Slashdot Mirror
Google Demands Microsoft Pull YouTube App For WP8
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.'"
I predict Microsoft will lose, and lose hard.
They don't have an inherent right to access youtube. It's not in the constitution.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's official now. Google wants to be the new Microsoft of the mobile-device world.
If this it what will take Microsoft to get more traction in the mobile market, so be it.
A Youtube client that blocks ads and allows downloads, what else could we ask for??
Who's being evil now???
Wow. So Microsoft is mad because someone else won't give them details on a closed API?
What a difference a decade makes. How's it feel, Microsoft?
So Microsoft appears to have made the perfect youtube client? Sonofabitch. When I had limited mobile data, I dreamed for a simple youtube client that could cache several videos for off-line or repeated watching. Of course, Apple won't build a client like - they would rather you not even know youtube existed so you would just buy iTunes everything.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Google wanting MS to pull it because it has a built in ad-blocker. MS should pull it out, have it as a downloadable addon, and tell google to go f themselves. Would be no different than FF/Chrome ad-blocking plugins at that point.
Here is a funny thing, Google owns the content rights, but at the same time it is not responsible for it, this is something I will never understand.....
Microsoft strongarms phone manufacturers on unknown patent claims that android supposedly infringes but when they infringe ToS from Google and are told to change or remove the app, they say it's just Google not wanting to play ball. Good job Microsoft...
If only they'd apply the same open-minded fervor to stuff like .docx, directx and a million other things under their wings...
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
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.
I think Google just wants the App pulled so YouTube by Microsoft doesn't become the new mobile blue screen.
Weasels. I think thet'll find that on youtube they are googles customers, and since they wrote the app they are googles customers too. As such they are subject to the terms and conditions of the site they are accessing as any good member of the business software alliance would expect.
I look forward to seeing the level of punitive damages awarded at the end of the court case.
It sounds like if you're a YouTube fan and own a WM8 phone it feels pretty good.
Doesn't Google get it? Microsoft is ABOVE all rules and standards.
What a joke. If Google wasn't living up to a Microsoft EULA the whining from Redmond would be unbearable where I am at from Indiana.
While there is cross-corporation wank going on here it does seem that Microsoft arrogance is coming out here again.
It's not googles decision to block the content, it's the content owners. Google has been taken to court by big media and have requirements they must meet to allow content owners to restrict access. As far as I remember if google are to continue providing video with big media they have to actively stop clients that download music. This isn't google trying to screw you, it's **AA...
If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
That's not Google's doing. It's the video uploader that chooses whether to allow mobile views or not.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
Isn't ad-*blocking* something that's not allowed in the terms of use? Oh yes, it is.
So Microsoft basically didn't follow the gudelines for making what could have been a valid app, and are now crying about now google has asked them to stop violating them. I'm afraid I side with Google on this one.
Remove the ad blocker functionality. Obviously M$ are aware how to block adverts, so they must already have the required information that they're complaining about
My addon for Firefox does the same... So?
"When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers." -The Internet (attributed to multiple sources)
Wow. So Microsoft is mad because someone else won't give them details on a closed API?
What a difference a decade makes. How's it feel, Microsoft?
No. Microsoft is using the "need for an API" as an excuse against Google. It is Google who is mad, because Microsoft produced an, apparently, good and highly featureful YouTube app, one that has a built in ad blocker and the ability to locally save/record videos. Now Google is whining about breaches of ToS and Microsoft is saying; 'but, but, we need an open API.'
Both sides of this story have turned into green eyed monsters of jealousy. Frankly, I'm laughing at Google here. They are getting a taste of what they've given Microsoft on more than a few occasions.
There are advertisements on youtube? I've used Adblock Plus for so long I forgot about what some folks deal with.
trade ya for windowz api hooks
Are we really going to throw our principles out the window just to taunt Microsoft? Do we really want ToS to become a thing that one has to worry about when accessing a server that neither asks for a user account nor even shows ToS before you can get anything? Is the Facebook web really what we want, where you have to be logged in to get anything? Just to spite Microsoft?
With advocates like you. Linux is screwing itself just fine without microsoft.
After I set it up the way I want, I don't Microsoft, Google, Apple or Amazon changing anything on my device.
