16 ms·

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 middl

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
      - sounds 13y ago
        Yes, they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Yo....
      - dkuntz2 13y ago
        I don't believe that antitrust law applies here. There's no collusion, there's not cartels, the monopolization aspects don't really come into play. Yes, they can't literally do whatever they want, but in this instance, it's their code, their servers, their data (in a sense), they're permitted to define how others may use it, and use it in a separate way themselves.
beagle3 13y ago
Cry me a river. If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone. Just as it was the problem of users buying early Linux notebooks / eees and expecting it to run Windows software. And it's not like the WP users are left out in the rain. They can just use the browser to view YouTube videos. Lesser experience, sure. I might care when Microsoft implements or makes it possible for others to implement e.g. SilverLight for linux. edit: typos
- NegativeK 13y ago
  > There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone. The argument is about openness, not about rights.
  - Kylekramer 13y ago
    The article makes it seem like Google was working with Microsoft on allowing a Youtube app until Microsoft said they didn't want to play by Google's rules and published an app anyway. I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff.
    - asterix9 13y ago
      >I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff. Then what does open mean? To me it means to provide an API on an equal footing among the various platforms. If Google is providing access to secret Web service APIs to their Android and iOS Youtube Apps, but not to Windows Phone, how is that open? Requiring to show ads is still understandable, but requiring HTML5? Why do they care if it's HTML5 or something else? It sounds fishy, and Google should come out with a real reason for requiring HTML5 if there is one, after all they call themselves open. It is probably well within their rights to screw around since it's their stuff, but lets not pretend it's open. Didn't MS get lambasted for private APIs in Windows? Why does Google get a free pass now and get away with calling itself open?
wdr1 13y ago
You can't expect Google to develop for every niche platform, such as Windows Phone, Blackberry, etc. Heck, isn't this Microsoft's own point of view? Or do they have plans to write Office for Linux?

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
    - sounds 13y ago
      Yes, they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Yo....
    - dkuntz2 13y ago
      I don't believe that antitrust law applies here. There's no collusion, there's not cartels, the monopolization aspects don't really come into play. Yes, they can't literally do whatever they want, but in this instance, it's their code, their servers, their data (in a sense), they're permitted to define how others may use it, and use it in a separate way themselves.

beagle3 13y ago

Cry me a river. If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone. Just as it was the problem of users buying early Linux notebooks / eees and expecting it to run Windows software. And it's not like the WP users are left out in the rain. They can just use the browser to view YouTube videos. Lesser experience, sure. I might care when Microsoft implements or makes it possible for others to implement e.g. SilverLight for linux. edit: typos

NegativeK 13y ago
> There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone. The argument is about openness, not about rights.
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  The article makes it seem like Google was working with Microsoft on allowing a Youtube app until Microsoft said they didn't want to play by Google's rules and published an app anyway. I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff.
  - asterix9 13y ago
    >I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff. Then what does open mean? To me it means to provide an API on an equal footing among the various platforms. If Google is providing access to secret Web service APIs to their Android and iOS Youtube Apps, but not to Windows Phone, how is that open? Requiring to show ads is still understandable, but requiring HTML5? Why do they care if it's HTML5 or something else? It sounds fishy, and Google should come out with a real reason for requiring HTML5 if there is one, after all they call themselves open. It is probably well within their rights to screw around since it's their stuff, but lets not pretend it's open. Didn't MS get lambasted for private APIs in Windows? Why does Google get a free pass now and get away with calling itself open?

wdr1 13y ago

You can't expect Google to develop for every niche platform, such as Windows Phone, Blackberry, etc. Heck, isn't this Microsoft's own point of view? Or do they have plans to write Office for Linux?