Google says it would never harm an end-user over a conflict with a competitor. In an interview Eric Schmidt is asked if he can imagine Google doing something similar to Amazon: refusing to sell books of publisher Hachette over a commercial conflict.
Would Google ever do that something like that?
[Schmidt] Well, let’s ask the question: Has Google ever done that? Has Google ever done that—in a market, exclude one competitor from an end user service? I think the answer is no.
If it came up in a meeting, would this be one of those things that someone would immediately say. “This is evil?”
[Schmidt] Somebody would say why are we penalizing that group over this business issue? That would be how the debate would occur.
Interesting but why then is Google blocking the YouTube app for Windows Phone? It's a long story, but the summary is that even after Microsoft and Google worked together on a new YouTube app, it still got blocked by Google.
All requests by the superb Windows phone app (according to end-users) to load a YT movie were denied over a conflict where technical and legal arguments were used as distractions from a commercial clash between rival phone operating systems.
The end result: millions of Windows phone users without an official client for YouTube. Never harm end-users over a commercial conflict? Don't do evil?
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/google-disables-windows-phone-youtube-app (and hundreds of other links)
interview with Eric Schmidt https://medium.com/backchannel/google-motorola-was-a-win-we-couldve-won-with-groupon-wed-never-do-what-amazon-is-doing-a17f27b3aec0 #Tech
Note the operational words 'official client' +Scott Wilson
I have seen estimates of 50 million Windows phone users, but does it matter? Would the argument change if there were just five million?
They can still play in browser.
Windows app is blocked due to it breaking terms of service
Breaking 'terms of service' meaning it's not coded in HTML5 just like the Android and iOS client.
Thats discrimination, not consistency in terms of service +Adrian Chapmanlaw
+Max Huijgen I read somewhere a while back it allowed downloading?
The Opera browser on Android also allows downloading of youtube videos. Shhh…
G+ isnt supported on windows phones or BlackBerry phones either.
Another end user product used by many
+Adrian Chapmanlaw that was an older version of the client. The last one by microsoft didn't allow downloading, served the ads YT wants to show etc, but still got blocked.
It's just as useless to discuss this on G+ as it would be on wmpoweruser or a similar heavily biased forum. Or let's call it 'predictable' instead of 'useless'.
+Scott Wilson I lost you since you started using CAPS.
The argument is that Google did block end-users from using YouTube while Eric Schmidt in this interview said it would be incompatible with Google's culture.
The availability of an alternative client for YT is irrelevant. You could buy the Amazon blocked books in other book stores as well.
Surely some of the readers are not blind fans of any tech company +Anton Theunissen and capable of independent thought.
Clearly Google didn't block anything. They didn't make the app, so the clone app has to follows YT terms of service. It did not. simple as that
Huh +Daniel Roca these must be semantics. The app worked until Google blocked it. YouTube is 100% owned by Google and the app was developed in coordination with Google.
Not a clone app as there was no other app for windows phone and up until today Google didn't make one.
If someone wants more informations than the short summary, here's a link that summarizes the story in a chronological order: http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-publishes-its-windows-phone-youtube-app-again/
"Microsoft lashed out at Google, protesting that an HTML5 app for YouTube would be technically difficult and time consuming to develop."
That was one year ago, in 2013.
I don't understand why Google's terms of service should be adjusted especially for Microsoft? These terms are obligatory for all app developers, not only for Microsoft.
and yet the iOS nor the Android YT app are based on HTML5 +Bernd Rubel
the reason of course being that Google developed both apps and doesn't consider itself bound to these terms.
Gentlemen be gentle. No ad hominems, arguments are welcome.
Overall the reason why I'm on Google's products is exactly their culture that is far more mature than with many other North American companies. The culture shows in the end results. Google feels just normal, whereas many of the others give that usual commercial, insincere feeling. There are underlying rational reasons for this at the level of cultural values. It shows also in that Google leaders keep making responsible decisions in many other areas as well, which may not seem immediately relevant to their business, but of course everything matters. They get it. Everyone makes some mistakes, but those can be fixed over time via open conversation.
