backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by johnsonx.. on Jan 7 at 7:37 PM


Dave Heiner  (Source: blogs.technet.com)
Microsoft said FTC isn't doing enough to force Google to conform with antitrust laws

A Microsoft executive has called Google out on the fact that Windows Phone users cannot enjoy a full YouTube experience the way Android and iOS users can.

Dave Heiner, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft, wrote a post about the fact that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is not doing enough to force Google to conform with antitrust laws. More specifically, Microsoft is upset that Windows Phone still cannot get a full YouTube app while the competition (Android and iOS) are able.

"Despite government scrutiny, Google continues to block Microsoft from offering its customers proper access to YouTube," said Heiner. "This is an important issue because consumers value YouTube access on their phone: YouTube apps on the Android and Apple platforms were two of the most downloaded mobile applications in 2012, according to recent news reports. Yet Google still refuses to allow Windows Phone users to have the same access to YouTube that Android and Apple customers enjoy. Microsoft has continued to engage with YouTube personnel over the past two years to remedy this problem for consumers.

"As you might expect, it appears that YouTube itself would like all customers – on Windows Phone as on any other device – to have a great YouTube experience. But just last month we learned from YouTube that senior executives at Google told them not to enable a first-class YouTube experience on Windows Phones."

Heiner mentioned that the European Commission has addressed Google's business practices and is working toward a resolution that will keep Google in line, but the FTC, however, is taking it a little too easy on the search giant.

"Meanwhile, in the United States, news reports have stated that the FTC may close its investigation if Google merely makes certain “voluntary commitments” to reform its behavior," wrote Heiner. "Separately, news reports suggest that Google will finally agree to live up to its promises to make its standard essential patents available to all on reasonable terms. Unfortunately, this agreement appears to be less demanding than the pledge the U.S. Department of Justice received from Apple and Microsoft nearly a year ago."

Heiner complained that Microsoft had raised the issue about the full-featured YouTube app almost two years ago, and while the European Commission and the FTC are both investigating the matter, Microsoft wants the matter resolved once and for all.

Microsoft is just one tech company that is consistently targeted by the European Commission regarding antitrust laws. It started in March 2004 when a European Commission high court found the company guilty of using tactics to freeze out its competitors in the media player and server software markets. It was fined $690 million.

Back in 2008, the EU fined Microsoft $1.4 billion for refusing to comply during its legal feud with the EU between July 2006 and October 2007. Microsoft was charged $3.83 million a day for each day of non-compliance.

Moving forward to 2009, the EU went after Microsoft again for tying Internet Explorer to Windows, and by doing so, Microsoft is "stealing" a unique and unfair advantage.

The EU has been on top of Microsoft throughout 2012, with most problems stemming from browser choices in Windows 7 and more browser issues with Windows RT.
In December, the Commission began investigating Microsoft's policy changes in Bing and Hotmail to make sure they comply with user privacy.

You can read Heiner's full post here.

Source: TechNet



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Pot meet Kettle
By Shadowself on 1/3/2013 10:35:06 AM , Rating: 5
So he is upset that Microsoft does not get access to the full App experience, but...

Microsoft for many years has not and still does not offer the full MS Office capability for any other OS than Windows. Microsoft does not offer IE for any OS other than Windows (this happened after they got over 70% penetration and killed IE for any non Windows platform).

Those are just the top two examples I can think of immediately. I'm sure given a few minutes I could think of several others.




RE: Pot meet Kettle
By GulWestfale on 1/3/2013 10:39:14 AM , Rating: 3
internet explorer sucks, i do not want it on my android... but a version of office would be nice.

as far as youtube is concerned: windows phone victims can access it through a browser, so it's still there, they just don't get a custom app. i don't see what the problem is. if i refuse to make a popular android app available for windows, microsoft will sue me?


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By djdjohnson on 1/3/2013 11:16:08 AM , Rating: 4
Windows Phone users can no longer access YouTube from a browser. As of about two weeks ago, Google has changed the video URLs so they don't work on IE.

The problem here is that Google is ACTIVELY preventing YouTube from being accessible on Windows Phone. It's deliberate.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By othercents on 1/3/2013 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Windows Phone users can no longer access YouTube from a browser.

