Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Aug 2013 16:10 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y

In the past two months, Microsoft and Google have been bickering over one central issue: HTML5. The Verge has learned that Google is forcing Microsoft to build its YouTube Windows Phone app in HTML5, despite its own Android and iOS versions using superior native code. Although Microsoft has offered to build ad support along with making other tweaks as Google has requested, a full HTML5 app isn't currently possible on the platform.

The difficult thing here is that Google actually has a very good case; it's their API, their service, their rules. On top of that, YouTube publishers - big and small - need to earn money from advertisements too, and incorrect implementations make that harder. Microsoft's mafia practices regarding patents, extorting companies to pay for Android use even though Microsoft has contributed zero code to Android plays a role too. Lastly, Windows Phone is essentially irrelevant with 3% market share - it's not as if Microsoft ever concerned itself with minority platforms.

Still, all this does is hurt consumers, no matter how few Windows Phone users there are. Just work this out, please, you bunch of children.

Order by: Score:
Thank you Microsoft
by reduz on Fri 16th Aug 2013 16:32 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

Thank you for:
-Making it so difficult for people to dual-boot other operating systems for so many decades, both in software and by threatening OEMs.
-For making it so difficult to inter-operate with your closed file formats and network protocols.
-For creating incompatible html implementations in your web browser
-For dismissing and even trying to destroy open standard APIs such as OpenGL.
-For trying to kill competition acting as a patent troll.

When you are the little guy, you cry like a baby because you can't get Youtube or because Google won't use your own propertary APIs, and even go as far as blaming Google of not being open when you are not 1/1000th as open as Google! I know you are trying to change but you only did a few baby steps.

No pity for you.

Edited 2013-08-16 16:33 UTC

Reply Score: 30

RE: Thank you Microsoft
by macrules on Fri 16th Aug 2013 16:42 UTC in reply to "Thank you Microsoft"
macrules Member since:
2006-02-07

definitely no pity nor sympathy for you MS...
I also don't have any for G00gle either..

Edited 2013-08-16 16:43 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Thank you Microsoft
by Alfman on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:02 UTC in reply to "Thank you Microsoft"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

reduz,

"-Making it so difficult for people to dual-boot other operating systems for so many decades, both in software and by threatening OEMs."

Was dual booting ever really a problem prior to windows 8? And fortunately for us they didn't end up enforcing secure boot restrictions on x86. They do need to back off the dual boot prohibitions on ARM though.

"-For making it so difficult to inter-operate with your closed file formats and network protocols."

Yea, that's always sucked. They deliberately avoided and broke standards to eliminate competitive threats. It was arguably a successful strategy though.


"-For trying to kill competition acting as a patent troll."

I think this statement applies more to apple. I don't think MS sought to block competitors using patents so much as take profits from them. While it is ridiculous when one company collects royalties on software implementations they had zero contributions to, it's still better than a patent holder who uses the courts to block competitors outright.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Thank you Microsoft
by jgagnon on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Thank you Microsoft"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

XP, Vista, and Windows 7 will all wipe your MBR without warning when installing on a system that has another, non-Windows OS on it. So, yeah, they make it harder to dual boot even prior to Windows 8.

Reply Score: 15

RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft
by Alfman on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thank you Microsoft"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jgagnon,

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader? There are no official standards with regards to BIOS bootloaders and if we're talking defacto standards then arguably linux should be doing more to work under NT's bootloader.

I agree they all should work better, but the chainloading mess seems to be mostly caused by lacking multiboot standardization in BIOS rather than a problem directly caused by MS. This has been addressed in EFI, the following link may be of interest.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Int...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by voidlogic on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
voidlogic Member since:
2005-09-03

>Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader?

Perhaps not, BUT this will automatically create an entry for the previous Windows install in their bootloader, making the distinction a non-issue.

Reply Score: 10

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by WereCatf on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader?


Well, Linux-distros generally install GRUB, ie. they, too, overwrite MBR. There's a difference, however, as Linux-distros try very hard to install a GRUB-entry for any other OSes that are installed, too, like e.g. when I install Ubuntu on a machine that's already got Windows installed there appears a boot-menu entry for Windows along with Ubuntu.

Edited 2013-08-16 17:53 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Alfman on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WereCatf,

"Well, Linux-distros generally install GRUB, ie. they, too, overwrite MBR. There's a difference, however, as Linux-distros try very hard to install a GRUB-entry for any other OSes that are installed, too, like e.g. when I install Ubuntu on a machine that's already got Windows installed there appears a boot-menu entry for Windows along with Ubuntu."

I seem to recall windows doing the same thing with XP (adding an entry for "previous operating system"), am I wrong? I don't know about win7. Knowing Microsoft it might work differently between various "editions", ugh.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Thank you Microsoft
by WereCatf on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I seem to recall windows doing the same thing with XP (adding an entry for "previous operating system"), am I wrong?


AFAIK that only accounted for previous versions of Microsoft's operating systems, ie. Win95/98/ME/2k and DOS. It certainly never did that for me with Linux or any other non-Microsoft OS.

Reply Score: 9

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by moondevil on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I once killed the harddisk on my work laptop, when a Linux live distribution destroyed the MBR with a Grub installation, thus killing the McAfee secure bootloader for the encrypted harddisk.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Thank you Microsoft
by Alfman on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

moondevil,

"I once killed the harddisk on my work laptop, when a Linux live distribution destroyed the MBR with a Grub installation, thus killing the McAfee secure bootloader for the encrypted harddisk."

I've had problems with grub too, I've never been a fan of how it identifies which hard drive to load additional stages from. It can extremely flaky when it's installed on media that you want to move between computers (ie bootable flash drives) since the BIOS drive ordering is naturally unpredictable. IMO the syslinux approach is better, which simply uses the DX register to reliably identify the bootdisk without using heuristic scanning.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I've certainly installed Linux without touching the MBR. How easy that is to do depends on the distro. I'm not familiar with Ubuntu's installation, but with RHEL/Fedora/SUSE/Debian/Gentoo I've never had an issue. Of course, it makes no sense to not overwrite the MBR if windows is already on there as windows boot loader hasn't had the ability to boot anything else.

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Thank you Microsoft
by WereCatf on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I'm not familiar with Ubuntu's installation


Ubuntu's installer doesn't really ask anything nowadays, it just plops itself where and however it likes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Thank you Microsoft
by Hiev on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Thank you Microsoft"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

If you think Ubuntu installer is bad, try the Fedora one, it is a lot worse, it created an 8 gb swap partition in my laptop.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Thank you Microsoft
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 09:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Thank you Microsoft"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I'm not familiar with Ubuntu's installation


Ubuntu's installer doesn't really ask anything nowadays, it just plops itself where and however it likes.
"

Whenever I install Ubuntu (actually Kubuntu), I tell it where to install and what partitions it may use, and I verify that the new grub bootloader has made provisions for any other OSes installed (including any Windows OS), before I commit it to disk.

Try and do the equivalent with a Windows install.

Edited 2013-08-17 09:42 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Thank you Microsoft
by Soulbender on Sat 17th Aug 2013 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Thank you Microsoft"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Ubuntu's installer doesn't really ask anything nowadays, it just plops itself where and however it likes.


It does ask you about where to install though and gives you the option of manual partitioning.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Morgan on Sun 18th Aug 2013 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Slackware goes one better: It gives you the choice of where to put the boot loader or to not install one at all. Of course those choices imply that the user has the knowledge necessary to be able to boot Slackware with the alternative setup, but I still find it quite nice of them to allow so many choices.

I actually prefer LILO to GRUB too; it's supposedly less flexible but it's certainly simpler to use.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by jgagnon on Fri 16th Aug 2013 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader? There are no official standards with regards to BIOS bootloaders and if we're talking defacto standards then arguably linux should be doing more to work under NT's bootloader.