+Max Huijgen But why does this lead to your assumption that Google harms the users of Windows Phones? Are they obliged to built apps for every single mobile OS that will appear in the next ten years? Not only for YT, but also for G+, Maps, whatever? It's up to Microsoft to build (and btw: expensively support) apps for their OS if they really think this is necessary.
Oh wait … i'm still searching for the iTunes App for Android and WindowsPhone …
ah, there, i found Microsoft Office for Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.office.officehub&hl=en
Obviously Microsoft has its preferences. Obviously Apple has its preferences. Obviously Google has its preferences.
+Max Huijgen you're absolutely right about '*some* of the readers'. Still, a crowded church is a hazardous place to question religion.
+Bernd Rubel if Google doesn't want to build apps for windows phone users, they should allow third parties (like Microsoft) to fill that gap. But they don't as they suddenly cite T&C's they don't have to answer themselves to block a legit app.
They are not different from Amazon in that they let the users suffer from a commercial conflict.
I still can't believe that there are hundreds of million of G+ users, and even if this were to be true that they're all zealots in the Google church 😉+Anton Theunissen
Do we have sufficient information on Google's rationale for this decision? Was there perhaps some abuse that we're not aware of?
Now this is pure speculation and a pure guess, but for argument's sake let's suppose that perhaps the application was damaging either the service or Google's brand somehow? It would be interesting to know. If one party is kind of not leaving options for the other to stay out of the conflict. Maybe we don't know enough to judge.
I provided one link to the discussion +Sakari Maaranen but this specific conflict is an old one and discussed all over the internet.
The summary statement is what I provided in my post. Google did ban an app over a commercial conflict harming end-users.
+Scott Wilson this is not about piracy of content. Microsoft released a version of the YT app which complied with the Google/YT policy. The 'violating' app was taken down by Microsoft itself months before this incident.
+Max Huijgen I'm still curious to hear your answer to the question why Microsoft wasn't able to build an Youtube App that complies to Google's TOS. Again, this from one year ago:
"Microsoft lashed out at Google, protesting that an HTML5 app for YouTube would be technically difficult and time consuming to develop."
If they, Microsoft, don't want to make their users suffer, it's up to them since October 2013 to put something on the table.
Maybe I haven't read enough on this then, but it still sounds like it's the other party who failed to respect the terms of the agreement. What happens with agreements that aren't respected is that they get terminated. It seems that I'm not interested in this enough to read about it much, so let me just leave it to others.
Anyway, I like when people discuss the maturity of our business practices. Maturity leads to responsible behaviour and that's what we need more.
What's the point +Bernd Rubel Google didn't write a HTML5 app for android or iOS so apparently they can't do it either.
The technical reasons are a smoke curtain.
Google uses undocumented features of YT in its own iOS and Android apps. Just like Microsoft did in the '90's.
The crux of this post is that they themselves violate the 'don't harm the end-user' rule, but the broader picture is that they will find themselves answering to the same anti-monopoly agencies as Microsoft did.
Ah, so Google has >0 ethics hence discussing their ethics is tenuous at best…
After all they say themselves 'no evil'.
There is a flaw in this reasoning +Scott Wilson
Any company who does the slander campaigning or other insincere tactics, I try hard to avoid them. Choose products and services from ethical companies only.
+Max Huijgen Is the requirement of HTML5 a part of the TOS for all mobile OS' – or is it just a requirement for all apps running on Windows Phone?
Because apparently an app, running on WindowsPhone, is at least able to circumvent central elements of the Youtube service and presumably other services, like for example the advertisements (sic!).
Afaik this is only possible if the OS – in this case: WindowsPhone – allows the redirection of incoming traffic – in this case: from Youtube – through an internal proxy that filters elements.
This was one of the biggest discussions on Android and a central element of the KitKat Update, because an internal proxy, accessible by an app, is one of the biggest security holes for all services (and other apps), whether it might be iTunes, Netflix, Youtube or whatever.
