Microsoft says Google trying to undermine Windows Phone Microsoft has admitted that Windows Phone 8 doesn't work as well with some of the internet's most popular properties as do other smartphone platforms, but it has pinned the blame on a surprising culprit: apparently, it's all Google's fault. In a blog post on Wednesday, Microsoft VP and deputy general counsel Dave Heiner said …
Awwww evil old Google beating up on poor wittle Micwosoft. There there poor baby, console yourself with the thought that you're a big fat corprate bastard that's been kicking sand in the faces of smaller guys for years so it's about time you got yours. I'm old enough to remember FUD and Astro Turf. Stop whining and innovate!!!!
They can't. MS have lost all their creative staff and effective engineers (the dross remains as usual). Even MS haven't got enough money to fix their appalling range of offerings - they've entirely lost their way. Windows 8 tries to turn the desktop into a sub-standard touchscreen phone, Windows for phones doesn't work properly (it's even worse than Blackberry!), Windows 7 is incompatible with most business software, and all of them have stupidly high hardware requirements (ever tried "running" Windoze 7 on an Atom-based netbook?).
Apple aren't much better. Their desktop OS is now aging (the latest version is just a set of patches on top of a seven-year-old OS), and business can't justify the need for the higher hardware prices. iOS is a poor joke. Everything that was good about earlier versions is largely broken, and they just can't compete with the ability of Android to run on virtually any hardware....
Android is now the "acceptable face of Linux" and is stealing a march on everything else. Chrome looks great, and is easy to use - the Samsung Chromebook is fabulous (and insanely cheap). The latest Nexus phone will outsell everything else on the market over the next few months.
Google aren'y being nasty to MS and Apple - it's just that they've lost the plot completely, and neither can compete with Google's pricing policy! Android, Chrome and Linux are all free (in every sense), and their inexorable march towards supremacy in all markets will be fascinating to see!
"Apple aren't much better. Their desktop OS is now aging (the latest version is just a set of patches on top of a seven-year-old OS)"
Irony++
This desktop OS has underpinnings dating back over 40 years, how on earth can steady, methodical improvements be labelled in this way? Because you think everything is like Windows?
You should know all about systems based on Unix, you base your life on a Penguin-flavoured free-ripoff version of it after all and nobody is complaining that is "just a set of patches". You have no respect for the amount of work put into these things clearly.
Idiot.
Indeed.
Reminds me of when they intentionally delivered borked content to Opera Browser...
http://slashdot.org/story/03/02/14/1256231/opera-releases-bork-edition
I have a suspicion that the underlying problem is Microsoft's insistance of pushing the closed H.264 video standard. If they supported open VP8/HTML5 video, i'm guessing there wouldn't be a problem with the YouTube app.
Either way, the lack of a decent YouTube app on Windows Phone is the very least of users problems, the whole OS is shite, not just a single app.
"@Barry - Did you even read the article? They clearly said that the problem was nothing to do with video, but the metadata related services, such as ratings, categories etc."
The coward is right! Too many retards hit submit without thought or consideration for whey they rant about. Hardly surprising in here tho is it?
The whole windows phone os is rubbish eh? Have you ever actually used it? And I don't mean reading a review from some Apple ir Google biased reviewer. Or fiddling with it in a shop.
Yes, it has faults but so do all the others. I just think people are now too quick to dismiss it.
We need more competition in the market..
So feel free to use a sub-standard mobile platform if you think that brings competition to a market that is spilt quite well between two tech giants, bring a 3rd party to the table that locked down the previous desktop market so it contained only themselves. Something they were fined for doing multiple times, why on earth would anyone want Microsoft back in the mix again ?
You are correct - feel free to use the substandard Android, by not acknowledging or complaining about its many failings, and believe that you are bringing competition to a market.
Android's email, battery power handling, calendar system and People contact handling UI are massive steps backward from both BlackBerry and Windows Mobile 6.1 / 6.5, but you blindly believe otherwise. But you'e bought into the hype, haven't you?
This post has been deleted by its author
That's pretty obvious, obviously The retards seem nowadays to concentrate primarily in the vicinity of your beloved Redmond City. Because, it's not that hard to write an app for youtube. The one Android devices use had an Apache license, so were MS not that retarded, they'd be able to figure it out. There is a python project called youtube-dl (GPL'ed), MS could use to parse youtube urls to their own liking and fire up some nice video player to watch the movies. Do MS have a decent videoplayer? I doubt it, in that case they can use a free player, they are aplenty. The code of mplayer or vlc, these are GPL'ed. So MS should use some caution here.
Of course, MS might be able to do all that, they just need to cry out loud like a bunch of professional weepers. I'll try to smother this hysteria with a little reminder that MS had been failing to deliver any of their products to GNU/Linux and *BSD platforms (not that most bother, but still...). So they better shut their baby-crying mouth up.
