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.'"
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.
MS:Your Honor, we created the App in good faith using the API's available, since those API's do not allow us to add the functions Google is requesting we can not add those features until they make available API's capable of doing so. We are happy to add those features as soon as the API is available we would also willingly remove the app if Google provided a feature complete replacement.
Judge: Why aren't the required API's available?
Google: Ummmm....
Judge: Case dismissed
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
Your implication is that Google is being evil because they're preventing Microsoft from taking market share from Google by using Google's services. It's hard to imagine a more one-sided and asinine analysis.
I think Microsoft are just upset they're screwgled because nobody wants Windows 8 or Windows phones and everyone knows it.
The point is that Microsofts application isn't using publicly available API's, they are abusing YouTube and violating their terms. Just because Google doesn't provide API's to allow you to make something that meets their conditions doesn't mean you may violate those conditions. It simply means Google doesn't want to present YouTube through anything but their own applications.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Google: our terms of service clearly state that storing downloads for any other purpose than buffering is not permitted.
Judge: (to MS) So you ignored the terms of service in building your application?
MS: Well, yes, but we just wanted a good user experience
Judge: And my grand-daughter wants a pony. I find you in violation of the TOS, your app must be pulled until you can show it complies.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Normally I'd agree, but in this case it really seems like Microsoft is trying to meet the needs of their customers and Google is not cooperating with them in an attempt to squeeze them out of market share. I'm all for sticking it to M$, but when it hurts the consumer ultimately that really makes Google no better than they are.
Well, wait a minute now. If it was some bunch of open source geeks making an app that download's YouTube videos and strips the advertisements, and Google came down as hard, I think we'd hear squeals of outrage and demands for Google not to be "evil".
But because it's Microsoft, fuck them, right?
Now, I can understand this sentiment completely, but let's not pretend that this same "one-sided and asinine analysis" has not been used by everybody on every side of these issues.
At the bottom, this is why having a company control the ecosystem for any platform is a very bad idea. Because we want little companies trying to make things more useful by breaking big companies' models. That's how progress works. The notion that we have to create some protected reserve where the biggest companies can enjoy guaranteed success forever without having to face any competition is really what's asinine.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That might fly for the advertising, but including a download functionality requires a deliberate effort - Microsoft is willfully including a tool with no functionality except to facilitate in the violation of Google's license agreement, and thus copyright. If this ever turns into a court case, MS would probably lose - but they could still drag it on long enough to cost both sides a few million dollars in legal fees, and get a lot of good press if they spin it right.
Don't forget, MS gets somewhere between $5 and $8 for every Android device sold due to patent licensing. There is nothing accidental going on here from either side.
When this is exactly what Microsoft has been doing to everyone else for the past 20 years? Yes, I do fail to see this as a problem.
Karma's a bitch.
Their customers can use the YouTube website - same as everyone else who doesn't have a pre-built app installed or for their platform. Just because you can hack YouTube's website and write a wrapper around your hacks to provide the content doesn't mean its legit.
Isn't accessing web content through means other than the published API or intended URL a hacking offense with prison time after conviction?
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.
Then why did they add the feature to download videos? That was a conscious choice to violate the terms and conditions.
They are using the API, the API doesn't provide ads. Google say's they won't make an app. So Microsoft uses the API to make one. So Google comes back and says that apps built using their API don't meet the required terms of service.
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.
The API comes with terms of service. Saying it's OK to ignore them is like saying A DDOS attack is perfectly fine since it too uses the API.
I think what Microsoft done is no less then an exploit. And unlike some script kiddie, this is for money.
Uh, no. An API is not subject to copyright, and so you can't sue someone for writing code to an API or reimplementing that API. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can use a specific service in a specific way. Google could not stop someone else implementing the YouTube APIs on a different media hosting site.
I think Microsoft has been quite clever here. They're now in the situations where they're giving their customers something that they want, and Google is telling them that they can't. They can't really lose: if they can keep offering the app in the same format, then they can provide a better experience than other platforms. If they can't, then they have some good material for their next round of anti-Google adverts.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News