Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Says Google Trying To Undermine Windows Phone

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the who's-to-blame dept.

Google 476

First time accepted submitter Bent Spoke writes "In a bit of delicious irony, Microsoft laments Google is not playing fair by excluding access to meta-data on YouTube, preventing the development of the kind of powerful app readily available on Android. From the article: 'In a blog post on Wednesday, Microsoft VP and deputy general counsel Dave Heiner said the software giant has spent two years trying to get a first-class YouTube app running on Windows Phone, but to no avail, thanks to the Chocolate Factory's stonewalling. "YouTube apps on the Android and Apple platforms were two of the most downloaded mobile applications in 2012, according to recent news reports," Heiner wrote. "Yet Google still refuses to allow Windows Phone users to have the same access to YouTube that Android and Apple customers enjoy."'"

cancel ×

476 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What goes around comes around (5, Insightful)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | about 2 years ago | (#42459953)

Microsoft, you have just experienced the concept known as "khama".

Re:What goes around comes around (5, Interesting)

YukariHirai (2674609) | about 2 years ago | (#42460001)

Indeed. Given what Microsoft has done to undermine other operating systems and their vendors, it is amusing to see the same thing done to them and them crying foul.

Re:What goes around comes around (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460007)

Khama, Sir Seretse |käm|
(1921–80), Botswanan statesman; prime minister of Bechuanaland 1965 and first president of Botswana 1966–80.

Quite the strange concept to experience NO DOUBT!

Re:What goes around comes around (0)

gigaherz (2653757) | about 2 years ago | (#42460067)

GAH! I can't +insightful and +funny at the same time, and I couldn't decide which to use, so I decided to reply instead... ;_;

Re:What goes around comes around (5, Funny)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 2 years ago | (#42460211)

He was a bitch.

Re:What goes around comes around (3, Informative)

MurukeshM (1901690) | about 2 years ago | (#42460073)

I believe you mean 'karma'.

Re:What goes around comes around (5, Funny)

guitarMan666 (1388859) | about 2 years ago | (#42460335)

Maybe he's from Boston?

Now *this* is funny. (1)

Ardx (954221) | about 2 years ago | (#42460405)

nt

Re:What goes around comes around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460281)

Indeed they did. This is for all the crappy stuff you did to Novell, Corel, Adobe...

Re:What goes around comes around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460327)

Bullshit! Microsoft has experience karma already by paying large fees in courts.

User Agent? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459955)

Doing lots of assumptions here, but I was under the impression that simply changing the user agent string to match a known good/working one solves most hassles with web services. Is there any other reason MS can't make their app work?

Re:User Agent? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459969)

Incompetence?

Re:User Agent? (4, Insightful)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 2 years ago | (#42459971)

Lawyers?

Re:User Agent? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460133)

Airborne chairs?

Re:User Agent? (4, Insightful)

ultrasawblade (2105922) | about 2 years ago | (#42460369)

Desire to have "Microsoft" or "Windows" in user agent string at any cost?

3 users (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459963)

I'm sure the 3 WP users are extremely upset over this.

Re:3 users (1)

clark0r (925569) | about 2 years ago | (#42460023)

oh snap!

L'Arroseur Arrosé (3, Funny)

hugetoon (766694) | about 2 years ago | (#42459973)

That's how it is called in French :D

Re:L'Arroseur Arrosé (2)

alexhs (877055) | about 2 years ago | (#42460227)

You should have linked to the YouTube video [youtu.be] which, sadly, Microsoft doesn't seem able to access.

Maybe google already knows the punchline (5, Funny)

joeflies (529536) | about 2 years ago | (#42459991)

Namely they already know what happens when you let Microsoft embrace your APis. They already know what happens next, and would like to avoid that future

Re:Maybe google already knows the punchline (1)

Eirenarch (1099517) | about 2 years ago | (#42460381)

Yeah Google does not allow Microsoft client access to their APIs because they are afraid MS can extend them... from the client.

