back to article YouTube Wars: Microsoft cries foul as Windows Phone app pulled again

Microsoft has publicly criticized Google for failing to live up to its commitment to openness, after being told to pull its custom-built YouTube app from the Windows Phone Store for the third time. YouTube has had a rocky history on the Windows Phone platform. Since early this year, Microsoft's legal team has accused Google of …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. William Donelson

    Wake up. Google IS EVIL. And they're going to get much worse.

    1. Paul Shirley

      Wake up. Microsoft is evil and they couldn't get much worse.

      1. h3

        Microsoft is evil but you get good stuff from them when are the underdog.

        (Surely if Microsoft has to offer Chrome on its OS via that choice screen it would be reasonable to force Google to allow proper access to Youtube for everybody. It is its own monopoly for what it does).

        Google are everytfhing I hated about Facebook in the moderately recent past (Tricking people into enable stuff all the time).

        1. JW 1
          FAIL

          Get it straight MS = Convicted monopolist

          Microsoft has to offer those things because they broke the law in many ways. You Tube is not a monopoly just because of its popularity.

          And, as posted above, this is the height of hypocrisy coming from the corporation that screwed so many over the years with these exact same practices. They need to just suck it up and create the app in HTML5.

      2. Chris Collins 1
        Thumb Down

        Personally I find google far worse of the 2.

        They invade privacy for their living, their software sucks (yes it does)m, examples chrome is aweful but it has market share due to bundling with apps and heavy spamming of sites with download links, every change google make to youtube is a regression, the original youtube gui was better pre google, android os isnt that great and the likes of samsung have to make really powerful phones to hide its poor performance, and touchwiz to hide the constant ui changes google make to it, microsoft do at least make good software (well they used to before google invaded the market and caused them to panic release windows 8). But still better software than google. Google routinely block security apps on google play, apps that do things like protect privacy. This youtube thing is just blatant bullying and anti competitive behaviour. Most of my family have been buying nokia window phones, I played with one and in my view is far superior to stock android experience, the only thing that makes android good is the fact you can root it to fix its problems and large amount of apps. I cant wait for samsung to abandon android, it will lose a ton of marketshare when that happens. The main reason google has such a loyal following of supporters is cash, google makes other people money, all those app developers make a good living of android, youtube partners likewise. Adwords and more. When you have that kind of loyalty blind eyes are turned.

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Trollface

      Cute!

      Sounds like the kids of the post-MS era are now finding their way to the Reg Forums.

    3. Tyrion
      Stop

      re: Evil

      >> Wake up. Google IS EVIL. And they're going to get much worse.

      Google is positively angelic when juxtaposed with Microsoft. M$ even has the distinction of featuring in some dictionaries as "The Evil Corporation". Can't get any more clear cut than that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: re: Evil

        These days Microsoft seems like one of those 90-something year old Nazi war criminals you read about them going after from time to time. You know he was truly evil back in the day and deserves his fate, but somehow against your better judgment a small part of you can't help feeling sorry for the poor doddering old fool.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: re: Evil @dougS

          Don't be fooled Doug,

          once a Nazi, always a Nazi.

        2. Julian Taylor Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: re: Evil

          Actually you can take that a bit further. It's like seeing the poor old fool finally sitting in the dock at Nuremburg with headphones on, but still not understanding any of the language.

          Perhaps Google could dial back on this new-fangled html5 stuff and include a Flash player for IE mobile?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: re: Evil

        Yup. Microsoft has been internationally recognised as "the evil empire" for at least 20 years.

        What I'm finding particularly entertaining about this specific skirmish is the astounding fact that, even if true, the little tossers have the gall to be whining about another company supposedly using its APIs to its own advantage.

        Don't like them apples MS? Oooohh poor diddums.

        A quick smattering of illustrations from across the ages, for those to young to remember:

        http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/18/microsoft-secret-api-mobile/

        http://www.stratigery.com/nt.sekrits.html

        http://blog.samat.org/2006/05/04/google-sues-microsoft-over-default-search-engine-in-internet-explorer-7

        http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/v-b.pdf

        http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

        http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f2600/2613toc_htm.htm

        Hopefully, he who lived by the secret API, shall soon die by the secret API

        1. Mark .

          Re: re: Evil

          No, it's consumers who "die" and lose out by it.

          If company A does something wrong, I'm not sure that makes it okay for company B to do it. If the former was criticised, the latter should be too. In both cases, consumers lose out.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: re: Evil

          Right, so just because MS did it in the past it's okay for Google to do it now?

          If we are talking about MS setting a precedent then note that MS also got in trouble for doing it, and so should Google.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Google don't want it because they fear the Windows phone becoming too popular.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC 06:12

        I bet that you are the same AC who yesterday posted such hilarious gems such as "that's what happens when you use Linux".

        You definitely need to improve your troll/shill technique.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        joking right?

        Windows phone is on life support, it's sounding like the final days of HDDVD all over again.

        I can't remember the last time I saw someone with a Windows phone

        1. andy 45

          Re: joking right?

          What are you talking about? Windows phone is just taking off and Google are getting nervous.

          Maybe they could go back to using Flash like the great integrated Youtube player on my old Nokia Symbian.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: joking right?

          You need to get out more.

          In our office alone (head count 8) there are 3 with WP8. We may be unusual in that ratio, but WP market share is approaching a third of Apple's in some places.

          Whether you approve of MS, WP, Google, Apple, BB or whoever, blind loyalty is just another way of saying stupidity.

        3. Chris Collins 1
          Thumb Down

          Re: joking right?

          in my family.

          2 have android (me and my younger sister's bf)

          2 have windows phone (recently purchased as well) my dad and elder sister.

          3 have iphone, my elder sister's kids and my younger sister.

          I agree windows phone isnt a big player but its growing. Microsoft are also still big enough to hurt google.

          eg.

          They could rollout a windows update that cleans millions of windows desktops of chrome over night, for security reasons. If google then started bitching microsoft could also say google broke windows guidelines by installing chrome outside of the program files folder.

          They could rollout a windows update that has IE filtering all google adverts, bam overnight tons of lost revenue for google.

          They could buy mozilla off and have firefox do the same thing.

          They could start a competior service to youtube, no ads for viewers, higher paymentsto content providers. Since money buys loyalty and users hate ad's youtube would lose market share fast.

          I think microsoft have been polite up until now and I wasnt to see their nasty side turn on google. As google is too dominating, it needs putting in its place. Developers etc. mostly look up to google now and its scary. eg. the rapid firefox releases and dumbind down of firefox are down to google chrome. The cloud boom is down to google.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: joking right?

            Dude, can you introduce me to your dealer, because I want to try some of whatever you're smoking.

            So no ads and payments to content providers; where exactly would the money for these payments come from?

            Buy Mozilla off? While they're at it why they they buy off the fsf, and get Stallman to write v4 of the gpl giving MS non-copyleft access to any material fsf own or is licenced under any later version of the gpl.

            Microsoft could block chrome. I'm not sure which would be worse though; the backlash of users, or legal antitrust issues.

            You forgot to mention that they could deploy a firewall, blocking access to Google owned IP space. I'd grab a popcorn.

            Cloud boom, Google, WTF? Ever heard of Amazon?

      3. Mark .

        It's an interesting point - why don't Google just support WP themselves? It can't be because of wanting to keep things to Android, as now they're happily giving away all sorts of features to the minority of IOS users. It can't be market share either, as they also happily support Mac users (Mac market share on PC platforms is not that much higher than WP market share on phones).