There may be issues. I've heard from a senior mobile phone company guy that Windows Phones are being returned en masse and it's to do with the phones slowing down and not working properly. Currently they try to mitigate issues by recommending removing the last added apps.
I haven't seen anything on the web about this yet - maybe the Reg wants to look into it?
That would be why most of YouTube is still H.264 then??
Also, VP8 is inferior to H.264 in every way. It's a larger file, it's a lower quality picture, it's a format that doesn't play on servers without extra configuration, and no support for hardware acceleration. Pretty lame....
Also video has nothing to do with this story so not sure what bandwagon you are on. If I have been caught by excellent trolling then my hat goes off to you sir.
Back in the day, when Microsoft had the clout to act like the bully, they served different html to IE and Opera browsers from their MSN site. The code served to IE worked on Opera, but what was served to Opera was a less polished interface. It made IE look "better".
And this: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/msn/
Does anyone else find that the Google search pages have a different, more functional design on the stock Android browser to what you get on Firefox for Android?
Lets play the Microsoft game...
In the following paragraphs, swap the names around....
"According to Heiner, Google has denied Microsoft's YouTube app access to metadata that would allow it to deliver all of YouTube's functionality, including such features as user ratings and the ability to search for videos by categories.
Because of this limitation, he says, Microsoft has been forced to deliver an app that's really nothing more than a repackaged version of the YouTube website running in a browser – unlike the apps for other platforms, which offer richer experiences."
So you get something like this:
"According to Heiner, Microsoft has denied Google's / Firefox's / Netscape's, YouTube app (or any other piece of software) access to metadata that would allow it to deliver all of YouTube's functionality, including such features as user ratings and the ability to search for videos by categories.
Because of this limitation, he says, Microsoft have been forced to deliver an app that's really nothing more than a repackaged version of the YouTube website running in a browser – unlike the apps for other platforms, which offer richer experiences."
I remember for YEARS that Microsofts IDIOT media player that so totally fucked things up, so badly that any other program by any other company, was WAY better, and now we have Open Source "VLC MEDIA PLAYER" and the like to play almost anything, on any Operating System, while Microsoft's management simply squat on a bigger DRM butt plug.
This post has been deleted by its author
This from the same company that's going around Android licensees, demanding money for menaces^h alleged patents in the form of protection money^h^h licensing agreements. They really ought to be more careful on how they engage allegations of dubious trading conduct; it's only a matter of time before the FTC, and the EC, out them. It's a clear anti-trust violation. Just amazed that they've got away with that for so long.
Unlike these PR stunts, no consumer is complaining about Google, only Microsoft. Competition is but a mouse click away for the rest of us, if indeed there was a credible alternative.
Not that I agree with it at all (the patent stuff not being outed etc), but I fail to understand your reasoning. If they have these patents, they should be able to charge for them. As it seems they are agreeing with the companies that are paying the licensing fees there must be something too them and they must be real.
Yes the patent system in the US needs to be overhauled, worldwide it needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into something more workable. But why are you not asking everyone that has patents to stop using them? Oh yes sorry I forgot, it affects your beloved Linux and therefore it is bad, bad, bad because it is not free and is owned by a Company you have a distinct dislike for.
"If they have these patents, they should be able to charge for them."
Yeah, but the issue is more that they're insisting they have these patents but refusing to clarify how exactly Android infringes and trying to do the "You wouldn't want to end up in court discussing this, would you?" sales pitch for the settlement.
It's especially dubious when Microsoft is trying to promote its own competing OS in partnership with a rival company to those whom it is threatening with litigation. It may be innocent, but MS have a fine track history in corporate-level felonious bellendery so I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions either way...
But surely in the negotiations they have to show the patents to the people involved. Otherwise they could say, well hey, we're not infringing as you can't tell us what we're infringing, and carry on.
Perhaps I live in a dream world and for some reason this is not possible. But a lot of the companies involved can easily afford what you are saying.
So, after spending the best part of 15 years screwing competitors and partners with secret APIs, unannounced API changes and even code that detects competitors and issues spurious warnings (remember DR DOS?), Microsoft finds itself at the other end of such 'competitiveness'. Oooh the irony.
So, it seems like the consensus here is 'an eye for an eye'?
Maybe Microsoft do deserve a bit of their own medicine but Google would earn far more of my respect if their behaviour was above reproach. In my view deliberately anti-competitive is just wrong, even if it represents a bit of karma rebalancing.
My (work) web access says this:
"Use Outlook Web Access Light
The Light client provides fewer features and is sometimes faster. Use the Light client if you are on a slow connection or using a computer with unusually strict browser security settings. If you are using a browser other than Internet Explorer 6 or later, you can only use the Light client."
And it is always on unless I connect using IE.
Maybe not the latest/greatest exchange version running, the page says (c)2007
@C 7
Which Microsoft website only works with IE?