So, perhaps the requirement of HTML5 on a Windows Phone is necessary to protect the service from the
security holespossibilities of WindowsPhone?Re; the un-evilness i think that it went when they started the whole plus thing then followed up with the unified privacy thing that made you an unwilling participant in google as an idea rather than a thing of parts!
Sycophancy is a word that comes to mind whenever someone questions the virtue of big GOO Max , may the great gazoo forbid that there ever be a political party or religion that could inspire such mindless obsequiousness in the hearts of normally rational folk,
People being loyal to an OS is stupid. Use what works best for the apps and services you rely on. I use almost all Google apps and services, so I choose to use Android. I would be a fool to use Windows Phone because Google boes not bother with it, which I am fine with. There is simply no justification for Google to waste time and money on Windows when they have all their stuff on iOS and Android.
As a user you choose your OS. You would not pitch a fit about game developers, Microsoft, Apple, etc. not fully supporting Linux would you?
With all products, not just OS, but say if you buy a can of milk or a bag, it does matter who you buy it from. You're giving your money to maintain the culture that the company selling the product has. Let's give an extreme example: If you buy top notch product from slavers, then you are promoting slavery. Now we are not talking about that, but other business practices, which may be perceived as more or less fair. Let's put our money to the kind of world we want.
Integrity is a commercial strategy. I don't accept my own naïve tendency to 'like' commercial companies. That's especially hard when they try to seduce me with free products – a friendly gesture but no thanks.
I must give to Google that they are more ethical than others even where it's really hurting: in hiding cash overseas. They avoid taxes for 40 billion, nearly half of their total cash. (Applause)
+Scott Wilson If Google is so transparent and honest, why don't they communicate things like "we won't be cooperating with a company that paid xxxx for a smear campaign against us"?
Or: "Missing out WP-users doesn't really hurt us. Until it does, we won't be supporting MS's competing ecosystem with our apps."
I know a valid answer: "Because that not the truth". Why not? "Because they say so themselves and they never LIE". Yup.
WP-users would appreciate these standpoints -at least I would- as it would make perfect sense. Like most WP-users I didn't buy a WP because MS is an 'integer' company. WP-users are just opting for products and services that they find superior enough to pay for.
+Scott Wilson I was thinking about your question regarding my neighbor. It depends. Is it personal or strictly business?
But the point is that I'd tell the neighbour why I'm not willing to help him, not LYING about his clothing not fitting with my car's interior – or whatever. So we agree on the reason why. We don't agree on what Google pretends to be the reason why.
+Anton Theunissen Overseas? You are from the Netherlands, right? Beside Ireland and Luxembourg the authorities and laws of your country are the reason for the tax avoiding strategies of all these companies in Europe: http://online.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-investigate-corporate-tax-codes-in-ireland-luxembourg-netherlands-1402441870
(Applause) If you want to change that, vote against it.
+Bernd Rubel I know that and maybe I vote against it. Does it make a difference where the cash is hidden? For a company that pretends to be the good guy between all the bad guys, it's not the behaviour I'd expect. Just saying: economics is everything; integrity is a sales driver.
+Anton Theunissen The problem is, in this case, the business environment "rewards" the bad guys, not the good guys. If you, as a good guy, back out of the system, only the bad guys will survive. Change the environment, same rules for everyone, and we'll see how this story ends.
And yes, integrity is a sales driver – if people understand integrity as a value.
+Scott Wilson i oversimplified here, just to emphasize the coherences regarding a tax system as a 3rd-party.
The problem with our complete dependency on the concept of money is that it easily makes us bad samaritans. When we find ourselves in a position where we may have got ourselves by actually being good samaritans, and are now able to abuse the trust that we first gained for a good reason, there's a temptation to turn the situation around. The question of ethics is how to balance this and be sort of "normal samaritans". In other words, cooperate without constantly trying to play tricks. There doesn't have to be anything blue eyed nor sinister in doing the right thing. It's actually pretty absurd to think that there has to be a hidden agenda to everything. It's a mindset of fear.
Scroogle
the scroogle campaign was not good… but also this…
+Scott Wilson It's not a competitor in the same way that Ford isn't a competitor for Chevrolet; that is, you'd have to be delusional to think they're not one.