...unless the one who wants to restrict that information is on your side.
Fuck Google just as much as Microsoft. They've together turned the Internet into something shit. Microsoft's been doing it for decades, and Google's taken over now. But let's support what is right, not what we hate the least. And the right thing is for the law not to waste its time interfering with Google's desire to please its customers (advertisers) by peddling other people's creativity (and, this being Youtube, I use that term very loosely).
It's not Google's job to develop the app for Microsoft; nor is it Google's responsibility to help Microsoft maintain a "consistent customer experience". It's *Microsoft's responsibility* to follow the YouTube TOS. I have a feeling their "overwhelmingly positive feedback" is going to flip into "overwhelmingly negative feedback" when Google starts blocking WP8 devices. This is just a baby crying because they can't have their way and was caught with their hand in the cookie jar. 'nuff said.
My web browser also allows me to block ads and download the videos. In fact, I think most browsers can do that. Why doesn't Google try to shut them down?
Bunch of idiotic comments completely missing the point and blaming Google.
Google's agreements which allow much of the youtube content to be there *at all* mean that Google has to (as far as it reasonably can) attempt to to enforce showing of adverts and no downloading. Google effectively *has no choice* in attempting to enforce its TOS in a high profile case like this. MS know this very well and presumably made this move so when it is forced to remove the download button and display the adverts, it can say "look what teh evil Google made us do!" when it's actually the *content owners* causing this.
I thought his vocal cords were paralyzed??
If the app developed by Microsoft enables Youlube users to violate the Google ToS, then I can see an argument in Google's favour, especially if the app behaviour is not something the user can control.
Having said that, it also sounds as though the Youlube apps on "other platforms" (I am assuming this is a reference to both iOS and Android) are more functional than the version for WP8. If that is a function of the way that WP8 works compared to iOS and Android, then MS are again out of luck, but if Google are purposely denying MS access to features that are available to iOS and Android, then I can see Google getting a slap as well.
Basically, I think that MS will be getting told off, and Google might also be in hot water over this, if the disagreement ends up in court in front of a judge who has some understanding of technology*cough*.
So we are all quick to bash on the movie and music industries for DRM and all that jazz. Not letting us make copies of the music/DVDs or use it how we want. But then Microsoft comes up with a way to use YouTube the way we want (ie downloading and no ads), and Microsoft is the bad person? How is this any different?
Google is trying to control YouTube, preventing us from making copies or avoiding ads, just like the movie/music industries do with DRM. Shouldn't we be praising Microsoft for sticking it to them, the same way we sit here praising PirateBay for their work against DRM? Or is this a classic case of "I hate Microsoft so anything they do is wrong." I'm so confused...
The Pirate Bay is one of the top accessed website in the world, the media companies repeatedly refuse to work with TPB in allowing TPB access to their content and information to keep their content on par with other media release platforms.
Most of the posts here are making arguments and suggesting actions that were exactly the same as the ones that generated loud complaints on Slashdot when it was about Microsoft using proprietary crap to lock out Linux/Open Source.
I don't like Microsoft at all, but supporting Google acting more like them is no answer either.
I agree with stripping out the ads. No ads should be the default in any case.
I pay to use the Internet. Apps on a mobile should not have ads or anything else that could potentially add to the use of data. Ads are bandwidth killers. We all know this.
Why, in a forum like this full of geeks, nerds, smart people, are these same people up in arms about stripping away ads from an app. This is a good thing. Like many in here, I have not seen an ad on the Internet on devices I control in years. NO ads, no tracking cookies, no banners, no beacons. I already pay to access the WWW. I will not pay with my personal data, be tracked, collated, and my information sold without my consent.
Microsoft creates a version of YouTube that blocks advertising, and still Microsoft is the scum of the known universe.
I agree that if Microsoft isn't respecting the terms for the API then they have to change it, but come on, Microsoft actually gave us an ad-free youtube client they are not the scum you want them to be.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Microsoft did good by users, and Google is doing the suing.
I believe 90% of Slashdot is having a 'Christian Scientist with appendicitis' moment.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Of course, Apple won't build a client like - they would rather you not even know youtube existed so you would just buy iTunes everything.
