Elop took the captains chair on the Titanic after the ship had broken in half. He was (as are all CEOs) tasked with maximizing shareholder value. Getting $7B for what was a corpse when he came on board (and still may be) must be considered a significant success. The/. religious nuts who go on about Nokia and Android have no clue about business, they are religious nuts, and religious nuts of all kids have no functional brains.
Good analysis. The popular "opinion" on/. is that Elop (and thereby Microsoft) killed Nokia. That's nonsense. Nokia was a Dead Man Walking long before Elop came on board. In retrospect Elop is probably the best thing that ever happened to Nokia investors. He wasn't able to resuscitate a dead company, but he got a good price for the corpse. Elop's job was to maximize investor return, and it looks like he succeeded. If Nokia, with the old management had gone Android, they'd be way down the totem pole from Samsung, and investors would have been royally screwed.
For the record, the Surface Pro is way more useful than a laptop. I'm traveling with,one now, mainly doing Photoshop and Lightroom stuff. It's every bit as useful as my laptop, and it comes with the usability of an iPad built in. Having touch when on the road is great. Having a Wacom digitizer built in makes it astonishing. There is currently nothing like it on the market (now that the PS driver is available).
To me price is relatively irrelevant (it is nowhere near high on my list of investments/expenses) so usability matters. With the Surface I get, in a small-ish package: A laptop with decent performance, a tablet that can replace my iPad (but not the mini) and a Wacom digitizer. Unbeatable and nothing even close exists in one package today.
Nobody bought the first version of Surface RT and if all the new features are more RAM and processing power they probably won't buy the second that's the point of all comments that are bashing it.
If you don't know difference between the Surface RT and the Pro, you should probably refrain from commenting. The main complaints about the Surface pro were battery life, price, disk space and kick stand. With Haswell, 8G of memory, and kick stand improvements MS has addressed at least three. We know nothing of the others yet.
The article and the summary are written by moron MS bashers with religious ideas about computers. Finding religion with Jesus is for the mentally inferior. Finding it in computers is way worse.
Took a Surface Pro on vacation, it works great for Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 5. Looking forward to getting one with 8G of memory and the battery life of Haswell. The Surface travels with me as a replacement for my iPad and my laptop and it works OK for that. The only two things that are "cons" are that not all Windows apps can handle the pixel density and that the surface, compared to my iPad mini, is too heavy for comfortable in-bed reading, but so is a regular iPad of course (the mini is a great media consumption device, the regular iPad is crap). The Pro 2 will probably be my new main travel computer, but I won't leave the iPad mini behind again. At this stage I see no reason to get an ARM-based Surface. I have one and never use it.
Yeah, it was Elop's fault that the Symbian team couldn't put together a usable smartphone interface no matter how much money they put into it. It was also Elop's fault that the Symbian alternative was sabotaged internally by the Symbian team for years. Nokia pre-Elop simply wasn't able to deliver anything but feature phones. They were not competing in the Smartphone business at all, and there was no chance they ever would be given the situation at the time.
Did Elop make it worse? I don't think so, but it is difficulr to know. Going on the path it was at the time, Nokia would be a feature-phone supplier to poor countries onl today with zero presence in the smartphone space. Today they have a small presence, and growing. Would it have been enough to save Nokia? We'll never know. What we do know however is that Nokia was doomed before Elop came on board. Its demice had nothing to do with him.
You must be joking. Nokia was dead long before Elop came on board. Something had to be done. Symbian was a dysfunctional piece of junk on smartphones and there was no replacement in sight (emphasis on "in sight" - it was in their dream, but there was no ability within Nokia to actually deliver). We'll see what happens to the Nokia pieces now, but Elop had nothing to do with the demise of Nokia, he came on board long after the ship had started sinking.
Just because MS can't effectively use e-e-e in this case doesn't mean that they're not trying.
They can't use it at all. Not effectively. Not at all. Therefore they are not trying. Nothing in what MS has done in this case has any relationship to e-e-e. Since you clearly do not understand what e-e-e is, you keep harping on this, but it only shows your ignorance.
You really need to read up on monopoly. It does not mean highest marketshare
I know. But you seem to have a problem with some basics. Highest market share doesn't mean you are a monopoly, but if you are a monopoly you have the highest market share. A monopoly is something that has (close to) 100% market share.
First of all you are only quoting last quarters shipments not sales
Sigh. You've been reading comments again and not understanding them. How can you have any idea what numbers I am quoting when I was not quoting the source. For your information, the numbers quoted were the number of devices activated on telecom networks as reported by IDC. None of the numbers were from Microsoft or Apple. So, you are being ignorant and dumb again.