I'm still able to access YouTube using WP7.5, so maybe it has something to do with WP8 or more specifically with incompatibility with IE10.

Other


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By sweatshopking on 1/3/2013 11:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
no, it was on both. it's fixed now.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By wordsworm on 1/3/2013 1:13:14 PM , Rating: 3
hmmm... well maybe MS could fix their browser so that people *can* watch Youtube videos from Windows Explorer.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By ClownPuncher on 1/3/13, Rating: 0
RE: Pot meet Kettle
By maugrimtr on 1/4/2013 8:50:42 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, he is. If Youtube works on Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Safari but doesn't work on Internet Explorer 10 then that simply means IE10 is not standards compliant and is broken. That's Microsoft shooting itself in the foot not Google being anti-competitive for refusing to support a broken browser.

Similarly, if Google decides not to release a Youtube app for Windows 8 using it's entirely private wholly owned API, then that's none of Microsoft's business either. They should sell more phones to make it cost effective for Google to give a damn about them.

How is this even anti-competitive? Google have the right to deny access to non-public APIs except for their own apps - that's why they are non-public to start with!


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By ClownPuncher on 1/4/2013 11:11:49 AM , Rating: 2
IE10 is not a broken browser, nor does it lack compliance in standards.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By wordsworm on 1/7/2013 1:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
You remind me of Apple-Jobs: it's not broken. Everyone is using it wrong!


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By ClownPuncher on 1/7/2013 4:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
That would imply there are quite a few people actually having problems with IE10 in comparison to the competitors. That does not seem to be the case like it was for IE8 and 9.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By przemo_li on 1/3/2013 1:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
MS never really carred about W3C standards. So my pick would be BUG in IE.

Now MS fixed it.

And since other did not had such problems, its more probable that it was as described above.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By Mitch101 on 1/3/2013 2:50:53 PM , Rating: 5
Yet IE on the Mobile devices has one of the highest ratings for CSS and HTML5.

HERE IS WHAT WAS GOING DOWN.

“In 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favourites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service.

Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide .” - Dave Heiner Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft

Really if Windows Phone is so Insignificant then why was google worried enough to block it? Maybe it has something to do with the estimated 7 million Nokia 920's that have been sold recently?


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By othercents on 1/3/2013 4:25:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Really if Windows Phone is so Insignificant then why was google worried enough to block it? Maybe it has something to do with the estimated 7 million Nokia 920's that have been sold recently?

Why would they be worried? Would that make the amount of revenue they receive from the sell of Android devices go down? Probably not since they give Android away. Wouldn't allowing people access to YouTube be more advertising revenue?

I guess the only thing that would cause issues is if the Microsoft created application would show the video without the advertising. If the source of revenue for my website was removed I would find every way to get it back again. It is very possible that Google would allow Microsoft permission if Microsoft submitted their application to Google to be "approved". Now it is just two people complaining that the other wont cooperate.

Other


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By InsGadget on 1/4/2013 2:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess the only thing that would cause issues is if the Microsoft created application would show the video without the advertising.
Not the case at all. Google is being a little bully.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By jdonkey123 on 1/3/2013 2:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
A normally valid argument, but because Youtube has such an extreme market share in streaming video, they are subject to special scrutiny to insure that they do not abuse their market position to hinder unrelated competition (Mobile device OS share.)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but MS has been the target of vigorous antitrust enforcement actions for very analogous kinds of practices.

MS comes off pretty whiny, but their real point is that what's good for the goose, must be good for the gander.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By BillyBatson on 1/3/2013 7:24:25 PM , Rating: 3
Not only has IE been my fav browser for the last well forever, but I would absolutely love if they offered it as an app for my iPhone.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By vXv on 1/4/2013 6:05:46 AM , Rating: 2
Apple wont allow that even if MS wanted to.
They don't allow any other browsers ... Chrome and the other browsers on iOS are very limited they are just a different UI for the apple provided webkit engine. A browser with its own engine wont be approved, That's the reason why there is no Firefox for iOS.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By BillyBatson on 1/4/2013 1:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
I know :( that's why I said I would love it if they did. As long as I'm on iOS I will always be stuck with safari. IE is the only browser I would consider, no chrome, opera, Firefox, Netscape for me :)


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By Tony Swash on 1/3/2013 11:06:41 AM , Rating: 1
It is oddly pleasing to see Microsoft on the receiving end of exactly the sort of tactics it itself used so many times in the past, back when it had some clout, but it makes me wonder if this is what Google means by 'Don't be Evil'.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By Argon18 on 1/3/2013 11:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
Too true, Microsoft is the king of vendor lock-out, having forced people for years to use a Microsoft OS and Microsoft applications if they want access to the Microsoft Ecosystem.

