05-28-2013 06:26 AM
108 12345
tools
  1. a5cent's Avatar
    The app is already broken. I'm guessing google changed the APIs.
    That was fast...

    Changing the API would break every YT client. More likely they are just checking what app a request comes from and ignoring it if it identifies itself as MS' YouTube client.
    05-17-2013 08:18 AM
  2. freestaterocker's Avatar
    You're right, they just flagrantly broke Google's T.O.S. but that's ok right?


    I'm not claiming it isn't somewhat petty but the law is clear and MS broke it, end of story. If I'm wrong, then I see no reason why MS would back down and comply with Google's complaint. They have stated they will comply and are awaiting the API's from Google. If Google chooses not to give them, we both know MS is going to be embarrassed in front of the world when Google shuts off youtube access to WP devices and MS are powerless to stop them.

    I think MS made a big tactical error in picking a fight they can't win because it's going to be a widely publicized "showdown" and they're going to lose if Google decides to pick up the gauntlet rather than cooperate.
    Google is also breaking the law by leveraging a practical monopoly in one market (online video content) to gain an unfair advantage over a competitor in another market. (smartphone platforms) It's exactly what MS was found guilty of in the 90s when they bundled Windows based PCs (practical monopoly) with internet explorer (other market) exclusively as the default browser. 20 years later the only real difference is Google seems to be getting away with it, both in the courts and public perception.
    stmav, squire777, xandros9 and 1 others like this.
    05-17-2013 08:21 AM
  3. freestaterocker's Avatar
    That was fast...

    Changing the API would break every YT client. More likely they are just checking what app a request comes from and ignoring it if it identifies itself as MS' YouTube client.
    It was actually already broken yesterday evening. I had to go to the mobile site to show a friend a video.
    05-17-2013 08:27 AM
  4. ammarmalik2011's Avatar
    Google is also breaking the law by leveraging a practical monopoly in one market (online video content) to gain an unfair advantage over a competitor in another market. (smartphone platforms) It's exactly what MS was found guilty of in the 90s when they bundled Windows based PCs (practical monopoly) with internet explorer (other market) exclusively as the default browser. 20 years later the only real difference is Google seems to be getting away with it, both in the courts and public perception.
    This would be true if Google gave API access to everyone but deliberately chose to keep it from Microsoft. Right now it's a simple case of 'this is my property and you keep off it'. There's nothing monopolistic here, especially when the mobile version of YouTube is open for access to anyone.
    05-17-2013 08:29 AM
  5. return_0's Avatar
    Google is also breaking the law by leveraging a practical monopoly in one market (online video content) to gain an unfair advantage over a competitor in another market. (smartphone platforms) It's exactly what MS was found guilty of in the 90s when they bundled Windows based PCs (practical monopoly) with internet explorer (other market) exclusively as the default browser. 20 years later the only real difference is Google seems to be getting away with it, both in the courts and public perception.
    So are you going to explain how Google is breaking the law or just leave it there? Because I do not in any way see how forcing a company using its service to comply with said service's TOS is illegal. In fact I'd say what MS is doing is closer to breaking the law.
    05-17-2013 08:41 AM
  6. nessinhaw's Avatar
    It was actually already broken yesterday evening. I had to go to the mobile site to show a friend a video.
    the app is still working fine for me, i still can watch videos thru it!
    05-17-2013 08:44 AM
  7. freestaterocker's Avatar
    So are you going to explain how Google is breaking the law or just leave it there? Because I do not in any way see how forcing a company using its service to comply with said service's TOS is illegal. In fact I'd say what MS is doing is closer to breaking the law.
    You wouldn't even be asking me this question if you'd been around here for even a couple of months.

    They're engaging in what's referred to as "anti-competitive behavior" which violates most, if not all, of the developed world's existing anti-trust laws. They refuse to make any of their services available to the Windows Phone platform with full features like what is available on IOS, Android and BlackBerry, (YouTube, google maps, dropping exchangesync for Gmail, etc) and they regularly change their APIs in ways that break the functionality of 3rd party apps that attempt to off the full experience to users of the WP platform. A perfect example is Easytube for WP7. At the time this app and others like it were the only way to access high quality and HD YouTube content on a Windows Phone, a limitation not experienced on competing platforms. Google changed the YouTube APIs to break it (and the others) so many times that Easytube's developer got fed up and dropped support for the app. It was subsequently pulled from the marketplace, leaving people who purchased the app, myself included, out the money they paid for it and out a way to enjoy high quality YouTube content on their smartphone.

