Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th May 2013 21:46 UTC
Google "Wired has obtained a copy of a cease and desist letter sent by Google to Microsoft today, demanding Microsoft immediately remove the YouTube app from its Windows Phone Store and disable existing copies on consumers' devices by May 22. The YouTube app for Windows Phone - developed by Microsoft not Google - strips out ads and allows downloading, both violations of YouTube's terms of service." Incredibly petty. Just come up with a solution, you bunch of kids.
Order by: Score:
Petty?
by jockm on Wed 15th May 2013 21:56 UTC
jockm
Member since:
2012-12-22

Um if MS is violating Google's TOS then I don't think I would call it petty. And isn't the solution for MS to either negotiate with Google for an exemption or to conform to the TOS?

This seems like a real issue to me. You might think adblocking and downloading should be allowed, and that is a subject for debate, but they are still things Google expressly forbids.

Reply Score: 14

RE: Petty?
by Nelson on Wed 15th May 2013 22:02 UTC in reply to "Petty?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Microsoft has been being stonewalled by Google since 2010 for YouTube on Windows Phone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Petty?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 15th May 2013 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Petty?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, Google hasn't been able to get xbox integration into its phones either. So ? Should Microsoft allow google to hack together a solution into Xbox Live because Microsoft won't create an app for android/chrome?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Petty?
by Nelson on Wed 15th May 2013 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Petty?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.xle&hl=e...

written by Microsoft

http://support.xbox.com/en-US/apps/smartglass/install-smartglass-an...

written by Microsoft

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.Kinectim...

written by Microsoft


https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fingerfoodstudios......

written by Microsoft

That's in addition to Outlook, Skype, and SkyDrive, OneNote, Bing, Lync, and other major Microsoft services.

Lets not get confused, Microsoft has a lot of their major properties on iOS and Android in addition to Windows Phone.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Petty?
by TusharG on Thu 16th May 2013 04:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Petty?"
TusharG Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft's one of the top flagship product is Office suite have they released it for android? Youtube is googles one of the flagship product why the heck they will release it without resistant? Also blocking of ads and allowing to download is a serious violation of youtube terms.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Petty?
by Nelson on Thu 16th May 2013 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Petty?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Microsoft's one of the top flagship product is Office suite have they released it for android? Youtube is googles one of the flagship product why the heck they will release it without resistant? Also blocking of ads and allowing to download is a serious violation of youtube terms.


Microsoft is supposed to be working on Office for other platforms and it should be a part of their accelerated roadmap codenamed Gemini (think Blue but for Office)

Microsoft is absolutely bringing Office to other platforms. The document protocol office uses is also widely documented and an ISO standard, and there are implementations in the open source community which interops with Office.

Microsoft didn't put ads in YouTube because there is no associated API to put them in, and Google refuses to provide them with one. They've come out and said in a statement that they would love to include advertising support.

And YouTube is on the XBox 360, Wii U, PS3, PS Vita, iOS, Android, but not on Windows Phone? This to me doesn't speak of not wanting YouTube everywhere, but merely not wanting YouTube on Windows Phone.

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Petty?
by r_a_trip on Thu 16th May 2013 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Petty?"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Does Youtube on XBox 360, Wii U, PS3, PS Vita, iOS, Android block ads and offer download functionality? If yes, Google is being petty, if no, they are just protecting their video service.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Petty?
by JAlexoid on Thu 16th May 2013 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Petty?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

While I agree that Microsoft does provide their services to other platforms, it is their usual MO in markets where they do not dominate.
Access by WP to YouTube is not critical to Google, so they do not allow it.

Now, if Microsoft were to release a WP sync app for Linux...

However I dislike the actual move per se, I cannot restrain myself from schadenfreude when Microsoft gets a little of it's own medicine.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Petty?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 16th May 2013 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Petty?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Tu-Shey. I didn't remember hearing about that. Sadly too lazy to google for it. Or bing for that matter.

That's kind of impressive, that MS has been that open.

Having said that I'm not 100% convinced that the lack of Google on Winphone is purely spite. It seems others have been reluctant to develop for win phone as well.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/03/windows-phones-app-problem/

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Petty?
by silviucc on Wed 15th May 2013 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Petty?"
silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05

It's Google's call to stonewall or not. Their site, their content, their rules.

You know what? MS has been stonewalling Linux users and does not bother to release their Office suite for the mentioned OS. They had to be strong-armed to release documents so alternative suites could provide interop with MS Office. The same goes for Samba.

It's fine and dandy that they stonewall. Their software, their rules, however it feels crappy when the page turns, doesn't it? Maybe some day, MS will learn to play nice with the other kids. Until then, they should stop whining.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Petty?
by ilovebeer on Thu 16th May 2013 04:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Petty?"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

It's Google's call to stonewall or not. Their site, their content, their rules.

You know what? MS has been stonewalling Linux users and does not bother to release their Office suite for the mentioned OS. They had to be strong-armed to release documents so alternative suites could provide interop with MS Office. The same goes for Samba.

What alternate reality do you live in where Microsoft is obligated to provide their Office suite, or any of their software for that matter, for those who run Linux? It's so stupid when Linux users cry about Microsoft not providing Linux application software. Maybe they should just be happy Microsoft is one of the top contributors to Linux.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Petty?
by silviucc on Thu 16th May 2013 07:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Petty?"
silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05

Do you people have impaired reading or cognitive skills?

I just said it was fine for them to do what they will with their own software/products. They just whine and bitch when the page turns on them and companies lock them out.

They are that kid in the sandbox that wants to use everybody else's toys but refuse to share their own.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Petty?
by ilovebeer on Thu 16th May 2013 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Petty?"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Do you people have impaired reading or cognitive skills?

Nope, but you seem to be unaware you contradict yourself in the same post.

I just said it was fine for them to do what they will with their own software/products. They just whine and bitch when the page turns on them and companies lock them out.

Yes, you did say that....Right after you whined about them "stonewalling" Linux for not giving Linux users Office.