Grub may have had more than a few issues over the years, but I've yet to have one Linux distribution fail to recognize another Linux installation when setting up dual boot. However, I've had MANY times where Vista/7 have stomped all over other Windows installations on the same system.

My worst nightmare over several days (because I was too stubborn to give up): setting up a system with XP, Vista, Windows 7, and Linux... each on separate hard drives. I don't remember which distribution of Linux it was, but most likely Ubuntu (I'm mostly a Debian guy now with some Mint thrown in).

XP stomps all over everything unless it is first in line in the install order. I could not get XP to do anything other than destroy any previous bootloader.

Vista will recognize a previous XP install some of the time but never anything else. About half the time I had XP and Vista ready to boot after Vista was installed, but the other half left me with either an unbootable system or just Vista. Sometimes I had the boot menu listing both XP and Vista but only the Vista option would boot. It was the randomness that pissed me off more than anything.

Windows 7 seems to be able to recognize XP being on there but has major issues if both XP and Vista are already installed on the same box. In fact, I was unable to find any way to have Windows 7 and Vista peacefully coexist on the same computer without chaining the bootloaders. So it would first boot to a menu listing Windows 7 and the "previous OS". Choosing previous OS would then list XP and Vista in a menu, with no way to go back. Windows 7 would not install into Vista's already installed boot menu.

Linux, however, had no issues getting in the mix and setting up Grub accordingly. XP/Vista were not on the main menu because they were hidden behind the 7 bootloader.

The final install order for occasional success was XP first, then Vista, then 7, then Linux. Any other order left at least one OS unbootable.

EDIT: Fixed some poor memory issues.

EDIT: Ok, they may not be fixed... I'm having trouble remember exactly how the boot menus were after it was all installed. It was years ago, sorry for any mistakes.

Edited 2013-08-16 19:22 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Hiev on Fri 16th Aug 2013 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Let's not forget that Windows cant read ext2, ext3 or ext4 partitions but Linux can read NTFS, but this is actually a Windows lost not Linux lost.

Edited 2013-08-16 19:29 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Thank you Microsoft
by acobar on Sat 17th Aug 2013 15:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Actually, if you install a third part software you can.

"http://www.diskinternals.com/linux-reader/"

"http://www.ext2fsd.com/"

As almost all others here, I had much more trouble with Windows installs than the other way around.

Since linux started to use uuid on partition boot tagging things got a little more complicated on cloning but now I keep a little partition to achieve it without much hassle, works wonderfully on "mass deployment".

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Thank you Microsoft
by ilovebeer on Sat 17th Aug 2013 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Let's not forget that Windows cant read ext2, ext3 or ext4 partitions but Linux can read NTFS, but this is actually a Windows lost not Linux lost.

Why would you expect it to? Or better yet, why would you think it _should_ support those filesystems? I think people tend to forget who the vast majority of Windows users are and why not supporting those is really just common sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by lucas_maximus on Sat 17th Aug 2013 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Older versions of Windows normally can't detect newer versions. It is a bit shit.

I suggest you check out this. If you install grub to it own partition you can easily manage booting everything from different Windows Versions, Linux, OpenBSD etc.

http://gag.sourceforge.net/

Can be run from CD or Floppy (if anyone used them still).

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Morgan on Sun 18th Aug 2013 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

If you had each OS on its own hard drive, it would be trivial to set it up and have it working flawlessly. Simply unplug all but the hard drive you're currently installing. For example, when installing XP, unplug the Linux, Vista, and 7 drives. Ditto for each installation. Then, tell the BIOS to boot the Linux drive by default. Set up GRUB on the Linux drive to point to each of the three Windows OSes and you're set.

I've done something very similar in the past, with Slackware Linux, Arch Linux, Windows XP, and Windows 7 each on its own drive, and that's how I set it up. Arch's GRUB provided boot entries for each one with just a few minutes of setting up custom entries.

Edited 2013-08-18 19:45 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by judgen on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Debian defaul installer: Last section of the install;
Would you like to install grub(2)?
You could pick no if you want to, and debian does not force the rewrite of the MBR, and THATS the difference.

The reason debian can not load itself from the NTLDR is due to the fact that it is illegal (in the US atleast) to touch the windows partition (as EULA's has legal standing here unlike the rest of the world, except canada and some parts of the pacific and carribiean) that way and install teh chainloader, so you would have to install it manually. But they make it rather easy to do it yourself with a pre bundled package but also by direct binary download from the debian site.

I bet it is as easy for most distros.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 08:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Ok, can I understand that. But what about the reverse? Do any linux distros allow themselves to automatically install themselves as subordinate to the NT bootloader?


I would think that the NT bootloader simply doesn't allow for multi-booting of different OSes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Kochise on Sat 17th Aug 2013 09:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Nope, it is possible, from the NTLOADER of my Windows XP SP3 partition, I can boot the following :

Windows XP SP3
Windows 2000 SP4
QNX 6.5.0
Fedora 13
Ubuntu 10.04

It is a bit tricky though :

http://forums.justlinux.com/showthread.php?54037-Trouble-with-NTLDR.....

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/51016-multi-boot-with-ntldr/

http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm

Kochise

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft
by Soulbender on Sat 17th Aug 2013 10:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I would think that the NT bootloader simply doesn't allow for multi-booting of different OSes.


It does. It's not exactly smooth but it does support booting other OS's.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Thank you Microsoft
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 10:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Thank you Microsoft"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I would think that the NT bootloader simply doesn't allow for multi-booting of different OSes.


It does. It's not exactly smooth but it does support booting other OS's.
"

OK, but to be completely truthful, I have never found any way to install Windows and still preserve the ability to boot an existing "other OS" already installed on the disk.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Thank you Microsoft
by Soulbender on Sat 17th Aug 2013 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Thank you Microsoft"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Windows doesn't nuke your other partitions, it only overwrites the MBR. You just have to restore GRUB or whatever after the Windows install. Sure, it would be nicer if it didn't but it does in no way nuke other OS's.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Thank you Microsoft
by ishtar on Mon 19th Aug 2013 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thank you Microsoft"
ishtar Member since:
2013-07-30

There's a difference between wiping the MBR clean to make sure you are the only usable OS on the system, and automagically installing into an existing MBR.

Yes, newer *nix bootloaders can scan adn add themselves to other *nix bootloaders. Windows cannot do that, even with their lame grub clone.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Thank you Microsoft
by Fergy on Fri 16th Aug 2013 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Thank you Microsoft"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

"-For trying to kill competition acting as a patent troll."

I think this statement applies more to apple. I don't think MS sought to block competitors using patents so much as take profits from them. While it is ridiculous when one company collects royalties on software implementations they had zero contributions to, it's still better than a patent holder who uses the courts to block competitors outright.

MS gets money from almost every Android phone.

Reply Score: 3

You missed the dominance aspect.
by dsmogor on Fri 16th Aug 2013 16:36 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

Services replaced platforms but the old mechanics remain.
Google is using Youtube protocol and license to sidestep WP the same way MS has used of Word formats to prevent Linux and Ooo from being successful alternative to Windows and MSO. Theoretically everyone can switch to vimeo but this is about as probable as was everyone dumping MSO along with their documents.
That MS fully deserves their fate now doesn't mean Google isn't running on the verge of anti-competitive practices.
The fact that MS doesn't want to cooperate anyway (counting on bringing Google to EC or DOJ) only adds another dimension to the case.

Edited 2013-08-16 16:52 UTC

Reply Score: 9

tkeith Member since:
2010-09-01

Did you read the article? While on the face it looks like Google is purposely blocking a Windows Phone Youtube app, it's only because of the way Microsoft is trying to make it look that way. Microsoft made it seem like they were trying to work with Google, but in reality they refused to rewrite their app and just threw their old one back up without fully addressing the concerns.