Fair for the goose... (5, Interesting)

jbernardo (1014507) | about 2 years ago | (#42459993)

Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft shouldn't be complaining so much when they block or use non-standard protocols on their devices, in particular WP ones:

- Skydrive, the more or less standard way to get stuff in and out of Windows Phones, doesn't implement WebDAV in a open manner, making it difficult to use with Linux or BSD;

- The hardware search button in Windows Phone is tied to bing, and users can't change it;

- Windows Phone doesn't support standard protocols (standard MTP, USB file access) to access its filesystem, so it doesn't play well with Linux or BSD;

- Windows RT and Windows Phone specify a locked bootloader, so that users can't install anything else on their devices;

I could go on and on here, but these 4 examples should be enough... They really should fix their act before complaining that others aren't playing fair.

Re:Fair for the goose... (-1, Troll)

21mhz (443080) | about 2 years ago | (#42460085)

Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft shouldn't be complaining so much when they block or use non-standard protocols on their devices, in particular WP ones:

- Skydrive, the more or less standard way to get stuff in and out of Windows Phones, doesn't implement WebDAV in a open manner, making it difficult to use with Linux or BSD;

I'll give you that. Meanwhile, enjoy your Google Drive over WebDAV... oh, you don't have that either.

- The hardware search button in Windows Phone is tied to bing, and users can't change it;

The button is not a "protocol". Anyone is free to implement third-party search apps, admittedly without the extra convenience of the dedicated button. Moreover, Google can be used as the search provider in the browser.

- Windows Phone doesn't support standard protocols (standard MTP, USB file access) to access its filesystem, so it doesn't play well with Linux or BSD;

Windows Phone 8 does support standard MTP?
USB mass storage is an anachronysm.

Re:Fair for the goose... (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#42460127)

I'm sorry, but accessible mass storage is an anachronism? So, users are *supposed* to be forced to access their devices through proprietary clients only, forcing them to be tied to single marketplaces, 'approved' OSes, etc? Somebody's been drinking the Apple Kool-aid.

Re:Fair for the goose... (1)

21mhz (443080) | about 2 years ago | (#42460181)

I'm sorry, but accessible mass storage is an anachronism?

A file-based access protocol, such as MTP, is not.
The USB mass storage profile, block device level access which basically forces the media to be formatted as FAT to be interoperable, is.

Re:Fair for the goose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460217)

I'm sorry, but accessible mass storage is an anachronism?

A file-based access protocol, such as MTP, is not.
The USB mass storage profile, block device level access which basically forces the media to be formatted as FAT to be interoperable, is.

Isn't the reason you are forced to FAT that the other FS aren't readily available on windows? And that ntfs on other systems can't ever be to microsoft's specs?

FAT??? (3, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | about 2 years ago | (#42460255)

block device level access which basically forces the media to be formatted as FAT to be interoperable

Huh, what? All my USB devices are formatted as ext3 or ext4. I don't need no FAT on my devices, FAT is obsolete, not USB mass storage.

Re:FAT??? (2)

21mhz (443080) | about 2 years ago | (#42460293)

Try to plug your devices into a Mac, for example, to understand what I'm talking about.

Extfs may not be optimal for all flash drives, either. With MTP, the device implementation is free to choose the underlying filesystem, as it should have been from the get go.

Re:FAT??? (2)

MtHuurne (602934) | about 2 years ago | (#42460357)

Even if every host you'd ever plug your device into would support ext3/4, there is still the inconvenience that the partition is exposed at the block device level, not at the file level. This means it has to be unmounted on the device before it can be mounted by the host. This is difficult to implement, since all open files on the partition must be closed before the unmount operation can succeed. Also it is inconvenient for the user: it would mean you'd have to stop a device from playing music when you want to add additional songs, for example.

So.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460341)

what 21mhz is saying is that users should be happy to have a Microsoft proprietary file system that works only with some MS OS's as opposed to a file system that works with eVeRyThInG except the few contentious microsoft products in question..

