I can hardly believe
Google would offer API specs to Apple and refuse them to Microsoft, especially given that both are its sworn enemies and reputed Android foes.
Microsoft will remove its revamped YouTube app for Windows Phone 8 from its store and revert to the earlier version until such time as it can meet all of Google's requirements for the app, advertising included. This latest chapter in the ongoing mano a mano between Google and Microsoft over Redmond's YouTube mobile app comes …
....sigh.... for people reading a tech blog the lack of knowledge surrounding this is quite frankly astounding.
There are *NO* API's available to ANYONE to enable the advertising. If a platform has an "official" YouTube app available (that complies with the TOS) it is because Google built it - no-one else.
If the API's existed, Microsoft would of used them - but they simply don't exist.
There are a lot of people who believe that Google were in the wrong - but that is simply because they don't understand the law. Google have no legal requirement whatsoever to write an app for a competing platform - they may have a requirement to make the service available to all platforms (though that's more of a grey area) - Windows Phone users were always able to open a browser and visit YouTube so no law has been broken and it is not anti competitive.
At the same time Microsoft weren't legally in the wrong over IE until the EU fined them for it.
As you say it is a grey area but being "in the wrong" is for those grey areas. The Google employee who just published the MS exploit instead of going through the proper channels was "in the wrong" while the general consensus of Microsoft publishing their Youtube App without going through the proper channels wasn't "in the wrong". Its all subjective based off your own feelings.
This grey area will become a much more prominent issue sooner rather than later as its the reverse of Microsoft's antitrust issue. Microsoft abused its market leadership by forcing others out of the market by including its products in market dominating products. Google,it could be argued, area abusing its dominance in the online video and maps market by excluding competitors in the sepearate smartphone market from accessing those products. Lets not kid ourselves, not having official native apps for facilities such as GoogleMaps, YouTube, iTunes and even Angrybirds can be deal breakers and limit sales.
We may be heading to a future where software is treated like patents with FRAND like terms beingimposed on them when they hit market dominance.
There is an API... on Android. Its called the <a href="http://apiblog.youtube.com/2012/12/no-webview-required-with-native-youtube.html">YouTube Player API for Android</a> and is advertised as not requiring WebView.
The issue is around having API equality. Though it reasonable to say Google does not have to do this. Whether this would be anti-competitive is an open debate. It depends a lot on whether you regard YouTube as a monopoly and whether user experience differences are considered important.
It's easy to grow from an install base of nothing. The telling part will be where market equilibrium is (i.e. at which point windows phone gets no more traction against the other competitors).
When the next iPhone comes out, it'll be "the fastest growing phone segment" on the market, and probably the same when the next release of Android comes out and Samsung et. al. release a swathe of new flagship products based on that.
"Haha don't make me laugh."
Well, I'm reminded of the reply Russell Brand got after him and Woss made their obscene phone call prank and he said "All I ever wanted to do was make people laugh".
Reply: "Well Russell, any time you're ready to start".
Same with Microsoft. When they do get round to launching something other than a comedy burning platform, we'll see if its any use.
Actually the mobile phone I just made is the fastest growing platform, it's called AndroidX, I downloaded the Android sourcecode and did a find and replace and recompiled.
Last year I sold none. This year I gave away one to my cat... Take that Microsoft and your stupid growth without numbers bullshit statistics that fool anonymous cowards.
You only need to reach a commercial agreement with Google if you want to do something outside of the terms and conditions google provide the API free of charge under. I really doubt that google would disallow someone as high profile as microsoft if they were following the terms and conditions. If apple really need pay huge sums of cash for access presumably it was to get the content AD free? (I don't know, not used the ios version for a couple of years or so and it was ad free then)
What a misleading title. It is Google that caved in to Microsoft and agreed to let them have access to the APIs previously denied.
The Borg had no choice but to cave as Microsoft had managed to release a functional app without API access - the only difference was that they were not making any money from it!
Google should have done a Microsoft favorite; browser sniff and hinder or block access completely. Poor Microsoft, they get the treatment they have given others over the years. Imagine the fun Google could have had; nice messages that say please upgrade to a real phone. Or, you are trying to access a smartphone service. How about, error, please contact Microsoft to fix; error code 0x573985124607. Karma is a bitch.
MS should stop YouTube working on Windows machines. Teach Google who is the daddy. Google will rapidly realise that the remaining you tube users, which would be school kids with cheap phones (i.e the android customer base), do not represent a valuable 'advertising target'. This means that the personal details of these users that Google try to sell will not be worth as much.
GOOGLE EVIL EMPIRE FAIL!
omg we found the anti Eadon! Lets hope they never meet ;-)
Interesting point though. MS spent years denying api access to competitors angnd generally being evil. I don't know to what degree google are trying to hamper ms but theres no doubt its due to the android patent fees ms is collecting. Otherwise g would have released an app and collected the additional ad revenue (albeit small).
MS blocking Google. That wouldn't work well for MS; people would just use a different browser. What is MS going to do, add a patch so that youtube wouldn't be allowed to be looked up via DNS? It would take no time at all for the backlash to hit MS.
