[simonsarris]

A summary for those not following along at home:

The Youtube app for Android is developed by Google

The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google

The Youtube app for Windows Phone is developed by Microsoft, with some reverse engineering, at first not serving ads on purpose.

It is easy to argue that a Youtube app for Windows Phone would be nice for WP users. It is also easy to argue that MSFT writing such an app would be a tad antagonistic, seeing as the first version released contained no ads. One might suspect Microsoft wanted a PR fight more than they wanted a Youtube app, or that they wanted both.

Alas, we can read for clues.

The title of the article is: "The limits of Google’s openness"

But the tags are: "marketplace, Windows Phone"

It's not an article about Google now, is it?

~~~

The article doesn't help WP users. Instead they get no Youtube app while watching a hissy fit occur if they google (ha) to find out why the app is gone.

I like both these companies, but for however-much of a PR stunt this is, Microsoft does not come out looking good.

[badman_ting]

Yes? It's about Google not making a YouTube app for a platform, so the platform vendor makes one themselves, which then gets blocked, leaving users in the middle.

[beagle3]

Cry me a river. If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone.

Just as it was the problem of users buying early Linux notebooks / eees and expecting it to run Windows software.

And it's not like the WP users are left out in the rain. They can just use the browser to view YouTube videos. Lesser experience, sure. I might care when Microsoft implements or makes it possible for others to implement e.g. SilverLight for linux.

edit: typos

[wslh]

> If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem.

The problem is when you extrapolate this reasoning:

- Do you want support for nvidia cards on Linux?

- Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

- Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

And so on. I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. My mantra is: you can't reverse engineer the cloud.

[beagle3]

Your arguments are nonsensical:

- Yes, I do want to view SilverLight videos on Linux. But I can't. Because Microsoft won't let me (or Xamarin or Ximian) implement the DRM parts.

- Yes, I do check that an nvidia card is supported on Linux before I buy it; That's why, for example, I avoid AMD, and it IS my problem if I buy an AMD card for which there is no good driver on Linux

> I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. My mantra is: you can't reverse engineer the cloud.

The implied argument (Microsoft is more open because you CAN reverse engineer their products) is complete bullsh*t. Evidence: http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html

[wslh]

Your arguments are nonsensical

I am neither trying to write a formal proof here nor defending Microsoft in all their battles. I tried to argue against pervasive double standards: we love free software but Google business is not harmed publishing Chrome source code like Microsoft business is publishing the code of Microsoft Windows. Google is harmed if everyone install AdBlock (you can read something along these lines in their investor reports) or connects to their search engine without showing any ad.

[jorgecastillo]

Even Apple has published plenty of open source code (non GUI stuff). Microsoft doesn't make significant open source contributions, because they don't get open source or because the only thing that makes them valuable is their huge desktop market share.

[mncolinlee]

- Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PPTP and Kerberos. - Nvidia produced their own closed drivers on Linux. How does that involve Microsoft?

Are you really making the argument that if your application doesn't encrypt its interfaces, then you're open?

[wslh]

Before answering your question my extended rant is here: http://blog.nektra.com/main/2012/06/01/reverse-engineering-a...

Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PPTP and Kerberos. - Nvidia produced their own closed drivers on Linux. How does that involve Microsoft?

You agree with me then! that was my point. You can't reverse engineer Google Search, you can't connect with it in an unlimited way (except using web scraping techniques or using the restricted local search API). With Microsoft you can reverse engineer it.

And I have an story to tell: my company started selling a full API for a Microsoft product without one. Not only we reverse engineered the product but we built a complete API on top. One day Microsoft QA call us if they can help to test the compatibility of our product in operating systems under development.

[jorgecastillo]

One big difference is that you can choose to use or not to use Google Search. For all intents and purposes you can't avoid using Microsoft products.

[asterix9]

One difference is that Microsoft and Nvidia are considered evil and are derided for it and they don't pretend that SMB or graphics drivers are open. While Google has a 'do no evil' official policy which many folks seem to think they comply with. Similarly, with regards to openness.

