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.'"
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?
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 think Google is just dishing out a little of my MS has been for years. I'm sure the end result will be Google will allow MS to use YouTube, but I still find it a little funny that finally someone can jerk MS around for being dicks for the last 20 some years.
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.
It sounds like if you're a YouTube fan and own a WM8 phone it feels pretty good.
No, they're just a middle man. They own nothing of exceptional value on Youtube. The high value stuff is owned by others and they have agreements in place for revenue sharing on the ads. It's like everything else in their portfolio - they're really just a middle man.
Does Starbucks grow coffee? Of course not - they offer free seating and wireless connections in thousands of locations for the purpose of packaging and selling high-markup derivatives of coffee beans. If you a whole class of people started bringing in their own coffee, or a cup and a full thermos of their favorite beverage, that Starbucks location would lose out on a potential sale and upper management would start inquiring why they were always packed but their sales numbers sucked.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
"When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers." -The Internet (attributed to multiple sources)
...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).
Except you know, being Google's service they have to cover the cost of streaming those video files. It's perfectly reasonable for them to have ads to help cover the cost.
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.
I totally agree. This is a M$ smear campaign more than anything. The features that they are putting into the app are designed to a) undermine Google's ability to generate revenue through ads and b) undermine Google's ability to honor its agreements with the rights holders, but M$ is spinning it as Google trying to keep them out. Whatever your opinion about ads and copyrights or whatever, Google, being a middleman, couldn't/would't keep youtube up without ad revenue and wouldn't have the vast library of video that it has if it could not offer cursory protections to rights holders.
I thought his vocal cords were paralyzed??
I actually do think there is a major difference here, that being that it's a part of the original ap and not an add on. When ad blocking is an add on (like adblocker) it is quite obviously the user's choice and it isn't a corporate decision.
It also guarantees that a certain percentage of people will see the ads. For instance I deal with people who in my line of work that get amazed when you show them their O.S. has a built in calculator program. They don't have enough smarts or knowledge to put in an ad blocker or, god forbid, edit a hosts file!
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*.
It could.
MS has been doing this exact same thing to every other company for quite some time. Although two wrongs don't make a right, I think this is a case of Google trying to educate MS in civility. If MS takes the lesson that working with others is better than suing or extorting them into the ground when the try to innovate, then it'll work in everyone's favor.
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.
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?
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 ...
Don't forget the content creators earn money through those advertisements. Essentially bypassing the ads, rips of the artists directly (if you can call YouTube creators that) and cost Google money directly for streaming for free. I can't imagine the RIAA and the MPAA are looking at Microsoft with warm regards at this moment either. This is Napster territory.
"good and highly featureful YouTube app, "
That has wonderful features such as CLIPPY and UAC as well as it makes decisions for you.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
They are legally obligated to prevent downloads, and Microsoft is directly preventing the content creators from earning a thing for their efforts, as well as costing Google money to stream with no potential revenue stream in return. The application is flagrantly defying the terms of service for YouTube. I wouldn't be surprised if lawsuits were forthcoming by concerned parties/content creators.
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! --------
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'
Microsoft isn't.
Why should they?
MS is forbidden from allowing the local download of content.
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.
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.
Which we? You haven't even got an account.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
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 difference is that in this case it's Google who is paying for the infrastructure that serves the content.
Yes, but slashdotters don't understand one simple thing:
COMPANIES ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS.
They blame MS for being/having been evil, sleazy, monopolistic and any other adjective they can throw at them. Google is "good" because they give us free stuff. And that free stuff is also good. "Boohoo microsoft was once mean to me and i hate them. The googly is my BFF 3".
They don't see that google is as monopolistic as they come. Buying everyone. And anyone they can't buy, they compete and put out of business. They own search, video distribution (in a sleazy way that pays fractions of a cent to "authors"), mobile communications, location, maps, google street view. They can (and do) go through your email. There's google voice so they can (and they do) listen to your phone. And a million things more.