I can name a Microsoft website doesn't even work with IE - I remember giving up on IE7 in the early days when it used to blink out of existence with no warning, no error message, just vanished, when opening pages on the MSDN site. I've a suspicion it still does.
The Wii didn't have a Youtube app, so I just used the built in browser and went to Youtube XL, life was good.
Then, just this past December, a Youtube channel was added to the Wii Shop, and all attempts to log on to Youtube XL were directed to a page exhoting you to download the app, "specially written for Wii, to ehance the Youtube experience."
Whoever it was at Google that wrote this abomination has either never heard of the Wii, or hates it intensely!
It has its own keyboard, strictly alphanumerics and space, no punctuation keys, and it's freakin' laid out alphabetically!
Really Google? Is there anyone under 90 that's not familiar with the standard qwerty keyboard? You know, like that one that the Wii has accessable for every thing that runs on it?
Add to this, the number of videos I've been able to view withb this app is exactly ZILCH! It locks the entire system up, requiring a reset every freakin" time it's run!
And the Wii is not alone with this problem, from researching the problem on the web, it seems that the Youtube app for Playstations is just as bunged up as the Wii one!
So count yourself lucky, Microsoft, if Google does write a Youtube app just for you, it will probably be yet another balls-up.
Oh yeah. Dovrak keyboards, see 'em everywhere...not.
Of course there's a standard qwerty keyboard. Individual minor variations abound, nothing that most people can't cope with. But what they certainly don't like is unfamiliar variations for no tangible benefit. Which is what the OP was saying.
@Craigness:
You've missed something fairly fundamental about why the AZERTY and DVORAK keyboard layouts are known by those names, haven't you? ;)
(Yes, there are minor regional variations in the QWERTY layout for access to non-alphanumeric characters or in some cases to allow for the presence of additional alphabetic characters such as ñ, but 9 times out of 10 stick someone who knows the UK QWERTY layout in front of a US QWERTY layout keyboard and they'll be fine, barring the occasional 'Why am I getting @ when I want "?' sorts of issues, which are minor)
I like how responses to this comment are all along the lines of "Wii is shit" and "Why won't you acknowledge keyboard layouts other than QWERTY?", missing the point that 1) Wiis are everywhere, 2) many people like to view YouTube, and 3) when using a Wii, the keyboard usually comes up with the expected QWERTY layout.
Are we overrun with Google shills, now?
In this article, if Neil McAllister is the one saying ..." Hopefully, Google will wake up to a New Year with a resolution to change its ways and start to conform with the antitrust laws.", then he is pre-judging Google in that Microsoft' claims are true, which is stupid position to take at this stage, unless he also is a Microsoft stooge, like Ed Bott of ZDNet.
Nope, it's another Vulture journo too lazy to make it clear that's a direct quote from the blog post.
If anything that's actually worse because I'm not convinced it's just laziness that allowed that perceived bias into what's little more than a repost of the Microsoft propaganda PR release. No analysis, no critical thinking, no proper disclosure.
The actual blog post tells a simpler story.
1: Google won't give MS more access to metadata than they give anyone else. Good luck convincing anyone else that's a winning argument.
2: Google won't build a YouTube app for WP. I believe that's covered by the 'we won't build any apps till people start using it' and that statement is fully compatible with claiming someone higher up blocked YouTube support. Just doesn't sound so prejudicial put that way. Again, good luck forcing Google to waste resources supporting a minority platform with a far from essential service.
Bwahaha - dishwasher time for the keyboard, thanks. Hahaha.
My problem is that I don't quite know who to root for. The new monopolist or the old one? The old one was at least not invading everyone's privacy, just "merely" stopping innovation dead in its tracks.
I'll sit this one out, I think. I avoid both - all I use of Google is the search engine (the thing they originally did well), provided I can still find results between the advertising (Start Page is cleaner and less risky, but undeniably not quite as good as "native" Google)..
"My problem is that I don't quite know who to root for. The new monopolist or the old one? The old one was at least not invading everyone's privacy, just "merely" stopping innovation dead in its tracks."
There's also a further fundamental difference, that the old one expected you to pay cold hard cash and plenty of it, whereas the currency that Google want is your privacy. I'm not sure either company really count as monopolists, because you can easily avoid both company's offerings - the difficulty is with those who seem to think they have some right to use the products, but don't like the price being asked.
I'll declare my hand - I'm rooting for Google now, and I'm prepared to trade some privacy for the service. MS can go swing precisely because they have not innovated, and have sought to stop others, and they are expensive (and a host of other failings). But in a few years time, chances are that Google will be the entrenched dinosaur, and I'll back the new kid on the block if their offering is good enough.
yeah, I hear you. Those ubiquitous Google's annoying ads: Windows 8, Azure, Windows 2012 Server, Surface, etc. So I better turn noscript back on. Wait, is that google annoying us, or some other company? Or, is this another google's hand? Does this qualify for an anti-ad?
