Microsoft Says Google Trying To Undermine Windows Phone 476
First time accepted submitter Bent Spoke writes "In a bit of delicious irony, Microsoft laments Google is not playing fair by excluding access to meta-data on YouTube, preventing the development of the kind of powerful app readily available on Android. From the article: 'In a blog post on Wednesday, Microsoft VP and deputy general counsel Dave Heiner said the software giant has spent two years trying to get a first-class YouTube app running on Windows Phone, but to no avail, thanks to the Chocolate Factory's stonewalling.
"YouTube apps on the Android and Apple platforms were two of the most downloaded mobile applications in 2012, according to recent news reports," Heiner wrote. "Yet Google still refuses to allow Windows Phone users to have the same access to YouTube that Android and Apple customers enjoy."'"
What goes around comes around (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft, you have just experienced the concept known as "khama".
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Given what Microsoft has done to undermine other operating systems and their vendors, it is amusing to see the same thing done to them and them crying foul.
I'll admit it's very amusing but I'm morally torn on this one. Is it right to do wickedness to wicked people just because they would do the same to you?
They say turnabout is fair play but they also say be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Treating psychopats and corporations ... (Score:4, Insightful)
They say "fight fire with fire". As soon as Microsoft would stop harrasing other Android vendors with their lawyers bringing bogus claims and "don't try this" attitude, I would assume your point valid. Yet I see Microsoft crying foul and AT THE SAME TIME doing way more cruel things to Android vendors than what Google is doing to them.
If you read or hear on how to treat psychopats getting in your way, you discover that first thing is to do (besides avoiding them) set aside ANY moral issues you have. Otherwise you get instant disadvantage because psychopats - like sharks - tend to have no empathy nor moral constraints at all. I'm bringing this up because corporate entities are the ultimate psychopats (and we still hear everywhere that "corporations are people" crap). Especially those built on deception from the start, like Microsoft.
People in the US of A have to learn what people in old communist countries leaned in their time. Double standards are forced upon us and if "we the people" don't adapt, we're in disadvantage. According to corporate executives and wall street money junkies we, ordinary people are all second class citizens. Why should we treat them differently ?
Re:Treating psychopats and corporations ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that Microsoft is restricting the Chrome experience on Win8 Metro by denying access to API's. Exactly the same thing. And disallowing any other apps beyond MSOffice from running in desktop mode on ARM.
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Funny)
Khama, Sir Seretse |käm|
(1921–80), Botswanan statesman; prime minister of Bechuanaland 1965 and first president of Botswana 1966–80.
Quite the strange concept to experience NO DOUBT!
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Funny)
He was a bitch.
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:4, Informative)
I believe you mean 'karma'.
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe he's from Boston?
Re:What goes around comes around (Score:4, Funny)
I believe it's Baaastin...
Cheers!
Skype doesn't work on Android (Score:5, Informative)
And Skype doesn't work on Android, and contrary to djsmiley's comment yesterday, a trivial search shows it doesn't work, these have been reported many times.
This is nothing to do with Google, it's Microsoft that can't deliver that. Microsoft have not delivered even a basic youtube app, they could simply parse the webpage data, but they don't. I use things like MediaShare that does provide a youtube interface without all the incompetent whining.
Copied from my posts yesterday:
1. Video is upside down, if you rotate the device, then both the camera and video playback are upside down, but the other person does see you right way up in that case. Do a search [skype upside down video] and you'll see this has been reported to them lots of times.
2. Video is landscape only & very fuzzy, but the camera video is not fuzzy, probably the compression?
3. Audio plays back very very quietly even with full volume.
4. Lag, lots of it. (I've been told they route all connections through their own servers in the US, which explains the new found lag).
5. Occasionally Skype gets in a state where the Android tablet won't go into hibernation until you force-kill Skype. This really sucks down the battery juice.