I wish Google would themselves make an HTML5 Youtube app, which could possible be used on Firefox OS, Ubuntu, ect. But according to Microsoft's own people you can't on WP8. Maybe Google was trying to show how WP8's HTML is broken and it backfired.

Reply Score: 9

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

If Android can feature a native YT app so should be able other OSes, as simple as that.
Of course provided all licensing obligations are obeyed.

Reply Score: 2

tkeith Member since:
2010-09-01

Android and iOS have official native Youtube apps made by Google. Google uses different APIs(undocumented) than they make available to everyone else. This makes sense, if you allow a third party to use your internal APIs they can do things like circumvent the ads and download rights(that make Youtube possible). And what do you know? Microsoft did just that. The HTML part is a red herring.

Reply Score: 3

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

If Google ran just like video service everybody else they could set whatever restrictions they like.
But the fact is they run a dominant service and give the preferred access to it to their own platform (which by the way is dominant as well).
This is no different from MS giving IE preference on Windows or hiding parts of Win api that made Word faster than WordPerfect.
They doesn't have to give it for free, any reasonable terms would be enough.
Expecting particular AD support and some form of compensation for access is within reasonable.

Reply Score: 4

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21


give the preferred access to it to their own platform

iOS is from Apple, not from Google. Its even the by wide distance main competition for Google in the mobile/tablet segments. Whats next? Microsoft sueing Samsung, Asus, Acer and HP cause they not make RT tablets any longer?


This is no different from MS giving IE preference on Windows or hiding parts of Win api that made Word faster than WordPerfect.

It is very different as you can see with my reply above. Google even made very clear what Microsoft, and anybody else, need to do to fulfit the terms. Its not like Google is asking for money here or even blocking any way to make it happen. The terms and conditions where and are known, also by Microsoft, long before WP8 and if WP8 cannot fulfit them or if Microsoff still does not like to fullfit them then so be it.

Small remainder: With the first version Microsoft went very far in going against any of the youtube-terms including streaming private content, blocking any ads, etc what tells something. With the second, this still blocked version, they just republished while work with Google to sort issues out was ongoing. That tells you again something.

Edited 2013-08-16 21:16 UTC

Reply Score: 4

bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

Small remainder: With the first version Microsoft went very far in going against any of the youtube-terms including streaming private content, blocking any ads, etc what tells something. With the second, this still blocked version, they just republished while work with Google to sort issues out was ongoing. That tells you again something.


Correction, they removed the downloading and added their own reversed advertising API (since Google apparently doesn't publicly provide one).

There are other (non-MS) YouTube apps that still have these features yet haven't had their API keys revoked -- this is just another pissy move by Google.

Reply Score: 3

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

they [...] added their own reversed advertising API


What violates the Youtube ToS once more.

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

API Use
Definitive violated are sections 1, 4, 6, 7
Likely violated are sections 5, 8

Thats near 100%. You can't do more wrong.

The new version also includes new violates not present in the previous version like uploading using an unofficial API. All covered by the ToS and all violated.


(since Google apparently doesn't publicly provide one).


It does. Its available at https://developers.google.com/youtube/?csw=1 free of charge and used by many many apps without problems. It even has code-sampels for everything to copy+paste for the lazy ones.

Edited 2013-08-17 00:55 UTC

Reply Score: 3

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21


how WP8's HTML is broken and it backfired.

That brings us to the central points. First Microsoft not allows another browser then IE on WP. Second IE on WP8 is not up to simple tasks like a HTML5 youtube player cause it cannot embed videos, misses essential functionality you find in Safari, Firefox and Chrome but not in IE on WP8. There even exist HTML5 youtube players already but cause Microsoft not allows other browsers on WP ... gottcha.

I agree that is a childish game but hey, its not Google who started that and its not Google's fault that WP8 has such limitations. Its also not Google who wants something here, its Microsoft.

I also question that Google forces Microsoft to use HTML5. Point is the new native app, that just got blocked, not delivers ads like the iOS and Android apps do. Microsoft wrote they not know how but heck, Microsoft reversed engineed the whole app so sure they do know how! Its just they not implemented this central revenue-stream, this central point in the youtube-terms, and so they got blocked again for still the very same reason they got blocked the first time.

There is the detail that this, Microsoft's, issue is used and pushed to mass-media by Microsoft's lawyer and chief in Google-antitrust campaign. That explains why it happens, why Microsoff pushed the app even if it clearly still violates the terms. The HTML5 bla, openess bla, is smoke in the mirror. Microsoft does this as part of its google-fight and its customers pay the bill. Rude, get used to it.

Edited 2013-08-16 20:57 UTC

Reply Score: 6

bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

"
how WP8's HTML is broken and it backfired.

That brings us to the central points. First Microsoft not allows another browser then IE on WP.
"

Wrong. There are other browsers like UC on WP already. I'm sure others will follow as the market grows.

Reply Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

There are other browsers like UC on WP already


UC loads content from a server that renders the HTML into some kind of formatted text and sends it to that "browser". Same idea like Opera Mini but super crappy results. Loading the HTML direct into the "Notepad-Browser" is better. Needless to say that dynamic content falls flat. HTML5 and video? righttt

I'm sure others will follow as the market grows.


Just like last 2 years of "grow" ... tomorrow, promised, meanwhile IE or Notepad.

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Fri 16th Aug 2013 16:55 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Well, I feel disgusted how bad behavior gets condoned, because Google could also apply the same practice to other phones under the 3% market like the SailFish or UbuntuEdge.

So, I welcome to the new old Microsoft, but this time, its name is Google.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:21 UTC in reply to "..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well it always one rule for Microsoft and another rule for everyone else.

There are far shitty tech companies out there than Microsoft which have far worse lock-in.

Tech bloggers and Journalists such as Thom will rarely if ever get exposed to such bastards. I've had to use systems that make Oracle seem nice and cheap in comparison.

I've had to use Systems where they were made in a way where I had to reverse engineer parts of it just to pull the content out in a sane way, or use web scrapers to extract the content failing direct calls to the database.

I would have loved to work with well known proprietary formats.

Edited 2013-08-16 17:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Vanders on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Well it always one rule for Microsoft and another rule for everyone else.

Except in this case, it isn't. Google have set out the rules for third party YouTube apps. These rules are not particularly onerous.

Microsoft have thrown their toys out the pram to make themselves look like the victim, and I don't have any sympathy.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Except in this case, it isn't. Google have set out the rules for third party YouTube apps. These rules are not particularly onerous.


But it normally is. Anyway as I will say below I think both companies have individual with big egos causing problems and there is some dev in Microsoft that is trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Microsoft have thrown their toys out the pram to make themselves look like the victim, and I don't have any sympathy.


Well I find that attitude unfortunate. There are people that are probably having a very bad time at work and that is okay because they work for Microsoft. I try not to make other people's lives difficult while they are working because development can get pretty stressful in situation.

It looks like 6 and half of dozen of the other tbh. I think Google are being deliberately more difficult than they need to be and Microsoft tried to be a bit cheeky with some of the ad rules.

Again it isn't a black and white situation. I am sure there are some big egos at both companies which are making things more difficult than it needs to be.

Your attitude here as far as I am concerned is exactly what I was complaining about. Refusing to accept the reality that there are people acting like dicks in both companies and there are people, egos and policies involved, that are probably complicate matters no end.

Edited 2013-08-16 18:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: ...
by Vanders on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

But it normally is. Another case of someone missing the overall point of my comment.


Your overall point is, as usual, to deflect criticism of Microsoft. It's nothing new, we've all seen it before.

I think Google are being deliberately more difficult than they need to be..


Why? The APIs were published long before Microsoft came along. Google haven't moved the goal posts. What responsibility do Google have to accommodate Microsoft, precisely?

Reply Score: 9

v RE[5]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
RE[6]: ...
by Vanders on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Go fuck yourself.