Good luck to them with that..I think we can all see where that will go, and is indeed going, at flank speed. Bye Microsft, and Nokia for that matter..

Re:Fair for the goose... (2)

higuita (129722) | about 2 years ago | (#42460433)

you can use UDF [wikipedia.org] , all modern OS support it, both read and write.

the only problem is windows XP, but that is easy, windows XP users require a driver... that can be on the device, as it can read UDF, just cant write to it.

There, problem solved, no need for FAT.

Of course, MS could also support OTHER filesystems, as they are the blocking factor. Things like ufs and ext2 are well tested and somewhat simple to support

Re:Fair for the goose... (4, Informative)

jbernardo (1014507) | about 2 years ago | (#42460225)

- Skydrive, the more or less standard way to get stuff in and out of Windows Phones, doesn't implement WebDAV in a open manner, making it difficult to use with Linux or BSD;

I'll give you that. Meanwhile, enjoy your Google Drive over WebDAV... oh, you don't have that either.

No, but I can easily access the files I have on my Android phone, using either USB mass storage or standard MTP. No need to use a cloud service. And, an added advantage over WP7.x (never used 8) is that other cloud services work, with automatic synchronization of folders. On WP7.x you need to copy files by hand, at least with Dropbox and Box.

Windows Phone 8 does support standard MTP? USB mass storage is an anachronysm.

I haven't tried yet WP8, but 7.x doesn't support standard MTP, only a hacked non-compatible Microsoft variant.

BTW, USB mass storage isn't an anachronism, it is just the easiest way to transfer things; in Linux it just works, in windows it just works. MTP has too many quirks and one of my peeves with the recent android releases is that it is used by default, forcing one to resort to workarounds to get the device working in mass storage mode.

Re:Fair for the goose... (-1)

Vectronic (1221470) | about 2 years ago | (#42460221)

Yes, they *should*... but regarding this specific instance/thing... why should MS have to change 10s/100s of things not related to Google to use one of Google's things. A thing that is really easy for Google to do, and will make them profit?

Apple is a darling little angel right? Of course it deserves access to the API, because they don't restrict anything, at all, ever.

I highly doubt Google is sitting there all "Muahaha, no API for you, that'll show you to change your ways!"

WebDAV, difficult, but not impossible?
Bing Search... so?... don't get me wrong, I love options... but, that's why I wouldn't get a WinPhone.
Access... aww, I hope you didn't short your phone out from crying.,, there's options.
Bootloader... again... aww... it's a stupid thing to do on their part, but...ok... options.

Maybe get an Android phone next time?

Re:Fair for the goose... (3, Interesting)

jbernardo (1014507) | about 2 years ago | (#42460291)

Yes, they *should*... but regarding this specific instance/thing... why should MS have to change 10s/100s of things not related to Google to use one of Google's things. A thing that is really easy for Google to do, and will make them profit?

Why shouldn't they? Why are they asking for a standard access to a third party API when they don't follow standards, and even distort them for their own profit? Besides, what profit would Google have in changing their APIs to cater to an almost non-existing smartphone OS? Why not first focus on Bada or Symbian or RIM, which still have bigger market share than Windows Phone?

PS: I got an Android phone in the meantime. The WP phone was a gift, and it works well as my second phone - receiving calls and SMSs, basically working as a dumb phone.

Re:Fair for the goose... (0)

Eirenarch (1099517) | about 2 years ago | (#42460415)

Standards have nothing to do here. There are APIs that Google hides from the competition and uses to strengthen its own OS. If you are looking for analogy it is not MS's use of non-standard whatever. The right analogy is Internet Explorer using undocumented Windows APIs to gain advantage over Netscape or Microsoft not releasing documentation for server (Exchange if I recall correctly) software and thus preventing other companies for developing competing clients. Standards or non-standards it doesn't matter. All that matters here is that WP devices are not given access to the APIs while Android and iOS devices are.