    This ongoing battle is well-documented on this and other tech sites. Just go search theverge.com for articles with both Microsoft and Google in the tags, and begin reading. You'll understand what "don't be evil" really means to Google.
    05-17-2013 09:23 AM
  8. ag1986's Avatar
    Google is also breaking the law by leveraging a practical monopoly in one market (online video content) to gain an unfair advantage over a competitor in another market. (smartphone platforms) It's exactly what MS was found guilty of in the 90s when they bundled Windows based PCs (practical monopoly) with internet explorer (other market) exclusively as the default browser. 20 years later the only real difference is Google seems to be getting away with it, both in the courts and public perception.
    wat?

    YouTube still works on my dev edition L920, last time I checked. Any court will agree that this being so, WP8 still has a reasonable way to access YT and therefore Google is not guilty of antitrust.

    And MS' internal emails and the way Windows was written made it clear that they'd made changes for the specific purpose of breaking Netscape et al.
    05-17-2013 09:30 AM
  9. ammarmalik2011's Avatar
    You wouldn't even be asking me this question if you'd been around here for even a couple of months.

    They're engaging in what's referred to as "anti-competitive behavior" which violates most, if not all, of the developed world's existing anti-trust laws. They refuse to make any of their services available to the Windows Phone platform with full features like what is available on IOS, Android and BlackBerry, (YouTube, google maps, dropping exchangesync for Gmail, etc) and they regularly change their APIs in ways that break the functionality of 3rd party apps that attempt to off the full experience to users of the WP platform. A perfect example is Easytube for WP7. At the time this app and others like it were the only way to access high quality and HD YouTube content on a Windows Phone, a limitation not experienced on competing platforms. Google changed the YouTube APIs to break it (and the others) so many times that Easytube's developer got fed up and dropped support for the app. It was subsequently pulled from the marketplace, leaving people who purchased the app, myself included, out the money they paid for it and out a way to enjoy high quality YouTube content on their smartphone.

    This ongoing battle is well-documented on this and other tech sites. Just go search theverge.com for articles with both Microsoft and Google in the tags, and begin reading. You'll understand what "don't be evil" really means to Google.
    none of what you said is 'google breaking the law'. being evil isn't against the law.
    05-17-2013 11:28 AM
  10. omniusovermind's Avatar
    Just out of curiosity, does the iOS version serve ads?
    05-17-2013 11:50 AM
  11. waazzupppp's Avatar
    Microsoft didn't disable the ads... It's a pretty First, Google would not create a version of their App for YouTube for either Xbox or WP. After pressuring from MS, Google assisted with creation of the Xbox App (with ads) and everyone was happy. Then things got interesting when Google wouldn't assist with the WP App. The API's were different from the desktop to mobile sites, so Microsoft took it upon themselves to log in to the public feed - yes, public feed - and create a great YouTube App themselves. If Google would provide ALL vendors with proper API's and controls, this would be a complete non-issue... But they do not, and will continue to screw with 3rd party vendors until they start paying for services. Look what they did to Apple at the end of that agreement - poof! Good Luck Apple! Microsoft and Google will reach an agreement - because without Microsoft, Google is worthless (no a Chrome PC will not replace my Windows PC) and without Google, Microsoft is half way to becoming a monopoly again.
    05-17-2013 11:56 AM
  12. a5cent's Avatar
    YouTube still works on my dev edition L920, last time I checked. Any court will agree that this being so, WP8 still has a reasonable way to access YT and therefore Google is not guilty of antitrust.
    There's nothing monopolistic here, especially when the mobile version of YouTube is open for access to anyone.
    Apparently neither of you are familiar with the anti-trust case against Microsoft, otherwise you wouldn't be making such claims. Your mutual argument is: "Google isn't restricting consumer freedoms or misusing monopoly power because they provide all consumers the ability to access YouTube via the mobile web".

    Although your argument is plastered across every Android fan forum and a very popular one, it's quite irrelevant.