If YouTube didn't exist, then to what video sharing service would people be uploading videos shot on an iPhone and edited on an iPad?
If the roles were reversed most of the poeple here would be hailing Google as a savior...lame
Microsoft is violating Google's terms of service, which according to the DOJ is a felony covered under the CFAA.
If it was applicable to Aaron Swartz ...
What's that, Microsoft? Download for offline use is a recognised popular customer desire?
Guess you won't be forcing Always-Onliine "functionality" on your next generation of consoles then.
Oh jesus... take off your sisters underwear and just install chrome on your ipad you cross dressing wannabe. And start using NAIR on your face, the razer stubble makes you look liek a cheap whore.
While I'm not excusing Google's behavior... Microsoft, how does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine? You can start bitching once you release a version of Office (with Project and Visio) for Mac and Linux that is on par with your Windows version.
Since we updated the YouTube app to ensure our mutual users a similar YouTube experience, ratings and feedback have been overwhelmingly positive.
Fixed that for you. Because "customer" does not mean what you imply it means.
Oh my god, I never thought I'd ever hear those words coming out of my own mouth. As someone who suffered through Windows 3.1 (reboot to change the number of colors on screen!) I'd long held fantasies of gunning down Bill Gates. I considered MS to be the root of all evil.
But now they they aren't really the top dog, and now that they seem to be struggling, and now that Google has proven that their motto is "do evil", I gotta say, MS ain't so bad anymore. Sure they make mistakes, and sure their software is utter crap, but you know what; if they are making a Youtube App that let's you save and comes with an ad blocker, I'm all for it.
Go MS! I'm with you! (oh my god I feel dirty now somehow).
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Maybe if Microsoft stopped forcing Android handset manufacturers to pay bogus patent fees and kept from launching Scroogled campaigns, Google would be more likely to let their WP8 Youtube app pass this time.
------- Look mum! I have posted another Slashdot comment! --------
Google surpassed M$ a long time ago as an anti-consumer corporation.
It's not googles decision to block the content, it's the content owners.
I have content on YouTube. It's even CC licensed (unfortunately with their limited license choice). I want people who did something wrong in their past life and are now forced to use Windows Phone to be able to access my content, and preferably be able to download it too.
Perhaps Google needs to add another knob.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Since Google's inevitably going to shoot them down, I'm going to have to start looking for someplace else to upload my videos from now on. Maybe xtube. They're not pornographic, but at least there all you have to deal with is a browser full of waving penises while you watch your video. It's like a forest of penises, gently waving in the breeze...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I've already got the awesome YouTube app. It's not an integral part of Windows Phone 8, so long as current users don't "upgrade" the YouTube app, I don't think there's much MS can do at this point.
I don't respond to AC's.
On my ipod touch I use a jailbroken youtube app that lets me view all content by disguising the useragent as a desktop pc so it doesn't block vevo bullshit, then it uses adblock plus blocklists like easylist, fanboylist to block all ads.
screw official apps, I'm tired of commercials, and spam in real life, internet and television, so I've cut cable went 100% pirate and said fuck you to advertisers.
I adblock everything, and I even charge postal spam by stamping return to sender on spam mailed to me by post office. when you stamp return to sender the post office will return your spam and they charge the spammers the postal charge which is awesome and it REALLY pisses them off.
I had best buy try and bill me 90 cents sent to a bill collector, I also stamped it return to sender and inside written 'fuck off'
Because they do: https://developers.google.com/youtube/
It's about Microsoft re-engineering Google's API to create their own, and bypassing Google's standards. There is no requirement for Google to develop a Youtube-specific application for every platform. And with Microsoft attacking Google on every possible front, there is no real incentive for Google to help Microsoft make their platform more popular. So why waste the development $$ when you can focus on other business? Microsoft had the standard APIs available and chose to do something else.
Back to MS bashing.
The cognitive dissonance here is amazing. All of the posts in support of Google included at least one, if not multiple, of the following items:
Microsoft isn't.
Isn't Microsoft denying content creators that get a share of the ad revenue their payment by blocking ads with this software? Couldn't they get in to serious trouble pirating content from YouTube in that regard? Never mind the fact that the content creator may never have approved for their content to be stored on another device like that.
