Google Should Be Afraid.

[planoman]

Google isn't stupid, it's not resting on its laurels. It knows that it needs to continue to improve itself, or it could fall behind real quick. Google really has two groups of competitors to fear: 1) small startups who can move quicker than it, and 2) companies that offer products and services that could wholly replace Google's own. It's possible that Microsoft is the only company that fits the bill for the latter group.

They have equals in search, advertising, desktop OS, mobile OS, browser, email, calendar, consumer cloud, business cloud, productivity tools, mapping, voice/video chat. The only major differences would be that Google has YouTube and Google+, and Microsoft has a lot more on the enterprise side.

I agree, but let's at least wait till WP has 10% market share before we start calling the company with over 50% afraid...

 

[SwimSwim]

While I agree with your premise there is a flaw in it. How much does a YouTube app cost to make and sustain? And how many WP users are there in the world now? You don't think that a few MILLION customers who will be viewing your ads and your collecting data on would be worth the cost of producing a simple YouTube app? A few million customers is not an insignificant amount of people.

Exactly this! Especially when Microsoft already developed the app (therefore covering all the development time and expense). Sure, the first release didn't have ads, but the second release did. But Google still forced it to go down.

Sure, Google may play nice in the future, but in this example: I personally can think of no benefit offered to Google them other than attempting to cripple Windows Phone. Seriously, Microsoft did all the work in allowing several million people to view YouTube videos and ads, which could let Google generate ad revenue from those several million users. Yet Google removed it. Only logical explanation is that they want Windows Phone to suffer.

 

[AngryNil]

Google isn't stupid, it's not resting on its laurels. It knows that it needs to continue to improve itself, or it could fall behind real quick. Google needs to worry about small startups who can move quicker than it, and companies that offer products and services that could wholly replace Google's own. It's possible that Microsoft is the only company that fits the bill for the latter group. Apple and Google can happily co-exist, for the most part. I don't think the same is true for Google and Microsoft.

They have equals in search, advertising, desktop OS, mobile OS, TV OS, mobile hardware, browser, email, calendar, consumer cloud, business cloud, productivity tools, mapping and communication. The only major differences would be that Google has YouTube and Google+, and Microsoft has a lot more on the enterprise side.

There is no line of reasoning that can continue to draw the conclusion that Google withholds its products from Microsoft platforms because they won't, in isolation, be better for its bottom line. The latest evleaks tweet shows YouTube on an LG webOS TV, how is that worth it where Windows 8 is not? Google does it because it doesn't want Microsoft to be a contender, and it can afford to make that call.

Giving away their OS so other OEM's can adopt it and sell it, subsidizing world class devices such as the nexus line so the masses can get them, to include influencing Motorola to lower the price of the Moto X in the same fashion. Not acting like a company that is too afraid.

That sounds like an infomercial for Google, it doesn't prove anything.

Most of the good apps I have are Nokia. I mean MSFT's own You tube app gets 2.5 stars?

Are you kidding? You realise that Google owns YouTube, prevented the team from working with Microsoft on an app, blocked Microsoft's better YouTube app (causing the 2.5 star app to be reinstated) and denied Microsoft access to the APIs required to build a competent native client?

 

[Tre Lawrence]

While I agree with your premise there is a flaw in it. How much does a YouTube app cost to make and sustain? And how many WP users are there in the world now? You don't think that a few MILLION customers who will be viewing your ads and your collecting data on would be worth the cost of producing a simple YouTube app? A few million customers is not an insignificant amount of people.

Fair point.

We've had the same discussion on Crackberry: how many is enough?

I would assume that tapping into the MSFT customer base as soon possible would be high on Google's list, but what do I know? The YouTube fiasco makes no sense to me.

But Google doesn't mind cutting off users of some iterations its own mobile OS, so hey...

 

[S_C_B]

I laugh at this thread's title.

 

[bilzkh]

Giving away their OS so other OEM's can adopt it and sell it, subsidizing world class devices such as the nexus line so the masses can get them, to include influencing Motorola to lower the price of the Moto X in the same fashion. Not acting like a company that is too afraid. Google went public in 2004 and is currently worth 370 Billion...

As as been stated I do think thing the lack of Google OEM apps is a sign that they are afraid. The fact that MSFT makes their apps for android and there are so many third party Google apps on Windows Phone should say the opposite. GOOG has not felt the need to deploy resources to Windows Phone. I do hope the market share of Windows Phones reaches a point to where GOOG does have to develop apps for WP. A more important question is why has MSFT not more with apps for WP. Most of the good apps I have are Nokia. I mean MSFT's own You tube app gets 2.5 stars?