That's why you're so universally loved on OSNews.

They slogan is don't be "don't be evil" and they are being dicks, which is a bit evil.

Publishing an API that anyone can use on equal terms is "being a dick"? Protecting their revenue stream when another company uses your internal APIs without authorisation is "being a dick"?

Those evil bastards, how dare they provide a level playing field via. an open API! Why anyone could implement an app using those!

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

That's why you're so universally loved on OSNews


As you want to make this a pissing match. I am normally upvoted.

You made rude personal comments first, I am sure you are going to pull the "oh well you said stuff about me first", I said about how disappointed I was about your attitude ... that is commentary on such attitude and not an insult.

The last one was because you were being a f--king dick.

I speak my mind, some people like it ... some people don't.

BTW I don't really hate you, It takes far too much effort to do that on a permanent basis.

Also I didn't know this was a popularity contest.

Publishing an API that anyone can use on equal terms is "being a dick"? Protecting their revenue stream when another company uses your internal APIs without authorisation is "being a dick"?

Those evil bastards, how dare they provide a level playing field via. an open API! Why anyone could implement an app using those!


Lets ignore what I said previously about devs being stuck in the middle and working with limitations of the current platform and all the other myriad of reasons.

The open API is unstable and it says in the article that other 3rd party developers don't like using it.

As I said before swings and roundabouts. You can be a Microsoft hating dick or as I said before ... you can accept reality the world isn't perfect and there are people in both companies probably having a very bad time.

Edited 2013-08-16 18:56 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by jgagnon on Fri 16th Aug 2013 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Enforcing your rules for third parties isn't evil unless the rules themselves are evil. Which, in this case, they are not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Sat 17th Aug 2013 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

But being deliberately difficult is pretty shitty.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by moondevil on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Agree.

When I started doing development work for Fortune 500 companies, I learned to see Microsoft with different eyes.

Sure they are a bit bad boys, but there are lots of other IT corporations on the Fortune 500 world that make Microsoft look like an honest school kid.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I remember a friend of mine who is an OpenBSD developer asking a question to a startup business ...

"Why Microsoft and .NET?"

And the answer was:

"Whatever you think of Microsoft as developers, in business they are quite well respected and .NET is a good platform".

I think for sure they have done some shitty things, but as I said previously ... I have had to deal with far far far worse.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by Fergy on Fri 16th Aug 2013 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

There are far shitty tech companies out there than Microsoft which have far worse lock-in.

And which ones have a monopoly? The only reason I am on Windows is because almost all programs and games are made for Windows.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: ...
by Soulbender on Fri 16th Aug 2013 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I've had to use systems that make Oracle seem nice and cheap in comparison.


Dude, now you're scaring me. I don't think I'll be able to sleep tonight.

Seriously though, you are right. There are some really shitty systems out there that are insanely priced and whose design is an abomination to the programming profession.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by TemporalBeing on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:46 UTC in reply to "..."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Well, I feel disgusted how bad behavior gets condoned, because Google could also apply the same practice to other phones under the 3% market like the SailFish or UbuntuEdge.


But are those platforms advertising and marketing YouTube apps? Or do they just happen to implement enough of the browser to support the YouTube website?

My guess is they don't have a YouTube app - just a browser that supports YouTube.com well enough for use; probably a browser based on WebKit at that so they probably do implement everything Google is saying MS is not implementing.

It's really not that difficult. MS is just that pigheaded.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:58 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

But are those platforms advertising and marketing YouTube apps

I don't know, does the iPhone? and how is that relevant anyway?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by TemporalBeing on Fri 16th Aug 2013 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

But are those platforms advertising and marketing YouTube apps

I don't know, does the iPhone?


the iOS YouTube app is supported by Google.
So it has all the requisite features.

Though I don't see Apple necessarily advertising it, which Microsoft kind of wants to do (saying "hey, we can do YouTube too") to show feature parity.

and how is that relevant anyway?


It has to do with whether it is something being explicitly featured, or whether it is something that may just happen to be there. Are they trying to draw attention to that part of the app or specific user experience on the platform?

Microsoft, for example, is trying to push a feature parity with Android and iOS. They see Google Apps as critical to that; so they are likely doing some marketing (in their App Store at least) saying "hey, we can run the Google stuff too". Only, they are not providing the same level of experience or support required - thereby damaging Google's brand (a whole other issue for which Google could legally retaliate if they so chose) - which could also include the advertising side of it since that is their main business (thus their brand to content publishers) even if Microsoft argued that removing the ads improved the user experience (the brand to content consumers). This, in the end, is a very easy case to support Google's position.

On the other hand, if MS didn't put a specific app out, but enabled the web-browser to have enough features to support YouTube (so users went to YouTube and played videos without specific prompting or support from Microsoft) then it would be a harder (not impossible) case to support Google's position.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

the iOS YouTube app is supported by Google.

Exactly, and what API does Google use for that youtube app? their native API, and they don't wan't to share that API, instead they offert a buggy HTML5 option with a downgraded experience. So they cannot compete with their Google's counterpart, that is being anti-competitive, and that is what is wrong.

Edited 2013-08-16 21:16 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by TemporalBeing on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

the iOS YouTube app is supported by Google.

Exactly, and what API does Google use for that youtube app? their native API, and they don't wan't to share that API, instead they offert a buggy HTML5 option with a downgraded experience. So they cannot compete with their Google's counterpart, that is being anti-competitive, and that is what is wrong.


It's not anti-competitive. Everyone has their own internal APIs - use 'em, and your software may legitimately break and you can't complain.

Google publishes an API that many can and have used without much problems. They may not always like it, but it is useful.

And in the end, it's no different than MS saying "we don't want you to use the internal API between the NT Kernel and the Win32 subsystem, just use the Win32 API", or choose your API - MS certainly has a lot of them that do that kind of thing too.

Fact is, Microsoft is getting called out for not supporting the standards that they should be supporting. Everyone else does and doesn't have an issue.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

It's not anti-competitive

I completely disagree.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: ...
by TemporalBeing on Fri 16th Aug 2013 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

It's not anti-competitive

I completely disagree.


There's numerous things at play here.

1. Google's Brand (both to publishers and consumers) can be hurt by bad implementations. So shutting down WP can certainly be justified on brand protection in itself.

2. There's nothing to keep MS from building their own version of YouTube. But the fact is they want to tie into the YouTube Brand.

3. Google isn't keeping MS from implementing something that meets the requisite standards, only MS is. Everyone else has to meet those standards.

In the end, what you're suggesting is like saying that "well, my app doesn't meet the specifications for MS's Windows Certification but they're being anti-competitive because they won't certify it". They won't certify it because it doesn't meet the requirements for their Brand protection.

It would be different if the only reason they wouldn't was they didn't want a competing product. Again, Google has said "meet the specs and we'll allow it".

Just because MS doesn't want to build something to the specifications required for approval doesn't mean they should get approval. And that's is what is at the heart of this dispute - MS wants to make an inferior product and get away with it, but the product they're making can hurt the brand of a major competitor.

So if anyone is being anti-competitive about this whole ordeal it's Microsoft.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: ...
by JAlexoid on Mon 19th Aug 2013 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So they cannot compete with their Google's counterpart, that is being anti-competitive, and that is what is wrong.


What Google is doing is competition. Just because they are not providing the convenient APIs do not make them anti-competitive. Unless you believe that YouTube is a public service to which everyone should have equal access.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by cdude on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21


if [Microsoft] enabled the web-browser to have enough features to support YouTube

Or allowed that alternate Browsers - like Firefox, Opera and Chromium that all proper support youtube and HTML5 - run on WP8. Both not the case and it backfires when HTML5 is required.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by leech on Fri 16th Aug 2013 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

For the record, my N9 has a YouTube 'app'. From all of the youtube apps I've ever used (the ones on the PS3, the one on my LG bluray players, and my phone) the search function doesn't work the same as the youtube.com site does.

