Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by barista 4696 days ago
>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

6 comments

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...

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.
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).

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.

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.
>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.

Where does it say YouTube is open?
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.

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...

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.

> 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.

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.
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.
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).

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