×

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!

Google Demands Microsoft Pull YouTube App For WP8

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the or-else dept.

Google 716

First time accepted submitter exomondo writes "Google has given Microsoft until May 22nd to pull their Windows Phone 8 YouTube app from the marketplace and disable it on customer devices. It not only includes a built-in ad blocker but also allows users to download videos and doesn't impose device-specific streaming restrictions outlined in the YouTube Terms Of Service. A Microsoft spokesperson said in part: 'YouTube is consistently one of the top apps downloaded by smartphone users on all platforms, but Google has refused to work with us to develop an app on par with other platforms. Since we updated the YouTube app to ensure our mutual customers a similar YouTube experience, ratings and feedback have been overwhelmingly positive. We'd be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs. In light of Larry Page's comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

716 comments

I can't wait to see this battle (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43739471)

I predict Microsoft will lose, and lose hard.

They don't have an inherent right to access youtube. It's not in the constitution.

Re: I can't wait to see this battle (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739531)

Are they looking to paint themselves as the biggest dicks in the room again? If so, success. Microsoft: we can't invent anything, but no one out-assholes our assholes.

Re: I can't wait to see this battle (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739713)

Normally I'd agree, but in this case it really seems like Microsoft is trying to meet the needs of their customers and Google is not cooperating with them in an attempt to squeeze them out of market share. I'm all for sticking it to M$, but when it hurts the consumer ultimately that really makes Google no better than they are.

Re: I can't wait to see this battle (5, Insightful)

stiggle (649614) | about a year ago | (#43739861)

Their customers can use the YouTube website - same as everyone else who doesn't have a pre-built app installed or for their platform. Just because you can hack YouTube's website and write a wrapper around your hacks to provide the content doesn't mean its legit.

Isn't accessing web content through means other than the published API or intended URL a hacking offense with prison time after conviction?

Re: I can't wait to see this battle (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739949)

Agreed, MS is inherently right on this point, it's Google preaching about good actions and then acting badly. I'm no fan of Redmond but being irrationally in Google's corner happens to perturb me more. Screw that, when they're wrong, they're wrong, and Google is wrong on this.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739537)

MS:Your Honor, we created the App in good faith using the API's available, since those API's do not allow us to add the functions Google is requesting we can not add those features until they make available API's capable of doing so. We are happy to add those features as soon as the API is available we would also willingly remove the app if Google provided a feature complete replacement.
Judge: Why aren't the required API's available?
Google: Ummmm....
Judge: Case dismissed

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (5, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | about a year ago | (#43739609)

The point is that Microsofts application isn't using publicly available API's, they are abusing YouTube and violating their terms. Just because Google doesn't provide API's to allow you to make something that meets their conditions doesn't mean you may violate those conditions. It simply means Google doesn't want to present YouTube through anything but their own applications.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739775)

And you fail to see how that is a problem, right?

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (5, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year ago | (#43739845)

When this is exactly what Microsoft has been doing to everyone else for the past 20 years? Yes, I do fail to see this as a problem.

Karma's a bitch.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (5, Funny)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#43739631)

Google: our terms of service clearly state that storing downloads for any other purpose than buffering is not permitted.
Judge: (to MS) So you ignored the terms of service in building your application?
MS: Well, yes, but we just wanted a good user experience
Judge: And my grand-daughter wants a pony. I find you in violation of the TOS, your app must be pulled until you can show it complies.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43739663)

Judge: And my grand-daughter wants a pony. I find you in violation of the TOS, your app must be pulled until you can show it complies.

You forgot to add, "...and may God have mercy on your souls."

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43739669)

Not quite, it takes extra work to add features such as being able to locally download the videos.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739859)

Oh, so you think you are legally allowed to violate all terms and conditions of any website if they have an API but don't make it available to you?

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (3, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43739553)

We'd be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs

I don't get this. As I understand it, the only thing they need to include advertising is... "nothing".
Just remove the ad blocker and the ads will be back. The ads are there by default.
Similar with the downloading; you don't need access to the API's in order to prevent you from adding a download option in your app.

