I don't see HTML5/JS anywhere in that statement only "based on HTML5".
Really. So you really are an "UnknowingFool." OK. What does the following mean: "we’ve been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5". It means they have to build an HTML5 app. Do you know what programming languages are supported in HTML5? Javascript (shortened by me to JS). Are you intentionally or accidentally obtuse?
Which clearly neither party did. Seems like the only contribution Google had was "you have to do an impossible thing which incidentally we our selves have not been able to do".
That you know of. And you are absolutely sure that the browser responds correctly to YouTube servers in all circumstances?
Yes, I do. It does.
Google can certainly ask you to respect HTML5 in your code. Seems to me that MS did not do this.
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? "respect HTML5 in your code"? That doesn't even make sense. Get back to me when you know more than my mother about computers.
So what did Google say to Blackberry and others that have a YouTube app?
Again, to take it slowly, using HTML5 you can create an app for YT. It's easy. There is no need for MS to do this, Google has done it for them, and on Windows Phone it works perfectly. It is, however, a severely crippled app compared to the native iOS and Android apps. The iOS and Android apps are native apps, they do not use HTML5. This is because you can't develop an app with the feature set of the iOS and Android YT apps in HTML5. Google knows it, which is why they have never tried. MS wants an equivalent of the iOS and Android apps on Windows Phone. That requires they develop a native app, as did Google on Android and iOS. Is this very hard for you to understand? The Blackberry equivalent YT app already exists on Windows Phone. It's called youtube.com. MS is asking, not to develop a BlackBerry equivalent app, it already exists on Windows Phone. They want to build an iOS and Android equivalent app. That is not possible in HTML5. Ask Google. They were not able to.
My reading is HTML5 makes it hard for them to embrace and extend because it is a standard.
That's because you are clueless and ignorant.
Google has only said that MS must update their browser
Google has said no such thing. Where do you get this information? Google has said MS has to develop an HTML5 client, Google has said nothing about the MS browser. Windows Phone can use the HTML5 YTclient fine. No need to upgrade the browser.
My reading of it is that MS is throwing a tantrum about having to play by the rules
Google: You have to do something impossible (write the YT app in HTML5/JS)
We can't do something impossible. Here is how we can do the possible, could you assist with the final bit (showing ads that are not served from Google.
Google: You have to do something impossible.
Google: You have to do something impossible.
If you think you can write an app that on ARM will have native functionality and usability in HTML5/JS then you have never tried to write JS/HTML5 apps on ARM.
No, they are claiming it is near impossible. Have you ever developed JS/HTML5 apps for mobile? Apps of some complexity. I have. Doing the equivalent of the iOS or Android YT apps is not possible in JS/HTML5 with reasonable performance. JS on ARM has terrible performance and will continue to have for years to come.
MS wanted an exception for them and this delayed their app.
Nope, MS did not want exceptions. They specifically asked Google to help meeting the TOS. Google said they would not as long as the app was native. This is the same as saying: "We'll never help"-
Are we to believe that they are playing fair this time?
Considering this time they were to do it with Google collaboration, yes, it is reasonable to think they would. Also, given the work they have done on the native client, they clearly show the intention of doing so. Finally, given Microsoft's recent behavior in this regard, yes it clearly is reasonable to assume they are going to behave like a good citizen. They have mostly for the past decade or so.
doesn't expose loopholes as Microsoft are abusive with permissions e.g. the earlier episode of letting people download videos
Sorry, didn't reply to everything in your poast. So what would be the argument against allowing an app that doesn't have a download feature? The app shows all ads that Google presents in the meta of the video. Please explain, using the features in the actual app that Microsoft actually developed (rather than a "monster" app that Microsoft might develop in the future since they are so evil) what is the compelling reason for banning the Microsoft YT app. Also, why demand the app be written in HTML5? What would be the compelling reason for Google putting in place an arbitrary and impossible (Google themselves are not able to develop an HTML5 equivalent to the Android and iOS app) requirement like this?
Have you ever tried to develop an app in JS and HTML5? It is fine for small and rather feature-less apps, but for the compelling native experience on a mobile device it is currently impossible, and it will remain impossible for the foreseeable future. For complex apps on ARM, Javascript and HTML5 simply isn't an option, and it is unlikely to be an option for another 5 years or more.
