Google is evil!
"I’m more surprised by the absurd Google apologists I see in the press and in tech blogs..."
How about this one. John C D at PCMag recommends "if you wanted to watch YouTube videos on the Windows phone you'd simply link to the mobile version of YouTube"
Then he goes on to say that all of this is a master plan by Microsoft to win the PR war. "It does whatever it can to get Google to block them."
It's sad that he has a forum at Twit.
Mankind love evil, spies, and to be controlled by advertising companies, sad truth.
I'm kind of looking forward to this weeks's Windows Weekly. Leo thinks Microsoft is the bad guy in the mess. Paul, I am curious to hear you counter arguments on this matter with Leo.
Maybe I'm not as fast on the uptake as I used to be but...
Just what is all the outrage about here again? It's YouTube not the cure for cancer or malaria. Microsoft can more than afford to finance it's own competing service & funnel money into until it starts to gain traction. Come to think of it that's exactly what they have done with Bing & now Windows Phone.
I'm not a user of either Bing or Windows Phone (though I did have an HTC 8X, it just wasn't to my taste) & I can't say I missed YouTube not having an official app. Just use the web interface & done.
Perhaps I've just grown bored with multi billion dollar companies arguing over silly things like a YouTube app & patents (hello Nathan Myrvold, former Microsoft ecec & major patent troll/Bill Gates golf buddy). There are no good or evil companies here, just big multi-national profit seeking companies that could care less about me as a person until I open my wallet. It really makes Apple land seem quite appealing just as a closed off ecosystem.
Google was kind enough to provide us a definition of openness!
Weren't google the ones who championed net neutrality? You know, the idea that there should be no discrimination by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication?
Frankly, how (and with what) someone connects to some content on youtube is none of google's business. People involved with apps have been brainwashed into thinking that the mode of connection must be sanctioned or approved. That is not how the internet was supposed to work. But the net has been co-opted by ad agencies like google.
But that isn't even going far enough for google. They should be held to an even higher standard, since they were kind enough to provide us the meaning of "open".
Nice write up Paul. It clearly seems biased against MS. I don't believe that the other platforms are complying to this manufactured idiocy of Google anyways. Plain stupid and unethical.
I'd love for you to comment on my take of things. The way I see it, Google has already laid down strict terms and conditions for third parties to abide by when using their YouTube APIs. These terms and conditions don't actually mean that Google must follow them though, so any comment about their own apps is missing the point. The problem here seems to be that Microsoft want to not abide by these T&Cs, then they act surprised when Google stops serving data to their apps. The supposed curious request by Google for them to use HTML5 applies to all third parties, no? So why the comparison with Google's own apps? Why can't Microsoft simply follow the T&Cs and use another argument to state that there should be more leeway with the T&Cs instead of developing an app that clearly breaks this and then act surprised?
To be honest Paul, they're all as bad as each other. Microsoft got a raw deal this time, but they were the ones "forgetting" browser choice and trying to monopolise second hand games distribution on Xbox. If its not them its Apple making every non-Apple app on iOS a second hand citizen by refusing access to key APIs or by not allowing them as default. if its not Apple its Google, with this silly nonsense. And they're all as bad as each other with patents.
This, sadly, is business.
Also, people complain about the "wrong" Microsoft did in the past, but a lot of that is a matter of opininion. Did they ever make Windows in a way that products from other companies wouldn't function? We can all argue about if they should have been more open or should have made it easier for their competitors to compete with them (of course I don't know any company that would say yes we should do that). But what has Microsoft done that no one else has tried to do or wouldn't do in their position. Google, Apple, Sony, Cisco, etc. Many of the companies that complained about Microsoft have no problem flexing their muscle when they get a chance. Not you can say you don't like MS or you wish they would have made more changes to their products and prices, that might have been brought about by more competition, but some people have an unhealthy hate Microsoft all the time for everything kind of mentality.
"Also, people complain about the "wrong" Microsoft did in the past, but a lot of that is a matter of opininion. Did they ever make Windows in a way that products from other companies wouldn't function?"
Yes they did. As Paul says, it was long ago, but they used secret APIs, tweaked code to break competitors products, threatened vendors of 3rd party products when they intruded into areas Microsoft was in, or wanted to get into.
Paul's making the case that they don't do any of this any more, and I agree, the company is very restrained compared to the Microsoft of old. But, they definitely engaged in practices that were not only unethical, but also illegal.
So they did not do that.
Like any platform maker, Microsoft has both public and private APIs. They publish public APIs so that third parties can build on those platforms. Applications and drivers in the case of Windows.
Microsoft *did* use private APIs in the past to create products that were better than competing products. But they did this in DOS, not in Windows. This was 20 years ago.
Microsoft's behavior at the time was indeed unethical. But it was not illegal: Microsoft did not have a monopoly in the early 1990s and could do what it would with regards to private APIs. It was their platform.