[moutarde]

Google has obligations (both legal and moral) to both the content providers of YouTube and to the organisations who buy adverts on it. In order to 'not be evil' they have to take actions that respect these obligations.

Microsoft's original version of the app either:

a) deprived YouTube partners of their share of the revenue from adversing

b) caused advertisers to be charged for adverts that were not shown

The download feature also posed a problem to content providers who only hold a streaming licence to their content. If it didn't respect YouTube's no mobile flag (I'm unsure about this but it seems possible) it would also have caused issues for content providers who only held non-mobile streaming rights.

Microsoft now has a new version of the software that supposedly corrects these problems and is whining about openness and anti-trust. But why should Google now trust them? They treated not only Google, but also their partners and advertisers, like dirt. Now they want special treatment. It's like walking into someone's shop, insulting both their sales staff and their customers, then next week coming back and asking for discount.

How is Google being evil by imposing restrictions on a known bad actor in order to protect their partners?

[baddox]

> - Do you want support for nvidia cards on Linux?

Yes, but if I install Linux expecting to have support for nvidia cards, it is my problem.

> - Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to connect to a Windows share, it is my problem.

> - Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to print to a windows share, it is my problem.

There is no problem when you extrapolate this reasoning.

[wslh]

No, it's not only your problem.

If Google is a monopoly and this is probed in some court (EU/US) the issue will crystallize in another way.

Meanwhile, it can be analyzed in an ethical way and some people think that the problem extends beyond you.

[baddox]

No one said "only your problem" until you just then.

[Mikeb85]

This has to be a joke.... Microsoft has tried their best to prevent Linux from working or even existing... The fact that Linux hackers are smarter than them doesn't make them open...

[NegativeK]

> There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone.

The argument is about openness, not about rights.

[Kylekramer]

The article makes it seem like Google was working with Microsoft on allowing a Youtube app until Microsoft said they didn't want to play by Google's rules and published an app anyway. I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff.

[cantankerous]

The whole article was written to point out that Google's not as "open" as they proclaim they are. In reality, they're just another one of the big guys. Apple is "Beautiful", Google is "Open". Neither of them is either. It's all marketing.

It's in Microsoft's favor to damage that image. Don't take it personally.

[Kylekramer]

And my point is that Microsoft's article fails to convince me of that. I am sure the image Google would like the public to have about their openness and the reality don't match up, but in this particular case I fail to see any Google hypocrisy.

[asterix9]

>I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff.

Then what does open mean? To me it means to provide an API on an equal footing among the various platforms. If Google is providing access to secret Web service APIs to their Android and iOS Youtube Apps, but not to Windows Phone, how is that open? Requiring to show ads is still understandable, but requiring HTML5? Why do they care if it's HTML5 or something else? It sounds fishy, and Google should come out with a real reason for requiring HTML5 if there is one, after all they call themselves open.

It is probably well within their rights to screw around since it's their stuff, but lets not pretend it's open. Didn't MS get lambasted for private APIs in Windows? Why does Google get a free pass now and get away with calling itself open?

[beagle3]

> Then what does open mean? To me it means to provide an API on an equal footing among the various platforms.

To most of the world, it means "you can interoperate with me as long as follow my terms and conditions", with those terms being considered reasonable. it does NOT mean "I must let everyone compete with me on equal footing".

[nivla]

I am pissed because the outcome of my choice shouldn't be affected by faux restrictions. I was a Youtube user before Google was its buyer. So my choice to go with a windows phone shouldn't to be dealt with a degraded experience. Had MS or Apple pulled a similar crap, everyone would be crying an antitrust river and carrying a nail to the cross. Why does Google get a free pass at this? Its by now clear that Google wants to provide a degraded experience to the windows phone users, thus deliberately rigging the market place. What guarantees that the same wouldn't be pulled when Firefox OS or Ubuntu OS comes to the market? If so what can possibly replace Youtube? 90% of the video links on the web are to Youtube.

[fpgeek]

Um, if Firefox OS needs a native app for YouTube, something has gone horribly wrong. The whole point of Firefox OS is to demonstrate that a phone can do everything it needs to with web apps in the browser, without native apps outside it.