I am still a novice with Windows Phones and I am interested in this one OS integrated into all devices. I am still hoping to see this demonstrated because I have not yet, not to the level I see with Apple products and with GOOG apps on Android. I am open minded and am using bing on my windows stuff! lol!

The whole should be afraid think is interesting. I think GOOG is going their own way and heavy into the social media apps but hopefully they respect MSFT and APPL and do not become complacent. I think having a healthy competition is good for innovation which ultimately benefits us!

I advise you get caught up on the reality of the matter. When Microsoft tried developing and releasing a YouTube app for Windows Phone (in the 7.x days), Google took them to action. It's a well-known incident. Google does not want Windows Phone with a formal and notable YouTube presence, or of any other Google service for that matter. Hence we're stuck with that browser bookmark, whereas Nintendo has a native YouTube app for 3DS. If Microsoft could they would release Gmail, Maps, Voice, YouTube, etc. apps for WP and W8.x

If Google wasn't afraid of Windows Phone it'd at least Microsoft support the platform with services under its name (e.g. YouTube). Why not? Google with all of its market-share, OEM relationships, vendor relationships, and huge breadth of devices should have no problem scoring additional cash off Microsoft's user base without having to even spend on developing said apps. But what's the reality? Google's casting Windows Phone and its users out.

You know, it's logical to assume that an entity with lots of power and influence wouldn't be afraid of tadpoles, but the reality is quite different. We live in a world where the biggest powers do tend to be afraid of threats, no matter how small they may seem. After all each one of big players (e.g. MSFT, GOOG, FB, etc) started out as a small and dependent entity, only to grow... If Google weren't afraid of Windows Phone it'd show it through actions, i.e. let its apps and services proliferate across the platform.

Hmmm, interesting view. But let's look at it from another angle: if Microsoft didn't provide their services on Android & iOS, they would currently have 4.1% as many customers using their services on mobile devices as they have now. So, is Microsoft doing to for the customer? I guess you could say they are, but it's for their benefit. If they didn't think it would help their bottom line they certainly wouldn't do it. By Google not providing their services on WP, they are reducing their market share potential from about 99% to 95%. Maybe it would pay, but the ROI might be less than their standards, or they figure it's worth whatever revenue they're sacrificing to reduce the attractiveness of WP. In that case, would you blame them? Neither you nor I know the reasoning. But the answer is not as straightforward or obvious as we might think. We just feel passionate about it because we feel the effects. Although I probably don't feel it as keenly as you do because I use an Android along side my 920.

Microsoft themselves provide a better experience on Android & iOS than on WP in a couple areas. The Skype experience is much better on Android & iOS, and they haven't even released an RDP app for WP yet. Why is that? Does Microsoft have something against WP? What about other big name developers like Facebook & Flipboard (thankfully the list is shrinking)? Why does WP come last, if at all? (Ha, like I'm sure this is the first time you've ever heard this.)

And Google's not really attacking the customer. You probably knew full well going into WP that you weren't going to have Google apps. It was your choice. There are others platforms out there that have Google services. I don't go to McDonald's and complain because they didn't provide me with a rib-eye steak. You weighed all the pros and cons and decided WP was worth it. Accept it and move on.

I don't want to rule out what you're saying, because you might be right and I might be wrong. The long and short of it is that neither of us know the reasoning behind what's going on.

Here's the thing, the YouTube app fiasco showed us that Google doesn't even need to spend much in order to make money off Windows Phone users. Why? Microsoft was willing to build the app, Google didn't let them build the app. Thus, the whole point about ROI and the bottom line is BS. It's especially BS when platforms with comparable or even smaller user bases, e.g. Xbox One, Nintendo 3DS, random TVs, etc. have official YouTube apps. Do not use the ROI point here, it has no bearing on the reality of Google's decisions. Don't assume that which is not happening. It's a conscious effort to shut Windows Phone out, and when a company takes on such drastic and aggressive measures, it is afraid.

Regarding the RDP client for Windows Phone. You should read on what the guys behind it said, i.e. they envisioned that it would be used on tablets, and hence an RDP client was already available for Windows RT well before iOS and Android. It so happened that the iOS/Android versions were phone compatible and clearly their assumption that people don't tend to use their phones for RDP much wasn't in line with market expectations. Their logic failed in reality.

