Google demands removal of Youtube app!?

[ag1986]

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]

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.

 

[omniusovermind]

It all depends on who's lawyers you ask too lol

 

[a5cent]

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.

 

[AngryNil]

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?

 

[nessinhaw]

ohhhhh today is the deadline for removing the app...and it's still there! gogogo MS

 

[oryan_dunn]

Microsoft updates YouTube app for Windows Phone, addresses some of Google's concerns (updated)

 

[omniusovermind]

Microsoft updates YouTube app for Windows Phone, addresses some of Google's concerns (updated)

Well, so much for that showdown

 

[a5cent]

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.

 

[omniusovermind]

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".

 

[oryan_dunn]

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.

 

[omniusovermind]

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

 

[stmav]

Until or if we get the full story, everything is speculation.

 

[omniusovermind]

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

 

[a5cent]

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.

 

[omniusovermind]

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.

 

[a5cent]

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.

 

[omniusovermind]

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.

 

[a5cent]

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 ;-)

 

[omniusovermind]

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!" :winktongue: