×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

381 comments

Google will block it (5, Interesting)

laing (303349) | about a year ago | (#43691695)

Give them a day. I'll bet it stops working tomorrow.

Re:Google will block it (5, Funny)

dclozier (1002772) | about a year ago | (#43691741)

They just need to move to VP8 delivery only. Microsoft said it wouldn't support it - then we'll really know for sure!

Re:Google will block it (3, Funny)

DJ Particle (1442247) | about a year ago | (#43691753)

Wouldn't Google have to block Win 8 completely? ;) As much as I admit they are popular features, it seems like MS is shooting themselves in the foot yet again.

Re:Google will block it (5, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#43692025)

it seems like MS is shooting themselves in the foot yet again.

They did that long ago when they refused to participate in other software ecosystems, and concentrated on locking competitors out by locking customers in.

Now their locked-in market is failing, and the world is bypassing their restrictions. They don't have time to develop good, competitive software, all they can do is assault competitors with any tools they have at hand.

It's an ugly, desperate thing we're seeing here.

Re:Google will block it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692201)

because it worked so poorly for Apple too. they locked everyone in, a company that was about to fold, and then all hell broke loose. audio files that couldn't play on any other device are what killed the iPod's early years, and iTunes, and a phone that can only have apps that are bought through a closed store, of which the developers have to share money with Apple and can't have payments not through the store... it's just obvious that be being closed they strangled the industry. the app boom never happened, the smart phone market failed, and digital music services never took off.

Re:Google will block it (2, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#43692231)

"Apple's share of the global smartphone market fell from 23% last year to 17% share this year, the largest year-over-year decline in the iPhone's history." According to Sanford Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi, "if Apple does not introduce a new iPhone or lower-priced phone in CQ3 [Apple's fiscal Q4], it is quite possible that iPhone's smartphone market share could drop into the single digits."

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/tag/toni-sacconaghi/ [cnn.com]

ummmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692297)

i know lets sue more people....that might not have anything to do with there drop like a rock life....
and all the toys in universe wont have me support a company that uses idiot patents to screw with anyone....

they are like ms in the same league for business styles and slowly they are failing and as the world closes the tax evasion loopholes you will see these looney tune companies smarten up cause they cant hide the insane profits they once had.

Re:Google will block it (5, Insightful)

Dorianny (1847922) | about a year ago | (#43692447)

The drop in market share is largely due to the explosive growth in the entry level market. In the high end market apple is still king. The only thing all these financial analysts that are crying for apple to release a low-end device really care about is the next quarterly report. Apple has built a name as a premium brand and jeopardizing that image for a quick profit would only benefit the wall street players at the expense of apple's long term future.

Re:Google will block it (1, Insightful)

gooman (709147) | about a year ago | (#43691783)

But that would be evil.

Re:Google will block it (4, Insightful)

ADRA (37398) | about a year ago | (#43691937)

Well, without looking into the matter, it sounds like a TOS issue here. Its either against the terms of service or not.

Re:Google will block it (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692041)

Well, without looking into the matter, it sounds like a TOS issue here. Its either against the terms of service or not.

I've been watching YouTube videos forever as an unregistered visitor and never seen a TOS. And seriously, you can put anything you friggin want on your website about TOS for casual visitors or web browsers, nobody gives a crap. And if you try to file legal action based on your foolish TOS you'll be laughed out of court within 10.5 nonseconds.

Re:Google will block it (4, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#43692149)

I've been watching YouTube videos forever as an unregistered visitor and never seen a TOS.

So you're suggesting, based on your experiences, that the Microsoft Phone development team and their legal advisers can ignore any TOS that they choose not to read?

Fascinating...

Re:Google will block it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692223)

I've been watching YouTube videos forever as an unregistered visitor and never seen a TOS.

So you're suggesting, based on your experiences, that the Microsoft Phone development team and their legal advisers can ignore any TOS that they choose not to read?

Fascinating...

A contract does not apply unless you agree to it. There is a lot of debate in the legal community whether TOS are valid at all, and the answer seems to be "it depends". I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know whether in this particular case the TOS applies but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't.

Microsoft's developers are not agreeing to any TOS. Even if they did agree to it they are not on the board of directors and they are not in the legal department, so they're not authorised to agree on behalf of the corporation anyway.

With no TOS in place, that leaves the DMCA... but google doesn't use any DRM to force ads ads to appear or prevent downloads so I don't think there is any DMCA violation either.

If google adds some DRM though, even if it's weak DRM, microsoft would be in deep shit if they bypass it.