6. Call receive ring is very quiet, even with full volume.
7. It doesn't handle timezones properly. It is 9am, a new event happened at 2am, it is not listed in the 'Today' section, it is listed in the 'Some time ago' section. What is listed in the 'TODAY' section is from 'YESTERDAY' at 18:48! (Does it get the timezone from somewhere other than the phone? Because that won't work now, the phone travels, desk computers don't, you can't assume a fixed timezone per user now).
Re:Skype doesn't work on Android (Score:5, Interesting)
Google are NOT doing the same (Score:5, Informative)
Except Google are not doing the same. I thought there was some meta data missing (the keywords text), but when I checked the youtube webpage headers, no, Youtube puts it in the keywords header field! It's right there, grab a webpage and take a look.
I see Bing already scrapes the description data, for some reason they don't index the keywords data, but they should, youtube keywords data is the data that users enter with their videos, not SEO spam.
I see the Views Count is right there on the webpage, so they can even get the viewing rank if they want. It's even in a span labelled
class="watch-view-count"
So Microsoft gets *all* the metadata for the video, including all the stuff the user enters, description, keywords, views etc. and they currently use part of it already in Bing.
IMHO, it's just incompetence. They just don't seem to be able to do *anything* these days. I remember the Microsoft whose products could be guaranteed to be technically excellent, and I look at the modern day Microsoft with despair.
Their stuff is garbage, they have 100 times the programmers, yet they don't seem to be able to do anything.
Re:Google are NOT doing the same (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Google has an API registered developers are supposed to use. If you don't use the API, but screen scraping, the periodically mess with the pages to break you.
Google did the same thing to Apple... And Apple PAYS Google big bucks for API access. But Google kept withholding features from Apple's developer API toolbox so Android would look better. Apple's fix was to stop making apps themselves using Google's APIs at all. That way Google can make the App. Google can access the OS like a normal app developer (no more favors) and Apple gets out of paying a six figure sum every month! Google owns those services... Let Google develop the apps!
So the question is: can Microsoft drop its attempts at accessing Google's sites and raise enough suffering that Google writes an App for Windows 8 Mobile? Ha, ha, ha....
Re:Skype doesn't work on Android (Score:4, Interesting)
And Windows users constantly claim that the newer versions of Skype are getting more and more annoying. They may just be assuming Linux customers are more discerning and like the classic simplicity?
3 users (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the 3 WP users are extremely upset over this.
L'Arroseur Arrosé (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You should have linked to the YouTube video [youtu.be] which, sadly, Microsoft doesn't seem able to access.
Maybe google already knows the punchline (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah Google does not allow Microsoft client access to their APIs because they are afraid MS can extend them... from the client.
Fair for the goose... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft shouldn't be complaining so much when they block or use non-standard protocols on their devices, in particular WP ones:
- Skydrive, the more or less standard way to get stuff in and out of Windows Phones, doesn't implement WebDAV in a open manner, making it difficult to use with Linux or BSD;
- The hardware search button in Windows Phone is tied to bing, and users can't change it;
- Windows Phone doesn't support standard protocols (standard MTP, USB file access) to access its filesystem, so it doesn't play well with Linux or BSD;
- Windows RT and Windows Phone specify a locked bootloader, so that users can't install anything else on their devices;
I could go on and on here, but these 4 examples should be enough... They really should fix their act before complaining that others aren't playing fair.
Re:Fair for the goose... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but accessible mass storage is an anachronism? So, users are *supposed* to be forced to access their devices through proprietary clients only, forcing them to be tied to single marketplaces, 'approved' OSes, etc? Somebody's been drinking the Apple Kool-aid.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but accessible mass storage is an anachronism?
A file-based access protocol, such as MTP, is not.
The USB mass storage profile, block device level access which basically forces the media to be formatted as FAT to be interoperable, is.
FAT??? (Score:4, Insightful)
block device level access which basically forces the media to be formatted as FAT to be interoperable
Huh, what? All my USB devices are formatted as ext3 or ext4. I don't need no FAT on my devices, FAT is obsolete, not USB mass storage.
Re: (Score:3)
Try to plug your devices into a Mac, for example, to understand what I'm talking about.
