Slashdot Mirror
Google Blocks YouTube App On Windows Phone (Again)
dhavleak writes "From Gizmodo: Earlier today, the Microsoft-built YouTube app for Windows Phone was unceremoniously disabled by Google. These kind of little inter-corporate kerfuffles happen from time to time, and usually resolve themselves without screwing too many users. But boy, Microsoft didn't take it quietly."
Hoo
Help stamp out iliturcy.
What ever happened to your "don't be evil" mantra? Obviously you're dealing with a historically evil company, but don't stoop to their level.
These kind of little inter-corporate kerfuffles happen from time to time.
Hmm. I'm not sure it's interoperable issue when it come to MS, it's always furthering their agenda. In this case, removing ads and preventing Google from monetizing the content it delivers.
Fuck right off MS. You claim to grow your XBox business via games and subscription fees, but your EULA says I can't block the ads on the homepage with my router without being in breech of your EULA. Oh, but you're fine with blocking Google's ads and then playing the martyr when they ban your app just like you banned my xbox.
Who uses a Windows phone, anyway? At least Google tells me up front they're using and selling my data, and I can always replace various apps with my own code. Microsoft quietly eavesdrops, loudly denies, and deafeningly bullshits.
Microsoft should just scrap Bing, and split Google's search monopoly in two.
...that both remaining Windows Phone users will be devastated to find they can no longer watch their lolcat videos. The rest of the world couldn't give a flying monkeys about this. (And Microsoft are being hugely disingenuous with their blog post whining about a competitor doing even a tiny fraction of the kind of thing that they do to others themselves without batting an eyelid.)
Blocking ads? According to the MS letter, they're serving the ads using "all available metadata."
Hmm. I'm not sure it's interoperable issue when it come to MS, it's always furthering their agenda. In this case, removing ads and preventing Google from monetizing the content it delivers.
Wrong it doesn't block ads.
Oh, but you're fine with blocking Google's ads and then playing the martyr when they ban your app just like you banned my xbox.
Wrong again they dont block ads.
In the initial app - according to the same MS letter - they disabled google ads, and enabled video downloading.
Both the iOS and Android apps are written by Google. They are free to do whatever they want. Any 3rd-party that wants to display videos in their app has to use the HTML5 (or Flash) player. I don't see why MS should be treated differently.
I presume that MS reserves the right for first-party apps on Windows Phone to use private APIs to implement features no other app can have. Apple certainly does this. Similarly, Google is not bound to using Dalvik for UI if they don't want to.
The three users of Windows Phone are probably all up in a hizzy about this.
and let Google code there own youtube app with MS having no say or control over the app.
And a double-pox on the idiots that think everything on the web needs to be duplicated in an 'app.'
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I actually own a Windows phone, and it sucks that Google's acting like jerks. But really, what goes around, comes around.
I'm Peggy.
"Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesn’t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators."
Nothing more needed to be said. The rest of the article is manipulation.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Both the iOS and Android apps are written by Google.
That's not true. There are scores of YouTube playing apps on the iOS app store. You can download an IOS YouTube app written by Google, but it's not the only one and I don't think ships by default on the device anymore.
I presume that MS reserves the right for first-party apps on Windows Phone to use private APIs to implement features no other app can have. Apple certainly does this.
Apple generally does NOT do this. Not because they are a bunch of saints but because they are not a bunch of damn amateur coders.
Apple doesn't use private API's for their own software for the same reason they don't want other app developers to - because using private APIs means breakage at some point down the line, or because you want to do an API change but some moron on Word (or Pages) made use of a private API and now you have to coordinate with them as to when you can change the API. API interfaces are there for a reason... they protect both sides.
Of course internal Apple products have earlier access to API updates than everyone else (and probably more say as to what API changes need to be made), but there has been no indication that most Apple software that ships on iOS is doing anything you couldn't do yourself. Apple even demonstrates at WWDC how to make apps similar to ones they are shipping.
There are sort of exceptions to the rule in that at times there are whole private frameworks they use to implement some feature (like carrousels) or Settings.app which has to manipulate all kinds of things other applications are not allowed to touch. But by and large any Apple iOS application could be written from scratch if you had a mind to do so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You'd be rooting for Microsoft?
...who introduced intentional glitches in Windows when it detected you were running it on anything but genuine MS-DOS.
Not that I have a whole lot of sympathy for Google these days either...
Good for Microsoft, defending all eight of its Windows Phone customers.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Who cares, other than Steve Chair-throwing Ballmer.
Wrong it doesn't block ads.
The original app did. That's when Google stepped in and dropped the hammer. They gave MS a list of things to do. Even from reading the article, the chap says that they haven't done all of these. Google wanted the app in HTML5 - the app isn't. They wanted other features implemented (which aren't for whatever reason, blame MS or Google - it sort of doesn't matter - they are not implemented) so Google has pulled the plug.