Also all this only matters when the product in question is in a monopoly market position. WP can have all the special MS only stuff it wants as it is obvious that locking something out of WP would not influence the market. However YouTube is in a monopoly position and denying access to its APIs can certainly provide unfair advantage to Android.

Re:Fair for the goose... (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#42460337)

Microsoft shill much eh?

They proved that they are willing to lock things down from competitors, and they are complaining that competitors lock things down from them. Don't you see a bit of double talk there? They've been acting repeatedly a lot worse than whatever Google is doing regarding their Youtube API, so they should just shut the fuck up.

Before criticizing your neighbor's lawn, mow your own.

Re:Fair for the goose... (1)

Eirenarch (1099517) | about 2 years ago | (#42460423)

No. They should sue Google and make them pay up and comply like they were sued and forced to pay and comply.

Re:Fair for the goose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460297)

They really should fix their act before complaining that others aren't playing fair.

I think that's their point. "We deserve special privileges. We're Microsoft.." ..
"..oh wait we've been defunct, irrelevant, and obsolete for over 1,000 years.." (at some distant point in the year 3013)

Nothing to celebrate if it's true (5, Insightful)

00_NOP (559413) | about 2 years ago | (#42459995)

If Microsoft's allegations are true and there is no reasonably technical justification for it then there is nothing to celebrate here.

Of course, my first reaction was "payback's a bitch" like many others, but in the end a monopoly based on Linux is still a monopoly.

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460051)

but in the end a monopoly based on Linux is still a monopoly.

There's no monopoly, and if MS really wants to bitch about it maybe they should launch their own video service just like they did with Bing. Or work out a deal and have google develop the app for them, just like they did with Apple. Note that the google-made iphone app only was launched a few months ago. If MS had a better phone with a better market share they'd probably be a more appealing target for a native app, but it's not like Google is going to dump time and money into supporting every last bastard child of a device.

And you can still watch youtube using a web browser, assuming that MS actually has a standards-compliant browser on their phone. I've never found anything in the youtube app to be superior to just using the mobile site, in fact personally i never bother with the app and would remove it from my phone if it would let me.

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (4, Informative)

gigaherz (2653757) | about 2 years ago | (#42460099)

I'm an owner of a Nokia Lumia 710 (Windows Phone 7.x) and you can browse and play back youtube videos just fine in the browser, without the need of any app. And in fact there are apps that let you browse youtube, but they may not have full permission from google to do it. What they are complaining about is access to the metadata content for the videos, not the playback itself.

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460157)

There's a JSON API for all of YouTube. The issue is not that APIs aren't available, but that Google appear to be selectively blocking some users from accessing it (or all of it). Which sucks for all of us. APIs should be non-discriminatory (other than usage caps of course).

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460305)

Actually Google have a pretty leading position in video hosting and one could argue that they are using that position to keep out competition form the phone market.
If anti-competitive laws work as intended Microsoft should be able to force Google to release the API. (And the same goes the other direction for markets where Microsoft is leading.)

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460441)

Release the API? Probably not. Demand they don't deny negotiating API access deals? Probably yes.

Every API request costs something to Google - in bandwidth and processing power. Demanding they do it for free for everyone and at a loss for them is not how antitrust laws intended to work.

Now that's the part missing from the article - did MS try negotiating it? Did Google refuse to talk, did they demand first born's blood? Simply "But they must, or it's anticompetitive!" doesn't cut it, or by the same logic MS _must_ write MS Office for Linux and Apple must write iTunes for Android, or it's just them using leading position in office software/digital music sales to impend competing OS/mobile OS.

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460307)

What is needed is actually a decentralized API for video sharing. Having one place like Youtube is crazy (which is apparent from this article). I should be able to publish or download videos a la bittorrent in some way. How are those stream-over-bittorrent projects coming on?

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460089)

Indeed, same happened with Apple licensing maps. Notice how youtube on iOS is a Google app, not by Apple any more, because Apple probably doesn't have access to the metadata either. Google has reached the point where it has enough power and now that others want to play with its toys he says "meh, I'm going home, you can't have them". Consumers will decide if that is good or not. Us techies can only watch and cry for the abstract concept of justice.