That said, it so happens that Microsoft Research released Office Remote for Windows Phone exclusively, it released a marquee title (Spartan Assault) on its platforms exclusively, etc. At the same time Microsoft is also cognizant that its customers, i.e. those buying into its products and services, use non-Windows platforms. Microsoft is going after its customers by providing solid experiences on other platforms. Is it a business decision? Yes, absolutely, 100%. Then what the hell is Google doing by pushing tens of millions (and growing) WP users away from Maps, Gmail, Docs, etc. when MS would probably foot the bill for development of apps for those services?

Personally I could care less about Google's services, but I do care about the wider platform and I am going to call out absurdity where I see it. Again, the fact of the matter is, Microsoft was/is willing to deliver Google's services on its own platforms, Google doesn't want them to do so, therefore Google doesn't want WP users using its services. This is the reality of the matter, and it's stupid on Google's part to shut its users out when there is no need to (i.e. when Microsoft can foot the bill one way or another). Google's basically saying to prospective WP users, "look, if you buy a WP, you're out of our fold." It's not, "you'll be without our stuff for some time" or "you'll have to wait" -- it's basically, "screw you, we've made sure you'll never use our stuff on that platform." This is borderline religious excommunication, as though WP is sacrilege.

Yet for one reason or another there are other companies, e.g. Flipboard, Mint, Fitbit etc. who brought or are in the process of bringing their business to Windows Phone. Others, e.g. rising start-ups, have voiced their intention to back WP when the resources are available. The majority here have made their rational business decisions, Google's the odd one out.

At some point (either by virtue of WP growth or Microsoft) the cost-benefit of backing WP will weigh on the side of benefit, and they're biting. Google? "Nope, we're going to screw material benefit and go for our doctrine of smothering-WP-by-pillow, at all costs." Really, if MS is practically ready to build apps for their services to compete with Microsoft services on Microsoft's own platform, then standard business is not at play in Google's mind. It's doctrine spurred by some type of fear.

Look folks, there's no need to spend time defending Google. Why don't you let them *act* for themselves? They've let a YouTube app roam into the 3DS, they can let one roam into Windows Phone by just calling up Microsoft and saying "YES" to Microsoft's own app. NOPE ... Google didn't even let that happen. They're scared, deal with it.

 

[planoman]

I advise you get caught up on the reality of the matter. When Microsoft tried developing and releasing a YouTube app for Windows Phone (in the 7.x days), Google took them to action. It's a well-known incident. Google does not want Windows Phone with a formal and notable YouTube presence, or of any other Google service for that matter. Hence we're stuck with that browser bookmark, whereas Nintendo has a native YouTube app for 3DS. If Microsoft could they would release Gmail, Maps, Voice, YouTube, etc. apps for WP and W8.x

If Google wasn't afraid of Windows Phone it'd at least Microsoft support the platform with services under its name (e.g. YouTube). Why not? Google with all of its market-share, OEM relationships, vendor relationships, and huge breadth of devices should have no problem scoring additional cash off Microsoft's user base without having to even spend on developing said apps. But what's the reality? Google's casting Windows Phone and its users out.

You know, it's logical to assume that an entity with lots of power and influence wouldn't be afraid of tadpoles, but the reality is quite different. We live in a world where the biggest powers do tend to be afraid of threats, no matter how small they may seem. After all each one of big players (e.g. MSFT, GOOG, FB, etc) started out as a small and dependent entity, only to grow... If Google weren't afraid of Windows Phone it'd show it through actions, i.e. let its apps and services proliferate across the platform.


Here's the thing, the YouTube app fiasco showed us that Google doesn't even need to spend much in order to make money off Windows Phone users. Why? Microsoft was willing to build the app, Google didn't let them build the app. Thus, the whole point about ROI and the bottom line is BS. It's especially BS when platforms with comparable or even smaller user bases, e.g. Xbox One, Nintendo 3DS, random TVs, etc. have official YouTube apps. Do not use the ROI point here, it has no bearing on the reality of Google's decisions. Don't assume that which is not happening. It's a conscious effort to shut Windows Phone out, and when a company takes on such drastic and aggressive measures, it is afraid.

Regarding the RDP client for Windows Phone. You should read on what the guys behind it said, i.e. they envisioned that it would be used on tablets, and hence an RDP client was already available for Windows RT well before iOS and Android. It so happened that the iOS/Android versions were phone compatible and clearly their assumption that people don't tend to use their phones for RDP much wasn't in line with market expectations. Their logic failed in reality.

