Google Demands Microsoft Pull YouTube App For WP8 716
First time accepted submitter exomondo writes "Google has given Microsoft until May 22nd to pull their Windows Phone 8 YouTube app from the marketplace and disable it on customer devices. It not only includes a built-in ad blocker but also allows users to download videos and doesn't impose device-specific streaming restrictions outlined in the YouTube Terms Of Service. A Microsoft spokesperson said in part: 'YouTube is consistently one of the top apps downloaded by smartphone users on all platforms, but Google has refused to work with us to develop an app on par with other platforms. Since we updated the YouTube app to ensure our mutual customers a similar YouTube experience, ratings and feedback have been overwhelmingly positive. We'd be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs. In light of Larry Page's comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers.'"
Re:Leaving aside the irony of the situation (Score:3, Interesting)
WebOS/iTunes (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if this will become a humorous on-going issue like it was with WebOS and iTunes. I suppose it depends on how far Google is willing to go to keep YouTube API closed off from Windows Phone users. A change here, and updated app chasing it... Perhaps concluding in a long drawn out lawsuit?
I know it can't be helpful for establishing goodwill between the companies. MS may be able to get away with it, but if they hadn't tickled the dragon's tail, maybe we'd eventually see some more genuine Google apps on the platform.
Re:I can't wait to see this battle (Score:5, Interesting)
That might fly for the advertising, but including a download functionality requires a deliberate effort - Microsoft is willfully including a tool with no functionality except to facilitate in the violation of Google's license agreement, and thus copyright. If this ever turns into a court case, MS would probably lose - but they could still drag it on long enough to cost both sides a few million dollars in legal fees, and get a lot of good press if they spin it right.
Re:I can't wait to see this battle (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I can't wait to see this battle (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because Google doesn't provide API's to allow you to make something that meets their conditions doesn't mean you may violate those conditions.
I have AdBlock Plus installed in Firefox, and I believe it has the ability to block at least some YouTube ads. This violates YouTube's TOS, but I still watch YouTube videos and don't feel compelled to turn off ABP on that site.
If this story was about Google's ultimatum to the AdBlock Plus developers rather than to Microsoft, would we be seeing the same sentiments expressed by the same people here? I doubt it.
Re:I can't wait to see this battle (Score:1, Interesting)
Judge: The supreme court has a different opinion on that. Namely, they regard timeshifting as fair use, including add skipping if technically possible on the customer's end.
There is absolutely no way for Google to win this in court of law. It's a pissing contest that Google will win with technical solutions, not legal ones. It's not Microsoft who access Youtube, they are simply distributing an app for that purpose which is a form of free speech. Google can clearly enforce it's TOS against individual customers and lock them out for using the MS app. But they have no basis to block MS from distributing the app itself, aside maybe abusing some hacking laws and claiming MS is distributing a tool for the specific purpose of hacking their service.
Re: I can't wait to see this battle (Score:5, Interesting)
Then why did they add the feature to download videos? That was a conscious choice to violate the terms and conditions.
Re: I can't wait to see this battle (Score:5, Interesting)
They are using the API, the API doesn't provide ads. Google say's they won't make an app. So Microsoft uses the API to make one. So Google comes back and says that apps built using their API don't meet the required terms of service.
Re:I can't wait to see this battle (Score:2, Interesting)
Good point.
Likewise, Slashdot always champions DVRs that skip adverts contrary to TV broadcasters wishes. And DVD players that skip "unskippable" DVD content.
If this was an app on the Android platform to avoid advertising, and do downloads of streams from Microsoft, Google, TV channels or the movie industry, Slashdot would be supporting it.
But as it's an app on the WP platform that few here use, and most here like Google and not Microsoft, they argue the issue the opposite way from normal.
Likewise, most here that are arguing that Google is entitled to not have it's TOS broken, also think Jailbreaking iOS devices is OK, and the Pirate Bay are heroes.
Re: I can't wait to see this battle (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh, no. An API is not subject to copyright, and so you can't sue someone for writing code to an API or reimplementing that API. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can use a specific service in a specific way. Google could not stop someone else implementing the YouTube APIs on a different media hosting site.
I think Microsoft has been quite clever here. They're now in the situations where they're giving their customers something that they want, and Google is telling them that they can't. They can't really lose: if they can keep offering the app in the same format, then they can provide a better experience than other platforms. If they can't, then they have some good material for their next round of anti-Google adverts.