When I compared gmail's ads with those on yahoo mail, I found the latter much more annoying. Things might have changed now, I use IMAP with the Mutt email client (btw, there is no imap for hotmail/outlook.com though)
I didn't comment on how ANNOYING (or not) google's ads are, just how ever-present googles ads and services are. The premise I started from was that someone might want to avoid said monopolists. Almost every site I go to sends requests to at least one of
Google AdWords
Google AdSense
DoubleClick (owned by Google since 2007)
Google Maps
Google Analytics
I'm not even counting the common js frameworks they host public copies of (such as JQuery, https://developers.google.com/speed/libraries/devguide). You can talk all day about if this is good or not (having everyone using the same copy of JQuery, so they only have to cache it once, can be considered beneficial), but I think you're being more then a little disingenuous if you are going to argue random pages don't access google's properties more then microsoft's.
"My problem is that I don't quite know who to root for. The new monopolist or the old one? "
Here's a few words of advice from The Who....
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Microsoft used one or two other sleazy tactics not widely publicy mentioned, of relentlessly blocking PC users access to alternative Operating System (OS) software - or end user applications - on the "user's" own, purchased and paid-for computers.
For example, Microsoft had refused to have Microsoft Office adhere to the Open (repeat Open, non-proprietary) Standards "document format" set by the European Union, many governments in Asia, South Africa and in South America. Why, when it would have required less than one day's configuation of 2 Microsoft engineers, for an International Document format that the company "contributed to in developing"?
Many millions of computer users would have and did opt for OpenOffice or LibreOffice and other Office suites that are fully - 99.995% compatible with MS Office (about same or more compatible than one version of MS Office to another) with all same features and at considerably lower costs - $0 - $10, for an application that was also more secure and reliable.
The second example of Microsoft sleaze is on-going saga of Microsoft not allowing Windows 8 machines to be able to install Linux or other OS without their express consent or receiving an exorbitant fee. This should be an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) issue alone, with Microsoft having no say in the matter. However the company have threatened HP, Dell and others into giving them authority on "users' purchased and owned, paid-for hardware.
Google could never be that draconian or low life.
Bullshit. out of those three only Google is currently under investigation for monopoly abuse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9753580/EU-monopoly-regulator-still-seeking-Google-deal.html
http://betanews.com/2010/02/24/google-is-a-dangerous-monopoly-more-than-microsoft-ever-was/
only Google is currently under investigation for monopoly abuse.
.. and Google is the first company in the world ever to get investigated by 27 countries concurrently for breaches of privacy laws.
The Google response is going to be quite important - a lot of other complaints are backed up behind this letter because regulators first want to see Google's stance. If Google doesn't give a satisfying answer all hell is going to break loose for them in Europe, and deservedly so. It seems that as soon as a US company gets any sort of size, its management seems to think they only have to keep themselves to US law..
You could see that with Gates when MS was investigated in Europe, and Schmidt shows identical megalomaniacal traits when it comes to privacy.
Yes I also hate their 'blending' every service together, in principle that is fine, but sometimes you like to keep things separate, and it does mean the user needs to be more pro-active in their privacy...
Now I see their under investigation, and that is a good thing, it will make them re-think their policies, get them right.
BUT and here is the BIG BUT..
have they actually ever done anything with my data that I would consider a breach of MY privacy?
And for me that means allowing public access to my data, selling my images or personal data (by personal data I mean name/address/dob/ private emails etc...
have they actually ever done anything with my data that I would consider a breach of MY privacy?
It's irrelevant what you would consider a breach - there are laws that define that. I have no problem with people driving 10km/h over the speed limit provided it can be done safely, but they will still get a speeding ticket.
Google is as far as I can tell actually breaking the law on a daily basis throughout the whole of Europe, and from what I hear from regulators, this is known already. They are merely waiting for Google's response to the privacy policy complaint to determine just how to fine them.
They didn't.
They opensourced VP8 codec and Microsoft are free to use that for their YouTube app if they wish. However they are trying to bruteforce HTML5/H.264 which is ACTUALLY the evil part....
I would stop listening to things Microsoft say, it's rarely true, and usually a trick for their own good.
@David Simpson 1 - MS have been investigated, found guilty and punished for monopolistic behavior, they have "done their time" and changed their behavior. It is not right for a company to try to fight another company because they are monopolistic, while also abusing their monopoly to do so. I would contend that it's always wrong for a company to take the law into their own hands, particularly if it benefits them.
That you say "new bios" suggests that you don't really know that much about the subject, but here we go:
The following companies are members of the UEFI board:
AMD, American Megatrends Inc., Apple Inc., Dell, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Insyde, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Phoenix Technologies
The UEFI organisation also has Red Hat and Canonical as members.