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460137)

Well, yeah, Google is being somewhat evil here and they should cut it out. If they only do it to MS, though, well... payback's a bitch.

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460155)

If Microsoft's allegations are true and there is no reasonably technical justification for it then there is nothing to celebrate here.

Of course, my first reaction was "payback's a bitch" like many others, but in the end a monopoly based on Linux is still a monopoly.

+1
I've always assumed that they were doing the same thing to Apple - hence the removal of Apple's YouTube app and the replacement of the Google-backed one with one with data from Tomtom etc.

I find it kind of sad that as Microsoft continues a long, slow slide to irrelevance Google has stepped up to take its place as tech leader of dubious busniess practice. I'm kind of surprised they don't get more negative press for it. In the same way that MS does anything it can to protect its two cash cows (Windows, Office) so Google does anything to protect its Adverts. Defending your revenue stream is fine, but it bothers me when you start acting like a bully. Buying competitors to shut them down, preventing other competitors from using your services, and generally trying to restrict competition isn't something to celebrate really.

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 2 years ago | (#42460257)

It may be that Google crunched the numbers and figured it really wasn't worth it to create a YouTube app.

Perhaps they figure that:
1 - There's always the mobile version of the website.
2 - WP8 people are already "lost" to them. (Once you go over to the dark side, there's no coming back...)
3 - If they're obligated to create a Windows Phone 8 version, they may feel that they're obligated to create versions for any old phone OS that comes along (ie: Blackberry).
4 - Payback really is a bitch
5 - It's a bit of leverage. Don't give something away that you can use to negotiate later on.
6 - App development costs money. If they feel no one's going to buy WP8, why bother?
7 - No one complained that there wasn't a WP7 version of the app. Why would WP8 be any different?

Linux could never be a monopoly (1)

mangu (126918) | about 2 years ago | (#42460299)

a monopoly based on Linux is still a monopoly.

It's not a monopoly because the source code is public and available for anyone to use.

If Microsoft wants the full power of Android, they are free to create their own Android phone, provided they comply to the licensing agreement.

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460309)

First of all, just because Linux runs underneath their app does not mean there is a monopoly based on Linux. The only real issue is Google not providing the data to 3rd party developers to write apps against their web products. One might say that is similar experience by 3rd party, lets say office suites, not having the proper technical specs to .doc or .docx to correctly import or create Microsoft Word documents. What Microsoft is really complaining about is that Google is not writing a YouTube app (they are the developer for YouTube on Android and iOS) for Windows Phone and they do not have enough technical specs to write a replacement. I feel their pain. To continue the Microsoft Office example; If only they would write Microsoft Office for Linux or allow unfettered access to THEIR document, spreadsheet and presentation specs.

Not saying it is right, but Microsoft has been pulling this crap for decades and I will not shed a tear for Windows Phone users inability to run YouTube in a native application.

Re:Nothing to celebrate if it's true (1)

jopsen (885607) | about 2 years ago | (#42460311)

If Microsoft's allegations are true and there is no reasonably technical justification for it then there is nothing to celebrate here.

Of course, my first reaction was "payback's a bitch" like many others, but in the end a monopoly based on Linux is still a monopoly.

Agree, but Google didn't open their APIs to Apple... They created a youtube app for iOS.
I somehow doubt that youtube is profitable, and certainly not if an open API (without ads) is available, which is probably what this is all about.

Eh ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460003)

Microsoft who ?

Re:Eh ? (1)

johnsnails (1715452) | about 2 years ago | (#42460055)

Get off my lawn you whippersnapper!!!

Microsoft squid tactic? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460005)

According to TFA:

In the nearer term, however, Microsoft's complaints seem designed to urge regulators to increase their scrutiny into Google's business practices, at a time when US and EU watchdog agencies seem close to striking compromise agreements with the company.