[beagle3]

> I was a Youtube user before Google was its buyer. So my choice to go with a windows phone shouldn't to be dealt with a degraded experience.

If you were a youtube user then, you were using the website - which is PERFECTLY USABLE on your windows phone. Your experience is not worse in any way than it was then (although it might not be as good as android or ios users; but then, you didn't buy an android or an iphone)

> Had MS or Apple pulled a similar crap, everyone would be crying an antitrust river and carrying a nail to the cross. Why does Google get a free pass at this?

Google is asking Microsoft to respect terms of service - nothing more, nothing less. Twitter does it every other week, and so does facebook - and people are upset, but everyone understands that this is entirely within their rights. (Unlike stuff Microsoft did, for which it was convicted of antitrust violations).

> Its by now clear that Google wants to provide a degraded experience to the windows phone users, thus deliberately rigging the market place.

The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft is using its customers as pawns in a PR game against google. I know what my response to that would have been: No more MS products.

> What guarantees that the same wouldn't be pulled when Firefox OS or Ubuntu OS comes to the market? If so what can possibly replace Youtube? 90% of the video links on the web are to Youtube.

AND THEY ALL WORK PERFECTLY WELL ON YOUR WINDOWS PHONE, INSIDE THE WEB BROWSER, LIKE LINKS ARE SUPPOSED TO! WHAT ARE YOU UPSET ABOUT?

[nivla]

>If you were a youtube user then, you were using the website - which is PERFECTLY USABLE on your windows phone.

No its not, you know since flash is disabled.

>Google is asking Microsoft to respect terms of service - nothing more, nothing less.

And they did respect the terms of service with their new app - nothing more, nothing less. Using a HTML5 client is not part of that terms of service.

>The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft is using its customers as pawns in a PR game against google.

I would have to agree with you on that, especially with their scroogled ads campaign. However without such public announcement, no one will ever know what the reason behind the app's breaking. Remember when google maps was blocked on Windows phone's browser? A negative PR was required to caused Google revert the stance.

>AND THEY ALL WORK PERFECTLY WELL ON YOUR WINDOWS PHONE!

Again, no they don't work perfectly and Youtube is sadly not something you can just substitute!

[beagle3]

> No its not, you know since flash is disabled.

Did you try to open your web browser on your phone and go to http://youtube.com ? please try. I don't have a windows phone, but when I tried it in a store, it seemed to work well - and other people on this thread claim it also works well,

> And they did respect the terms of service with their new app - nothing more, nothing less. Using a HTML5 client is not part of that terms of service.

The terms of service actually mandate either flash or html5, nothing else. Microsoft chose not include flash. Microsoft chose to avoid using HTML5 for the youtube app. They are not complying with the terms of service, and it is ENTIRELY their fault.

> Remember when google maps was blocked on Windows phone's browser? A negative PR was required to caused Google revert the stance.

Yes, and at that time Google was at fault, and it took them a couple of days to make things right. In this case, Microsoft has been playing the PR game for more than 3 months now, instead of doing the right thing (honoring terms of service).

> Again, no they don't work perfectly and Youtube is sadly not something you can just substitute!

Again, go to youtube in your web browser. it worked for me. Yes, it's not as nice as a YouTube app, but you don't actually lose out on any content.

[amanne]

>The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft is using its customers as pawns in a PR game against google. I know what my response to that would have been: No more MS products.

Wait a minute, isn't Google using YouTube content providers and advertisers as pawns in this game to hurt Windows Phone?

Windows Phone holds about 3.5% marketshare, and by refusing to make an official app (with ads) or allowing Microsoft's version which shows ads and because of the degraded experience of the mobile site which discourages people from searching, watching related videos etc. , they're hurting revenues of content providers to help Android.

So if you're a content provider, you can and will be used as a stick to further Google's selfish interests even if the actions hurt you.

Sounds like a reason for "No more Google products" if anything.

[beagle3]

> Wait a minute, isn't Google using YouTube content providers and advertisers as pawns in this game to hurt Windows Phone?

No, they're just refusing to give Microsoft preferential treatment. Microsoft can write a native app as long as they comply with Google's terms. There are at least 5 different YouTube native apps in the iOS store last I checked, and at least 5 in the Android Play store. See "Jasmine" on iOS for a great example.

