[jmillikin]

The article says that they decided to release the app over Google's objections:

  There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google
  asked us to transition our app to a new coding
  language – HTML5.
  [...]
  For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish
  our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google
  long-term on an app based on HTML5. [...] Google, however,
  has decided to block our mutual customers from accessing
  our new app.

[axus]

Needing Google's permission to release an app on their own platform doesn't sound very open.

[pritambaral]

Not needing Google's permission to consume Google's content sounds very .... umm ... you decide.

[interpol_p]

Well if Google are claiming their platforms are open, then as long as Microsoft can comply with content providers (showing ads, etc), Google should not have a problem with them hooking into their platform?

Google is not interested in "openness" except where it benefits them. They are just as controlling as Apple when it comes to their viable properties (and rightly so, but they should stop using "open" to describe their platforms).

[enneff]

Where is the claim that YouTube is some big open ecosystem? Google provides APIs for working with YouTube, which to me seems the only sane way to protect its content providers. MS refuses to use those APIs. What is hard to digest about this situation?

[interpol_p]

My understanding of the article is that Microsoft IS using the APIs to their fullest extent. Google does not provide a public API that can allow Microsoft to serve the "correct" ads before a video.

Google often talks about the broader web and services in ways that encourage openness and standards. Yet here they are making it difficult for someone who wants to hook into their data while respecting the content owners' rights.