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."'"
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:What goes around comes around (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft squid tactic? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to TFA:
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:Skype doesn't work on Android (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
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.