While I am not totally convinced that at least part of this isn't Google playing tough and messing with MS, it doesn't sound like MS has a huge platform to stand on. Do what google asks so that Google will serve you THEIR content.
From TFA:
There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. This was an odd request since neither YouTube’s iPhone app nor its Android app are built on HTML5. Nevertheless, we dedicated significant engineering resources to examine the possibility. At the end of the day, experts from both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps.
I am personally not a fan of "Do as I say, not as I do..." but when you are giving your market competitor access to your content like this, it doesn't seem a totally unreasonable request, does it?
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Payback is a motherfuck !!
But this is not about the initial app.
Perhaps Microsoft should stop spreading FUD about Google? Or perhaps they should stop forming shill organizations to do their dirty work by proxy. Or perhaps they should stop trying to undermine Google by pleading with governments to investigate them for anti-trust violations. But, let's start off easily and just retire those pathetic and embarrassing Gmail Man ads. I have to give credit to Google for graciously hosting them on YouTube - I would have deleted their account and blocked their IP.
Microsoft is simply getting what they deserve. If you want to act like a jerk then prepare for the blow back.
Man there's a lot of Google fan boys on Slashdot. Google is screwing over MS and yeah MS if fun to pick on but look around Google is quickly becoming "the man". We should all be giving them both barrels over this. Cutting MS out for the 2nd time and trying to close off access to youtube is ridiculous. If youtube was a separate company no way in hell would they want turn away an additional user base like this.
I'm one of those windows phone users and the original app that just wrapped the web version stunk. These last two revisions with a real native app are great (well were great yesterday, it doesn't work today) and you'd think they'd want users to have a good experience on however it's done.
...when I ran into this: "that it doesnâ(TM)t impose on its own platform or Appleâ(TM)s (both of which use Google as the default search engine, of course).". So, they complain about an app being blocked, but they start by pointing fingers - again - about search engine use. FairSearch anyone? So after that line, I couldn't care less. MS wants a Youtube app on WP? Then do that Google wants, s*ck it up - remember (funny they'd need to be reminded so often) your users should have the priority, not your corporate ego.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
If Google wants to be assholes to sell more Android phones then Microsoft should do the same back to them.
I mean seriously are they that worried?
http://saveie6.com/
Caligula vs. Nero... buck naked
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
MicroSoft had plenty of time to fix it after they got into the first round of the altercation. I doubt they'd have trouble if they actually asked Google for coding help when they found out (they must have done that themselves) that they didn't get the ads serving done properly using the documented API calls. To me this seems like a case of "too stubborn and proud to accept they need help" and they got their app blocked.
Mind you, it's not as if you can't view YouTube on Windows Phone 8 anymore, it's just that you have to use a web browser to do so. The users aren't being deprived by Google, only MicroSofts app is. It's not directly about copyrights or cash money either, it's about the ads that are supposed to pay for the content. This was clearly the only reason Google was going to block them if they didn't fix it properly and they knew from the moment they got their notice that they weren't doing it properly.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Dudes, the good night is that away ---------------------> please go into it quietly.
-- L8R, guitardood
They blocked it with a weird message.
Instead, they could have Rick-Rolled them, which would have shown a sense of style, panache, and humor.
Shame on you, Google!
Is there some big advantage to viewing youtube via an app? I just use the browser on IOS. I used to use the app before it was removed in an upgrade, but I don't remember the experience being any better.
Oh my, how times have changed. MS complaining about being at the short end of the stick.
You know, some of us do remember how "easy" they made it to write for example a file system driver.
They don't like it up em.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
That is a literal windows phone... that could run windows software. Someone got windows XP to run on andriod so MS could have just made their phone OS windows. Obviously supply a proper phone GUI or work in your metro surface stuff so that its all touch centric. That's fine. But if the phone ran WINDOWS software then anyone could just pop their browser open on the phone and just have Adobe Flash render the video.
Google would have no ability to dick with it because doing so would dick with all the desktop windows users which is not a game google wants to play.
MS is fragmenting their user base with these mutually incompatible operating systems. Why is the Xbox OS different from windows? No reason for it. I could see why you'd have a different explorer for it. That is the GUI exe for windows... its called explorer and it generates the desktop and windows etc. But the core operating system is independent of that.
All these systems could have the same OS with different GUIs. Their programs would be cross compatible and the smaller devices especially with smaller user bases would get the benefit of all the programs available to all the other systems.
If/When MS does this they'll instantly win. Until they do they're going to keep failing.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Google must be populated by zen monks not to reply to this with words only used after hitting the bed post with your little toe.
It goes beyond not deserving an answer. It deserves a slap and a moment of silence so he can think on what he just said.
