5 ms·

I wonder how this app got approval from Microsoft's own legal department.

Avalaxy 13y ago
I think the wishes of the legal department are of less importance than the overall need for good apps on the Windows Phone platform. Google didn't have the time/resources to build a Windows Phone app, so Microsoft did. And they did it well. But now that the app is in the Store, Google wants it removed. That's not a matter of 'no time/resources', that's just a matter of bullying. They've been boycotting the Windows Phone and Windows 8 platforms ever since the launch... Quite typical actually. Google is the only tech giant with a slogan like "don't be evil", yet they are the only evil tech giant at the moment (Microsoft has gotten a lot better the last few years imho).
- necubi 13y ago
  If you actually read the article, you'd see the issue is not dislike of WP. The issue is that Microsoft is stripping off the ads that fund Youtube and its content, in violation of the YouTube terms of service. It also includes a button that allows people to download videos which is, again, a violation of the ToS.
  - Avalaxy 13y ago
    I read the article, I am the one who posted it. Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. The fact that Google gives the violation of their agreement as the reason doesn't mean it IS the real reason behind it. There are many other youtube apps (like MetroTube) that do the same thing, but they don't get removed. It's a fact that Google has been boycotting Microsoft for years. They blocked GMail syncing for Windows Phone devices, they disabled Google Maps for WP (it worked before, but then they just blocked all WP devices), and now they do it again.
    - jbp 13y ago
      Doesn't Microsoft do samething to Goolge though?
      - rlu 13y ago
        iirc, microsoft has onenote, skydrive, skype and outlook.com apps for android. Sure, you can argue that "well Android has majority market share so it's in microsoft's advantage to have apps in that platform!" - and you would be correct. However, that doesn't excuse having the web views for Windows Phone on gmail and maps (and maybe youtube?) be significantly worse than those for iOS/Android. Like, the work has already been done - Google just does not redirect WP users to the "pretty" sites. If you manually enter in the iOS/Android URL on WP, it works fine. It's just not defaulted. And that's lame.
    - makomk 13y ago
      So what you're saying is that there's another app - MetroTube - that also allows users to view YouTube videos on Windows 8 and Windows Phone that hasn't been removed. Congratulations on disproving your own argument that this is an attack on Windows Phone!
    - fpgeek 13y ago
      ToS violations may not be "the" reason, but it is enough of a reason to force Google's hand, whether or not they have other reasons. Exactly how long do you think, say, Viacom woulds tolerate a high-profile, name-brand YouTube app that blocked ads and supported video downloads? And what do you think Viacom would do to Google if Google's response to that app was turning a blind eye?
  - recoiledsnake 13y ago
    >If you actually read the article, you'd see the issue is not dislike of WP. The issue is that Microsoft is stripping off the ads that fund Youtube and its content, in violation the YouTube ToS. It also includes a button that allows people to download videos which is, again, a violation of the ToS. Crossposting my own comment from another thread. So, for years, Google's stated reason for lack of a Youtube client was that Windows Phone didn't have enough marketshare, and now suddenly it has so many users that it loses so many ad impressions because Microsoft's Youtube that the content creators are suffering because all the millions of freeloaders using Windows Phone? i.e It doesn't care enough for the ad impressions on Windows Phone to itself make an app , but when MS does, the loss of the same revenue is the reason for sending the lawyers in and pulling the app?