    People made a very similar argument in defence of Microsoft back in 1999: Microsoft didn't restrict consumer freedoms or misuse monopoly power because they provided all consumers the ability to access the internet with any browser of their choice. That type of argument was rather worthless back then. It isn't worth any more today when used in defence of Google.

    The issue isn't how or even if consumers can access a service. The issue is whether corporations are able to compete on a level playing field.

    In Microsoft's case, there was a lot of debate over whether they restricted access to the Windows APIs which were used to build IE. Apparently they did, thus unfairly tilting the field on which the browser wars were fought in their favour. That seems to be exactly the same thing Google is doing today. Allegedly Google is restricting access to APIs (either technically or legally) used to access YouTube. The situation is practically identical!

    The only unanswered question here is whether Google's ownership of YouTube constitutes a monopoly. If it does, then we are witnessing the exact same misuse of monopoly power.
    05-17-2013 01:41 PM
  13. trivor's Avatar
    Unfortunately, I don't think there is much support for "poor" Microsoft in the legal system. MS is perfectly happy to take licensing fees for it's intellectual property from all (currently about 80%) of the Android OEMs and don't forget that Google used to have to pay MS for licensing EAS from Microsoft. Most of you seem to be forgetting that Google started to drop support for Blackberry 7 and earlier because of the lack of market share (like the Blackberry GMail app) even though there were still 80 million BB users. Finally, don't expect Google to do MS any favors and anybody that thinks that MS would act any differently if the roles were reversed is kidding themselves. MS is just crying "poor me" because they are late to the game and still don't have any traction 2.5 years into the New "Windows Mobile".
    05-17-2013 04:45 PM
  14. ammarmalik2011's Avatar
    After seeing the scroogle ads I honestly don't expect Google to do anything for Microsoft.
    05-17-2013 05:31 PM
  15. a5cent's Avatar
    After seeing the scroogle ads I honestly don't expect Google to do anything for Microsoft.
    Unless, of course, if profits are involved...

    The Scroogle campaign is targeted at the average consumer, fanboys and fangirls. No executive at Google gives a rats a55 about it. Anyone thinking such a thing has any influence on any business decision made by any Google executive is just hopelessly nave. Money drives the business world. Not petty insults or nagging.

    Sigh...
    AngryNil likes this.
    05-17-2013 05:43 PM
  16. Reflexx's Avatar
    Keep in mind that the law is different if a company has monopoly power in a certain market.

    Something that would be allowable if there was adequate competition isn't allowed if a company controls the market.
    05-17-2013 05:51 PM
  17. boxa72's Avatar
    Is anyone commenting here n actual lawyer coz I'd like to know where the line in the sand is drawn regarding IP n where the definition of IP & tangible property starts n ends???
    05-17-2013 09:35 PM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    Ok, so can you access YouTube mobile through whatever browser you use on a WP device or is that blocked?
    05-18-2013 01:39 AM
  19. a5cent's Avatar
    ^ Not blocked, but as stated in post #62, that isn't relevant.
    05-18-2013 02:26 AM
  20. constantinosmi's Avatar
    Is anyone commenting here n actual lawyer coz I'd like to know where the line in the sand is drawn regarding IP n where the definition of IP & tangible property starts n ends???
    I do not know about the US but this would probably fall in intellectual property in UK. Tangible property is literally tangible. You really have to touch it. Intellectual property is anything you cannot touch yet have some rights over it e.g shares, patents.
    boxa72 likes this.
    05-18-2013 03:16 AM
  21. ag1986's Avatar
    Unless, of course, if profits are involved...

    The Scroogle campaign is targeted at the average consumer, fanboys and fangirls. No executive at Google gives a rats a55 about it. Anyone thinking such a thing has any influence on any business decision made by any Google executive is just hopelessly nave. Money drives the business world. Not petty insults or nagging.

    Sigh...
    Yes, because everything Google does is driven purely by money. That's why instead of sitting back and relaxing with the 10 billion dollars they get mostly from Search advertising, they're throwing money away on ventures like Glass and self-driving cars and what not. These guys are an engineer-driven company, and like all engineers, they do lots of stuff with no regard to financial sense. Google's execs are not MBAs and lawyers like the rest of the corporate world.

