Google Blocks YouTube App On Windows Phone (Again)

dhavleak writes "From Gizmodo: Earlier today, the Microsoft-built YouTube app for Windows Phone was unceremoniously disabled by Google. These kind of little inter-corporate kerfuffles happen from time to time, and usually resolve themselves without screwing too many users. But boy, Microsoft didn't take it quietly."

Only relevant line

[ShieldW0lf]

"Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesn’t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators."

Nothing more needed to be said. The rest of the article is manipulation.

This from the company...

[Guest316]

...who introduced intentional glitches in Windows when it detected [archive.org] you were running it on anything but genuine MS-DOS.

Not that I have a whole lot of sympathy for Google these days either...

Re:Boo

[symbolset]

Microsoft's CEO has sworn to "fucking kill Google [theregister.co.uk]", saying "I've done it before and I can do it again." He's spending several billion dollars a year on that effort, historically more than $16 Billion [businessinsider.com] if you include aQuantive. He's spending several billion dollars a year on the Google-bashing [scroogled.com] campaign. It's not like Microsoft is some random developer here innocently trying to get their app to work.

Re:Boo

[symbolset]

ActiveSync protocol is owned by Microsoft. They demand patent licensing for it. Once upon a time they thought their patent portfolio was proof against competitors in push email and calendars, especially in mobile. They thought this was their mobile "lock" that ensured mobile success and would prevent innovation to supplant them.

It turns out ActiveSync isn't really required to do push email and calendars. It can be done another way. So instead of demanding license fees for their patents Microsoft is put in the awkward position of begging that Android implement their proprietary protocols. And Andoid would, but they want a ridiculous fee for the patent license, so: fuck off.

Re:Boo

[symbolset]

Somewhere between you and the mailserver is a patent holder, and a desire to exploit their intellectual property.

Re:Many of those things not so

[AmiMoJo]

What about the fast version of the Safari HTML/Javascript engine? All 3rd party apps are limited to using the crippled one. When multitasking first appeared it was limited to Apple apps only. It was a while before the API was available to 3rd party apps.

Re:Only relevant line

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like google could handle it either.

Yes they did. http://www.youtube.com/html5 [youtube.com]

Mozilla didn't find it too difficult either. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/youtube-all-html5/ [mozilla.org]

Face it, Microsoft are using their customers as tools to play spiteful games. They started by trying to disable adverts to deprive Google of the income from YouTube, now they've cooked up another nasty little scam to make an app that breaches Google's agreement with their clients.

Microsoft is a company that desperately needs some adult supervision.

Re:Jesus H. Christ Luvs Microsoft

[Grishnakh]

>Linux has less than 1% of desktop.

Citation needed. And any stats that are based on PC sales are bullshit since almost all Linux installs are done on hardware that was purchased with Windows pre-installed.

Re:Boo

[Bert64]

Because by using a patented protocol, you cost more to service than other customers who are using standard protocols like imap (or their own proprietary protocols). Google have to recoup the cost difference somehow, so they charge you. Most of what they charge you will go straight to MS to pay for licensing the patent.
The alternative (and previous situation) was that those customers who don't use proprietary patented protocols are subsiding those that do, hardly a fair situation at all.

Re:Only relevant line

[murdocj]

No, MS can complain when Google requires them to do something but won't supply the information they need to do it. Read the article.

Re:Only relevant line

[PCM2]

I spoke to a YouTube employee about this.

He told me that, in effect, to give third parties access to the same APIs that Google's YouTube apps use would be akin to disclosing how Google's servers are set up, deep details of how its ad infrastructure works, and this kind of thing. Google doesn't give out that information to anybody.

All third party YouTube apps use the HTML5 API -- all but Microsoft's, which is why Microsoft's was blocked. BlackBerry's YouTube app uses the HTML5 API. very smart TV and every Blu-Ray player that ships with a YouTube streaming feature uses the HTML5 API. PlayStation, you name it. It's not like you can't build a commercial quality YouTube app using the HTML5 API, because everybody else is doing it.

Also, consider that the first version of Microsoft's native YouTube app had a download button that allowed you to save any video to your device. Anybody who's ever used YouTube knows that's one of the biggest no-nos, and that YouTube is intended to be a streaming service ONLY. So why did Microsoft build that feature into its app if it was trying to play by the rules?

Probable answer: This whole thing has been Microsoft spoiling for attention and trying cast negative aspersions on Google, from the very beginning.