Re:Google will block it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692267)

I'm not a lawyer either but my understanding is if the employees were directed to make these decisions by someone in the company authorized to do so then they are in effect acting as agents of those people and the contract is valid and binding.

Re:Google will block it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692279)

Ok, but the TOS or DMCA or anything else has nothing to do with it.

Google provides an API with a set of rules on how to use it. Microsoft uses the API to build their app. If Google decides they don't like how the API is being used, they can block the app. There doesn't have to be any legal reason to block it, it's their API and they can do whatever they want with it.

Re:Google will block it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692417)

> And if you try to file legal action based on your foolish TOS you'll be laughed out of court within 10.5 nonseconds.

You must be new here. GNU's (and therefore GNU/Linux's) very foundation is based on TOS's. Legally, their TOS is a masterpiece.

No they won't (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692349)

Microsoft is unlikely to comply with the TOS, its not in their nature.

I think Google will then encode the ads into the video stream, and make the video clickable. Sure you'll have lost the ability to close the advert early, because the video will contain it, and you've lost the bit of the video below the ad square, but you did anyway. And Microsoft has given them an excuse to do it.

For downloads, they won't offer the high resolution streams to Windows Phone devices, only the low res phone resolutions, and Microsoft will have enabled that too, by putting the download button in!

See this is a pissing match Microsoft cannot win, because they needed Google's Youtube far far far more than than Google needs Windows Phone users. The only reason they won't block them outright at this point is because MS would squeal anti-trust (which is perhaps their aim with these games, get an excuse to squeal anti-trust monopoly abuse since 75% of smartphones are Android these days).

Re:Google will block it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692387)

google hasn't done anything to stop the 3rd party software or browser addons from direct downloads of video.. hell, the download url's are in the fucking code. big deal.

Re:Google will block it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43691907)

Google has already broken YouTube. I use an extension that blocks video ads, gives me the ability to download and adds a bunch of other nice features to YouTube. Worked yesterday, they broke compatibility today. The author of said extension is usually pretty good about getting updates out, so I expect to be able to use YouTube again within a couple days. I absolutely refuse to use it without that extension, what with all of the hideous changes Google constantly makes and all of the annoying pop-ups for wanting a real name or wanting you to switch to the even shittier "one channel" layout (as if the previous layout wasn't already bad enough) or worthlessly knowing what language it's set itself to, etc, etc. I bet they broke YouTube specifically because of this Microsoft app.

To Google: STOP FUCKING CHANGING YOUTUBE. LEAVE IT THE FUCK ALONE.

Re:Google will block it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43691991)

I use an extension that blocks video ads [...] To Google: STOP FUCKING CHANGING YOUTUBE. LEAVE IT THE FUCK ALONE.

Do you also bitch whine and moan that the pizza place down the street never gives you free food or that the gas station always charges you for fuel? Why is it so much less objectionable when people act all entitled to free content online? How exactly do you propose google pay for hosting your crotch fruit's latest school play video?

Re:Google will block it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692017)

Because I am a YouTube content producer. I GIVE my hard work away to Google. They DO owe me, because without people like me putting stuff up, YouTube would be nothing.

It reminds me of all of the e-begging that Wikipedia does, despite the fact that all of the content is contributed out of the efforts and time of the very people they are begging to.

Re:Google will block it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692103)

Okay... you put up a video... that still doesn't answer how Youtube pays the bills.

Unless you magically pay for all the downloads that happen from your video?

Putting up a video is one part. People watching is another part. Money to pay for the bandwidth is yet another.

Don't act like posting a video somehow makes you immune to the costs of hosting that video nor the traffic that you'd never have otherwise.

Re:Google will block it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692139)

In other words, Google wants us to do all of the heavy lifting, use up all of our time and energy to produce content and then they want us to pay them for the luxury of making that content. Fuck that.

I've already transitioned away from Gmail, Google search and Android. I am now in the process of doing the same for YouTube. If they want to treat their users like crap, then so be it, they won't have any left eventually. Many former highly viewed channels have moved away to other services already.

Re:Google will block it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692303)

I use adblock, so take my comment with a grain of salt... but if Google wants to put ads on videos, how is that treating their users like crap? Or unobtrusive ads in gmail? or "Sponsored" ads in search?

How are they treating their users like crap when they simply try to make money for services rendered (Hosting a video for millions of people, without charging YOU the end all-be all video creator... )?

Seriously... how is an advertisement treating you like crap? Considering their advertisements ARE bearable (compared to the vast majority of other advertisers out there)?

