeo has an app. They do have the right to do whatever they want though, but claiming to be open and not evil requires a higher bar.