Get the real Goo
http://www.mentalzero.com/
Their 'Don't be evil' motto seems to be wearing even thiner recently. This seems like the kind of thing that Microsoft would do but in this case I'm with Microsoft. They have a valid argument in trying to create an experience similar to other platforms.
If I remember right, youtube was only really popular initially because they let their users steal content and post it. Basically, you could watch full episodes of TV shows that youtube's users had posted. That was basically doing the same thing. Their users would steal TV shows from ABC, CBS, NBC, HBO, etc. and post them ad free.
Payback is a bitch, ain't it, youtube.
I'm pretty sure if you're that keen you can distribute it yourself to all the users of Windows phones. You could probably do it without going over your monthly mobile tariff.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
"So we wanted to take content from Google and strip off the revenue-generating part of it and pass it off to our customers, but Google wouldn't roll over on our demands. So we're just going to take it anyway. Oh what's this? It looks like Google is going to sue us for violating the TOS that they refused to change just for us. Well, maybe now they'll be willing to roll over and play by our rules!"
Idiots. Don't you know you can't be a bully and get away with it unless you're bigger than the other guy? I hope Google gives them the bloody nose they so desperately deserve.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
How many times are you going to post the same comment in this thread?
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
WTF? They're not blocking anything. You do know that the ads aren't part of the video stream right? Microsoft made a client that contacts Google's servers and sends a properly formed request saying "Hey send me that video of the two cats fucking on the stove" and Google's server then sends a video of two cats fucking on the stove to the client which displays it to the end user. Google's complaint is that the client isn't also asking for ads.
If people want to talk karma they should be remembering Google's mass copyright violations wrt. Google's book scanning project, or the news agencies' complaints about Google's news aggregation project that strips away the ad revenue from the actual content producers, or Google's video streaming site (I mean youtube in this case) that hosts tremendous amounts of copyright material -- and Google's response is "The mallets are over there, have fun playing whack-a-mole." Or Perfect 10's complaint that Google facilitates copyright violators stealing P10's pictures.
While I can appreciate the irony in this situation, I find the tech community's reaction to this a bit baffling. Any company using their muscle in one market (in this case web videos) to stifle competition in another market (mobile phones) should be called out for doing so. While I can certainly see the humor in the fact that the victim in this case has historically been one of the bigger perpetrators of this type of behavior, I still feel that Google should not be getting a pass here. Microsoft may have wrongly implemented the new youtube app, but it was only after begging Google to work with them on a legit one, and being snubbed that they chose to do so at the behest of their customers. We give this company a metric ton of our data, and we trust them to do the right thing, but behavior like this should remind us all that no for-profit company can be trusted to act appropriately when there is money or market share at stake. I, like many, have been a big user/proponent of Google's products and services over the years, but they have gotten big and powerful, and are starting to act a lot like the MS of the 90's.
The the argument is all over the Advertisements then why doesn't MS just put there own advertisements on inside the app. That will make everyone happy.
For years Ive been using FF addons that enable direct downloading from youtube, Im sure most other browsers have similar plugins available. Google should be careful when singling out just device while ignoring the rest. Also, why do they even care, Windows phones make up like 2% of the marketplace ?
My android phone says "with Google" on the back, and when I try to watch certain youtube videos, it informs me that the content owner hasn't made it available on mobile. Very annoying, but it's consistent even though it's their own bailywick.
Where's my pop corn for this one?
Sadly, though, probably won't be any fun to watch on our side. All corporate hiding in the back room stuff.
Ah well. The idea is nice, anyway.
All of you would praising the app if it was written by some nobody and you would be using it. But since it is Microsoft all of you are taking a chance to come down on them just because they are Microsoft and you jump at every single opportunity you can you piss on them. The majority of posts on here would be about hating google in that circumstance.
Im sure you will argue that the "Well the difference is blah blah blah" or "They are violating the terms and conditions of youtube so its wrong no matter who does it" and so on in order to sound like you would never do that or approve of it regardless of who does it but we all know the truth, youre just a contrarian and nothing more.
Google goes after AdBlock? Mozilla is forced to remove hooks for ad blocking? tcpdump becomes illegal?
Not on par? I'm sure I just read "includes a built-in ad blocker but also allows users to download videos and doesn't impose device-specific streaming restrictions". Sounds massively superior to me.