It's horrible, when you type the exact same thing in youtube.com and these apps, and get completely different results.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: ...
by cdude on Fri 16th Aug 2013 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

It's horrible, when you type the exact same thing in youtube.com and these apps, and get completely different results.

The with the N9 delivered youtube "app" is a bookmark to youtube, not more. It displays the search-results just like any (mobile?) browser when you surf to youtube.com

For the N9 there are some 3th party youtube apps. None official. If any of them alters the search-results then its a clear violation of the youtube ToS since applications are not allowed to alter the search-results. Be happy that Google didn't pull the apps youtube-ID. Probably cause the N9 is the last of its kind and there are not enough users of the app to care plus the developer doesn't use it for advertising like Microsoft does with its youtube ToS violater.

Edited 2013-08-16 21:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by Nelson on Fri 16th Aug 2013 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

On one hand, some people allege that WP isn't of enough importance (as if 3% of a market that grew incredibly YoY, and a doubling of sales YoY isn't substantial), on the other hand, the same people allege that there is material damages on content providers.

Google FWIW also had http://www.google.com/homepage/windows8/ this page rather early in Windows 8's development, and in fact promoted their Google Search app on Windows RT, which some people claim has had miniscule take up.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: ...
by cdude on Sat 17th Aug 2013 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21


on the other hand, the same people allege that there is material damages on content providers.

You don't need to succeed to make serious damage. In lots of cases its even that you only harm when you not succeed. See the latest Microsoft RT $1 billion lose or Nokia for example. And we all know that IF WP would succeed Google would make an official youtube app. We also know that Microsoft doesn't think its happening anytime soon that WP succeeds what is why they do the app themself.

Edited 2013-08-17 02:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by glarepate on Sun 18th Aug 2013 06:57 UTC in reply to "..."
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Well, I feel disgusted how bad behavior gets condoned, because Google could also apply the same practice to other phones under the 3% market like the SailFish or UbuntuEdge.

So, I welcome to the new old Microsoft, but this time, its name is Google.


Chances are they won't because those OSes have all the HTML features needed to make a YouTube app that Google will approve of. And msft says they will in some future version of their OS. But right now they don't.

Reply Score: 2

So, wait ...
by WorknMan on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:00 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

I thought HTML5 was the future, and native apps were lame sauce? ;)

Reply Score: 8

Another view
by zadintuvas on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:47 UTC
zadintuvas
Member since:
2012-07-23

I think that Google wants to retain control over YouTube. Obviously, it's very hard to do that if you don't make the app yourself. Now, Microsoft built their own app and called it "YouTube". This way Google can not make any changes without asking Microsoft.

If there's already an official HTML/JavaScript API available for everyone and it does not interfere with Google’s ability to make changes to their services, Microsoft should just use it instead of complaining.

Microsoft has built their own Xbox Music app entirely in HTML5. And they promote HTML5 as one of two ways to make Windows8/RT apps. I am surprised if they don't have this capability in Windows Phone 8.

YouTube has agreements with publishers which require them to display ads/compensate for their content. Also they need to ensure that any other restrictions (like, not allowing video on mobiles) are honored. Those are serious obligations and if some 3rd party comes with an app which violates them and potentially causes you problems, would anyone trust them again? Google is offering a way which would let them retain control.

Edited 2013-08-16 17:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Another view
by zadintuvas on Fri 16th Aug 2013 17:52 UTC in reply to "Another view"
zadintuvas Member since:
2012-07-23

I’ve checked things on my PC (W8/IE10), Windows Phone, Android and iPad. It seems that non-standard HTML5 video behavior on WP8 is to blame here: “There is also an inherent behavior of Windows Phone where playback of an HTML5 video through a web page opens the built-in media player to host the video”.

Microsoft should fix it.

Edited 2013-08-16 17:53 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Another view
by Soulbender on Fri 16th Aug 2013 20:10 UTC in reply to "Another view"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Obviously, it's very hard to do that if you don't make the app yourself. Now, Microsoft built their own app and called it "YouTube". This way Google can not make any changes without asking Microsoft.


Say what? How does Microsoft naming their app YouTube (which is a Google trademark) prevent Google from making any changes?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Another view
by Nelson on Fri 16th Aug 2013 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Another view"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Also worth noting, Apple wrote the original YouTube app. Google recently took over development responsibility of the app.

The Twitter app on WP was similarly worked on by contracted developers by Microsoft before Twitter took over and wrote their own (which replaced the old one).

The Facebook app on WP was an all MSFT thing (contracted out to one of the .NET shops like the Twitter thing, iirc) and then FB collaborated with MSFT on the app for WP8.

There's a few more examples, just none of the top of my head. This is standard practice.

Reply Score: 4

Why insist on HTML5?
by Tony Swash on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:20 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Does anybody know why Google is insisting that the Microsoft Youtube app be built using HTML5?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why insist on HTML5?
by WereCatf on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:23 UTC in reply to "Why insist on HTML5?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Does anybody know why Google is insisting that the Microsoft Youtube app be built using HTML5?


It's kind of obvious that we can't know for certain, but I would hazard a guess that they insist on it being built using HTML5 just to mess with Microsoft. I cannot think of any good technical reason for this move, that's fer shure.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why insist on HTML5?
by tkeith on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Why insist on HTML5?"
tkeith Member since:
2010-09-01

Read the comment below yours. Just because you couldn't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Why insist on HTML5?
by Nelson on Fri 16th Aug 2013 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why insist on HTML5?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Which is why the poster mentioned you can't know for certain? I'm amused at your ability to skip whole sentences.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why insist on HTML5?
by zadintuvas on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:26 UTC in reply to "Why insist on HTML5?"
zadintuvas Member since:
2012-07-23

I think that way they could deliver video player together with the video and manage how ads are shown, how permission to view videos on mobile devices is enforced.

Microsoft was not following Youtube TOS when they allowed to download Youtube videos and didn't show ads in their app earlier.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why insist on HTML5?
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Aug 2013 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Why insist on HTML5?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

They have turned it into a pissing match now.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why insist on HTML5?
by Tony Swash on Fri 16th Aug 2013 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Why insist on HTML5?"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

My assumption wads that it was a decision driven by selling advertising, Google are an advertising company after all.

What I don't understand, and I have no knowledge of any of this stuff so please fill me in if the answer is obvious, is why Google could not enforce the no download, inclusion of ads stuff in a native app, why do they need HTML5 to enforce that?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why insist on HTML5?
by Soulbender on Fri 16th Aug 2013 20:12 UTC in reply to "Why insist on HTML5?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Does anybody know why Google is insisting that the Microsoft Youtube app be built using HTML5?


Because Google are assholes? I dunno, beats me.
The YouTube branding guidelines says nothing about html5 and even says that you don't need special approval to use the API.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Why insist on HTML5?
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Aug 2013 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Why insist on HTML5?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Bingo

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why insist on HTML5?
by cdude on Fri 16th Aug 2013 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Why insist on HTML5?"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Wait, wait. Its Microsoft part of the story that Google forced them to do a HTML5 app. If that's true, if there where alternate suggestions on the table, if its actually a hybrid-app with a HTML5-layer for the youtube-API only (the video-frame + controls + ad-space), is absolute unclear. It was just not named.

I don't trust or believe Microsoft's lawyers (and lawyers in general), who wrote that blog about enforcing HTML5, a single word. I doubt they have any technical expertise to know about such details but are willing to turn anything often enough around and stretch words to make the point that the Google-enemy is anti-trusting them.

Google's statement is that Microsoft violates youtube ToS and youtube ToS name NOWHERE a HTML5 requirement. Do you believe Microsoft wouldn't fight hard through all courts on this planet if Google forces them to do things to fulfit a TOS that are not required by the TOS? Really? I serious doubt it.

