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 547085
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Re:
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 14:33 UTC in reply to "Re:"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

In some fantasy land of yours, no one takes a royalty bearing license for anything, ever.

Except that's not how the world actually works. People license things all the time.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Re:
by bnolsen on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 15:53 in reply to "RE: Re:"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

licensing can hit bottom line profitability. MS has made no friends with google with their patent extortion fees against android vendors. fair is fair here.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Re:
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 16:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Re:"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Do you know how much the licensing fees cost Google? I'm not sure you do, so I don't think you're qualified to talk on any potential impact to their bottom line.

If you think a company as large as Google doesn't get major volume discounts you're out of your mind.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Re:
by nej_simon on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 16:03 in reply to "RE: Re:"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

So? That doesn't mean you can come whining when someone opts for the royalty-free technology rather than your proprietary stuff.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Re:
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 16:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Re:"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think its perfectly acceptable to complain when they disenfranchise a large amount of users and remove functionality with no replacement.

There is no replacement for the functionality EAS brought to the table, there is no evidence this was financially destroying Google, and there is no excuse for doing this with two months notice.

The way some of you contort yourselves to defend this is amusing.

Reply Parent Score: 2