    - ok_craig 13y ago
      YouTube users make a living off the ads. It is just as much about their rights. Google is the only one who can defend this on their behalf, and they should, down to the platforms with only 1 user.
    - pyre 13y ago
      So, when Microsoft's IP is infringed (patents, etc), it's a tragedy. When Google's (or its partner's) IP is infringed it's something sinister. Gotcha.
      - mortehu 13y ago
        Are you suggesting that software patents are as worthwhile as videos and music?
    - aeturnum 13y ago
      One decision about TOS enforcement affects their ability to attack other TOS violations. If you don't enforce your TOS consistently, you open yourself to exactly the sort of anti-competitive charges MS users are leveling against Google.
    - invisible 13y ago
      Any amount of loss due to not following the Terms of Service is grounds for terminating usage. Those same users that are not watching the ad could instead be watching the ad on the web and making them ad revenue. Your logic is so flawed.
- blippe 13y ago
  Er. You know others have succeeded in creating youtube apps for their platform without breaking the API. Microsoft is just rattling its crib.
- bhups 13y ago
  Wait, that's not how app development works. Writing a well made app does not somehow allow one to circumvent ToS, which Microsoft very clearly violated. I'm sure if Microsoft merely removed the ability to download videos and restored ads, Google would not have any problems with it. The fact that MetroTube is so successful disproves the conspiracy theory that Google is trying to prevent Windows Phone users from being able to use YouTube. This isn't a "We don't like WP" issue, this is a "your app blatantly violates our ToS and we're not okay with that" issue.
- beagle3 13y ago
  > Microsoft has gotten a lot better the last few years imho You are entitled to your opinion, but I must say that quite a few people around here, me as an example, do not share it. We still remember the ISO Office XML shenanigans, the vague Linux patent threats, the still ongoing Android patent extortion, the UEFI requirement - that's on par with Microsoft's old evil, imho.
zmmmmm 13y ago
That's the most interesting thing here. Microsoft clearly knew this would be unacceptable, and obviously would have known Google would have to tell them to remove the app. So it's clear that the whole thing is an exercise from Microsoft, I suspect, to paint more of the "evil Google" picture that they are working assiduously to establish. Now they can point to Google and say "look, everyone, Google is taking away your toys, they must be evil!". The problem they may have is that this is pretty transparently unacceptable on their part, and even worse, it doesn't jive at all with their general stance on intellectual property (Android infringing on their patents, etc.) where they paint themselves as the good guy who always licenses IP and expects others to do the same.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- CloudNine 13y ago
  >Now they can point to Google and say "look, everyone, Google is taking away your toys, they must be evil!". And they would be right. It's not mutually exclusive that Microsoft is doing this evilly on purpose, and that Google is evilly holding back Youtube from Windows Phone on purpose.
  - myko 13y ago
    No, as stated multiple times within this thread if Microsoft would stop violating the Terms of Service Google would allow them to create a YouTube app.
  - makomk 13y ago
    Microsoft's decision to include a video download button in their app had to be an intentional attempt to force Google's hand - it was obviously specifically added, and it's no secret that Google's been threatening to sue people who do that.
    - n09n 13y ago
      Why does it have to be that? The plethora of browser extensions that implement this feature prove it's something users want. Why imagine a nefarious reason for developers to add a feature to their app that users want?