Later on, as Microsoft grew bigger, it did get into trouble with antitrust regulators for a related issue, by the way. But Microsoft didn't have "secret" or private APIs it was wielding against competitors. It had badly documented and inconsistently licensed APIs. And one of the conditions of its US antitrust case was that it fix both, which it did. Begrudgingly and slowly, yes. But it's in compliance.
Folks, you gotta get past your petty prejudices about this stuff. It's just uninformed.
The Xbox shows pre-roll ads, as well as inset ads. Is it using the proper API? If so, why can't Microsoft just use this code over on Windows Phone?
Google are doing the equivalent of Microsoft walking up to the car, and Google driving off and stopping a short distance away, letting Microsoft walk up to the car again, while they drive off again. Its petty and for no other reason but spite.
First of all, I'm a huge fan of Supersite and Paul. Been a long-time supporter.
I agree with some of this article, but both companies are being petty, ticking each other off, poking the bear, etc.
For instance, Microsoft should've worked with Google from the beginning to write this app. And even though they didn't, they should've sent the recent update to Google for approval before launching it. I mean, they *are* using Google's APIs.
Second, this article only highlights one half of the story--perhaps that's because Google isn't commenting at the moment, but it's truly hard to say what exactly is going on without knowing their side of the story.
This smells similar to Microsoft's use of private APIs in Windows to make their software run better than 3rd party apps back in the 90s. They were trying to create an un-level playing field, which to me seems anti-competitive.
So in one sense, MS is just getting a taste of its own medicine (again, not that it's right necessarily).
I do hope the dispute is amicably resolved in the near future, as it's unfortunate for Windows Phone users to lack a good solution for YouTube viewing. I just wish we knew the whole story from *both* sides.
There is a LOT of misinformation out there around this issue.
That Microsoft "should" have worked with Google is obvious. They tried that, as it turns out. Google refused. After Google publicly called out Microsoft for not being open enough, MS called them on their BS and got Google to agree to work on the WP YouTube app. Google has continued to refuse to work with the Windows team. They must be really scared of those guys. So there's that history.
To your second point, I can only highlight the part of the story that is known/public. I'm not a psychic. But let's get serious. Google underhandedly is trying to sabotage Windows Phone and Microsoft. All they had to do was refuse to work with them. They agreed to work with them and then stabbed them in the back. There isn't some version of this story where Google comes out looking good, sorry. It's not he said/she said. It's he said and guilty party just keeps quiet. As they would.
I addressed the "private API" stuff long ago, but to recap: It doesn't matter what Microsoft did 25 years ago to other companies. Google is NOT in the right for getting some sort of vague revenge for activities that did not happen to it long ago. And Google is hitting the antitrust curve itself right now, so it will be interesting to see how things work when this kind of activity is in fact illegal. Which it is. "Taste of their own" medicine means *nothing*. The victims here are users of both Google and Microsoft.. People. Not Microsoft, the company. You CANNOT defend that behavior.
Any argument that concludes with "we need to know the whole story" ignores what that we do know quite a bit, and none of it is positive. We know enough to know that Google acted shabbily and harmed its own users and its common customers with Microsoft.
And they suck for that. As stated.
Actually, Paul, the whole "Microsoft uses Secret APIs" thing was bull as well. An actual analysis was done of the APIs used in ALL the major apps by ALL the major vendors and the application that used the most "Secret Windows APIs" was Lotus in 1-2-3 G.
The APIs that Microsoft applications division used that weren't "official" anymore were old, deprecated APIs that despite being said to no longer be supported because they were replaced with newer APIs that worked better were still in the product. In the case of Excel it was 2 calls that were always called right after each other being replaced by 1 call that did both functions.
Lotus, on the other hand, had special APIs in Windows that the Windows team put in for them to do some things Lotus wanted because Microsoft wanted 1-2-3 on Windows.
Feel free to look it up. There was a press release by Microsoft at the time pointing to the study so your press contacts in Redmond should be able to find it in the archives (if the archives go back over 30 years)
That Microsoft was exonerated really didn't get press coverage so the "Secret APIs" thing became an urban legend like BillG saying 640K was enough for anyone.
I have a problem with Google's cavalier attitude towards privacy & data collection. It scares the crap out of me to log in to GMail and see 'recommended contacts' based on the fact they Googled me (people I know from work, for instance, but have no online connections with).
But I cannot get mad at them for this. It's in their interest to kill Windows Phone. MS used undocumented APIs years ago to make their products run better with Windows & they did everything in their power to kill their competition like WordPerfect, Lotus, etc. It's a bit ironic to see MS complain about this. They'd do exactly the same thing if they were dominant in smartphones & Google were the upstart.
Great read! There are a couple of ways to get more instagram followers and likes, some would opt to do follower exchange. Most of them would just buy some at reliable sites i.e. instalikes.org
Great information shared with the users here, its noteworthy one to get a great information for future business purpose.
increase youtube views
SuperSite for Windows
Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×