MS have mandated that a machine carrying the "Made for Windows 8" sticker must have the ability to disable secure boot, it must also have the ability for the user to add their own keys. In effect they have mandated that anyone's OS can be installed on the machine and with a little extra effort with a signed bootloader, when the user has added the key.
As well as this they have said that they will sign bootloaders for other companies who can't or won't sign their own. These are not the actions of a company trying to stamp out all competition.
In my opinion, this is a disingenuous attempt, presumably by a Microsoft PR company, to give the impression that secure boot is not an anti-competitive practice. Whereas I believe it will certainly hurt Ubuntu and similar, in that it will obstruct you from using Ubuntu to extending your PC life for another 5 years after MS Windows has started to run so slowly you think you otherwise would have had to buy a new PC.
I am reasonably technical, but I shudder to think how many hours I would have to spend on that "With a little extra effort with a signed bootloader, when the user has added the key."
And whether what Microsoft "say" will be what Microsoft do:
"Microsoft have said that they will sign boot-loaders for other companies who can't"
Didn't Microsoft tell the EU they would abide by the browser ballot anti-competitive ruling? And then fail to do so?
Saying and doing can be different , can't they?
The browser ballot thing was a balls up, pretty much everyone agrees that this was the case.
Ubuntu already has signed bootloaders, should they be needed.
If you buy a motherboard or computer that doesn't say in the manual how to add a key, I would suggest you've got what you paid for. That is, if it's not covered in the help section of the UEFI config page in question.
As it happens, even RMS' FSF support secureboot, they just don't want it restricted to any one company, which is exactly what MS appear to be trying to do as well.
No one is asking Google to provide a YouTube app for Windows Phone, Microsoft is only asking them to allow the same access to metadata that apps on other platforms have, so that they (Microsoft) can provide the app. It's like if Microsoft provided specs on their office document formats to all competing office suites, except Google and whatever their craptastic online pile of vomit office suite is called. Microsoft may have its share of antitrust skeletons in the closet, but for the most part they're a decade or more in the past. Google, it seems, is just ramping up their antitrust schemes.
"It's like if Microsoft provided specs..."
Oh, you mean like they did with the SMB data?
If I recall correctly MS had to be dragged kicking and screaming to deliver the documentation needed by the Samba team as part of the settlement with the European Court of Justice. I also remember MS being fined astronomical amounts for their prevarication over the matter.
So, pot, kettle, black etc.
Personally I can't see the US authorities doing much, though I hope I am wrong. Otherwise it just might be up to the ECJ to sort things out, again.
No metadata access? What about a web browser? Can they use it to access all that? Usually, playing a video is an issue since it involves a resource hog called flashplayer. Google couldn't fight Adobe so they came up with a "youtube app". The main issue is to process the url and find the proper source of the video. MS might pay the youtube-dl developers or use their code (it's GPL'ed so make sure to use a proper license for theirs)
'Just as soon as MS provide their complete office suit for Linux for the same price as they do for windows.'
I know you jest, but please! some of us remember the unholy abomination that was their Internet Explorer for Solaris, the many hours of fun and joy installing and supporting that POS ...oh shit, now I've triggered the flashbacks...the horrors of watching it kill all those poor defenceless innocent Sparc Classics if the users had the temerity to dare run it...considering my 'Desktop' machine at the time was an IPX fitted with a Wietek Power μP, It stood no chance.
<Nam>
you don't know man, you weren't there...
</Nam>
Somewhere deep under Redmond, there exists a vault. It requires two keys to open, one held by Ballmer, the other by his Holiness Gates himself. Inside this vault is the fabled Microsoft Doomsday device, the Office suite for Linux, only to be deployed in the eventuality that Linux overtakes Windows as the predominant computer OS. Rumour has that it is a most terrible, accursed weapon, designed to both cripple the best machines it runs on and drive the users insane. Crafted in secret by the worst C++ coders that Microsoft could safely free up from their other projects, rumour also has it that it is not written in C++, but allegedly written in Perl by C++ programmers, using the GTK toolkit, then run through their own infernal fork of perlcc..
That Redmond Microsoft Doomsday device most probably activates Energetic Perly Gates Python CodeXSSXXXX, El Zed. Real Game Changing Protocols.
The Worlds are a Canvas, Paint and Share the Dreams Travels and Travails into Temptation, would create quite a heavenly culture and super social hierarchical meritocracy in a challenged and failing society loded with austerity's toxic waste and zero politically correct and adept leaderships.
And now you know of just one of the Utilities which can be Microsoft Doomsday device Derived.
Let's see how Microsoft like those numbers. Though given Windows Phone sales, it wouldn't really amount to much.
Gotta love it when Microsoft start bellyaching now that they're on the losing wicket. Props to Google for yanking their chain.
It would seem to be standard practice to screw with another IT company and not make life easy for them.
Same really, I have a Lumia 900 & 820.
820 much improved over the 900.