    And yes, Scroogled is pathetic and probably a large part of the reason why Google has the antipathy towards MS that it does.
    05-18-2013 03:29 AM
  22. ag1986's Avatar
    Apparently neither of you are familiar with the anti-trust case against Microsoft, otherwise you wouldn't be making such claims. Your mutual argument is: "Google isn't restricting consumer freedoms or misusing monopoly power because they provide all consumers the ability to access YouTube via the mobile web".

    Although your argument is plastered across every Android fan forum and a very popular one, it's quite irrelevant.

    People made a very similar argument in defence of Microsoft back in 1999: Microsoft didn't restrict consumer freedoms or misuse monopoly power because they provided all consumers the ability to access the internet with any browser of their choice. That type of argument was rather worthless back then. It isn't worth any more today when used in defence of Google.

    The issue isn't how or even if consumers can access a service. The issue is whether corporations are able to compete on a level playing field.

    I don't think your analogy is valid. If Android were dominant, and Youtube a new player in online video, and Google bundled YT with Android while simultaneously doing things to break other online video services, that would be a clear comparison. Here, they are a) not building an app for WP for cost-benefit reasons (probably) and b) preventing MS from building a proper app for YT. While YT is ALREADY #1 (and was so long before Android). Google has clearly demonstrated that they are doing this because WP has a (relatively) tiny user base; see that they have a proper full-featured app for iOS because that has a larger base.

    Note that the YT app for iOS today is built by Google and not by Apple; Apple has no access to the private APIs. Now that so many musicians and other content owners release content on YT with monetisable ads (Google said Gangnam Style made $8 million on Youtube with 1.23 billion views) and it's justifiable that they take action to be sure that their publishers' content is available in sync with their terms and conditions.
    05-18-2013 03:41 AM
  23. freestaterocker's Avatar
    I don't think your analogy is valid. If Android were dominant, and Youtube a new player in online video, and Google bundled YT with Android while simultaneously doing things to break other online video services, that would be a clear comparison. Here, they are a) not building an app for WP for cost-benefit reasons (probably) and b) preventing MS from building a proper app for YT. While YT is ALREADY #1 (and was so long before Android). Google has clearly demonstrated that they are doing this because WP has a (relatively) tiny user base; see that they have a proper full-featured app for iOS because that has a larger base.

    Note that the YT app for iOS today is built by Google and not by Apple; Apple has no access to the private APIs. Now that so many musicians and other content owners release content on YT with monetisable ads (Google said Gangnam Style made $8 million on Youtube with 1.23 billion views) and it's justifiable that they take action to be sure that their publishers' content is available in sync with their terms and conditions.
    If the YouTube issue were the only battle line being drawn I might be inclined to agree. But you're forgetting about Google maps. Google altered the code in such a way that, only on WP and RT versions of internet explorer, any attempt to access advanced functionality like navigation (you know, what we actually USE maps for) would prompt a redirect to the Google homepage. The only reason google maps isn't involved in legalities is that it's a more competitive market, with excellent solutions already available to every WP user via Bing maps and Nokia-owned navteq. Like A5cent pointed out, business practices which are legal in a competitive market are not legal when one player is dominating.
    Laura Knotek and Bee Mon like this.
    05-18-2013 08:17 AM
  24. squire777's Avatar
    Google is pretty much behaving like 90's Microsoft but the difference is that currently Google has a positive perception with the general public, unlike MS which was perceived to be a money grubbing, monopolistic destroying machine. Google has convinced the masses that they are a company for the people by throwing out buzzwords like "open source" and making little Google doodles that people think are really cool and nostalgic.

    Larry Page said last week, "We struggle with companies like Microsoft. We would like to see more open standards and more people involved in those ecosystems." Again he talks about open standards yet decides on which companies get access to his APIs. Page and his minions are total hypocrites when it comes to this issue and others.

    But I'll be here patiently waiting for Google's C&D notice to all the devs that make adblockers for Chrome.
    05-18-2013 03:33 PM
  25. xandros9's Avatar
    Just out of curiosity, does the iOS version serve ads?
    the new upgraded iOS app does I believe
    05-19-2013 02:30 PM
108 12345

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-13-2013, 07:52 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD