5 ms·

Remember when Google refused to put Youtube on Windows Phone and when Microsoft made their own client, Google forced them to take it off their own store? Truly

by Hamcha 4y ago

Remember when Google refused to put Youtube on Windows Phone and when Microsoft made their own client, Google forced them to take it off their own store? Truly advocating for more choice. (Press at the time: https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/16/windows_phone_youtube_app_round_3/ https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/16/windows_phone_youtube... )

MarkusWandel 4y ago
I had a Windows phone. The web version of Youtube worked fine. The Youtube app on Android is such a pain in the a* that sometimes I use the web version of Youtube on an Android tablet I have!
- oblak 4y ago
  I have only used the android version once and what a pain that was. Clearly designed to only push content on the unsuspecting user and nothing else.
- nfriedly 4y ago
  You should check out Vanced / ReVanced. Vanced is basically a modified Youtube app with ads removed and a lot of the other annoyances fixed. It's gotten trickier to find since google sent them a nastygram, but they posted the SHA256 on https://vancedapp.com/ https://vancedapp.com/ so if you find a copy floating around, you can quickly determine if it's legit or not. ReVanced is a WIP set of tools to patch Youtube and other apps - https://github.com/revanced https://github.com/revanced Vanced and Iceraven (Firefox with more addons enabled) are two of the main things keeping me on Android.
  - nephanth 4y ago
    Newpipe is another good alternative client. Bypasses ads, plays audio in the background, allows downloading videos and even subscribing to channels without an account (the app simply monitors updates on that channel)
sangnoir 4y ago
The Microsoft YT client didn't play ads. All it did was cost YouTube bandwidth without bringing any revenue - there was no way Google was going to let that slide. More broadly, that was also the time Microsoft was going after Android OEMs - never Google directly - threatening them with a secret list of patents that Android allegedly infringed[1]. The settlement almost always resulted in the OEM agreeing to manufacture Windows phones (HTC and Samsung, off the top of my head). As an outsider, it appeared to be part of a mobile marketshare shadow war. 1. I'm guessing to prevent invalidation or work-arounds.
- Hamcha 4y ago
  Far from me to want to put Microsoft on a pedestal, but it always felt like neither liked playing fair. WP eventually got a third party Youtube app that kinda stuck for a while, but it was paid (and actually decent) and AFAIK it never got any attention from Google, which to me always felt more like Google was trying to be an ass and protecting their revenue... but mostly their Android revenue. I was around when Project Astoria almost saw the light of day and I assume Google came back to shoot it down in a similar way (which would be really nice karma given MS patent story)
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    Project Astoria had weird timing, considering Microsoft initially submitted an amicus brief in Oracle v Google on Oracle's side, i.e. supporting the notion that APIs are copyrightable - which was awkward as Astoria implemented Android APIs. Sometime later, after both sides appealed, MS submitted another amicus - this time on Google's side. Possibly after seeing the light with WSL and Astoria
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      Oh, and if Google had lost its case against Oracle, they could have gone after Microsoft for Astoria, and the amicus would have been first exhibit to prove willful infringement.
kernal 4y ago
Yes, I do remember. You, however, seem to have conveniently left out the fact that they illegally reverse engineered the protocol and filtered ads. Microsoft got what was coming to them.

by Hamcha 4y ago

MarkusWandel 4y ago

I had a Windows phone. The web version of Youtube worked fine. The Youtube app on Android is such a pain in the a* that sometimes I use the web version of Youtube on an Android tablet I have!

oblak 4y ago
I have only used the android version once and what a pain that was. Clearly designed to only push content on the unsuspecting user and nothing else.
nfriedly 4y ago
You should check out Vanced / ReVanced. Vanced is basically a modified Youtube app with ads removed and a lot of the other annoyances fixed. It's gotten trickier to find since google sent them a nastygram, but they posted the SHA256 on https://vancedapp.com/ https://vancedapp.com/ so if you find a copy floating around, you can quickly determine if it's legit or not. ReVanced is a WIP set of tools to patch Youtube and other apps - https://github.com/revanced https://github.com/revanced Vanced and Iceraven (Firefox with more addons enabled) are two of the main things keeping me on Android.
- nephanth 4y ago
  Newpipe is another good alternative client. Bypasses ads, plays audio in the background, allows downloading videos and even subscribing to channels without an account (the app simply monitors updates on that channel)

sangnoir 4y ago

The Microsoft YT client didn't play ads. All it did was cost YouTube bandwidth without bringing any revenue - there was no way Google was going to let that slide. More broadly, that was also the time Microsoft was going after Android OEMs - never Google directly - threatening them with a secret list of patents that Android allegedly infringed[1]. The settlement almost always resulted in the OEM agreeing to manufacture Windows phones (HTC and Samsung, off the top of my head). As an outsider, it appeared to be part of a mobile marketshare shadow war. 1. I'm guessing to prevent invalidation or work-arounds.

Hamcha 4y ago
Far from me to want to put Microsoft on a pedestal, but it always felt like neither liked playing fair. WP eventually got a third party Youtube app that kinda stuck for a while, but it was paid (and actually decent) and AFAIK it never got any attention from Google, which to me always felt more like Google was trying to be an ass and protecting their revenue... but mostly their Android revenue. I was around when Project Astoria almost saw the light of day and I assume Google came back to shoot it down in a similar way (which would be really nice karma given MS patent story)
- sangnoir 4y ago
  Project Astoria had weird timing, considering Microsoft initially submitted an amicus brief in Oracle v Google on Oracle's side, i.e. supporting the notion that APIs are copyrightable - which was awkward as Astoria implemented Android APIs. Sometime later, after both sides appealed, MS submitted another amicus - this time on Google's side. Possibly after seeing the light with WSL and Astoria
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    Oh, and if Google had lost its case against Oracle, they could have gone after Microsoft for Astoria, and the amicus would have been first exhibit to prove willful infringement.

kernal 4y ago

Yes, I do remember. You, however, seem to have conveniently left out the fact that they illegally reverse engineered the protocol and filtered ads. Microsoft got what was coming to them.