The bottom line is how many WP sets are being used in the world right now. Pathetically small compared to iPhone
Sigh. You are almost correct. The market share of WinPhone devices is only at about 25% of the market share of iPhones. Considering the iPhone has been on the market for quite a bit longer, that is not too shabby though. Now, if you think the WinPhone marketshare is miniscule compared to the iPhone, what about the iPhone as such? It has less than 20% of the market share of Android. In other words, the difference between Android and iPhone is significantly larger than the difference between iPhone and Win Phone. In other words, the iPhone has a pathetically small market share compared to Android. Given its time on the market compared to the WinPhone and Android, its market share is a lot more pathetic than that of the WinPhone. Also, WinPhone is growing at a very healty pace (activations, not shipments) while the iPhone has been in steady decline for years (so it has nothing to do with the expected iPhone 5).
The app didn't do what Google wanted it do. And MS made it that way on purpose. MS purposefully can keep the browser engine not compliant with HTML5.
You are making no sense whatsoever. The app was not HTML5, it didn't have any HTML5 components. Also, your quotes are all screwed up.
As for HTML5, IE on Windows Phone is fully compliant with all aspects of what the YT app does, as can be seen from the fact that it is working perfectly.
despite the contention between Google and Apple, they still work together because they act professionally towards each other
So why not work with MS? They refuse to unless MS creates an HTML5 app, which is not possible.
You mean making their Youtube player to play ads from their ad network instead of Google's and then fooling Google's servers into thinking the ad was played.
That is not e-e-e. Simple as that. It is not possible to get to the third e by doing this. Please try again.
You do know that MS reverse engineered Google's APIs right?
Yeeees... and how does that relate to e-e-e. How could Microsoft shut down and kill YouTube by reverse-engineering the YT APIs? Hint: It's not possible. MS could never get to the third e by doing this. It simply isn't even theoretically possible. You have yet to understand what e-e-e means.
MS was not convicted because they had the highest marketshare. They were convicted because they purposefully went out of their way to harm competitors
MS was convicted because they had a de-facto monopoly and they used that to try to destroy competitors. Either of the two are perfectly legal on their own. You are allowed to change things so that your competitors stuff doesn't work on your platform. Any time you wish. Unless you have a (near) monopoly in the area in question. You are also fully allowed to have a (near) monopoly as long as you do not use that to harm competitors in other areas of business. MS was convicted of having a monopoly in desktop operating systems and using that to try to crush competitors in unrelated areas (browsers, office software etc). If they didn't have "the highest marketshare" there would have been no trial since "having the highest market share" is a requirement for an anti-trust case. The name for "the highest marketshare" in such cases is "monopoly". A company that doesn't have a real or de-facto monopoly is not going to be accused of anti-competitive behavior.
Also, this is a dispute between two companies. The first thing MS does is to bring an antitrust lawyer into it.
This is simply wrong. MS is hardly ever in a situation where they have to use antitrust lawyers against another company. There are not that many companies out there with real or near-monopolies, so this is just absurd blabbering by you. MS antitrust lawyers are mostly employed in defending MS against governments accusing them of predatory behavior. What MS usually brings to the party with other software companies are patent lawyers since MS own an enormous amount of patents. In the vast majority of such cases, MS will bring their patent lawyers and some guy from finance, and they will create a licensing deal with the company in question. In fact, when it comes to licensing deals MS is probably one of the most reasonable (in regards to finding a solution) company out there. This is why Microsoft makes much more money from Android sales than Google does.
This is about MS trying to pick a fight more than anything else.
No, this is all about Microsoft trying to create an app for Windows Phone that is similar in functionality to what is currently available on the iPhone and on Android, and Google telling them that they can not.
Here's the thing you are missing: WP7/8 has a miniscule marketshare compared to iOS.
and still people are whining about lack of support for Linux... also, your math skills leave a lot to be desired. WinPhone has a miniscule market share compared to Android, but "miniscule" is not the currect word when comparing to iPhone. Remember, the iPhone is now well and good below 15%. Windows Phone is about 4% and growing significantly year over year. With the current trend, Apple will be at or around 10% this time next year, and Windows Phone will be approaching 8%.
You do understand that there is a client and there is a server in this transaction right?
As I have said a number of times in the e-e-e insanity you are writing, yes, there is a server in this mix, it's called youtube.com.
Just because that client doesn't blow up doesn't mean everything is okay on the server side.
If there is a problem on the server side, that would be something for Google to deal with since they own the server. The interaction between the client and the server occurs using JSON (Javascript Object Notation) and the Windows browser (as well as every single browser created since IE6) can handle (read and generate) any and all JSON.
For example, the previous MS app blocked ads.
And how is that, in any way, related to Windows Phone being able to handle HTML5? Are you really this retarded?
In your worst case scenario, what is Google guilty of doing? Treating MS like every OTHER THIRD PARTY
WRONG! Apple gets preferential treatment from Google. So does every vendor that delivers an Android phone, but that could be said not to be third parties. Microsoft wants only the ability to create an app that matches what is available for iOS and Android and Google is telling them that they can't have it. So, no, not all third parties are being treated equally. But then again, you knew that, and your insistence on blabbering about irrelevant nonsense and pretending you are a software developer (you are not) shows this.
