• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Here we go again: Google vs. Microsoft

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Microsoft went out of its way to ignore Android despite the fact that it's been the most common smartphone os. It's only fitting that Google does the same to windows phone, an operating system whose market share is little more than a rounding error.

There are significantly more Galaxy S3s in the wild than every single windows phone model combined, that kind of says it all.
 
Microsoft went out of its way to ignore Android despite the fact that it's been the most common smartphone os. It's only fitting that Google does the same to windows phone, an operating system whose market share is little more than a rounding error.

There are significantly more Galaxy S3s in the wild than every single windows phone model combined, that kind of says it all.

yes but remember, 10 years ago this wasnt the case. things can change fast, and microsoft is actually hitting a home run in the style department- and style is the only thing that seems to matter in the cell phone world. i say this based on personal experience... all the girls that would love to have an iphone but cant afford it are woo'd by the new windows phone- and tablets. they have an apple quality feel to them for less money, and believe it or not people do like the familiarity of the windows logo.
 
Windows Phone is hardly a home run, Microsoft makes more money from Android than they do from it. I wouldn't use quality to describe the current crop of Windows 8 tablets either, as much as I like the OS the current hardware is garbage compared to the Transformer Infinity or Xperia Z tablet.
 
Microsoft has supported Android (and iOS) far better than Google has supported Windows Phone. In all honesty, Microsoft supports Android (and iOS) a bit too well. Office is being developed for both platforms, and some forms of Xbox Live integration have made their way onto Android and iOS.

As I said, what Google is doing isn't wrong from the perspective of doing good business. Microsoft isn't playing as hard as Google is, but Microsoft NEEDS to play so hard much more than Google does. Microsoft has an OS that is clawing its way up from nothing, and needs to incentivize it in any way possible. Google is on top right now, and they don't want to see Microsoft's platform gain traction - makes sense.

As far as tablets are concerned, the Surface line is nice, but has no hope of competing with Android. The Nexus 7 is a fantastic piece of hardware for the price, and Microsoft has no hope of competing in the tablet space without finding a way into the $200 price point.
 
Microsoft has supported Android (and iOS) far better than Google has supported Windows Phone. In all honesty, Microsoft supports Android (and iOS) a bit too well. Office is being developed for both platforms, and some forms of Xbox Live integration have made their way onto Android and iOS.

It's better for Microsoft to sell a bunch of copies of Office on any platform that they can then to try to throw away tens millions of potential sales just to try to get a few million to switch to Windows Phone.

It's the same reason Apple made a version of iTunes for Windows and Google released a maps app for iOS.
 
The mobile apps Microsoft releases tend to be free. OneNote is free, and I wouldn't be surprised if Office is released for free.

I understand that Android and iOS can't be ignored, as they are very large platforms. It's the same reason Google supports iOS.

Microsoft seems to have an issue with communication between departments, though. I didn't believe a shooter could work on a phone until I played around with Modern Combat 4 on my Lumia 920 - not really my type of game, but it makes me wonder why Microsoft doesn't leverage the Halo franchise for the platform or something. Another issue that exists between departments is, until recently, Microsoft apps were being updated on iOS and Android before they were updated on Windows Phone - "bizarre" is the only term that can describe this.
 
I dont know a single person with a Windows Phone.

I know they are out there - but its a small market. Little things like this make it hard to leave Android.
 
I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but does anyone who remembers the 90s actually feel for (former) MonopolySoft here?

Live by the monopoly tactics, die by the monopoly tactics.
 
I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but does anyone who remembers the 90s actually feel for (former) MonopolySoft here?

Live by the monopoly tactics, die by the monopoly tactics.

I don't feel bad for Microsoft. I'm sure they are doing quite well. However I don't hate them either. Things have changed. Heck, Apple is bigger than them now I believe. And in a world that is rapidly embracing mobile technology and Microsoft being way behind, well they no longer seem to be the big evil boogeyman they used to be.
 
I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but does anyone who remembers the 90s actually feel for (former) MonopolySoft here?