Although both features would be highly appreciated, the reasons MS provides are a bit odd.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739659)

well, just cause an article says its blocking ads, doesn't mean its actively blocking. it could be that they can display videos without ads because they access the feed and give it to you. they just don't access the ads. technically, they can probably build that, but ultimately, it'd all be easier with the APIs. Or maybe they can't easily stream the ads, who knows. But until i see evidence that the phone actively blocks the ad as opposed to not being capable of displaying the ads, i'd hold my judgement on what level of effort is involved in getting the ads to display. Plus, there are hundreds of youtube downloads on the google play store itself and they do the same thing. Microsoft just pulled the features of a bunch of different apps that are available on the goolge play store and made it available in one app for the windows phone.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739629)

Which constitution would that be, then?

This is a case you could pursue in Sweden and MS would actually win.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | about a year ago | (#43739687)

Normally, I'd line up behind the MS bashing, but I think in this case google is super annoying regarding API access. Why doesn't MS have the tools necessary to make a youtube app that works according to the terms and conditions? Failing that, why hasn't google provided one? Just to shaft microsoft on both counts I suspect. And that's kindof annoying. Are they afraid of a little compeition for android? I don't personally feel like WP8 is anything to worry about... but if so, why do they appear so worried?

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (5, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43739765)

That might fly for the advertising, but including a download functionality requires a deliberate effort - Microsoft is willfully including a tool with no functionality except to facilitate in the violation of Google's license agreement, and thus copyright. If this ever turns into a court case, MS would probably lose - but they could still drag it on long enough to cost both sides a few million dollars in legal fees, and get a lot of good press if they spin it right.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (5, Insightful)

7x7 (665946) | about a year ago | (#43739773)

Don't forget, MS gets somewhere between $5 and $8 for every Android device sold due to patent licensing. There is nothing accidental going on here from either side.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year ago | (#43739705)

How enforceable is a TOS really? MS never signed anything to access YouTube, and possible never even read it - iirc you don't even have to tick something like "i agree to the TOS" when accessing YouTube.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (0)

tokencode (1952944) | about a year ago | (#43739737)

Google is levering its dominance in another area similar to what MS did with IE and Windows...

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (2)

7x7 (665946) | about a year ago | (#43739747)

I don't think MS intends to win. I think this is nothing more than "How to get Google's attention".

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (1)

InvalidError (771317) | about a year ago | (#43739849)

As long as Internet Explorer can play embedded Youtube videos, Microsoft can simply make a re-skinned IE and embedded video interface tailored to Youtube and use that instead, then all Google would see is just another IE client accessing Youtube, which would give them even less information than what they are getting now. This revised embedded player may still have ad-skipping and video download features.

Would Google end up requesting that Microsoft strip embedded video capabilities from IE?

Youtube is a publicly accessible service. There isn't much that Google can do to forbid anyone from accessing it for legit purposes.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739851)

Yes, MS would lose this. But does this mean that Google will win... in the long run. So they take "U-Tube" away, So MS goes to a aggregator, and a vidieo player, and "recreates" WMP to do what they want. I believe WMP had all the codecs to play all the file types, just speed it up for launch, and then when google complains again, see if the google acquisitions of property infringe on MS. Turn about is fair play,if they want to play games.

Re:I can't wait to see this battle (1)

AJH16 (940784) | about a year ago | (#43739863)

But why would MS lose. Why does MS have any legal obligation to do anything about Youtube? If they are just providing a client, they aren't accessing Google's service and shouldn't be bound by the terms of service should they? Youtube could go after the people that use the client if they want or try to disable it from accessing their service, but a TOS isn't a law, it's the terms you have to agree to to USE the service and MS isn't using the service unless I'm really missing something here.

Leaving aside the irony of the situation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739485)

It's official now. Google wants to be the new Microsoft of the mobile-device world.

Re:Leaving aside the irony of the situation (2, Interesting)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year ago | (#43739515)

I think Google is just dishing out a little of my MS has been for years. I'm sure the end result will be Google will allow MS to use YouTube, but I still find it a little funny that finally someone can jerk MS around for being dicks for the last 20 some years.

Re: Leaving aside the irony of the situation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739807)

Yes, because that lays makes things better.../s

Re: Leaving aside the irony of the situation (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year ago | (#43739847)

It could.

MS has been doing this exact same thing to every other company for quite some time. Although two wrongs don't make a right, I think this is a case of Google trying to educate MS in civility. If MS takes the lesson that working with others is better than suing or extorting them into the ground when the try to innovate, then it'll work in everyone's favor.

