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.
Permalink for comment 561781
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 16th May 2013 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29


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


So? They are an actively licensed standards based technology. FRAND is merely coincidental in this case.

The point is that licensing costs for EAS, especially on mobile is not prohibitive. And if you're lucky and get the next big thing, Microsoft does offer volume licensing rates which push the cost down further.

EAS licensing costs were pocket change for Google, who makes and obsoletes new products and services left and right, similarly, for other players, licensing IP is just standard operating procedure.


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:


Right, so they are moving away from XMPP for the future of their chat based communication?

Its obvious Google Chat is still there, but where are they investing in the future? Will it be taken out back and put out of its misery during the next spring cleaning? Maintenance mode isn't something I'd be glad over.

And its interesting that you say I keep taking things out of context, only to provide no additional context yourself. I don't understand what was so illuminating about the additional sentence or two you quoted, because it did exactly nothing for your argument.

"Google isn't killing the old thing as fast" isn't an excuse for them moving away from another standard, while at the same time, acting holier than thou on standards support at I/O. Its corporate double speak, and its amusing you can't see past it.


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.


I'm generally first on most threads, including a few Android, Google, developer, and patent based. I post in what interests me, and I've already stated that I enjoy the Microsoft platform and others.

I still don't understand how any of the above makes me a paid shill? Am I not allowed to hold an opinion that's different from the OSNews echo chamber? Maybe you, and dopes who think like you, take pride in being wrong (like they were on Samsung-Apple trial, Nokia dying any day now, Google/MS EAS spat, etc) but I try to see things the way they actually are.

If you look in this thread and stop making excuses for Google you'll see that I criticize both Microsoft and Google, as well as provide some context as to why Google may be acting the way they are (Quid pro quo comment in reply to another, in light of CEO comments from Google), so I certainly tell both sides of the story.

I can admit that Microsoft was wrong in breaking its terms, but I can at the same time provide context and show that Google is no saint either.

The inconvenient truth that you, and others refuse to admit is that Google mightve actually been wrong in this instance, but that's inconceivable and you'd rather imagine me taking quotes out of context (despite you never providing the supposed proper context).


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.


They're cut out for brevity and you didn't really add much more. You showed that Google is phasing out XMPP support in favor of something proprietary in their Chat platform, which is in line with what I said.

You're speaking as if you'd shown that Google is not doing this, which isn't what you've done (though I'm sure you wish you couldve, given your comical disbelief when I first brought it up).

Reply Parent Score: 2