        One wonders if they fear WP more in the long term, because they know that IOS will only run on Apple phones (which will also never run Android), but WP is much closer competition to Android, in that it's an OS provided for other hardware manufacturers.

        I'm fed up with the "who's evil" debate (personally, both are fine by me, better than a company that sues for rounded rectangles) - restricting choice for consumers is a bad thing, no matter what company does it. I love that I can run One Note on my Android phone - why shouldn't WP users get Youtube.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        You forgot to put the "joke alert" icon.

    5. TheVogon
      Mushroom

      Google is The BORG.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        WTF?

        minority os

        Windows phone has 3 percent of the market, why should anyone bother with it?

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Seriously, what evil acts did Google commit? Except for the "Buzz" fiasco, is there anything that Google did that can remotely be considered insidious or unscrupulous let alone evil. Unlike Microsoft, who can arguably be called evil (there is evidence), and who constantly produce c**p and have been doing so for decades (I know because I had/have to suffer their abominations), Google seem to make best/better products and services than are out there. I use and depend on a lot of them because they are the best. I also like the fact that they try to make their products/interfaces open. If not, they, more often than not, go out of their way to provide tools (eg: http://www.dataliberation.org/takeout-products) so that you are not locked-in and let you take your data with you if you don't like what they provide. Of course, they want to make money and I would contend that is a good thing as they are a business and not a charity.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Tax avoidance and being anti-competitive, not to mention ripping off Java.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/technology/europe-wants-more-concessions-from-google.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

      2. Mark .

        "Unlike Microsoft, who can arguably be called evil (there is evidence), and who constantly produce c**p and have been doing so for decades (I know because I had/have to suffer their abominations), Google seem to make best/better products and services than are out there"

        I'm not sure the debate about how much you like their products or not (which is very much opinion, personally I like and use products from both companies) has anything to do with how "evil" they supposedly are.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Wake Up! Evil is not a petulant row about who has access to who's APIs. Evil is unspeakable and horrible, the people who starved and tortured a baby to death recently are evil. This may count as shitty behavior, it's certainly not evil, to describe it as evil devalues the word and makes things which truly are evil seem less bad by association.

  2. Howard Hanek

    Another Executive Order Coming?

    Looks like time for another last minute Executive Order by the Obama Administration to the party with the most campaign contributions.

    1. Quxy
      Trollface

      Re: Another Executive Order Coming?

      On that basis, I think that Google's got this one covered...

  3. R Callan
    Boffin

    Pot, meet kettle, kettle meet pot.

    So every coder in the world can make HTML5 uTube work, except MicroSoft and it has to be Googles fault. I vaguely remember a company called Lotus that complained about not getting API;s from MicroSoft, and proved it, but MIcroSoft went on their own merry way.

    1. Roger Greenwood

      Exactly

      "At the end of the day, "

      If they only spent a day on it no wonder they failed.

    2. Richard 81

      ...and it's ultimately the consumer that suffers. As always.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Title

        Yes, all three Windows Phone users are in tears...

        1. Howard Hanek
          Windows

          Re: Lonely Here

          Who are the other two? I've always wondered when I would find another kindred spirit.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Lonely Here

            mmeir and RICHTO/TheVogon.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That's the point, iOS and Android apps aren't using HTML5.

      1. James Micallef Silver badge

        "That's the point, iOS and Android apps aren't using HTML5."

        Yes, but Blackberry and all the smart TVs etc ARE using HTML5. If BB can build a youtube app with HTML5, why can't MS?

        1. craigj

          If BB can build a youtube app with HTML5, why can't MS?

          Because HTML 5 relies on their browsers rendering engine... And IE is shite.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            >If BB can build a youtube app with HTML5, why can't MS?

            Because writing an HTML5 app. requires at least schoolboy coding competence?

          2. Robert Helpmann??
            Childcatcher

            BB YouTube App

            If BB can build a youtube app with HTML5, why can't MS?

            Because the BB YouTube app has driven their sales right on through the roof, right? This is an obvious play to make the competition waste resources. Like or dislike it, there is nothing more to it than that. Google is kicking RIM while they are down, and kicking MS in hopes of taking them down at least a notch. This will almost certainly end up in court. It will most likely be settled out of court. As previously noted, consumers are inconvenienced.

            Nothing to see here. Move along.

        2. Tom 35

          iOS and Android apps were written by Google. But 3rd parties can't write native code for Winphone so they could not create one if they wanted to.

          "so that we can't give our users the same experience Android and iPhone users are getting."

          Cat videos are far from the top of the list on that problem...

    4. John Sanders
      Linux

      It is probably some mix in between that and the fact that they are trying to outsmart Google on something and Google is not letting them having their way.

      Since MS exist Google is one of the few companies that can show a stand to MS because it is one of the few large companies with no dependence on them for their revenue.

      MS is used to everybody no matter the size bowing to them.

      I'm glad they are getting (MS) some of their own medicine, when people say Google is evil they have no idea what MS can do/would do if allowed. For years MS massacred the industry to the point that software had to become in essence free as in beer to have any chance of success.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "MS is used to everybody no matter the size bowing to them."

        You mean like Intel Inc., when M$ was trying to take over Java?... and M$ instructed Intel to obstruct Sun's Java development, which Intel Inc. dutifully did.

        Didn't the Wintel cartel cop a conviction for that little number?

    5. Chris Collins 1
      FAIL

      actually google cant make it work either which is why the ios and android apps are native code.

      html5 is inferior to native code in most ways.

      http://thinkmobile.appcelerator.com/blog/bid/284174/Native-vs-HTML5-looked-at-objectively-the-debate-is-over

    6. Robert Grant Silver badge

      The two official apps aren't written in HTML5. Maybe that's worth thinking about?

      And also, MS have been fined billions of dollars, partly for just providing a default browser without stopping any other browsers on Windows. The situations aren't equal.

  4. Steven Roper

    Some toy throwing going on here.

    I'm no Google fan any more than I am a Microsoft one, but it seems to me that Microsoft are throwing their toys out of the pram on this one.

    As a web developer for many years, I still remember the horror days of IE6 and ActiveX, where I had to create two versions of the same website for every project - one for IE6, and one to the W3C specs. This blew out costs and dev times on every project and I came to loathe Microsoft for this.

    But these days Microsoft aren't the big boys on the block any more, and so it seems to me they're now spitting their chips because they're not the ones shoving their bloated inconsistent standards down everyone's throats. Instead they're being forced to abide by the W3C specs as they should have been from day dot. And they're bitching about it because they're no longer the ones calling the shots.

    So tough shit MS, your day is past and you have to suck it up and comply with the W3C standards like everyone else.

    Mind you, I don't like Google's "We don't have to use HTML 5 but you do" approach either. Anyone who operates under "do as I say not as I do" is someone I never want to deal with, as I despise nothing more than a hypocrite.

    1. Quxy
      FAIL

      #WindowsRage

      Honestly, after Microsoft's recent anti-Android campaigns and scorched-earth litigation against Android OEM licensees, what sort of response do they *expect* from Google? Why would Google offer them any concessions whatsoever, instead of strictly following the letter of their published rules? I'm no particular fan of Google, but it's rather rewarding to finally see Microsoft come up against someone that they can't simply push around.

    2. Quxy
      Pint

      Despise nothing more than a hypocrite?

      Then you must *love* Microsoft's "one API for us, a different one for you" SOP.