They are that kid in the sandbox that wants to use everybody else's toys but refuse to share their own.

You Linux cry babies still don't get it. They have no obligation to share. You expect everyone to cater to Linux cuz you think it's so cool because it's free and it's not Microsoft. Linux cry babies who sit around running their mouth that they don't get to use Windows products are the worst.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Petty?
by TechGeek on Thu 16th May 2013 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Petty?"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

"Do you people have impaired reading or cognitive skills?

Nope, but you seem to be unaware you contradict yourself in the same post.

I just said it was fine for them to do what they will with their own software/products. They just whine and bitch when the page turns on them and companies lock them out.

Yes, you did say that....Right after you whined about them "stonewalling" Linux for not giving Linux users Office.

They are that kid in the sandbox that wants to use everybody else's toys but refuse to share their own.

You Linux cry babies still don't get it. They have no obligation to share. You expect everyone to cater to Linux cuz you think it's so cool because it's free and it's not Microsoft. Linux cry babies who sit around running their mouth that they don't get to use Windows products are the worst.
"

Allow me to be presumptive and say thats not really the argument. The argument is that Microsoft is complaining about Google not supporting their platform due to size. Yet Microsoft does exactly the same thing in not supporting Linux. It doesn't matter whether or not we actually want support. Microsoft has for whatever reasons decided not to support Linux. Pot, meet Kettle.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Petty?
by ilovebeer on Fri 17th May 2013 03:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Petty?"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Allow me to be presumptive and say thats not really the argument. The argument is that Microsoft is complaining about Google not supporting their platform due to size.

As you already know, discussion on internet forums tend to drift away from the actual ideas contained in the original posting. It's common place that people reply to comments without directly addressing something in the original post because 1) it isn't relevant, or 2) the conversation has moved away from those originally posted ideas.

Therefore,
Yet Microsoft does exactly the same thing in not supporting Linux. It doesn't matter whether or not we actually want support. Microsoft has for whatever reasons decided not to support Linux. Pot, meet Kettle.

has nothing to do with what I said.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Petty?
by jockm on Wed 15th May 2013 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Petty?"
jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

And that sucks, but it also doesn't give MS the right to circumvent Google's TOS. It isn't like WP users can't access youtube, but that they have to do so though the browser.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Petty?
by Nelson on Wed 15th May 2013 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Petty?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

No it doesn't, but Microsoft isn't exactly a saint. Big corporate spats like this really tends to break down the perceptions people have about their favorite companies.

Fortunately for me, OSNews never lets me forget how terrible M$ is/was ;) .

Part of me wants Microsoft to really play hardball (such as seeking injunctions against Motorola and killing them off completely) but the other half of me agrees with Thom and wants this stupidity resolved.

I think the story goes deeper than this, my understanding from watching I/O today and parsing Google's words is that they are happy to work with Microsoft on YouTube. They just want quid pro quo.

Microsoft must not be willing to open up one of their platforms in exchange, which is where all of this probably comes from.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Petty?
by JAlexoid on Thu 16th May 2013 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Petty?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Microsoft must not be willing to open up one of their platforms in exchange, which is where all of this probably comes from.


Google can live without presence on WP, so they are definitely asking for a lot of concessions from Microsoft. While Google cannot rationalise lack of an app for XBox, so they allowed that one in.

Simple as that - Microsoft is thinking that WP is a golden calf, but they really need to bring more chips to the table to play with the big boys.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Petty?
by Shannara on Wed 15th May 2013 22:06 UTC in reply to "Petty?"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

This is like saying US laws should be enforced outside the US .. Google has done some majorly F'd up things in the last year.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Petty?
by jockm on Wed 15th May 2013 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Petty?"
jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

Well for right or wrong, EULA's in the US are more or less binding contracts. Google and MS are US companies, and are thus bound by these terms. Bad behavior on one sides part does not justify bad behavior on the other side.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Petty?
by Shannara on Wed 15th May 2013 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Petty?"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

Good thing they are only binding when both parties agree to the contract. There is no I Agree on the website anywhere for anyone just browsing or streaming.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Petty?
by tylerdurden on Thu 16th May 2013 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Petty?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

By visiting their site you agree to their terms or conditions:

http://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Petty?
by Shannara on Thu 16th May 2013 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Petty?"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

Lol, not unless that notice goes up before you can get to any page.

That's like you reading this post, then I say, "You owe me $1,000".

It doesn't work that way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Petty?
by tylerdurden on Thu 16th May 2013 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Petty?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

You're free to have all the uninformed personal opinions you want. I guess.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Petty?
by Shannara on Thu 16th May 2013 00:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Petty?"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

As are you. It's a free world. But if you want to have a conversation, feel free to stick with facts. Trolling will get you nothing but a bad reputation.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Petty?
by dvhh on Thu 16th May 2013 05:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Petty?"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

Even if in that case it is merely the EULA. I am guessing that microsoft would no be as nice if you break their EULA

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Petty?
by JAlexoid on Thu 16th May 2013 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Petty?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Obviously it doesn't. Just by visiting a page does not bind you by the ToS. However... continuing to use it time and time again is a different story.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Petty?
by malxau on Thu 16th May 2013 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Petty?"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

By visiting their site you agree to their terms or conditions:

http://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms


I tend to agree with Shannara on this. It'd be interesting to see the point argued in court, because Google would be in one of those "be careful what you wish for" situations.

If anyone can publish a website, throw a link to some terms on it, and have those terms be legally enforceable, then surely I could throw up a website, put up some terms saying "thou shalt not index or cache", wait for Google to violate my terms, and sue. Google rely on automated fetching of unknown content all the time, and couldn't possibly have lawyers reviewing T&C of each website they send requests to.

But if it's allowed to just send a GET request to any server for any purpose at any time, then advertising as a funding source loses its legal footing. In fact, since Google already index pages and display images etc from a Google-hosted copy, it'd be hard to find the distinction between a non-Google-hosted copy of Youtube content either.

