3 ms·

> (or intentionally interfere by blocking YouTube access, similar to what they did with Windows Mobile, and now Amazon's Echo and Fire platforms), Nice spin th

> (or intentionally interfere by blocking YouTube access, similar to what they did with Windows Mobile, and now Amazon's Echo and Fire platforms), Nice spin there! Youtube was blocked on Windows Mobile because Microsoft blatantly blocked all the ads in violation of policy. If Microsoft was in the right here, we would have seen a lot more aggressive posturing from them instead of silent retreat. And for Amazon, it was a reaction to Amazon's decision not to sell Chromecast (and Nest devices). Amazon's excuse is that Google changed Chromecast APIs, which smells weak when you see other supported apps on Chromecast from Netflix, HBO, ESPN etc.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
You are definitely applying your own spin, to be sure. ;) Microsoft tried repeatedly to work with the YouTube team to comply with Google's ToS, but it was a moving target, Google kept changing their requirements until it was largely impossible to comply. The Amazon/Google spat goes back a lot further than that, which I've talked about a bit in other comments here.
saurik 9y ago
If you look at the totality of the evidence, even in that one story (where Microsoft then built the app to Google's specifications, with ads, and then Google waited until they released it before blocking it again), the story looks so bad against Google that even some of the reasonable press was starting to notice and report the issue as Google toying with Microsoft. Here is a link to an overly-well-sourced comment I wrote on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14835776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14835776
- sangnoir 9y ago
  At this time, Microsoft were also threatening Android vendors with a confidential list of patents (to prevent Android work-arounds) - MS leveraged these patents into a Windows Mobile deal "settlement" with Samsung. For a long while, Microsoft made more money from Android (patent license fees) than from WinMo. Why would anyone expect Google to handle Microsoft with kid-gloves in this bout of corporate-combat when Microsoft was playing to win? You don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

You are definitely applying your own spin, to be sure. ;) Microsoft tried repeatedly to work with the YouTube team to comply with Google's ToS, but it was a moving target, Google kept changing their requirements until it was largely impossible to comply. The Amazon/Google spat goes back a lot further than that, which I've talked about a bit in other comments here.

saurik 9y ago

If you look at the totality of the evidence, even in that one story (where Microsoft then built the app to Google's specifications, with ads, and then Google waited until they released it before blocking it again), the story looks so bad against Google that even some of the reasonable press was starting to notice and report the issue as Google toying with Microsoft. Here is a link to an overly-well-sourced comment I wrote on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14835776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14835776

sangnoir 9y ago
At this time, Microsoft were also threatening Android vendors with a confidential list of patents (to prevent Android work-arounds) - MS leveraged these patents into a Windows Mobile deal "settlement" with Samsung. For a long while, Microsoft made more money from Android (patent license fees) than from WinMo. Why would anyone expect Google to handle Microsoft with kid-gloves in this bout of corporate-combat when Microsoft was playing to win? You don't bring a knife to a gunfight.