05-28-2013 06:26 AM
108 ... 2345
tools
  1. AngryNil's Avatar
    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.
    Google is a public company, it makes money for its shareholders now and in the future. That endgame isn't simply reached by milking a cash cow; diversification of products and services increases influence, may improve mind share, provides more income avenues, and lessens risk if a market begins to decline. Do you really think that a future with Google cars and Google Glass wouldn't in any way enhance the company's position? But more importantly, what's with this recent line of thinking that Google is the only company who is investing in future technology? Microsoft pours more money than just about anybody (read: more than Google) into R&D, and most of that doesn't immediately pay off, if ever. People really need to open their eyes.

    And yes, Scroogled is pathetic and probably a large part of the reason why Google has the antipathy towards MS that it does.
    How is reinstating your opinion without any further elaboration supposed to prove or rebut anything?

    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.
    You've got the argument backwards. The proposal is that Google is using YouTube, a possibly dominant service, in order to bolster Android's position against Windows Phone. Google has already demonstrated that cost-benefit is not the reason, as it makes YouTube apps for platforms far more obscure than Windows Phone and Windows 8. And if there is a legal case that can be made here, that line of reasoning is completely irrelevant. There was no benefit to Microsoft in making Netscape a viable alternative to Internet Explorer.
    a5cent, squire777 and wpn00b like this.
    05-19-2013 09:46 PM
  2. omniusovermind's Avatar
    I hope there's a patent / business lawyer hanging around here because I have a question for the experts: If Google owns YouTube how are they in violation of FRAND, which this obviously falls under?
    05-21-2013 09:51 AM
  3. a5cent's Avatar
    I hope there's a patent / business lawyer hanging around here because I have a question for the experts: If Google owns YouTube how are they in violation of FRAND, which this obviously falls under?
    What has this got to do with FRAND? This is about anti-trust law, at least it has been so far. What does patent law have to do with it?
    05-21-2013 10:40 AM
  4. omniusovermind's Avatar
    The United States Patent and Trademark Office granted Google intellectual rights to targeted-ad technology last year which would allow the company to take the weather and other environmental conditions into account when choosing which ads to deliver to smartphone users. Google is withholding the API's that allow the ads but Google owns YouTube. This could fall under either FRAND or Antitrust but since neither you or I are patent or antitrust lawyers I guess this all remains a matter of pure armchair quarterbacking on both our parts :)
    05-21-2013 11:10 AM
  5. ag1986's Avatar
    You've got the argument backwards. The proposal is that Google is using YouTube, a possibly dominant service, in order to bolster Android's position against Windows Phone. Google has already demonstrated that cost-benefit is not the reason, as it makes YouTube apps for platforms far more obscure than Windows Phone and Windows 8. And if there is a legal case that can be made here, that line of reasoning is completely irrelevant. There was no benefit to Microsoft in making Netscape a viable alternative to Internet Explorer.
    Which would be a valid line of thought only if Android wasn't already the dominant player (in terms of number of users). What are these "far more obscure platforms" you speak of?

    MS will have to demonstrate that lack of a Youtube app similar to that on iOS and Android is causing material damage to the WP platform, i.e. users choose not to use WP because of the lack of such an app. Remember, however, that it still works via the browser. If that were so, nobody would use WP8 considering that there are so many popular apps on iOS/Android that are not available on WP (Instagram being the best example I can think of). Such an argument would be almost impossible to prove in court.

    The YT app was crippled on iOS for years as well, it had at most the same functionality as the browser experience and that didn't seem to be a problem.
    05-21-2013 11:13 AM
  6. ag1986's Avatar
    The United States Patent and Trademark Office granted Google intellectual rights to targeted-ad technology last year which would allow the company to take the weather and other environmental conditions into account when choosing which ads to deliver to smartphone users. Google is withholding the API's that allow the ads but Google owns YouTube. This could fall under either FRAND or Antitrust but since neither you or I are patent or antitrust lawyers I guess this all remains a matter of pure armchair quarterbacking on both our parts :)
    I don't think that has any relevance. FRAND patents involve things like the fundamental principles of 3G transmitters, video codecs etc., things which are demonstrably industry standard and also vital to the functioning of a product. For example, Motorola holds patents on a lot of basic cellphone tech but must allow Apple et al to use this.
    a5cent likes this.
    05-21-2013 11:16 AM
  7. a5cent's Avatar
    Google is withholding the API's that allow the ads but Google owns YouTube. This could fall under either FRAND or Antitrust but since neither you or I are patent or antitrust lawyers I guess this all remains a matter of pure armchair quarterbacking on both our parts :)
    Okay. In that case this doesn't fall under FRAND, otherwise a court would have already settled it. Google would have long been forced to share anything falling under FRAND patent law, as that is the whole point... FRAND patents must be shared at very low cost to the licensee.