Either outcome seems bad for Google - lose the legal basis for what they're indexing, or lose the legal framework to monetize it.

Trying to draw a line between the two extremes seems very difficult. I'm struggling to imagine a ruling that says T&C are sometimes enforceable and sometimes not, depending on whether the parties knew about them, or the intention of the resulting requests, etc. That may be where this would go in court, but it'd make for an interesting precedent either way.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Petty?
by tylerdurden on Thu 16th May 2013 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Petty?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Yeah, but I least I do hope you understand the difference between the reality of things, and one's personal opinion of what they wish things were like. Which the previous poster seemed to have a fantastically hard time accepting.

I'm not arguing in pro or con against their policies. But just because a website provides something free of charge, it does not mean they are doing so without specific terms and conditions. You are free to go and challenge google's EULA in court, if you feel they are in the wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Petty?
by kaiwai on Wed 15th May 2013 23:32 UTC in reply to "Petty?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Um if MS is violating Google's TOS then I don't think I would call it petty. And isn't the solution for MS to either negotiate with Google for an exemption or to conform to the TOS?

This seems like a real issue to me. You might think adblocking and downloading should be allowed, and that is a subject for debate, but they are still things Google expressly forbids.


It is petty because all this could have been avoided had Google actually just stepped up and provided an official YouTube application for Windows Phone. I'm not a Windows Phone user and thus I don't have a horse in the race but it doesn't change the fact that if Google refuses to provide an official client then what is Microsoft supposed to do - sit back and allow Google to use the stranglehold they have on the smart phone OS market and content market to leverage each other? I mean, I'm not Microsoft fan but if Microsoft was doing something like what Google is doing you wouldn't hear the end of it from the haters.

Edited 2013-05-15 23:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Petty?
by tylerdurden on Thu 16th May 2013 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Petty?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Using your "logic," since Microsoft does not provide an official version of their Office suite for Linux... it is totally OK if I completely ignore the terms of their EULA and just run a pirated copy of the software under a WINE wrapper.


In any case, it's being fascinating seeing Apple, Google, and Microsoft trying to out-asshole each other.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Petty?
by Nelson on Thu 16th May 2013 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Petty?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think what we're seeing is Microsoft and Google just become very direct rivals (we saw similar shit flinging when Apple and Google first realized they weren't best friends anymore, look at iMaps fiasco)

Google Apps encroached on on-premise Exchange servers and AD roll outs. Google Apps saves you quite a bit of money if you have an old creaky on premise solution, and its actually really good.

MSFT responded with Office 365 and off premise, but did it pretty late. They make major bank off of O365 now, but its by no means a won war. This is one place I think there's healthy competition in, IMO.

Then there's the whole IE vs Chrome thing, and then Bing/Yahoo teaming up to try a play at Google (riiiiight)

Microsoft isn't a saint either, locking Chrome out of Windows RT (well all browsers, but it probably annoyed the hell out of Google) and the annoying ass useless Scroogled commercials. The idea is good but the commercials are so annoying, seriously, fire everyone at MSFT Marketing.

ChromeOS probably didn't win Google any awards with Microsoft either (despite the most popular Chrome OS being Windows 7)

Windows Phone vs Android is peanuts in comparison to what Google and Microsoft really fight over, but I agree that its fun seeing them take the gloves off, only thing that sucks is consumers get screwed in the meantime.

They're more competitors than Apple and MSFT ever wore. Microsoft and Apple are frat brothers in comparison.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Petty?
by tylerdurden on Thu 16th May 2013 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Petty?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

They are all sociopathic corporations trying to make as much profit as they can. Apple and Microsoft will go at it, the minute either feels the other is encroaching their bottom line.

Reply Score: 0

Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Wed 15th May 2013 22:01 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Microsoft knew it was breaking YouTube's ToS, they're not dumb, but now they've done two things:

1) They got an implicit admission that Windows Phone has a relevant user base, relevant enough to justify a Cease and Desist. Google's prior position was that Windows Phone represented too small of a user base to warrant the investment (despite Microsoft offering to do the legwork) necessary to write an app.

2) They gave concrete reasons for why the C&D and if I were Microsoft I'd write a blog post and ask them for the relevant API documentation to allow for ads to be displayed.

I wonder where all the people defending Google as an open standards poster kid are? Here we are, after Google has axed CalDAV support and gone their own proprietary route and we get crickets from the usual suspects while Google still systematically locks competitors out of their services.

This has escalated quite a bit though, and it likely has to do with Google being mad that Microsoft uses their revenue from Android to finance the development of Windows Phone.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Valhalla on Wed 15th May 2013 22:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


1) They got an implicit admission that Windows Phone has a relevant user base, relevant enough to justify a Cease and Desist.

Eh what? Obviously Google won't let Microsoft, a competitor which has harassed Google as much as they possibly can, officially ship a Youtube viewer which strips ads which is what Youtube (and content providers who upload to Youtube) is funded through.

And obviously neither would Microsoft had the tables been turned, of course then you would have switched viewpoint in a heartbeat.


I wonder where all the people defending Google as an open standards poster kid are?

Compared to Microsoft they are certainly still a poster kid for open standards, not that this particular comparison says much.

Youtube is not an 'open standard', Google doesn't owe Microsoft anything, certainly not access to Youtube through Windows Phone, a competing product from a company which is patent trolling Google's products.

Given how Microsoft is doing everything they can to hurt Google it's not hard to understand why Google won't lend Microsoft products a helping hand.

Reply Score: 13

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Wed 15th May 2013 23:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Eh what? Obviously Google won't let Microsoft, a competitor which has harassed Google as much as they possibly can, officially ship a Youtube viewer which strips ads which is what Youtube (and content providers who upload to Youtube) is funded through.


Microsoft can and is willing to provide ads in the app, as it has been trying to get Google to allow them to write a YouTube app since 2010.


And obviously neither would Microsoft had the tables been turned, of course then you would have switched viewpoint in a heartbeat.