Live by the monopoly tactics, die by the monopoly tactics.

And Google could easily enter monopoly territory very soon.

I never liked or disliked Microsoft, but it's good to have them as a competitor in the market because they can and do innovate. I feel the same way about Apple or Google or Blackberry or any number of other companies.
 
So? Having a monopoly isn't a problem, abusing one like MS did is the problem.

If you include the potential for stagnation, then yes, abuse is the problem.

Monopolies generally don't innovate or change as much. If Google didn't have Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple seriously challenging it in different areas it wouldn't be as pressured to come out with new features and improve its services.

Look at the I/O keynote yesterday: how many of the features they announced were developed to keep themselves competitive? Would they be updating Google+, search, photo editing, Google Maps, etc if they didn't feel they had to?
 
If you believe Google wouldn't abuse their monopoly, you are very misled.

Innocent until proven guilty. Sure, there's a lot of potential and I'm sure they'll do things that some will call abuse while others will be fine with. But I'm not misled and I'm staying optimistic.

Crono said:
If you include the potential for stagnation, then yes, abuse is the problem.

But that's not a legal problem in and of itself.

Crono said:
Monopolies generally don't innovate or change as much. If Google didn't have Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple seriously challenging it in different areas it wouldn't be as pressured to come out with new features and improve its services.

Look at the I/O keynote yesterday: how many of the features they announced were developed to keep themselves competitive? Would they be updating Google+, search, photo editing, Google Maps, etc if they didn't feel they had to?

Your comments about Google I/O are speculation, no one can tell how many of those features would have come to light without competition. A monopoly that doesn't innovate will still eventually erode and be toppled by someone who does, it just may take longer than some people like. Those are just arguments for less gov't involvement/regulation and a more open market to allow private companies to innovate and compete.
 
Your comments about Google I/O are speculation, no one can tell how many of those features would have come to light without competition. A monopoly that doesn't innovate will still eventually erode and be toppled by someone who does, it just may take longer than some people like. Those are just arguments for less gov't involvement/regulation and a more open market to allow private companies to innovate and compete.

Speculation? I'm sure the new Google Music isn't at all a response to Pandora, Spotify, and Xbox Music. I'm betting their game services isn't an attempt to compete with the Xbox Live integration that Windows Phone has. I'm certain their Maps updates aren't a way to stay ahead of Bing Maps.

I may be speculating, but some things are fairly obvious without express statements from Google.

A monopoly that "will still eventually erode" isn't a good thing at all. I'm not speaking from or about the political sphere - I don't care whether the government gets involved or not. I'm just stating that monopolies don't benefit consumers in the long run. If you favor monopolies or are tolerant of them, that's your business, but I think it's pretty obvious that whether you look at it from an economic or technological standpoint (which is what we are really concerned with here) a fair amount of competition is a good thing.
 
Bumping this since it's back in the news.

As some of you may know, Microsoft released it's YouTube app back on the WP Marketplace, supposedly with the cooperation of Google.
http://www.winbeta.org/news/updated-official-youtube-app-windows-phone-released-collaboration-google

So, today, Google decides to block Microsoft's new YouTube app, saying they had requested Microsoft to make an HTML 5 app and that they couldn't serve up the proper ads for the videos.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-window-phone-youtube-app
"Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service," says a Google spokesperson. "It has been disabled. We value our broad developer community and therefore ask everyone to adhere to the same guidelines."

Microsoft was working to try and resolve the issue, but Google appears firm that they're going to continue to block Windows Phone access by anything other than the mobile web site. Microsoft has issued a response to the situation.
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsof...13/08/15/the-limits-of-google-s-openness.aspx
We think it’s clear that Google just doesn’t want Windows Phone users to have the same experience as Android and Apple users, and that their objections are nothing other than excuses. Nonetheless, we are committed to giving our users the experience they deserve, and are happy to work with Google to solve any legitimate concerns they may have. In the meantime, we once again request that Google stop blocking our YouTube app.