"remaining you tube users, which would be school kids with cheap phones"
What is WP then? They are heavily subsidized and they are CHEAP. Anyone that knows anything knows not to get a WP. AT&T spent several hundred dollars to move each Lumia phone; Nokia was selling them cheap and then you had Microsoft advertising as well. At the end of the day, they spent more on advertising to get the phones to sell than they cost. They lost money on every phone sold. They had to pay developers to make apps and most have left because of the lack of app sales. WP is a failure, just like the apps for Windows 8. MS is so out of touch with the consumer it is not even funny.
........even though certain members here will refuse to acknowledge that. The clue lies in the fact that MS and Google issued a joint statement. Mountain View realised that they had pushed the issue too far. That does not mean, of course, that they have "caved in to" Redmond, just that they realised that they would have to negotiate rather than take the mickey. Whatever comes out in the wash will be, hopefully, something that both sides can live with. That is after all the point with negotiations, hmm?
You do know that, after being taken to court over it in Europe, Microsoft published all their specs? If you want to access exchange you just use EWS and that gets you access to everything. Anybody can write an alternative email or calendar program and they've got the choice of joining it up to exchange using EWS or activesync.
Nobody bothers doing this because Outlook is a pretty decent email client when you're using it with exchange and if you're running a platform that doesn't support it then you can always use OWA which these days gives you a very good web client in all browsers.
I guess Microsoft are annoyed because they were compelled to document their protocols and interfaces as a result of being the dominant player in the OS market. Google are the dominant player in the online video market but they are free to do as they like.
Personally I don't understand what a youtube app is for. I have the Microsoft one on my phone but youtube videos played fine on my phone in the browser before I installed it.
"Outlook is a pretty decent email client".
Hm. Can you give me a reason for this. I need to use it at work, and I normally need to restart it several times a day. Calendar cannot handle repetitive appointments, when details are changed a lot of colleagues need to delete the old appointment and make a new one.
My favorite Outlook feature is that it is unsure about the exchange connection. I try to access my emails, and it tells me that I should reconnect, as it is not connected to the exchange server. Nevertheless, it displays "connected to exchange server" in the status bar.
I think I have used around ten different email clients in the last years, and none of them was that bad.
We have problems with it needing restarts or crashing with some of the more heavy duty users where I work. From what I've been told it largely seems to be down to lack of space allocated to them and Outlook trying to archive vast amounts of mail to their storage over the network, rather than to the local machine.
I'm a light user of Outlook, receive little mail, delete the crap fairly regularly and don't experience problems unless there's actually something wrong with our network.
"I normally need to restart it several times a day. Calendar cannot handle repetitive appointments, when details are changed a lot of colleagues need to delete the old appointment and make a new one."
All of those facilities work just fine here across Office 2003-2013, and Outlook is very stable. Suggest problem exists between chair and keyboard?
Took seconds to find the Youtube v3 API, in nice plain text. A little longer to read the licence terms. Another few secs to find the apparently automatic 'click this button, agree to this licence, we give you a client ID' sign up process.
I'm forced to conclude Microsoft used Bing for the search (or maybe their partner, Foundems woeful effort) and couldn't find it. Yet somehow Bing found enough info to hack together an app capable of violating the terms of service the Youtube API is only available under? MS just don't know when to stop fabricating stories...
There's no ads on the mobile website, so how much does Google care about its valuable customers' revenue? And while I could be wrong about this, I don't remember seeing ads on the apps for other mobile platforms.
Google, while preaching cross-platform harmony, are desperate to keep Microsoft out of the game through the very same means that Microsoft used against Symbian. Remember how Microsoft couldn't say the word 'Symbian' in public? Google are the same with Windows Phone.
I remember how Microsoft was avoided by the mobile makers because of the way it treated partners. That was Bill Gates. Steve Ballmer doesn't have the brains to be a scheming bastard like Bill, he just wants to hug a developer and thump a Googler. Google, on the other has has become the old Microsoft.
basically, Google's mantra is "It's not finished until it doesn't work on a Microsoft platform" and while I have sympathy for those who say that Microsoft deserves it, a society that doesn't forgive but keeps alive every grudge and demands a pound of flesh for everything ever done is not a good one.
> [...] how much does Google care about its valuable customers' revenue? And while I could be wrong about this, I don't remember seeing ads on the apps for other mobile platforms.
You're probably right about not remembering but wrong about Google not caring about revenue. My daughter has recently discovered Michael Jackson for herself and is going through all sorts of songs on my Android phone's YouTube app and every 3rd or so video she's got to watch at least 5 seconds of an ad before getting the video to play.
I can see the art of the sensationalist headline has not been lost.
Comments seem categorised into two positions 1) That Google don't have to do anyone any favours, and 2) LOL you bought a Windows Phone?!!
On point 1 - absolutely, Google don't /have/ to do anyone any favours, but it's always been more a question of whether they /should/. The 'Do no evil' mantra, coupled with the general philanthropic image Google like to paint of themselves points more toward a company that would want to just give everyone access to it's services regardless of where they're coming from or what they're using. That they have instead gone down the route of /not/ being helpful. and throwing out cease and desist letters speaks volumes, and rather leaves the 'do no evil' image in tatters.
Point 2 - Grow up, people can use whatever they want, and shouldn't be penalised for doing so.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019