As far as i can see, MS wants google to maintain a non-standard (non html5) interface to youtube. The precedence cases it cites for such an interface are apps which existed before html5 was settled enough to be ready for that. Google wants to serve cotent by html5 and advised MS to use html5 to *correctly* display the videos. MS like to do their own shit and expects google to maintain an interface for them.
Dear MS: Earlier in your life, you may have had the position where any company would have loved to create an interface so that your applications talk to it, and maybe thats still the case for office apps. I dont see exactly how i can access office 356 by and API so that i could lets say... implement and own small helping app on android to enter some data in some documents. Wouldnt that be the same kind of thing? O i forgot probably theo people who like to do it are not big enough to be interesting for you. So neither is the market share of windows phone.
I agree that a complete API to youtube would be nice, but there are many things which google should rank higher in their priorities.
Google CAN write their own youtube app. Today they can, and it would be on the MS app store within a few days.
Google has made a corporate decision to write 0 windows phone apps.
I must be missing something. I don't use an 'app' to access Youtube on XP, so why do Windows phones, that boast they have a better OS than XP (hahahahahaha), need an app so their users can view Youtube videos?
Google may be NSA filth, but they have no reason to allow MS to leech of any of their services. Microsoft should only expect to ensure access to Google web services through an ordinary browser. Google may provide APIs, but they certainly don't do so to enrich MS.
Rather than screwing around with devices no-one wants or needs, Microsoft should focus on its core business. A full version of Windows on ARM. Throwing out the garbage RT/Metro/New-UI crap from desktop Windows. A fully revamped Xbox Two by the end of 2014 to catch up with the graphics power of the PS4. A PROPER app store for all software that can run on Windows, not just the RT crap.
However, I am glad to see MS make all the wrong decisions, and fail far faster than the inevitable demise of the Wintel PC would imply. Microsoft hasn't made one single smart decision in years now, and banging their heads against Google's mobile dominance is just pitiful.
Lets backtrack a bit to the MS post when they released the new youtube app.
Note the parts in bold. MS lied, they didn't address it. So Google saw MS thumbing their nose, went WTF, got pissed off and blocked it .
MS gets slapped with its hand caught in the cookie jar and then admits that its 'new' app did not comply with Google's request that it be in HTML5 :-
Note that the new app was pushed out without Google's approval, unlike what they implied. Typical MS arrogance and lies at work. I feel sorry for any Winph8 users caught in the crossfire, but MS does not deserve any sympathy in this matter.
MS has no incentive to screw with Google. It knows Google is very alert and capable of fighting back.
The theory that MS is deliberately messing with youtube ads is preposterous. MS needs a working youtube app for windows phone. MS knows very well that if they do anything nefarious google will simply block the app. Google has zero incentive to help MS build a youtube app, they're dragging their feet and likely acting because of the possibility of DoJ action.
Here's an idea: Google sees Windows Phone as its only long term competitor, unlike iOS (which will always be limited by Apple's insistence on hardware control), WP8 can be licensed by any hardware manufacturer. WP8 might be a small competitor but it's its only competitor. All the other OSs are either for feature phones or don't have any commercial backing. WP8 is a decent phone OS, its largest problem is the lack of apps.
is it written that Google has to help a competitor, especially one whose CEO has sworn to destroy Google?
FTA:
"At the end of the day, experts from both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps."
It's tooo hard!
~Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
It is a valid question - why does the app have to be in HTML5, especially when no other platform has a full-featured YouTube app - by Google or anyone else - written in HTML5?
Google also deleted http://www.youtube.com/my_subscriptions today removing option too see your subscriptions in GRID form.
Now instead of looking at a page with 30 videos you are forced to scroll through 4 videos at a time, rest of the page is dedicated to ads and recommendations.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Google asked Microsoft to move away from Flash as the delivery mechanism for video on it's Youtube app and to embrace HTML 5, a technology that has been under development by a whole lot of folks for a long time as an alternate method to employ flash like technologies in an open standards manner, and Microsoft refused because Android and Apple aren't doing it yet (even though they probably are). ... And Google decided to block Microsoft for not following industry standards?
And we see a problem here because why exactly?
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
Ad hominem attack - check
False attribution -check
Argument from personal incredulity - check
Moral high ground fallacy -check
High probability parent post is a MS shill. See, the reason why MS has such a bad rep compared to Google (and considerably less trust from the public) is because of their past bad conduct.
As an example, I am more likely to believe that you are a MS shill because it is a proven fact that MS does in fact employ shills to flood public discourse.
This is what I personally believe, and unlike you I am willing to post on my account instead of as AC and take the karma hit. It does not mean I love Google, just that I trust Google more than MS because MS has been so terribly, terribly naughty in the past.
