[dkuntz2]

I'm not sure if it's Ars' commentary, or just the commenters, but it seems entirely sided towards Microsoft. Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame", and that Microsoft admits to re-releasing the application they previously pulled because it didn't follow the rules.

Plus, it seems like the author of the post fails to understand what Google wanted, and that Microsoft was being totally passive-aggressive in their blog post.

[Dylan16807]

>Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame", and that Microsoft admits to re-releasing the application they previously pulled because it didn't follow the rules.

What are you talking about? It says that in the article right here:

>First, the advertising giant is demanding specifically that Microsoft rewrite the application to use HTML5. Microsoft doesn't elaborate on why Google has made this demand but points out that Google's own apps on iOS and Android do not use HTML5. The software company claims that this is a "manufactured" reason, invented only to ensure that the YouTube experience on Windows Phone is inferior to that on iOS and Android.

I agree that using an iframe is going to suck compared to directly playing the video. Do you disagree?

It's a 'simple' demand sure, but it's pointless, inconsistent with other platforms, and lowers quality.

Edit: Ugh, why is your comment still at the top when it is factually incorrect? Am I weird for compulsively downvoting factually incorrect comments?

[revelation]

The simple reason for requiring them to embed it using HTML5 is that then YouTube can control the presentation, including advertisements. Otherwise they would have to constantly work with Microsoft to have them update their native code when they make changes.

It's the same reason Twitter has these guidelines for how you can display tweets.

[dkuntz2]

I don't agree that an iframe would suck compared to directly playing the video.

If Microsoft can't write a browser with an acceptable video tag, it's their own fault, not an API provider's fault. Mozilla, Apple, and Google all seem to have been able to create browsers with good video tags, especially Apple and Google, who have great support on their mobile systems, which implies that Microsoft should be able to either write their own, or copy the Webkit or Gecko implementation.

It's not inconsistent with other platforms, because anyone who isn't Google is required to follow the same rules as Microsoft. The only difference between Android/iOS and Windows Phone in this instance is that Google isn't going to build a WP app. When they're making the application, they know when they're going to make a change to the entire system, nobody else does, unless they publicize it, and nobody has an incentive to make the switch unless Google is willing to be more proactive about making sure everyone follows more rules.

How does requiring one component, the video, lower quality? If Microsoft doesn't have a web view for WP, and requires applications to be entirely native or entirely web-based, how is that Google fault?

If Google let anyone use the same system they use for their own YouTube app, they'd have to have a grace period where applications could use the old system before updating to the new system, and they'd have to be proactive about making sure everyone uses the new system after their deadline. That's a whole lot more work than saying "follow our really simple rule of using a web view".

Google has every right to make their demand. Google has every right to enforce their rules. Google has every right to ignore their own rules. They have a good reason to have the video tag rule. If they weren't the ones actively developing YouTube, and the Android and iOS apps, they'd probably agree to following the video tag rule, because it makes sense.

----

As for your quote from the article, it doesn't say Microsoft re-released their application after agreeing to follow the rules. It doesn't mention that they're not willing the follow the rules. It just says they didn't follow the rules because they didn't like them.

There are several iOS and Android apps for YouTube that aren't the official app. They all seem to be able to follow Google's rules, and don't seem to be doing poorly.

[cloudwalking]

The down arrow is for inappropriate or off-topic posts, not for opinions you disagree with...

[amanne]

The following line by OP is not an opinion, it's a material statement of fact which is wrong.

>Ars didn't mention that Microsoft didn't want to play by the rather simple rules of "put the video in a web frame"

Ars did mention it.

[jeady]

It may be worth noting that the author, Peter Bright, is the Microsoft editor for Ars. He also happens to have a strong anti-google bias - I can't remember any pieces he's written that portrayed Google in a favorable light.