Where in this statement [technet.com] from MS does it say "HTML only"
It says right here: "Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5.". Do you know what that means? Can you please elaborate on which other languages can be used in a browser in conjunction with HTML5? The answer, on all mobile devices I have ever used, is Javascript. On the desktop I think Microsoft still supports some of it's proprietary stuff like VB script, but that would be insane to use since it is not being developed in the same way that Javascript is.
Again, please tell me which languages, other than Javascript, you can use in a browser.
How? Unless you work for MS and know that the client source code is reacting correctly
Simple, I use the Google YouTube app on Windows Phone every day, and it works perfectly. If there was an issue with the HTML5 part of Microsofts browser, the Google YouTube HTML5 app would not work properly. BTW, your language proves you are not a software developer. No software developer would ever say somthing as bizarre as "the client source code is reacting correctly". It's nonsensical.
Google has only said MS need to "update their browser".
Yes, that is because (surprise) HTML5 applications run in the browser, even if they are locally installed apps.
They are not saying "MS needs to write everything in HTML/JS."
Please explain what other possibilities there are when you develop browser-based HTML5 applications. Again, your insistence on this proves that you are not a developer. The words you use would never be used by a developer, and all developers who do mobile apps knows what is available in an HTML5 browser-based application. What is available is HTML5/CSS for defining the UI and Javascript for defining the interactivity. Can you elaborate on what other options there are for HTML5 browser applications? Of course you can't.
Yes. The point is that you do not know what embrace-extend-extinguish means. Please explain how, if Microsoft got to do what they wanted, they could make other YouTube clients not work with Google's YouTube. How would that happen. That is what embrace-extend-extinguish means. Just like Microsoft did with LDAP/Active Directory. Since Google owns YouTube, and the de-facto standard is YouTube, it is not even theoretically possible that Microsoft can pull and embrace-extend-extinguish. There is no way they can perform the "extend" part and therefore no possible way that "extinguish" could be the result.
They will use YouTube's APIs then subvert them to do what they want other than Google intends
That's not even theoretically possible. If you disagreee, please elaborate. Your previous example did not include neither extend nor extinguish. You will have to explain how Microsoft, by developing a client app for YouTube, could cause everybody not using the Microsoft client to stop using YouTube. How would that happen?
Google would object to putting out an app that skips ads and allows downloads
MS isn't trying that, but that is irrelevant. How would MS devloping an app that didn't show Google ads, prevent all other YouTube apps from working? That's what the extinguish part means. Please give some details.
Sun owned Java and MS still tried embrace and extend
Yes, and with a programming language that is easy to do. You just release a language that is almost identical but has some incompatible features. Once you do that, the main premise of Java is broken, since Java code now wouldn't even be portable. In this case, MS can embrace (release a Java compiler), extend (add MS-only features to the Java compiler and Java VM) and extinguish (by creating a product that made everybody switch to the MS version). So, with Java MS tried embrace-extend-extinguish, and it was possible. Sun stopped them using legal means, which was good. In the case of Active Directory MS did something quite similar. They adopted LDAP (now Active Directory), made huge parts of the business world move their enterprises onto AD, and then they extended AD to the point where it was no longer compatible with standard LDAP. Suddenly you had to do MS and only MS or drop AD entirely, which would have been too expensive. So, for Java and LDAP, e-e-e was entirely possible, they succeeded with LDAP and failed with Java.
For a remote API into another company's data, that isn't even theoretically possible. If, for example, Microsoft had embraced LDAP, used a third-party LDAP service for all of their customers, they would not have been able to extend and extinguish no matter how hard they tried. MS had to own the server serving up the LDAP data to make it incompatible with all other tools in order for the extinguish part to work. Microsoft has no way of changing the Google YouTube API, therefore it is not even theoretically possible that MS can pull an e-e-e on Google.
'
MS is trying their same tactics they've used in the past
No, in this case they are in fact not.
Why else would their antitrust lawyer get involved?
Wow, that must be the dumbest question so far. He got involved because Google is engaging in the same practices Microsoft was convicted for under antitrust law. This is an antitrust case, and Google is the offending party. Normally MS would have been the offending party, but in this case they are in fact not.
In this case, Google is treating all third parties the same
Actually, they are not. Apple is getting preferential treatment from Google.
And you know for a fact that the WP browser responds correctly to YouTube's servers in all cases
Yes.
Again you still cling onto this one scenario that neither MS or Google says is happening
Actually, they both are, but you have no idea what an HTML5 application is. Please read up on things like PhoneGap which is used to develop HTML5 apps for (unsurprisingly) Phones and mobile devices.
None of which are even remotely related to embrace-extend-extinguish, but thanks for showing that you are indeed a clueless fool.
In each of the examples above, Google could have easily revoced the Microsoft YT app key, and the Microsoft app would have stopped working. Here is a clue for you, as long as Google owns YouTube, no third party can embrace-extend-extinguish, it simply isn't possible.