I use Windows, Linux, Android... I used iPhone before they got surpassed by Android and considered WP8 but went Note2 because the apps aren't there for WP8 yet. I'm no Google Shill, but I seriously want to know where you think Google treats customers like crap? They make no promises they won't change their website layout (thus interfering with Ad-Blockers/Downloaders)... unless you can find it in writing somewhere?

Re:Google will block it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692381)

Treating their users like crap by constantly changing shit around. Every few months they come out with a completely new layout that is always worse than the one before it. When users complain, they just ignore it. They don't give a shit. They pop-up annoying crap asking you to use your real name or asking you to switch to the new layout or telling you that it's set your language to whatever no matter how many time you dismiss them, they always, always come back.

Re:Google will block it (-1, Troll)

Le Marteau (206396) | about a year ago | (#43692437)

You, Sir, are a retard. I suspect the only reason you post as AC is because actually registering is beyond you.

Then stop breaking the terms of service. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692005)

Simple as that.

Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692033)

My computer, my rules. Sorry. I and only I decide what my computer does, what it displays and how it looks.

Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692121)

And Google controls how it uploads stuff. Even a mega-company deserves to make money (even tho I ad-block/download as well - I don't piss and moan if it isn't perfect)

You want the ability to download and view videos the way YOU want? Create your OWN Youtube. Otherwise stop crying when it doesn't work your way.

Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692165)

Give me a fucking break. Google makes tons of money in other areas, far more than enough to run YouTube.

YouTube is going to end up a dead wasteland. Other sites like Blip and Vimeo are already better and they don't keep changing the entire site layout every 6 months like Google does.

Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692329)

Whether they make money elsewhere doesn't stop the right for them to earn money on YouTube as well.

Why doesn't Microsoft give XBox away for free? They make money on Office. Why does apple take a cut on app sales? they make enough money on phone sales. Why does AT&T charge for Texting? They make enough money on monthly fees.

You are a retard if you think that a company doesn't deserve the right to make money.

And to blame this hate on... progress? Updating their apps? Apple's biggest fault right now is the fact that their stuff is "Stale". Same basic look/feel on iPhone 5 as their was on iPhone 1. Many changes, but still the same look, feel, layout, environment...

You are a retard if you think that a company will remain competitive without updating their software to stay ahead of the pack.

Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year ago | (#43692355)

Google makes tons of money in other areas, far more than enough to run YouTube.

Heheheh, do you think they are a charity? Grow up.

Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692405)

Oh, just fuck you. I pay Google a lot of money already, they owe it to me, you stupid, obtuse little shit.

Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (4, Insightful)

Your.Master (1088569) | about a year ago | (#43692469)

No, they really don't owe it to you.

How much do you pay Google anyway, and for what? Most people pay only by consuming the increasingly-obnoxious ads. I think the ads on youtube are atrocious. But I'm pretty sure they do not, in fact, owe you an ad-free youtube. What are you, majority shareholder?

I pay a lot of money for my Internet service. Doesn't mean they owe me grocery delivery, or any other random thing I'd like and that their service happens to enable in a tangential way.

Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692415)

And yet the videos are on Google's computers, and only Google decides what to do with their computers. If you break their TOS, then don't be surprised if they change what their computer does and suddenly you won't be able to decide that your computer should play youtube videos how you want to play them.

Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (3, Interesting)

Le Marteau (206396) | about a year ago | (#43692451)

Exactly. This is settled case law, beginning with the VCR. What comes to your device can be "time-shifted", meaning you are free to save ANYTHING which legally comes to your device, and play it back later. What used to be called "taping" is now, these days, known as "downloading" and the law is crystal clear about the legality of these actions.

Re:Google will block it (1)

ne0n (884282) | about a year ago | (#43692011)

For the curious here's a link to a youtube fixin' chromium extension [spoi.com] . This is the full, improved version of Youtube Options [google.com] in the Chrome store. Download directly from spoi.com to get the full range of features that aren't allowed by Chrome Store's TOS. I only wish there were a reliable Firefox equivalent to de-crap Youtube and show it in naked glory as nature intended.

Also recommended: Herp Derp for Youtube [google.com] . Fun to install on a friend's chromium.

Re:Google will block it (5, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | about a year ago | (#43691999)

Right. The two largest software companies are going to act like a couple of petulant small time administrators have a dick measuring contest. Sure.

You don't think that there was a bit of collaboration in creating it, maybe?