Re:Microsoft squid tactic? (2)

javilon (99157) | about 2 years ago | (#42460267)

This may have unintended consequences for MS. They are giving a high profile to the fact that their youtube app isn't up to snuff, compared to IOS or Android. Not very smart unless they are really sure they can get some action going in the antitrust front.

If I were looking for a phone and I would come across this information, this would be another negative. If you add this to all of the other shortcomings of Windows phone, I would avoid it.

Re:Microsoft squid tactic? (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#42460347)

Nobody's buying them, so in effect, they have nothing to lose. That's the upside of having no user-base.

What I found funniest about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460343)

According to TFA, it's done not to "suppress WinPhone because Google has Android", it's "They've made iPhone app because Apple doesn't have a search engine, and MS has Bing therefore they fight Bing by making WinPhone incompetetive"

Irony? (3, Informative)

clark0r (925569) | about 2 years ago | (#42460009)

If Google are in fact doing this, then I can fully understand why Microsoft would be justified to complain. However given Microsoft's past tactics in trying to undermine the competition, perhaps they should eat humble pie. Anti-competitive browser tactics through bundling, non-compliant standards (IE6), deliberately making it hard for SAMBA to integrate with AD, these are just two things that have personally turned me against Microsoft in the past. More recently, launching Twitter campaigns to try and spread Android FUD and on the other complaining that Google aren't playing fair? Take a look in the mirror Microsoft.

Re:Irony? (5, Insightful)

gigaherz (2653757) | about 2 years ago | (#42460109)

The problem, I think, is that Microsoft is just too large. Some parts of Microsoft are opening up, releasing loads of details about protocols and such, helping opensource projects and even supporting Linux development, while others work in walled gardens, patent wars, and everything else related to competing in the phone & tablet markets.

Re:Irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460149)

That's pretty accurate. There's a wave of change emanating principally from Skype that's making it's way through MS at the moment. Lot's more Open.

Re:Irony? (0)

21mhz (443080) | about 2 years ago | (#42460243)

What on Earth are you talking about? Skype is absolutely proprietary, and it shows in their third-party embedding kit for Linux.
Microsoft did open, or at least fully documented, things before the Skype purchase, and hardly any of those has anything to do with Skype.
If anything, Skype is set to replace some more open things, such as XMPP integration of Messenger service.

Re:Irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460161)

Which parts of MS would that be?
They only released AD docs and "helped" the samba4 team after being forced to do so by a EU judge.

Re:Irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460279)

There's been active cooperation between the .NET team at Microsoft and the Mono team.

Re:Irony? (1)

terjeber (856226) | about 2 years ago | (#42460353)

The entire .NET team for example. More and more of the web related stuff is going open, and they are actively working with the FOSS community. ASP .NET MVC is one of the best web frameworks out there (so good in fact that what Play! Framework took a lot of ideas from it, Play is one of the very best frameworks for Java - with some bad things like static controllers [which .NET MVC doesn't have, thankfully]), highly inspired by some of the good Ruby stuff, is going all open source and at the same time incorporating the best of open source frameworks out there. It's not like the Microsoft of old would have made jQuery and jQueryUI first class citizens like it has in .NET MVC.

Re:Irony? (5, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | about 2 years ago | (#42460143)

"If Google are in fact doing this, then I can fully understand why Microsoft would be justified to complain."

Why, exactly? You can use Youtube on Woindows phones just fine. They simply don't have an open API for anybody else to write players that interface to it.

Does Twitter have a legal obligation to provide an API for third-party clients? Does Facebook have such an obligation? Does my bank? Does Microsoft have an obligation for its online Word service? Or provide API-level access to Echange servers? Does everybody with a web-facing interface have a legel obligation to provide API-level access for others to use?

And it's not as if Youtube is a monopoly either. My banks online service is as much a monopoly in that case, or Twitter.

Re:Irony? (1)

clark0r (925569) | about 2 years ago | (#42460199)

Well, they're entitled to 'complain' just as all third party Twitter clients 'complain' about limitations in the Twitter API. That 'complaint' wont go anywhere, however.

