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 569853
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

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:
2007-08-22

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

RE[8]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 16th Aug 2013 22:18 in reply to "RE[7]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I can give you a reasonable answer for each of your arguments, but I won't because at the end you are trying to justify Google at any cost, and is boring and pathetic, you think Google ain't being a dick, more power to you, but I don't and you arguments haven't changed my mind, I'm sorry, but I can't argue with some one with the Stockholm syndrome.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: ...
by Nelson on Fri 16th Aug 2013 23:19 in reply to "RE[7]: ..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

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.


What Google has allowed in the past, is the inferior Windows Phone YouTube app which had a significantly worse experience (in mine and others opinions, implicitly also Google's given they engineer native apps for Android and iOS)


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.


Except market conditions which work against the uptake of a competing service vs a heavily entrenched player. Microsoft should invest billions of dollars bootstrapping a service because Google won't play ball? That's a peculiar position.


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


Except Apple when they engineered the iOS app, and the various clones on the Play Store, Windows Phone Store, Windows Store, etc.

This is a Microsoft vs Google thing. Microsoft addressed all of Google's original concerns and Google raised new ones. The goalposts have been moved to an impossibly far position, which according to Microsoft, Google's own engineered admitted as being an extraordinary undertaking. A restriction not placed on iOS and Android apps.

They won't certify it because it doesn't meet the requirements for their Brand protection.


The YouTube app was allowed (with full naming) since a few weeks after WP7 launched. There is implicit approval, and even after the enhanced YouTube app was pulled, Google allowed the old app (with the same name) to remain in the Store.


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".


The specs are basically (Because apparently I'm the only one who has bothered to read Google's public YouTube API)

- Use our API for the metadata
- Embed an WebView frame for the Video Player.

That is a subpar experience compared to other platforms. That's recognized by both sides. What is at issue here is the negotiations between Google and Microsoft for their use of the private APIs which would enable a proper client.

The frustrating part is that Microsoft already has such API access for the XBox 360 YouTube app. Google is specifically refusing such access for Windows Phone, to keep Android ahead.

Your argument holds no water.


Just because MS doesn't want to build something to the specifications required for approval doesn't mean they should get approval.


Actually it does. Google's requirements are an aside to the moral argument that Google is being unreasonable and anti-competitive in their dealing.

Creating an uneven playing field is a legitimate issue, despite the playing field existing.


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.


Have you used the YouTube app on Windows Phone?


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


Wow.

Edited 2013-08-16 23:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3