Market share is not the thing that makes a product a competitor. A desire to share market space is.
+Scott Wilson … your first comment?
+Scott Wilson Depends. Did NYC actively keep Sleepy-Town-Outside-Gas-Station, AL from being able to properly challenge them?
Google did by keeping key smartphone applications away from Microsoft. You see the importance of Google's applications in the history of the iPhone, actually… there's no way the iPhone would have become the product it is now without Google's help in the way of search, navigation, and video, among other things. Since Google made these applications for iOS, it was a viable platform. When they decided not to do the same for Windows Phone, the platform became a less viable competitor against Android. That's textbook vertical integration, and it's illegal under antitrust law. You can't pick and choose who you want to compete with by way of your product line.
Google has also used horizontal integration (buyouts) to keep formerly-available applications off of Windows Phone. Waze is an excellent example.
+Scott Wilson They've been creating those applications by reverse engineering undocumented APIs, usually. I remember MetroTube having problems because Google would change stuff up on the back-end and they'd have to start from scratch.
Besides, why should Microsoft have to make their own when Google has gone and made a YouTube client for a more viable competitor, iOS? Again, picking and choosing. And that's illegal, end of story.
I'm a guy who has a Windows Phone and an Android tablet. I can duplicate most of my Windows Phone's Microsoft-made apps on my tablet. I can't do the reverse on my phone. Why shouldn't I be able to? Do you really want to live in a world where some guy in Mountain View locks you in for life?
+Scott Wilson "slander"
Oh get over it. It was an ad campaign. That doesn't come close to slander.
Even if it were, it would be libel.
I think google is scared that WP is small but has stolen most of its customers from android. IOS users seem to go iSheep and get the latest iphone.
+David Cooltions Microsoft is also a more direct competitor than Apple.
Of course, having Google executives that are/were on the board of Apple doesn't hurt, either…
+Scott Wilson
"Unethical" and "illegal" are two different things. What Microsoft did there was unscrupulous. That doesn't excuse Google for carrying out trust-like behavior against a competitor and creating a monopoly.
Google Astro turfs.
They make Linux and Chromebooks look majority on what's hot when they aren't.
+Scott Wilson API access is nothing compared to an application. If they do it for iOS, they should do it for Windows Phone.
Furthermore, what's with you being so horrified by Microsoft's conduct? Hiring a PR firm to take on a competitor? C'mon. These are the same companies (Google and Microsoft both) that will use suppliers that use child labor if it means they'll save a few pennies on each item produced. This is big business. If you're going to be offended at some of it, be offended at all of it.
Google are forcing the use of alternative YouTube clients like MyTube on WP. The only ones missing out are Google as there are no ads on MyTube.
+Scott Wilson You think Google's stonewalling and anticompetitive practices haven't cost Microsoft millions?
+Scott Wilson I think you take this a little… too seriously.
Drink less coffee. Go outside every once in a while. Live a little .
What we have +Scott Wilson is at least one person agreeing to the quintessence of my post and I thank you for that. You defended their decision to harm Windows Phone users better than I would have been capable of.
You have made clear that my thesis that Eric Schmidt was wrong claiming Google would never harm end-users over a commercial conflict, was correct. Your comments made clear why Google decided to punish these end-users (that is, if you were in charge at Google that is….)
I think windows phone users have a choice of YouTube clients. Just not the official ad supported one. I can't really see any suffering there. I wish mytube was on android to be honest. It's an easy workaround for WP users who are used to using third party clients.
+Max Huijgen Second that. Commenters like +Scott Wilson make it clear that Google is lying and hurting their users over a commercial conflict – well, just a small part of their users: only the WP owners.
The real pain however is not in the 'missing' YT-app. As WP-user I couldn't care less: the 3rd party apps are fine and even the browser is usable. (and admittedly YT is not a critical app for me).
Where it really hurts WP-users is in the slow growth and app-gap reputation of WP.
Apple is more of a direct competitor to Android than WP but you don't see Google banning them from their services.