Extfs may not be optimal for all flash drives, either. With MTP, the device implementation is free to choose the underlying filesystem, as it should have been from the get go.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if every host you'd ever plug your device into would support ext3/4, there is still the inconvenience that the partition is exposed at the block device level, not at the file level. This means it has to be unmounted on the device before it can be mounted by the host. This is difficult to implement, since all open files on the partition must be closed before the unmount operation can succeed. Also it is inconvenient for the user: it would mean you'd have to stop a device from playing music when you want
Re: (Score:3)
you can use UDF [wikipedia.org], all modern OS support it, both read and write.
the only problem is windows XP, but that is easy, windows XP users require a driver... that can be on the device, as it can read UDF, just cant write to it.
There, problem solved, no need for FAT.
Of course, MS could also support OTHER filesystems, as they are the blocking factor. Things like ufs and ext2 are well tested and somewhat simple to support
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fair for the goose... (Score:5, Informative)
Just as a sidenote, Android Jelly Bean axes USB Mass Storage, in favor of MTP.
The main problem with block device level access is that you can't access it from 2 places simultaneously, so it means the filesystem must be unmounted from the phone to be mounted on the PC.
Yes, USB Mass Storage support is everywhere, and getting MTP to work isn't as easy, but I guess it will get better fast.
Re:Fair for the goose... (Score:4, Informative)
Android Jelly Bean axes USB Mass Storage
False claim, sorry.
I have a Nexus S updated to Jelly Bean 4.1.2 and it happily support USB Mass Storage:
lsusb:
Bus 001 Device 019: ID 18d1:4e22 Google Inc. Nexus S
dmesg:
[1109159.988681] usb 1-1.1.4.1: new high speed USB device using ehci_hcd and address 19
[1109160.081288] usb 1-1.1.4.1: New USB device found, idVendor=18d1, idProduct=4e22
[1109160.081293] usb 1-1.1.4.1: New USB device strings: Mfr=2, Product=3, SerialNumber=4
[1109160.081295] usb 1-1.1.4.1: Product: Nexus S
[1109160.081297] usb 1-1.1.4.1: Manufacturer: samsung
[1109160.081298] usb 1-1.1.4.1: SerialNumber:
[1109160.081446] usb 1-1.1.4.1: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
[1109160.083930] scsi12 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage devices
[1109160.084139] usb-storage: device found at 19
[1109160.084141] usb-storage: waiting for device to settle before scanning
[1109165.084680] usb-storage: device scan complete
[1109165.085272] scsi 12:0:0:0: Direct-Access Google File-CD Gadget 0000 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
[1109165.088506] sd 12:0:0:0: [sde] Attached SCSI removable disk
[1109274.036890] sd 12:0:0:0: [sde] 27957215 512-byte logical blocks: (14.3 GB/13.3 GiB)
[1109274.037598] sd 12:0:0:0: [sde] Assuming drive cache: write through
Re:Fair for the goose... (Score:4, Informative)
MTP is a higher level protocol (Score:3)
Isn't the reason you are forced to FAT that the other FS aren't readily available on windows?
On Windows, it's either FAT over USB Mass Storage, UDF over USB Mass Storage, or MTP. USB devices that include storage as one of several functions should implement MTP for the same reason that several network attached storage (NAS) devices implement FTP, NFS, or SMB instead of something like iSCSI. MTP operates at a level of files, not disk blocks, which frees clients from having to understand the server's or device's file system.
Re:Fair for the goose... (Score:5, Informative)
- Skydrive, the more or less standard way to get stuff in and out of Windows Phones, doesn't implement WebDAV in a open manner, making it difficult to use with Linux or BSD;
I'll give you that. Meanwhile, enjoy your Google Drive over WebDAV... oh, you don't have that either.
No, but I can easily access the files I have on my Android phone, using either USB mass storage or standard MTP. No need to use a cloud service. And, an added advantage over WP7.x (never used 8) is that other cloud services work, with automatic synchronization of folders. On WP7.x you need to copy files by hand, at least with Dropbox and Box.
Windows Phone 8 does support standard MTP? USB mass storage is an anachronysm.