So, what on earth can Google gain by demanding Microsoft write an HTML5 app? They can ensure that a competitive platform never receives an application of the same quality as on Google's own platform. This is exactly the shenanigans Microsoft were convicted of engaging in, and that they are currently being punished quit severely for if they try to again. For some reason, when Microsoft does this/. is all up in arms when Microsoft does it but when Google does the exact same thing it suddenly is OK.
Again, "reasonable" for Microsoft to block something is when they stand to lose money or their business model
Really? Is that reasonable? So it was reasonable for Microsoft to release versions of their operating systems that would make the competitions applications not run? I don't think so, but it seems you do. Would it be reasonable for Microsoft to ban applications from Windows that read and write the Office document formats? Obviously such applications are a direct threat to Microsoft Office revenue. I do not think that is reasonable, but it seems you do.
Google banning Microsoft from developing a YT app is analogous to Microsoft banning visiting Google docs from a Windows computer since Google docs are a direct threat to Microsoft Office revenue. Do you think it is reasonable for Microsoft to ban access to Google docs?
choose whether or not you believe Microsoft is an evil monopolist NOW
Microsoft is a monopolist now. I assume they will try to utilize this monopoly for business advantage when they can. We, as in users and the justice system, need to monitor them closely to make sure they stay within the law. Assigning labels like "evil" and "good" to companies I leave to mentally retarded children. It's infantile.
where is the real open specification of MS office
I assume you are talking about Office document formats. A good place to start would be http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc313105(v=office.12).aspx. The following WIKI article also has some good information on the current default Microsoft document format which is zipped XML: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML. Microsoft also publishes libraries that allows you full access to the older binary formats, but those are only available on Windows. Remember, the new Office document formats are open ISO standards, and anyone can get the information needed to read and write them. I do not think the spec is particularly good, the ODF format is a lot better, but at least the Microsoft document format is open to all to implement.
What Microsoft does not do is disable, ban or in any other way interfere with applications that reverse engineers the pre Office 2007 document format (no need to reverse engineer the current format since it is an open ISO standard). Most competing applications like Libre Office, Word Perfect and others have the ability to read and write these proprietary binary formats. This is a huge difference between Microsoft and Google. Microsoft allows - and in many areas encourages and helps with - the reverse engineering of their older proprietary formats. Google bans applications that do.
Please post a link from either MS or Google that says that
That is what the article from Microsoft says. Please read it.
Please read more correctly and understand the difference between native mode and browser mode
Having developed a number of apps for Android, and two for Windows Phone, I am well acquainted with the difference. The youtube.com app works perfectly on Windows Phone. No issues whatsoever. This is why there is no point in doing an HTML5 app. MS is asking to be allowed to write an app with the equivalent functionality of the YT apps on Android and iOS, and Google is saying they can't because they are Microsoft.
No one is saying that everyone must write their app entirely in HTML5 with Javascript
Correct, but Google is saying Microsoft has to, otherwise they will not approve it.
If that is wrapped in native or Javascript or browser window, it doesn't matter to Google
Yes it does. Google states that Microsoft has to write the app in HTML5 and Javascript. This makes it impossible to make it feature equivalent to the Android and iOS app. Simple as that.
My reading of it is that Windows Phone does not implement HTML5 correctly
That's because you are clueless. The HTML5 version of youtube.com works fine on Windows Phone. You should spend a lot less time coming up with rubbish conjecture and actually read what the article says. It says Google is denying Microsoft the right to develop a native YT app. Simple as that.
Correct, that was another dumb-ass. So, how would you go about creating the Android or iOS equivalent YT apps in HTML5 and JS? Please be specific. Remember, Google is unable to do so.
People running chrome on windows pay Microsoft money to buy Windows licenses
Yes, but remember, you license Windows. You do not buy it. You do not in fact have the right to do whatever you wish with software you license. It is not unreasonable for MS to (as a move against the predatory behavior of Google) ban Chrome on Windows, and there is not much you can do about that except run Linux instead. License agreements of this kind are already quite common, particularly with Apple for example.
If you want to use the older document formats, your best bet is to reverse engineer them. Many have, none of the "offending" applications are banned from Windows. Quite different from the behavior of Google, right?
If you want to use any of the newer formats, read the spec.
Correct. Neither are they in their right when they actively deny Microsoft the right to, on their own dime and time, write the app. Honestly, a measured response from Microsoft would be to release an update to all versions of Windows that disabled Chrome (my favorite browser by the way). I don't love one company over another. Any company engaging in anti-competitive practices will get the same response from me. Sadly, in the/. world, the religious nuts thinks that Google can do no harm and Microsoft is evil. The sentiment is infantile.