Something doesn't make sense in the whole situation here. I do have a windows phone (Nokia, Windows Phone 7). I can't access YouTube videos from the browser. I also can't install any other browser on that phone, but that's a bit beside the point. I searched briefly in the app store, and there was a free YouTube app that I installed and I can now search and watch videos on my phone. What is this article talking about?....
And what does that have to do with the current situation?
Is the metadata hidden by Google a metadata like "this ad is from content owner" or "this ad is from us", preventing MS to replace Google's ads by their own ads as they don't know which ads can be removed without getting content owners angry ?
Did they really ban your Xbox because you blocked ads with your router? How do they detect this? It seems like if your ISP had routing issues or the ad servers were down they wouldn't be able to tell the difference and would be banning Xboxes en-masse.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"These kind of little inter-corporate kerfuffles happen from time to time"
I dont think it is a "little" matter, they are quite serious about it. I think Apple was briliant in avoiding these issues until they did IOS6 Google Maps goof-up.
Ashok
Blog: http://www.azuyo.com/blogs
I don't think they are going to sink resources into developing a bespoke app for all 8 Windows Phone users.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
First, you show up, making an emotional rant about "Google apologists". An emotionally loaded term only a biased party could use.
Secondly, half of your original rant is incoherent, while the other half consists of ridiculous assertions like "Nobody would or has deemed that behavior acceptable from Microsoft but somehow because its Google its ok."[sic] If you actually bother to read the rest of the thread, you will find plenty of people criticising Google. Your statement is so clearly untrue only a wilfully blind person could miss it.
Thirdly, in your original post there was not a single complaint about MS at all. This is a dispute between two parties, MS and Google. You attack one without talking about the other. What does that suggest?
Now, in your response, you shyt on MS -conveniently after being challenged as a shill. Too little, too late.
I stand by my statement, Mr. AC. And I notice you have conveniently ignored my arguments and the link I posted about MS paid shills - because its true perhaps?
And I like your final touch ; "There is absolutely no way to criticize Google on this site without its devoted, unthinking drones like you calling it the work of Microsoft". On the contrary Mr. AC, thinking, critical people will challenge you when you make silly, baseless and emotional assertions.
Speaking of openness,
hey microsoft, whose leg do I have to hump to get through to someone who speaks passable english and can address bug reports?
Your android version of skype is completely and utterly broken and has been for weeks.
From a complete lack of a button to get into an existing call that hasn't been picked up. skype inexplicably dumps you from the call screen while it's ringing with no way to get back in if you want to hang up prior to it being answered or say if you reach an elderly person who doesn't believe in voicemail which means the voice just rings forever)
to ghost rings which simply refuse to stop ringing even after you've signed out of and terminated the skype app. Not only do they continue during your call making it impossible to talk to the other person, after you sign-out, terminate the app from memory, your phone is still somehow still ringing requiring your to actually restart your device to make it stop.
Maybe if you got your act together people might be more willing to cut you some slack, but lets face facts. You're a shit company, with shit methodologies, and nobody really cares about your struggles.
Microsoft has build a youtube download app ... the whole app is a software bound to crash with google .. nice! And no they are wining about lack of openess... well done Microsoft strategists... still MS sucks...
declared reason: because that's what the ts&cs require
my hypothesised reason: because that requires MS to implement html5 features in IE, and Google wants to have those features available for their own web-apps
possible additional reason: html5 player incorporates code which is under Google control, and provides them with greater control in the future if they need to update/change how some things work.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
Go ogle owns the old Doubleclick never mind being the new Doubleclick.
Install the Collusion plugin for Firefox to view graphically just how much information about you they are collecting every time someone makes use of one of their APIs in his code.
The problem will be that MS are not using Google's APIs, they will be using their own code, which makes them a competitor in terms of the information collected about the user. None of this is for your benefit on either side. Google's evil goes way beyond anything Microsoft was (is) capable of with a Windows monopoly though, looking at Collusion it's pretty clear that Google effectively owns the Web.
For crying out loud, Slashdot pulls in:
google.com
gstatic.com
googlesyndication.com
google-analytics.com
doubleclick.net (google)
2mdn.net (doubleclick ; google)
scorecardresearch.com
ooyala.com
doubleverify.com
fsdn.com
rpxnow.com
Fully half of which are Google, and it's the same story on millions of other web sites. So basically virtually every web site you view; Google knows. This level of monitoring is unprecented, and pretty fucking creepy frankly.
To that end I hearby reveal Google's true name; Go ogle.
Who's using Windows phones anyway, apart from MS and Nokia employees ?
msg-uuid:7D78CB1A-3A8B-4455-B7CF-8EF2F1D2BCF4
I am personally not a fan of "Do as I say, not as I do..." but when you are giving your market competitor access to your content like this, it doesn't seem a totally unreasonable request, does it?