Re:Irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460397)

Actually, since banks are heavy regulated, they may be required to implement an open API by the government. I believe the export function of your transaction history is one of those APIs, so that you can import those in accounting software.

Chocolate Factory?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460011)

Since when did Google make Chocolates?

Re:Chocolate Factory?? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460167)

It's a term used by The Register as a token of their ongoing hatred of Google. In the context of Willy Wonka, it's a sort of backhanded compliment. It implies their resentment of any suspiciously clever software being brewed in Mountain View. Your average El Reg staffer, if he has any tech chops at all, is about the level of a low to midrange MCSE. Take their OpEds with a handful of salt.

The joys of proprietary software (0)

andrew3 (2250992) | about 2 years ago | (#42460017)

Microsoft won't allow free YouTube player replacements in their app store so they are basically losing at their own game. I would say that it serves Microsoft right, but unfortunately it's the end users that suffer.

Re:The joys of proprietary software (5, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#42460025)

I would say that it serves Microsoft right, but unfortunately it's the end users that suffer.

Yeah, all both of them.

Re:The joys of proprietary software (1)

clark0r (925569) | about 2 years ago | (#42460029)

Then less people will choose to buy a Windows powered phone. Just as Apple have tried to keep third party apps from their devices, Microsoft will soon learn that it slows sales and alienates users.

Re:The joys of proprietary software (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#42460317)

Fewer.

Re:The joys of proprietary software (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460401)

Lesser.

Re:The joys of proprietary software (1)

21mhz (443080) | about 2 years ago | (#42460097)

Microsoft won't allow free YouTube player replacements in their app store

Source?

Re:The joys of proprietary software (3, Informative)

21mhz (443080) | about 2 years ago | (#42460121)

Don't bother, there is at least one [windowsphone.com] application that proves the GP is full of shit.

Re:The joys of proprietary software (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460131)

wtf are you rambling ? MetroTube, the best youtube playerr for windows phone is totally free, available in microsoft appstore and not developed by microsoft ..

Re:The joys of proprietary software (2)

cbhacking (979169) | about 2 years ago | (#42460173)

Are you on crack, or just talking out your ass? There are at least 15 reasonably general-purpose YouTube clients on the Windows Phone app store, and many more that are specialized to things like specific channels, or downloading just the audio track, etc. Where the hell did you get the idea that MS doesn't allow third-party YouTube apps?

Re:The joys of proprietary software (1)

terjeber (856226) | about 2 years ago | (#42460359)

Microsoft won't allow free YouTube player replacements in their app store

BZZZT! WRONG!

The bully being bullied (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460021)

It seems the cards have changed for Microsoft. Now the former bully is being bullied and he does not seem to like it.

I also don't like the fact them someone is being bullied, even a former bully itself. It is my hope the both companies stop their mutual exclusion principles and give the consumer the freedom they crave.

Microsoft should be happy they get ANY YT data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460031)

Most every TV site on the Internet heavily restricts what devices can and can't play which videos, in which formats, at which times. At least they try to.

Why should YouTube be any different? Why shouldn't any video a Windows Phone tries to play simply result in an error, "This content is not available for your device"?

Microsoft is crying about not getting all the meta-data they'd like to get, while they should be thanking Google for letting them play their content at all.

Are you all...... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460033)

working for Google or holding a decade old grudge?
Cause no matter what the reason....yes, Microsoft did a lot wrong, but mostly against companies and not directly their users.
Google is hurting users and other companies, cause that wireless data that they did not intentionally took.... just an example!

I find that a lot of people (even if they say different) live in a rally deep hole which they cannot see themself (taking from reactions).

Microsoft is shit, yes, but Google will be way worse at this rate and you will cry about that also when it is too late and then you will forget you ever loved them (just like that ex-girl/boy you had).

So please...... just take the news and shut up!