    3. Tyrion
      Flame

      Re: Some toy throwing going on here.

      >> Mind you, I don't like Google's "We don't have to use HTML 5 but you do" approach either. Anyone who operates under "do as I say not as I do" is someone I never want to deal with, as I despise nothing more than a hypocrite.

      There are two API's for YouTube. Public, which uses HTML5, and private, which has to be licensed from Google. M$ neither licensed nor asked permission before reverse engineering the private API, and subsequently threw the toys out of the pram when Google shut them down.

      It's perfectly within Google's right to create their own app on Android / iOS that uses a private API to access their own hosted service. That same principle applies to Apple, Blackberry, Facebook, Twitter, and numerous other companies that have a dual public/private API for a hosted service. Without such controls, it would be hard for a service to maintain a consistent level of service and prevent abuses.

      In addition to M$ fragrantly abusing the YouTube API, it also decided to rip of the YouTube logo / brand itself, posing as an Official app. This clearly violates YouTube's TOS.

      So M$ won't get special treatment and will have to use the third party API (HTML5) like everyone else, and if it doesn't like it, well there's always a web browser, though I pity anyone that has to use IE. Oh, and while we're on the subject, M$ doesn't allow competing browsers on WP8 or RT, so how about we demand that they fix that or we'll stir up some antitrust action via a proxy like FairSearch?

      On a personal note, it's great to see M$ get Micro$hafted for a change.

      1. Captain DaFt
        Coat

        Re: Some toy throwing going on here.

        " In addition to M$ fragrantly abusing the YouTube API "

        So you're saying something smells rotten in the towers of Redmond?

        1. Ralph B
          Coat

          Re: Some toy throwing going on here.

          > " In addition to M$ fragrantly abusing the YouTube API "

          > So you're saying something smells rotten in the towers of Redmond?

          Or maybe he's saying they'll come up smelling of roses?

      2. Anonymous Dutch Coward

        Re: Some toy throwing going on here.

        "M$ neither licensed nor asked permission before reverse engineering the private API, and subsequently threw the toys out of the pram when Google shut them down."

        Wellll...

        I vaguely remember IP law has provisions to allow reverse engineering these kinds of APIs for interoperability reasons. [1]

        E.g. Google's copying API headers from Java was not deemed an infraction on Java IP.

        Whether Google are within their rights to subsequently block anything with a Redmond whiff knocking at their API... that I can't say... and can't be bothered to try and find out...

        [1] Didn't even the DMCA have some provisions for that?

        1. Paul Shirley

          Re: Some toy throwing going on here.

          "Whether Google are within their rights to subsequently block anything with a Redmond whiff knocking at their API... "

          Their licence is for accessing YouTube data. How they do it and then use that data is controlled by the licence. How they got the api doesn't matter even if it was protectable. It's all about the data, which definitely is protectable.

          BTW The oracle v Google judgement did not say all APIs aren't protectable. It explicitly states the ruling is specific to that one case, not a general precedent.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Some toy throwing going on here.

          >I vaguely remember IP law has provisions to allow reverse engineering these kinds of APIs for interoperability reasons.

          Different sorts of API in totally different circumstances...

          If you're the proprietor of the worlds monopoly OS and you're using your OS monopoly to stifle Netscape, Lotus and anyone else whit the audacity to offer software in a sector you've decided you want to monopolise, then yes, using your monopoly OS to crush others' applications which must run upon it is an interoperability abuse.

          If you offer a streaming service and allow anyone - individuals and other companies - to use it, either free of charge or via a subscription interface, then you're simply offering your customers choice. Microsoft is free to choose whether to freeload or subscribe just like BB, Apple, you and me.

          The two circumstances, although both API related, are really COMPLETELY different.

          I've no idea what they've been smoking at Redmond but this is hypocrisy GONE MAD!

          If M$ won't suck it up and pay a company it's busy trying to troll, for a service it seems to want to use, then it's free to use the free interface. That's M$' choice.

          1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
            Holmes

            Re: Some toy throwing going on here.

            > IP law has provisions to allow reverse engineering

            I don't think there are "laws" as such, but there were lengthy lawsuits creating precedence that you may (generally) not prohibit the reverse engineering of APIs (exceptions apply, please consult your lawyer etc)

      3. Someone Else Silver badge
        WTF?

        @ Tyrion Re: Some toy throwing going on here.

        In general, good post, and worthy of an upvote...

        ...until you added this toothsome morsel:

        That same principle applies to Apple, Blackberry, Facebook, Twitter, and numerous other companies that have a dual public/private API for a hosted service. Without such controls, it would be hard for a service to maintain a consistent level of service and prevent abuses.

        On the surface, this is absolute bullshit. The whole concept of a public/private API is itself bullshit. Microsoft leveraged such a dichotomy to maintain its Windows monopoly for the decade of the nineties, and on into the early naughties. Such things do not prevent abuse, as you assert; rather, they encourage abuse (ref. Undocumented Windows by Andrew Schulman). For that, you earn a downvote.

        1. Jordan 1

          Re: @ Tyrion Some toy throwing going on here.

          Yes, Google is clearly using their APIs to gain an unfair advantage in...providing free YouTube viewers? Gosh, they must be evil!

    4. Gav
      Devil

      Re: Some toy throwing going on here.

      I'm with Microsoft on this one. Google are playing games to throttle the Windows Phone and Microsoft know it.

      Why do they know it? Because Microsoft practically wrote the book on how to kill competition by restricting access to APIs. Years ago. If anyone knows how to recognise when it's happening, it's Microsoft. It doesn't make it right, but there is a certain satisfaction to be had seeing Microsoft getting a taste of its own medicine.

  5. Charles Manning

    When all else fails, find a scapegoat

    The First Rule of Cover Your Ass is to always make sure you have a handy scapegoat to give you an out.

    WPhone is going down the gurgler and the shareholders are going to be PISSED OFF. Better find something to blame.

    I know! Those nasty people from Google. They blocked our Youtube app, so nobody would buy W phones.

    It wasn't poor design.

    It wasn't appalling execution.

    It was those rotten sods from Google!

    See... it isn't our fault!

    MS has been so nice to Google and their friends - only charging them around $5-10 to use all those patents. You'd think they would be nice back.

    1. TheVogon
      Mushroom

      Re: When all else fails, find a scapegoat

      "so nobody would buy W phones."

      It isn't working though. WP sales are growing at 70% year on year, and are about to break through 10% market share in the UK....

      1. Chemist

        Re: When all else fails, find a scapegoat

        "It isn't working though. WP sales are growing at 70% year on year, and are about to break through 10% market share in the UK...."

        Do you know I've heard exactly that MANY times from some AC who posts here

      2. nematoad Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: When all else fails, find a scapegoat

        "and are about to break through 10% market share in the UK...."

        Ah! that brings to mind the old saw; "You can fool some of the people all the time..."

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: When all else fails, find a scapegoat

          @Nematoad: Your argument seems to run along the lines of "Nobody is buying Windows Phone because it's not popular", then when confronted with the suggestion that they are, it tuns to "ah, yeah, but you see, those people are all idiots."

          It doesn't make any difference if you think the people choosing the device are smart of not, it's still popular.

          Also, I presume you are an Android or iOS user, if you define Windows users as idiots because of the phone they use, are you smart because of the phone that you use? Defining yourself or others by the phone they use, OS they prefer or car they drive is pretty pathetic. Defining yourself as smart for the same reasons is tragic.