You could probably do it without going over your monthly mobile tariff.
haha, I'll dig out the C=64 to host it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I have to say "Screw you Google!!!"
I am a Windows Phone 8 user, and I really do enjoy the product. I actually enjoy it more than my old iPhone and Android phone for an overall experience.
One thing that caught my eye from the letter from Google was "... especially given that Windows Phone 8 users already have access to a fully-functional YouTube application based upon industry-standard HTML5 through the web browser." which I say BULLSHIT!
I am constantly running into YouTube videos that won't play on a Windows Phone 8 device. But the really odd thing, is that if you modify the user agent string to impersonate an Android device, or even the iPhone they sudden work. WTF is up with that? I believe Microsoft also has seen this in their testing, and may have discussed it with Google, to be brushed off. So they did what most of us would have done, by giving the finger in way of an app that circumvents the issue.
I've been finding the same issues with IE10 on W8/W8RT of not being able to play YouTube videos, but again change the user agent string to impersonate say Chrome or Firefox on W7, BAM the videos play.
I still prefer Firefox over IE any day of the week, but it's something I've noticed when experimenting with IE. W8 has a neat feature of when playing a HTML5 video in the IE App, I can send it to a DLNA device (i.e. my Smart TV). It's great for sharing, instead of everyone hunched around my laptop screen, I just send it my TV.
Back to the topic in hand: Microsoft in the past has been caught in the past of doing similar tactics and were raked over the coals for it, and rightfully so! But now if someone else does it to Microsoft, they are applauded for it for sticking it to the Evil Empire. I say NO! It doesn't matter whom you are, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Linux, etc., if someone purposely excludes someone else, it's just plain wrong. End of Story.
Thats what MS gets for treating other busniess the same for many years.Good.
The fastest growing items are almost always those with the smallest quantity: i.e. the percentage rate of growth from 1 user to 2 users is 100% growth, whereas the percentage rate of growth from 10 users to 11 users is 10%, and the %age growth from 100 users to 101 users is 1%.
;>p
So don't throw your "fastest growing phone OS right now" at me right now! You're just admitting that MS is at the fucking bottom right now. (warning, results may not apply to a stable market with equally aged competitors, your results may vary, your mileage is worse with six fat friends in the back seat of your car on a Roberto's tacos run, etc.)
SUCK MY BALLS MICROSOFT, but I'm really tired and it could have said something about Youtube as well.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I think there are enough knobs at Google already...Tools too!
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
as an anticompetitive practice? Google gets market share for android phones with a better Youtube app, and refusing to allow other people APIs for that app seems like the definition of using market share from one product to affect another.
Whereas this is a limitation on GOOGLE's.
EA want to put a restriction on somthing I BOUGHT.
Whereas this is a limitation on something I HAVEN'T BOUGH.
See the difference yet?
does the windows 8 phones not do html 5 video just like android. point is windows phones can aruldy use youtube without a app.
Fuck all you haters. get your hands off my phone. Its awesome.
Ok, here is my point. Who do you think put that Advertisement on that video? It was the content provider, you know, the one that went through the trouble to put that video together and make it available for you to watch, that's who. If you don't like the advertisement placed on that video then I suggest you stop going to Youtube. If you want to skip that Advertisement by creating a Microsoft-like-add-skipping-app then you are in effect stealing money from the one producing the content. Why would they go through the trouble if they can't even meet their own financial needs to continue doing so. Think about who you are really screwing, only the content provider, and yourself because they will stop providing if they go in debt. Don't like it? Make a donation to the provider so they won't have to place adds! If you don't care about the content provider enough to do that then you don't need Youtube do you?
Enable and disable ads on my videos
https://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=94522&topic=1322133&ctx=topic
While I hate advertisements and do the best I can to block them for sites I don't need, I do go out of my way to actually donate to those that I don't want to place adds. I put my money where my mouth is. You should too. If your goal is to make sure Google makes as little money as possible, then donating to the content producer directly will achieve exactly that, and keep you from seeing any ads in the process. Think about it.
