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 569852
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: ...
by TemporalBeing on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Member since:

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[6]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:57 in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Hiev Member since:

It's not anti-competitive

I completely disagree.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: ...
by TemporalBeing on Fri 16th Aug 2013 22:07 in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
TemporalBeing Member since:

It's not anti-competitive

I completely disagree.

There's numerous things at play here.

1. Google's Brand (both to publishers and consumers) can be hurt by bad implementations. So shutting down WP can certainly be justified on brand protection in itself.

2. There's nothing to keep MS from building their own version of YouTube. But the fact is they want to tie into the YouTube Brand.

3. Google isn't keeping MS from implementing something that meets the requisite standards, only MS is. Everyone else has to meet those standards.

In the end, what you're suggesting is like saying that "well, my app doesn't meet the specifications for MS's Windows Certification but they're being anti-competitive because they won't certify it". They won't certify it because it doesn't meet the requirements for their Brand protection.

It would be different if the only reason they wouldn't was they didn't want a competing product. Again, Google has said "meet the specs and we'll allow it".

Just because MS doesn't want to build something to the specifications required for approval doesn't mean they should get approval. And that's is what is at the heart of this dispute - MS wants to make an inferior product and get away with it, but the product they're making can hurt the brand of a major competitor.

So if anyone is being anti-competitive about this whole ordeal it's Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 4