      3. Someone Else Silver badge
        Devil

        @ Vogon Re: When all else fails, find a scapegoat

        And 70% of 3 is...?

    2. Charles Manning

      A special message for downvotards

      There seems to be a sense that MS should be given a break because they are new to the game and would grow if not stifled by the competition. What tosh!

      Microsoft have been in the smartphone game since 2002. That's twice as long as Apple or Google. They had all the opportunity do do something, but pissed it against the wall. From 2002 to 2012 MS basically sat on their heals watching other companies serve the market and achieve because they were too incompetent.

      Most companies will only provide support for significant market share. Microsoft, for instance, only provides Office for Windows and Mac. Where's the Linux support? Where's the Free BSD support? Those markets are just too small to justify supporting them.

      Same deal here. Google provides API-level support for significant market players (Android and iOS which make up the majority of the market - around 90%). The rest (Blackberry, WP8, ...) are not significant enough to support and can use the HTML-5 interface. If MS gets their shit together and gets to be significant, then no doubt Google will reconsider their position (just as MS would for Office if Linux hit 20%+ market share on PC).

      To say that Google is being mean to MS is pathetic.

      1. Chemist

        Re: A special message for downvotards

        "Where's the Linux support? Where's the Free BSD support? Those markets are just too small to justify supporting them."

        Well I know what you means, but Nvidia provide drivers for Linux, Google provides Google Earth for Linux, Firefox, Opera .......

  6. Hoe

    They are all Evil, generally speaking large corporations are, no matter what line of business.

  7. M Gale

    If Google were stiffing their competitors...

    ...Apple would be the first in the queue, not some platform that's barely made a dent in the mobile industry.

    And yeah, people who say that Google are evil, haven't been around much for the last 30 years. Microsoft are far worse.

    1. Slawek

      Re: If Google were stiffing their competitors...

      Microsoft _was_ much worse. Things did improve in the last 10 years or so.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Slawek - Re: If Google were stiffing their competitors...

        Yeah, now they're much better at being much worse. They've been practicing for decades.

      2. xehpuk
        Meh

        Re: If Google were stiffing their competitors...

        Only because they can't get away with it for now. If Windows RT and Phone dominated the market they would play it even worse than they did in the old days.

      3. nematoad Silver badge

        Re: If Google were stiffing their competitors...

        Maybe so, but that could be because they are becoming irrelevant

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If Google were stiffing their competitors...

        >"Microsoft _was_ much worse. Things did improve in the last 10 years or so."

        Wrong!

        http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-196_en.htm

        http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/18/microsoft-secret-api-mobile/

        Guess again.

        1. clavileno

          Re: If Google were stiffing their competitors...

          The second link is irrelevant. MS are doing the same as, say, Apple - Safari runs faster than 3rd party 'browsers', and such 'browsers' are just wrappers for Apple's own webkit core.

          RT != Windows in this context. MS have no monopoly over tablets, and should not be held to a higher standard than other tablet providers IMHO.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: If Google were stiffing their competitors...

          @AC 12:32 GMT:

          "http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-196_en.htm

          http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/18/microsoft-secret-api-mobile/"

          Is the problem that you can't read those articles, or that you don't understand them? Because they don't actually support the argument that you seem to be trying to make.

          (There's nothing "secret" about the API's in question - even if they were published "MetroFox" wouldn't be able to use them. And the Europa link states in plain English that "an Article 9 decision does not conclude that there is an infringement of EU antitrust rules").

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If Google were stiffing their competitors...

      Wrong, Apple and Google have a working relationship, one that got soured by the release of Android but has been patched up a little since.

      Google have to keep Apple going as they need their ideas.

    3. K Cartlidge
      Holmes

      Re: If Google were stiffing their competitors...

      Regardless of the rights/wrongs in this instance, I have to disagree with your statement that Apple would be first in the queue if Google were stiffing the competition.

      Apple is not a threat to Google. It has no expertise in search (96% of Google's profits) and is a single competitor. Microsoft has the (distant) second place (English language) search engine, and will licence it's phone OS to any competitor interested.

      Apple has also shown that it is content to live on high-margin low-volume sales and so is not really competing with Google, whereas Microsoft has shown historically it's desire to dominate a market at all costs. Regardless of the likelihood of that happening in phones, it makes them more of an enemy to watch for than Apple.

  8. ecofeco Silver badge
    Angel

    Poetic justice

    Love it.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why do they need a Youtube app?

    When iOS 6.0 removed the built in Youtube app and you had to download it from the app store, I never did because I never used the app to find videos, I'd search for them or follow a link in the browser, on Facebook, etc. and they'd play within that app just fine via WebKit. After all, PCs don't have a YouTube app, they play videos using the browser.

    In fact the user experience I have now without the app is better, because before sometimes when I watched a video it'd spawn the YouTube app and I'd have to go back to the app I started with, now it always stays within the app I was using! I really don't see the point of a standalone YouTube app, can anyone tell me why the heck it matters? Won't a WP8 device still play YouTube videos without the app? If so, what's the big deal?

    1. Mint Sauce
      WTF?

      Re: Why do they need a Youtube app?

      Quite. I don't know about the other Windows Phone (7.8) user but I can't see any reason to need an app. If there's a link to a YT video and you follow it, it plays full screen without problem. No crappy app to get in the way. What's the point? Its not as if amusing cat videos are so hard to find that you need a special search interface over and above the website itself.

      1. Charles Manning

        No you don't need a youtube app....

        HTML5 would be good enough.

        If MS was really trying to sell their phones, then they would be trying to make light of this: "Pah, we don't need some shitty Google API. We have HTML5 and can provide you with the Best Phone Ever! Roll up, roll up..."

        But no, their product has tanked, so now they want to make excuses. You don't make excuses to the market (because very few buy products out of pity). You only make excuses to shareholders etc when your job is on the line.

        As I said above, this is a ruse to peg Google as the scapegoat.

        Come the next MS shareholders' meeting there are going to be a lot of angry share holders demanding answers.

        The One Microsoft re-shuffle will help to obfuscate the company performance, but they need to have some excuses too.

    2. Mystic Megabyte
      Linux

      Re: Why do they need a Youtube app?

      >>After all, PCs don't have a YouTube app, they play videos using the browser.

      Minitube?

      The Linux version is free , the Windows version costs money.

      http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/07/minitube-2-1-added-to-ubuntu-software-centre

      http://download.cnet.com/Minitube/3000-13632_4-13227523.html

    3. Getriebe

      Re: Why do they need a Youtube app?

      Agreed. The first WP8 MS app was great as you could download and view off wifi - so super, but against the Google rules as I understand.

      But I can get to YouTube easily with the IE built in, but only after you make the settings to desktop mode and not mobile.

    4. cambsukguy
      Thumb Up

      Re: Why do they need a Youtube app?

      Indeed, exactly the same happens on WinPhone. I have a YT app (metrotube) - don't know if it is HTML5, it is very slick, plays the videos in portrait in the 'web' page or full screen as required - the only one I have seen to do so. It also allows video downloading.

      Since it also uses WP's swiping to excellent effect, I use it when I specifically want to see a video - mostly movie trailers, HISHE and CollegeHumor.

    5. Al Jones

      Re: Why do they need a Youtube app?

      There are certain features of the Browser interface that are easy to access with a mouse, but not so easy to access with a finger - the Captions and Settings options, for example, or sharing the URL.

      I find that the HTML5 support for YouTube in Firefox for Android can't keep the audio in sync with the video for more than about 45 seconds (not to mention the big Pause button that won't go away until you pause and then restart the video). There are times when I'd prefer the option to open those videos in the YouTube App.