You still cling onto what you think MS says and not what Google is saying.
No, I do not. I respond based on my own personal experience. I develop enterprise apps for a living, and mobile apps is an integral part of that. I have five vertical apps developed with PhoneGap deployed on iOS (both iPhone and iPad) and Android (only phones). I personally know what can and can not be done developing HTML5 apps. You don't even know what an HTML5 app is.
Yes, they are. They are showing this by refusing to write their own YT app for Windows Phone, and putting insurmountable roadblocks in front of anyone trying. Again, this can not be done in HTML5 and JS and Google knows it. They just released a new iOS app for YT, and it is not (unsurprisingly) an HTML5 app, though I would not be surprised if they displayed HTML4/5 in a canvas in their native app. Creating an iOS equivalent YT app as an HTML5 app simply isn't possible if you want similar features and performance. If I am wrong, please show how you write a performant, multi-threaded application in Javascript on ARM.
By reverse engineering it. So they can do things that Google may not like
So you have absolutely no idea what embrace-extend-extinguish means, do you? The above is just clueless drivel. Please try to find out what this actually means. Then get back to me and explain how MS could possibly do that.
MS tried to pull the embrace and extend with Java by introducing keywords standard java did not have
Yes, they did, and with Java they could since they wrote a new "Java" compiler that was different from the Sun compiler. They also did it with LDAP and Active Directory. Again, they had complete control over the AD API, so they could make it slightly incompatible with standard LDAP. Now, please explain how Microsoft could write a client app for Google, than subtly alter that app so that the Google YouTube application for iOS would stop working. Please go into some detail since it would be interesting to hear how the MS YT client could alter the way YouTube serves videos to iOS. As I said, please try to find out what embrace-extend-extingusih means before making more of a fool out of your self.
I've written code based on HTML, Javascript, C, and Objective C
And you still do not know what an HTML5 application is. That's just sad. Check out PhoneGap for an example on what is needed to write a portable, native-looking HTML5 application. An HTML5 application, which is what Google is demanding MS writes, can not do native code. Simple as that. A native app can use a browser component to display an HTML page, but an HTML5 application (which you still do not know what is, but check out what Adobe is doing for example) can not access native code.
It's not 100% one language or the other
If you are required to write an HTML5 application (as opposed to show a webpage in your native application) you have HTML5 and you have Javascript. Period. Nothing more.
Windows Phone does not implement the specific HTML5 features Google needs to work
Since Google's own HTML5 version of YouTube works perfectly on Windows Phone, that seems to be wrong.
You saying it all has to be HTML5/JS is nonsense.
Please explain how it is nonsense? How do you develop an HTML5 app that is not all HTML and Javascript. Please explain.
Again you are saying it's impossible when it's not
Actually, I know it is not. Google can not do it themselves on Android. On that platform they have full control of the browser, the APIs and everything, and they are still not able to do it. I know it because I am a software developer and I have developed several HTML5 apps on both Android, iOS and Windows Phone. It is easy to do. It is also very hard to do something complex simply because JS on ARM is a nightmare when it comes to performance. It performs, depending on what you do, at 2-20 percent of native. That means that any complex app will not be usable. Google just released a multithreaded YouTube app for iOS. In the real world that is impossible if you have to write in HTML5/JS.
Funny, so when MS did this to others, for years MS used MS-only APIs in Windows, it was OK, but when Google does it MS is whining?So all those years everybody else was whining when they didn't have documented access to the APIs MS was using? Funny that, since Microsoft was convicted in court for predatory practices in an area where they had a de-facto monopoly.
MS does not like following rules
Which rules? The ones that Google has in place or the ones that pertains to business as such. Is it OK for Google to do what MS was convicted of doing? Why is criminal behavior OK for Google but not for MS?
I don't doubt they are trying to embrace and extend
Seriously, you don't even know what that means, do you? How could MS possibly extend an API only Google controls? Please elaborate.
Here is the problem with the Google statement. As you say, no browser implements HTML5 fully, but not only that, since it is an HTML5 app, and in HTML5 the only supported programming language is Javascript, you have to build an HTML5/Javascript application. The problem with that is that not only is Javascript extremely slow on ARM, it can run as slow as at 2% of native speed, but it is also not developed enough to support the full native youtube experience.
This is why Google has never attempted to write an HTML5 YouTube app for neither Android nor iOS. Google knows it can not be done. Asking MS to do the impossible, even for the mighty Google, is childish to put it mildly.
Slashdot Mirror
Elop took the captains chair on the Titanic after the ship had broken in half. He was (as are all CEOs) tasked with maximizing shareholder value. Getting $7B for what was a corpse when he came on board (and still may be) must be considered a significant success. The /. religious nuts who go on about Nokia and Android have no clue about business, they are religious nuts, and religious nuts of all kids have no functional brains.