If Microsoft is so bad at writing software that they can't follow simple terms and conditions, maybe they should hire the Jasmine guy.

> allowing Microsoft's version which shows ads

That would require them to develop a new API for microsoft, and maintain it. Why would they do that, when they already have a perfectly good API that Microsoft refuses to use?

> because of the degraded experience of the mobile site which discourages people from searching, watching related videos etc. , they're hurting revenues of content providers to help Android.

This is an assertion without proof, which personally I find implausible.

> Sounds like a reason for "No more Google products" if anything.

You are welcome to stop using Google products. Especially, you should stop using YouTube. Please do. Please. Blacklist the youtube.com website (which works perfectly well on WP) so you don't go there accidentally.

[solomatov]

> There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone.

IMO, it's not about rights. It's about anti-competitive behavior of Google. WP might easily get on par with Android and OS and this why Google doesn't allow Youtube there.

[zobzu]

And.. thats pretty much being closed. Point microsoft, not you, nor google. Go "cry your river" elsewhere.

[beagle3]

open does NOT equal putting yourself on equal footing with your competitors.

[Anderkent]

Actually, yes, it does. If you're giving preferential treatment to your apps that's not possible to replicate, you're not being open.

[beagle3]

Proof by contradiction:

Google can close and shutter youtube, Microsoft cannot. Therefore, by your definition, there is no way for youtube to ever be open unless Google commits to irrevocably fund youtube forever and ever. Alternatively, they could give Microsoft the option to close YouTube at any point in time for any reason, just like Google can.

?!?!?

ergo, your definition of openness makes no sense.

[wklauss]

It actually does. It not only means that, but its one of the outcomes if you are truly open.

I think a bigger problem here is why people think YouTube or Google are "open" to begin with. There are some areas in Google businesses that being more open than the alternatives (note the emphasis on more, sometimes they are just "open" in comparison with Microsoft and Apple policies) serves them well, thats why the do it, but it's not a dogma inside the company and will never be.

[beagle3]

No, it does not mean that. You have things confused.

IF you are at equal footing with everyone else, THEN you are "open". But the other way around does not follow.

e.g. Mozilla (or Digia, or SourceFire, or thousand others -- take your pick) can relicense their open source software as closed source, and put out binaries for future versions without releasing the source. Others using the same source code base cannot. That does not make that source code any less open.

[gebe]

Silverlight for Linux has existed through the Mono platform since 2007 under the name Moonlight: http://mono-project.com/Moonlight . With Microsoft's blessing I might add.

[beagle3]

Without the DRM parts, making e.g. NetFlix streaming unusable on Linux (until recently, when someone managed to get Wine to the point where it can run Microsoft's own SilverLight DRM properly).

[vetinari]

Even without DRM, Moonlight never worked correctly. I don't care for Netflix, it is not available in my country anyway. But I do care about other sites, for example autosalontv.cz and it never worked with Moonlight.

[Sven7]

Great point. Amazon should do the same thing. Since they host all these sites on their cloud. The only browser that should be allowed to access it should be Amazon's.

[jorgecastillo]

This is completely different, YouTube is a free service, Google has no obligations to third parties. AFAIK Amazon Web Services are not free, if Amazon imposed this sort of restrictions on their customers, I am sure they would show Amazon the door.

[Sven7]

You are right. Google owns all that content. Kim Dotcom should learn from the masters.

[moutarde]

Amazon is actually relevant here, because their Kindle Fire browser is partly cloud based. Microsoft may say that HTML5 on the Win Phone isn't feasible, but they own a giant cloud based server farm (Azure) just like Amazon. So if Amazon can make a browser that splits tasks between the cloud and the physical device why can't Microsoft handle HTML5 this way?

[beagle3]

.... and be in breach of their own contract with those sites, who pay amazon for the privilege - for which they would lose in court if sued.

If microsoft had a signed contract with google, (which would probably entail payment to google) they would have a case. As it stands, they don't.

[Sven7]

They are asking Google for open access to content Google doesn't own just as Google is telling Facebook the same thing.