Show me a current version of IE for Mac and Linux, also Office for Mac and Linux? How about all those websites that only work with IE, because they were written using Microsoft tools that create broken HTML code that only works in IE. There's a million examples of this anti-competitive BS from Microsoft, and it's refreshing to see them get a taste of their own anti-competitive medicine!


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By Tony Swash on 1/3/13, Rating: -1
RE: Pot meet Kettle
By przemo_li on 1/3/2013 1:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
The only shared part between Office for Windows, and Office for OSX is part of name ("Office for"). Everything else is separate product.

On the one hand its understandable (large code base, tightly integrated with Win), on the other hand it could be a lot better.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By kleinma on 1/3/2013 1:34:03 PM , Rating: 3
almost nobody needs to use office on the mac anymore? Care to point to some stats there. I notice you like to post links when you feel you have facts to back up your BS, but then some of your nonsense comes with no attempt to even back up your crap.

If you want to talk about fumbling, you should look at the erosion of Apple in recent months. They are still riding their success wave, but since Jobs died it has been one debacle after the next.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By ResStellarum on 1/3/13, Rating: 0
RE: Pot meet Kettle
By Mitch101 on 1/3/2013 2:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft office is coming to Tablets both Android and iOS.

Its rumored to occur the 1st quarter of this year. I wouldnt be surprised with Googles recent little tantrums toward Microsoft lately that Microsoft might delay Office for Android.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By chripuck on 1/3/2013 2:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
Linux isn't owned by anybody. You can't be anti-competitive with a non-competitor.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By Argon18 on 1/4/2013 4:37:59 PM , Rating: 1
Huh? Who told you that? The Linux kernel is copyrighted by Linus Torvalds. And Linux distributions are sold as commercial products by Red Hat and others. The ownership is clear, and the market segments and competitors are clear. I don't think you understand this subject matter too well.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By dark matter on 1/6/2013 2:50:11 PM , Rating: 3
Actually Linux is held under an open commons license.

And Red Hat don't actually sell "linux" they sell the "Support Services" to keep it functional and to make it do what you ask.

It is you who doesn't understand this subject at all.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By dark matter on 1/6/2013 2:51:16 PM , Rating: 1
Here, go and read before you talk shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By dark matter on 1/6/2013 2:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
You can't sell something open source and bound by GPL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_GPL

Jesus, I'm through with you.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By johnsonx on 1/7/2013 7:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
yes, I suspect Novell especially is playing the world's tinyest violin for microsoft's suffering.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By marvdmartian on 1/3/2013 11:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
Especially since they seem to be confused about this point:

1. Is it beneficial for Google to offer an app for Windows phone users, so they can access Youtube? Yes

2. Is it required for Google to develop that app?? NO

That's where they're going to lose this argument.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By przemo_li on 1/3/2013 1:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
1-2% Is not that beneficial.

And there is still "legacy" mode == web browser + http://youtube.com


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By Florinator on 1/3/2013 2:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
You can't compare a website with a desktop application.

YouTube doesn't care which platform you're coming from when consuming their services. All you need, as an application developer is access to their API's to write your own app.

Office on the other hand is a set of native apps, designed and compiled to run on a specific platform. The effort in porting native applications to other platforms is tremendous.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By Argon18 on 1/4/2013 4:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
The youtube website works just fine on Microsoft phones. It's the application that's the subject of this article. Read the article before you reply!


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By chripuck on 1/3/2013 2:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a good comparison: YouTube is free and is a hallmark of any mobile handset. Office is not free and is vastly more complex than a mobile app portal to a website. IE is a closer example, but as everyone and their mother knows, IE is only one of a half dozen decent browsers.

Google is absolutely treading into anti-trust territory with this defiant attitude. They're purposefully using their clout and market domination to prevent a competitor from entering the market place. That's textbook monopoly behavior.


