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 546985
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Perspective
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Perspective"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29


Ya, kicking and screaming as they were forced to. MS is still very much anti-competitive. Google is far from perfect but at least the file formats they introduce are open and documented in full with reference implementations and the protocol extensions are documented.


Nobody forced Microsoft to do any of the above. Unless you have any proof? You called me a troll in your other comment but the only one spreading falsehoods here is you.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Perspective
by gfolkert on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 05:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Perspective"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

Nobody forced Microsoft to do any of the above. Unless you have any proof? You called me a troll in your other comment but the only one spreading falsehoods here is you.

WHAT?
The whole SAMBA v4 thing was a Lawsuit that forced them to open the stuff up.

Why was it that Microsoft themselves taught their protocol with Samba, was it because they were OPEN with it... no it was because Jeremy and they other chaps made Samba BUG for BUG compatible with the protocol as implemented over the wire by Microsoft and it is *MUCH* cleaner and easier to read... plus if does/did dual/tri modes.

Or how about the Memory Management mess they did with DOS.

Hmmm, how about them buying and deep-sixing whole companies because they were competition... even though *MANY* commercial customers were materially harmed by them flush the bowl... after they took a dump on those companies?

Again, I'm guessing you have *REALLY* little experience in this industry or you have a very bad memory.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Perspective
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 05:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Perspective"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

And I mentioned none of those. Do I need to rephrase my question?

I specifically mentioned protocols and services Microsoft has themselves implemented on other platforms. Its one thing to be forced to document a protocol and dump it on Samba, it's another thing for them to go ahead and do the leg work themselves.

Look at HyperV code in Linux, Hotmail/Outlook on Android, Skype, ActiveSync, Silverlight, etc.

The point is to show that Microsoft is (albeit slower than I'd like) turning towards a more general direction.

All of this is lost in your blind fury over the past.

Edited 2013-01-03 06:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Perspective
by Nth_Man on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 10:44 in reply to "RE[3]: Perspective"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

There are more official abuses listed by

The European Committee for Interoperable Systems
www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
"Microsoft - A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm".

Reply Parent Score: 3