I haven't tried yet WP8, but 7.x doesn't support standard MTP, only a hacked non-compatible Microsoft variant.
BTW, USB mass storage isn't an anachronism, it is just the easiest way to transfer things; in Linux it just works, in windows it just works. MTP has too many quirks and one of my peeves with the recent android releases is that it is used by default, forcing one to resort to workarounds to get the device working in mass storage mode.
Re: (Score:2)
in a way USB mass storage is the wrong thing - it exposes the underlying device in block mode, meaning both device and client cannot access it at the same time (they should get a cluster filesystem on these things, but I guess they never thought you could plug a USB device into 2 'ports' at once).
MTP does expose the underlying files in the filesystem of the client's choice (as I understand it), so it might have quirks, but at least its trying to be the right thing.
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to check out WP8 given your concerns about WP7.
You forget WP7 devices won't be updated to WP8. Besides, the person who gave me my WP7 phone won't be giving WP8 phones, and I really won't buy one just to check if the problems in WP7 are solved in WP8.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh... it's still standard enough that all of my linux devices can sync to it... along with my Android devices. So your response is a canard.
USB mass storage an anachronism? Definitely showing the lace of your shill bloomers. It's a useful tool, one that should be standard across the board.
The button is a linked to a keyboard action (more or less), and you should be able to change keyboard actions... So, yes I am glad that MS is getting reamed. May the pain continue.
Re:Fair for the goose... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, they *should*... but regarding this specific instance/thing... why should MS have to change 10s/100s of things not related to Google to use one of Google's things. A thing that is really easy for Google to do, and will make them profit?
Why shouldn't they? Why are they asking for a standard access to a third party API when they don't follow standards, and even distort them for their own profit? Besides, what profit would Google have in changing their APIs to cater to an almost non-existing smartphone OS? Why not first focus on Bada or Symbian or RIM, which still have bigger market share than Windows Phone?
PS: I got an Android phone in the meantime. The WP phone was a gift, and it works well as my second phone - receiving calls and SMSs, basically working as a dumb phone.
Re:Fair for the goose... (Score:5, Interesting)
Using undocumented APIs is something that Microsoft's done in the past too, to gain unfair advantage.
Also, back in the day Microsoft smarmily said "We'll port Office to OS/2 only when there's enough users" (knowing full well that no MS Office on OS/2 would help to hamper OS/2's adoption rates). Now it's their turn to take the medicine. I'm sure Google will use the same argument for not porting the YouTube app to Windows Phone.
Re:Fair for the goose... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes Microsoft has been using undocumented APIs and they have been taken to court over this and lost. Then they were forced to pay and comply. Same should happen to Google.
Also note that MS is not asking Google to create YouTube app. They are asking to not be banned from using the APIs (it is not even about documentation). If we need to follow the Office analogy it would be like releasing the Office document formats (which Microsoft has done).
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is time to administer their medicine: a red hot poker up the posterior!
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft shill much eh?
They proved that they are willing to lock things down from competitors, and they are complaining that competitors lock things down from them. Don't you see a bit of double talk there? They've been acting repeatedly a lot worse than whatever Google is doing regarding their Youtube API, so they should just shut the fuck up.
Before criticizing your neighbor's lawn, mow your own.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They should sue Google and make them pay up and comply like they were sued and forced to pay and comply.
Re:Fair for the goose... (Score:4, Informative)
Need any more proof? Best part is I took the screenshot on the Ubuntu machine, moved it onto the phone via drag and drop, then uploaded it to imgur using an app.
Also, it is very amusing to me that you imply my post is a shill, when all I'm doing is pointing out *factual errors* you somehow managed to get modded up as informative. I can manage my Lumia 920 just fine on my Ubuntu machines. By all means though, keep plugging your ears.
Nothing to celebrate if it's true (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft's allegations are true and there is no reasonably technical justification for it then there is nothing to celebrate here.
Of course, my first reaction was "payback's a bitch" like many others, but in the end a monopoly based on Linux is still a monopoly.
Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (Score:5, Insightful)
but in the end a monopoly based on Linux is still a monopoly.
There's no monopoly, and if MS really wants to bitch about it maybe they should launch their own video service just like they did with Bing. Or work out a deal and have google develop the app for them, just like they did with Apple. Note that the google-made iphone app only was launched a few months ago. If MS had a better phone with a better market share they'd probably be a more appealing target for a native app, but it's not like Google is going to dump time and money into supporting every last bastard child of a device.
And you can still watch youtube using a web browser, assuming that MS actually has a standards-compliant browser on their phone. I've never found anything in the youtube app to be superior to just using the mobile site, in fact personally i never bother with the app and would remove it from my phone if it would let me.
Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (Score:4, Informative)
There's a JSON API for all of YouTube. The issue is not that APIs aren't available, but that Google appear to be selectively blocking some users from accessing it (or all of it). Which sucks for all of us. APIs should be non-discriminatory (other than usage caps of course).
Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (Score:4, Interesting)
can't*
And actually, all I have found is that MS is complaining that the API is not as feature rich as the native Apps on Android and iOS, not blocking of access to the API.
Seems reasonable to me, almost every company with an API favors their own implementation. I don't see why MS should get special treatment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all the mobile version of youtube works on the standards-compliant browser on the Windows Phone.
Second
There's no monopoly
Are you serious? YouTube is not a monopoly? Really?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Indeed, same happened with Apple licensing maps. Notice how youtube on iOS is a Google app, not by Apple any more, because Apple probably doesn't have access to the metadata either. Google has reached the point where it has enough power and now that others want to play with its toys he says "meh, I'm going home, you can't have them". Consumers will decide if that is good or not. Us techies can only watch and cry for the abstract concept of justice.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be that Google crunched the numbers and figured it really wasn't worth it to create a YouTube app.
Perhaps they figure that:
1 - There's always the mobile version of the website.
2 - WP8 people are already "lost" to them. (Once you go over to the dark side, there's no coming back...)
3 - If they're obligated to create a Windows Phone 8 version, they may feel that they're obligated to create versions for any old phone OS that comes along (ie: Blackberry).
4 - Payback really is a bitch
5 - It's a bit of lev
Re: (Score:3)
You got it wrong. MS does not want Google to develop a YouTube app for WP. They want Google to stop blocking them from releasing a YouTube app. In some (not specified) way Google are restricting access to the APIs for WP. They may be banning the user agent, or not issuing API tokens or simply threatening Microsoft with legal action if they release an YouTube app. In any way MS does not ask Google to do anything except stop blocking them explicitly.
Linux could never be a monopoly (Score:2)
a monopoly based on Linux is still a monopoly.
It's not a monopoly because the source code is public and available for anyone to use.
If Microsoft wants the full power of Android, they are free to create their own Android phone, provided they comply to the licensing agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
And then Google can ban the MS Android from accessing the YouTube APIs. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft's allegations are true and there is no reasonably technical justification for it then there is nothing to celebrate here.
Of course, my first reaction was "payback's a bitch" like many others, but in the end a monopoly based on Linux is still a monopoly.
Agree, but Google didn't open their APIs to Apple... They created a youtube app for iOS.
I somehow doubt that youtube is profitable, and certainly not if an open API (without ads) is available, which is probably what this is all about.
Re: (Score:2)
Google have a perfect right not to open their APIs publicly. After all, does Slashdot have a public API?
From what I understand, Google wrote the YouTube apps for both Android and Apple, and they use their own knowledge of their platform to do so. There's a public JSON API for YouTube that's available to all. If MS wants a decent YouTube app on their platform, maybe they should pay Google to develop one, or bolster their audience to the point we're it's actually desirable for Google to do so.
Or, you know, pu
Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (Score:5, Insightful)
Please explain to me how Google has a monopoly on anything, let alone how YouTube is a monopoly.
Something being very popular does not de-facto make it a monopoly. People need to stop throwing around terms like this.
