Coffeehouse Thread

93 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Google doesn't allow Microsoft to use YouTube's API in Windows Phone

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    dentaku

    Youtube Leanback is even available on my WDTV box. They're not complaining that Western Digital doesn't have a big enough marketshare to bother with a Youtube app for that.
    I'm not sure how "full featured" Leanback is compared to a real phone app but it still seems unfair.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Breaking:

    "Google did agree to license patents deemed to be "essential" for rival mobile devices such as Apple Inc.'s iPhone, Research in Motion Ltd.'s BlackBerry and smartphones running on a Microsoft Corp.'s Windows software."

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Google+agrees+license+smartphone+patents+Apple/7771630/story.html

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    It looks like Google will write off the Motorola Mobility acquisition next year...

  • User profile image
    Bass

    I think YouTube is a competitive advantage and I don't see any reason Google should allow access for Microsoft devices. Because "Microsoft really wants access"? Well sorry, it is not Microsoft's web property. Go build your own, and maybe if it is better it will displace YouTube. Until then, quit whining.

  • User profile image
    BitFlipper

    @Bass: I assume you had the same response when people were complaining about similar business practices from MS back in the day, right?

  • User profile image
    Bass

    @BitFlipper:

    I don't see the moral equivalency at all. One company spend years hating on FOSS and open standards, the other is a friend to the movement. I for one welcome our Google overlords.

    In addition, it's no secret that I personally respect and look to Google as the technical leader in our industry. I'm sorry if that frustrates some people who seem to have followed different paths, but it is the way it is.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    , Bass wrote

    @BitFlipper:

    I don't see the moral equivalency at all. One company spend years hating on FOSS and open standards, the other is a friend to the movement. I for one welcome our Google overlords.

    In addition, it's no secret that I personally respect and look to Google as the technical leader in our industry. I'm sorry if that frustrates some people who seem to have followed different paths, but it is the way it is.

    Wow, the double standard is strong in this one...

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Bass wrote

    @BitFlipper:

    I don't see the moral equivalency at all. One company spend years hating on FOSS and open standards, the other is a friend to the movement. I for one welcome our Google overlords.

    Right. Google are so open with their software and so non-discriminatory that they should be allowed to close their effective monopoly on their closed source online free video distribution website to competitors on business grounds.

    In fact, because they're never evil, they should be allowed to prevent Windows Phone customers from viewing their friend's videos on YouTube via Windows Phone in a dispute that doesn't involve that customer.

    If Microsoft released a silent update to ASP.NET that made it detect and return a "Error 600: Google Not Allowed" webpage every time someone viewed the site in Google Chrome, there'd (rightly) be an outcry.

    For the same reason, Google shouldn't have released a silent update into their YouTube API that makes it detect and return an "Error 600: Microsoft not allowed" result every time someone tries to use a YouTube app on a Windows Phone.

     

    Code should always treat everyone the same (up to authentication). Doing otherwise is explicitly "doing evil", undermines competition in the market place, is contrary to the entire principle of FOSS, in that it is narrow, centrally owned, hidden and subject to malicious "political" manoeuvres.

    It doesn't matter if Microsoft used to be evil. What matters is that Google should aspire to be better. It's motto is "don't be evil" for heaven's sake.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    I love that people aren't even trying to hide the fact that their arguments have come down to "It's okay when they do it" anymore.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , Bass wrote

    @BitFlipper:

    I don't see the moral equivalency at all. One company spend years hating on FOSS and open standards, the other is a friend to the movement. I for one welcome our Google overlords.

    In addition, it's no secret that I personally respect and look to Google as the technical leader in our industry. I'm sorry if that frustrates some people who seem to have followed different paths, but it is the way it is.

    So, you don't have a problem with a company that deliberately bypassed browser security to illegally harvest folks' private data?

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    @Bass: you mean we didn't follow the path to grab what was free and use it privately for our advantages? Or you mean we didn't bought YouTube? Because in the end of it all, both Google and Microsoft failed to compete with YouTube, and YouTube was a lot closer to free before the buyout.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Bass

    @magicalclick:

    Google had to pay billions for YouTube. The idea that Microsoft can go and take advantage of YouTube to their own business ends without contributing anything is legalizing parasitic behavior at best.

    Microsoft is a big boy, they shouldn't need the government to help them keep their business relevant.

  • User profile image
    BitFlipper

    @Bass: Your beloved savior is now also actively blocking Windows Phone from accessing maps.google.com.

    Specifically, see this comment:

    It is definitely on purpose.  If you change the user agent in Firefox (using User Agent Switcher) to "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows Phone 8.0; Trident/6.0; ARM; Touch; IEMobile/10.0", you get redirected to the Google home page. But if you set the user agent to "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows Phne 8.0; Trident/6.0; ARM; Touch; IEMobile/10.0" (notice I intentionally misspelled Windows Phone), the maps.google.com page comes up just fine. In other words, the only way I was able to get it to redirect is to have Windows Phone in the user agent string.  So something on Google's side is keying off the user agent for windows phone

    You must be so proud of them.

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    @Bass:

    , Bass wrote

    @magicalclick:

    Google had to pay billions for YouTube. The idea that Microsoft can go and take advantage of YouTube to their own business ends without contributing anything is legalizing parasitic behavior at best.

    Then they shouldn't provide the API. Or they should charge for it. Or they should put limits on it that affect all providers equally. And why isn't that the case on iOS? Essentially we have Microsoft doing Google's job for them for free (and if it's not "Google's job" then why have they written an app for iOS while arguing that Microsoft can't release theirs because it wasn't written by Google?).

  • User profile image
    Bass

    @BitFlipper:

    Don't see the problem. If I have a website and want to block people by user agent string or IP address or whatever the hell I want, I can. Because it is my website. Maybe you want administrator access too, I hear Google doesn't share that with many people.

    I personally think Google has been treating Microsoft too nicely. This is a company who's CEO wants to "f**king kill" them and plays cheap by randomly suing their partners. So quite frankly, most forms of retaliation are appropriate.

  • User profile image
    BitFlipper

    , Bass wrote

    @BitFlipper:

    Don't see the problem.

    Of course you don't. You've drunk too deep from the Kool-Aid to know any better.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , GoddersUK wrote

    @Bass:

    *snip*

    Then they shouldn't provide the API.

    It makes even more sense to hand API keys only in situations where it is in their business interest, and not in situations where it isn't in their business interest. I think giving Microsoft access to YouTube is not in Google's business interest, and it seems they agree.

    Maybe they are wrong, and this hurting them. But regardless, it is within their right to run their business in the way they feel is optimal. The only time the government gets involved is in the case of monopoly, and I highly doubt YouTube is a monopoly or it is impossible for Microsoft to make a competing service.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    @BitFlipper:

    Not my fault, it's a Friday night and it had plenty of vodka.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.