      1. Blitterbug
        Devil

        Re: Firefox for Android

        ...there's your problem, right there!

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    voice of reason

    it wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't all this bullshit "lock into one platform" crap going on... do you see crap like this going on on the desktop? no! there are numerous browsers to view any web site with... there are numerous music streaming apps to listen to ones favorite melodies with... there are numerous video apps to watch whatever visual stimulation one wants to watch.. these so-called smart phone apps which promote one app per experience per site are where the problems lay... why does there need to be an "app" for facebook and another one for mypace and yet another one for your local news channel's web site?? whatever happened to openness like we have had on the desktop for the last 20 years?? what happened to just using a standard web browser??

    1. Thecowking

      Re: voice of reason

      Firefox OS?

      I mean it basically is a browser, and any "apps" for it should run on pretty much anything that can handle HTML 5.

      Sort of going in the right direction for you.

      Personally I often prefer applications when they go beyond what the browser alone does, like notifications or a different UI more suited for the mobile (like an RSS reader with slide out lists from the side and so on).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: voice of reason

      Apps are faster than the browser. The app can take advantage of the native user interface conventions of the device and any other APIs (accelerometer etc).

      The facebook app used HTML5 at first but they gave up and used native code as it was better.

  11. John Tserkezis

    So Microsoft can't get HTML5 to work (though everyone else appears OK with it)?

    Hardly a surprise, MS has been battling to get HTML to work properly, at least before their more recent browsers and web editors. Or they just don't care for HTML in general, which smells more likely.

    1. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: So Microsoft can't get HTML5 to work (though everyone else appears OK with it)?

      I think you'll find MS, along with Apple and Adobe, have spent a long time trying to make sure JavaScript - and hence HTML5 dont work anywhere near as well as is possible. Why else did they all join the steering group and filibuster about possible problems with minor language features that had been solved by Ada Lovelace?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So Microsoft can't get HTML5 to work (though everyone else appears OK with it)?

      Sorry but when you're engineering a good app to solve a problem you want the app to be fully native, you don't want to spawn an IE process to stream video via a HTML5 process when you know damn well that iOS and Android apps aren't doing this.

      Google is trying to make the WIndows Phone Youtube app inferior to other platforms.

  12. ratfox
    IT Angle

    Did Microsoft just claim they are less capable than Blackberry?

    "The roadblocks Google has set up are impossible to overcome, and they know it."

    Sounds like Microsoft is having trouble finding good software engineers these days…

  13. Tannin

    There are two scary things here:

    1: The number of fools who think that "Google isn't Microsoft, therefore Google can't be evil" is valid logic.

    2: The even greater number of fools who *still* don't get it: it does not matter which company has you by the short and curlies and has you locked into its closed ecosystem. Every company with user lock-in or monopoly power turns evil even if its starts out good. Lord Acton was right: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The particular company does not matter! Only the fact of the monopoly or the lock-in matters.

    So wise up. It is vital that we have competitors to Google and Apple in tablet space, even if one of them is Microsoft. We *know* what happens when one company gains an overwhelming market share. Wasn't anybody watching while Microsoft borked the whole PC market for two whole decades? Simply, to misquote Santayana, those who cannot learn from the past condemn themselves to repeating it, which is fine. Why should I care? Alas, these same tools will condemn you and me to repeating it too.

    1. xehpuk

      There are others

      There should be more than 2 players on a healthy market. Be it phone OSes or desktop OSes.

      MS already have near monopoly on the desktop. Remember how MS have abused their position in the past.

      And what is Windows 8? Did they make it to improve the experience of their existing customers who pay for it? Or did they do it that way so that it would help them sell their tablet and phone OS? I say the later.

      So I do hope someone else than MS will fill that third spot, Blackberry or Ubuntu phone would be better. Someone mentioned Firefox OS that would be great.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There are others

        You have a lot to thank Microsoft for in general, they lowered the cost of computing by supporting the IBM PC clone market.

        Everyone else was keen to sell you their ridiculously expensive hardware and OS as a bundle (Apple, IBM etc).

        Would Linux have existed without Windows? I don't think so. Linus needed that cheap available x86 hardware to write the OS for.

        1. Magnus_Pym

          Re: There are others

          "You have a lot to thank Microsoft for in general, they lowered the cost of computing by supporting the IBM PC clone market."

          Either that or existing general purpose OS's like CP/M would not have been stamped out by a ruthless mega-corporation intent on world domination and stifling progress of others in the pursuit of ulitmate wealth and we would all have been better off.

          1. M Gale

            Re: There are others

            This.

            I remember starting out the degree course. There's one of the profs, up there in front of 400 or so people in the school of mathematics and computer science. He delivers a very similar quote, "say what you like about Microsoft, they did more than anybody else to put a PC in everyone's home."

            So I just had to put my hand up and respond with something like "wasn't that Compaq, who first reverse-engineered IBM's proprietary BIOS code, thus spawning an entire industry out of what was previously a mere product?"

            He smirked, and said "we don't mention the war."

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: There are others

              Why did Compaq even bother reverse engineering the IBM BIOS code? Because their customers wanted to run DOS.

              1. M Gale

                Re: There are others

                MS DOS or DR DOS though?

                Up until Microsoft made Windows not run on DR DOS, I don't think anybody would really have cared.

                So say what you like, Microsoft did little to nothing to get a PC in every home, but did ride the coat tails of a new industry that was going to put a PC in every home with or without them.

    2. dogged

      @Tannin

      If I could upvote you twice, I would.

      Are Microsoft an annoying, expensive pain in the arse? Absolutely.

      Are Google being nasty little bitches about this? Hell yes.

      Who suffers?

      Well, all those kids who got a Nokia 520 for less than a hundred quid off contract, that's who. Is that what you want to happen, Googlepologists?

    3. DragonLord

      " power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" You've misquoted lord Acton. The actual quote is

      "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Source

  14. Joe Montana

    Ha ha

    While i disagree with what Google are doing here, considering how many times MS have done this kind of thing to others i am glad to see them getting a taste of their own medicine.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ha ha

      Please would you give an example of when Microsoft did this kind of thing to others, i.e. takedown demand for using an API.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ha ha

        They said "this kind if thing" reread it. Microsoft have pulled this kind if thing off for 30 years, its so funny now someone else is making them follow instead.

  15. James Gosling

    Bunch of Whingers

    When I first starting reading and there was mention of access to API's I thought well about time Microsoft got a taste of its own medicine, it has done much worse to competitors itself - for example providing Novell with access to a degraded set of API's to ensure WordPerfect ran poorly on Windows. But when you read the rest of the article Microsoft are behaving like a spoilt child. Google has asked them to use their HTML5 API just as it has other companies, but despite this they re-released the non HTML5 version which naturally was pulled again. Maybe they should pull their finger out and get on with developing an App that uses the HTML5 API and stop complaining. Seems to me Google are being far more cooperative with them than they have historically been with others.

    1. Someone Else Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Bunch of Whingers

      Did you miss the part where the article stated (twice) that Google's own apps do not use HTML5, but rather use an internal, proprietary API?

      1. M Gale

        Re: Bunch of Whingers

        >"Did you miss the part where the article stated (twice) that Google's own apps do not use HTML5, but rather use an internal, proprietary API?"

        >>"When I first starting reading and there was mention of access to API's I thought well about time Microsoft got a taste of its own medicine"

        I think he did.