Anything to get more customers (2, Insightful)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about a year ago | (#43739491)

If this it what will take Microsoft to get more traction in the mobile market, so be it.

A Youtube client that blocks ads and allows downloads, what else could we ask for??

Who's being evil now???

Re:Anything to get more customers (5, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | about a year ago | (#43739599)

Your implication is that Google is being evil because they're preventing Microsoft from taking market share from Google by using Google's services. It's hard to imagine a more one-sided and asinine analysis.

I think Microsoft are just upset they're screwgled because nobody wants Windows 8 or Windows phones and everyone knows it.

Re:Anything to get more customers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739623)

Die of cancer you fuck

Re:Anything to get more customers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739685)

i second this

Re:Anything to get more customers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739805)

Thirded, the motion caries.

Re:Anything to get more customers (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43739707)

Exactly, it still costs Google to stream those videos, they have a right to have advertising and do not allow for them to be locally downloaded. MS violated the agreement.

Re:Anything to get more customers (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43739717)

Your implication is that Google is being evil because they're preventing Microsoft from taking market share from Google by using Google's services. It's hard to imagine a more one-sided and asinine analysis.

Well, wait a minute now. If it was some bunch of open source geeks making an app that download's YouTube videos and strips the advertisements, and Google came down as hard, I think we'd hear squeals of outrage and demands for Google not to be "evil".

But because it's Microsoft, fuck them, right?

Now, I can understand this sentiment completely, but let's not pretend that this same "one-sided and asinine analysis" has not been used by everybody on every side of these issues.

At the bottom, this is why having a company control the ecosystem for any platform is a very bad idea. Because we want little companies trying to make things more useful by breaking big companies' models. That's how progress works. The notion that we have to create some protected reserve where the biggest companies can enjoy guaranteed success forever without having to face any competition is really what's asinine.

Re:Anything to get more customers (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43739733)

Well, wait a minute now. If it was some bunch of open source geeks making an app that download's YouTube videos and strips the advertisements, and Google came down as hard, I think we'd hear squeals of outrage and demands for Google not to be "evil".

But because it's Microsoft, fuck them, right?

The nature of the difference is in the purpose or intent of the work, which in this case is to permit violation of Google's AUP for Microsoft's profit (no one will take them seriously without Youtube access.) Specifically, Microsoft has willfully taken these actions for financial gain.

Re:Anything to get more customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739757)

Good point. People would be saying, "if you don't want people to see your free videos, don't put them on the internet" if this was some open-source app.

Re:Anything to get more customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739889)

Because we want little companies trying to make things more useful by breaking big companies' models. That's how progress works.

If Microsoft had come up with their own video content hosting that allowed downloads and did not display advertisements then you'd be correct.

But wait! That's not what Microsoft did, is it? In fact they're pulling Google's content from Google's servers. They have every right to pull the plug on Microsoft for abusing their systems. The car analogy would be if I suddenly decided I would start lending out your cars to others against your wishes and without asking for any money in return.

It seems that Microsoft continues to leech off the success of others as the only way to survive or appear relevant. Their time has gone, these days it's just embarrassing that they're still trying so badly and failing.

Re:Anything to get more customers (2)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year ago | (#43739903)

Little companies, yes. Microsoft, no. Their entire history revolved around screwing everyone and everything they could get their hands on, from individual (and little) companies, right up to international standards bodies.

If Google is also preventing Apple, Blackberry, et al, from accessing youtube, then that would be a problem. As far as I know, they're not. They're only refusing Microsoft. Microsoft has yet to do anything that shows they have truely changed their ways (and probably never will as long as Ballmer is in charge), so I have no problem with another company giving them a good hard screwing for a change.

Re:Anything to get more customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739915)

That's assuming the poster supports the geek/hacker to strip the ads. I for one, am not, because I understand why ads are needed regardless if you're microsoft or working alone in your mom's basement.

Re:Anything to get more customers (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about a year ago | (#43739947)

Microsoft is doing this directly for their own financial gain, and in the process giving Google the finger by blocking their ads and allowing downloads. If a random individual did this with a free app, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but Microsoft is clearly doing this for their own gain.

