Google software on iOS, intentionally garbage?

840quadra

Moderator
Original poster
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,091
3,382
Twin Cities Minnesota
Using many of the google software items on iOS results in a disappointing experience that feels intentional. Still here in late 2018, many core applications do not support iOS (iPad Pro) multitasking, or background processing.

Gmail
Still feels like a bloated iPhone version (especially compared to Android), and does not support multi-tasking that has been in iOS for years now. Drag-n-Drop works, however you need to have Pictures on a floating pane, as side-by-side isn’t supported in their software for iOS

YouTube
Still no Picture in picture for iOS, And backround playback (audio only) is a PREMIUM (monthly subscription only) feature. Why?

Drive
Zero drag and drop support, multitasking works, However it’s usefulness is quite limited since you can’t drag files or documents over.

As a google / Android fan, I think they could rise above the pettiness that Apple exhibits (limiting software / functionality on Android) and provide full featured software across the board, and BOAST about it. Currently, the iOS software feels like a hobby, unfinished, and kind of an insult. Personally, I feel that it could deter some iOS users from considering Android, as they may get false ideas that the software is equally crippled on Android.

Curious if others have noticed this, or, if I am due to be committed into the mobile OS users asylum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sracer

Shanghaichica

macrumors G4
Apr 8, 2013
11,110
7,505
UK
The only thing I use is YouTube and there’s no way of getting round that really. I’m paying for the premium service and it sucks that there’s no picture in picture. Also annoyingly we could do background music playback through YouTube on safari until YouTube stopped that.

Gmail I’ve always found a big mess with all those folders so I’ve always stayed away from it even on android devices.

I had a chrome book a few years ago and used google drive all the time and found it useful. However now that I’m all in on the Apple ecosystem I just use iCloud Drive because it works better for me. I also prefer iCloud photos to google photos. I only use google photos as a backup to iCloud photos.



I’ve heard people say that Google’s apps on iOS are better made than their counterparts on android.

I don’t use much of it to have an opinion.
 

tbayrgs

macrumors 604
Jul 5, 2009
6,504
3,424
Is it really that surprising though? Apple plays attention to its own platforms first, why wouldn’t Google? I realize their business model is predicated on their services being everywhere but it only makes sense to pay attention to your own platform first, the one with 85%+ of the smartphone market. ;)

That being said, I use quite a few of their apps and find the experience to be mostly consistent across platforms. Like @Shanghaichica, I find the Gmail app to be terrible on any platform and have always found better experiences using my gmail account on third party apps, or even the Apple mai app. YouTube is neutered on the iPhone because of the lack of multi window. On iPads, it just use it in multi-window. I find watch video in a pop-up to be a lackluster experience anyways since it basically limits what I can use that portion of the display.

I do like Google Photos but it’s also just a secondary backup repository for me. The Google Home app is just like its counterpart on Android, as is the Google Wifi app I use to manage my mesh network routers. I also find Google Maps to be pretty analogous to its Android counterpart. Drive is a bit limited, for certain. The biggest gap in user experience I find is when using Google’s ‘Office’ apps, especially on the iPad. Their Docs, Sheets, Slides apps are not nearly the same experience as when using a full desktop web browser. Thankfully I don’t have to use them much at all but my kids do for school. Apple could fix this if they replaced Safari on the iPad with a desktop class version.
 

840quadra

Moderator
Original poster
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,091
3,382
Twin Cities Minnesota
On the iPad I use pipifier app from safari which allows me to use picture in picture on the iPad. I can’t use the actual YouTube app as it is too restricted, and nonsensical overall. Even still, pipifier is an annoying workaround for video consumption on an app that should essentially get PIP for free from the Apple provided API in X-code.

Google seems to be deliberate in not following the API / interface builder best practices that it too struggles with in regards to developers for their platform.
 

Altis

macrumors 68030
Sep 10, 2013
2,987
4,421
It's Apple's fault that Safari background YouTube playback doesn't work, since it works if you use the Opera browser.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
It's Apple's fault that Safari background YouTube playback doesn't work, since it works if you use the Opera browser.
Except that it used to work until Google clamped down on it. No, it isn’t Apple. There was even a time, a while, when it didn’t work on mobile Chrome even if you did have Red.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 840quadra

840quadra

Moderator
Original poster
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,091
3,382
Twin Cities Minnesota
It's Apple's fault that Safari background YouTube playback doesn't work, since it works if you use the Opera browser.
I agree with @Michael Goff . Used to work fine, still does now with a 3rd party app installed on iPad. Google intentionally killed it.

Well that last part is only a guess, but why doesn’t it work on their app or Safari anymore?
 

sracer

macrumors G3
Apr 9, 2010
8,351
8,704
Prescott Valley, AZ
Using many of the google software items on iOS results in a disappointing experience that feels intentional. Still here in late 2018, many core applications do not support iOS (iPad Pro) multitasking, or background processing.