Have seen a couple of iPhone users play with it and had some good comments.
Yes, you pay your money & you take your choice. Me, I'm happy with Windows phone, but would like a better youtube app (among a few others)
I had a 820 and it was the worst phone I have ever had. It was chock full of software bugs (like handset being locked during calls, making touch-tone interaction impossible), it regularly locked up at the end of a call, and I couldn't hang up, needing a hard reset.
The battery life was woeful, and the applications non-existent.
It went back and I got a S3 instead. SO much better, worlds apart.
That's not my experience with an 820, I got one just before Christmas and I think it's an excellent device, I've not seen any of your problems. Were you holding it correctly?
Seriously though, do you mean the Nokia Lumia 820? Because mine (Phones4U/Vodafone) doesn't behave like this.
Don't worry AC, the previous AC was just Barry Shitpeas. He always claims to have owned the Windows Phone you're happy with and found it was crap and then bought an Android phone which fellated him all the way home, gave him the winning lottery numbers and had an app which made a girl actually glance at him without vomiting.
From my experience with the Youtube app on both Android and iOS they are both crap. Load slow as hell, don't show the same videos (don't get it since some videos are marked as not available if I try to view them on my phone while the same video is available on the browser or my PC), tends to decide to play a video in what appears to be 240 resolution for no reason when I have a great WiFi connection and so on. From the sounds of it Google is just making app comparable in quality to the current ones available to the competitors.
I'd noticed the fact that there were videos missing from the Android YouTube app compared to the same search on a desktop. This also appears to be the case on the YouTube support incorporated into Blu Ray players and SmartTVs.
I think that it is the case that if the YouTube app does not think the correct container or codec is installed on the device, it won't display the video in the search.
I think it is possible to get YouTube in a browser to tell you the format of any video, but I can't remember how, and I can't check as YouTube is blocked/filtered at work.
There is a certain satisfaction in seeing Microsoft complain about practices that they apparently haven't been averse to using themselves, but that ignores an important point : it's the poor user who is forced to act as cannon-fodder in a commercial war between corporations.
If a Windows Phone user is being treated unfairly by Google then it is just plain wrong. For that reason I hope that if the accusations are true, Google are forced to play fair.
From a company that talks about open source (ie. freedom to use something) it just shows how their talk of open source, standards and so on are just a smokescreen.
They're a money grubbing monopolist at heart just like any other. As Schmidt made clear recently with his letter about tax avoidance and not being confused about it.
All your thoughts in searches belong to Google and Bing and Baidu and Yandex and and and any engine aiding search.
Challenge them to provide the dream information you seek. It may transpire you be Sole Source Core Supplier.
Thus are Markets Captured and Routed, Decimated and Destroyed with SMARTR Future Content of Fabulous Intellectual Property Worth with Bounty a Princely Reward that Enables Leads into Controls of HyperRadioProActive IT.
That is the private virtual defence and protection sector testing new transparent programming protocols of full disclosure and admission, in a novel running program with SpookdD Intelligence Services.
Well, ok, it is at least a private contractor in the private virtual defence and protection sector testing new transparent programming protocols of full disclosure and admission, in a novel running program with SpookdD Intelligence Services.
You people are hilarious. If we take your ridiculous posturing to the extreme, let's have Microsoft release a patch that blocks access to all of Google's services from your computer.
That' almost 1 billion desktops, laptops and Servers out there who can't access Google.
What's that you say? Unfair?
Deal with it.
Well..... no - not really - that is completely different. We already had access to Google services - a patch to remove access to Google services would be a different beast entirely. We don't even know yet why Microsoft have been denied access to the meta data - and it's more than likely that it is a terms of service violation type of thing rather than a "we don't like you and we wont give you what you what" response.
This is just idiotic. The difference here is that would definitely be monopolistic (Windows being pretty much shoehorned onto nearly every non-apple PC by a trade "agreement") as opposed to hardware manufacturers being allowed to make all types of mobile devices (except Nokia now obviously) and people picking what they like best.
"Microsoft has been forced to deliver an app that's really nothing more than a repackaged version of the YouTube website running in a browser "
That sounds better than the Youtube apps i have seen on iOS, TIVO and Android. I set up a playlist of videos on my PC through the browser but when i login from one of the Youtube apps half the videos on the playlist are not available.
They support Apple, because they have a significant marketshare.
Microsoft are NOWHERE with Windows Phone, and their marketshare is shrinking. so Google therefore don't have a requirement to support them. If they do, I demand that Google also support my Mobile phone OS I am making in my bedroom.
They aren't asking Google to support them, they're asking Google to make the metadata that is available to everyone else available to them. You would be right to ask them to make that available to you for your OS...
As for your assertion that the WP market is failing, this would suggest not: http://bgr.com/2012/12/21/windows-phone-growth-analysis-262829/
Surely its up to Google who they sell to? and who they give 'special' access to meta data to?