RE: Pot meet Kettle
By Argon18 on 1/4/2013 4:39:24 PM , Rating: 1
"hey're purposefully using their clout and market domination to prevent a competitor from entering the market place. That's textbook monopoly behavior. "

No, Microsoft has never done such a thing. /sarcasm


Waste of time?
By JackBurton on 1/3/2013 11:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe Google just sees it as a waste of time making a separate app for 3 users. :)




RE: Waste of time?
By djdjohnson on 1/3/2013 11:25:20 AM , Rating: 5
1. Microsoft isn't asking Google to develop an app. MS has already created one, and it is ready to be released. But they can't release it because...

2. Google is actively preventing Microsoft's app from working, restricting access to the APIs that make search and other required features possible.

3. Not only that, with changes that Google made two weeks ago, the browser version doesn't even work any longer. Google changed the URLs on videos so that they launch an official YouTube app for playback (instead of playing directly in the browser), which, of course, doesn't exist on Windows Phone.

4. So Windows Phone users are left without a way of viewing YouTube videos at all, with the one exception of the MetroTube app, which, again, Google is actively taking steps to break. It has had to be updated twice in the last month to work around blocks put in place by Google.

Note this quote in the article: "...But just last month we learned from YouTube that senior executives at Google told [YouTube] not to enable a first-class YouTube experience on Windows Phones."

Makes you really wonder what "Don't be evil" really means. Because this sure would quality as evil under my definition.


RE: Waste of time?
By Argon18 on 1/3/13, Rating: 0
RE: Waste of time?
By Fritzr on 1/4/2013 11:57:47 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft does not and never has claimed "We do no evil"
Google does and has from the beginning claimed "We do no evil"

Google executives are credited with evil behavior. What does Microsoft have to do with Google apparently violating the Google promise? Would shutting Microsoft down eliminate a corrupting influence in the ranks of Google execs or should we just hold Google responsible for decisions made by Google that Google historically considered 'evil' behavior when speaking of non-Google companies?


RE: Waste of time?
By jperez45 on 1/3/2013 12:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
This is the same thing Microsoft did to destroy Novel WordPerfect, the difference now is that youtube is not an esential software needed to run MS-Windows OS.
Youtube is just an internet based service, they doesn't have to give native support to every OS in the market, that's the reason to make web applications, to use the web browser instead of doing a native application for every OS.

In the other hand Microsoft has to give developers accurate support to developers because they do OS, and that is what runs applications.
(what was not needed for Microsoft in that time was a better Office software like the one they were introducing to market).


RE: Waste of time?
By chripuck on 1/3/2013 2:58:47 PM , Rating: 5
You clearly don't understand the issue. Microsoft has written the app and is ready to release it. All they need is for Google to give them permission to reference their API's (one's that are already available for Android/iOS.) Google instead is actively BLOCKING these API requests when they come from a Windows Phone. How could you defend this? Google has to do zero work here, in fact, they had to do more work to block them than simply leave their API open.


RE: Waste of time?
By Integral9 on 1/3/2013 5:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this the same as Microsoft not allowing other companies to use the APIs in Windows that Microsoft's apps use to hook into the core of the operating system and thus provide a better experience?


RE: Waste of time?
By Fritzr on 1/5/2013 12:06:51 AM , Rating: 3
The Google APIs are published public hooks
The MS APIs you mention are undocumented & private

I know it is only a minor difference, public access & visible vs unsupported, subject to change without notice & invisible, so why should this matter?


RE: Waste of time?
By ResStellarum on 1/3/2013 12:41:03 PM , Rating: 1
>>1. Microsoft isn't asking Google to develop an app. MS has already created one, and it is ready to be released. But they can't release it because...

There's nothing stopping Microsoft from writing a Youtube app, it just won't have as full features as the official one, the same as all third party YT apps.

>>2. Google is actively preventing Microsoft's app from working, restricting access to the APIs that make search and other required features possible.

Twitter Facebook and pretty much everyone else limits API access from third party apps, so Microsoft isn't being singled out.

Unless you're suggesting that services such as the afforementioned shouldn't be able to control access?

And while we're on the subject of limiting API access, need I mention the history of Microsoft's Windows, or more recently, Windows RT? Microsoft are in no position to dicate ethics or even to critise. They are the king of anti-competitive behaviour.