Re:Anything to get more customers (1)

durrr (1316311) | about a year ago | (#43739613)

One that doesn't prevent listening to music clips on mobile devices.

Oh...

Re:Anything to get more customers (4, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year ago | (#43739637)

If this it what will take Microsoft to get more traction in the mobile market, so be it.

A Youtube client that blocks ads and allows downloads, what else could we ask for??

Who's being evil now???

Evilness doesn't really come into it... Microsoft has written software that uses a third party service in a way that that third party's T&Cs disallow. You're free to avoid services on the grounds that you don't like their T&Cs, but you don't get to just ignore the T&Cs, especially when you're operating commercially.

Re:Anything to get more customers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739667)

What else could we ask for??

This client ported to Windows 7.

Re:Anything to get more customers (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year ago | (#43739671)

So I'm breaking their TOS hard... AdBlockPlus takes care of the ads, and a youtube downloader whose name I forgot gives me direct download links for the videos. Oh well. I'm not Microsoft so not likely that Google will sue me.

Re:Anything to get more customers (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43739691)

Who's being evil now???

Well, since the TOS for a site have been held as legally binding by courts, it's Microsoft.

If I'm legally bound by the TOS, surely Microsoft must be? They can't just decide they're going to be non-compliant because it's inconvenient.

Microsoft isn't championing for your rights, they're championing for their right to try to provide software which makes their platform more attractive, and they're doing it by violating the terms for YouTube. You know, to pad out their own bottom line and make sure people buy their phones.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that Google is moving away from their pledge of do no evil, but that doesn't make Microsoft the good guys here. It makes them leeching bastards who figure they're big enough to ignore the TOS for something.

I just ask that the law be consistently applied -- which means both Microsoft and your average Joe are bound by it unless Microsoft signs a deal with Google giving them better access.

Re:Anything to get more customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739781)

Microsoft should enable ad blocking in IE by default. Fuck Google.

Re:Anything to get more customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739795)

Microsoft who get money from every Android device sold?

Sounds familiar... (5, Insightful)

Controlio (78666) | about a year ago | (#43739493)

Wow. So Microsoft is mad because someone else won't give them details on a closed API?

What a difference a decade makes. How's it feel, Microsoft?

Feels good (1)

tapspace (2368622) | about a year ago | (#43739559)

It sounds like if you're a YouTube fan and own a WM8 phone it feels pretty good.

Re:Feels good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739615)

Until Google block API access. Duh.

Re:Feels good (4, Funny)

qbast (1265706) | about a year ago | (#43739657)

Or redirects all WM8 clients to goat porn.

Re:Feels good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739809)

Or redirects all WM8 clients to great goat porn.

FTFY

Nope (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739633)

Wow. So Microsoft is mad because someone else won't give them details on a closed API?

What a difference a decade makes. How's it feel, Microsoft?

No. Microsoft is using the "need for an API" as an excuse against Google. It is Google who is mad, because Microsoft produced an, apparently, good and highly featureful YouTube app, one that has a built in ad blocker and the ability to locally save/record videos. Now Google is whining about breaches of ToS and Microsoft is saying; 'but, but, we need an open API.'

Both sides of this story have turned into green eyed monsters of jealousy. Frankly, I'm laughing at Google here. They are getting a taste of what they've given Microsoft on more than a few occasions.

Re:Sounds familiar... (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43739721)

Even if they did not have it, they still took the extra step to allow for locally downloading of video files, which is not allowed.

It's one thing to say you don't have the API to integrate ads; it's another to say you don't have the API but you also build in features that are expressly forbidden.

Wait... (5, Funny)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#43739497)

So Microsoft appears to have made the perfect youtube client? Sonofabitch. When I had limited mobile data, I dreamed for a simple youtube client that could cache several videos for off-line or repeated watching. Of course, Apple won't build a client like - they would rather you not even know youtube existed so you would just buy iTunes everything.

Re:Wait... (5, Insightful)

amaurea (2900163) | about a year ago | (#43739665)

Well said!