Hmmm, do you support Microsoft, the Great Satan, for circumventing advertising or do you honor your natural allegiance to Google? Never mind that that same ad revenue is how the videos you enjoy are paid for. The contortions I'm reading here must be snapping spines all over digital creation.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Only a few years ago I would predict people would eventually argue this with a straight face, as you appear to have just done. I was laughed at.
Just because a business that depends on ads for revenue doesnt obligate you to watch them. That's absurd. Next you need surveillance in my home to make sure I dont 'steal' a tv program by going to the bathroom during a commercial break, right?
Words fail me, I cannot express how stupid your post and argument are.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
MSFT has said clearly that they are willing to add advertisements in the YouTube app, but Google simply doesn't offer it via public API, so Microsoft is unable to do anything about it.
So provide a link in the file description to your website where they can download the file. There, that was hard.
You cant just, in a position like what Microsoft is in, work around the TOS of another website because you dont much care for it. If I tried to do that to Microsoft you can be pretty sure i'd find myself in court. So how is this any different? If they're all about not having restricted access then that's awsome, so...lets see them follow through when the shoe is on the other foot.
Otherwise, this is all just a bunch of BS as they try to paint Google as a bad guy because they do what Microsoft is also doing, and that's clearly not fair...right?
So provide a link in the file description to your website where they can download the file.
The claim was that YouTube content owners do not want their content shared. Your claim seems to be that if you are a YouTube content owner who wants their content shared (say by selecting the Creative Commons License *that YouTube provides as an option*) then you shouldn't use YouTube.
That's a separate claim that does not respond to the first one.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I find it funny how everyone here usually talks about how the TOS agreements are utter bullshit, but not that MS is on the other side of a TOS battle, suddenly all the comments seem to be rallying behind the validity of the TOS agreement. I guess the resistance to anything MS here is stronger than the aversion to TOS agreements, eh?
Don't be silly. They aren't people, they're huge corporations.... which are also sometimes people.... shut up pleb!!
Thy name is geek..
MS: We've got her covered; no problem, your honor. Would you like a pony too? Maybe one that's a shoe-in for the Derby?
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound right now? Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with terms of service.
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.
not that i care and not that i ever want a wp or any of ms crap, but this is just awesome. precious. kudos for ms, for once! and btw, fuck you, google.
It's Google's fault for allowing such an absurd restriction in the first place. Anything is "mobile" if you plug it into one of these. Fucking stupid Google. It's like having an option to not allow people wearing green to watch your video.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I predict Microsoft will lose, and lose hard.
Why? How is that possible...
They don't have an inherent right to access youtube. It's not in the constitution.
Oho, so you claim Google has the right to refuse service.
Fine as far as it goes, but HOW can they do that exactly? I mean technically, just how is Google supposed to stop a determined browsing client? Say one that mimics being a version of Android...
Yes Google can shut of access to any given browser but the trick is in telling WHICH one is the one you really want to shut off...
Legally Google has no ground to stop Microsoft from writing software to access something Google puts on the public internet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So if I've read this correctly, Google won't write an App for WP because there isn't a high enough market share to profit from their app on those devices. However, one of their complaints is that ads are being blocked on the MS supplied app. Does this complaint mean there's actually enough profit for them to care?
Disclaimer: I have no love for either of these companies. If I started ranting about MS as well, this post would never end.
Google is a business. They are NOT required to provide propriatory information to competitors.
So is jailbreaking, you approve of jailbreakers being criminally convicted too? Or using ad-blockers on youtube, more criminal convictions there? What about all the youtube downloaders on the google play store? Seems pretty damn hypocritical to allow them to exist.
I used to have an application that does this by recording the packets of a streaming file. Now I have a Firefox plugin that does it.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Certainly MS saw this coming
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Exactly. People seem to forget that google is, first and foremost an ad company. If you don't want ads, google is not the company for you to rally behind.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Other than of course default to HTML web based rendering and let Google put out an app if appropriate (ala Apple).
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Microsoft's app is just grabbing the video stream - same as, for example, what you would get if you used the HTML5 mode - and displaying it. Displaying it requires downloading it to *somewhere*, saving that to a temp file is logical (allows the user to seek back, for example), and saving that temp file to a persistent file is trivial.
