Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Jan 2013 23:38 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft's legal chief: "We continue to be dogged by an issue we had hoped would be resolved by now: Google continues to prevent Microsoft from offering consumers a fully featured YouTube app for the Windows Phone." Utter nonsense, since MetroTube offers a complete and full YouTube experience on Windows Phone (it's one of the best Windows Phone applications), and YouTube+ on Windows 8. Two fantastically rich applications, built by small ISVs - yet Microsoft can't do the same? Don't make me laugh. Coincidentally, Microsoft is also whining some more about Google's removal of ActiveSync - Redmond again refuses to acknowledge that all it needs to do is implement the open standards CalDAV and CardDAV, just like everyone else has done. Times have changed, Ballmer. You don't get to dictate the industry anymore.
Thread beginning with comment 546935
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Please Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please Thom"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

They break because the API changes. Documented APIs change too. Third parties adapt. That's life as an ISV. Ask the SAMBA guys. Ask OpenOffice. Ask anybody who has ever had to tap into someone else's APIs, specifications, or standards.

You have offered up zero evidence that this is all a big conspiracy to harm consumers using Windows Phone, as you claim. Until you do, you're just rambling nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[4]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:23 in reply to "RE[3]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The public facing YouTube API changes rarely. But, if it changes, that's great. Because it's documented.

When YouTube changes their private API, in an effort to subvert MetroTube and other third party apps, it becomes a bigger deal because time must be spent figuring out a work around, resubmitting to the Windows Store, and hoping it doesn't break again.

You're suggesting Microsoft use undocumented APIs and submit it out to consumers on the hopes that Google doesn't decide to do something about the blatant violation of their terms of use. Perhaps Google can willy nilly ignore the legal ramifications of what they do with others property, but Microsoft can't.

Why is it so difficult for you to get behind Google opening up their YouTube API? Why is it so hard for you to point the finger at Google?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Please Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

, in an effort to subvert MetroTube and other third party apps,


Proof buddy! You have none. If you do, please show it. Otherwise, this conspiracy of yours is bullshit.

Why is it so difficult for you to get behind Google opening up their YouTube API? Why is it so hard for you to point the finger at Google?


It would be great if they did - but the fact of the matter is, is that it doesn't seem to matter. Closed or not, there are fantastic third party YouTube applications, and for the first time in eons, we saw breakage a few weeks ago that lasted a whole day (wow!). It'd be great if they opened it - it just doesn't seem to matter.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Please Thom
by Tony Swash on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 11:05 in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Why is it so difficult for you to get behind Google opening up their YouTube API? Why is it so hard for you to point the finger at Google?


Because he loves Google. He loves Google so much he loves an utterly and deliberately closed solution designed to break compatibility whilst simultaneously lauding the principal of open source and attacking Microsoft for being closed.

I love seeing Microsoft on the receiving end of the same sort of tactics that it used to use to dominate the industry but I don't think Google are a bunch of saints and and I don't think they run their business based on any higher principals than any other company. Google is only the champion of open source when it involves opening and devaluing other companies business models. Google does not champion open source search algorithms, for example, because that would devalue their own business model.

I have no objection to Google's business model but what is so hard to take is how they wrap their business in a sickeningly hypocritical envelope of sanctity and what is really appalling is how many people swallow it.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[5]: Please Thom
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 12:47 in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Perhaps Google can willy nilly ignore the legal ramifications of what they do with others property, but Microsoft can't.

The fact that Google is actively making sure it's hard to download copyrighted material from YouTube is evidence to the contrary - protecting IP that does not belong to them.(FYI: YouTube videos don't belong to Google)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Please Thom
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:23 in reply to "RE[3]: Please Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

OOXML and the network protocols SAMBA uses are open and documented standards/protocols.

YouTube is not. You can't find documentation to make a fully featured YouTube client. I don't think you understand this.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Please Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 00:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You can't find documentation to make a fully featured YouTube client.


And yet, they exist. Many of them. Often better than Google's own offerings. It would be great to have it open, but from a practical standpoint, it doesn't seem to matter.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Please Thom
by tylerdurden on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 05:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


You can't find documentation to make a fully featured YouTube client. I don't think you understand this.


Huh?

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

Edited 2013-01-03 05:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[5]: Please Thom
by The1stImmortal on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 10:33 in reply to "RE[4]: Please Thom"
The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

Sorry to butt into the convo here, but:
Documentation to create a fully featured YouTube client:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-html5-20121217/
- http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-2...
- http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devne...

There's some other docs those ones depend on but that's pretty but the core of it right there.

Of course, most computing devices have at least a partial implementation already.

;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Please Thom
by Deviate_X on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 13:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Please Thom"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

They break because the API changes. Documented APIs change too. Third parties adapt. That's life as an ISV. Ask the SAMBA guys. Ask OpenOffice. Ask anybody who has ever had to tap into someone else's APIs, specifications, or standards.

You have offered up zero evidence that this is all a big conspiracy to harm consumers using Windows Phone, as you claim. Until you do, you're just rambling nonsense.


thom you are loosing credibility i'm surprised

i'm sure you can't see the bigger commercial picture (not conspiracy) being played out

Reply Parent Score: 1