If I ran a pub I could bar anyone I want, if I run a shop, I can refuse to sell to someone..
If I run a free service, I can choose the people who access it...
Google don't force people to use google, they don't say you can't use another search engine, or you can't use another video streaming service...
If they restricted youtube to only Android, then I would say yes its an abuse, but they don't
No, it's not up to Google for the reason that they have a monopolistic (or as near as makes no difference) position on Internet video serving, and that they make the data available to everyone else, with one exception. This is an obvious abuse of their position as the provider of such a service.
Yeah, I need more fluent Google access for movies on my WinPhone, that's the real deal breaker. The fact that you still can't do something as trivial as syncing todo items between your phone and Outlook is obviously totally unimportant.
What have those MS guys been smoking?
Corel Word Perfect
MS allegedly screwed Corel when they were trying to port Word Perfect to Windows 98, not a nice feeling is it MS? Of course nothing has been proven in either instance, it's all allegations and such, but eventually things will work out, and perhaps the phrase "reap what you sow" will become associated with one of the two.
Is there actually a law that says that YouTube must enable access to whatever it is that Microsoft claims they don't have access to? Can I complain that ITV Player is not yet available on my Panasonic Freeview+ HD recorder box despite being available for the Humax Freeview+ HD recorder box for example? Because... I'm pretty sure I can't.
Yes, there are lots of laws that specify fair trading and honest dealing. This includes not singling out competitors for special treatment, be that giving some an advantage or others a disadvantage, upon the whim of the CEO. This is particularly important when there is such a large share of the market controlled by, in this case Google.
The difference between your Panasonic Freeview player is that Panasonic are the people who chose not to include the ITV Player on it. This may have been because of complexity of the software, that Panasonic couldn't get it ready for ship date, because they didn't want to put the datalinks and servers in to handle the ITV traffic, or just because they didn't think there was much demand. (Although it's possible that it's not production yet, so ITV are limiting to a speciic manufacturer for pre-prod testing) No-one is suggesting that one of the Freeview companies is actively preventing another from having their production services.
If Microsoft want Google to spend time and money building a product for Microsoft's own competing operating system, then perhaps Microsoft should take the first step and create a version of their software for Android or ChromeOS. I.e IE, Office ... erm ... does Microsoft have anything else?
Why would Google spend time and money on an application that is going to be used by very few Microsoft mobile device users.
If Microsoft want more people to use their mobile devices, they should cover them in cheese, the yanks will lap them up!
Google don't block these services for xbox's youtube app. They don't block Apple's iPhone. This suggests that they don't want anyone who is in search and advertising to release a competing phone.
Are they worried about the WP competing with Android? Are they worried about losing advertising or search revenue?
By all accounts MS have an app ready to go, they just need Google to give them the metadata. Why won't they?
Microsoft complaining about Googles anti competitive practices. That's got to be the joke of the 20th century. Microsoft are you listening. What about being forced into having windows on every computer sold over the last 30 years, what about Netscape you forced out of business,
What about locking out every operating system and software with your UEFI, You still have not given Linux Foundation a signed digital key, so that users can dump windows 8 and install what ever operating system and software they want,
Consumers still can't buy a desktop or laptop in the States without windows 8 being installed on it, ( I tried ) If that's not anti competitive I don't know what is, On top of that Microsoft are planing charging windows 8 users an annual $99.00 end users license fee for using office after they have bought it,
Microsoft are you listening the fight for Freedom will never stop, freedom always wins in the end
MS have given them a key, there seems to be some issue on one end or other over what data has been provided as there is some issue with the key.
But, here's the important bit, MS are under no obligation to do this anyway - if you want a key you should be paying money to the UEFI foundation/association/whatever and having it included, not having a side-signed key by MS do the work for you.
Also, UEFI is a hardware technology and it *must* be possible to turn it off. So, what is the lack of key actually stopping anyone doing?
Even if it really was a pure technical/internal decision, Google should be all too aware by now that appearances matter a great deal. If it walks like an anti-competitive move, talks like an anti competitive move and smells like an anti competitive move, then it will likely attract the wrong kind of attention.
Switching off the proprietary protocol Google is paying for is an anticompetitive move? Are you saying that gnu/linux, Android, *BSD are all anticompetitive switching a few people off the Windows OS?
As far as they are not delivering their software for our OS complaints are concerned, how many of MS' own products exist for GNU/Linux or *BSD?
Err...
Services for UNIX
Linux kernel support for virtualisation
Linux support in their cloud computing
All their web services work on FOSS browsers
Skydrive has Android support
xbox glass (or whatever it's called) is supported on Android
They sign bootloaders for Linux distros who want it.
Okay, so you're dumping everything that has a word "*nix" in one pile? Why not adding TCP/IP stack that MS *borrowed* from BSD?