This is similar to making a DVD player without region locks - it makes the player much more useful for its actual users, but pisses off the movie distributers because they want to control how the DVDs are used. In this case, Microsoft has created a youtube player that is better for the user in two important ways (no ads, which the user doesn't want to see, and the ability to store the video for later). This is something I would have expected the open source world to provide; I'm amazed to see a company like Microsoft do it. But I'm sure the programmers responsible for making this user-friendly (in the right sense of the word, not the "ooh shiny" sense) program will soon be punished for his obstinacy.

The ability to block advertisements and download movies is provided by web browser addons, so people championing Google in its fight against this windows phone program would also have to come out against those addons. I hope that isn't as prevalent a view here as it seems from most of the comments so far.

If not YouTube? (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43739943)

Of course, Apple won't build a client like - they would rather you not even know youtube existed so you would just buy iTunes everything.

If YouTube didn't exist, then to what video sharing service would people be uploading videos shot on an iPhone and edited on an iPad?

lol - it's funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739503)

Google wanting MS to pull it because it has a built in ad-blocker. MS should pull it out, have it as a downloadable addon, and tell google to go f themselves. Would be no different than FF/Chrome ad-blocking plugins at that point.

Re:lol - it's funny... (2)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43739731)

Except you know, being Google's service they have to cover the cost of streaming those video files. It's perfectly reasonable for them to have ads to help cover the cost.

lololol (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739507)

Fuck Microsoft. I hope their OS crashes and burns. They fucking deserve it for screwing so much with Linux.

Re:lololol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739673)

With advocates like you. Linux is screwing itself just fine without microsoft.

And (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739509)

Here is a funny thing, Google owns the content rights, but at the same time it is not responsible for it, this is something I will never understand.....

Re:And (1, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#43739583)

No, they're just a middle man. They own nothing of exceptional value on Youtube. The high value stuff is owned by others and they have agreements in place for revenue sharing on the ads. It's like everything else in their portfolio - they're really just a middle man.

Does Starbucks grow coffee? Of course not - they offer free seating and wireless connections in thousands of locations for the purpose of packaging and selling high-markup derivatives of coffee beans. If you a whole class of people started bringing in their own coffee, or a cup and a full thermos of their favorite beverage, that Starbucks location would lose out on a potential sale and upper management would start inquiring why they were always packed but their sales numbers sucked.

Re:And (1)

ninja59 (1029474) | about a year ago | (#43739803)

I totally agree. This is a M$ smear campaign more than anything. The features that they are putting into the app are designed to a) undermine Google's ability to generate revenue through ads and b) undermine Google's ability to honor its agreements with the rights holders, but M$ is spinning it as Google trying to keep them out. Whatever your opinion about ads and copyrights or whatever, Google, being a middleman, couldn't/would't keep youtube up without ad revenue and wouldn't have the vast library of video that it has if it could not offer cursory protections to rights holders.

Re:And (1)

Kkloe (2751395) | about a year ago | (#43739759)

Lets say you own a kitchen, everyone can walk in to your kitchen and can leave knives that you later own, someone walks in one day and takes one knife instead of leaving one and stabs someone or leaves the knife and as you are now the owner, that person takes the knife again and stab someone, is it your fault? probably can be said better but whatever

Hypocrites (5, Insightful)

trimpnick (1362187) | about a year ago | (#43739511)

Microsoft strongarms phone manufacturers on unknown patent claims that android supposedly infringes but when they infringe ToS from Google and are told to change or remove the app, they say it's just Google not wanting to play ball. Good job Microsoft...

Pot, meet Kettle (5, Insightful)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | about a year ago | (#43739513)

If only they'd apply the same open-minded fervor to stuff like .docx, directx and a million other things under their wings...

WebOS/iTunes (3, Interesting)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about a year ago | (#43739517)

I wonder if this will become a humorous on-going issue like it was with WebOS and iTunes. I suppose it depends on how far Google is willing to go to keep YouTube API closed off from Windows Phone users. A change here, and updated app chasing it... Perhaps concluding in a long drawn out lawsuit?

I know it can't be helpful for establishing goodwill between the companies. MS may be able to get away with it, but if they hadn't tickled the dragon's tail, maybe we'd eventually see some more genuine Google apps on the platform.

Re:WebOS/iTunes (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43739557)

I have a feeling that you'll see more genuine Google apps on the platform, when the platform has a market share worth developing against.

Google isn't a charity - they aren't going to spend the time developing an app for all 20 users of Windows Phone when the web pages also work.