I'm against Microsoft breaking the ToS and screwing over content users (albeit in a small way, the app has been out for like two weeks), I'm just telling the complete story.


Compared to Microsoft they are certainly still a poster kid for open standards, not that this particular comparison says much.


So do you admit that they were wrong to kill of CalDAV in favor of their own proprietary API? Or kill off ActiveSync, provide no competing IMAP push solution, and continue to use their proprietary Gmail API from iOS and Android (while providing no alternative to Windows Phone).

Look, I have no problem with them leaving Gmail sync out, there are plenty of alternatives. YouTube is defacto and used by people in a way that which transcends platforms.

People like you conveniently ignore that.


Youtube is not an 'open standard', Google doesn't owe Microsoft anything, certainly not access to Youtube through Windows Phone, a competing product from a company which is patent trolling Google's products.


They hurt Microsoft, but they fuck over Windows Phone users which may coincidentally use Google Services.

What I was speaking to, is how some of the usual suspects on OSNews sang Google praises (much like you do now) when they axed EAS under the guise of open standards. People like me correctly labeled it as bullshit.

We're in a similar situation, Google is using content creators as a crutch to advance what is an anti-Microsoft retaliatory campaign. Which is fine, alls fair and all that, but its wrong when people like you make excuses for them on false pretenses.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by JAlexoid on Thu 16th May 2013 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm just telling the complete story.

I'm sorry, but adding a "few" bits and pieces here and there that are not based in fact is not "complete story". At least it's not factual outside of your own head.

YouTube is defacto and used by people in a way that which transcends platforms.

So? m.youtube.com

kill off ActiveSync

And you don't mind lying? I mean... you like to "tell the complete story, don't you?

axed EAS under the guise of open standards

I'm sorry... that move forced Microsoft to implement Cal and Card DAV. I don't care how Google did it, but I have the option of owning a WP device that will sync with my private Cal and Card DAV server.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Valhalla on Fri 17th May 2013 12:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


I'm against Microsoft breaking the ToS and screwing over content users (albeit in a small way, the app has been out for like two weeks), I'm just telling the complete story.

LOL, complete story my ass. You are telling Microsoft's 'story', which is that it's ok for Microsoft to break other companies ToS because they pretend they have some inherent right other companies services, which is the worst hypocricy I've ever come across given Microsoft's history of locking services to their own platform(s).


So do you admit that they were wrong to kill of CalDAV in favor of their own proprietary API?

I think it sucks that they are going for a proprietary solution, I hope it comes back to bite them.

Or kill off ActiveSync,

Why would I give a crap about them ditching ActiveSync? It's just another non-open licence-laden Microsoft offering.

some of the usual suspects on OSNews sang Google praises (much like you do now)

Am I singing their praises? Were exactly am I doing that?

but its wrong when people like you make excuses for them on false pretenses.

What false pretenses? Like I said, Google has no reason (unless they are aiming for sainthood) to support a competitive platform from a company which is rabidly attacking them through smear campaigns (scroogled, #droidrage, etc) aswell as patent extortion and even attempts at anti-trust lawsuits.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Nelson
by silviucc on Wed 15th May 2013 23:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05



I wonder where all the people defending Google as an open standards poster kid are? Here we are, after Google has axed CalDAV support and gone their own proprietary route and we get crickets from the usual suspects while Google still systematically locks competitors out of their services.

This has escalated quite a bit though, and it likely has to do with Google being mad that Microsoft uses their revenue from Android to finance the development of Windows Phone.



While they are going to axe CalDAV for "general consumption" they will:
1) provide an API for developers to interact with Google Cal
2) enable CalDAV if devs really, really, really need it. It will be per case.

Get back to us when MS will provide the same for their equivalent products.

K,thnx,bye.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Wed 15th May 2013 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


While they are going to axe CalDAV for "general consumption" they will:
1) provide an API for developers to interact with Google Cal
2) enable CalDAV if devs really, really, really need it. It will be per case.

Get back to us when MS will provide the same for their equivalent products.

K,thnx,bye.


Like full CalDAV and CardDAV support coming to Windows Phone 8? I'm lost.

Oh, in other open standards news, Google pulled XMPP support from GChat, but I'm curious to see how you'll spin that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by silviucc on Wed 15th May 2013 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05

"
While they are going to axe CalDAV for "general consumption" they will:
1) provide an API for developers to interact with Google Cal
2) enable CalDAV if devs really, really, really need it. It will be per case.

Get back to us when MS will provide the same for their equivalent products.

K,thnx,bye.


Like full CalDAV and CardDAV support coming to Windows Phone 8? I'm lost.
"

Maybe I need to draw for it for you. I was talking about MS providing similar access to their services. You mean to tell me MS did not support the DAVs in their consumer products? Oh yeah, they did not, did they? They started complaining and whining when Google pulled the plug (as in not willing to pay MS anymore, for the privilege to provide Gmail access to those that used MS gimped products)


Oh, in other open standards news, Google pulled XMPP support from GChat, but I'm curious to see how you'll spin that.


Oh please provide a link for this because it's certainly news. Their page does not mention anything about XMPP support being "pulled"

https://developers.google.com/talk/open_communications

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Wed 15th May 2013 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Maybe I need to draw for it for you. I was talking about MS providing similar access to their services. You mean to tell me MS did not support the DAVs in their consumer products? Oh yeah, they did not, did they?


No. Because they use the documented Exchange Active Sync protocol where they can, as it is superior on battery life for push email than polling IMAP.

This is a no brainer. I expect and hope to see *DAV support in Outlook for those who don't like EAS.


They started complaining and whining when Google pulled the plug (as in not willing to pay MS anymore, for the privilege to provide Gmail access to those that used MS gimped products)


Or those who chose to not use the Gmail app on iOS, as the iOS Email app used EAS to sync with Gmail.


Oh please provide a link for this because it's certainly news. Their page does not mention anything about XMPP support being "pulled"


Sure.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/15/4318830/inside-hangouts-googles-b...