I'm getting real sick of your shit, Google.
 
Microsoft doesn't want Android users to have the same Office experience that Windows users get. Complain about that. Think of how much money MS could have made by making Office software for Android. Instead they are losing money trying to make Windows Phone and RT a sucess even though the market clearly doesn't want them.

Besides Windows Phone only has 3.3% market share. So it's a fringe OS that hardly anyone even cares about.
 
Last edited:
From what I understand, Microsoft is trying to make their app using legacy API that is no longer offered instead of the current required API. Apple signed up with the legacy API way back when, and so they're grandfathered in. Instead of releasing an HTML 5 based app, Microsoft tried to re-release the old app that goes against the current ToS.

In other words, if Microsoft took up the API offer back when Apple did, there would be no issue. I think both companies need to shut up and just build a proper HTML 5 app.
 
David Howard said:
You may be wondering what happened to the YouTube app for Windows Phone. Last May, after we launched a much improved app on our platform, Google objected on a number of grounds. We took our app down and agreed to work with Google to solve their issues. This week, after we addressed each of Google’s points, we re-launched the app, only to have Google technically block it.

We know that this has been frustrating, to say the least, for our customers. We have always had one goal: to provide our users a YouTube experience on Windows Phone that’s on par with the YouTube experience available to Android and iPhone users. Google’s objections to our app are not only inconsistent with Google’s own commitment of openness, but also involve requirements for a Windows Phone app that it doesn’t impose on its own platform or Apple’s (both of which use Google as the default search engine, of course).

When we first built a YouTube app for Windows Phone, we did so with the understanding that Google claimed to grow its business based on open access to its platforms and content, a point it reiterated last year. As antitrust enforcers have launched investigations against Google – some of which are still ongoing – the company has reiterated its commitment to openness and its ability to stick to its openness commitments voluntarily.

With this backdrop, we temporarily took down our full-featured app when Google objected to it last May, and have worked hard to accommodate Google’s requests. We enabled Google’s advertisements, disabled video downloads and eliminated the ability for users to view reserved videos. We did this all at no cost to Google, which one would think would want a YouTube app on Windows Phone that would only serve to bring Google new users and additional revenue.

There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. This was an odd request since neither YouTube’s iPhone app nor its Android app are built on HTML5. Nevertheless, we dedicated significant engineering resources to examine the possibility. At the end of the day, experts from both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps.

For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google long-term on an app based on HTML5. We believe this approach delivers our customers a short term experience on par with the other platforms while putting us in the same position as Android and iOS in enabling an eventual transition to new technology. Google, however, has decided to block our mutual customers from accessing our new app.

It seems to us that Google’s reasons for blocking our app are manufactured so that we can’t give our users the same experience Android and iPhone users are getting. The roadblocks Google has set up are impossible to overcome, and they know it.

Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesn’t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators. Our app serves Google’s advertisements using all the metadata available to us. We’ve asked Google to provide whatever information iPhone and Android get so that we can mirror the way ads are served on these platforms more precisely. So far at least, Google has refused to give this information to us. We are quite confident that we can solve this issue if Google cooperates, but fixing Google’s concern here is entirely within Google’s control. If Google stops blocking our app, we are happy to work with them on this, entirely at Microsoft’s expense.

Google also says that we are not complying with its “terms and conditions.” What Google really means is that our app is not based on HTML5. The problem with this argument, of course, is that Google is not complying with this condition for Android and iPhone. Again, we’re happy to collaborate with Google on an HTML5 app, but we shouldn’t be required to do something that apparently neither iPhone nor Android has successfully figured out how to do.

Google raises concerns about our branding too. The funny thing about this point is that we’ve been using the same branding continuously since 2010 for an inferior YouTube app. Now that we have an app that gives users a fuller YouTube experience, Google objects to the branding (even though we’ve taken additional steps to clarify that we are the author of the app). Go figure.

Finally, Google cites a degraded experience. Since 2010, Google permitted a Windows Phone app that was far below the iPhone and Android app experiences. Reviews of our new app are unanimous that the experience is much improved, and we’re committed to making adjustments to improve it further. If Google were truly concerned about a degraded experience, it would allow our users access to the new YouTube app they love.

We think it’s clear that Google just doesn’t want Windows Phone users to have the same experience as Android and Apple users, and that their objections are nothing other than excuses. Nonetheless, we are committed to giving our users the experience they deserve, and are happy to work with Google to solve any legitimate concerns they may have. In the meantime, we once again request that Google stop blocking our YouTube app.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsof...f-google-s-openness.aspx#.Ug0tIv4ekvQ.twitter
 
Microsoft doesn't want Android users to have the same Office experience that Windows users get. Complain about that. Think of how much money MS could have made by making Office software for Android. Instead they are losing money trying to make Windows Phone and RT a sucess even though the market clearly doesn't want them.

Besides Windows Phone only has 3.3% market share. So it's a fringe OS that hardly anyone even cares about.

The difference, IMO, is that Microsoft isn't running around going "Yeah, we're all cool man. Do no evil and shit. We're the good guys. We make all of our stuff cross platform."

From what I understand, Microsoft is trying to make their app using legacy API that is no longer offered instead of the current required API. Apple signed up with the legacy API way back when, and so they're grandfathered in. Instead of releasing an HTML 5 based app, Microsoft tried to re-release the old app that goes against the current ToS.

In other words, if Microsoft took up the API offer back when Apple did, there would be no issue. I think both companies need to shut up and just build a proper HTML 5 app.

That should only hold true for the legacy iPhone app built by Apple. What does the year old Google iOS app do? It's not HTML 5.
 
Microsoft doesn't want Android users to have the same Office experience that Windows users get. Complain about that. Think of how much money MS could have made by making Office software for Android. Instead they are losing money trying to make Windows Phone and RT a sucess even though the market clearly doesn't want them.

Besides Windows Phone only has 3.3% market share. So it's a fringe OS that hardly anyone even cares about.

An apt analogy would be if Microsoft blocked QuickOffice from using Office files. They aren't asking Google to do anything but sit back and enjoy the fact that those 3.3% of people can use a Google service with no effort on Google's part.
 
Last edited:
An apt analogy would be if Microsoft blocked OpenOffice from using Office files. They aren't asking Google to do anything but sit back and enjoy the fact that those 3.3% of people can use a Google service with no effort on Google's part.

Not really. Youtube derives its income from ads.

The reason MS doesn't completely block OpenOffice from opening Office files is they would be sued as a monopoly if they didn't pretend to support open standards.
 
I use Microsoft and Google devices and services about equally. I have a HTC One and a Lumia 521 next to my keyboard. I'm on Windows on my desktop and Android on my main phone. I have both Gmail and Outlook.com as my primary email accounts. I message with Hangouts and use Office on every computer or mobile device I own. I've switched from Zune/Xbox Music to Google Play Music and back to Xbox Music (and might switch yet again in the future). I've purchased both Android and Windows tablets in the past (Nexus 7, Surface RT, respectively).

So what's my opinion? Both of these companies are acting surprisingly childish. If they just released proper apps that worked well for each others platforms, they would be making more money from people like me. I would like to use all their apps that I use across all my devices, even if i costs a little extra. If I can't, that increases the chance of me selling the devices I own and decreases the chance of me purchasing Google or Microsoft-platform devices or services in the future.

The only one who wins in these spats is Apple and other Google and Microsoft competitors.
 
Last edited:
You could switch to Office 365. MS provides iOS and Android Office apps that are pretty equivalent with the WP apps. You just have to subscribe to 365.

BTW, a year of 365 is included if you have a Technet subscription.
 
Not really. Youtube derives its income from ads.

The reason MS doesn't completely block OpenOffice from opening Office files is they would be sued as a monopoly if they didn't pretend to support open standards.

The new version of the app has ads, though, so Google would be making money on it.
 
Back
Top