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 547248
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Yes...
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Jan 2013 13:27 UTC 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

RE[7]: Yes...
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jan 2013 14:43 in reply to "RE[6]: Yes..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

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.


The service is nearly ubiquitous and not offering an open way to provide an experience (or even offering under NDA a way to access YouTube, as they did to Apple) is wrong.

Wrong when Microsoft does it. Wrong when Apple does it. Wrong when Google does it.

The issue is that others seem to be able to both simultaneously criticize Microsoft for instances in which they have not done it, but deflect criticism from Google.


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


A protocol becomes open..if you open it up.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Yes...
by JAlexoid on Sat 5th Jan 2013 12:50 in reply to "RE[7]: Yes..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The service is nearly ubiquitous and not offering an open way to provide an experience (or even offering under NDA a way to access YouTube, as they did to Apple) is wrong.

Skype is as ubiquitous. But as I said, I do not believe that Microsoft should open up access to a service. Service is not the same as protocol or product.

And as long as there is a web interface available, I don't see why Google should allow Microsoft(which they get a lot of direct verbal abuse from) to access YouTube content.

Let alone, we have no idea if it's even allowed by the content licensing agreements YouTube has. (For example: The TV apps that you see go through the manufacturer's proxy that pay YouTube in compensation for lost advertising revenue and have severe restrictions.)

Reply Parent Score: 2