Singhal says Google had to make the difficult decision to drop the very "open" XMPP standard that it helped pioneer.

Now, I await your excuse. Eagerly.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by silviucc on Thu 16th May 2013 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05


No. Because they use the documented Exchange Active Sync protocol where they can, as it is superior on battery life for push email than polling IMAP.

This is a no brainer. I expect and hope to see *DAV support in Outlook for those who don't like EAS.


That "documented" protocol is still patented and anyone that wants to implement it in their email client or server-side needs to pay up.



Sure.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/15/4318830/inside-hangouts-googles-b...

Singhal says Google had to make the difficult decision to drop the very "open" XMPP standard that it helped pioneer.

Now, I await your excuse. Eagerly.


Don't chop off the parts that do not help your argument. Here's the full quote:


With Hangouts, Singhal says Google had to make the difficult decision to drop the very "open" XMPP standard that it helped pioneer.


It was in the context of XMPP not being adequate for Google Hangouts a feature of Google+. They never say they pulled it from GChat (which is what Gmail uses). In short, Hangouts never, ever used GChat and XMPP


http://juberti.blogspot.ro/2011/07/hangouts-mailbag.html

The Chat in Hangouts is based on XMPP and Jingle + Google Sauce. They plan to open it up but might not do so. It was never open to begin with.

As for "an excuse". Seriously? You get paid to shill I don't get paid to debunk your crap. Go away.

Edited 2013-05-16 00:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 16th May 2013 00:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


That "documented" protocol is still patented and anyone that wants to implement it in their email client or server-side needs to pay up.


So? You pay to implement WiFi, LTE, and 3G.


It was in the context of XMPP not being adequate for Google Hangouts a feature of Google+. They never say they pulled it from GChat (which is what Gmail uses). In short, Hangouts never, ever used GChat and XMPP


Sorry, Google has like 14 Chat APIs, I actually meant Google Talk, which is being superceded by Hangouts (which itself is a FB Messenger/WhatsApp/Kik competitor now)

FTA it states that Hangouts replaces Google Talk. I'm not sure if Google Chat is tied into Google Talk, or if its yet another separate protocol.


As for "an excuse". Seriously? You get paid to shill I don't get paid to debunk your crap. Go away.


Proof I get paid to shill? I make money off of Microsoft platforms, but I also make money off of Apple and to a more limited extent Android.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by silviucc on Thu 16th May 2013 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05


So? You pay to implement WiFi, LTE, and 3G.


WiFi, LTE, 3G are not controlled by a single entity with discretionary licensing policies. Read on FRAND on wikipedia and 3G for example.


Sorry, Google has like 14 Chat APIs, I actually meant Google Talk, which is being superceded by Hangouts (which itself is a FB Messenger/WhatsApp/Kik competitor now)

FTA it states that Hangouts replaces Google Talk. I'm not sure if Google Chat is tied into Google Talk, or if its yet another separate protocol.


Again, you quote just stuff the helps your argument while ignoring the truth. Here:

On the surface, Hangouts is essentially a messaging app in the same vein as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger. Hangouts replaces Google Talk, Google+ Messenger, and the classic Google+ Hangouts video chat.

The app — available on Android, iOS, and Chrome (but not Windows Phone or BlackBerry) — starts with text conversations. You're presented with a list of your recent conversations instead of a contact list. That's the first sign that this is more of a mobile messenger than a traditional instant messaging client, a distinction that becomes even clearer once you dive into a group chat or one-on-one conversation. Conversations get names, like chat rooms, and it's simple to add an image or one of Google’s 850 new hand-drawn emoji.


The first two were mobile applications that a new app is replacing. It does not mean that the old Google Talk, as a serviced is phased. They mean to keep an interoperability between them, even if limited by technological constraints:


The flip side of this new system is that you lose the more traditional "Active / Away" presence indicators that Google Talk users have grown accustomed to. It’s a hybrid of instant messaging and mobile messaging, though Hangouts will on some levels remain interoperable from Google Talk.


You have the ability to use Hangouts in Gmail, but it's opt-in.


Proof I get paid to shill? I make money off of Microsoft platforms, but I also make money off of Apple and to a more limited extent Android.



The proof is in the pudding as they say. Every time there is a wiff of MS on OSNews, there's Nelson "setting the record straight" with arguments that contain enough truth to be believable for the ones poorly informed, but which are essentially "marketing/damage control" talk filled with half-truths and nothing more.

The fact that you "cut out" parts of the information in order to make your arguments, as illustrated above, shows exactly what you are. A shill.

Reply Score: 3

Pointless
by cmost on Wed 15th May 2013 22:02 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

On my Linux box right now, I have a plugin for Mozilla Firefox that blocks all ads and another one that allows downloading videos in either SWF or MP4 format directly from YouTube. What's Google's point?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Pointless
by Hayoo! on Wed 15th May 2013 22:24 UTC in reply to "Pointless"
Hayoo! Member since:
2013-04-13

It's more of a retaliation, I'd wager. Microsoft has been collecting royalties from Android OEM's, claiming that Android infringes on some of Microsoft's intellectual properties. So Google, in turn, is playing hardball against Microsoft.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Pointless
by judgen on Wed 15th May 2013 22:24 UTC in reply to "Pointless"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

The point is that in some countries EULA's can be enforced by law (very few countries, but USA is one of them) and thus illegal to ship on a commercial product without a proper and valid licensing deal. That firefox extension/plugin is installed by yourself and not an commercial entity making money from your usage i presume?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Pointless
by andrewclunn on Wed 15th May 2013 22:26 UTC in reply to "Pointless"
andrewclunn Member since:
2012-11-05

Firefox users are smarter than Windows phone users, so if they can keep piracy/ad blocking difficult for windows phone users (rather than point and click) then they can stop it for the vast majority of users.

Reply Score: 0

It isn't petty
by lucas_maximus on Wed 15th May 2013 22:26 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

You gotta sign up for their terms of service and Microsoft broke the agreement by the sounds of it, which isn't nice.