That said, it so happens that Microsoft Research released Office Remote for Windows Phone exclusively, it released a marquee title (Spartan Assault) on its platforms exclusively, etc. At the same time Microsoft is also cognizant that its customers, i.e. those buying into its products and services, use non-Windows platforms. Microsoft is going after its customers by providing solid experiences on other platforms.

Personally I could care less about Google's services, but I do care about the wider platform and I am going to call out absurdity where I see it. Again, the fact of the matter is, Microsoft was/is willing to deliver Google's services on its own platforms, Google doesn't want them to do so, therefore Google doesn't want WP users using its services. This is the reality of the matter, and it's stupid on Google's part to shut its users out when there is no need to (i.e. when Microsoft can foot the bill one way or another). Google's basically saying to prospective WP users, "look, if you buy a WP, you're out of our fold." It's not, "you'll be without our stuff for some time" or "you'll have to wait" -- it's basically, "screw you, we've made sure you'll never use our stuff on that platform." This is borderline religious excommunication, as though WP is sacrilege.

Yet for one reason or another there are other companies, e.g. Flipboard, Mint, Fitbit etc. who brought or are in the process of bringing their business to Windows Phone. Others, e.g. rising start-ups, have voiced their intention to back WP when the resources are available. The majority here have made their rational business decisions, Google's the odd one out.

At some point (either by virtue of WP growth or Microsoft) the cost-benefit of backing WP is weighing on the side of benefit, and they're biting. Google? "Nope, we're going to screw material benefit and go for our doctrine of smothering-WP-by-pillow, at all costs." Really, if MS is practically ready to build apps for their services to compete with Microsoft services on Microsoft's own platform, then standard business is not at play in Google's mind. It's doctrine spurred by some type of fear.

Look folks, there's no need to spend time defending Google. Why don't you let them *act* for themselves? They've let a YouTube app roam into the 3DS, they can let one roam into Windows Phone by just calling up Microsoft and saying "YES" to Microsoft's own app. NOPE ... Google didn't even let that happen. They're scared, deal with it.

I used You tube as an example not knowing the history. So what, google said you can't make a you tube app. I picked a different you tube app. There is a lot that MSFT could do to improve other apps available in my opinion. As I said it looks to me like Nokia was carrying WP on it's back so it is not surprising that MSFT paid 7 billion + for their device line.

I am not picking between companies, I own stock in all of them. I also have phones on WP, Android and iOS so I am pretty objective about it.

Some of you need to lighten up as we are taking about phones. I do hope 2014 is a banner year for MSFT and WP. Hopefully the New CEO can accelerate development of WP and the apps. I saw an article last week in which MSFT was said to be thinking about giving the WP OS away to increase development like Android did. Emulating another companies business practices is a sure way to scare them! lol! I jest! I am here to learn more about WP and not because I despise Google or Apple.

As I said I know many are loyal and fierce defenders of their choices...I wish you all a Happy, Prosperous 2014 and I am looking forward to interacting with you all on this site!

 

[cckgz4]

So since you use x box music, a question...I added a playlist from iTunes which consisted to all of my songs to the x box music app on my desktop. I then had it moved to the cloud and matched. Almost all the songs were matched because almost all of my songs are DRM free so I can move them around. So I tried to stream music using the x box app on my windows phone and nothing, nada from my phone? Do I have to pay to be able to stream my music to my phone. I know that x box technically matched my music and did not move my songs to the cloud but to have to pay 10 a month seems crazy...to me. Luckily, I found the app cloudmuzik which allows me to stream from my google play music account.

Was I missing something on x box music? Thanks!

With desktop unfortunately, you have to manually sync playlists to your phone.