  16. mark l 2 Silver badge

    why do you need a Youtube app, without an app are they going to forget you can just open a browser and go to www.youtube.com ?

  17. L05ER

    YouTube HD

    Marketplace it.

    1. andy 45

      Re: YouTube HD

      dont know what the downvote could be for? it's a great little app.

      Player-haters...

  18. Andrew Hall

    The article is not entirely accurate

    Microsoft didn't just re-release the app, the recent YouTube app that MS released had several features that Google took issue with, two of them being that it bypassed all of the adverts and allowed downloading of content.

    Google cried foul, then shortly after this Google and MS announced that they were going to work together on a YouTube app. The new app now shows the adverts and basically complies with everything Google wanted. But less than 24 hours after release, Google blocked it because it wasn't coded in their preferred language... WTF. To me at least, this seems at the least petty, and at worst just blatant obstructionism (is that a word?).

    This app has cost Google nothing, Microsoft have done all the work, so I'm not really sure what their issue is, surely people who pay to advertise with Google/YouTube would want their ads on all possible devices. Granted Windows Phone has a small share of the market, but every little counts.

    If I were in charge at Microsoft I would seriously consider releasing an update with the next round of patches for desktop Windows that blocks all Google apps.

    1. Juillen 1
      Windows

      Re: The article is not entirely accurate

      You know.. DVD Jon did some work that cost the DVD licensing groups absolutely nothing. All he did was allow you to bypass the ads, and download the content directly outside the regular security and license agreements. I'm sure you'll agree that the DVD companies were just being obstructive when they declared it illegal, and you can't see why they'd be in the least bit bothered, or why they'd order DeCSS to be blocked.

      Face it, MS are not living up to a corporate agreement (surprise, surprise). They have been given a free API to use (HTML5), which they say they're having problems with (other people seem to be able to use it just fine). They won't license the private API (which would give them more leverage on using native code) and now they're reverse engineering, and breaking a terms of use agreement. Google are only slapping them on the wrist. When MS did this years ago (with people trying to use the 'Secret' API calls that MS kept only to themselves, they either litigated, or simply kept changing the API so anyone else that relied on it was screwed.

      Because MS can't get the HTML5 API working (and they won't let any more standards compliant browser onto their platform), they seem to believe that it's ok to not spend more resource in fixing the problem (that would probably make their own platform better and more standards compliant as a result), and that they can simply shelve the attempt and go back to use something that they've already been told breaks a legal agreement.

      If the tables were turned, I think it's highly probable that MS would have fired the legal vultures off long ago and be claiming damages for hacking, computer misuse, patents, murder and having it away with the company Donkey mascot.

      I don't see this as necessarily being Evil. I see it as showing a belligerent opponent that they have teeth. Being a good guy doesn't mean sitting there and just sucking it up every time, doing nothing. I means taking a stand against the right people at the right time to stop something much worse (remember the quote "All it takes for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing"?).

      Sometimes, to make the world keep an even keel, you need to show the "bad guys" that you can be as mean, vicious and brutal as they can. Both sides then know it's not a winning game to do this, and hopefully rational business can (at some point) be resumed.

      1. Chris Collins 1

        Re: The article is not entirely accurate

        2 wrongs dont make a right.

        it seems to me most people on here who approve of google are people who hold a grudge against microsoft for what they may have did back in the 90s (I say may as no proof has been posted). I would hazard a guess most people who dislike microsoft are also developers. As developers seem to love google.

        But what microsoft may have did in the past is now history, that doesnt excuse what google are doing, first of all IE11 is very standards compliant, its not like the IE6 days, IE11 even has netflix running on html5. Secondaly you all talk as if html5 is as good as native code so microsoft are idiots that they cant make a quality app with it, html5 is inferior its better than things like silverlight for in browser apps, but not as good as native code for outside of browser apps.

        I also agree as well that youtube apps are been overhyped somewhat, but im aware not everyone thinks like that and as a result google are been anti competitive. They are aiming to crush the windows phone pure and simple.

        1. M Gale

          Re: The article is not entirely accurate

          Thing is, we aren't on about trying to do massive math on bazillions of data points using nothing but Javascript here. We're on about firing up a hardware-accelerated canvas and playing some hardware-accelerated video with it, using frameworks that do the majority of the hard work for you. I've been playing with Three.js (for example), and I could probably wrap a video texture around a rotating mesh and fire disco lights at it if you wanted.

          HTML5 is perfectly adequate for making a video player app with.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. M Gale

      Re: The article is not entirely accurate

      "If I were in charge at Microsoft I would seriously consider releasing an update with the next round of patches for desktop Windows that blocks all Google apps."

      Google apps? What Google apps? Or do you mean "block communication with every Google-owned IP address"? I think if this happened, the results would be hilarious for everyone except Microsoft.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just out of interest. Microsoft's statement says they reworked the originally infringing app and then released it - which met everything Google wanted except the HTML5 bit, El Reg says they just released the old one.

    Anyone who's actually got a WP know which is accurate?

    1. dogged
      Black Helicopters

      I've got a Lumia 920.

      The old app didn't show ads. The new app showed ads until Google got it pulled.

      The article is wrong and interestingly it's wrong in a way that makes Google look good and Microsoft look bad.

      Mistake, or El Reg pandering to the (obvious) prejudices of their readership?

      You be the judge.

    2. Paul Shirley

      The licensing issue that screwed them is the problem: they have a choice of 2 licenses to provide YouTube (or 3 if you include handing the job off to the users browser), instead of picking 1 and complying with it's conditions, they've used the permissions of one and the obligations of the other.

      They invented their own licence in effect. They either need to get fully compliant with a real licence on offer or stay blocked. Tweaking just parts of the non-compliant behaviour doesn't fix that. But Microsoft aren't in a mood to ignore any excuse to throw more shit at Google so this farce continues.

  20. g e
    FAIL

    "technically difficult and time consuming"

    Of course, if MS were actually _capable_ of building a decent browser they'd already have the ability to do this almost overnight.

    It's no one else's fault they can't do HTML5 properly and if Google are picking on this particular failing to give them a spot of a kicking it really only serves to highlight the desperate paucity of coding chops at the world's biggest (still true??) software company.

    1. RonWheeler
      Windows

      Re: "technically difficult and time consuming"

      Why don't google write their own app in html5 then?

      1. g e

        Re: "technically difficult and time consuming"

        Ask them

        YouTube.com on the desktop certainly has <!DOCTYPE html>

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "technically difficult and time consuming"

        Nobody is saying the desktop version of youtube isn't HTML5. But they don't use it on their own app for Android or iOS.

      3. Juillen 1

        Re: "technically difficult and time consuming"

        Because they prefer the "private" API version that you can pay them to license (and is compatible with native code apps) due to the optimisations you can make, rather than the open and free HTML 5 license.

        MS want to get the benefits of the private (pay for licence) API while not paying for it. They're trying to say that using the HTML5 API "is too difficult for them to get working, so it must be Google's fault, so they'll just use the pay for API for free because they want to".

        This, of course, is a similar rationale to the piracy debates, with the difference that a good chunk of the pirates have no money and go for personal use, whereas MS have one of the biggest war chests out there with billions in profit every year, and they stand to have this as a 'feature' on software they're selling (if it wasn't of value to them/end users, they'd have quietly given up)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "technically difficult and time consuming"

          And how exactly do you pay for a API the other party refuses to licence?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "technically difficult and time consuming"

            If its not for sale use the free html5 like everyone else. but everything is for sale when the price is right. Google wrote an app for apple, why should they write one for Microsoft who have such a small marketshare, what about the other companies. Microsoft clearly still can't support web standards and THIS is the bigger abuse.