    Although I'm not a lawyer, I think we have enough history to go on. However, even if we were lawyers, it wouldn't change much, as there is no clear cut case to make. Some of the issues, most importantly the standing of YT in the market (assuming the boundaries of that market can even be defined) can likely only be resolved in court.
    Last edited by a5cent; 05-21-2013 at 03:24 PM.
    05-21-2013 11:55 AM
  8. omniusovermind's Avatar
    It all depends on who's lawyers you ask too lol ;)
    05-21-2013 07:16 PM
  9. a5cent's Avatar
    It all depends on who's lawyers you ask too lol ;)
    No doubt!

    If it was otherwise, the case would already have gone to court.
    Stormageddon5 likes this.
    05-21-2013 07:21 PM
  10. AngryNil's Avatar
    Which would be a valid line of thought only if Android wasn't already the dominant player (in terms of number of users).
    Restricting a dominant service on a competitor's platform in favour of your own already-dominant platform sounds even worse. I don't' see why you're drawing a line between gaining and retaining dominance, neither is desirable in competition law. The EU's case against Microsoft was for "abuse of a dominant position".
    Abuse of a dominant position ? European Commission

    What are these "far more obscure platforms" you speak of?
    Obvious example would be the PS Vita. I believe YouTube is also available for many different Smart TV platforms.

    MS will have to demonstrate that lack of a Youtube app similar to that on iOS and Android is causing material damage to the WP platform, i.e. users choose not to use WP because of the lack of such an app. Remember, however, that it still works via the browser. If that were so, nobody would use WP8 considering that there are so many popular apps on iOS/Android that are not available on WP (Instagram being the best example I can think of). Such an argument would be almost impossible to prove in court.
    How did you make the logical jump between "users need YouTube" and "users need any app not available on Windows Phone"? Yes, there is an inferior website experience with restricted content for YouTube. Microsoft didn't prevent the existence of alternative web browsers either. By your line of reasoning, I think you would consider it near impossible for Microsoft to have been proven guilty in court too.

    The YT app was crippled on iOS for years as well, it had at most the same functionality as the browser experience and that didn't seem to be a problem.
    How is this an argument in Google's favour?
    a5cent, Cleavitt76 and squire777 like this.
    05-22-2013 03:13 AM
  11. nessinhaw's Avatar
    ohhhhh today is the deadline for removing the app...and it's still there! gogogo MS :D
    05-22-2013 02:40 PM
  12. oryan_dunn's Avatar
    05-22-2013 05:52 PM
  13. omniusovermind's Avatar
    05-22-2013 08:03 PM
  14. a5cent's Avatar
    Well, so much for that showdown
    Did I miss something? AFAIK the YT app still doesn't play advertisements and Microsoft still claims not to have access to specific APIs, which is what this whole thing has been about all along.
    05-23-2013 07:25 AM
  15. omniusovermind's Avatar
    Did I miss something? AFAIK the YT app still doesn't play advertisements and Microsoft still claims not to have access to specific APIs, which is what this whole thing has been about all along.
    MS hasn't backed down all the way but they are in retreat.

    AFAIK the YT app still doesn't play advertisements and Microsoft still claims not to have access to specific APIs, which is what this whole thing has been about all along
    That's incorrect, the letter also contained a cease and desist over the ability to download videos in the app.

    The update was to remove the downloader, and MS has released a statement saying they're working with Google to fix the rest of the dispute. Google went on the offensive and MS are making concessions. Evewn if you wanted to spin it to look like something else, they're still backing down. Hence my comment: Not much of a showdown when at the arrival of the deadline with their chance to show some gonads and publicly defy Google's C&D order, MS wimped out with an appeasement maneuver. Google never even had to say anything or release any statement yesterday. MS came calling to them. Ballmer is pulling a Kruschev, and several media outlets are already saying things like "MS is in damage control".
    05-23-2013 09:20 AM
  16. oryan_dunn's Avatar
    MS hasn't backed down all the way but they are in retreat.


    That's incorrect, the letter also contained a cease and desist over the ability to download videos in the app.

    The update was to remove the downloader, and MS has released a statement saying they're working with Google to fix the rest of the dispute. Google went on the offensive and MS are making concessions. Evewn if you wanted to spin it to look like something else, they're still backing down. Hence my comment: Not much of a showdown when at the arrival of the deadline with their chance to show some gonads and publicly defy Google's C&D order, MS wimped out with an appeasement maneuver. Google never even had to say anything or release any statement yesterday. MS came calling to them. Ballmer is pulling a Kruschev, and several media outlets are already saying things like "MS is in damage control".
    It doesn't seem that way at all to me. It seems MS's ultimate goal was to get a full featured app, equivalent to the YT apps on iOS and Android. If they play adds, don't allow downloads, and obey device lockout, then they'd still have a YT app that's basically the same experience on all platforms. MS just poked Google quite publicly, and MS will get what they wanted all along.
    05-23-2013 09:42 AM
  17. omniusovermind's Avatar
    It doesn't seem that way at all to me. It seems MS's ultimate goal was to get a full featured app, equivalent to the YT apps on iOS and Android. If they play adds, don't allow downloads, and obey device lockout, then they'd still have a YT app that's basically the same experience on all platforms. MS just poked Google quite publicly, and MS will get what they wanted all along.
    The end result will likely turn out that way, that I agree with. I'm just not sure being seen publicly to be obedient to Google is the best means to that end. I think the real root of all this was money. Google wasn't willing to divert resources to develop it for MS and MS probably wasn't willing to foot the bill for them and tried to get away with doing it themselves without the proper APIs for less
    05-23-2013 09:47 AM
  18. stmav's Avatar
    Until or if we get the full story, everything is speculation.
    05-23-2013 10:02 AM
  19. omniusovermind's Avatar
    That's too general, we do have facts