Can they? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43691717)

I thought Youtube's TOS said you can't access youtube if you download the videos in an unapproved manner. I remember Dolphin Browser having a "download youtube" option way back, but Google nixed it from the Android Market until it was removed. Obviously Google had the upper hand being in control of the market, but still can't they do.. I dunno, something?

Who figured this out? (-1, Redundant)

theedgeofoblivious (2474916) | about a year ago | (#43691729)

And how?

Re:Who figured this out? (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43691841)

If you don't have a youtube downloader in your browser, it's because you don't want one. And if you're seeing ads in youtube it's because you're not using adblock plus.

Youtube is supposed to paywall some premium content soon, which is fine. I'm not watching it anyway, so I'm not downloading it either. The kind of stuff I download from youtube mostly involves documentaries on subjects like Waco or what kids are eating, and I'm not also streaming it, so there's really no good reason for them to try to stop me.

Re:Who figured this out? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692089)

Actually AdblockEdge since the creator of the original sold out to an AD COMPANY. GO OPENSOURCE FORKS GO!!

By violating the terms of service, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43691763)

It gives YouTube the right to block it.

And by doing so, may block all of MS products.

Re: By violating the terms of service, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43691809)

What a terrible idea to block windows 8 and its 100 million users.

Re: By violating the terms of service, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692035)

You mean its 95 million users who bought a Windows 8 license and promptly upgraded to Windows 7.

Re: By violating the terms of service, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692207)

You mean its 95 million users who bought a Windows 8 license and promptly upgraded to Windows 7.

I see what you did there...

Re: By violating the terms of service, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692281)

LOL, it's 100 million users.

Data Scraping (2, Informative)

RyanFenton (230700) | about a year ago | (#43691787)

Data scraping [wikipedia.org] can work, as long as you have a team that can keep up with changes to the interface and counter various approaches to block the scraping-specific requests. Somehow, I don't think this will work for the long-term on Windows Phone systems - but then again, Windows Phone itself may not last too terribly long in this incarnation either, so it may be fine for its purpose, which is to latch onto low-information customers with shallow but momentary appealing features.

Ryan Fenton

In addition, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43691797)

To violating the terms of service, MS may be in legal violation of the DMCA for "circumventing".

Re:In addition, (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43691945)

If Ballmer is behind this MS move, could he be sent to jail for 30 years for it? All american should be treatead equally under the law, after all.

Re:In addition, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43691989)

Microsoft isn't breaking any kind of copy protection by doing this though and Google's TOS isn't law. The most they could do is to ban unauthorized clients.

Re:In addition, (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43692073)

Sadly, violating a website's TOS is a crime under the CFFA.

Re:In addition, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692105)

I see nothing that would suggest that here [wikipedia.org]

Re:In addition, (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43692275)

He's an example of somebody sent to prison for it. [techcrunch.com]

Re:In addition, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692441)

While that is a ridiculous reason for putting that man in prison, it's still different. With YouTube ad blocking and video downloading, you are not exposing any information about anyone. Who ever at AT&T developed the site should be the one going to prison, but still, this guy did publish the information and that is the key difference according to the CFFA (no matter how stupid).

YouTube has ads?!? (1)

dohzer (867770) | about a year ago | (#43691813)

Never seen one. The only explanation that seems plausible is that they're hidden in the time between opening YouTube link, muting the sound, switching to another browser tab, occupying yourself for about thirty seconds, and then switching back; you know, the standard process everyone follows.

Re:YouTube has ads?!? (1)

White Flame (1074973) | about a year ago | (#43691959)

Standard process is having an ad blocker. It make not just YouTube but most web browsing faster and easier.

Re:YouTube has ads?!? (2)

dohzer (867770) | about a year ago | (#43692075)

Do ad-blockers provide false feedback to the advertisers? Does it download the content and then not display it?
I only ask because I have a desire to:
a) Provide money to the content provider (YouTube).
b) Confuse marketers (scum).

Re:YouTube has ads?!? (1)

White Flame (1074973) | about a year ago | (#43692351)

Okay, that's fine. But it's definitely not "standard process everyone follows". Most people seem to either watch them or block them.

However, I have heard that what YouTube does give to its paid content creators is based on views, irrespective of whether or not the ads were actually played, so both of your points could apply more to blockers than ignorers.

Re:YouTube has ads?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692143)

Standard process is using your etc/hosts for something usefull

Re:YouTube has ads?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692145)

No, if the standard process was having an ad blocker then most of the content you lurk around would no longer be there. Or you'd pay for it yourself. Either way, if you like the content and the ads aren't preventing you from consuming it then you're just being a freeloading jackass.