Ok, so Google is not compelled to write Youtube application
Did I ever say they were? Are you mentally retarded or something? What I am saying is that they should not be allowed to prevent Microsoft from writing an app, which is what they are doing now. This is equivalent to Microsoft preventing Chrome from running on Windows. Wonder what Google would have said.
Microsoft's refusal to help me write MS office for my Linux tablet has put obstacles in my path
There are obstacles in your path, none of them put there by Microsoft. Are you really this dumb? If you do not understand the difference between refusing access to something, and not helping with getting that access, then you are too dumb to walk outside alone. Let me try an analogy for you. In order for you to get from A to B you have to climb over a wall. It's a wall I own. Not helping you over that wall is not something I am required to do, and since the wall was there long before you needed to go from A to B, I am not putting a road-block in your way. On the other hand, if I refuse your request to use a ladder to get across, then I am actively blocking you from getting from A to B. Google is actively refusing Microsoft the right to erect the ladder.
BTW, if you think Google can be trusted more than Microsoft (or the other way around), you're a lot dumber than a nine year old.
MS says it can't be done. They also say it will take too long. They also complain that it's unfair
Nope, it sounds exactly like the arguments Lotus once used, and that they won in court with. The kind of arguments that convicted MS of predatory practices. The kind of behavior Google is engaging in right now, which for some reason the/. community applauds. Sad really.
Google offered to help, they back-pedalled, I honestly think Microsoft should respond by disabling Chrome on Windows. That would be a measured response.
No, what MS wants the ability to do all sorts of things Google can do
No, they do not. They want to write an app with the equivalent functionality of the iOS and Android apps, and Google says they are not allowed to. Honestly, I think it would be quite fair for MS to release an update to Windows that refused to run Chrome as a retalitory measure. Wonder what would happen to Chrome market share then.
No, they don't. They point out that the fact that Google demands they write the app in HTML5 (and by extension Javascript) makes it impossible to create an app with equivalent functionality to the iOS and Android apps. This is obviously the case, otherwise Google would have written the app in HTML5, and they haven't. They have written native apps for both operating systems.
Yeah, you are right. Google is acting like a 9 year old child. Thing is, the law requires them to act like a company. Doing serious business with 9 year old children is never a good idea.
If it needs OS interaction, they can write that into their client
Sorry, but here you prove that you can not read. Nobody is asking Microsoft to use "the HTML5 interface" - for your record, there is no such thing. What Google is saying is that Microsoft has to write the entire application in HTML5 and Javascript. You did read that, did you not? They are saying that Microsoft are not allowed to write the client in C#, C++ or Java. Google has demanded that Microsoft use only HTML5. You do know that you can write mobile applications in HTML5 and Javascript, don't you?
This means that the app would be limited by what is allowed to run in an HTML5 client. No OS interaction of the kind that is quite easy to do in C++ or C#. None. Not possible since Google required the entire application be HTML5 ONLY. Now, go back and read the article again before continuing to make an utter fool out of your self.
Keep in mind the following: There is no such thing as the "HTML5 api" to access youtube. There is a REST/JSON API that you can use from an HTML5 application or a native application. The API doesn't give you full access to everything YT. You will, for example, not be able to create a native client that displays all of the ads in the same way that Google does in their apps and in their webpages. The API simply doesn't cover this. Using the open API that Google has, it is simply not possible to write a native app for any platform that conforms to YT TOS.
now he wants special treatment by being permitted to display youtube videos without displaying the ads
Goodness. You really didn't read anything at all did you? Microsoft is asking Google for access to the data in such a way that they can display all the ads Google wants to display. Google is saying - "that will only happen if you write an HTML5 app (remember, there is no "HTML5 API", whatever that might mean). If you want to write a native application, you can't have access to that data." So, the only person here stating things that are not in accordance with reality is you. I don't think you are lying though, you seem to dumb to have the inventivness required. I just think you are ignorant ("HTML5 API") and dumb.
No, I did not. Having a de-facto monopoly doesn't mean you are compelled to write or even help write applications of any kind. What it does though is ban you from putting obstacles in the way of a competitor. Nobody (not even Microsoft) is asking Google to help them do anything (though Google had agreed to help), they are asking Google to not put roadblocks in the way. Try to get your head around the differences, consult an adult if you need to.
I wonder what would have happened if Microsoft tomorrow updated Windows to prevent it from running Chrome. Would you think it was reasonable?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see HTML5/JS anywhere in that statement only "based on HTML5".