  21. Benchops

    What happens when an irresistable evil meets an immovable evil?

    popcorn please!

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maybe....

    ...Google can produce a native WinPhone YouTube app when Microsoft produce a native Android Outlook app, or at least allow Outlook to natively sync with Google Calander, see how they feel about that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Maybe....

      Outlook can sync with Google calendar - my work uses Google mail/calendar and we have outlook clients.

    2. LDS Silver badge

      Re: Maybe....

      Exchange/Outlook protocols are published. Google can write an Outlook plug-in to sync, if they like - as they can write an IE plug-in to change the default search engine to Google. Probably MS should start to block any Google crap in Windows... users would be much safer, since Google has admitted there's no privacy once data are on its servers.

    3. lord_xaero
      Pirate

      Re: Maybe....

      Microsoft will not allow a native youtube app created by google on windows phone. They saw how that worked out for apple.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The article is missing a few points.

    Firstly the app released isn't the same app that was pulled. Google took the original down because it didn't play ads, allowed downloads of videos and allowed it to be used in offline mode. Microsoft removed those features from that version so the new version actually meets the demands Google originally set down.

    Secondly the new complaints such as the YouTube branding were existent in the original YouTube app that Google did not pull. It is picking and choosing when it enforces it policies.

    Now reading between the lines the issue isn't likely HTML5 but the codec it uses. The Flash version of YouTube uses the H.264 codec. HTML5 has no official codec as part of the standard, you've got H.265 on one hand (Royalty based) and the Google led VP9 (no royalties). Google is trying to brute force the usage of the VP9 codec by making it the default codec for HTML5 in YouTube and Chrome the same way Microsoft tried forcing most of its standards through Internet Explorer.

    Google is likely forcing third party apps to use HTML5 because it means they'll have to support the VP9 codec giving Google more leverage in making it as part of the HTML5 standard.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Microsoft don't want to support the royalty free vp9 codec, they will soon, how long? Microsoft don't want standards and interoperability, they want vendor lockin so long as it is them doing it. There is no reason Microsoft can't support YouTube on Html5. ms history with this is breaking the terms, blocking adds etc of course Google are saying do as others do.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Rubbish, both Apple and Microsoft don't want to support VP9.

        Nobody wants Google, Microsoft or Apple setting the standard video codec for HTML5. It should be a fully open standard, not one controlled by Google with royalty free licence (that can be revoked).

        1. Magnus_Pym

          "Rubbish, both Apple and Microsoft don't want to support VP9"

          So we are moving from a paid for codec controlled by iffy corporate bodies to a free codec controlled by iffy corporate bodies. Progress!

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Microsoft don't want to support Vp9 but they will soon, just wait and see. Many thought windows mobile would never support the caldav standard, they will by the end of the year. Forced albeit. but it is in the consumers interest, as is the inevitable support of vp9. I think you re wrong about the royalty free codec being revoked or revokable in the future. either way, if it helps break Microsofts 30 year stranglehold further, then that's good for consumers too.

  24. Rhiakath Flanders
    Trollface

    Windows Phone users?

    " Unfortunately, it seems Windows Phone users are the ones left caught in the crossfire"

    All 5 of them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Windows Phone users?

      They'll be able to connect to several calendars by the end of the year hopefully, and watch videos sometime in 2014 or 2015. But only if Microsoft can employ a software coder, might have to let a lawyer or two go first.

    2. Number6

      Re: Windows Phone users?

      All 5 of them

      Wow, since earlier in the comments they've increased their market take-up by 66%.

    3. Mike Richards Silver badge

      Re: Windows Phone users?

      It was 3 of us on the previous page. See WP's market share is exploding!

    4. Al Jones
      Joke

      Re: Windows Phone users?

      Wow, that's already a 66% increase on the 3 of them that someone mentioned in the first page of comments.

      66% a day should get them a pretty big share of the market in no time!

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    strange

    I would have thought google would be happy to make it as easy as possible for the maximum number of people to see Justin Bieber videos in exchange for their adverts...

  26. localzuk

    Not sure what MS's problem is

    The only apps out there that are native are created by Google. All 3rd parties have access to the same APIs and are expected to use HTML5 to create apps.

    Sure, it means that Google is giving itself special treatment, but I'm not overly sure that this is a problem. Unless we're saying that Google is a monopoly in the online video world? However, I'm not sure what advantage Google is giving itself, as it isn't for increasing Android market-share as they made an iOS app too.

    I think this one will likely end up in court.

    1. dogged

      Re: Not sure what MS's problem is

      Unless we're saying that Google is a monopoly in the online video world?

      You could certainly make a case for that.

      1. M Gale

        Re: Not sure what MS's problem is

        You can make a case for anything. Doesn't mean the judge will listen.

        See also Vimeo.

      2. localzuk

        Re: Not sure what MS's problem is

        Indeed. There are a variety of video sites online. Such as Vimeo, Veoh, Bing Video, Vuze, Metacafe, etc...

        Youtube may be popular, but they don't have a monopoly, that's for sure.

        1. dogged

          Re: Not sure what MS's problem is

          There are other desktop operating systems out there and yet Microsoft has a monopoly.

          Not all market-shares are created equal.

  27. Number6

    It's not the lack of a decent YouTube app that stops me buying a Windows Phone...

    Perhaps if they claimed to be DRDOS in the user-agent string...?

  28. ElNumbre

    XBox App?

    So, how does the Youtube App for the Xbox work? Couldn't Microsoft's Team Windows Phone just use one of their devices to call up Team Xbox and ask how they did it, or is that just too sensible?

    1. El Andy

      Re: XBox App?

      I believe that was written by Google and therefore uses Google's private API.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: XBox App?

        Either way there is a solution available.

  29. BrentRBrian

    ANTITRUST

    I looks like MICROSOFT is playing the ANTITRUST game ... they can't compete in a level playing field.

    There are plenty of ways for Microsoft users to get YOUTUBE access ... let them eat cake.

  30. El Andy

    Typical non-programmer article - the API is not HTML5, ever

    "All third-party YouTube apps are expected to use the HTML5 API, and with the exception of Microsoft's,"

    Um, no. That's just plain wrong. The public API is an API, it's not "HTML5", you can call it from whatever language you like, because API's aren't language dependent (though they may be easier to consume from one language than another). The ToS of the public YouTube API do not specify that your application has to be written in HTML5 either, because that would be stupid too.

    Nonetheless, Google are pulling the key to Microsoft's app primarily because that app hasn't been written in HTML5, which they are somehow claiming is a ToS violation. They're also claiming it doesn't always show the right ads, despite the fact that no third party client can show the right ads because the public API doesn't expose enough information to actually do it. And before someone chips in with "so Microsoft say", I'd remind you that this is actually a public API and it's pretty easy to actually go and verify for yourself that this is exactly the case.

    The only issue on which Google have any merit at all is the trademark issue, although given that they claimed to have been "working with Microsoft" on this, it's pretty hard to beleive they were entirely unaware that it would be launched with YouTube branding. The fact that the ToS is this case also go much further than trademark protection legally requires, making it impossible to produce a YouTube app on any platform that makes any reference to YouTube in it's title, doesn't really go in their favour either. If Microsoft had actually complied with that and called it "Internet Video", doubtless Google would've been up in arms that they were trying to "steal" YouTube content and pass it off as something else.