Re:YouTube has ads?!? (1, Informative)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year ago | (#43692153)

My standard process when installing a web browser includes:

* Block all third-party cookies.
* Install an ad blocker (AdBlock Plus)
* Install a script blocker (NoScript)
* Install a tracker blocker (DoNotTrackMe)

No ads, nowhere, and a much faster, safer, more trouble-free browsing experience.

This isn't cable TV in the 1990s; it's the Internet in the age of web browser extensions. What you're doing is roughly equivalent to taking a piss during a commercial break. That's old, manual technology that requires you to take physical action. Today, there are much, much better methods available that are fully automatic and require absolutely no effort on your part beyond the initial setup. You might want to upgrade your own standard practice.

Re:YouTube has ads?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692309)

I didn't realise Youtube had ads until I accessed it from a Windows machine yesterday. They clearly don't appear on my Linux machines.

First good feature of MS in years (0)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year ago | (#43691815)

I long ago abandoned MS due to a complete lack of compelling product features (sad seeing that things like Visual Studio were pretty ground breaking at one point). But this is a feature that shows a fundamental understanding of what customers want and an ability to deliver this feature. Not that this will change the world but maybe, just maybe, this will be a wake-up call at MS that delivering what people want not just what MS wants them to want is the basis of a business model superior to their present model of just riding on their laurels.

How is this substantively different from... (0)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#43691827)

cclive and youtube-dl?

Millions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43691873)

upon millions of users is the difference

Re:How is this substantively different from... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692115)

or keepvid.com

Not rocket science (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43691843)

Getting the direct download link to the video is easy, every youtube app can implement this without any effort. And if you build your own player based on it, ads just disappear as a side-effect.

Empire Strikes Back (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43691853)

Popcorn a popp'n !

This looks to be premium entertainment. ;)

Love it (0)

DogDude (805747) | about a year ago | (#43691859)

I saw that Youtube updated on my Windows Phone this morning, I think, but I didn't pay any attention to it. It's a *significant* improvement over the last version of it. Not only are there the download feature (and no ad), but it's got a nice way to browse through popular videos and a good filter. The last version, but didn't have any bells and whistles. This one is awesome.

Re:Love it (0)

DogDude (805747) | about a year ago | (#43692079)

It runs much, much better than the last version. It's nice and smooth (no stuttering), the seek bar works much better, and they've added the ability to choose the quality of the video.

Re:Love it (0)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#43692403)

I would guess that they're doing a bit of a TOS violation "dick move" to stir up some press about their product.

Going to hurt videos available at some point (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43691965)

As someone who makes a living publishing videos to Youtube, I can honestly say that if downloaders and avoidance of ads becomes mainstream I will no longer have an incentive to publish videos anymore and I suspect I would not be alone.

Re:Going to hurt videos available at some point (1)

fazey (2806709) | about a year ago | (#43692009)

Get a real business model. Ads on every freaking video are SOOOO annoying.

Re:Going to hurt videos available at some point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692175)

fine... open your wallet... takers are SOOOO annoying.

Re:Going to hurt videos available at some point (5, Interesting)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#43692053)

Not to be mean to you personally, but we don't fucking care. Just like we don't fucking care that ABC doesn't like us recording shows on our DVRs and watching them later without having to suffer through the horrible, loud, insulting-to-the-intelligence ads. We don't care that Sony and BMG want us to buy entire CDs of music, rather than download songs, or worse yet, find other music to listen to.

So, if your profession is making videos, and your income is based on ads played during those videos on a communal website, you may want to think of a better revenue stream. This one isn't going to last, whether Microsoft can pull this off or not.

Re:Going to hurt videos available at some point (-1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year ago | (#43692157)

As a content producer, it's my right to block your client if you refuse to see the ads I put up. If you want my content, watching ads is my price. Otherwise don't consume what I put out.

Simple no? I don't know what you're getting so worked up over.

Re:Going to hurt videos available at some point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692305)

And how do you tell that the ads are being watched? You can possibly easily tell if they are downloaded, but telling if they were viewed by a human is going to be pretty hard.

Re: Going to hurt videos available at some point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692323)

I don't put up full ads, just pop ups when it starts. (And what's on the side in a browser). I hate forced full length ads as well and am happy to not have them on my content as long as I can still generate revenue. It may not be a reliable revenue stream in the future, but it is now. In any case I stand by my original statement that this will ultimately hurt available videos if it becomes mainstream and kills my incentive to create and upload more. The adblockers and downloaders will be totally useful when there is no content for them to act upon. But seriously, they'll just start to embed the ads in the actual content itself and everyone will suffer and folks like myself will have to comply or quit making content.

