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 547048
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Yes...
by The1stImmortal on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yes..."
The1stImmortal
Member since:
2005-10-20

Now if the shoe was on the other foot, and Microsoft was locking Google and Android out of Skype, or Skydrive, or Outlook. Or if Microsoft blocked Google access to the Microsoft Store or whatever underhanded tactic you could think of


Brilliant example!

Actually, Skype's protocol is locked up - ISV's *cannot* build a full featured client around Skype's protocol without the same kind of issues third party YouTube apps face (even more, in fact, due to the nature of the protocol). Additionally, since the Microsoft acquisition of Skype was first announced, there's been a few licensing agreements for the protocol pulled (Skype for Asterisk being the big example)

Also, last I checked, Microsoft's store didn't support clients running Google's Android. Nor should they be forced to.

Likewise Google should not be forced to support clients running on MS's OS. Especially while Google is not the dominant/monopoly Email/Groupware provider, and while MS Phone 8/RT is such a small segment of the market.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Yes...
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 14:30 in reply to "RE[4]: Yes..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Brilliant example!

Actually, Skype's protocol is locked up - ISV's *cannot* build a full featured client around Skype's protocol without the same kind of issues third party YouTube apps face (even more, in fact, due to the nature of the protocol). Additionally, since the Microsoft acquisition of Skype was first announced, there's been a few licensing agreements for the protocol pulled (Skype for Asterisk being the big example)


I agree that Skype needs to be opened up. I will however give Microsoft a little tiny bit of leeway, the Skype acquisition was relatively recent and who knows the state of that source code. Judging by how terrible the Desktop app was, I wouldn't be surprise if it was an absolute mess.

But again, I agree this is a move they should make. And that's why I think its so unreasonable of people to try to deflect the blame on Google by going after Microsoft.


Also, last I checked, Microsoft's store didn't support clients running Google's Android. Nor should they be forced to.


But Google will soon need to face the reality that to remain relevant on Windows going forward, they need to use the Windows Store.

It would be a completely different story if Microsoft somehow blocked Google from their Store. However when Google does it via their closed API (and not even that, they refuse to even offer NDA'd documentation, the same courtesy they extend other platforms) its somehow alright.


Likewise Google should not be forced to support clients running on MS's OS. Especially while Google is not the dominant/monopoly Email/Groupware provider, and while MS Phone 8/RT is such a small segment of the market.


Google isn't the one writing the client. Microsoft has engineered the YouTube client. Much like they do the Facebook one.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Yes...
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 13:27 in reply to "RE[5]: Yes..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Now I don't believe that Microsoft has to open Skype protocol. Neither does Google have to open up YouTube protocol(which would be harder to do, since YouTube is a good source of content licensing nightmare).
These protocols are tied into a service, they are not general purpose protocols.

It would be nice to have that, but it's not essential. Adopting open protocols would be much better.

Reply Parent Score: 2