    1. jaywin

      Re: Typical non-programmer article - the API is not HTML5, ever

      Exactly - I wonder if people would be reacting the same if Google had decreed that all YouTube apps had to be written in Brainf**k to be compliant with their ToS.

      API providers should not be allowed to decide what language the client apps are written in.

      A browser based HTML5 app does not give the same UX as a native app on any platform - especially WP as the browser does not have access to any of the standard UI features / animations.

  31. Captain Scarlet
    Paris Hilton

    API

    Hmm I am aware MS was forced to open their API's to everyone, was it ever locked down to the you must access this API in a certain way?

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    WP8 - my take

    We have to use WP8 - for whatever reason our company will only allow company-supplied MS devices to connect to our Exchange network.

    For me, the biggest stumbling block is lack of apps. However WP8 seems to be better supported than 7/7.5. I've got a couple of apps now I didn't have under WP7.

    Regarding WP8 itself, I *like* it. It has a refreshing cleaness. And I speak as one that has had to use the wifes android phone, and the MiLs iPhone.

    Sure WP8 may not be flying off the shelves. But it's not aimed at the same audience.

  33. gcla72
    Mushroom

    Ha...

    and might I add... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha etc...

  34. Tom 13
    Trollface

    Re: Unfortunately, it seems Windows Phone users are the ones left caught in the crossfire

    I don't really see the problem here. The way I figure it, all 6 of them can go out and buy an iPhone or a Droid and the problem will be resolved.

  35. Someone Else Silver badge
    FAIL

    Pot. Kettle. Black. Goose. Gander. ...

    Yawn.

    Seems to me what we're seeing here is the convulsions of two unwieldy, fat-assed behemoths trying desperately to keep from slipping into irrelevancy. It's what happens when an entity that is (purportedly) based on innovation suddenly runs out of that key ingredient.

  36. Get the puck outa here

    Reminds me of Godzilla vs the Smog Monster, or the Iran Iraq war. Most people watching don't care who is right or wrong, they're happy to see two evil entities fighting it out, and hope they do a lot of damage to each other.

  37. ijbp2468

    Serves Microsoft right...

    If you wanted a good Google experience you wouldn't have gone anywhere near Windows Phone in the first place.

    Like it or not YouTube belongs to Google any they decide who they wants to access their services.

    And besides, i would have thought Microsoft would be used to being plowed into the ground by people for wanting to do things THEIR way by now...

  38. Andrew Jones 2

    To those claiming that you cannot dictate what language must be used to take advantage of an API, I agree completely - however on the TOS page for YouTube it also clearly says:

    "access any portion of any YouTube audiovisual content by any means other than use of a YouTube player or other video player expressly authorized by YouTube;"

    Google claim that the Microsoft implementation does not always show the adverts that are specified by the content creator, Microsoft claim this is a Google problem - and Google claim Microsoft need to use HTML5.

    Is it perhaps possible that whatever built-in video playing mechanism that the Windows Phone OS provides, does not in fact provide the necessary abilities for things like interactive adverts that YouTube uses which could be Google's insistence on HTML5 (and also upgrading the browser)

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There's a YouTube app...?

    Everybody said the sky would fall when Apple removed YouTube from iOS 6 and ultimately I don't think anybody cared or barely even noticed. Just bring up YouTube in a browser. Problem sorted.

  40. PassingStrange

    "E, E, E"

    Let's not forget the old MS mantra of "Embrace, Enhance, Extinguish". MS have a decades-long record of using deliberate and targeted misuse of standards to gain leverage and then dominance over competitors and markets. I don't necessarily trust Google (or any other large business) any more than I trust MS, nor do I necessarily suggest that's why they're doing this - but if it were me, and I had the luxury of being able to force MS to either genuinely and fully comply with a standard, or go without? No contest. I wouldn't give them the glimmer of a chance to do otherwise.

  41. lord_xaero

    hold it

    Let me see if I get this straight. Microsoft has been ramming HTML5 down everyone's browser for years. Behind apple, they are the most significant force pushing html5. And yet microsoft, one of, if not THE largest software company in the world, cannot create a simple app for their own phone? Seriously? Every other platform and developer has used html5 to produce their youtube "app" why can't microsoft? Perhaps it is because it would be easy to see where microsoft phones home in the html code, but not in the compiled code of a native app.

  42. Big-nosed Pengie

    Laugh?

    "Microsoft has publicly criticized Google for failing to live up to its commitment to openness"

    I thought I'd shit!

    1. h3

      Re: Laugh?

      Microsoft is quite open when it is in their interests to be so these days. (Ask the Samba project).

      Google are now as bad as Facebook.

      (At least Microsoft don't in your face do annoying things - Notifcations for apps are off by default which is a good thing.).

  43. RaymondWa

    YouTube is using my common trademark without my permission

    YouTube's legal department wrote that I need to provide them a copy of a registration certificate from the USA trademark office asserting my ownership of my trademark.

    My email to legal@support.youtube.com

    subject: Re:[5-8484000001432]

    Hi There,

    It's a common law trademark so it is unregistered but it has been in use for over ten years.

    No one else has the right to use it including YouTube.

    YouTube is now knowingly misrepresenting my trademark

    by allowing and protecting an unauthorized user to association

    themselves with ***********.

    If YouTube will not return what it doesn't have a right to use then I will seek legal recourse and I may bring public attention to this matter. I also told YouTube that I have owned the website with the same common law trademark for over ten years. I wrote in YouTube's feedback form "Do no evil, yeah right."

    1. pepper
      Stop

      Re: YouTube is using my common trademark without my permission

      And this is relevant how? If you really feel poopoo'd that badly consider using different channels other then spamming El Reg...

      It looks like you are just googling(haha) youtube, and posting your little rant on any page you can find. Quite mature really.

  44. Vociferous

    "Degraded user experience"?

    They mean it's possible to get *worse* than Google's own "Channel" web interface bullshit?

    Last week I found out what "make your channel private" does: it makes it impossible to comment, up/downvote, post, favorite, or make lists. All the lists you already have, and all comments you've already made, are deleted.

    And it's irreversible. You can't un-private a channel.

    Clicking on "make your channel private" is functionally equivalent to "please delete my fcuking youtube account and everything associated with it". That's the great user experience using Google's own web interface!

    1. h3

      Re: "Degraded user experience"?

      That sounds like what I would want. (At least if I cannot have a never log me or send me anything button.)

  45. IGnatius T Foobar
    FAIL

    Call the waaahmbulance

    Sitting here laughing. Microsoft did this to pretty much everyone for decades -- manipulating API's and abusing their position as the owner of a widely deployed API to give themselves advantages over the others. They have a hell of a nerve complaining when someone else does it to them.

    Sorry Microsoft -- what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Microsoft deserves this, more so than anyone else.

  46. Zane

    Microsoft just can't write decent software

    Seems to me that the whole thing burns down to a very simple truth - Microsoft cannot write at HTML5 compliant version of the app, while others can.

    Seems we have seen this thing before. Microsoft cannot implement standards. As most programmers can, it follows that there no programmers at Microsoft.

    /Zane

  47. Spoonsinger

    Undocumented Windows: A Programmers Guide to Reserved Microsoft Windows Api Functions

    Ahh, those were the days.

  48. Jim Birch

    Turning the tables: Google are microsofting Microsoft, aren't they?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022