Well it might do if it results in a shittier user experience. For example load the YouTube website in Chrome on Android and compare the experience to the native app. It's clearly inferior and I fail to see MS doing much better if they were expected to embed HTML in their app.
That said, it's a complex situation. Google clearly have the right to block an app which is not in compliance with their rules or deprives them of ad revenue. But at the same time there are obvious conflicts of interest here which could make Google behave like assholes simply because they're in direct competition with Microsoft in so many areas. The simplest solution is probably for Microsoft to pay Google a very large amount of money to write the app themselves (with the appropriate metro L&F) and for MS to ship it with their OS. In much the same way as Google do for iOS.
I use Chrome and I've never seen an ad on Youtube.
Times have really changed when the Counsel for Litigation and Antitrust at Microsoft is complaining about monopoly abuses instead of defending their client against them.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
So much for the don't be evil motto. I remember when I heard Google say this and I started laughing uncontrollably. You see the thing is, all corporations turn evil at some point, it doesn't matter how lofty your ideas are, once the company has reached a certain size evil sets in.
Oh, but you're fine with blocking Google's ads and then playing the martyr when they ban your app just like you banned my xbox.
I looked at the EULA and yep: "Microsoft may block or otherwise prevent delivery of any type of email, instant message, or other communication to or from the Services as part of our effort to protect the Services or our customers, or otherwise enforce this Agreement." http://www.xbox.com/en-US/legal/livetou
Not that I didn't believe you, just want to add something antiMS, due an OS I have to prevent the "required" Internet Explorer from operating.
declared reason: because that's what the ts&cs require
This would just reassert the point that Google's TS are discriminatory, since they don't abide by them themselves, and the end result is that they can pick and choose which platforms get a full-fledged YouTube experience and which don't.
my hypothesised reason: because that requires MS to implement html5 features in IE, and Google wants to have those features available for their own web-apps
Can you give an example of a specific HTML5 feature in IE that YouTube would require? It supports a great deal of the standard as of IE10, you know.
possible additional reason: html5 player incorporates code which is under Google control, and provides them with greater control in the future if they need to update/change how some things work.
If you mean basically hosting the mobile YouTube page as is in a web browser control and calling that an app, then this is precisely what several dozen YouTube players for Windows Phone already do. The problem with this approach is that it plainly sucks, which makes the users annoyed. Google was asked to write an official app for WP, but refused, citing low market share. Hence the attempt by MS to fix this themselves.
Linux has the lion share of the phone market via Android. It also has a very large share of the server market. So why you link it to the deskop?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I think you just answered your own question. If HTML5 sucks on IE, then clearly there is work that needs to be done to improve it.
I didn't say that HTML5 sucks on IE. I said that mobile YouTube sucks when you try to use it in lieu of an actual app on pretty much any mobile device. This is not limited to Windows Phone - the same holds true on iPhone and Android (which is why Google had to make dedicated apps for either platform).
It's curious to see Google pull this.
From http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html
"At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important." .. ... ... expensive too. Either way, a well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run — the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples — but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don't have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won't." ...
"To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors."
"To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors. There are different tactical approaches — razor companies make the razor cheap and the blades expensive, while the old IBM made the mainframes expensive and the software
"In other words, Google's future depends on the Internet staying an open system, and our advocacy of open will grow the web for everyone - including Google."
The entire thing is a good read.
This space for rent.
We already have switched to the use of OSM/Mapbox/Cloudmade for mapping services and seeing you can't use the results of the Google Directions API on for example to plot on a OSM map, we are also in the process of looking for an alternative for a routing api.
It's not even the case of getting a free ride, because we absolutely don't mind to pay for the service but nowadays Google is really all about restrictions. The only thing that speaks in their advantage is that the limitations are very clear, not like the Bing REST services TOS that is plain lawyer speak.
There is also no transparency in Google offerings. Alternative providers are very upfront in what you can get for the money, Google commercial offerings is behind a big wall of mist.
Why doesn't MS come with their own video service? And stop whining about YouTube. They have pockets deep enough and eventually also came up with Bing.
Would it perhaps be that they need YouTube as a quick fix for their itch? They long neglected to recognise the strategic meaning of a service like YouTube and now they must offer Google's service.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
If your web browser/app does not ask to download that cookie, it knows cookies are blocked. Even if your router, rather than your web browser, doing the blocking.
And Google are not bound by network neutrality any more than the General Motors are.
Microsoft complain about what they did... Remember the dr dos complaining about the fact win 3.1 was not working with their software ! Microsoft is trailing behind !
why waste resources developing for the failed Microsoft Windows Phone platform? Android and IOS dominate the market.
Fuck off Vortex... read the background carefully. MS did enable Advertisements... They also disabled video download and re-released the app. Google blocked them because MS did not use HTML5!.. They know HTML5 offers an inferior experience.. You are just a google shill for spreading lies...