[justina1]

Google doesn't have to make a YouTube app for every platform, especially when people can still use YouTube via the browser on the phone.

The Platform Vendor making the app ignored the rules for using that API and got blocked.

Instead of changing it, they spend time deciding not to change it, release it again with only some of the issues fixed, and are then surprised when it gets rejected due to the outstanding issues already mentioned.

[pionar]

They did change it, except for the one thing the provider of the so-called "open" API doesn't even do - HTML5. Why should Google hold MSFT to that standard when it doesn't even do it itself?

I smell the same anti-trust bullying that MSFT did in the 90s and early 00s.

[dkuntz2]

Because it's their product. They're permitted to do whatever they want with it.

They decided that they wanted a set of rules for when other people play with their toys. If Microsoft had followed the rules, instead of ignoring them, after saying they were going to follow the rules, it's their problem, not Google's.

[improv32]

> Because it's their product. They're permitted to do whatever they want with it.

No, they're not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

[dkuntz2]

I don't believe that antitrust law applies here. There's no collusion, there's not cartels, the monopolization aspects don't really come into play.

Yes, they can't literally do whatever they want, but in this instance, it's their code, their servers, their data (in a sense), they're permitted to define how others may use it, and use it in a separate way themselves.

[sounds]

Yes, they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Yo....

[badman_ting]

So we are in agreement then, this issue is indeed about Google. Cool.

[wdr1]

You can't expect Google to develop for every niche platform, such as Windows Phone, Blackberry, etc.

Heck, isn't this Microsoft's own point of view? Or do they have plans to write Office for Linux?

[beagle3]

I actually think Google's response is very civil and restrained.

A much more suitable response would be to serve movies, but e.g. prefix every video by a 30 second "informercial" saying "You are using an unlicensed application. Please contact your OS vendor Microsoft, and inquire why they are not complying with the YouTube terms of service. Alternatively, you can use your Web Browser app to view YouTube. Incidentally, check the Android YouTube app when you can. It's awesome".

Or maybe just every 10% of the views randomly. I suspect that would simultaneously get the message out, shame Microsoft, and get them to comply with terms & conditions in record time.

[sounds]

Kudos for your hard work answering so many posts.

Even if Google put the informercial in, this is Microsoft. They would probably write an article on technet about how unfair it was, then pretend everything was A-OK.

[kbaker]

Except, Google might not be able to show that prefix video using the API MS is/was using, but they would be able to do it if MS supported the standard HTML5 iframe API...

[beagle3]

Even if it's a problem for them to prefix it, surely they can deliver it INSTEAD of the requested video.

[bo1024]

So is there any less-biased explanation of what exactly the new app does and why Google blocked it? Or even a statement from Google?

[barista]

>The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google

Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that

[simonsarris]

Google sorta did have an issue, and Apple's Youtube app it was built on borrowed time, under a "license". It was then (forcibly, or per-license) removed when Google decided its time was up, and notably before the Google Youtube app was finished. From Aug 2012:

> Apple said in a statement that “our license to include the YouTube app in iOS has ended.” It added that owners of its devices would be able to use their Web browsers to view YouTube videos, and that Google was working on a new YouTube app that would be available through the Apple App Store.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/apple-to-remove-you...

[saurik]

That transition did not seem very positive for Google, although maybe the new app lets them monetize better; I'd be interested in hearing more detail about the various aspects of this deal. (I see what the massive theme community from Cydia cares about being themed, and while I insist that featured themes theme the YouTube icon, the feedback I get is that very few people actually bother to install the app now that it is separate. As for the website, it was the case that you could view YouTube's content from the website since at least the era of iPhoneOS 2.) I thereby would have assumed that the situation went in the other direction: Apple chose not to renew their license for YouTube, as they no longer felt it gave them enough value for the cost.

[mythz]

YouTube isn't open source or open content, they're a business and their services aren't free, they're subject to the wishes of YouTube and its content owners.

The iOS app would've been developed in partnership and with the blessing of Google (aka Co that owns YouTube).