If you are using a service in your products you gotta abide by the terms of service and adverts is how Youtube makes its money ... not cool.

https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms


II. Prohibitions

...

8 .modify, replace, interfere with or block advertisements placed by YouTube in the YouTube Data, YouTube audiovisual content, or the YouTube player.

...

11. store copies of YouTube audiovisual content;


Edited 2013-05-15 22:34 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: It isn't petty
by Nelson on Wed 15th May 2013 22:38 UTC in reply to "It isn't petty"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yeah, it sucks that content creators are getting screwed. Microsoft has been trying for the better part of 3 years to get YouTube on Windows Phone.

Heres' an old statement by Microsoft:

... in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service.
Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It isn't petty
by JAlexoid on Thu 16th May 2013 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE: It isn't petty"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yeah, it sucks that content creators are getting screwed. Microsoft has been trying for the better part of 3 years to get YouTube on Windows Phone.


Oh please... Content creators are free to upload their content to other services. Don't try to increase the "casulaty" department.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by mutantsushi
by mutantsushi on Wed 15th May 2013 22:50 UTC
mutantsushi
Member since:
2006-08-18

It's hardly a surprise, MS is violating the EULA, which means something in the USA.
That MS wrote their own YouTube app when G didn't care to isn't a problem.
Of course, from a user perspective, these features make it a better player, but they break the EULA.
Pretty obvious solution is MS removes these features from the product to conform to EULA.
Of course, they can leave the player open to user extensions which re-introduce the functionality.

G doesn't really care about these features existing as user extensions,
legally it can't realistically stop user extensions,
but it hasn't adopted any significant technological measures against them either,
If the 'lowest common denominator' doesn't know how/doesn't bother to install them,
they are doing just fine, they just don't want dumb users to buy a new phone/computer and all ads are blocked by default. I don't really see how that state of affairs is so horrible of a thing.

Reply Score: 2

LouisBarman
Member since:
2010-06-06

Google removes any YouTube downloaders from the google play store. but leaves those that allow background play even though they are also breaking the T&C.

The only official way to embed video in an app (other than on Android) is to play the videos in a web frame which only works well with flash and on ios. The html5 official YT player is incredibly buggy which does not really leave any satisfactory way to embed videos other than developers implementing their own player.

I agree with the Google about the downloading as MS didn't have to add this feature.

But as MS don't have a way of creating a legal decent player then until Google provides workable player framework MS are justified in my opinion in reverse engineering the stream and creating their own player.

Interesting has XBMC also been sent a cease and desist letter as XBMC does not use the official google player either.

The sensible solution is google proved a workable YT frame work for both WP and XBMC.

Reply Score: 2

Two Devils
by hackus on Wed 15th May 2013 23:03 UTC
hackus
Member since:
2006-06-28

Google or Microsoft

Consider Google is playing much MUCH more nicely than Microsoft in the Open Source domain, I would take Google over Microsoft ANY DAY.

Microsoft makes my life sheer hell when customers bring up Exchange or MS Office crap.

Google has made great contributions to ASOP, and the LINUX kernel and if they continue to behave themselves, I say let them own the market and let Microsoft...

DIE.

-Hack

Reply Score: 2

RE: Two Devils
by Nelson on Wed 15th May 2013 23:19 UTC in reply to "Two Devils"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Microsoft has contributed to WebKit, will contribute to Blink, has contributed to the Linux kernel, and has released large portions of the .NET Framework under free and open source licenses.

These are big name ones like ASP.NET MVC (which Mono fully integrated), the Rx Framework, and if the rumors pan out and they open source Roslyn, they'll have an open source compiler as a service architecture which will power C# and VB.NET moving forward.

Obviously Google contributes more to open source because it happens to coincide with their business model more, but Microsoft is changing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Two Devils
by Valhalla on Fri 17th May 2013 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Two Devils"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

has contributed to the Linux kernel,

Microsoft's 'contribution' to Linux came after they were informed that they had breached GPL by distributing code containing a GPL'd driver to end users of their cloud offering without offering source code.

There's nothing indicating that they had any intention of open sourcing their code had they not been legally compelled to through GPL.

but Microsoft is changing.

What? The world around Microsoft is indeed changing, but so far all they are doing is paying some lip-service by open sourcing code that has no proprietary value to them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Two Devils
by lucas_maximus on Fri 17th May 2013 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Two Devils"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

What? The world around Microsoft is indeed changing, but so far all they are doing is paying some lip-service by open sourcing code that has no proprietary value to them.


MVC open sourcing is pretty big thing in the .NET/Mono community.

MVC is basically the hot shit right now for thousands of C# programmers.

Reply Score: 3

UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

I mean, I've got NoScript, AdBlock Plus, DoNotTrackMe and VideoDownloadHelper installed on my primary web browser, as well as all third-party cookies disabled and the "do not track" header on just to get the point across. So really, that shows how much of a rat's ass I give about so-called "terms of service" and advertising scumbags--er, I mean, industry. And while I surely wouldn't have a problem with a program coming with my phone allowing me to bypass ads and download videos (in fact, that is just the kind of thing I would actively seek myself), at the same time that kind of thing coming from a major corporation like Microsoft doesn't exactly set a good example.

Aren't they effectively saying that things like TOS and EULAs are worthless; that they are meant to be broken? I mean, if such a massive corporation does it against their competitors using their two or three Windows Phone users to deal the fatal blow, then does that give Google or just any other company the "right" to do it back to them using their army of millions of Android users? After all, Microsoft clearly doesn't seem to care about another company's terms of service and chose not to obey them--and Microsoft itself is even cashing in on Android sales thanks to obscene patent scares.

What would they think if I started using "non-genuine" copies of Windows and explicitly tried to do everything their EULA expressly forbids? Something tells me they wouldn't be a very happy company, and there would be some serious shit going on in the U.S. courtrooms. They're not exactly setting a good example for themselves. For every attempt they make to try to do something right to win people over, they prove that in the end they are the same crooked mega corporation that was slapped with an U.S. anti-trust lawsuit in the 1990s and subsequently watched under a magnifying glass by the EU once their own country pussied out.