Do they really think I'm not going to buy windiws phone because I can't watch youtube with it? This kind of stupidity only makes me hate google. Also, I really like windows phones. Nokia makes great hardware, and the software actually doesn't suck as much as I thought it would. Apples walled garden doesn't interest me that much, and I don't like the need to tinker with my phone, and android still regrettably requires loads of tinkering to work well. I tinker enough with my computers, in a phone I just want it to work. Preferably with the same battery for a long time, as I always forget to charge it.
Dear Microsoft, replacing Google's ads in Youtube content with your own, in violation of your agreement with Google, is stealing.
Don't steal, bro.
I love that word "kerfuffle".
Fata viam invenient.
This creature from Redmond makes some good points. But Redmond is weak. Windows phones are the laughing stock of the literati. Dumping on MS is socially acceptable. But, tell me, how does "Do no evil" hold up in this scenario? If Redmond is prepared to swallow its pride(iness) and do its best to comply to Google's past objections, then -- objectively speaking -- Google should let them in the door. Google, don't become the thing that you hate. Play nice, kids!
I can't die now, I have mod points!
Did they really ban your Xbox because you blocked ads with your router?
I sincerely doubt it. Although they keep changing the ad servers around, when I actually use my 360 much I keep updating them, and they don't block me. I don't even have gold, so I don't see why they wouldn't. I'm guessing he was blocked for some more cunty behavior.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Those criminals are going to be HARMED by their arrest, therefore it is evil to arrest them.
Sorry, what Google is doing isn't evil.
It's against microsoft's wishes, which is evil in your eyes.
It is a valid question - why does the app have to be in HTML5, especially when no other platform has a full-featured YouTube app - by Google or anyone else - written in HTML5?
I know of no full-featured Youtube apps for any other platform which are written by anyone but Google. Google is not interested in writing a Youtube app for a niche phone platform used only by three corporate users and by two people unable to remember the lessons of history. I doubt that Google actually told Microsoft that they had to implement the app as HTML5, either. I suspect the truth is more that they told them that if they can't manage to use the web interface to get the information they need for their app, that they should just go ahead and make a HTML5 wrapper app because that should be a little easier for them to handle. But we really don't know because all we've seen on the issue so far is the body of legally-approved statements.
In any case, it is well within Google's rights to say that they will only be providing the information necessary to play their content as they require it to be played via the HTML5 interface, and it's also well within their rights to have APIs which only they are allowed to use. If it isn't, then Microsoft should be firebombed with extreme prejudice right now.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So the author keeps using the word "customers" - yes, with an "s". Apparently someone else has bought a Windows Phone.
Do you have ESP?
It's disturbing to watch so many people defending Google.
Why doesn't MS come with their own video service?
Have you seen their attempt at web-based email? Imagine their attempt at web-based video. Sorry, here's a bucket and a tissue.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Can you give an example of a specific HTML5 feature in IE that YouTube would require? It supports a great deal of the standard as of IE10, you know.
That's easy: HTTP Live streaming.
EVERY person that wants to build a third party YouTube app for their device is required to do so using HTML5. This is not a requirement only forced on Microsoft. It's one of the reasons why there is no native app for the Roku, and why the Apple removed their YouTube app from iOS.
Microsoft is bitching about the same thing when it comes to their Calendar app on Windows Phone and Windows 8. They claim Google cut them off from ActiveSync and Google tells them to use Caldav. Well, even the upcoming Windows 8.1 release still doesn't use caldav. Microsoft has no interest in adding Caldav support to Windows. Caldav directly competes with Exchange calendar functionality. At one point (or maybe they already did), Microsoft was going to yank IMAP support from Exchange server. Their solution to server side mail was Exchange Server and Outlook Client.
This really is a classic case of Microsoft not wanting to implement open standards, because they compete with their proprietary business protocols.
Running the Youtube site on Android or iOS gives you an experience almost as good as the native app. It really isn't Youtube's fault that Microsoft ships an inferior browser with their product.
The title of his post wins this thread.
As far as i can see, MS wants google to maintain a non-standard (non html5) interface to youtube. The precedence cases it cites for such an interface are apps which existed before html5 was settled enough to be ready for that. Google wants to serve cotent by html5 and advised MS to use html5 to *correctly* display the videos. MS like to do their own shit and expects google to maintain an interface for them.
Google did this for Apple.
All it took was for Apple to point the default search engine in their browser at Google. I'm sure Google would happily maintain a YouTube interface for Microsoft, in exchange for Microsoft pointing their browser's default search engine at Google.
Because Trust comes by foot and leaves by horse!
Ford is worried more about competition from Chevy than Mercedes. Google is worried more about competition from Microsoft than Apple.