Really. So you really are an "UnknowingFool." OK. What does the following mean: "we’ve been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5". It means they have to build an HTML5 app. Do you know what programming languages are supported in HTML5? Javascript (shortened by me to JS). Are you intentionally or accidentally obtuse?
Collaboration requires that they work together
Which clearly neither party did. Seems like the only contribution Google had was "you have to do an impossible thing which incidentally we our selves have not been able to do".
That you know of. And you are absolutely sure that the browser responds correctly to YouTube servers in all circumstances?
Yes, I do. It does.
Google can certainly ask you to respect HTML5 in your code. Seems to me that MS did not do this.
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? "respect HTML5 in your code"? That doesn't even make sense. Get back to me when you know more than my mother about computers.
So what did Google say to Blackberry and others that have a YouTube app?
Again, to take it slowly, using HTML5 you can create an app for YT. It's easy. There is no need for MS to do this, Google has done it for them, and on Windows Phone it works perfectly. It is, however, a severely crippled app compared to the native iOS and Android apps. The iOS and Android apps are native apps, they do not use HTML5. This is because you can't develop an app with the feature set of the iOS and Android YT apps in HTML5. Google knows it, which is why they have never tried. MS wants an equivalent of the iOS and Android apps on Windows Phone. That requires they develop a native app, as did Google on Android and iOS. Is this very hard for you to understand? The Blackberry equivalent YT app already exists on Windows Phone. It's called youtube.com. MS is asking, not to develop a BlackBerry equivalent app, it already exists on Windows Phone. They want to build an iOS and Android equivalent app. That is not possible in HTML5. Ask Google. They were not able to.
My reading is HTML5 makes it hard for them to embrace and extend because it is a standard.
That's because you are clueless and ignorant.
Google has only said that MS must update their browser
Google has said no such thing. Where do you get this information? Google has said MS has to develop an HTML5 client, Google has said nothing about the MS browser. Windows Phone can use the HTML5 YTclient fine. No need to upgrade the browser.
It's interesting that you completely fail to acknowledge MS violated the Google TOS the first tim
I don't. They did.
Then you put words into Google's mouth which they never said.
I don't. They require MS develop an HTML5/JS client, and that isn't feasible.
My reading of it is that MS is throwing a tantrum about having to play by the rules
If you think you can write an app that on ARM will have native functionality and usability in HTML5/JS then you have never tried to write JS/HTML5 apps on ARM.
MS is whining now it's too hard
No, they are claiming it is near impossible. Have you ever developed JS/HTML5 apps for mobile? Apps of some complexity. I have. Doing the equivalent of the iOS or Android YT apps is not possible in JS/HTML5 with reasonable performance. JS on ARM has terrible performance and will continue to have for years to come.
MS wanted an exception for them and this delayed their app.
Nope, MS did not want exceptions. They specifically asked Google to help meeting the TOS. Google said they would not as long as the app was native. This is the same as saying: "We'll never help"-
Are we to believe that they are playing fair this time?
Considering this time they were to do it with Google collaboration, yes, it is reasonable to think they would. Also, given the work they have done on the native client, they clearly show the intention of doing so. Finally, given Microsoft's recent behavior in this regard, yes it clearly is reasonable to assume they are going to behave like a good citizen. They have mostly for the past decade or so.
doesn't expose loopholes as Microsoft are abusive with permissions e.g. the earlier episode of letting people download videos
Sorry, didn't reply to everything in your poast. So what would be the argument against allowing an app that doesn't have a download feature? The app shows all ads that Google presents in the meta of the video. Please explain, using the features in the actual app that Microsoft actually developed (rather than a "monster" app that Microsoft might develop in the future since they are so evil) what is the compelling reason for banning the Microsoft YT app. Also, why demand the app be written in HTML5? What would be the compelling reason for Google putting in place an arbitrary and impossible (Google themselves are not able to develop an HTML5 equivalent to the Android and iOS app) requirement like this?
Have you ever tried to develop an app in JS and HTML5? It is fine for small and rather feature-less apps, but for the compelling native experience on a mobile device it is currently impossible, and it will remain impossible for the foreseeable future. For complex apps on ARM, Javascript and HTML5 simply isn't an option, and it is unlikely to be an option for another 5 years or more.
So, what on earth can Google gain by demanding Microsoft write an HTML5 app? They can ensure that a competitive platform never receives an application of the same quality as on Google's own platform. This is exactly the shenanigans Microsoft were convicted of engaging in, and that they are currently being punished quit severely for if they try to again. For some reason, when Microsoft does this /. is all up in arms when Microsoft does it but when Google does the exact same thing it suddenly is OK.
