Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Jan 2013 23:38 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 547267
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.)




Member since:
2005-11-29
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.