Just as it was the problem of users buying early Linux notebooks / eees and expecting it to run Windows software.
And it's not like the WP users are left out in the rain. They can just use the browser to view YouTube videos. Lesser experience, sure. I might care when Microsoft implements or makes it possible for others to implement e.g. SilverLight for linux.
edit: typos
The problem is when you extrapolate this reasoning:
- Do you want support for nvidia cards on Linux?
- Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
- Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
And so on. I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. My mantra is: you can't reverse engineer the cloud.
- Yes, I do want to view SilverLight videos on Linux. But I can't. Because Microsoft won't let me (or Xamarin or Ximian) implement the DRM parts.
- Yes, I do check that an nvidia card is supported on Linux before I buy it; That's why, for example, I avoid AMD, and it IS my problem if I buy an AMD card for which there is no good driver on Linux
> I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. My mantra is: you can't reverse engineer the cloud.
The implied argument (Microsoft is more open because you CAN reverse engineer their products) is complete bullsh*t. Evidence: http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html
I am neither trying to write a formal proof here nor defending Microsoft in all their battles. I tried to argue against pervasive double standards: we love free software but Google business is not harmed publishing Chrome source code like Microsoft business is publishing the code of Microsoft Windows. Google is harmed if everyone install AdBlock (you can read something along these lines in their investor reports) or connects to their search engine without showing any ad.
Are you really making the argument that if your application doesn't encrypt its interfaces, then you're open?
Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PPTP and Kerberos. - Nvidia produced their own closed drivers on Linux. How does that involve Microsoft?
You agree with me then! that was my point. You can't reverse engineer Google Search, you can't connect with it in an unlimited way (except using web scraping techniques or using the restricted local search API). With Microsoft you can reverse engineer it.
And I have an story to tell: my company started selling a full API for a Microsoft product without one. Not only we reverse engineered the product but we built a complete API on top. One day Microsoft QA call us if they can help to test the compatibility of our product in operating systems under development.
Yes, but if I install Linux expecting to have support for nvidia cards, it is my problem.
> - Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to connect to a Windows share, it is my problem.
> - Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?
Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to print to a windows share, it is my problem.
There is no problem when you extrapolate this reasoning.
If Google is a monopoly and this is probed in some court (EU/US) the issue will crystallize in another way.
Meanwhile, it can be analyzed in an ethical way and some people think that the problem extends beyond you.
The argument is about openness, not about rights.
It's in Microsoft's favor to damage that image. Don't take it personally.
Then what does open mean? To me it means to provide an API on an equal footing among the various platforms. If Google is providing access to secret Web service APIs to their Android and iOS Youtube Apps, but not to Windows Phone, how is that open? Requiring to show ads is still understandable, but requiring HTML5? Why do they care if it's HTML5 or something else? It sounds fishy, and Google should come out with a real reason for requiring HTML5 if there is one, after all they call themselves open.
It is probably well within their rights to screw around since it's their stuff, but lets not pretend it's open. Didn't MS get lambasted for private APIs in Windows? Why does Google get a free pass now and get away with calling itself open?
If you were a youtube user then, you were using the website - which is PERFECTLY USABLE on your windows phone. Your experience is not worse in any way than it was then (although it might not be as good as android or ios users; but then, you didn't buy an android or an iphone)
> Had MS or Apple pulled a similar crap, everyone would be crying an antitrust river and carrying a nail to the cross. Why does Google get a free pass at this?
Google is asking Microsoft to respect terms of service - nothing more, nothing less. Twitter does it every other week, and so does facebook - and people are upset, but everyone understands that this is entirely within their rights. (Unlike stuff Microsoft did, for which it was convicted of antitrust violations).
> Its by now clear that Google wants to provide a degraded experience to the windows phone users, thus deliberately rigging the market place.
The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft is using its customers as pawns in a PR game against google. I know what my response to that would have been: No more MS products.
> What guarantees that the same wouldn't be pulled when Firefox OS or Ubuntu OS comes to the market? If so what can possibly replace Youtube? 90% of the video links on the web are to Youtube.
AND THEY ALL WORK PERFECTLY WELL ON YOUR WINDOWS PHONE, INSIDE THE WEB BROWSER, LIKE LINKS ARE SUPPOSED TO! WHAT ARE YOU UPSET ABOUT?
No its not, you know since flash is disabled.
>Google is asking Microsoft to respect terms of service - nothing more, nothing less.
And they did respect the terms of service with their new app - nothing more, nothing less. Using a HTML5 client is not part of that terms of service.
>The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft is using its customers as pawns in a PR game against google.
I would have to agree with you on that, especially with their scroogled ads campaign. However without such public announcement, no one will ever know what the reason behind the app's breaking. Remember when google maps was blocked on Windows phone's browser? A negative PR was required to caused Google revert the stance.
>AND THEY ALL WORK PERFECTLY WELL ON YOUR WINDOWS PHONE!
Again, no they don't work perfectly and Youtube is sadly not something you can just substitute!
Wait a minute, isn't Google using YouTube content providers and advertisers as pawns in this game to hurt Windows Phone?
Windows Phone holds about 3.5% marketshare, and by refusing to make an official app (with ads) or allowing Microsoft's version which shows ads and because of the degraded experience of the mobile site which discourages people from searching, watching related videos etc. , they're hurting revenues of content providers to help Android.
So if you're a content provider, you can and will be used as a stick to further Google's selfish interests even if the actions hurt you.
Sounds like a reason for "No more Google products" if anything.
IMO, it's not about rights. It's about anti-competitive behavior of Google. WP might easily get on par with Android and OS and this why Google doesn't allow Youtube there.
I think a bigger problem here is why people think YouTube or Google are "open" to begin with. There are some areas in Google businesses that being more open than the alternatives (note the emphasis on more, sometimes they are just "open" in comparison with Microsoft and Apple policies) serves them well, thats why the do it, but it's not a dogma inside the company and will never be.
If microsoft had a signed contract with google, (which would probably entail payment to google) they would have a case. As it stands, they don't.