Edited 2013-05-15 23:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Google provides YouTube on the Xbox 360 with Ads.
http://allthingsd.com/20120828/youtubes-ad-overhaul-moves-on-to-xbo...

This is about Google wanting to suppress Windows Phone, which has anti competitive undertones, in fact I think Microsoft has already lodged a complaint.

And I agree that Microsoft going against the ToS was heavy handed and wrong, but Microsoft just made a statement saying something to the effect of (very loose paraphrasing)"We'd love to work with Google to get the documentation needed to provide ads".

Hook, line, and sinker they turned this from a private backroom wheeling and dealing into something that the PR people can trade barbs over.

I think Microsoft has an easy sell convincing people they're right on this issue, maybe not on this site because this is OSNews but the average person would be pretty pissed if they knew the only reason they don't have a kick ass WP YouTube app is because Google is actively subverting that effort.

Reply Score: 3

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

What? Google wanting to suppress Windows Phone? Subverting the effort of making a decent Windows Phone? I'm sorry, but what is happening looks nothing of the sort. That sounds more like some sort of outrageous conspiracy theory or something. Google has stated that Windows Phone and Windows 8/Metro are just not big enough targets to support. That's a good enough, honest and fair answer.

Then Microsoft comes in trampling their TOS. And then you come in, seem to turn everything around, and make it out like Google is the "bad guy" doing all the monopolistic, illegal moves. Hey, they don't have to support basically stillborn operating systems that have yet to take off if they don't want to. I don't think I can buy that claim. Android is winning since it came in at just the right time and was strongly embraced; Windows Phone has been floundering since birth.

This just seems to me like Microsoft playing their crooked games as usual. I still take Microsoft's subliminal message to be a bit closer to "fuck you, Google, take this--just try to piss us off again. We'll just play rough. Break a few more laws." It's probably Ballmer's Round Two after the whole chair incident.

Reply Score: 4

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

What? Google wanting to suppress Windows Phone? Subverting the effort of making a decent Windows Phone? I'm sorry, but what is happening looks nothing of the sort. That sounds more like some sort of outrageous conspiracy theory or something. Google has stated that Windows Phone and Windows 8/Metro are just not big enough targets to support. That's a good enough, honest and fair answer.


They support PS Vita and the Wii U. Which combined have sold less than the Windows Phone installed base, certainly less than Windows 8 which has sold 100 million licenses.


Then Microsoft comes in trampling their TOS. And then you come in, seem to turn everything around, and make it out like Google is the "bad guy" doing all the monopolistic, illegal moves.


I think you should read for comprehension, I call out Microsoft numerous times.

I still take Microsoft's subliminal message to be a bit closer to "fuck you, Google, take this--just try to piss us off again. We'll just play rough. Break a few more laws." It's probably Ballmer's Round Two after the whole chair incident.


Wow.

Reply Score: 4

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

They support PS Vita and the Wii U. Which combined have sold less than the Windows Phone installed base, certainly less than Windows 8 which has sold 100 million licenses.

And those are two video game systems. I thought we were talking phones here? Or at least I was. Either way, both companies are probably paying for some kind of deal. And Nintendo traditionally hasn't failed too drastically very often--maybe Google sees a Nintendo gaming system as a better investment than a dead phone OS.

I think you should read for comprehension, I call out Microsoft numerous times.

Oh, I read. And I still get the impression that your words on Microsoft are like a slap on the wrist vs. how you go on and on about the evil Google.

Wow.

It's a dick move, one that--translated to words--surely wouldn't be as pleasant as what you described. How you can make any lighter language of what Microsoft did and effectively get the point across, I don't know. But it certainly wouldn't have enough oomph to really demonstrate the ridiculousness of the actual situation, which is pretty much the equivalent of a raised corporate middle finger at the very least.

Edited 2013-05-16 00:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


And those are two video game systems. I thought we were talking phones here? Or at least I was. Either way, both companies are probably paying for some kind of deal. And Nintendo traditionally hasn't failed too drastically very often--maybe Google sees a Nintendo gaming system as a better investment than a dead phone OS.


How is Microsoft's platform a worse investment when they have more volume than other platforms Google has made investments on? AND Microsoft has done the legwork for the app. All it is asking for is an official sanction from Google, some slight collaboration to stay within the ToS, and that's it.

Its not asking for the moon and the sky here, just some basic access to APIs that non-direct Google competitors are afforded. It is a blatant anti-competitive move to use YouTube to sustain Android dominance on the phone.


Oh, I read. And I still get the impression that your words on Microsoft are like a slap on the wrist vs. how you go on and on about the evil Google.


I think your impression is mistaken then. I do provide context for why Microsoft does what it does, but I also provide context for why Google does what it does.

Google likely wants reciprocity for a Microsoft service or platform, which isn't entirely unreasonable, and may be missed by many given that these are private negotiations.

Which is why I've stated that I agree with Thom that this is dumb and consumers lose, especially consumers that did the unspeakable thing of using a mobile platform they enjoy, or happening to want to use Google services on all devices with a good experience.

I don't understand how you can so blatantly misrepresent my position given that I've been plenty clear on where I stand.

The only thing I've done is wonder if it has a tinge of anti-competition in it, which isn't outlandish given Google's recent settlements with various Government entities around the world.

So while it might seem like I'm in the tank for suggesting that regulators might see it like that, it is in line with reality -- and I'd caution you against ignoring this, or you'll be just as wrong as the people who thought it impossible that Google be taken to task by the DoJ/EU over SEPs.

which is pretty much the equivalent of a raised corporate middle finger at the very least.


I think we have common ground here, Microsoft did raise the corporate FU to Google after trying for two years to get YouTube -- and this is obvious a PR trap that Google walked right into by publicly getting specific on why they want the app off the Store.