YouTube has a ton of very large and viable competitors who could take it out in a second if Googe let their guard down, like Vimeo, DailyMotion, blip.tv, Viddler - not to metion Facebook and Bing themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary, if Microsoft made a claim that was substantially and meaningfully true about a major competitor, that would be something to celebrate.
Microsoft squid tactic? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to TFA:
Re: (Score:3)
This may have unintended consequences for MS. They are giving a high profile to the fact that their youtube app isn't up to snuff, compared to IOS or Android. Not very smart unless they are really sure they can get some action going in the antitrust front.
If I were looking for a phone and I would come across this information, this would be another negative. If you add this to all of the other shortcomings of Windows phone, I would avoid it.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody's buying them, so in effect, they have nothing to lose. That's the upside of having no user-base.
Re: (Score:2)
Every WP user already knows that and it has been discussed multiple times in the WP forums and websites. There are third party apps for youtube that do not have as much functionality (because of the APIs) and often break when Google change something on YouTube. The only news here is that MS have its own (unreleased) app that is waiting for Google's permission to launch and that Google are officially denying them access to the APIs.
Irony? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Irony? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire .NET team for example. More and more of the web related stuff is going open, and they are actively working with the FOSS community. ASP .NET MVC is one of the best web frameworks out there (so good in fact that what Play! Framework took a lot of ideas from it, Play is one of the very best frameworks for Java - with some bad things like static controllers [which .NET MVC doesn't have, thankfully]), highly inspired by some of the good Ruby stuff, is going all open source and at the same time incorp
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly; the only Skype API that is "open" is the scripting interface to the proprietary client software; not to the Skype network itself.
Re:Irony? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, exactly? You can use Youtube on Woindows phones just fine. They simply don't have an open API for anybody else to write players that interface to it.
Does Twitter have a legal obligation to provide an API for third-party clients? Does Facebook have such an obligation? Does my bank? Does Microsoft have an obligation for its online Word service? Or provide API-level access to Echange servers? Does everybody with a web-facing interface have a legel obligation to provide API-level access for others to use?
And it's not as if Youtube is a monopoly either. My banks online service is as much a monopoly in that case, or Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right! Does Microsoft have legal obligation to provide access to APIs they use for their browser on their desktop OS with a monopoly market position to competing browser vendors? Were they legally force to release the specification of their server protocols and document formats?
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they eat a humble pie? Were they spared when they did this? They were taken to court, lost and forced to comply. Why should they allow their competitors a free pass if they are not allowed a free pass?
Lawyer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft VP and deputy general counsel Dave Heiner
What the FUCK is a FUCKING lawyer doing working as a FUCKING VP for a software company?
Re: (Score:3)
VP of Patent Extortion, perhaps?
Re:Lawyer? (Score:5, Informative)
Have you not been paying attention to how the 'game' is now played? It's now more about suing people than actually making products that people *want* to use.
Whining Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Apple just let Google create a Youtube app after they failed to agree on API access. the iPhone is way more popular than Windows Phone devices, so it made financial sense for Google to do so. So maybe MIcrosoft should offer to pay Google to create an app for Windows Phone.
Huh. And the problem is...? (Score:2)
Of course they are. It's called competition. As far as they stick with laws, it's all fair game trying to use tactics to "undermine" them.
A long time coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Google should give it to them (Score:3)
I feel a bit like most people here: That Microsoft deserves it. But it somehow also feels like the wrong way if this is indeed the case as Microsoft claiims.
If Microsoft believes this is why Windows Phone isn't getting user adoption, they are mistaken. Google needs to give them less to complain about. But I have to ask why would Google let Apple do it but not Microsoft? Surely there is something different about Microsoft's approach to it. Didn't I read yesterday something about a patent infringement case between Motorola and Microsoft where Microsoft believess it has the rights to a video codec while Motorola says "no, we're not a member of the license pool" and Microsoft says "Google owns you and Google is in the pool?" I wonder if this is related somehow.
I get that this meta data is the detail claimed to be at issue, but you know... it's not as easy to complain about actual things presently being decided by the courts. Also, in the article, there was talk about Google dropping support for a proprietary protocol in favor of open standards. Why Microsoft has to complain about that I don't know. Maybe perhaps because they believe they are still the ones setting the standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely there is something different about Microsoft's approach to it.