Besides, Google makes more per iPhone than they do per Android.
If your going to link to one of the hundreds of articles out there on this, could you not choose something more credible than Gizmodo? *sigh*
It only effected a small handful of people unlucky enough to have windows phones.
Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
Wow, how devastating! What will anyone do now?
Don't worry, slashmydots to the rescue! I've developed a workaround.
1. open your browser on your phone instead of the youtube app
2. go to youtube.com
3. watch videos
Whew, that was a close one. I was up all night developing that one.
" I doubt that Google actually told Microsoft that they had to implement the app as HTML5, either"
Then you obviously have not followed the story. which pretty much makes the rest of what you say irrelevant.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
"The simplest solution is probably for Microsoft to pay Google a very large amount of money to write the app themselves "
Microsoft offered, Google said no
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
It's difficult to deny that Microsoft doesn't deserve what they're getting. As a Windows Phone user myself I've found myself increasingly disenfranchised what seems like general indifference towards the platform from Microsoft. But to generalize to the point that you're incapable of acknowledging that Microsoft is sometimes in the right is naive, narrow-minded and downright immature. This is Google we're talking about, who are anything but saints.
Here's the situation as I've followed it because so many people seem to be playing fast and loose with the facts. The original "official" Youtube app was little more than a webapp and a crappy one at that. You couldn't even skip around in a video. So three or four months back, after continued refusal by Google to cooperate Microsoft went ahead with their own app. It was a significant improvement, arguably one of the best apps of the three major mobile platforms specifically because it didn't run ads. But the reason for that was that Google failed to cooperate to ensure that functionality.
At Google's request, however, the app was pulled and reverted to the previous crap version. So in the interim Microsoft and Google were supposed to be cooperating to produce a proper app that did display advertising. And that's the version that was released this week. I tried it, and there they were, those annoying, unskippable ads. The following day there were widespread service disruptions, not just for Microsoft's own app but many of the third party apps on Windows Phone as well. Eventually we learned that Google had blocked the app, offering a whole new set of bullshit reasons. The HTML5 requirement had never been mentioned before and, as has been pointed out, is not even a requirement mandated of the app on iOS, Android and even Blackberry if I'm not mistaken.
It's evident that Google is trying to undermine a competitor to Android before it becomes a real threat. They're stuck with Apple because it enjoys such a large userbase, otherwise they'd probably take similar tactics with them. But the big reason here is that Microsoft competes with them in every single one of their markets. They're about as direct a competitor as you can get. So, from that perspective it can be argued that Google is being shrewd. On the other hand, Microsoft got slapped time and again for similar tactics.
It's difficult to argue that Google doesn't enjoy similar dominance in certain markets. So it's reasonable to expect that Google should be held to the same standards. Regardless of what you think about Microsoft, more options and greater competition is a good thing. Google is trying to prevent that.
Then you can whine if they don't let you build a real Youtube app for Metro. Karma's a bitch, i'nt.
Then you can whine if Google won't let you build a real youtube app for Metro. Karma, dudes.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
This would just reassert the point that Google's TS are discriminatory, since they don't abide by them themselves, and the end result is that they can pick and choose which platforms get a full-fledged YouTube experience and which don't.
No, that's not true at all. Other YouTube apps are made by Google themselves, so they're not bound by the terms and conditions of API use. External companies are all bound by the API, and I'd expect any third-party YouTube app to get this same treatment.
Well then they need to offer more money, or grin and bear it.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it fall, does it make a sound? Nobody owns these phones except Microsoft employees (grudgingly), so who cares?
I mentioned that some apps (like settings SPECIFICALLY, which joins and list WiFi networks) use some private networks, but generally the apps do not.
Come back and argue your point when you learn to read - and to think.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You may be right in everything you say, but Microsoft has long been in the business of ambushing Android phone maker for royalties on dubious software patents, so a little obstructionism by Google may simply be a case of 'turnabout is fair play'.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Yes, because TFA said it would be difficult and hard. So they made an interim player so their customers can get YouTube, and Google can get a few extra ad views (win-win), while in the meantime, they work on a HTML5 player.
It's really a case of a prisoner's dilemma - if both Google and Microsoft cooperate (Microsoft releases native YouTube client now, transitions later) - they both benefit. If Google plays hardball, they both suffer (Microsoft's customers can't get YouTube, Google doesn't get to show ads).
Google simply said the few extra views of ads isn't worth being flexible about. Though Microsoft might decide to "enhance user privacy" by making IE default to blocking third party cookies as well, and adding adwords, doubleclick, admob and other Google-owned ad companies on a privacy watch list...
.. There is still a windows phone?
You are again reasserting the same point. By putting out TS that limits what third parties can do, and then ignoring that TS for their own apps, Google can and does engage in preferential treatment of some mobile platforms over other with respect to access to their service - the one in which they are a de facto monopolist, at that.
