Google demands removal of Youtube app!?

[waazzupppp]

Re: Google sends C&D notice to Microsoft over youtube app

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.

 

[a5cent]

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.

 

[trivor]

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".

 

[ammarmalik2011]

After seeing the scroogle ads I honestly don't expect Google to do anything for Microsoft.

 

[a5cent]

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 na?ve. Money drives the business world. Not petty insults or nagging.

Sigh...

 

[Reflexx]

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.

 

[boxa72]

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???

 

[Aquila]

Ok, so can you access YouTube mobile through whatever browser you use on a WP device or is that blocked?

 

[a5cent]

^ Not blocked, but as stated in post #62, that isn't relevant.

 

[constantinosmi]

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.

 

[ag1986]

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 na?ve. 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.

 

[ag1986]

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.

 

[freestaterocker]

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.

 

[squire777]

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.

 

[xandros9]

Just out of curiosity, does the iOS version serve ads?

the new upgraded iOS app does I believe

 

[AngryNil]

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.

 

[omniusovermind]

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?

 

[a5cent]

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?

 

[omniusovermind]

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

 

[ag1986]

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.