Good analysis. The popular "opinion" on /. is that Elop (and thereby Microsoft) killed Nokia. That's nonsense. Nokia was a Dead Man Walking long before Elop came on board. In retrospect Elop is probably the best thing that ever happened to Nokia investors. He wasn't able to resuscitate a dead company, but he got a good price for the corpse. Elop's job was to maximize investor return, and it looks like he succeeded. If Nokia, with the old management had gone Android, they'd be way down the totem pole from Samsung, and investors would have been royally screwed.
Name one that is a decent laptop, an OK tablet and has a great digitizer built in.
For the record, the Surface Pro is way more useful than a laptop. I'm traveling with,one now, mainly doing Photoshop and Lightroom stuff. It's every bit as useful as my laptop, and it comes with the usability of an iPad built in. Having touch when on the road is great. Having a Wacom digitizer built in makes it astonishing. There is currently nothing like it on the market (now that the PS driver is available).
To me price is relatively irrelevant (it is nowhere near high on my list of investments/expenses) so usability matters. With the Surface I get, in a small-ish package: A laptop with decent performance, a tablet that can replace my iPad (but not the mini) and a Wacom digitizer. Unbeatable and nothing even close exists in one package today.
Nobody bought the first version of Surface RT and if all the new features are more RAM and processing power they probably won't buy the second that's the point of all comments that are bashing it.
If you don't know difference between the Surface RT and the Pro, you should probably refrain from commenting. The main complaints about the Surface pro were battery life, price, disk space and kick stand. With Haswell, 8G of memory, and kick stand improvements MS has addressed at least three. We know nothing of the others yet.
The article and the summary are written by moron MS bashers with religious ideas about computers. Finding religion with Jesus is for the mentally inferior. Finding it in computers is way worse.
Took a Surface Pro on vacation, it works great for Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 5. Looking forward to getting one with 8G of memory and the battery life of Haswell. The Surface travels with me as a replacement for my iPad and my laptop and it works OK for that. The only two things that are "cons" are that not all Windows apps can handle the pixel density and that the surface, compared to my iPad mini, is too heavy for comfortable in-bed reading, but so is a regular iPad of course (the mini is a great media consumption device, the regular iPad is crap). The Pro 2 will probably be my new main travel computer, but I won't leave the iPad mini behind again. At this stage I see no reason to get an ARM-based Surface. I have one and never use it.
Yeah, it was Elop's fault that the Symbian team couldn't put together a usable smartphone interface no matter how much money they put into it. It was also Elop's fault that the Symbian alternative was sabotaged internally by the Symbian team for years. Nokia pre-Elop simply wasn't able to deliver anything but feature phones. They were not competing in the Smartphone business at all, and there was no chance they ever would be given the situation at the time.
Did Elop make it worse? I don't think so, but it is difficulr to know. Going on the path it was at the time, Nokia would be a feature-phone supplier to poor countries onl today with zero presence in the smartphone space. Today they have a small presence, and growing. Would it have been enough to save Nokia? We'll never know. What we do know however is that Nokia was doomed before Elop came on board. Its demice had nothing to do with him.
despite the fact that Microsoft's failed strategy and partnership with Nokia is what caused Nokia's failure
Nonsense and rubbish. Nokia had failed long before Elop came on board. Going Microsoft had nothing to do with that.
You must be joking. Nokia was dead long before Elop came on board. Something had to be done. Symbian was a dysfunctional piece of junk on smartphones and there was no replacement in sight (emphasis on "in sight" - it was in their dream, but there was no ability within Nokia to actually deliver). We'll see what happens to the Nokia pieces now, but Elop had nothing to do with the demise of Nokia, he came on board long after the ship had started sinking.
Just because MS can't effectively use e-e-e in this case doesn't mean that they're not trying.
They can't use it at all. Not effectively. Not at all. Therefore they are not trying. Nothing in what MS has done in this case has any relationship to e-e-e. Since you clearly do not understand what e-e-e is, you keep harping on this, but it only shows your ignorance.
You really need to read up on monopoly. It does not mean highest marketshare
I know. But you seem to have a problem with some basics. Highest market share doesn't mean you are a monopoly, but if you are a monopoly you have the highest market share. A monopoly is something that has (close to) 100% market share.
First of all you are only quoting last quarters shipments not sales
Sigh. You've been reading comments again and not understanding them. How can you have any idea what numbers I am quoting when I was not quoting the source. For your information, the numbers quoted were the number of devices activated on telecom networks as reported by IDC. None of the numbers were from Microsoft or Apple. So, you are being ignorant and dumb again.