Soooo Xbox Live? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692043)

Sooo can I get xbox live with ADs stripped out of also Microsoft? Seeing as I pay for the service!

Re:Soooo Xbox Live? (4, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43692119)

Theoretically...

There are ways to blackhole ad servers at the router, if you use DDWRT or openWRT, assming MS hasn't deeply rolled the ad server In with the live server.

This means that you could inject alternatives to adverts and movie files, based on the structure of the query, and the remote IP. Eg, you could put a "no" sign around a $, in place of static image ads, and a "static screen loop" in place of streaming video ads. Unless the MS dash does some kind of data hash checking, it would display the downloaded content instead of the intended adverts.

(Makes you wonder if you could force MS xboxes to display trojanized swf files, or trojanized EMF or TIFF files, for clandestine execution jumping fun....)

I haven't tested this, and it is clearly against MS's ToS, (which as worded, says you cant even have wireshark running at the same time your xbox is turned on, let alone meddle with the replies the box gets.)

Danger if MS does a super dick move, like double verify image checksums of adverts the console downloads, and if "known surrogates/malware" are detected, ban the console though.

Re:Soooo Xbox Live? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692293)

I'd assume Microsoft could just run all the content off of common hostnames, over say port 443. You wouldn't really know if server87.live.xbox.com/img/asset/423be8794af38a943d24e32f894 is an ad, or something you need to see.

Re:Soooo Xbox Live? (0)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43692389)

A jpeg, gif, or silverlight container are unlikely to be mission critical.

Depending on how the box asks, and what data it blurts out when it makes the requests, it should be possible to tell the xbox sweet little lies, and get away with it.

Bad blood? (1)

Thomas Dalbo (2840609) | about a year ago | (#43692071)

I guess this little stunt won't help all the Win 8 users who lost support for Google Cal & Contacts. It's a pity they're both playing political "Cold War" with each other.

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692171)

...correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a Firefox plugin that does exactly the same thing.

Are they banned? Are google changing their whole API for that?

Fair enough, Google want to block Microsoft at every turn, I understand that. But there's bullshit and there's bullshit. And this is bullshit.

coming to a Nokia phone near you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692213)

Sorry android virus carriers

Defeating the ads is trivial, allow me to demo... (4, Insightful)

Proudrooster (580120) | about a year ago | (#43692251)

Supposed you want to wish your mother a Happy Dub Step Mothers Day with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J0o65u73Nc [youtube.com]

But you want to strip the adds and go fullscreen:

Easy, simply change the URL: delete "watch?v=" and replace with "v/"
http://www.youtube.com/v/9J0o65u73Nc [youtube.com]

sarcasm
Microsoft must have some really smart developers to have figured out how to rewrite the YouTube URL using computer programming. I am going to run out and get a Surface with Windows 8 before Best Buy closes tonight. Microsoft might be adding more useful features soon and I don't want to miss out. It would be a shame to watch a 5 second YouTube Ad and support that rich Google company. Microsoft is sticking it to man! Wait, I thought they were the man. Hmmm... something has changed. I'm so confused.
sarcasm

A company and a society are judged and remembered by what they build and not what they destroy.

Re:Defeating the ads is trivial, allow me to demo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692311)

Careful! Changing the URL to another publicly accessible option is HEINOUS and HORRIBLE computer crime!

I so wish this was sarcasm, but the current precedent is that the above statement is true. Remember that guy who did the exact same thing with iPhone IDs to AT&T got convicted under the CFAA.

Re:Defeating the ads is trivial, allow me to demo. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692459)

That does not remove the ads...

Legal pissing match in 5, 4, 3... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692289)

Send in the briefcase drill team! Warm up the bench. Choose your venues. Ready? FIGHT!

I been sticking the finger to the internet (0)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year ago | (#43692429)

for a long time, seamonkey with adblock, NoScript and a video downloader extension, to hell with advertising, that crap is everywhere, radio & television, billboards on both sides of the road, i cant open my eyes anymore without being bombarded with spamvertising, i am making my internet experience as addfree as possible because advertising is just about omnipresent everywhere else,

so i would like to say: "fuck all you advertisers right in your balloon knots i hope you all die miserable & painful deaths" (and that includes you too microsoft i seen too much of your advertising on TV already
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...