Services for Unix ran on Windows (pretty half-assed, most of people would run cygwin for the same purpose anyways)
As far as providing signatures for secure Boot, your statement is pretty far-fetched, another matter who are MS to give or not to give the keys? Why is it not an OEM, for example.
In the meantime, think about IE, Outllook, MS Office, Power Shell, Visual Studio, Silverlight etc
I can't stand the android app myself. It doesn't always show the channels I'm subscribed to. Trying to read or add comments is badly integrated and too many videos are prevented from being viewed on a mobile app (pretty retarded as Google own Youtube and make the damn app!)
My solution is to open up Firefox and watch the video there, which lets me resize the video how I want and watch in a variety of resolutions depending on bandwidth instead of just HD or SD.
Microsoft complaining about having to use a cludged browser version ? It works better in my experience.
"and too many videos are prevented from being viewed on a mobile app (pretty retarded as Google own Youtube and make the damn app!)"
- But it is not Google's own YouTube that made the video, and those who did has the right to set the flag that disallows viewing the video on a mobile device.
OH NO!!!! Wait... They actually aren't.. But evil only exists in the minds of the evil... Remember OS\2 ?
What you (MicroSoft ) did to IBM, now THAT was undermining an OS... I mean you actually BROKE your OWN OS ( API's ) to the eggregious detriment of OS\2. Oh... And all the other programs running under your pathetically pitiful WIN 95 whitewash over command prompt based OS.
What GOOGLE is doing is LEGIT...
Microsoft, take some QUIET TIME.... LEARN TO PROGRAM a decent OS.
BY the way who has sympathy for a company that THREATS NON-PROFITs like the Linux OSes.. And then collects over the years BILLIONS from them... NON-PROFITS...
IT's KARMA-TIME against Microsoft... 'Bout time, I'd say..
OK, let's turn the clock back a fair way.
In 2000/2001 Microsoft started work on an MS Smartphone with a mobile phone manufacturer.
That was TWELVE years ago ... an eternity in high tech.
So do we see Windows Smartphones on every desk or in every home? I think not.
That might be telling us something ...
Microsoft must be filled with fear and loathing towards Google these days.
Let me count thy ways:
1) Bing It On
2) Gmail Man
3) Scroogled
4) #DroidRage
5) Googlighting Stranger
6) That petulant hissy fit over FTC's ruling for Google.
7) Moaning about Google Maps not working properly on Windows phones.
Microsoft will soon become the next IBM or Kodak. I'm glad it is happening within my lifetime.
The schadenfreude is exhilarating.
Fair enough it is a bit pot and kettle but ...
Google are basically becoming what M$ once was "too big for fairness".
Google has made no attempt to hide the fact that it plans to muscle in on M$'s core product offerings so it should expect a fight.
M$ have the right to complain about stuff that cost them billions in court, taking this approach saves them having to sue google as the complaint could likely result in oversight committee action.
I currently have an android phone (Galaxy S3) which i'm told is one of the best android devices on the market and I hate it. Every Android update results in really basic stuff having problems ... my current issue is that the phone seems to think poor signal is a good thing and actively seeks it out then randomly restarts.
I'm tempted to start using my old winpho ... that got the basics right at least and I could be fairly sure an update wouldn't kill it.
All this crap about linux is irrelevant ... if you hate M$ that much don't buy their products, linux IMO is hard work, I need a trail of 500 different dependencies that don't work together unless you install 500 different versions of each because each dependency is built to work against a specific version of its own dependencies.
I found that what I do in 5 minutes at work on windows takes me hours in Linux which often requires tons of typing stuff in to command lines where as my windows box I can often run a little wizard or something and the system will do it for me.
Linux users bang on about M$ "bloat" ... it's very rare that you find a "small linux distro" that doesn't automatically throw about 10GB of "extra stuff" on your machine most of which you then have to spend hours removing.
Ubuntu is regularly praised as being the god like version these days, copying the ISO direct from ubuntu servers and burning to a disk then trying a default install does not work on my PC, it falls over as soon as i click "install" on the boot menu unless I use some magic command line option I spent hours trying to find the first time i installed it, which from what I can tell basically tells linux that I have a hard drive ... WTF linux !!
My point being ... M$ get stuff wrong ... fair enough but Linux isn't perfect, nor is Google and people regularly hold M$'s 20+ year learning curve against them, and the fact of the matter is that M$ core staff is very different to the staff it had back them ... some of which have been famously poached from the likes of Google / Apple.
I have never worked for a company that doesn't have a single M$ product ... the reason being that M$ work, they get the job done ... no matter what you might think there is a reason M$ is not bankrupt and it's simply that people want their products.
Isn't it about time people moved on and let them play the game that every other company has been playing for years against them despite the pot and kettle element?
Surely this is a huge sign that M$ may have indeed learnt some core lessons?
....
Ok Begin the trolling ...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