The bottom line is how many WP sets are being used in the world right now. Pathetically small compared to iPhone
Sigh. You are almost correct. The market share of WinPhone devices is only at about 25% of the market share of iPhones. Considering the iPhone has been on the market for quite a bit longer, that is not too shabby though. Now, if you think the WinPhone marketshare is miniscule compared to the iPhone, what about the iPhone as such? It has less than 20% of the market share of Android. In other words, the difference between Android and iPhone is significantly larger than the difference between iPhone and Win Phone. In other words, the iPhone has a pathetically small market share compared to Android. Given its time on the market compared to the WinPhone and Android, its market share is a lot more pathetic than that of the WinPhone. Also, WinPhone is growing at a very healty pace (activations, not shipments) while the iPhone has been in steady decline for years (so it has nothing to do with the expected iPhone 5).
The app didn't do what Google wanted it do. And MS made it that way on purpose. MS purposefully can keep the browser engine not compliant with HTML5.
You are making no sense whatsoever. The app was not HTML5, it didn't have any HTML5 components. Also, your quotes are all screwed up.
As for HTML5, IE on Windows Phone is fully compliant with all aspects of what the YT app does, as can be seen from the fact that it is working perfectly.
despite the contention between Google and Apple, they still work together because they act professionally towards each other
So why not work with MS? They refuse to unless MS creates an HTML5 app, which is not possible.
NOWHERE does it say "entirely" or "only"
Sigh. Can you elaborate on what other possibilities are there? What languages are available in a browser-based application?
You mean making their Youtube player to play ads from their ad network instead of Google's and then fooling Google's servers into thinking the ad was played.
That is not e-e-e. Simple as that. It is not possible to get to the third e by doing this. Please try again.
You do know that MS reverse engineered Google's APIs right?
Yeeees... and how does that relate to e-e-e. How could Microsoft shut down and kill YouTube by reverse-engineering the YT APIs? Hint: It's not possible. MS could never get to the third e by doing this. It simply isn't even theoretically possible. You have yet to understand what e-e-e means.
MS was not convicted because they had the highest marketshare. They were convicted because they purposefully went out of their way to harm competitors
MS was convicted because they had a de-facto monopoly and they used that to try to destroy competitors. Either of the two are perfectly legal on their own. You are allowed to change things so that your competitors stuff doesn't work on your platform. Any time you wish. Unless you have a (near) monopoly in the area in question. You are also fully allowed to have a (near) monopoly as long as you do not use that to harm competitors in other areas of business. MS was convicted of having a monopoly in desktop operating systems and using that to try to crush competitors in unrelated areas (browsers, office software etc). If they didn't have "the highest marketshare" there would have been no trial since "having the highest market share" is a requirement for an anti-trust case. The name for "the highest marketshare" in such cases is "monopoly". A company that doesn't have a real or de-facto monopoly is not going to be accused of anti-competitive behavior.
Also, this is a dispute between two companies. The first thing MS does is to bring an antitrust lawyer into it.
This is simply wrong. MS is hardly ever in a situation where they have to use antitrust lawyers against another company. There are not that many companies out there with real or near-monopolies, so this is just absurd blabbering by you. MS antitrust lawyers are mostly employed in defending MS against governments accusing them of predatory behavior. What MS usually brings to the party with other software companies are patent lawyers since MS own an enormous amount of patents. In the vast majority of such cases, MS will bring their patent lawyers and some guy from finance, and they will create a licensing deal with the company in question. In fact, when it comes to licensing deals MS is probably one of the most reasonable (in regards to finding a solution) company out there. This is why Microsoft makes much more money from Android sales than Google does.
This is about MS trying to pick a fight more than anything else.
No, this is all about Microsoft trying to create an app for Windows Phone that is similar in functionality to what is currently available on the iPhone and on Android, and Google telling them that they can not.
Here's the thing you are missing: WP7/8 has a miniscule marketshare compared to iOS.
and still people are whining about lack of support for Linux... also, your math skills leave a lot to be desired. WinPhone has a miniscule market share compared to Android, but "miniscule" is not the currect word when comparing to iPhone. Remember, the iPhone is now well and good below 15%. Windows Phone is about 4% and growing significantly year over year. With the current trend, Apple will be at or around 10% this time next year, and Windows Phone will be approaching 8%.
You do understand that there is a client and there is a server in this transaction right?
As I have said a number of times in the e-e-e insanity you are writing, yes, there is a server in this mix, it's called youtube.com.
Just because that client doesn't blow up doesn't mean everything is okay on the server side.
If there is a problem on the server side, that would be something for Google to deal with since they own the server. The interaction between the client and the server occurs using JSON (Javascript Object Notation) and the Windows browser (as well as every single browser created since IE6) can handle (read and generate) any and all JSON.
For example, the previous MS app blocked ads.
And how is that, in any way, related to Windows Phone being able to handle HTML5? Are you really this retarded?
In your worst case scenario, what is Google guilty of doing? Treating MS like every OTHER THIRD PARTY
WRONG! Apple gets preferential treatment from Google. So does every vendor that delivers an Android phone, but that could be said not to be third parties. Microsoft wants only the ability to create an app that matches what is available for iOS and Android and Google is telling them that they can't have it. So, no, not all third parties are being treated equally. But then again, you knew that, and your insistence on blabbering about irrelevant nonsense and pretending you are a software developer (you are not) shows this.