>>3. Not only that, with changes that Google made two weeks ago, the browser version doesn't even work any longer. Google changed the URLs on videos so that they launch an official YouTube app for playback (instead of playing directly in the browser), which, of course, doesn't exist on Windows Phone.

Microsoft have fixed that now. It's not Google's job to fix Microsoft's browser.

>>4. So Windows Phone users are left without a way of viewing YouTube videos at all, with the one exception of the MetroTube app, which, again, Google is actively taking steps to break. It has had to be updated twice in the last month to work around blocks put in place by Google.

So it's Google's fault when apps (like Metrotube) that make use of undocumented, non-public API's, break? Yeah right. Get a clue. If Metrotube used the public-only API's it wouldn't break.

>>Note this quote in the article: "...But just last month we learned from YouTube that senior executives at Google told [YouTube] not to enable a first-class YouTube experience on Windows Phones."

I don't believe anything that comes out of the Redmond PR office.

>>Makes you really wonder what "Don't be evil" really means. Because this sure would quality as evil under my definition.

It means "don't be like Microsoft". Because if we've learnt anything in the last three decades, it's that Microsoft will use any and all tactics to destroy the competition, just like it's doing here by complaining to antitrust regulators. And this is just one front of antitrust complaint. Microsoft is also using proxies to complain in the EU. Microsoft can't compete by product merit alone, it they resort to underhanded tactics. It's all documented in the halloween documents.


RE: Waste of time?
By chripuck on 1/3/2013 3:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
So what you're saying is two wrongs make a right...

The YouTube API is open to EVERYONE. It's not a limited API, it's widely open. What Google is doing is preventing information from leaving when the device accessing the API is a Windows Phone device. They're purposefully blocking one and only one provider because they're a competitor in a separate market than their YouTube monopoly.

Note: I don't even own a Windows Phone, I'm iOS, this is just BS.


RE: Waste of time?
By gladiatorua on 1/3/2013 3:22:47 PM , Rating: 3
No. There are two APIs. Public for third party apps, and Google's internal one. Google's youtube apps for iOS and Android have access to internal API. Any 3rd party app only has access to public API.
Microsoft wants access to Google's internal API.


RE: Waste of time?
By TakinYourPoints on 1/3/2013 5:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
Nailed it.

How about this, Microsoft gets Google's internal Youtube API and everyone else gets DirectX, deal?


RE: Waste of time?
By drlumen on 1/3/2013 1:16:58 PM , Rating: 3
I find this hilarious. Satan's minions are running to the principal because someone is picking on them and not allowing them to leech! lol

Since they are talking about an 'app' to view video...

Not that I would want to use it but where exactly is Silverlight for Android? How about DirectX for Linux? API's or published document formats for use by GoogleDocs or OpenOffice?

Really, this is hilarious and made my day. Talk about irony!


RE: Waste of time?
By przemo_li on 1/3/2013 1:28:56 PM , Rating: 3
Lie.

Because MS can not release their app, does not mean that 3RD PARTY APPS are not there.

As it is, there are at least TWO FULL YT apps in WinP8 Store, and at least ONE FULL YT app for Win8 Store.

So "Win8/WinP8 users can not access YT" is simply lie by MS. Or they do not know what apps they have in their own app stores.


RE: Waste of time?
By Mitch101 on 1/3/2013 2:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
Me thinks Google knows about this and thus is why it tried to block YouTube to slow momentum surrounding the Windows Phone.

Windows Phone on track for a 7 million + sales in Q4 2012
http://wmpoweruser.com/windows-phone-on-track-for-...


RE: Waste of time?
By Argon18 on 1/4/2013 4:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
"2. Google is actively preventing Microsoft's app from working, restricting access to the APIs that make search and other required features possible."

You aren't very familiar with Microsoft Windows. Microsoft is King of secret and hidden and obfuscated API's. The API's Microsoft uses to write IE, Office, Exchange, etc. are a completely different set of API's from what everyone else has access too. There's a reason Microsoft Applications integrate so tightly with the Windows OS, and everyone elses don't. It's a textbook example of the anti-competitive BS we've all come to expect from Redmond, and now they're getting a taste of their own medicine! Good on Google!