 

[Maaz Mansori]

In regards to my prior comment about Microsoft having the better ecosystem, yes, 'better' is subjective, and the comment was more so said because I agree with the OP in that respect. I could have added 'for me' but if you read the rest of my post, the point was that I didn't feel that the ecosystem was primary means of determining which product to buy.
I primarily use Microsoft products, but also sometimes Apple products for specific purposes. I use what works best for me. As for Google products, I find them to be a huge mess for the most part. The Gmail interface is clumsy and even worse with the latest update, syncing with Google Drive is poorly implemented, Hangouts is a mess on Windows; you have to use Chrome to launch it and I frequently have connectivity problems with it, not to mention Chrome is a memory hog and runs too many processes. After failing to gain traction, Google+ Accounts are now being shoved down our throat to use various functions on YouTube and other Google services. And there are ads everywhere; the advertising is completely out of control that many people have to use ad blocking software and then sometimes the sites don't function properly. Not sure why Google doesn't seem to offer a premium service for a fee and no ads. Plus many devices don't have access to Google Play. After seeing good reviews for the Kindle Fire HD, I redeemed some credit card points for one and had many issues. The device was designed for landscape orientation and many apps wouldn't rotate. The Amazon store was lacking and many times had apps missing or an older version of an app that was on Google Play and while you could install the apk for free apps if you could find them, there wasn't a legitimate way of downloading paid apps without access to Google Play. I ultimately just resold the device on eBay.
YouTube is essentially a monopoly (Vimeo and others are too small to compare) and Google's search engine is fine (but Bing is comparable) but other than that, Google is a huge mess in my opinion.
So that brings up an interesting question, should Microsoft copy Google and allow pieces of Windows Phone/RT to be used on other branded devices without access to the Windows Store? Or is the small fragmentation between WP 7 and 8 already too much?

 

[planoman]

With desktop unfortunately, you have to manually sync playlists to your phone.

I was able to get all my songs as one playlist to the desktop app and then match it to the cloud. So my music is on the x box music cloud, but apparently you need to have a subscription for 10 bucks a month or something like that to be able to stream to a WP phone...at least that is how I am understanding it. Using CloudMuzik to stream from Google Play Music to my WP phone. Not paying 10 bucks a month to stream my own music back to me...lol!

Thanks for the tip though!

 

[cckgz4]

Oh I'm sorry I assumed you were a paid subscriber. Yeah that might be different

 

[ag1986]

While I agree with your premise there is a flaw in it. How much does a YouTube app cost to make and sustain? And how many WP users are there in the world now? You don't think that a few MILLION customers who will be viewing your ads and your collecting data on would be worth the cost of producing a simple YouTube app? A few million customers is not an insignificant amount of people.

I manage IT for a large digital advertising agency. Youtube ad views typically cost $0.03-$0.15 (lower in APAC) and have a typical view-through rate of 10-15%. That means assuming 5 million YT users on WP, global, per month at an average CPV of $0.06, the revenue would be between 30,000-45,000 USD per month. That's sofa money at this level.

 

[ag1986]

I advise you get caught up on the reality of the matter. When Microsoft tried developing and releasing a YouTube app for Windows Phone (in the 7.x days), Google took them to action. It's a well-known incident. Google does not want Windows Phone with a formal and notable YouTube presence, or of any other Google service for that matter. Hence we're stuck with that browser bookmark, whereas Nintendo has a native YouTube app for 3DS. If Microsoft could they would release Gmail, Maps, Voice, YouTube, etc. apps for WP and W8.x
...

Here's the thing, the YouTube app fiasco showed us that Google doesn't even need to spend much in order to make money off Windows Phone users. Why? Microsoft was willing to build the app, Google didn't let them build the app. Thus, the whole point about ROI and the bottom line is BS. It's especially BS when platforms with comparable or even smaller user bases, e.g. Xbox One, Nintendo 3DS, random TVs, etc. have official YouTube apps. Do not use the ROI point here, it has no bearing on the reality of Google's decisions. Don't assume that which is not happening. It's a conscious effort to shut Windows Phone out, and when a company takes on such drastic and aggressive measures, it is afraid.
....
Personally I could care less about Google's services, but I do care about the wider platform and I am going to call out absurdity where I see it. Again, the fact of the matter is, Microsoft was/is willing to deliver Google's services on its own platforms, Google doesn't want them to do so, therefore Google doesn't want WP users using its services. This is the reality of the matter, and it's stupid on Google's part to shut its users out when there is no need to (i.e. when Microsoft can foot the bill one way or another). Google's basically saying to prospective WP users, "look, if you buy a WP, you're out of our fold." It's not, "you'll be without our stuff for some time" or "you'll have to wait" -- it's basically, "screw you, we've made sure you'll never use our stuff on that platform." This is borderline religious excommunication, as though WP is sacrilege.

Yet for one reason or another there are other companies, e.g. Flipboard, Mint, Fitbit etc. who brought or are in the process of bringing their business to Windows Phone. Others, e.g. rising start-ups, have voiced their intention to back WP when the resources are available. The majority here have made their rational business decisions, Google's the odd one out.