    1. Google issued c&d order with may 22 deadline
    2. MS complied with 1 of the 2 terms in the order
    3. Announces this on the 22nd along with a press statement that they're working with Google to resolve the rest
    05-23-2013 05:53 PM
  20. a5cent's Avatar
    The update was to remove the downloader, and MS has released a statement saying they're working with Google to fix the rest of the dispute. Google went on the offensive and MS are making concessions. Even if you wanted to spin it to look like something else, they're still backing down. Hence my comment: Not much of a showdown when at the arrival of the deadline with their chance to show some gonads and publicly defy Google's C&D order, MS wimped out with an appeasement maneuver. Google never even had to say anything or release any statement yesterday. MS came calling to them. Ballmer is pulling a Kruschev, and several media outlets are already saying things like "MS is in damage control".
    I think you are overdramatizing the situation.

    From Microsoft's point of view, the only thing they can feasibly go to court over (although I'm just guessing it is feasible) is API access. All the comments made in this thread revolve around that issue. I don't know what is going on behind the curtains, but it does now seem that Microsoft will gain access to those APIs and in turn implement the features/restrictions Google has requested. That is fair. That is what should have been possible a year ago.

    If Microsoft would have removed the YT app, not gained access to those APIs and not gone to court, then that would have deserved the designation "wimping out" or "appeasement maneuver". That is not what is happening.
    05-23-2013 07:06 PM
  21. omniusovermind's Avatar
    I think you are overdramatizing the situation.

    From Microsoft's point of view, the only thing they can feasibly go to court over (although I'm just guessing it is feasible) is API access. All the comments made in this thread revolve around that issue. I don't know what is going on behind the curtains, but it does now seem that Microsoft will gain access to those APIs and in turn implement the features/restrictions Google has requested. That is fair. That is what should have been possible a year ago.

    If Microsoft would have removed the YT app, not gained access to those APIs and not gone to court, then that would have deserved the designation "wimping out" or "appeasement maneuver". That is not what is happening.
    There's nothing dramatic involved, its just business manoeuvering. MS decided to challenge the issue by developing a YouTube app without the appropriate permissions and are now starting the process of complying with Google's demands on deadline day. At the end of it all this prodding of Google for attention will likely get them the app they wanted, but they're still in a situation where they got into a confrontation with Google and are so far ending up being the ones taking the first steps backing down.
    05-23-2013 07:58 PM
  22. a5cent's Avatar
    There's nothing dramatic involved, its just business manoeuvering.
    Exactly my point.

    At the end of it all this prodding of Google for attention will likely get them the app they wanted, but they're still in a situation where they got into a confrontation with Google and are so far ending up being the ones taking the first steps backing down.
    If they get what they wanted, then that is not called backing down. If your point is only about public perception, idk, that may be. I would wager perception is split along the lines of those who care for WP and those who would rather see it disappear, making it more a matter of partisanship than anything else.
    05-23-2013 08:13 PM
  23. omniusovermind's Avatar
    Exactly my point.


    If they get what they wanted, then that is not called backing down. If your point is only about public perception, idk, that may be. I would wager perception is split along the lines of those who care for WP and those who would rather see it disappear.
    I agree, but you're right about my point being public perception because it's looking like the media outlets are taking the perception route by using words like "MS in damage control mode". Whether right or wrong, that's what the public is getting to read out of this.
    I know this is pure fantasy, but if this were the 90's, MS wouldn't have done this, they would've simply made something better than YouTube and baked it right into Windows.
    05-23-2013 08:17 PM
  24. a5cent's Avatar
    I agree, but you're right about my point being public perception because it's looking like the media outlets are taking the perception route by using words like "MS in damage control mode". Whether right or wrong, that's what the public is getting to read out of this.
    Anyone familiar with the U.S. media market realizes (or should) that they thrive primarily on conflict and drama. I wouldn't expect anything less from them ;-)
    05-23-2013 09:03 PM
  25. omniusovermind's Avatar
    Anyone familiar with the U.S. media market realizes (or should) that they thrive primarily on conflict and drama. I wouldn't expect anything less from them ;-)
    I'm waiting for Maury Povich's announcement on this one - "Microsoft, you are NOT the father!"
    Daniel Ratcliffe likes this.
    05-24-2013 12:42 AM
108 ... 2345

Similar Threads

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