Also read the exact wording. "We worked together with Google ... Google asked us" - That's lawyer-speach, ASKED us and NOT enforced! No requirement, Google asked. Nowhere any enforcements or "if not then". If you read that then I cannot find any line that says that this was a requirement. No line, no word, nothing.

Edited 2013-08-16 22:40 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Why insist on HTML5?
by Nelson on Fri 16th Aug 2013 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why insist on HTML5?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Private API permission is outside of the discussions on the terms of service of a Public API.

Google's Public API is governed by a ToS which prohibits anyone from doing non-approved things with it.

In order to get access to Google's Private APIs, you need to negotiate with Google, which may have included the need to implement an HTML5 app. Like you said, and which I agree with, lawyers are of dubious technical know how and I'd feel better having a developer chime in.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Why insist on HTML5?
by cdude on Sat 17th Aug 2013 01:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why insist on HTML5?"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Private API permission is outside of the discussions on the terms of service of a Public API

Exactly not. The youtube terms are clear what API's are allowed, what a client can and cannot do. There is even a link to the youtube API pages at the very first sentence and the whoke first chapter is about "API usage". Read it.


In order to get access to Google's Private APIs, you need to negotiate with Google

Google is a company. Pay enough and you can buy youtube, change the ToS or get special deals.

which may


The PUBLIC youtube ToS and APIs, those everyone can use under the same conditions, are visible, clear, public, not private since a long time. A user of the free (as in no money) youtube-services needs to fulfit those. There is no excuse. Take it or leave. Point.

IF Microsoft got into secret negotiations with Google to bypass some of those conditions and IF Google sayed okay but we request you do use HTML5 (all your speculation) then .... then what Microsoft complains about here? That they can't get things for free others never got? That they can't bypass, no dicatete, the rules (that apply to all others too, not only to Microsoft) when using services of others?

I think you may have a point in that Microsoft's actual complain is that they got the same conditions, the same API everybody else has. And WHEN (speculation of yours again) Microsoft got into secret negotiations to get another deal then its a complain that they don't get them for free.

Edited 2013-08-17 01:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Why insist on HTML5?
by Nelson on Sat 17th Aug 2013 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why insist on HTML5?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Exactly not. The youtube terms are very clear what API's are allowed. There is even a link to the youtube API pages at the very first sentence.


Right, but the goal isn't to stay within the confines of the public API. Its to get access to the private API. That requires negotiation, and thus isn't governed by the constraints of the public facing API's TOS.

This means that HTML5 being mentioned or not mentioned in the TOS is irrelevant, as it may have been a stipulation from Google to gain private API access.


Its a company. Pay enough and you can buy youtube, change the ToS or do whatever you like.


What?

IF Microsoft got into secret negotiations with Google to bypass some of those conditions and IF Google sayed okay but we request you do use HTML5 then .... then what Microsoft complains about here? That they can't get things for free others never got?


Precisely. Microsoft wants level footing with other platforms. Not to be trapped inside of the ToS confines of a public API which is more of a content aggregation plaything than a usable API.

This is a negotiation. There's push and pull from both sides. Microsoft is taking their complaints public because its waging a PR war, they know what they're doing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Why insist on HTML5?
by cdude on Sat 17th Aug 2013 02:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why insist on HTML5?"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Microsoft wants

That part is more then visible.


be trapped inside of the ToS confines of a public API which is more of a content aggregation plaything than a usable API


You never wrote a youtube app or even looked at the API then. I think what you liked to say but omitted is that Microsoft offered MORE then youtube at Android and youtube at iPhone offer, much more. Access to content marked private, downloading of videos, no ads. Something Google CANNOT grant official access to (removing ads may get in conflict with %-revenue deals) even in secret negotiations cause, you know, there are deals between content-providers and youtube in place. Contracts, laws, lawyers, expensive, etc. Youtube even NEEDS to block that Microsoft app else they not only lose revenue but may get sued in court by content-owners cause of contract-violations.


Microsoft is taking their complaints public because its waging a PR war, they know what they're doing.


And while Microsoft wents on some obscure PR wars for unknown reasons (hunting for weapons of mass destruction?) WP-users suffer and have no youtube. Clever. Latest now I would switch to something else. Who needs to buy products from a company that drags you into there obscure PR wars so you suffer?

Edited 2013-08-17 02:38 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Why insist on HTML5?
by Nelson on Sat 17th Aug 2013 02:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why insist on HTML5?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


You never wrote a youtube app or even looked at the API then. I think what you liked to say but omitted is, that Microsoft offered MORE then youtube at Android and youtube at iPhone offer. Things like access to content marked private, downloading of videos, no ads.


Actually, I have. Have you? Back during Silverlight 3 Beta, I wrote an example YouTube client to test out the hardware accelerated H264 and get HD YouTube decoding on a netbook.

So I am well aware of the limits of the public API, thank you very much.

Access to private content was an oversight (since fixed), downloading videos was removed, and pre rolled ads were implemented. Microsoft is willing to play ball.


Right. And while Microsoft wents on some obscure PR wars for unknown reasons (wewpons of mass destducfions anyone?) WP-users suffer and have no youtube. Great, really clever. Latest now I would switch to something else. Who needs to buy products from a company that drags you into there obscure PR wars?


Going by the moving goal posts, WP users wouldn't have one regardless. Google certainly wasn't going to write one and they've blocked Microsofts good faith attempts at writing one for them. At least this way they can shame Google into repenting. PR is powerful, look at the Xbox One

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why insist on HTML5?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 19th Aug 2013 16:11 UTC in reply to "Why insist on HTML5?"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Does anybody know why Google is insisting that the Microsoft Youtube app be built using HTML5?


Why do you even bother trying to pretend that that's a sincere question? Anyone who's the least bit familiar with your posting history knows that you've already come to a conclusion that you desperately want to share, so you try make it look like your conclusion comes out naturally as part of a discussion.

It's pathetically obvious that your "question" is nothing more than a pretense - so that when you inevitably do hop on your soapbox and trot out your favorite dead horse* yet again, you can play dumb and pretend that wasn't your goal all along.

*"OMG advertising company OMG!"

Reply Score: 4

Comment by drcouzelis
by drcouzelis on Fri 16th Aug 2013 18:23 UTC
drcouzelis
Member since:
2010-01-11

I'm confused.

I have a python application on my Linux desktop called "youtube-dl" that downloads videos from YouTube, Vimeo, DailyMotion, and others, ad free. While they're being downloaded, I can watch the videos using a video player application.

The same applications exist for the Nokia N900 (also Linux), so I can do the same there. The same applications will exist for the Jolla Mobile Phone (also also Linux).

Why does Microsoft need permission from Google? Aren't there third party YouTube applications for iOS, Android, and Windows Phone that already do something similar to what "youtube-dl" does (but with a more user friendly GUI)?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by drcouzelis
by cdude on Fri 16th Aug 2013 22:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by drcouzelis"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Nice from Google/youtube they disallow but not enforce except you are doing this as a big marketing-splash with the YouTube-brand all over and as official flagship-app while stating supported by Google and at the same time try to tax Android/Google with unnamed trivial-patents and go against there revenue-streams by explicit marketing functionality like ad-free, no privacy-limitations like at Android, etc.

Edited 2013-08-16 22:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

With Full Authority
by fretinator on Fri 16th Aug 2013 20:50 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

I, Fretinator, with powers vested in me by the Universal Openness and Geekiness FeelGood Association, do hereby, and with full faith, establish a timeout for said organizations, to be served concurrently, until such time that said parties do fully obstain from all Cranial/Anal inversions. Long Live The New Open!

Reply Score: 4

modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

They invented and use their patent that Google uses. It is not trolling if you are someone who actually implements and sells devices that use the patent you have defended in court.

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

OK. Then the YouTube question is even better, since Microsoft wants to use Google's resources on continuous basis.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Fri 16th Aug 2013 22:38 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

I think there's way too much missing yet to determine which side acted in bad faith, as far as the negotiations themselves go. The ones that both sides said they were in the middle of after the original app was pulled.

We basically have a lawyer written Microsoft blog post and nothing at all from Google beyond a take down request (which could very well have come from an overzealous legal department, not necessarily a coordinated attempt to shut out MS).

On the whole though, as far as Google dragging its feet on providing equal and fair access to its ecosystem is a dick move. That's regardless of Microsoft's other dick moves in the past, and I think in this case Microsoft has the upper ground in the obvious PR war its waging.

Reply Score: 4

Hmm
by klahjn on Sat 17th Aug 2013 01:52 UTC
klahjn
Member since:
2013-08-17

Google has championed a lot of open source programs. Microsoft has not. In fact, i've seen a few articles (unsure of validity) showing MS pockets inside of Redhat (thus fedora), as well as some investment in apple as well. They've strangled the market and made many great companies close due to questionable business practices and even more questionable tactics in the marketplace. The linux bootloader at least links other operating systems (windows), whereas the windows boot loader does not link to linux. Youtube is making microsoft adhere to html5 standards that they were a part of from the beginning. These were commonly agreed upon APIs. Internet explorer has dominated the market for years, and infected more computers with its miniscule security approach to web browsing, despite competitors that have massively superior products (chrome, opera, firefox/firebird/phoenix, etc). They stifled projects like ReactOS with false claims of using source code from windows 2000, causing the entire project to be rebuilt from the ground up. They charge 200+ dollars for operating systems like Vista, and Millenium edition, 95a, and 98 (pre-se). Yet they cry when google says "Follow the standards you agreed upon, or don't do it at all, no half assing it this time."?

Sounds kind of like another ploy....no sympathy ms, no empathy....just choke on it. And if you expect me to pay that kind of money for an operating system, it better not be an abysmal failure like every alternating operating system... (3.0, Nt3.5, 95a, 98 (not 98SE), Me, XP (Pre-SP1), Vista, 8)

Reply Score: 3

The nuclear option
by Nelson on Sat 17th Aug 2013 01:55 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

With Microsoft solidifying its enterprise chokehold with Office 365, the nuclear option in all of this is to pull the switch.

The EAS switch. Revoke Google's EAS licenses and watch the mass exodus from Google Apps and Android devices in the enterprise.

Without Exchange Google loses almost over night.

Reply Score: 4

RE: The nuclear option
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 09:52 UTC in reply to "The nuclear option"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

With Microsoft solidifying its enterprise chokehold with Office 365, the nuclear option in all of this is to pull the switch.

The EAS switch. Revoke Google's EAS licenses and watch the mass exodus from Google Apps and Android devices in the enterprise.

Without Exchange Google loses almost over night.


Any sane business should be looking at replacing their Exchange servers with OpenChange, SoGo and Samba4 on Linux servers.

http://www.openchange.org/developers/relnotes/2.0-quadrant.html

http://www.sogo.nu/english.html

http://www.samba.org/

This way said sane businesses can in one fell swoop: support Windows and any other OS clients, avoid CALs, and remove the threat to their business of Microsoft opting to invoke the "nuclear option".

Edited 2013-08-17 09:56 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The nuclear option
by Soulbender on Sat 17th Aug 2013 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE: The nuclear option"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Any sane business should be looking at replacing their Exchange servers with OpenChange, SoGo and Samba4 on Linux servers.


No sane business will completely change their entire infrastructure without very good reasons.

support Windows and any other OS clients


Yeah but...they already do that using Windows, at least for most practical purposes.

avoid CALs


Well, that is a good reason. Figuring out how the damn CAL's work and how many you need and why is a science in and of itself.

remove the threat to their business of Microsoft opting to invoke the "nuclear option".


Eh, that's not going to happen.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: The nuclear option
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 10:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The nuclear option"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yeah but...they already do that using Windows, at least for most practical purposes.


Yeah but ... they won't be able to continue to do that using Windows if Microsoft invokes the "nuclear option".

Sane businesses should certainly look at ways to avoid becoming casualties in the Microsoft/Google war.

Improving your infrastructure by going to Linux servers, and avoiding CALs in the process, is surely a win-win-win over being vulnerable to Microsoft's war with Google.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The nuclear option
by Nelson on Sat 17th Aug 2013 12:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The nuclear option"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Microsoft is more influential today in the enterprise. Not less. They're crushing Google Apps and their MDM suite grosses over a billion dollars. To think that enterprises would walk away from that is foolish.

Enterprises live and breathe the Microsoft productivity stack. Android caters to that, not the other way around.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: The nuclear option
by tylerdurden on Sat 17th Aug 2013 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The nuclear option"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

You're correct with regards to Microsoft's position with the Exchange ecosystem. They basically own that business space. In fact, out of the top of my head I can't think of any medium or large business organization which either does not depend on exchange or deploys it profusely. In the US at least.

But I personally don't think google is interested in the large/medium business front/back office space, at least not yet. Office/Exchange is just too entrenched still. The consumer/small ass business space however is where MS can be eroded, and there's where google are gunning for. All google basically wants is pairs of eye balls to serve ads to, their business model is way different than Microsoft's (e.g. google are not as dependent on direct sales to consumers/organizations as their principal source of revenue)

Edited 2013-08-17 21:23 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: The nuclear option
by zsekeres on Sat 17th Aug 2013 10:53 UTC in reply to "The nuclear option"
zsekeres Member since:
2011-02-11

Ah... FUD

I think there is a reason why BYOD is an issue these days. Employees are more comfortable with the devices they know (and often enough love) at home. Consumer stuff, i.e. basically Android and Apple given the current market shares.

So I guess if the "nuclear option" would be exercised productivity would suffer because employees are forced to get along without their favorite devices. Or how about this:
- An important service goes down on a long weekend.
- Turns out that an engineer is required who is not on call duty. (Yeah, this happens...)
- As the engineer has only his personal iPhone or Nexus phone with him and Exchange is not supposed talk to these evil devices he will enjoy some happy holidays.

(Actually close enough to an incident I experienced...)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The nuclear option
by Nelson on Sat 17th Aug 2013 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE: The nuclear option"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

BYOD is one tidal force, EAS and Office 365, as well as InTune is another one. Microsoft is so absolutely engrained in the enterprise (mainly because EAS is uncontested in what it does, lemurs pathetic alternatives aside) that they have significantly more leverage than Google does here. They'd kill GApps for Business over night.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: The nuclear option
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The nuclear option"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Microsoft is so absolutely engrained in the enterprise (drivel redacted) that they have significantly more leverage than Google does here. They'd kill GApps for Business over night.


This is precisely the kind of "Microsoft way or be dammed" attitude that sane businesses should fervently seek to avoid.

Certainly if any IT person expressed such an attitude to me I would be utterly keen to make sure they were not part of my IT staff.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: The nuclear option
by Nelson on Sun 18th Aug 2013 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The nuclear option"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

That's nice, but back to reality. Microsoft has immense leverage in the enterprise sector that they could flex in order to seriously harm Google and Android's uptake. They currently enjoy the revenue more than they hate the uptake, but it doesn't take much to change that. Look at how Google changed. Google's looking at itself more as a platform than a services company, and that changes their intentions quite a bit.

Its a war of ecosystems, as Nokia CEO Stephen Elop put it, and Google is firing shots with its platform protectionism. Microsoft can do the same.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: The nuclear option
by JAlexoid on Mon 19th Aug 2013 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The nuclear option"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Its a war of ecosystems, as Nokia CEO Stephen Elop put it, and Google is firing shots with its platform protectionism. Microsoft can do the same.