Re:Are you all...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460387)

Sure...... give it -1.... I know.... truth hurts so it is better to hide and ignore it and move on! :)

Lawyer? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460059)

Microsoft VP and deputy general counsel Dave Heiner

What the FUCK is a FUCKING lawyer doing working as a FUCKING VP for a software company?

Re:Lawyer? (2)

Tridus (79566) | about 2 years ago | (#42460113)

VP of Patent Extortion, perhaps?

Re:Lawyer? (4, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#42460139)

Have you not been paying attention to how the 'game' is now played? It's now more about suing people than actually making products that people *want* to use.

It's just a title. What's the issue? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460419)

General Councils are many time VPs because they are head of the Legal Department. You know, the department that handles contracts, regulations, lawsuits, etc ....

There's also a VP of Finance, Marketing, IT, etc ....

Other companies may call he VP of IT the CIO.

How did Shakepeare say it - something about a Rose by another name.

This guy could be the guy that negotiates with other companies for the use of IP - another legal issue.

I don't get why it's an issue.

Whining Microsoft (5, Funny)

vakuona (788200) | about 2 years ago | (#42460105)

Apple just let Google create a Youtube app after they failed to agree on API access. the iPhone is way more popular than Windows Phone devices, so it made financial sense for Google to do so. So maybe MIcrosoft should offer to pay Google to create an app for Windows Phone.

It's not rocket science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460141)

Surely with all their rescources Microsoft can figure it out?

how many developers does it take to make an application youtube compatible... oh wait, here's an idea, dont restrict yourself to your own blind development tools...

Re:It's not rocket science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460233)

how many microsoft developers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

3 teams: The first one designes the new fixture. The second one tries to invent the lightbulb again. The third team tries to negotiate between the first two.

Re:It's not rocket science (1)

21mhz (443080) | about 2 years ago | (#42460277)

It's not an engineering problem, stupid.
There is already Metrotube with its reverse-engineered implementation.
Microsoft needs an officially supported application, guaranteed not to break whenever Google decides to change things on the server side.

Huh. And the problem is...? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | about 2 years ago | (#42460179)

Of course they are. It's called competition. As far as they stick with laws, it's all fair game trying to use tactics to "undermine" them.

A long time coming (4, Insightful)

MrKaos (858439) | about 2 years ago | (#42460207)

Microsoft seems to be experiencing what it is like when someone plays their game on them. That whiney sound is the smallest violin....

Google should give it to them (2)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#42460229)

I feel a bit like most people here: That Microsoft deserves it. But it somehow also feels like the wrong way if this is indeed the case as Microsoft claiims.

If Microsoft believes this is why Windows Phone isn't getting user adoption, they are mistaken. Google needs to give them less to complain about. But I have to ask why would Google let Apple do it but not Microsoft? Surely there is something different about Microsoft's approach to it. Didn't I read yesterday something about a patent infringement case between Motorola and Microsoft where Microsoft believess it has the rights to a video codec while Motorola says "no, we're not a member of the license pool" and Microsoft says "Google owns you and Google is in the pool?" I wonder if this is related somehow.

I get that this meta data is the detail claimed to be at issue, but you know... it's not as easy to complain about actual things presently being decided by the courts. Also, in the article, there was talk about Google dropping support for a proprietary protocol in favor of open standards. Why Microsoft has to complain about that I don't know. Maybe perhaps because they believe they are still the ones setting the standards.

Shocking... (2)

onemorechip (816444) | about 2 years ago | (#42460231)

There are Windows Phone users?

But I thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460261)

Hitler had already ordered General Ballmer to kill Google...? [youtube.com]

I'm going with... (5, Funny)

rusty0101 (565565) | about 2 years ago | (#42460275)

...Google will write that app for the Windows Phone platform when they consider the platform to have enough adopters to make the effort worthwhile. Perhaps they should start with a Symbian based client. Follow that up with a WebOS based one as well.

Not only Youtube. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460283)

It's not only Youtube. New WP users also have crippled gmail and google calendar functionality.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?