But Google will, sooner or later, become "evil". Of course, a company can't be "evil". A company just "is". Larry/Sergei (assuming they're the "gooddoers") won't be at the top forever, and the top will, someday, change. The new management will see the kind of stuff they're sitting on. Half the planet's names, locations, browsing habits, call logs, emails, EVERYTHING you can ever dream of. How do we know they won't sell it to Syria, Russia or Thailand? For all we know, they give it up for free to the US government.
You can be friends with Joe Mechanic, the guy that's been fixing your car for the past 20 years, and you know he's honest and he's never failed you. Joe Mechanic is a person. Google is not. Microsoft is not. Any "BRAND" is NOT your friend.
So, in short. Companies aren't people. They can't be your friends. When you deal with a company, you do it in their own terms. Use them. Abuse them as much as you can, and move on to the next one. If someone else comes up with a better deal, go with them and don't look back. Don't let "20 years of good service" get in the way. It wouldn't matter to them (google pulls the plug in any services they want, whenever they want to). This is not being evil. This is just doing business. Just like when you switch brands in the supermarket.
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 ?
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.
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)
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."
That's a bit unfair, most of the stuff I've just read seems more like they don't like what Google is doing, but enjoy seeing Microsoft getting some of it's own crap directed back at it.
It's a lot like the guys who always pop up in piracy stories: we know that you don't like the way media companies (or Youtube in this case) treat you as a consumer and try to place restrictions on you, that doesn't automatically give you the right to just take what you want, your options are to play according to the rules or not play at all. There are other video services, just because Youtube has everything you want doesn't mean you have to keep going back to them.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
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.
does the windows 8 phones not do html 5 video just like android. point is windows phones can aruldy use youtube without a app.
removing the ads they probably could have done nothing bought many have tried before them to kill ad-blocking only to get stomped in the dirt by the courts. the downloading Google always has a fit bought for good reason it keeps the content holders off there backs for the most part. they have gone after apps and websites in the past for the very same reason not that it really stops anyone. but for the out of tuch content holders at least they show a effort to stop it.
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.
If this is the world you want, it sounds nice from a user perspective. The problem is that stripping ads destroys the revenue model for the free services. How do you expect businesses to monetize it?
If they can't monetize it, they won't play the game. Who then is going to provide these services at the scale we enjoy today? How do you expect them to remain free if you reject the only viable revenue model?
We've accepted this model because it's the best one available for free. Are you willing to pay for services like YouTube instead? Do you have a better suggestion for encouraging businesses to give us free stuff?
Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
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.
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?
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.
I'll go ahead and assume that you're the same AC.
That all makes sense, I personally have purchased apps just to remove the ads. I had gotten the impression from the first post that you wanted free services with no ads, ie something for nothing.
Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
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.
Subscription and or paying for the usage are perfectly viable methods so long as they aren't priced outrageously. I would consider paying for a Cable service again sometime if I could actually choose the channels I wanted and not have to waste my time fast forwarding through commercials.
The supposed free services are not free if you are obstucting the content with ads like Youtube does, it is costing me more of my time and attention than it would cost me otherwise. If businesses decide to implement that as their sole option for using their service then they can drop the indignation when the users take easy and obvious steps to avoid the things that annoy us.
I'm a slightly stingy bastard. I don't think I've ever purchased something through or because of an advertisment. I understand that ads aren't always supposed to work that way, brand recognition is a valid sneaky strategy. But I can't think of anything that I've bought were in retrospect I can point to a commercial or advertisment that could have been an influence.
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.
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...
Legal doesn't mean moral.
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!
Don't forget the content creators earn money through those advertisements. Essentially bypassing the ads, rips of the artists directly (if you can call YouTube creators that) and cost Google money directly for streaming for free.
ok....
I can't imagine the RIAA and the MPAA are looking at Microsoft with warm regards at this moment either. This is Napster territory.
Oh please...
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.
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.