Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Aug 2013 16:10 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y

In the past two months, Microsoft and Google have been bickering over one central issue: HTML5. The Verge has learned that Google is forcing Microsoft to build its YouTube Windows Phone app in HTML5, despite its own Android and iOS versions using superior native code. Although Microsoft has offered to build ad support along with making other tweaks as Google has requested, a full HTML5 app isn't currently possible on the platform.

The difficult thing here is that Google actually has a very good case; it's their API, their service, their rules. On top of that, YouTube publishers - big and small - need to earn money from advertisements too, and incorrect implementations make that harder. Microsoft's mafia practices regarding patents, extorting companies to pay for Android use even though Microsoft has contributed zero code to Android plays a role too. Lastly, Windows Phone is essentially irrelevant with 3% market share - it's not as if Microsoft ever concerned itself with minority platforms.

Still, all this does is hurt consumers, no matter how few Windows Phone users there are. Just work this out, please, you bunch of children.

Thread beginning with comment 569837
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: ...
by TemporalBeing on Fri 16th Aug 2013 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

But are those platforms advertising and marketing YouTube apps

I don't know, does the iPhone?


the iOS YouTube app is supported by Google.
So it has all the requisite features.

Though I don't see Apple necessarily advertising it, which Microsoft kind of wants to do (saying "hey, we can do YouTube too") to show feature parity.

and how is that relevant anyway?


It has to do with whether it is something being explicitly featured, or whether it is something that may just happen to be there. Are they trying to draw attention to that part of the app or specific user experience on the platform?

Microsoft, for example, is trying to push a feature parity with Android and iOS. They see Google Apps as critical to that; so they are likely doing some marketing (in their App Store at least) saying "hey, we can run the Google stuff too". Only, they are not providing the same level of experience or support required - thereby damaging Google's brand (a whole other issue for which Google could legally retaliate if they so chose) - which could also include the advertising side of it since that is their main business (thus their brand to content publishers) even if Microsoft argued that removing the ads improved the user experience (the brand to content consumers). This, in the end, is a very easy case to support Google's position.

On the other hand, if MS didn't put a specific app out, but enabled the web-browser to have enough features to support YouTube (so users went to YouTube and played videos without specific prompting or support from Microsoft) then it would be a harder (not impossible) case to support Google's position.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:14 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

the iOS YouTube app is supported by Google.

Exactly, and what API does Google use for that youtube app? their native API, and they don't wan't to share that API, instead they offert a buggy HTML5 option with a downgraded experience. So they cannot compete with their Google's counterpart, that is being anti-competitive, and that is what is wrong.

Edited 2013-08-16 21:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by TemporalBeing on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:54 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

the iOS YouTube app is supported by Google.

Exactly, and what API does Google use for that youtube app? their native API, and they don't wan't to share that API, instead they offert a buggy HTML5 option with a downgraded experience. So they cannot compete with their Google's counterpart, that is being anti-competitive, and that is what is wrong.


It's not anti-competitive. Everyone has their own internal APIs - use 'em, and your software may legitimately break and you can't complain.

Google publishes an API that many can and have used without much problems. They may not always like it, but it is useful.

And in the end, it's no different than MS saying "we don't want you to use the internal API between the NT Kernel and the Win32 subsystem, just use the Win32 API", or choose your API - MS certainly has a lot of them that do that kind of thing too.

Fact is, Microsoft is getting called out for not supporting the standards that they should be supporting. Everyone else does and doesn't have an issue.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by JAlexoid on Mon 19th Aug 2013 09:57 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So they cannot compete with their Google's counterpart, that is being anti-competitive, and that is what is wrong.


What Google is doing is competition. Just because they are not providing the convenient APIs do not make them anti-competitive. Unless you believe that YouTube is a public service to which everyone should have equal access.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by cdude on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:38 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21


if [Microsoft] enabled the web-browser to have enough features to support YouTube

Or allowed that alternate Browsers - like Firefox, Opera and Chromium that all proper support youtube and HTML5 - run on WP8. Both not the case and it backfires when HTML5 is required.

Reply Parent Score: 3