At some point (either by virtue of WP growth or Microsoft) the cost-benefit of backing WP will weigh on the side of benefit, and they're biting. Google? "Nope, we're going to screw material benefit and go for our doctrine of smothering-WP-by-pillow, at all costs." Really, if MS is practically ready to build apps for their services to compete with Microsoft services on Microsoft's own platform, then standard business is not at play in Google's mind. It's doctrine spurred by some type of fear.

Look folks, there's no need to spend time defending Google. Why don't you let them *act* for themselves? They've let a YouTube app roam into the 3DS, they can let one roam into Windows Phone by just calling up Microsoft and saying "YES" to Microsoft's own app. NOPE ... Google didn't even let that happen. They're scared, deal with it.

This old chestnut again...

So, is an official Office app available for Android tablets and phones or for iOS devices (one that does not need a paid 365 account)? I'm sure Google would be willing to build one if MS gave them all the APIs and possibly source code needed to write such an app for Android, that approximated the capabilities of those on WinRT or WP. So is MS afraid of Android, are they trying to suffocate the Android ecosystem? Which btw is something they've done and (Linux, Netscape) have been convicted in court for. Similarly is there a Google Drive client for my Windows 8.1 desktop or RT that has the same capabilities that Skydrive has on that platform? No, and there never will be because MS won't give anyone access to those APIs on Windows

The thing is, it's not a simple question of "hey, we'll build the Youtube app, just give us the access and data we need". Just like MS would be unwilling to divulge things about their products, Google has every right to refuse access to YT's private APIs. But why can't MS have an app like so many other platforms, you ask? Well, Google provides an API which uses HTML5 as a video player. You just need to embed a WebView window into any app, the rest of the app can be built however you like. However, MS screwed up and forgot to allow IE for WP to do HTML5 inline video (proof: Internet Explorer 10 brings HTML5 to Windows Phone 8 in a big way).

This means that due to a platform deficiency, MS cannot build a client that uses the official public API. That should have been fixed, but instead they prefer to spend money on pawnshop stars and cringe-inducing ads.

And I find your "sacrilege" comment laughable - I can't use Office on my Linux machine, help, MS is excommunicating me! Lol. Please get some perspective.

 

[ag1986]

There is no line of reasoning that can continue to draw the conclusion that Google withholds its products from Microsoft platforms because they won't, in isolation, be better for its bottom line. The latest evleaks tweet shows YouTube on an LG webOS TV, how is that worth it where Windows 8 is not? Google does it because it doesn't want Microsoft to be a contender, and it can afford to make that call.

An app does not have to be built by Google. There are robust public APIs that anyone can use: https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/

As I outlined above, there are WP platform deficiencies that make this impossible.

 

[bilzkh]

This old chestnut again...

So, is an official Office app available for Android tablets and phones or for iOS devices (one that does not need a paid 365 account)? I'm sure Google would be willing to build one if MS gave them all the APIs and possibly source code needed to write such an app for Android, that approximated the capabilities of those on WinRT or WP. So is MS afraid of Android, are they trying to suffocate the Android ecosystem? Which btw is something they've done and (Linux, Netscape) have been convicted in court for. Similarly is there a Google Drive client for my Windows 8.1 desktop or RT that has the same capabilities that Skydrive has on that platform? No, and there never will be because MS won't give anyone access to those APIs on Windows

The thing is, it's not a simple question of "hey, we'll build the Youtube app, just give us the access and data we need". Just like MS would be unwilling to divulge things about their products, Google has every right to refuse access to YT's private APIs. But why can't MS have an app like so many other platforms, you ask? Well, Google provides an API which uses HTML5 as a video player. You just need to embed a WebView window into any app, the rest of the app can be built however you like. However, MS screwed up and forgot to allow IE for WP to do HTML5 inline video (proof: Internet Explorer 10 brings HTML5 to Windows Phone 8 in a big way).

This means that due to a platform deficiency, MS cannot build a client that uses the official public API. That should have been fixed, but instead they prefer to spend money on pawnshop stars and cringe-inducing ads.

And I find your "sacrilege" comment laughable - I can't use Office on my Linux machine, help, MS is excommunicating me! Lol. Please get some perspective.