Yep. It is a war of ecosystems. The difference is that Microsoft can't go into attack mode without hurting their own image beyond acceptable. And the party to win would be a company like IBM, not Google or Microsoft.
You may think that Microsoft has all the power, but in reality they will bend over backwards for more than a handful of their clients.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: The nuclear option
by JAlexoid on Mon 19th Aug 2013 09:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The nuclear option"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

They'd kill GApps for Business over night.

How would that be? Android and iPhone don't need EAS to access GApps and Outlook integration is done using Google's own sync agent.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The nuclear option
by Vanders on Sat 17th Aug 2013 12:34 UTC in reply to "The nuclear option"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Revoke Google's EAS licenses and watch the mass exodus from Google Apps and Android devices in the enterprise.

Without Exchange Google loses almost over night.

That strikes me as something that could backfire horrifically. There's just too many Android devices around that people would roll over and accept that kind of move from Microsoft.

At my place of work your option for a work issued cell is an Android device or an Android device. Or possibly an Android device. They've spent millions on Android phones for employees. If it came down to it, the question would be "Which will cost less; replacing every single cell 'phone, or replacing Exchange?" and I'm not sure that Exchange wouldn't lose that accountancy battle.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: The nuclear option
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE: The nuclear option"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Revoke Google's EAS licenses and watch the mass exodus from Google Apps and Android devices in the enterprise.

Without Exchange Google loses almost over night.

That strikes me as something that could backfire horrifically. There's just too many Android devices around that people would roll over and accept that kind of move from Microsoft.

At my place of work your option for a work issued cell is an Android device or an Android device. Or possibly an Android device. They've spent millions on Android phones for employees. If it came down to it, the question would be "Which will cost less; replacing every single cell 'phone, or replacing Exchange?" and I'm not sure that Exchange wouldn't lose that accountancy battle.
"

Especially since there now exist drop-in replacements for Exchange, some of which are even zero cost.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The nuclear option
by Soulbender on Sat 17th Aug 2013 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The nuclear option"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Especially since there now exist drop-in replacements for Exchange, some of which are even zero cost.


There are no drop-in replacements for Exchange, no matter how much we would like there to be. Exchange can be replaced by existing OSS technologies but it's not a drop-in deal. It takes quite a bit of effort to make that migration without pissing off all your users.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: The nuclear option
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The nuclear option"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Especially since there now exist drop-in replacements for Exchange, some of which are even zero cost.


There are no drop-in replacements for Exchange, no matter how much we would like there to be. Exchange can be replaced by existing OSS technologies but it's not a drop-in deal. It takes quite a bit of effort to make that migration without pissing off all your users.
"

If you have existing large-scale infrastructure, you do have a very significant task ahead of you.

There are however a number of very easy replacements for Exchange if one doesn't have significant existing infrastructure to cater for, as would be the case for small businesses or even new medium-scale businesses.

http://www.zentyal.com/

http://www.zimbra.com/

http://www.citadel.org/

http://www.alfresco.com/

One from my own country: http://atmail.com/

There are a lot to choose from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collaborative_software#Collabo...

Edited 2013-08-17 13:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: The nuclear option
by JAlexoid on Mon 19th Aug 2013 09:42 UTC in reply to "The nuclear option"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

A) Microsoft can't do that, because that would constitute an illegal move under their commitments to EU.
B) Microsoft would be hurting themselves more - being seen as a petty supplier that is willing to hurt their existing customers.

Reply Score: 3

Microsoft now suffers from its own tactics
by benali72 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 06:38 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

For years, Microsoft jerked around Windows developers to ensure dominance of its own products. That's how it beat Lotus (spreadsheets), WordPerfect (word processing), and Novell (networking), among many others.

Now the shoe is on the other foot.

It's hard to feel much sympathy for Microsoft given the company's past behavior.

Reply Score: 8

Comment by kovacm
by kovacm on Sat 17th Aug 2013 12:49 UTC
kovacm
Member since:
2010-12-16

The difficult thing here is that Google actually has a very good case; it's their API, their service, their rules.


Remeber this when you next time write something about Apple! ;)

Reply Score: 2

praise Google
by timeecho on Sun 18th Aug 2013 23:24 UTC
timeecho
Member since:
2013-08-18

for years MS has had a strong monopoly and killed any and all possible contenders mercilessly. The guys from
Wash. are greedy pigs. Never offering anything gratis
to the community. Thank God finally there is a company
that can stand up to MS since the government wont. And
the more difficult life becomes for MS the easier I
sleep. God loves Google and MS Windblows out my arse.

Reply Score: 1

gManav
Member since:
2013-08-19

What a double standard of the posters. When Microsoft hid the API for IE to make it faster, everyone complained that Microsoft can't do that. Well it was Microsoft's OS, Microsoft had the right to do whatever it wanted.

Now same people are defending google. Wonder wonder...

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

What a double standard of the posters. When Microsoft hid the API for IE to make it faster, everyone complained that Microsoft can't do that. Well it was Microsoft's OS, Microsoft had the right to do whatever it wanted.

Now same people are defending google. Wonder wonder...


Google never opened the API, there is a difference. If Google added additionl restrictions for their Public API to kill off competition, then you could equate them.

Reply Score: 1

gManav Member since:
2013-08-19

What are you talking about? The API IE used was not public either, but Microsoft got sued and even threatened to split because they used private API of Windows in IE.

This case is exactly similar, if Android is using a private API of youtube then Android and youtube should be split.

Sorry you may wear your google colored glasses but anti-competitive nature of google is quite clear here.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

What are you talking about? The API IE used was not public either, but Microsoft got sued and even threatened to split because they used private API of Windows in IE.


Let me just take off my Google glasses and put of the fact checking glasses... Nope, Microsoft was never accused of using private APIs for IE. Microsoft cited use of private APIs as a reason why IE had to be in Win98.

Then, EU case only required Microsoft to release interoperability specifications for their products that were deemed unsubstitutable and where Microsoft has removed interoperability with other systems. I'm still waiting for proof that YouTube is unsubstitutable.

PS: WP8 can use m.youtube.com without any issues. Just a few minutes ago I had to watch a video ad before watching the actual video, just like on Android or iOS.

Reply Score: 2

Where's the controversy?
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 20th Aug 2013 14:57 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

It looks to me as if Microsoft is wholly in the wrong here. All of the details I'm aware of give the impression that Microsoft is trying to paint the situation as if it were about "fairness", when they're really just relying on publicity stunts & various other dishonest/bad-faith tactics get undue special treatment for Windows Phone.

It seems to me that Microsoft is trying to portray the situaytion as if having a native WP youtube application is some kind of right, when actually a privilege (it's not as if native applications are the only way to access youtube content). It's Google's service, I see no reason they shouldn't be able to provide (or not) native applications, completely at their own discretion. It seems reasonable to me that a native youtube app is a extra perk afforded to the most popular mobile OSes - and if that is the rationale, then (frankly) WP doesn't have a large enough presence to justify Google going out of their way to support it.

Beyond that, there's no question in my mind that Microsoft knew they were violating Google's TOS with their previous youtube application. It looks to me as if that were deliberately done, in order to manipulate Google into a situation where they look like the bad guy. It also looks to me like Microsoft is desperately trying to give the impression that they hold the balance of power in their relationship with Google, despite the fact that it's a situation where they need Google much more than Google needs them - the lack of a WP native youtube app is much more of a problem for Microsoft than it is for Google.

And I think this is all indicative of Microsoft's difficulties in adjusting to a changing landscape. To quote Jean-Louis Gassee: "When you're the 800lb gorilla, it's up to everyone else to be compatible with you" - and Microsoft has typically been 800lb, but the current mobile landscape reverses that situation in many ways. And from what I can see, Microsoft no longer has the ability - or at least the willingness - to effectively compete when they're not the dominant player. The brute-force tactics that made the first XBox successful (viz: just throw progressively more money & developers at the problem) don't seem to having much success with WP.

Reply Score: 2