Gmail
Still feels like a bloated iPhone version (especially compared to Android), and does not support multi-tasking that has been in iOS for years now. Drag-n-Drop works, however you need to have Pictures on a floating pane, as side-by-side isn’t supported in their software for iOS

YouTube
Still no Picture in picture for iOS, And backround playback (audio only) is a PREMIUM (monthly subscription only) feature. Why?

Drive
Zero drag and drop support, multitasking works, However it’s usefulness is quite limited since you can’t drag files or documents over.

As a google / Android fan, I think they could rise above the pettiness that Apple exhibits (limiting software / functionality on Android) and provide full featured software across the board, and BOAST about it. Currently, the iOS software feels like a hobby, unfinished, and kind of an insult. Personally, I feel that it could deter some iOS users from considering Android, as they may get false ideas that the software is equally crippled on Android.

Curious if others have noticed this, or, if I am due to be committed into the mobile OS users asylum.
I heavily leverage google's apps and I can confirm, your observations. In fairness to Google, they know that apple customers are fiercely loyal and very little opportunity to win them over to google services. Their apps are more of a bridge for existing google fans than trying to convince others to come into the google fold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 840quadra

840quadra

Moderator
Original poster
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,091
3,382
Twin Cities Minnesota
Because it worked without people paying. And they want you to pay.
With their changes in monetizing, thousands of uploads per day (likely hour), I am fairly confident they are making Good money with their advertising platform as it is.

Sad thing is, 2 of my accounts are no longer eligible for ad revenue, yet somehow adds still play even though it’s my content, and it contains zero copyrighted material. Who’s making money on who? :confused:

It’s just frustrating especially considering they can continue to treat so many of their services like a hobby. I can’t put much faith in their platform for anything, which sucks, because many of their services are awesome.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
With their changes in monetizing, thousands of uploads per day (likely hour), I am fairly confident they are making Good money with their advertising platform as it is.

Sad thing is, 2 of my accounts are no longer eligible for ad revenue, yet somehow adds still play even though it’s my content, and it contains zero copyrighted material. Who’s making money on who? :confused:

It’s just frustrating especially considering they can continue to treat so many of their services like a hobby. I can’t put much faith in their platform for anything, which sucks, because many of their services are awesome.
As far as I know, YouTube doesn’t make money yet.
 

Feenician

macrumors 603
Jun 13, 2016
5,180
4,788
The only thing I use is YouTube and there’s no way of getting round that really. I’m paying for the premium service and it sucks that there’s no picture in picture. Also annoyingly we could do background music playback through YouTube on safari until YouTube stopped that.
On the iPad I use pipifier app from safari which allows me to use picture in picture on the iPad. I can’t use the actual YouTube app as it is too restricted, and nonsensical overall. Even still, pipifier is an annoying workaround for video consumption on an app that should essentially get PIP for free from the Apple provided API in X-code.
In iOS 12 once you make the video fullscreen in Safari you naturally have both the ability to go PiP, and to play in the background from the lock screen. So far in fact I haven’t found an exception to this. Anywhere you can fullscreen (true fullscreen, not just expand to the page size) it seems you can play it in the background or play it PiP.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
Fair enough.

All I know is that they have an ad system, and now paid subscribers for various content and services. Perhaps YouTube is just another hobby they will abandon.

Hopefully not.
Doubtful. YouTube is their biggest media push, even if it doesn’t make money. Why do you think it hasn’t been killed when Google seemingly went toward “things must be profitable”?
 

Altis

macrumors 68030
Sep 10, 2013
2,987
4,421
Except that it used to work until Google clamped down on it. No, it isn’t Apple. There was even a time, a while, when it didn’t work on mobile Chrome even if you did have Red.
I agree with @Michael Goff . Used to work fine, still does now with a 3rd party app installed on iPad. Google intentionally killed it.

Well that last part is only a guess, but why doesn’t it work on their app or Safari anymore?
Because Google wants you to use the YouTube app so you can't block ads and they have control (not even speaking of additional telemetry).

The fact that it still works in some browsers but not Safari means that Apple could make it work but don't. So yes, it is Apple, too.

This kind of highlights one of the problems with the locked down 'ecosystems' and limited operating systems like iOS.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
Because Google wants you to use the YouTube app so you can't block ads and they have control (not even speaking of additional telemetry).

The fact that it still works in some browsers but not Safari means that Apple could make it work but don't. So yes, it is Apple, too.

This kind of highlights one of the problems with the locked down 'ecosystems' and limited operating systems like iOS.
Google doesn't play well with other browsers. Let's not pretend otherwise.
 

Altis

macrumors 68030
Sep 10, 2013
2,987
4,421
Google doesn't play well with other browsers. Let's not pretend otherwise.
YouTube in background works with Opera (as well as adblock).

It could work in Safari if Apple wanted it to. Maybe we should be asking why it doesn't.