Something seems to me like we're not getting the whole story here. Maybe it's something with Googles terms that Microsoft won't agree with, thus Google denying them access? I bet it has something to do with ad revenue...
Re: (Score:2)
That is, after all, why Google exists... to make money... and why Microsoft exists as well.
I think you're quite right -- something else is at play and we're not getting the whole story. Then again, while following many cases these days, I have found that Microsoft makes some pretty unreasonable demands and exhibits unreasonable expectations of others.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't let Apple use their API. The iOS YouTube app is made by Google https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/youtube/id544007664?mt=8 [apple.com] MS should ask Google to develop an app for their phones instead of complaining for the wrong reasons. Anyway I bet this is part of an ongoing negotiation so we shouldn't worry much about it.
Shocking... (Score:3)
There are Windows Phone users?
I'm going with... (Score:5, Funny)
...Google will write that app for the Windows Phone platform when they consider the platform to have enough adopters to make the effort worthwhile. Perhaps they should start with a Symbian based client. Follow that up with a WebOS based one as well.
MS undermines Linux by refusing to port Office... (Score:2)
See title.
The beginning... (Score:5, Informative)
the bottom line is this: because of all the above, the migration away from this closed-shop monolith is happening - and the RATE at which it's happening is ramping up extremely quickly.
In short, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the monopoly.
Is it any wonder? (Score:3)
Microsoft has shown throughout their history that they are more than willing to screw any and all competitors, legally or otherwise. And now they are complaining because Google won't play nice? Well boo-frickin-hoo. I'm not trying to suggest that Google is any better. Or Apple. Or Oracle. Or Facebook. They are all just big evil silicon valley companies. None of them seem to be happy unless they are suing someone. It just seems to me that MS wrote the playbook for this type of behavior and now it's coming back to haunt them.
Can't we all just...get along?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:User Agent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:User Agent? (Score:4, Funny)
Airborne chairs?
Re:User Agent? (Score:5, Funny)
Their weapons are incompetence, lawyers and flying chairs.
Re:User Agent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Desire to have "Microsoft" or "Windows" in user agent string at any cost?
Re:User Agent? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not an issue with the web service, but the absence of a native application and Google's refusal to provide the tools by which a thirdparty developer could create one.
That said, it's Google's ball, they don't have to share if they don't want to. I suspect it has more to do with Windows Phone's small installed base than an effort to disadvantage WP. As iOS shows, Google wants to make money off other people's hardware.
Re:The joys of proprietary software (Score:5, Funny)
I would say that it serves Microsoft right, but unfortunately it's the end users that suffer.
Yeah, all both of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft won't allow free YouTube player replacements in their app store
Source?
Re:The joys of proprietary software (Score:4, Informative)
Don't bother, there is at least one [windowsphone.com] application that proves the GP is full of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you on crack, or just talking out your ass? There are at least 15 reasonably general-purpose YouTube clients on the Windows Phone app store, and many more that are specialized to things like specific channels, or downloading just the audio track, etc. Where the hell did you get the idea that MS doesn't allow third-party YouTube apps?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft won't allow free YouTube player replacements in their app store
BZZZT! WRONG!
Re: (Score:2)
Fewer.
Re:Chocolate Factory?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
They are also the creators of the term "Freetard" used to reference anyone questioning the current "Intellectual Property" regime.
This gives you an idea of how they drifted. They used to be "bitting the hand that feeds IT", but no more. They used to get information from IT contacts inside companies. Now they are becoming standard journalist that are too dependent on the goodwill of PR departments.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an engineering problem, stupid.
There is already Metrotube with its reverse-engineered implementation.
Microsoft needs an officially supported application, guaranteed not to break whenever Google decides to change things on the server side.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft isn't going to complain about those. WP users are supposed to use Microsoft email/calendar functionality. Microsoft has never been about choice, as was clearly illustrated in the initial antitrust findings.