Again, "reasonable" for Microsoft to block something is when they stand to lose money or their business model
Really? Is that reasonable? So it was reasonable for Microsoft to release versions of their operating systems that would make the competitions applications not run? I don't think so, but it seems you do. Would it be reasonable for Microsoft to ban applications from Windows that read and write the Office document formats? Obviously such applications are a direct threat to Microsoft Office revenue. I do not think that is reasonable, but it seems you do.
Google banning Microsoft from developing a YT app is analogous to Microsoft banning visiting Google docs from a Windows computer since Google docs are a direct threat to Microsoft Office revenue. Do you think it is reasonable for Microsoft to ban access to Google docs?
choose whether or not you believe Microsoft is an evil monopolist NOW
Microsoft is a monopolist now. I assume they will try to utilize this monopoly for business advantage when they can. We, as in users and the justice system, need to monitor them closely to make sure they stay within the law. Assigning labels like "evil" and "good" to companies I leave to mentally retarded children. It's infantile.
where is the real open specification of MS office
I assume you are talking about Office document formats. A good place to start would be http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc313105(v=office.12).aspx. The following WIKI article also has some good information on the current default Microsoft document format which is zipped XML: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML. Microsoft also publishes libraries that allows you full access to the older binary formats, but those are only available on Windows. Remember, the new Office document formats are open ISO standards, and anyone can get the information needed to read and write them. I do not think the spec is particularly good, the ODF format is a lot better, but at least the Microsoft document format is open to all to implement.
What Microsoft does not do is disable, ban or in any other way interfere with applications that reverse engineers the pre Office 2007 document format (no need to reverse engineer the current format since it is an open ISO standard). Most competing applications like Libre Office, Word Perfect and others have the ability to read and write these proprietary binary formats. This is a huge difference between Microsoft and Google. Microsoft allows - and in many areas encourages and helps with - the reverse engineering of their older proprietary formats. Google bans applications that do.
Please post a link from either MS or Google that says that
That is what the article from Microsoft says. Please read it.
Please read more correctly and understand the difference between native mode and browser mode
Having developed a number of apps for Android, and two for Windows Phone, I am well acquainted with the difference. The youtube.com app works perfectly on Windows Phone. No issues whatsoever. This is why there is no point in doing an HTML5 app. MS is asking to be allowed to write an app with the equivalent functionality of the YT apps on Android and iOS, and Google is saying they can't because they are Microsoft.
No one is saying that everyone must write their app entirely in HTML5 with Javascript
Correct, but Google is saying Microsoft has to, otherwise they will not approve it.
If that is wrapped in native or Javascript or browser window, it doesn't matter to Google
Yes it does. Google states that Microsoft has to write the app in HTML5 and Javascript. This makes it impossible to make it feature equivalent to the Android and iOS app. Simple as that.
My reading of it is that Windows Phone does not implement HTML5 correctly
That's because you are clueless. The HTML5 version of youtube.com works fine on Windows Phone. You should spend a lot less time coming up with rubbish conjecture and actually read what the article says. It says Google is denying Microsoft the right to develop a native YT app. Simple as that.
Correct, that was another dumb-ass. So, how would you go about creating the Android or iOS equivalent YT apps in HTML5 and JS? Please be specific. Remember, Google is unable to do so.
People running chrome on windows pay Microsoft money to buy Windows licenses
Yes, but remember, you license Windows. You do not buy it. You do not in fact have the right to do whatever you wish with software you license. It is not unreasonable for MS to (as a move against the predatory behavior of Google) ban Chrome on Windows, and there is not much you can do about that except run Linux instead. License agreements of this kind are already quite common, particularly with Apple for example.
If you want to use the older document formats, your best bet is to reverse engineer them. Many have, none of the "offending" applications are banned from Windows. Quite different from the behavior of Google, right?
If you want to use any of the newer formats, read the spec.
Correct. Neither are they in their right when they actively deny Microsoft the right to, on their own dime and time, write the app. Honestly, a measured response from Microsoft would be to release an update to all versions of Windows that disabled Chrome (my favorite browser by the way). I don't love one company over another. Any company engaging in anti-competitive practices will get the same response from me. Sadly, in the /. world, the religious nuts thinks that Google can do no harm and Microsoft is evil. The sentiment is infantile.