This isn't a defense of Google who obviously want to pigeonhole everyone into using things the way that's best for them, not for the end user.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
YouTube in background works with Opera (as well as adblock).

It could work in Safari if Apple wanted it to. Maybe we should be asking why it doesn't.

This isn't a defense of Google who obviously want to pigeonhole everyone into using things the way that's best for them, not for the end user.
Opera is Chrome based. So do you have an example of a browser that isn't Chrome working as well with Google properties as a Chrome based browser?
 

mib1800

Suspended
Sep 16, 2012
2,859
1,240
YouTube in background works with Opera (as well as adblock).

It could work in Safari if Apple wanted it to. Maybe we should be asking why it doesn't.

This isn't a defense of Google who obviously want to pigeonhole everyone into using things the way that's best for them, not for the end user.
You pay nothing to google to use their service and androud Just some ads.

...compared to you pay apple huge amount upfront for years... overpriced phone, icloud storage (as you can't use gigabytes of storage in phone), overpriced lightning earphone adapter/cable, fast charger which should be standard, monopolized cut-throat repair cost, overpriced apple care (if you don't buy, you get worse than crap service)
 
  • Like
Reactions: macfacts

Altis

macrumors 68030
Sep 10, 2013
2,987
4,421
Opera is Chrome based. So do you have an example of a browser that isn't Chrome working as well with Google properties as a Chrome based browser?
From what I understand, Opera is not Chrome-based, though they both use the Blink layout engine.

My point is that Opera lets you play YouTube in the background, while either Safari or Google's own Chrome do not (by default).

Hence, Apple could make it so that it works for Safari too, but they don't.
[doublepost=1542436328][/doublepost]
You pay nothing to google to use their service and androud Just some ads.

...compared to you pay apple huge amount upfront for years... overpriced phone, icloud storage (as you can't use gigabytes of storage in phone), overpriced lightning earphone adapter/cable, fast charger which should be standard, monopolized cut-throat repair cost, overpriced apple care (if you don't buy, you get worse than crap service)
Indeed, which is why I would rather they make their software work in the consumer's advantage as a priority. Doesn't seem to be a priority these days (years).
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
From what I understand, Opera is not Chrome-based, though they both use the Blink layout engine.

My point is that Opera lets you play YouTube in the background, while either Safari or Google's own Chrome do not (by default).

Hence, Apple could make it so that it works for Safari too, but they don't.
[doublepost=1542436328][/doublepost]

Indeed, which is why I would rather they make their software work in the consumer's advantage as a priority. Doesn't seem to be a priority these days (years).
It's not Blink based, it is Chromium with added features. That's why if you look at the changelog it openly says it updates the Chromium version.

Screenshot_20181117-004940.png
 

Altis

macrumors 68030
Sep 10, 2013
2,987
4,421
It's not Blink based, it is Chromium with added features. That's why if you look at the changelog it openly says it updates the Chromium version.

View attachment 804755
It's been ages since I've looked, but that is interesting, although I don't think Chromium exists for iOS, so I'm not sure if the mobile version would be the same.

However, it doesn't change anything about what I'm trying to say. Opera let's you play YouTube in the background, while Chrome (upon which it's apparently based) and Safari do not. It's rather expected that Chrome wouldn't since it's made by Google who own YouTube and want you to pay for YouTube Red, watch ads, etc etc.

Safari absolutely could play YouTube videos in the background if Apple wanted it to. Opera proves it's possible. It's up to Apple to make the operating system do things the user wants, though iOS has never been made along those lines, which is why I can't be bothered with iPads.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
It's been ages since I've looked, but that is interesting, although I don't think Chromium exists for iOS, so I'm not sure if the mobile version would be the same.

However, it doesn't change anything about what I'm trying to say. Opera let's you play YouTube in the background, while Chrome (upon which it's apparently based) and Safari do not. It's rather expected that Chrome wouldn't since it's made by Google who own YouTube and want you to pay for YouTube Red, watch ads, etc etc.

Safari absolutely could play YouTube videos in the background if Apple wanted it to. Opera proves it's possible. It's up to Apple to make the operating system do things the user wants, though iOS has never been made along those lines, which is why I can't be bothered with iPads.
I just realized I'm wrong on one thing. Both Safari and Firefox on mobile will play YouTube in the background if you have Red. If you don't, Firefox won't play it either. But I'm sure Apple broke Firefox too.

Edit: I'm of course talking about real Firefox that uses the real Gecko engine. And Chrome on iOS isn't Chrome either.
 

Shanghaichica

macrumors G4
Apr 8, 2013
11,110
7,505
UK
In iOS 12 once you make the video fullscreen in Safari you naturally have both the ability to go PiP, and to play in the background from the lock screen. So far in fact I haven’t found an exception to this. Anywhere you can fullscreen (true fullscreen, not just expand to the page size) it seems you can play it in the background or play it PiP.
Oh have they brought that back again because you couldn’t do it for a while.