On the website, YouTube overlays ads on the video window or plays an ad video before the requested one or whatever they're doing these days. Those aren't in the raw video streams that MS is using. To do that in an app either requires screen scraping the actual site to find the ad layers, which is a labor-intensive, error-prone, non-future-proof, and inefficient way to go about it... or they can just display that video files that YouTube happily serves to anybody who asks.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
You're letting your hatred of MS blind you to the likely, and perfectly reasonable, response they would take. You're then using it to justify condemning them here. If Google started blocking Microsoft's ads, I'm sure that Microsoft would just use something like IE's Tracking Protection feature - essentially a built-in ad-blocker - to ignore all requests for AdWords/AdSense, DoubleClick, and all other Google ad revenue streams they could find. Microsoft has a traditional business model based on selling things to customers; the revenue they derive from ads hosted on their sites is trivial compared to what Google stands to lose.
I doubt they'll throw the first punch in that war, but if Google were to block Microsoft ads, the perfectly logical response for Microsoft to take in response would hurt Google far more than it would hurt MS!
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
The whole point of "you bought it" is a total red herring here. Is region locking OK by you and free DVDs that are handed out to anybody who asks? Because that is exactly how YouTube serves video files!
Also, no, they don't need to generate revenue. They want to generate revenue, but they aren't entitled to it. It's not a good business model to spend money (hosting/serving video files) giving stuff away for free. However, that's what Google is doing here; it's not the responsibility of any other entity (not the government, and certainly not a competing company) to ensure that they manage to earn revenue despite giving the content away for free. If Google doesn't like what Microsoft's app does, they can either (try to) refuse to serve it any video content (good luck with that), or they can stop giving away the content for free.
Well, or they can go complain to somebody in government, I guess. The courts have been braindead enough to uphold TOS as though they're actual contracts on occasion, though not often. The usual argument is copyright law, and that's completely off the table here; Microsoft is displaying the videos exactly as Google is serving them!
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
to remove it from market is their right. But if i installed the app, they should have no right in the world to remove it without my consent!
Dear Google, It was you who decided Windows 8 and WP8 customer base is too tiny for you to care about so you won't be making any apps for them. Now that somebody has made an app for them using the API's publicly provided by you, you should stop crying. How difficult it is for you to either fix your API or make an app yourself that works the way you want it to.
This is wonderful. If the Green Party candidate got elected President of the United States, and the first thing she did was turn around and lob a hydrogen bomb at Ottawa, you'd all be here coming up with rationales as to why it was a good thing. All of a sudden, the collective wisdom-holders of Slashdot have had the scales fall from their eyes: the sense and justice of ad-supported content models is unquestionable, copyright law must be strictly observed, and terms of service should _always_ be not only respected, but followed to the letter.
True if you are republishing the content.
If you are an end-user and are using a tool that removes line-noise from a video stream, and I categorize "advertising" as line noise, you have no rights to what part of your video stream I choose to watch. If you distribute a newspaper, you can't force people to read the ads.
If they choose to block them by not reading them -- that is their right -- just as it is your right to put ads in your content if you so choose. In the US we have a law protecting freedom of expression -- it does not include the right to force someone to listen to what you have to say.
1st percent problems.
As all the +5 posts made by ignoramuses who don't understand what API's are overwhelm any sort of logical posts by programmers.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Economists could study this case to help understand the crippleware problem.
Deliberately less functional software has gone beyond limited-use to sell more expensive versions, and become baked into the industry culture. Even top-of-the-line products are affected, apparently by corporate force of habit.
The result could be deadly. In case of long-term loss of power and/or Internet outage, most computer equipment will be useless after day 1, almost all after a week. Sites are designed to discourage saving of vital information, to keep people coming back and seeing more ads. So without connectivity, needed information won't be there. We could call this dependency by design.
The current case is interesting because G$ is demanding that another company degrade its own products.
I want to be able to reply to comments. Thanks you
Why doesn't Google just encode some signature in the last key-frame of the advertisement they want to be played and the client player has to return that signature in order to start streaming the video? If they provide an API that doesn't enforce their terms of service, they kind of deserve to be abused. I love writing mash-ups, and one of them is to download an entire playlist of videos. It comes in handy especially when Google's totalitarian copyright take-downs can ruin a playlist.