Google is just acting like Microsoft used to, that is probably what makes them so mad.
Google is not interested in writing a Youtube app for a niche phone platform used only by three corporate users and by two people unable to remember the lessons of history
So why are they so desperate to keep banning some random microsoft app (while ignoring other applications that are just like the MS app) if nobody is using it ?
Wait.. what am I doing.. logic never works on anti-ms trolls.. Sorry about that !!
This would just reassert the point that Google's TS are discriminatory, since they don't abide by them themselves, and the end result is that they can pick and choose which platforms get a full-fledged YouTube experience and which don't.
I don't see a problem with Google treating themselves differently to people who want to use their API. It would be entirely reasonable for them to have YouTube and offer no API at all.
Amongst other reasons - Google have the ability to update their own apps if they feel a need to change things in the future; They have less control over third parties, so they have a legitimate reason to care more about how third parties implement critical functionality like displaying adverts.
Yes, they pick and choose which platforms get full-fledged YouTube, just like the way Microsoft pick and choose which platforms get full-fledged Office. I don't have a problem with that either.
Can you give an example of a specific HTML5 feature in IE that YouTube would require? It supports a great deal of the standard as of IE10, you know.
In an official statement YouTube said:
"We're committed to providing users and creators with a great and consistent YouTube experience across devices, and we've been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service."
If you mean basically hosting the mobile YouTube page as is in a web browser control and calling that an app, then this is precisely what several dozen YouTube players for Windows Phone already do.
One sticking point seems to be their ad-serving code. Presumably, this is exactly how Google want it implemented (in a browser control).
The problem with this approach is that it plainly sucks, which makes the users annoyed. Google was asked to write an official app for WP, but refused, citing low market share. Hence the attempt by MS to fix this themselves.
So MS signed up to the google API terms and conditions, then thought they could break them.
I don't see what the controversy is here, Google doesn't want to release a windows phone app - they don't have to. I released one for one of my apps, and frankly it was a waste of my effort - the platform is insignificant (~3% smartphone sales).
If MS want to release an app, then they have to use the API and follow the terms like anyone else unless Google gives them special dispensation.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
yes, i imagine the whole company of large, medium and small sized balmers, all walking around throwing chairs and bumping into each other. just ban those bastards!
It seems that it becomes a question of ethics:
1) Is YouTube a private enterprise concern or public forum?
2) If it's private, are not the access rules governed by corporate policy?
3) Does Google owe Microsoft free access (is Microsoft is a competitor or a perceived competitor)?
4) Is YouTube a public forum, or a for-profit private venture?
5) Is YouTube profitable, and will giving Microsoft access hurt Google's bottom line, and how much of factor does that play into Microsoft getting access to YouTube?
Questions like these or what a college ethics class is all about!
Fight Microsoft fight! We're cheering you on to take on this bully.
why the fuck should they care what the app is written in. This is bullshit and all you Microsoft bashers don't care a bit about the facts. As the guy above says : Slashdot - the new place for stupid people to hang out.
Take a look at the Windows Phone market. I believe that most of you don't have Windows Phone to begin with, and you can't go and see what is available there. But if you would... I believe you would come to the same conclusion as I did -
Microsoft should have ban that and similar applications themselves.
And there are quite a few (not free!) clients for Gmail, Google Maps, Instagram and whatever else, at Windows Phone Store, that are:
1. Of way lower quality than original software on Android / iOS
2. Were not created by original authors (Google and Instagram in this case)
3. Cost sometimes ridiculous amount of money. Like 15$, while the original software for Android is free.
4. Require your credentials for named services
5. Authors are unknown guys from the middle of nowhere, usually India or China, which makes point 4 even less pleasant
6. All of them bear the original name - like "Gmail", "Instagram" etc. If you remember, Microsoft forced the renaming of "Windows Commander" to "Total Commander", because it has "Windows" in the name. But here we have a complete re-use of the original trademark. Imagine, that someone would create a program for Android, called "Microsoft Word".
Overall, Windows Phone market is a mess, compared to both Android or iOS markets. It's full of ridiculous crap with ridiculous prices, and Microsoft is fine with that as long as the number of apps at the store is ticking ("look at us, we have apps too!!1"), and corporate names abused are other than Microsoft.
So, I am not saying that Google is not evil, but in this particular case they are doing the right thing.
"There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. This was an odd request since neither YouTube’s iPhone app nor its Android app are built on HTML5. Nevertheless, we dedicated significant engineering resources to examine the possibility. At the end of the day, experts from both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps."
Well, that is what you get for disregarding Internet standards Microsoft. Congratulations to Google, finally somebody forced your clueless 'engineering resources' to follow them.