Consider the actual reality: Microsoft has functional native apps on Android from across the board. Microsoft ecosystem users such as myself can readily access Office, SkyDrive, Skype, Xbox Music, OneNote and Outlook on an Android device. Microsoft here is enabling me effective use of the services I have invested myself in on platforms beyond Windows and Windows Phone. Microsoft isn't pushing fatally ineffectual applications on other platforms. Moreover, a capable Office platform is probably coming to iOS and Android, it's much, much closer to the realm of possibility than Google apps on Windows Phone. So whatever self-fabricated beef you have with Microsoft, cast it aside, it has no bearing on the actual reality of the situation. Microsoft's servicing its users on Android, Google is not (with its own users) on Windows Phone.

Secondly, no one is asking for the best YouTube app between platforms on Windows Phone, they're merely asking for a functional native app that uses the available tools on the platform. Google let it happen on Xbox One, it let it happen on 3DS, it is apparently letting it happen on some Smart TVs. Don't make it an issue of WP's HTML5 capabilities. The reality here is Google categorically denying YouTube (and Gmail, Maps, Docs, etc) users on Windows Phone the possibility of being revenue generators for Google. By denying WP users the chance to do their business Google is saying, "GTFO you have nothing to do with us..." That's excommunication, clear and simple. Business is exploiting Windows Phone's user base to generate revenue through its coveted services. We see it on other platforms (Nintendo!), not on WP.

Google could've taken a page from Yahoo to build a good mail app for Windows 8.x, nope. Google could've taken a note from Box to make a functional Drive app for Windows 8.x. Nope. Google has the chance to follow up on Mozilla and release a Chrome browser for Windows 8.x, nope. So my point, when Microsoft basically offered to *foot the bill* for a YouTube app (developing to offer is a subsidy offer), Google refused. Google refused to take on free business on Microsoft's home turf. That's religious.

So again, don't feel the need to defend Google. Let them speak through actions. Until then, they're fearful of Windows Phone. Live with it.

 

[ag1986]

Consider the actual reality: Microsoft has functional native apps on Android from across the board. Microsoft ecosystem users such as myself can readily access Office, SkyDrive, Skype, Xbox Music, OneNote and Outlook on an Android device. Microsoft here is enabling me effective use of the services I have invested myself in on platforms beyond Windows and Windows Phone. Microsoft isn't pushing fatally ineffectual applications on other platforms. Moreover, a capable Office platform is probably coming to iOS and Android, it's much, much closer to the realm of possibility than Google apps on Windows Phone. So whatever self-fabricated beef you have with Microsoft, cast it aside, it has no bearing on the actual reality of the situation. Microsoft's servicing its users on Android, Google is not (with its own users) on Windows Phone.

Secondly, no one is asking for the best YouTube app between platforms on Windows Phone, they're merely asking for a functional native app that uses the available tools on the platform. Google let it happen on Xbox One, it let it happen on 3DS, it is apparently letting it happen on some Smart TVs. Don't make it an issue of WP's HTML5 capabilities. The reality here is Google categorically denying YouTube (and Gmail, Maps, Docs, etc) users on Windows Phone the possibility of being revenue generators for Google. By denying WP users the chance to do their business Google is saying, "GTFO you have nothing to do with us..." That's excommunication, clear and simple. Business is exploiting Windows Phone's user base to generate revenue through its coveted services. We see it on other platforms (Nintendo!), not on WP.

Google could've taken a page from Yahoo to build a good mail app for Windows 8.x, nope. Google could've taken a note from Box to make a functional Drive app for Windows 8.x. Nope. Google has the chance to follow up on Mozilla and release a Chrome browser for Windows 8.x, nope. So my point, when Microsoft basically offered to *foot the bill* for a YouTube app (developing to offer is a subsidy offer), Google refused. Google refused to take on free business on Microsoft's home turf. That's religious.

So again, don't feel the need to defend Google. Let them speak through actions. Until then, they're fearful of Windows Phone. Live with it.

Sure - MS has the necessary technical chops and information to build an app for Android - do you think that if the tables were turned and WP had 80% market share with Android at 4%, they would do the same. Unlikely. It's a big investment and there's simply no ROI. If what you say us right and MS loves their users so much, where is my MS Excel for Linux? Why is Excel on my MBP so much worse than on Windows? I don't hate MS at all, just that I view these decisions as a business would, from a pure profitability/ROI perspective. Just like MS did when they realised that it's hurting them not to support the platform on which 80% of the world's smartphones run. I don't applaud them for that, I just see that it was a rational decision.