Where in this statement [technet.com] from MS does it say "HTML only"
It says right here: "Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5.". Do you know what that means? Can you please elaborate on which other languages can be used in a browser in conjunction with HTML5? The answer, on all mobile devices I have ever used, is Javascript. On the desktop I think Microsoft still supports some of it's proprietary stuff like VB script, but that would be insane to use since it is not being developed in the same way that Javascript is.
Again, please tell me which languages, other than Javascript, you can use in a browser.
How? Unless you work for MS and know that the client source code is reacting correctly
Simple, I use the Google YouTube app on Windows Phone every day, and it works perfectly. If there was an issue with the HTML5 part of Microsofts browser, the Google YouTube HTML5 app would not work properly. BTW, your language proves you are not a software developer. No software developer would ever say somthing as bizarre as "the client source code is reacting correctly". It's nonsensical.
Google has only said MS need to "update their browser".
Yes, that is because (surprise) HTML5 applications run in the browser, even if they are locally installed apps.
They are not saying "MS needs to write everything in HTML/JS."
Please explain what other possibilities there are when you develop browser-based HTML5 applications. Again, your insistence on this proves that you are not a developer. The words you use would never be used by a developer, and all developers who do mobile apps knows what is available in an HTML5 browser-based application. What is available is HTML5/CSS for defining the UI and Javascript for defining the interactivity. Can you elaborate on what other options there are for HTML5 browser applications? Of course you can't.
Do you actually have a point?
Yes. The point is that you do not know what embrace-extend-extinguish means. Please explain how, if Microsoft got to do what they wanted, they could make other YouTube clients not work with Google's YouTube. How would that happen. That is what embrace-extend-extinguish means. Just like Microsoft did with LDAP/Active Directory. Since Google owns YouTube, and the de-facto standard is YouTube, it is not even theoretically possible that Microsoft can pull and embrace-extend-extinguish. There is no way they can perform the "extend" part and therefore no possible way that "extinguish" could be the result.
They will use YouTube's APIs then subvert them to do what they want other than Google intends
That's not even theoretically possible. If you disagreee, please elaborate. Your previous example did not include neither extend nor extinguish. You will have to explain how Microsoft, by developing a client app for YouTube, could cause everybody not using the Microsoft client to stop using YouTube. How would that happen?
Google would object to putting out an app that skips ads and allows downloads
MS isn't trying that, but that is irrelevant. How would MS devloping an app that didn't show Google ads, prevent all other YouTube apps from working? That's what the extinguish part means. Please give some details.
Sun owned Java and MS still tried embrace and extend
Yes, and with a programming language that is easy to do. You just release a language that is almost identical but has some incompatible features. Once you do that, the main premise of Java is broken, since Java code now wouldn't even be portable. In this case, MS can embrace (release a Java compiler), extend (add MS-only features to the Java compiler and Java VM) and extinguish (by creating a product that made everybody switch to the MS version). So, with Java MS tried embrace-extend-extinguish, and it was possible. Sun stopped them using legal means, which was good. In the case of Active Directory MS did something quite similar. They adopted LDAP (now Active Directory), made huge parts of the business world move their enterprises onto AD, and then they extended AD to the point where it was no longer compatible with standard LDAP. Suddenly you had to do MS and only MS or drop AD entirely, which would have been too expensive. So, for Java and LDAP, e-e-e was entirely possible, they succeeded with LDAP and failed with Java.
For a remote API into another company's data, that isn't even theoretically possible. If, for example, Microsoft had embraced LDAP, used a third-party LDAP service for all of their customers, they would not have been able to extend and extinguish no matter how hard they tried. MS had to own the server serving up the LDAP data to make it incompatible with all other tools in order for the extinguish part to work. Microsoft has no way of changing the Google YouTube API, therefore it is not even theoretically possible that MS can pull an e-e-e on Google.
'
MS is trying their same tactics they've used in the past
No, in this case they are in fact not.
Why else would their antitrust lawyer get involved?
Wow, that must be the dumbest question so far. He got involved because Google is engaging in the same practices Microsoft was convicted for under antitrust law. This is an antitrust case, and Google is the offending party. Normally MS would have been the offending party, but in this case they are in fact not.
In this case, Google is treating all third parties the same
Actually, they are not. Apple is getting preferential treatment from Google.
Again. Not. What. They. Said
Yes. Exactly what they said. Quote: An app based on HTML5. Simple.
I've developed mobile apps myself
Liar.
And you know for a fact that the WP browser responds correctly to YouTube's servers in all cases
Yes.
Again you still cling onto this one scenario that neither MS or Google says is happening
Actually, they both are, but you have no idea what an HTML5 application is. Please read up on things like PhoneGap which is used to develop HTML5 apps for (unsurprisingly) Phones and mobile devices.