(Yes, I'm being a bit snarky with that last line, but the concept still stands)

Re:WebOS/iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739711)

If the platform doesn't have market share, then Google isn't being hurt by this app.

Not Really (0)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#43739541)

I think Google just wants the App pulled so YouTube by Microsoft doesn't become the new mobile blue screen.

Hey, Google - FUCK YOU (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739543)

Yeah, that same video that downloads on my netbook over cell data tethered to my ipad plays fine, but when accessed using the ipad's internal browser says that the content is not licensed for my device? BULLSHIT. That's what it is. I'm in the same place, with the same size screen, using the same data connection, and the same form factor (if you undock the keyboard)? You're being anti-competitive if you allow viewing on an android tablet - but since I'm pretty sure it doesn't I'm going to say you simply have your heads up your asses.

Re:Hey, Google - FUCK YOU (5, Informative)

auLucifer (1371577) | about a year ago | (#43739597)

It's not googles decision to block the content, it's the content owners. Google has been taken to court by big media and have requirements they must meet to allow content owners to restrict access. As far as I remember if google are to continue providing video with big media they have to actively stop clients that download music. This isn't google trying to screw you, it's **AA...

Re:Hey, Google - FUCK YOU (2)

Andrio (2580551) | about a year ago | (#43739605)

That's not Google's doing. It's the video uploader that chooses whether to allow mobile views or not.

mutual customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739549)

Weasels. I think thet'll find that on youtube they are googles customers, and since they wrote the app they are googles customers too. As such they are subject to the terms and conditions of the site they are accessing as any good member of the business software alliance would expect.

I look forward to seeing the level of punitive damages awarded at the end of the court case.

Doesn't Google get it? (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43739593)

Doesn't Google get it? Microsoft is ABOVE all rules and standards.

What a joke. If Google wasn't living up to a Microsoft EULA the whining from Redmond would be unbearable where I am at from Indiana.

While there is cross-corporation wank going on here it does seem that Microsoft arrogance is coming out here again.

Microsoft adding ad blocker==TOS Violation, derp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739607)

Isn't ad-*blocking* something that's not allowed in the terms of use? Oh yes, it is.

So Microsoft basically didn't follow the gudelines for making what could have been a valid app, and are now crying about now google has asked them to stop violating them. I'm afraid I side with Google on this one.

Remove the ad blocker functionality. Obviously M$ are aware how to block adverts, so they must already have the required information that they're complaining about

Adblock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739621)

My addon for Firefox does the same... So?

Ads??? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739635)

There are advertisements on youtube? I've used Adblock Plus for so long I forgot about what some folks deal with.

trade ya for windowz api hooks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739649)

trade ya for windowz api hooks

Are we really doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739651)

Are we really going to throw our principles out the window just to taunt Microsoft? Do we really want ToS to become a thing that one has to worry about when accessing a server that neither asks for a user account nor even shows ToS before you can get anything? Is the Facebook web really what we want, where you have to be logged in to get anything? Just to spite Microsoft?

Keep Out Of My Device (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739675)

After I set it up the way I want, I don't Microsoft, Google, Apple or Amazon changing anything on my device.

information wants to be free... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739719)

...unless the one who wants to restrict that information is on your side.

Fuck Google just as much as Microsoft. They've together turned the Internet into something shit. Microsoft's been doing it for decades, and Google's taken over now. But let's support what is right, not what we hate the least. And the right thing is for the law not to waste its time interfering with Google's desire to please its customers (advertisers) by peddling other people's creativity (and, this being Youtube, I use that term very loosely).

Do *YOUR* job Microsoft (2)

applematt84 (1135009) | about a year ago | (#43739769)

It's not Google's job to develop the app for Microsoft; nor is it Google's responsibility to help Microsoft maintain a "consistent customer experience". It's *Microsoft's responsibility* to follow the YouTube TOS. I have a feeling their "overwhelmingly positive feedback" is going to flip into "overwhelmingly negative feedback" when Google starts blocking WP8 devices. This is just a baby crying because they can't have their way and was caught with their hand in the cookie jar. 'nuff said.

Re:Do *YOUR* job Microsoft (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43739811)

It's funny that most of the time MS could give a rat's about feedback. The only feedback that ultimately means anything is when people stop buying their products (ala Windows 8) and they're absolutely FORCED to get out of their bubble or the product completely dies.

Browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739793)

My web browser also allows me to block ads and download the videos. In fact, I think most browsers can do that. Why doesn't Google try to shut them down?

Re:Browser (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43739833)

I actually do think there is a major difference here, that being that it's a part of the original ap and not an add on. When ad blocking is an add on (like adblocker) it is quite obviously the user's choice and it isn't a corporate decision.

It also guarantees that a certain percentage of people will see the ads. For instance I deal with people who in my line of work that get amazed when you show them their O.S. has a built in calculator program. They don't have enough smarts or knowledge to put in an ad blocker or, god forbid, edit a hosts file!

Load of idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739801)

Bunch of idiotic comments completely missing the point and blaming Google.

Google's agreements which allow much of the youtube content to be there *at all* mean that Google has to (as far as it reasonably can) attempt to to enforce showing of adverts and no downloading. Google effectively *has no choice* in attempting to enforce its TOS in a high profile case like this. MS know this very well and presumably made this move so when it is forced to remove the download button and display the adverts, it can say "look what teh evil Google made us do!" when it's actually the *content owners* causing this.

6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... (1)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about a year ago | (#43739841)

If the app developed by Microsoft enables Youlube users to violate the Google ToS, then I can see an argument in Google's favour, especially if the app behaviour is not something the user can control.
Having said that, it also sounds as though the Youlube apps on "other platforms" (I am assuming this is a reference to both iOS and Android) are more functional than the version for WP8. If that is a function of the way that WP8 works compared to iOS and Android, then MS are again out of luck, but if Google are purposely denying MS access to features that are available to iOS and Android, then I can see Google getting a slap as well.

Basically, I think that MS will be getting told off, and Google might also be in hot water over this, if the disagreement ends up in court in front of a judge who has some understanding of technology*cough*.

Wait a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739857)

So we are all quick to bash on the movie and music industries for DRM and all that jazz. Not letting us make copies of the music/DVDs or use it how we want. But then Microsoft comes up with a way to use YouTube the way we want (ie downloading and no ads), and Microsoft is the bad person? How is this any different?

Google is trying to control YouTube, preventing us from making copies or avoiding ads, just like the movie/music industries do with DRM. Shouldn't we be praising Microsoft for sticking it to them, the same way we sit here praising PirateBay for their work against DRM? Or is this a classic case of "I hate Microsoft so anything they do is wrong." I'm so confused...

The Pirate Bay - Using MS arguments (1)

stiggle (649614) | about a year ago | (#43739893)

The Pirate Bay is one of the top accessed website in the world, the media companies repeatedly refuse to work with TPB in allowing TPB access to their content and information to keep their content on par with other media release platforms.

Anyone else here noticed? (5, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | about a year ago | (#43739897)

Most of the posts here are making arguments and suggesting actions that were exactly the same as the ones that generated loud complaints on Slashdot when it was about Microsoft using proprietary crap to lock out Linux/Open Source.

I don't like Microsoft at all, but supporting Google acting more like them is no answer either.

Ads Kill Bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43739899)

I agree with stripping out the ads. No ads should be the default in any case.

I pay to use the Internet. Apps on a mobile should not have ads or anything else that could potentially add to the use of data. Ads are bandwidth killers. We all know this.

Why, in a forum like this full of geeks, nerds, smart people, are these same people up in arms about stripping away ads from an app. This is a good thing. Like many in here, I have not seen an ad on the Internet on devices I control in years. NO ads, no tracking cookies, no banners, no beacons. I already pay to access the WWW. I will not pay with my personal data, be tracked, collated, and my information sold without my consent.

Slashdot is awesome (1, Insightful)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#43739913)

Microsoft creates a version of YouTube that blocks advertising, and still Microsoft is the scum of the known universe.

I agree that if Microsoft isn't respecting the terms for the API then they have to change it, but come on, Microsoft actually gave us an ad-free youtube client they are not the scum you want them to be.

And the day comes when... (1)

nashv (1479253) | about a year ago | (#43739925)

Microsoft did good by users, and Google is doing the suing.

I believe 90% of Slashdot is having a 'Christian Scientist with appendicitis' moment.

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...