Microsoft had no such relationship with Google and instead chose to release their own unofficial YouTube app (first without ads) clearly violating the YouTube API TOS. Knowingly breaking the law and expecting a favorable outcome reminds me of "Queue Jumpers" who illegally enter Australia, they're not legally allowed to enter, but they continue to do so because the outcome is more favorable to their lively-hood when they do.

So Google blocks Microsoft, who wants to turn this into a anti-Google PR stunt and is openly crying foul trying to rally public support for their plight since they have no legal recourse.

Which is odd for Microsoft who loves exploiting the legal system to others detriment. I'm honestly shocked that Google isn't bending over backwards to help a competitor who is actively extorting the Android ecosystem through patent litigation (on tech created by Google), who makes more money on Android sales than even Google does (who has contributed significant resources into making Android).

[test-it]

Crazy talk.

>> Knowingly breaking the law

Yeah, mythz's crazy anti-Microsoft law ...

MS argument here is that Google is pushing for open platforms and standards when it's profitable for G and closing their own when not.

[mythz]

It's not argument, it's a carefully crafted anti-Google PR statement with the goal of getting the public to do their own bidding for them, so they can get Google to do as they wish and further their own competitive platform.

[Anderkent]

>So Google blocks Microsoft, who wants to turn this into a anti-Google PR stunt and is openly crying foul trying to rally public support for their plight since they have no legal recourse.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Google might be doing a legal thing, but they're still doing the wrong thing.

>Which is odd for Microsoft who loves exploiting the legal system to others detriment. I'm honestly shocked that Google isn't bending over backwards to help a competitor who is actively extorting the Android ecosystem through patent litigation (on tech created by Google), who makes more money on Android sales than even Google does (who has contributed significant resources into making Android).

I dont think not actively preventing them from doing the same thing your apps do is 'bending over backwards'. The other points are irrelevant. If you claim to be open, you must be open to everyone, not just the people you do not consider competitors.

[mythz]

Where does it say YouTube is open?

[amanne]

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html

Especially the section "Open Information".

There's a lot of the world's information exclusively on Youtube, not just entertainment.

[polyomino]

That article is funny, if you click on Googe Data Protocol, the cornerstone example for openness, you get "Warning: Most newer Google APIs are not Google Data APIs."

https://developers.google.com/gdata/docs/developers-guide?cs...

[jmillikin]

The original iOS app only showed videos that did not require ads. Microsoft's YouTube app used to work the same way, until they updated it to show all videos but still not show ads.

EDIT: According to itafroma, the Apple-authored YouTube app for Apple TV will play all videos without ads.

[itafroma]

> The original iOS app only showed videos that did not require ads.

That's not correct. The original iOS app played all videos, regardless of whether they were monetized, as long as the creator checked the "make available for mobile devices" option. It works the same with with the current Apple TV app: monetization options have no effect on videos' availability.

[jmillikin]

Are you sure? I believe I remember my iPad being unable to play videos with ads, and having such videos not even show up in search results. Separately, some videos would not play on mobile or when embedded, but those seemed to be much more rare.

[itafroma]

Yes, I'm quite sure. Load up any monetized video on Apple TV or any iOS device that's still running iOS 5 or earlier. It will work just fine and play no ads. Here's an example video I just tested to confirm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2HZWHimKas On the web or in the official YouTube apps, there's a required pre-roll ad; on iOS5- and Apple TV, nothing.

[corresation]

Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that

Today is not 2007, and Google has different motivators. It was also my understanding that Google worked alongside Apple on that original app, and then licensed the same to Apple, with the app being removed once that license expired.

I don't know which of the two is in the wrong here, but Microsoft's history makes their protestations rather difficult to accept at face value. There are some gross misreporting occurring on this (the most common being "Google worked with Microsoft on new app and then banned it!", which it seems is entirely incorrect. Google worked with Microsoft on a new app...and then Microsoft decided to release the old, blocked one just to get the press rolling again).

[baddox]

Didn't Apple and Google explicitly work closely together for the original YouTube app? I thought that Google even encoded all their videos to h.264 specifically so they could be easily viewed on iPhones (and subsequently other smartphones).

[cloudwalking]

Can you cite a source for "no issue with that" ?