Ok, so Google is not compelled to write Youtube application
Did I ever say they were? Are you mentally retarded or something? What I am saying is that they should not be allowed to prevent Microsoft from writing an app, which is what they are doing now. This is equivalent to Microsoft preventing Chrome from running on Windows. Wonder what Google would have said.
Microsoft's refusal to help me write MS office for my Linux tablet has put obstacles in my path
There are obstacles in your path, none of them put there by Microsoft. Are you really this dumb? If you do not understand the difference between refusing access to something, and not helping with getting that access, then you are too dumb to walk outside alone. Let me try an analogy for you. In order for you to get from A to B you have to climb over a wall. It's a wall I own. Not helping you over that wall is not something I am required to do, and since the wall was there long before you needed to go from A to B, I am not putting a road-block in your way. On the other hand, if I refuse your request to use a ladder to get across, then I am actively blocking you from getting from A to B. Google is actively refusing Microsoft the right to erect the ladder.
BTW, if you think Google can be trusted more than Microsoft (or the other way around), you're a lot dumber than a nine year old.
MS says it can't be done. They also say it will take too long. They also complain that it's unfair
Nope, it sounds exactly like the arguments Lotus once used, and that they won in court with. The kind of arguments that convicted MS of predatory practices. The kind of behavior Google is engaging in right now, which for some reason the /. community applauds. Sad really.
Google offered to help, they back-pedalled, I honestly think Microsoft should respond by disabling Chrome on Windows. That would be a measured response.
No, what MS wants the ability to do all sorts of things Google can do
No, they do not. They want to write an app with the equivalent functionality of the iOS and Android apps, and Google says they are not allowed to. Honestly, I think it would be quite fair for MS to release an update to Windows that refused to run Chrome as a retalitory measure. Wonder what would happen to Chrome market share then.
MS even admits that would take too much time
No, they don't. They point out that the fact that Google demands they write the app in HTML5 (and by extension Javascript) makes it impossible to create an app with equivalent functionality to the iOS and Android apps. This is obviously the case, otherwise Google would have written the app in HTML5, and they haven't. They have written native apps for both operating systems.
Yeah, you are right. Google is acting like a 9 year old child. Thing is, the law requires them to act like a company. Doing serious business with 9 year old children is never a good idea.
If it needs OS interaction, they can write that into their client
Sorry, but here you prove that you can not read. Nobody is asking Microsoft to use "the HTML5 interface" - for your record, there is no such thing. What Google is saying is that Microsoft has to write the entire application in HTML5 and Javascript. You did read that, did you not? They are saying that Microsoft are not allowed to write the client in C#, C++ or Java. Google has demanded that Microsoft use only HTML5. You do know that you can write mobile applications in HTML5 and Javascript, don't you?
This means that the app would be limited by what is allowed to run in an HTML5 client. No OS interaction of the kind that is quite easy to do in C++ or C#. None. Not possible since Google required the entire application be HTML5 ONLY. Now, go back and read the article again before continuing to make an utter fool out of your self.
Keep in mind the following: There is no such thing as the "HTML5 api" to access youtube. There is a REST/JSON API that you can use from an HTML5 application or a native application. The API doesn't give you full access to everything YT. You will, for example, not be able to create a native client that displays all of the ads in the same way that Google does in their apps and in their webpages. The API simply doesn't cover this. Using the open API that Google has, it is simply not possible to write a native app for any platform that conforms to YT TOS.
now he wants special treatment by being permitted to display youtube videos without displaying the ads
Goodness. You really didn't read anything at all did you? Microsoft is asking Google for access to the data in such a way that they can display all the ads Google wants to display. Google is saying - "that will only happen if you write an HTML5 app (remember, there is no "HTML5 API", whatever that might mean). If you want to write a native application, you can't have access to that data." So, the only person here stating things that are not in accordance with reality is you. I don't think you are lying though, you seem to dumb to have the inventivness required. I just think you are ignorant ("HTML5 API") and dumb.
Ok, so you forgot your own post
No, I did not. Having a de-facto monopoly doesn't mean you are compelled to write or even help write applications of any kind. What it does though is ban you from putting obstacles in the way of a competitor. Nobody (not even Microsoft) is asking Google to help them do anything (though Google had agreed to help), they are asking Google to not put roadblocks in the way. Try to get your head around the differences, consult an adult if you need to.
I wonder what would have happened if Microsoft tomorrow updated Windows to prevent it from running Chrome. Would you think it was reasonable?