151–160 of 303 posts
You can down vote me all you want, but I feel zero sympathy for Microsoft. If their app is being blocked from YouTube is because they deserve it. Google has all the right to choose which third parties can access YouTube. Microsoft is in no positing to criticize the actions of other companies.
Why doesn't Google write a youtube app for the windows phone? Google has written one for the iphone. Am I missing something with what is going on here? Disclaimer: I don't have a windows phone and have no intention of getting one.
iPhone (and Android) have sufficiently-large userbases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't have to make a YouTube app for every platform, especially when people can still use YouTube via the browser on the phone. The Platform Vendor making the app ignored the rules for using that API and got blocked. Instead of changing it, they spend time deciding not to change it, release it again with only some of the issues fixed, and are then surprised when it gets rejected due to the outstanding issues…
They did change it, except for the one thing the provider of the so-called "open" API doesn't even do - HTML5. Why should Google hold MSFT to that standard when it doesn't even do it itself? I smell the same anti-trust bullying that MSFT did in the 90s and early 00s.
They decided that they wanted a set of rules for when other people play with their toys. If Microsoft had followed the rules, instead of ignoring them, after saying they were going to follow the rules, it's their problem, not Google's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article makes it seem like Google was working with Microsoft on allowing a Youtube app until Microsoft said they didn't want to play by Google's rules and published an app anyway. I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff.
>I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff. Then what does open mean? To me it means to provide an API on an equal footing among the various platforms. If Google is providing access to secret Web service APIs to their Android and iOS Youtube Apps, but not to Windows Phone, how is that open? Requiring to show ads is still understandable, but requiring HTM…
To most of the world, it means "you can interoperate with me as long as follow my terms and conditions", with those terms being considered reasonable. it does NOT mean "I must let everyone compete with me on equal footing".
Apple, Google, Microsoft: they each act like bullies when they have the upper hand and whine when someone else makes them dance. If you react emotionally to arguments between these companies (unless they pay you to) you should find something worthwhile to be angry about. They're all whores who would screw every customer they have for a dime. Use them any way you can but don't invest in them emotionally. It's a waste…
As a Microsoft employee, I endorse this position.
Disclosure: I am a Googler, though not working on anything remotely near YouTube. Obvious caveat: this is just my personal opinion. > With this backdrop, we temporarily took down our full-featured app when Google objected to it last May If I remember right, this full-featured app included features like: 1. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider disallowed that. 2. Allowing users to not view…
> 1. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider disallowed that. This was poor judgment from Microsoft, and as far as I can see, was addressed in this new version of the app. > 2. Allowing users to not view ads even when the content provider specifically required ads to be shown. Blocking on this basis alone is a double standard from Google. As others have pointed out, the iOS app developed by A…
It has been mentioned else where in the thread that apple had licence from google to use youtube without ads and when that licence ended they removed the app from the market.
>Though one could argue that they did and that's why iOS 6+ doesn't include it. But that doesn't explain why Apple TV, to this day, still plays all videos—even with required monetization—without ads. Why is it okay for Apple to do this, but not Microsoft? Why won't Google license YouTube API access on the same terms?
Apple may very well have a licence for this as they did previously with the iphone app.
> As above, why won't Google license this to Microsoft on the same terms as other competitors?
The article does not even say if Microsoft has been seeking such or if Google has denied them. If they are/have been seeking then the author of the article should have included this fact to make their argument stronger, but if it is there I missed it.
> Heck, there's even a third-party app for iOS called Jasmine[1] that is a native app (embedding just the HTML5 video player inside the app as y2bd points out below) and uses YouTube branding. Why is Google making it more difficult for Microsoft to do the exact same thing? We're clearly not getting the full story from anyone here.
Big players get more attention because they have a larger effect. It would be unprofitable and unproductive for its long term survival for google to pay equal attention to small players transgressing rules as they do larger players.
Karma is finally biting Microsoft in the ass. Who else remembers the refrain "it ain't done 'til Lotus won't run!" from Microsoft's earlier years? Having said that, I would expect the "do no evil" company - directly referring to not being like Microsoft - to do the right thing, if, in fact Microsoft is being fully forthcoming in stating they have complied with all of Google's objections. In the end, both companies ha…
The article says that they decided to release the app over Google's objections: There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. [...] For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google long-term on an app based on HTML5. [...] Google, however, has decided to block our mutual customer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube isn't open source or open content, they're a business and their services aren't free, they're subject to the wishes of YouTube and its content owners. The iOS app would've been developed in partnership and with the blessing of Google (aka Co that owns YouTube). Microsoft had no such relationship with Google and instead chose to release their own unofficial YouTube app (first without ads) clearly violating the…
>So Google blocks Microsoft, who wants to turn this into a anti-Google PR stunt and is openly crying foul trying to rally public support for their plight since they have no legal recourse. And there's nothing wrong with that. Google might be doing a legal thing, but they're still doing the wrong thing. >Which is odd for Microsoft who loves exploiting the legal system to others detriment. I'm honestly shocked that Goo…