I think the wishes of the legal department are of less importance than the overall need for good apps on the Windows Phone platform. Google didn't have the time/resources to build a Windows Phone app, so Microsoft did. And they did it well. But now that the app is in the Store, Google wants it removed. That's not a matter of 'no time/resources', that's just a matter of bullying. They've been boycotting the Windows Phone and Windows 8 platforms ever since the launch... Quite typical actually. Google is the only tech giant with a slogan like "don't be evil", yet they are the only evil tech giant at the moment (Microsoft has gotten a lot better the last few years imho).

necubi 13y ago
If you actually read the article, you'd see the issue is not dislike of WP. The issue is that Microsoft is stripping off the ads that fund Youtube and its content, in violation of the YouTube terms of service. It also includes a button that allows people to download videos which is, again, a violation of the ToS.
- Avalaxy 13y ago
  I read the article, I am the one who posted it. Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. The fact that Google gives the violation of their agreement as the reason doesn't mean it IS the real reason behind it. There are many other youtube apps (like MetroTube) that do the same thing, but they don't get removed. It's a fact that Google has been boycotting Microsoft for years. They blocked GMail syncing for Windows Phone devices, they disabled Google Maps for WP (it worked before, but then they just blocked all WP devices), and now they do it again.
  - jbp 13y ago
    Doesn't Microsoft do samething to Goolge though?
    - rlu 13y ago
      iirc, microsoft has onenote, skydrive, skype and outlook.com apps for android. Sure, you can argue that "well Android has majority market share so it's in microsoft's advantage to have apps in that platform!" - and you would be correct. However, that doesn't excuse having the web views for Windows Phone on gmail and maps (and maybe youtube?) be significantly worse than those for iOS/Android. Like, the work has already been done - Google just does not redirect WP users to the "pretty" sites. If you manually enter in the iOS/Android URL on WP, it works fine. It's just not defaulted. And that's lame.
  - makomk 13y ago
    So what you're saying is that there's another app - MetroTube - that also allows users to view YouTube videos on Windows 8 and Windows Phone that hasn't been removed. Congratulations on disproving your own argument that this is an attack on Windows Phone!
  - fpgeek 13y ago
    ToS violations may not be "the" reason, but it is enough of a reason to force Google's hand, whether or not they have other reasons. Exactly how long do you think, say, Viacom woulds tolerate a high-profile, name-brand YouTube app that blocked ads and supported video downloads? And what do you think Viacom would do to Google if Google's response to that app was turning a blind eye?
- recoiledsnake 13y ago
  >If you actually read the article, you'd see the issue is not dislike of WP. The issue is that Microsoft is stripping off the ads that fund Youtube and its content, in violation the YouTube ToS. It also includes a button that allows people to download videos which is, again, a violation of the ToS. Crossposting my own comment from another thread. So, for years, Google's stated reason for lack of a Youtube client was that Windows Phone didn't have enough marketshare, and now suddenly it has so many users that it loses so many ad impressions because Microsoft's Youtube that the content creators are suffering because all the millions of freeloaders using Windows Phone? i.e It doesn't care enough for the ad impressions on Windows Phone to itself make an app , but when MS does, the loss of the same revenue is the reason for sending the lawyers in and pulling the app?
  - ok_craig 13y ago
    YouTube users make a living off the ads. It is just as much about their rights. Google is the only one who can defend this on their behalf, and they should, down to the platforms with only 1 user.
  - pyre 13y ago
    So, when Microsoft's IP is infringed (patents, etc), it's a tragedy. When Google's (or its partner's) IP is infringed it's something sinister. Gotcha.
    - mortehu 13y ago
      Are you suggesting that software patents are as worthwhile as videos and music?
  - aeturnum 13y ago
    One decision about TOS enforcement affects their ability to attack other TOS violations. If you don't enforce your TOS consistently, you open yourself to exactly the sort of anti-competitive charges MS users are leveling against Google.
  - invisible 13y ago
    Any amount of loss due to not following the Terms of Service is grounds for terminating usage. Those same users that are not watching the ad could instead be watching the ad on the web and making them ad revenue. Your logic is so flawed.
blippe 13y ago
Er. You know others have succeeded in creating youtube apps for their platform without breaking the API. Microsoft is just rattling its crib.
bhups 13y ago
Wait, that's not how app development works. Writing a well made app does not somehow allow one to circumvent ToS, which Microsoft very clearly violated. I'm sure if Microsoft merely removed the ability to download videos and restored ads, Google would not have any problems with it. The fact that MetroTube is so successful disproves the conspiracy theory that Google is trying to prevent Windows Phone users from being able to use YouTube. This isn't a "We don't like WP" issue, this is a "your app blatantly violates our ToS and we're not okay with that" issue.
beagle3 13y ago
> Microsoft has gotten a lot better the last few years imho You are entitled to your opinion, but I must say that quite a few people around here, me as an example, do not share it. We still remember the ISO Office XML shenanigans, the vague Linux patent threats, the still ongoing Android patent extortion, the UEFI requirement - that's on par with Microsoft's old evil, imho.

zmmmmm 13y ago

That's the most interesting thing here. Microsoft clearly knew this would be unacceptable, and obviously would have known Google would have to tell them to remove the app. So it's clear that the whole thing is an exercise from Microsoft, I suspect, to paint more of the "evil Google" picture that they are working assiduously to establish. Now they can point to Google and say "look, everyone, Google is taking away your toys, they must be evil!". The problem they may have is that this is pretty transparently unacceptable on their part, and even worse, it doesn't jive at all with their general stance on intellectual property (Android infringing on their patents, etc.) where they paint themselves as the good guy who always licenses IP and expects others to do the same.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
CloudNine 13y ago
>Now they can point to Google and say "look, everyone, Google is taking away your toys, they must be evil!". And they would be right. It's not mutually exclusive that Microsoft is doing this evilly on purpose, and that Google is evilly holding back Youtube from Windows Phone on purpose.
- myko 13y ago
  No, as stated multiple times within this thread if Microsoft would stop violating the Terms of Service Google would allow them to create a YouTube app.
- makomk 13y ago
  Microsoft's decision to include a video download button in their app had to be an intentional attempt to force Google's hand - it was obviously specifically added, and it's no secret that Google's been threatening to sue people who do that.
  - n09n 13y ago
    Why does it have to be that? The plethora of browser extensions that implement this feature prove it's something users want. Why imagine a nefarious reason for developers to add a feature to their app that users want?