RE: Waste of time?
By andrewaggb on 1/3/2013 11:43:45 AM , Rating: 2
Any half decent programmer can make a youtube app, that's not the issue.

As ironic, funny, whatever you want to call it :-) this all is, in the end google is deliberately blocking youtube (and they have done similiar things to apple), they have reduced blackberry support, are removing exchange email support from non-paying customers, etc. Maybe it's not anti-competitive and there's another explanation, but it doesn't look good. Plus they are trying to flood the market with tablets and now phones that are sold at cost to gain market share. It's scary. I have a custom domain through gmail and a galaxy note 2, but this behavior scares me. We don't want google to act like Microsoft or Apple, in the end that's a loss for everybody.


RE: Waste of time?
By Strunf on 1/4/2013 5:36:05 AM , Rating: 2
The exchange thing as I see it is a GOOD thing, Google has to pay MS to make the Exchange available for their costumers and why should they do it ?
I was using open standards up till a month ago, now someone on the top branch thought let's be cool and use Exchange, everything had to be migrated and it took a long a time to do it, we have to install Outlook when Thunderbird was doing its job quite well, the calendar works well when you only use MS products but it becomes a mess once you don't and you can't even share a Outlook calendar with people that use anything else than MS outlook... also WTF you only have 15 predefined colors for your calendar.
Exchange is a POS and I smile every time it gets slapped in the face.


RE: Waste of time?
By Zuul on 1/3/2013 12:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, Google has no real incentive to develop a youtube app.

However that isn't what Microsoft is crying foul about - Microsoft is implying that Google is going out of their way to block apps, developed by themselves or independent developers, from accessing youtube on Windows Phone devices.

I disliked Microsoft browser tactics - and thought it was underhanded and warranted an anti-trust case. However just because Microsoft did it, doesn't mean it's right for someone else to do it. MS has already been punished for it - and it extended to well beyond the browser.


FYI
By sprockkets on 1/3/2013 1:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
Mr Dave Heiner needs to realize that as of iOS6 Apple's devices no longer have a native you tube app. Ars reviewed the HTML5 version for it and found it worked even better than the native app.

Today, you can use the youtube app, but it is made by Google. Thus if WP wants the same level of access, Google has to make such an app. And so far, they claim that there isn't enough users to justify making it (Gmail, other apps).




RE: FYI
By przemo_li on 1/3/2013 1:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. 3rd party app developers already have very good YT apps for both Windows Phone 7/8 and Windows 8 (in their respective app stores non the less!).


RE: FYI
By TakinYourPoints on 1/3/2013 5:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
The best Youtube app period is Jasmine for the iPhone and iPad: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/jasmine-youtube-cl...

Blows away the Youtube apps Google and Apple have made, so yeah, I think its fine to lean on third parties for this sort of thing.


RE: FYI
By sprockkets on 1/3/2013 6:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
But if they have good apps why not MS?


RE: FYI
By TakinYourPoints on 1/3/2013 10:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft's platforms in WinRT and WP are too small for Google money from, hence why they don't make in-house apps for them. Simple as that.

Android is Google's own platform so its obvious why they'd make an app there, and Google makes money hand over fist from iOS, even more than from their own Android, so its obvious why they'd make an in-house app there as well.


Google + Skynet = Real Possiblity
By xcomvic on 1/3/2013 12:34:48 PM , Rating: 3
A little at a time, Google is preparing to take over the world...I saw this coming for awhile now, as many others have also I assume.




Translation...
By Trisped on 1/4/2013 3:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is upset because they can't get a cool app like Android and iOS have. It isn't fair.

Never mind the fact that WP is less then 5% of the total market. Never mind the fact that YouTube is a website built on open standards. If Microsoft wants a great YouTube app maybe they could build one themselves, or even enable Flash support.

This is just Microsoft's PR machine trying to drag Google through the mud!




Really
By tharik on 1/4/2013 7:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really if Windows Phone is so Insignificant then why was google worried enough to block it? Maybe it has something to do with the estimated 7 million Nokia 920's that have been sold recently?

Really if Linux is so Insignificant then why was/is Microsoft worried enough to not support it? Why don't they create a version of Office for it. They are a software company aren't they?

Yeah, and those 7 million Nokia 920's that were sold are sitting in Bestbuy warehouses collecting dust!




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki