One of 6tag's features is supposedly 'hide sponsored posts (beta)' which really highlights the urgency as to why Instagram would need to build their own client.
One of 6tag's features is supposedly 'hide sponsored posts (beta)' which really highlights the urgency as to why Instagram would need to build their own client.
>One of 6tag's features is supposedly 'hide sponsored posts (beta)' which really highlights the urgency as to why Instagram would need to build their own client.
It would take all of 10 minutes for Instagram to shut down 6tag if they decided to kill it because of the ad hiding feature.All they would have to do is call Microsoft and tell them to shut it down, an OFFICIAL Instagram client has been one of the "must haves" for the platform and is often cited when tech pundits complain about the anemic Windows Phone app ecosystem. If Microsoft caved on their own WP Youtube app that hid ads they wouldn't hesitate to nuke an indie dev's app if it threatened the adoption of WP with a high profile service provider like Instagram.
I think this is going one of two ways: Either the official client is a quick bid to incentive Microsoft to remove 6tag the same way Microsoft replaced their YouTube app with a gutted one, or Instagram think their official client is going to rapidly eclipse the "knockoffs" and they won't have to worry about it.
Keep in mind that while Microsoft did cave on their own YouTube app, it wasn't in exchange for nothing at all. They still got to keep a gutted "official" YouTube client in order to fill checkboxes in pundit comparison reviews.
>I would be shocked if the timing on this release wasn't at least tangentially related to sponsored posts.
I'd agree with that, I was just disagreeing with the theory that an indie developer's app that allowed ad hiding somehow forced Instagram's hand.It was a pretty stupid/ugly fight that went back and forth: http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-wind...
They also refused to provide whatever information was necessary to allow their native app to display ads appropriately.
Basically, regardless of how Google explains their position, it really feels like their goal here was to prevent YouTube from being easily/effectively accessible on Windows Phone devices. Or at the very least, they had zero interest in getting WP owners onto YouTube.
Microsoft couldn't have just the player in HTML5 because their embedded webview can't play video -- which is where the stories of "Google wanted the whole app to be done in HTML5" came from.
IMO an embedded webview should be able to play video, or Microsoft should have been able to get something together just for youtube.