How will I NOT make it an issue of WP's HTML5 capabilities when that is clearly the issue?! My logic is this: There is a public API, MS did not use it. Why? Because WP is incapable of doing so. Otherwise, why would MS reverse-engineer and use Youtube's private APIs? To try and drum up public support and sympathy? All those other platforms, like my WDTV Live box, have HTML5 or Flash YT players (there's a Flash API as well). The Wii's app is Flash, while the newest Samsung smart TVs have an HTML5 app. Your theory of business just being about generating revenue from WP users falls flat when you consider that it costs time and money to develop things (as a baseline, consider that the average Google engineer in the USA makes $200K/year, total cost to company including benefits etc is much higher). So to put say 10 engineers on these things (it would take a lot more than that, believe me) would cost Google more than $2 million, not counting opportunity costs. Until WP's userbase expands enough, I don't see them making an effort (just like MS doesn't make an effort for Linux support).

Google doesn't release a Gmail app for any platform that has a capable browser. I use Gmail on my Macbook as well as my Windows 8 desktop and I don't see the need for an app when it works perfectly well from my browser. I can however integrate Gmail with the Mail app on OSX and Outlook on W8, but I don't see any need to. I also did not see any news of MS offering to pay Google to develop such apps, to 'foot the bill' as you would call it. If Belfiore or some such makes such an offer in public, my opinions will change and I will believe that Google is out to destroy WP.

I don't feel the need to defend anyone, again, just that I would like a more balanced and less rabid anti-GOOG sentiment. WP will not be a priority for anyone (including MS, c.f. Skype) until it's marketshare grows. Live with it.

 

[Sanjay Chandra]

"Google is afraid of Microsoft because of Windows Phone" , Microsoft has started a horrible campaign

Suddenly their focus went to Chromebooks , Is Microsoft is afraid of Google ?

Answer to both WP and Chromebooks is NO.

 

[Sanjay Chandra]

Don't make it an issue of WP's HTML5 capabilities. The reality here is Google categorically denying YouTube (and Gmail, Maps, Docs, etc) users on Windows Phone the possibility of being revenue generators for Google. By denying WP users the chance to do their business Google is saying, "GTFO you have nothing to do with us..." That's excommunication, clear and simple. Business is exploiting Windows Phone's user base to generate revenue through its coveted services

After trashing Google with Scroogled (Playstore mainly) , Google did a nice job by not supporting Windows Phone.
Its a classic tit-for-tat.
Apple dropped Google maps and google in favor of Apple maps and bing (siri) and taught a nice lesson to Google for screwing with Apple which is huge loss to Google.

That's what happens when one company pokes another company.

Google could've taken a page from Yahoo to build a good mail app for Windows 8.x, nope. Google could've taken a note from Box to make a functional Drive app for Windows 8.x. Nope. Google has the chance to follow up on Mozilla and release a Chrome browser for Windows 8.x, nope. So my point, when Microsoft basically offered to *foot the bill* for a YouTube app (developing to offer is a subsidy offer), Google refused. Google refused to take on free business on Microsoft's home turf. That's religious

Will Microsoft release full Office functionality to Android ? No ? Google also won't release any of their apps to WP.
If Microsoft want to keep things exclusive , let them play this game.

So again, don't feel the need to defend Google. Let them speak through actions. Until then, they're fearful of Windows Phone. Live with it.

You mean like how Microsoft is afraid of chromebooks that they started a campaign hiring actors ? Nope.

 

[Darryl Dixon]

Its ridiculous to think Google is afraid of WP, considering Microsoft puts more energy into perfecting windows apps on IOS and Android than they do on WP/RT devices. WP has potential, but the RT OS is Microsoft's ugly ******* child and is a reminder of why some feel Microsoft is a dinosaur in the mobile industry.

 

[Dantekai14]

You mean like how Microsoft is afraid of chromebooks that they started a campaign hiring actors ? Nope.

MS is more afraid of Chromebook. how?
Check out their ads, They keep comparing Chromebook with Windows. Windows is way to ahead of Chrome yet MS keep comparing and bullying Chromebook that clearly shows MS fear .

Where as in smartphone Google Android is way ahead of WP yet they never mention WP in Android ads. Never bully WP in their ads. instead Google treat MS product like they never exist in market.

So, clearly MS is more afraid of Google products.



This is MS and Google behavior.

MS - Google products are bad , Google is bad.

Google - MS product.... What is that?