How about a YT client that...
None of which are even remotely related to embrace-extend-extinguish, but thanks for showing that you are indeed a clueless fool.
In each of the examples above, Google could have easily revoced the Microsoft YT app key, and the Microsoft app would have stopped working. Here is a clue for you, as long as Google owns YouTube, no third party can embrace-extend-extinguish, it simply isn't possible.
You still cling onto what you think MS says and not what Google is saying.
No, I do not. I respond based on my own personal experience. I develop enterprise apps for a living, and mobile apps is an integral part of that. I have five vertical apps developed with PhoneGap deployed on iOS (both iPhone and iPad) and Android (only phones). I personally know what can and can not be done developing HTML5 apps. You don't even know what an HTML5 app is.
Google isn't out to harm MS
Yes, they are. They are showing this by refusing to write their own YT app for Windows Phone, and putting insurmountable roadblocks in front of anyone trying. Again, this can not be done in HTML5 and JS and Google knows it. They just released a new iOS app for YT, and it is not (unsurprisingly) an HTML5 app, though I would not be surprised if they displayed HTML4/5 in a canvas in their native app. Creating an iOS equivalent YT app as an HTML5 app simply isn't possible if you want similar features and performance. If I am wrong, please show how you write a performant, multi-threaded application in Javascript on ARM.
By reverse engineering it. So they can do things that Google may not like
So you have absolutely no idea what embrace-extend-extinguish means, do you? The above is just clueless drivel. Please try to find out what this actually means. Then get back to me and explain how MS could possibly do that.
MS tried to pull the embrace and extend with Java by introducing keywords standard java did not have
Yes, they did, and with Java they could since they wrote a new "Java" compiler that was different from the Sun compiler. They also did it with LDAP and Active Directory. Again, they had complete control over the AD API, so they could make it slightly incompatible with standard LDAP. Now, please explain how Microsoft could write a client app for Google, than subtly alter that app so that the Google YouTube application for iOS would stop working. Please go into some detail since it would be interesting to hear how the MS YT client could alter the way YouTube serves videos to iOS. As I said, please try to find out what embrace-extend-extingusih means before making more of a fool out of your self.
I've written code based on HTML, Javascript, C, and Objective C
And you still do not know what an HTML5 application is. That's just sad. Check out PhoneGap for an example on what is needed to write a portable, native-looking HTML5 application. An HTML5 application, which is what Google is demanding MS writes, can not do native code. Simple as that. A native app can use a browser component to display an HTML page, but an HTML5 application (which you still do not know what is, but check out what Adobe is doing for example) can not access native code.
It's not 100% one language or the other
If you are required to write an HTML5 application (as opposed to show a webpage in your native application) you have HTML5 and you have Javascript. Period. Nothing more.
Windows Phone does not implement the specific HTML5 features Google needs to work
Since Google's own HTML5 version of YouTube works perfectly on Windows Phone, that seems to be wrong.
You saying it all has to be HTML5/JS is nonsense.
Please explain how it is nonsense? How do you develop an HTML5 app that is not all HTML and Javascript. Please explain.
Again you are saying it's impossible when it's not
Actually, I know it is not. Google can not do it themselves on Android. On that platform they have full control of the browser, the APIs and everything, and they are still not able to do it. I know it because I am a software developer and I have developed several HTML5 apps on both Android, iOS and Windows Phone. It is easy to do. It is also very hard to do something complex simply because JS on ARM is a nightmare when it comes to performance. It performs, depending on what you do, at 2-20 percent of native. That means that any complex app will not be usable. Google just released a multithreaded YouTube app for iOS. In the real world that is impossible if you have to write in HTML5/JS.
MS is whining about that like a child
Funny, so when MS did this to others, for years MS used MS-only APIs in Windows, it was OK, but when Google does it MS is whining?So all those years everybody else was whining when they didn't have documented access to the APIs MS was using? Funny that, since Microsoft was convicted in court for predatory practices in an area where they had a de-facto monopoly.
MS does not like following rules
Which rules? The ones that Google has in place or the ones that pertains to business as such. Is it OK for Google to do what MS was convicted of doing? Why is criminal behavior OK for Google but not for MS?
I don't doubt they are trying to embrace and extend
Seriously, you don't even know what that means, do you? How could MS possibly extend an API only Google controls? Please elaborate.
Here is the problem with the Google statement. As you say, no browser implements HTML5 fully, but not only that, since it is an HTML5 app, and in HTML5 the only supported programming language is Javascript, you have to build an HTML5/Javascript application. The problem with that is that not only is Javascript extremely slow on ARM, it can run as slow as at 2% of native speed, but it is also not developed enough to support the full native youtube experience.
This is why Google has never attempted to write an HTML5 YouTube app for neither Android nor iOS. Google knows it can not be done. Asking MS to do the impossible, even for the mighty Google, is childish to put it mildly.