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?
Yes. The API is an HTML5 iframe, (and it takes care of both movie and ads). Microsoft refused to use that API for their own reasons.
> Did Google's obligations to content owners not apply to the other platforms where ad-free official clients existed?
The iOS client is the only ad-free official clients in existence. It was created in 2007 with a five year license agreement to Apple. I have no knowledge of the details, but it is possible that Apple actually paid in lieu of showing ads.
Either way, there is no reason an 2007 agreement between Google and Apple should apply to Microsoft in 2013.
YouTube also offers a Flash based API to show videos with adverts. If HTML5 wasn't feasible for Microsoft they could have paid Adobe for a licence to use the Flash runtime in their YouTube app.
They loosen this requirement for google's own youtube clients because they can push new version of those apps whenever they like. They had no guarantee that MSFT would respond to their requests for changes in a timely manner in the future.
Why didn't MSFT want to use an iframe? Because arrogant ignorance of the open standard of HTML5 is part of company DNA. Any web developer can rant for hours how crappy IE6-9 are and what a drag it is to maintain compatibility with IE when you are building a modern webapp.
To remind everyone that IE11 will be dead on arrival, I'm copying some html5test results: Chrome - 463 Firefox - 410 Safari - 378 IE 11 - 355
But if MSFT bothered to properly implement HTML5 then a) they wouldn't have difficulty building a youtube app in accordance to the google's terms and conditions b) WP users would enjoy better browsing experience c) developers wouldn't have to deal with the compatibility mess caused primarily by IE6-10 and not yet released IE11
Everyone would win.
Aren't content providers losing revenue because Google refuses to make a Youtube App for Windows Phone in an effort to cripple it?
The latest numbers peg WP's marketshare at 3 to 10% in various countries. Assuming a one to one equivalence of users and views, content providers are losing ~3 to 10% of revenue because of Google's dithering on this to help Android.
I would assume both content providers and ad buyers would benefit if Google makes an official Youtube app or allowed Microsoft's version with ads in it. Am I wrong?
If Google wanted to fulfill it's obligations to content providers and advertisers, they would do what Amazon does with Kindle and have a proper app on every platform that lets them publish one.
The fact that they don't shows that the reason is all about Android and not about Youtube.
If those Windows Phone users want to watch said content, they can do so in their web browser.
> The latest numbers peg WP's marketshare at 3 to 10% in various countries. Assuming a one to one equivalence of users and views, content providers are losing ~3 to 10% of revenue because of Google's dithering on this
That assumes that those people will not watch that movie anyway (on a desktop, on a friend's phone, or on the WP using the browser) - which is a completely bogus assumption.
> I would assume both content providers and ad buyers would benefit if Google makes an official Youtube app or allowed Microsoft's version with ads in it. Am I wrong?
The would also benefit if Google gave a free android phone to all WP users so they can watch it. So? Google is not a charity. They set terms and conditions for implementing a YouTube app. There are tens of youtube apps for both iphone and android that abide these rules (not talking about Google's official apps here! see e.g. Jasmine on iOS).
Microsoft insists on not observing the terms and conditions, and then blames google.
> they would do what Amazon does with Kindle and have a proper app on every platform that lets them publish one.
There's no kindle app for Linux. Or the Raspberry Pi. Or the the BeagleBone Black. Or the Chumby. or my smart Vizio TV. And yes, I run all these platforms at home. Does that mean Amazon doesn't care about Kindle content? (incidentally, the Chumby, Vizio and Linux all have native apps for YouTube, and each of them has sold more units than the Windows Phone).
> The fact that they don't shows that the reason is all about Android and not about Youtube.
Next time, you should start with the facts and work out to a logical conclusion, rather than starting with a conclusion you want, and trying to fit the facts into it.
>That assumes that those people will not watch that movie anyway (on a desktop, on a friend's phone, or on the WP using the browser) - which is a completely bogus assumption.
The degraded experience causes many folks to leave the web app instead of going on to watch more videos, especially related ones. Also assuming that fickle users with low attention span are going to remember to search for the video later on on their other devices is also a bogus assumption.
Lack of an officially sanctioned solution definitely hurts content producers.
>(incidentally, the Chumby, Vizio and Linux all have native apps for YouTube, and each of them has sold more units than the Windows Phone).
Just Nokia seems to have sold 20 million phones in the past few quarters.
Anyway, if Windows Phone has very few users, how are the content producers hurt if they watch videos without ads?
How are the same number of WP users simultaneously not worth monetizing by YouTube enough to make an official app and at the same time hurt their revenues if not monetized by being shown ads to?
Even Vimeo with its puny marketshare and revenues compared to Youtube has developed an official Windows Phone app!
Ok. Nintendo has sold more than 100 million Wii consoles. It has no kindle app. It has a YouTube app. Your comparison to Amazon is still bogus.
> How are the same number of WP users simultaneously not worth monetizing by YouTube enough to make an official app and at the same time hurt their revenues if not monetized by being shown ads to?
I'm sorry, we appear to be living in different planets.
Google is under no obligation whatsoever to give preferential treatment to Microsoft, regardless of how much money it costs or earns them. And as Microsoft is still bullying Google's Android partners with patent threats, Google refuses to give Microsoft a preferential treatment. It's so simple. And yet, it seems so hard for many people on this thread to understand.
And if YouTube's content providers and users are hurt by this, so be it?
Imagine YouTube tomorrow decides to encode videos with a new codec, one which a particular processor can't decode easily?
Will the users which own that processor feel "hurt" / get "hurt"?