If Microsoft shows a willingness to address the issues in the public then it is Google that looks like a bad faith negotiator. This also took a bunch of wind out of Google's I/O sails yesterday since this story pretty much took over Twitter.

Reply Score: 4

Reality distortion field at work
by TechGeek on Thu 16th May 2013 02:17 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Nelson,

So Google won't provide an app for Windows Phone and Microsoft wrote one themselves. Yet Microsoft's app intentionally allows downloads and strips out ads and you blame Google? How is it Google's fault that Microsoft didn't put the ads in their app? If the API was the problem, then surely Microsoft wouldn't even have been able to write the app to begin with. Yet they have one, and decided NOT to follow the rules. What a shocker!

Reply Score: 3

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Exactly... blaming Google for a move like this that is completely the fault of Microsoft makes absolutely no sense. If Microsoft really wanted to use YouTube as a way of making their phone operating system "better" so more people would want it, then they would have written the app in such a way that it's not bound to be subject to a cease-and-desist letter in one week and forced to be pulled from the Microsoft store in two.

There is no way that, one, Microsoft didn't know about the terms of service, and two, they couldn't see this coming if they proceeded (as they did). There just is no excuse for this, and no blame can be placed on Google for Microsoft's actions of blatantly ignoring their TOS.

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Microsoft really wanted to use YouTube as a way of making their phone operating system "better" so more people would want it, then they would have written the app in such a way that it's not bound to be subject to a cease-and-desist letter


Just to be clear, any third party implementation of YouTube that uses unofficial APIs runs afoul of the Terms of Service and is potentially open to a C&D from Google.

If downloading were completely removed the app would still be in violation. Ad support is a private API that Microsoft has stated they'd be open to implementing if Google provided the documentation.

The really insincere part on Google is that the YouTube application from Microsoft has existed for 2 years, it only recently (2 weeks ago) got turned into more than a mobile website wrapper -- but people were using YouTube on Windows Phone for years and not viewing a single ad.



There is no way that, one, Microsoft didn't know about the terms of service, and two, they couldn't see this coming if they proceeded (as they did). There just is no excuse for this, and no blame can be placed on Google for Microsoft's actions of blatantly ignoring their TOS.


There are two different types of blame to go around:

- Microsoft for breaking ToS and being heavy handed
- Google for refusing to open up the YouTube API to Microsoft

Is Google's Android position so shaky that a Microsoft platform (a stillborn one, according to you) would represent a threat to them? This is so senseless it's not even funny.

Google on the same day that it called for interoperability and cheered on open standards sent Microsoft a C&D and killed off XMPP.

Reply Score: 4

Gat1024 Member since:
2009-11-02

Youtube's mobile site does not display ads. What intentional stripping of ads is going on if Google themselves don't serve ads to mobiles?

Reply Score: 5

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yet Microsoft's app intentionally allows downloads and strips out ads and you blame Google?


Microsoft's app does not strip out ads, they were never there to begin with. If the relevant APIs where available, Microsoft would be glad to provide them.

If the API was the problem, then surely Microsoft wouldn't even have been able to write the app to begin with. Yet they have one, and decided NOT to follow the rules. What a shocker!


No, you can write a YouTube app using unofficial APIs which doesn't display ads, which is what Microsoft and other third party YouTube clients do.

Microsoft's YouTube app is nothing more than a really, really good 3rd party app. If you look at the network requests it makes, they're identical to those of MetroTube or other hacked API clients.

On the topic of downloading, that was legitimately a stupid move, but my gut feeling is they wanted to force Google's hand here to an extent.

What's funny is that MetroTube has more downloads than the Windows Phone version of YouTube (and they're on Windows 8!) and they don't draw the ire of Google, despite doing arguably more harm to content creators.

Reply Score: 3

odd strategy
by TechGeek on Thu 16th May 2013 10:59 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Nelson,

After reading all the comments, I will concede that maybe Google doesn't want to support Windows Phone because its a competing product. But that is exactly the argument Microsoft just made in court against Novell. Microsoft is not responsible for supporting competitors and neither is Google.

Or course, maybe Google actually did a cost analysis of creating a Windows Phone app and decided it was too costly and would never make money. Remember, Google SELLS ads, they give away Android. If there were substantial ad revenue to be gotten, I think Google would make the app.

Edited 2013-05-16 11:00 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: odd strategy
by vaette on Thu 16th May 2013 16:36 UTC in reply to "odd strategy"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Not letting Microsoft build the app (i.e. not giving them access to the proper API) is on the petty side of things though. That would cost Google nothing, and in fact net them some additional traffic. Google really is running a risk of getting some anti-trust action here. Youtube is well into the same market share territory that Windows was back in the day, so using it as a stick to beat up competitors with is iffy business.

Reply Score: 4

observation
by TechGeek on Thu 16th May 2013 11:07 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

I would also like to make an observation. Maybe Google wouldn't be such a prick to Microsoft is Microsoft acted better. Microsoft has made war on Android and now Windows Phone users are upset they get no love from Google? Maybe they shouldn't support a company that uses extortion to hammer on Linux.

Reply Score: 3

RE: observation
by bnolsen on Thu 16th May 2013 12:18 UTC in reply to "observation"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

agreed. patent troll extortion by MS of android vendors while refusing to publicly cite what BS software patents are being used. I would as MS fired a over heavy first salvo and deserve what they are getting. If MS doesn't want to compete fairly then Google shouldn't feel compelled to support their fringe phone OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: observation
by ilovebeer on Sun 19th May 2013 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE: observation"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

agreed. patent troll extortion by MS of android vendors while refusing to publicly cite what BS software patents are being used. I would as MS fired a over heavy first salvo and deserve what they are getting. If MS doesn't want to compete fairly then Google shouldn't feel compelled to support their fringe phone OS.

Your idea of competitive business sounds more like a game of checkers with a handshake afterwards rather than a game of rugby. And btw, no company is wrong for using whatever is within their legal means. If you take issue with something Microsoft is legally allowed to do, take issue with the laws instead.

Reply Score: 2