4 ms·

Stuff like this: http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/15/google-blocks-windows-phone-youtube-app-again/ http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/15/google-blocks-windows-pho

Stuff like this: http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/15/google-blocks-windows-phone-youtube-app-again/ http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/15/google-blocks-windows-pho... http://www.windowscentral.com/new-policy-google-voice-means-end-metrotalk-windows-phone http://www.windowscentral.com/new-policy-google-voice-means-... I used to be a big Google fan (before and after becoming a Microsoft employee), but seeing Google continue to block WP apps actually made me decide to move to WP and off Google services as much as possible.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
I don't get the complaint. Google obviously doesn't want to be in a position that it can't change how its ads are served because it's hard coded into a third party app they can't change, so they require it be done with HTML5. The requirement isn't a secret or a surprise and I highly doubt that Microsoft lacks the technical expertise to comply with it. It looks a lot more like Microsoft refusing a completely reasonable requirement so that they can make a stink about Google blocking them. And complaining that there isn't an official version of some Google app for Windows Phone is like complaining there isn't an official version of Microsoft Office for Ubuntu or FreeBSD. Why would you even expect there to be?
- jongalloway2 12y ago
  My complaint - and I'm speaking as a consumer, who pays for devices and watches ads - is that Google doesn't provide apps for Windows platforms and blocks developers (Microsoft and 3rd party) who do. For the YouTube case, neither the Android nor iOS app were built on HTML5. Why did the WP app need to be? And, fine, if it needs to run on HTML5, were there API's or metadata provided to allow showing the ads using HTML5 standards? Nope. Same for Google Voice - they won't provide an app and won't allow other developers to provide one. I don't care about having an official Google app; I do care about them completely walling off access to one. Starting around the Google+ days, I began to get a very clear sense that Google cared about their strategies a lot more than me as a user. As a long-time Google user - since Gmail beta, OG Droid user, etc. - this was a dramatic shift. Compare this to pretty much everything Microsoft releases these days - published standards, open API's. They publish things for other platforms and encourage developers to access and extend theirs. That's a technology future I'd prefer to support.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > My complaint - and I'm speaking as a consumer, who pays for devices and watches ads - is that Google doesn't provide apps for Windows platforms and blocks developers (Microsoft and 3rd party) who do. The problem is they're not really apps, they're services. Go ask Netflix if you can write a third party client for their service. Or Skype for that matter. I'll be the first in line if you can get rid of all the useless DRM/telecoms regulation/whatever that makes these companies think this is necessary, but Google is if anything doing less of that than their competitors. At least they have platform-independent HTML5 versions of pretty much everything. You have to admit the schadenfreude is delicious. Microsoft pushes DRM knowing full well it will disadvantage minority platforms and then it comes back to bite them now that they're the minority platform. > published standards, open API's It doesn't count when the standard just says "do it the way X version of Microsoft Office does it" without actually specifying what that is.
    - jongalloway2 12y ago
      > Skype for that matter Not really an issue because Skype releases clients for Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, Kindle Fire, PlayStation... > Useless DRM/telecoms regulation What's that in reference to? Haven't heard Google say anything about that. > HTML5 versions of pretty much everything Sort of. See this thread on Google Inbox: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8495257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8495257 And this for Google Hangouts: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/486575645338918912 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/486575645338918912 > delicious To me as I consumer, schadenfreude is never delicious when it affects me. > It doesn't count when the standard just says "do it the way X version of Microsoft Office does it" without actually specifying what that is. Which API are you talking about? There are published, documented API endpoints for all kinds of Office services: https://www.google.com/?q=office+apis https://www.google.com/?q=office+apis I wasn't just talking about Office, by the way. For example, part of the HoloLens announcement was the invitation for Oculus, Magic Leap and Google Glass devs to build on the holographic APIs (http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7865539/microsoft-windows-10-event-what-you-need-to-know http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7865539/microsoft-windows-...). Back to the original point - if a service provider won't provide an app, they should provide an API. Ideally both, but at least one. It's in their rights not to, but that's my cue to go somewhere else because that's not how I want to be treated.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

I don't get the complaint. Google obviously doesn't want to be in a position that it can't change how its ads are served because it's hard coded into a third party app they can't change, so they require it be done with HTML5. The requirement isn't a secret or a surprise and I highly doubt that Microsoft lacks the technical expertise to comply with it. It looks a lot more like Microsoft refusing a completely reasonable requirement so that they can make a stink about Google blocking them. And complaining that there isn't an official version of some Google app for Windows Phone is like complaining there isn't an official version of Microsoft Office for Ubuntu or FreeBSD. Why would you even expect there to be?

jongalloway2 12y ago
My complaint - and I'm speaking as a consumer, who pays for devices and watches ads - is that Google doesn't provide apps for Windows platforms and blocks developers (Microsoft and 3rd party) who do. For the YouTube case, neither the Android nor iOS app were built on HTML5. Why did the WP app need to be? And, fine, if it needs to run on HTML5, were there API's or metadata provided to allow showing the ads using HTML5 standards? Nope. Same for Google Voice - they won't provide an app and won't allow other developers to provide one. I don't care about having an official Google app; I do care about them completely walling off access to one. Starting around the Google+ days, I began to get a very clear sense that Google cared about their strategies a lot more than me as a user. As a long-time Google user - since Gmail beta, OG Droid user, etc. - this was a dramatic shift. Compare this to pretty much everything Microsoft releases these days - published standards, open API's. They publish things for other platforms and encourage developers to access and extend theirs. That's a technology future I'd prefer to support.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > My complaint - and I'm speaking as a consumer, who pays for devices and watches ads - is that Google doesn't provide apps for Windows platforms and blocks developers (Microsoft and 3rd party) who do. The problem is they're not really apps, they're services. Go ask Netflix if you can write a third party client for their service. Or Skype for that matter. I'll be the first in line if you can get rid of all the useless DRM/telecoms regulation/whatever that makes these companies think this is necessary, but Google is if anything doing less of that than their competitors. At least they have platform-independent HTML5 versions of pretty much everything. You have to admit the schadenfreude is delicious. Microsoft pushes DRM knowing full well it will disadvantage minority platforms and then it comes back to bite them now that they're the minority platform. > published standards, open API's It doesn't count when the standard just says "do it the way X version of Microsoft Office does it" without actually specifying what that is.
  - jongalloway2 12y ago
    > Skype for that matter Not really an issue because Skype releases clients for Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, Kindle Fire, PlayStation... > Useless DRM/telecoms regulation What's that in reference to? Haven't heard Google say anything about that. > HTML5 versions of pretty much everything Sort of. See this thread on Google Inbox: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8495257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8495257 And this for Google Hangouts: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/486575645338918912 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/486575645338918912 > delicious To me as I consumer, schadenfreude is never delicious when it affects me. > It doesn't count when the standard just says "do it the way X version of Microsoft Office does it" without actually specifying what that is. Which API are you talking about? There are published, documented API endpoints for all kinds of Office services: https://www.google.com/?q=office+apis https://www.google.com/?q=office+apis I wasn't just talking about Office, by the way. For example, part of the HoloLens announcement was the invitation for Oculus, Magic Leap and Google Glass devs to build on the holographic APIs (http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7865539/microsoft-windows-10-event-what-you-need-to-know http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7865539/microsoft-windows-...). Back to the original point - if a service provider won't provide an app, they should provide an API. Ideally both, but at least one. It's in their rights not to, but that's my cue to go somewhere else because that's not how I want to be treated.