MobilityLeaks: Shame on Microsoft
David K: Does Google really think that its Android lead is so effing precarious that a decent Youtube app on Windows Phone could jeopardize it? If only MS used the YouTube API that Google was so nice in supplying so that the ads would display…wait what? Oh Microsoft had to do a work around because Google won’t let Microsoft use the API and that’s why there’s no ads? Oh evil evil Microsoft – for shame. If Google blocks an API that means you can’t play in the sandbox and shame on you for trying. Simmons, any thoughts?
Ram: David, LOL — Simmons, the PAL of Eric Schmidt, won’t care and in fact says its Microsoft’s fault. Damn effing fawnbuys. They buy into their divas and in fact they are ready to Lend their Personal Ass. Simmons, if you are still wondering what is a PAL, I just gave you the definition. 🙂
Doug Simmons: I don’t know or care whose fault it is, what I want is their stuff on more platforms. Likewise, I’d like to see Microsoft’s stuff on other platforms — EG Office on iOS and Android. Google’s claimed repeatedly that what they want to be platform-independent. This isn’t WebOS, WP is a viable platform, why try go out of their way to shaft it. Shooting everybody in the feet. Perhaps you’d likewise be “pals” with Ballmer if he, I don’t know, didn’t sweat as much, and other little things like not letting the company go sideways on his watch. The thing I’m pals with is progress. Don’t break my balls just because one particular company incidentally tends to have more overlap in that industry than another.
Related Posts
About The Author
Doug Simmons
Biographical info.. hmm. I have a history of not being able to strike the balance between what is "safe" to put into these forms and what is, in my mind at least, funny. Can't do it.
Woah I totally missed the part where you suggested I was gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
For YouTube? No. If MS had access to the API they would let ads play in the app. Google won’t build it so MS built it themselves like any other third party without APIs would.
I think the comparisons I’ve seen in many comment sections about office on other platforms is an invalid argument. Since Google doesn’t want to make a WP youtube app, MS is trying to. The fact that Google is blocking the necessary APIs to create an app that complies with their ridiculous T&C is the part that I find crazy. Now on the flipside, MS not creating office apps for other platforms is completely ok with me, it’s not like google’s made an tube app for WP yet. When all their apps, heck even half, available on Android are on WP, and there’s still no office, then you can play that card. If Google or Apple, or any other 3rd party dev wanted to create apps that can create, view or edit office files, they can, MS is not blocking that.
My view is, promoting my own platform first is completely fair which is what google, apple and ms all do. Restricting access to open media and formats is not right. I may be wrong but I don’t see MS doing that with office, but do see Google doing that with youtube.
Does this Microsoft app let you download videos in addition to playing them and does it disregard content restrictions, or not?
ie: Smitty – +1
Proprietary = I am afraid that someone will do this better than me so I better restrict access.
Don’t know Jim, that statement is kind of mixed up on what things might mean, and unclear regarding what you’re referring to, you probably are too; but whatever, I get the idea.
If this is not at all about Youtube having terms of service already with which this app clashes in various ways, but about something else, I’d put Google and Youtube simply having become rather irritated with Microsoft on the table, and ahead of Google actually taking the threat you see seriously of a somehow-superior WP Youtube app cutting into any part of Google’s business.
Yes it let’s you download videos, even in background, it’s great! no it doesn’t show ads, but that was because google is blocking that part.
Then why would Youtube prohibit it both in their TOS, their web interface and every legit phone app that accesses youtube, unless letting people do that were bad for business, against agreements they have with other companies, illegal and so forth?
And, related, does it disregard content distribution restrictions, like how people can set their youtube clips only to play on the website and not embedded on other sites or on mobile devices, or not?
Not a lawyer, only skimmed the letter, but those might be legitimate objections, if you think about it. Not sure why everyone is focusing on one of the three points, perhaps the one of the least concern to Youtube versus the others.
One might take it a step farther and note that it’s a bit rude of Microsoft to do things you’d expect to find on XDA forums with this downloading trick and dodging content restrictions.
Just so I don’t focus in on one thing Doug:
Item 1 of the letter – app allows downloading. The WP app isn’t the only one, and it’s 3% global user base is a lot less than the android 70%+ global user base which has a lot of apps that can download youtube videos. Why isn’t Goog going after their own app store devs first? Or the websites that allow downloading videos? Or the chrome extension that allows downloading youtube videos?
Item 2 – Prevents ads – MS has already stated they would correct this if they get access to the needed APIs, I fault google on that one alone because they’ve been trying to get access for a couple years now.
Item 3 – Plays restricted content. I guess there maybe some details about this from the dev perspective that I don’t know. But I work with software development and understand filtering API content. If someone says the video should only be available via the website, why do the APIs that are available for developers to build apps off of, including MS, allow access to those videos in the first place? Seems like a bug in youtube’s APIs.
Smitty, so what you’re saying is that Microsoft made a Youtube player that violates at least two, maybe three of the three terms of Youtube’s TOS that Youtube mentioned, kind of glaringly (downloading videos?), but Google is being unreasonable because other things continue to exist that aren’t attracting such letters and because of some deficit in Youtube’s code making it too easy for TOS-scofflaws?
Would you call these three infringements oversights on Microsoft’s part or Microsoft intentionally goading Youtube (or Google if you want to call Youtube Google) into this situation?
Ok, just my opinion but to me this is another example of google playing childish games. No doubt this too is their form of retaliation for all the infringement cases MS brings against android, and instead of doing what’s right (whatever “right” is) they stoop to these levels. All youtube is to them is another source of ad revenue. So who wouldn’t want their ads in more people’s hands, even if you think it’s “only a few” people?
Beyond that, there are apps that block YT ads on chrome, and android… but those apps haven’t been removed by google, so that alone contradicts part of their reasoning. Their products aren’t anything I’d call superior in any fashion, but something like youtube has become an indispensable tool used by the entire planet. And it was that before google bought it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was google who took MS to court to force them to allow chrome on Windows PC’s wasn’t it? When you think about it, isn’t that the same damn thing? I can’t help but wonder what kinds of backlash Microsoft would catch if they pulled the same tactics with Skype? No doubt MS would be vilified far beyond what they are now, and rightfully so because Skype was what it is today before MS bought it. Maybe people need to stop looking at google through rose colored glasses and take them for the pouty brats they come off as.
The funny thing to me is that while they go to such great lengths to only keep their services off of Windows Phone, but they back up their reasoning for doing it, they never had an issue with offering and regularly updating their services on the Windows Mobile platform. Including YouTube.
See, google is not for technological progress. They want it to get to a point where no matter where it started, it ends with google… and that’s just shady.
@Sean +1