>The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google
Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that
Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that
> Apple said in a statement that “our license to include the YouTube app in iOS has ended.” It added that owners of its devices would be able to use their Web browsers to view YouTube videos, and that Google was working on a new YouTube app that would be available through the Apple App Store.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/apple-to-remove-you...
The iOS app would've been developed in partnership and with the blessing of Google (aka Co that owns YouTube).
Microsoft had no such relationship with Google and instead chose to release their own unofficial YouTube app (first without ads) clearly violating the YouTube API TOS. Knowingly breaking the law and expecting a favorable outcome reminds me of "Queue Jumpers" who illegally enter Australia, they're not legally allowed to enter, but they continue to do so because the outcome is more favorable to their lively-hood when they do.
So Google blocks Microsoft, who wants to turn this into a anti-Google PR stunt and is openly crying foul trying to rally public support for their plight since they have no legal recourse.
Which is odd for Microsoft who loves exploiting the legal system to others detriment. I'm honestly shocked that Google isn't bending over backwards to help a competitor who is actively extorting the Android ecosystem through patent litigation (on tech created by Google), who makes more money on Android sales than even Google does (who has contributed significant resources into making Android).
>> Knowingly breaking the law
Yeah, mythz's crazy anti-Microsoft law ...
MS argument here is that Google is pushing for open platforms and standards when it's profitable for G and closing their own when not.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Google might be doing a legal thing, but they're still doing the wrong thing.
>Which is odd for Microsoft who loves exploiting the legal system to others detriment. I'm honestly shocked that Google isn't bending over backwards to help a competitor who is actively extorting the Android ecosystem through patent litigation (on tech created by Google), who makes more money on Android sales than even Google does (who has contributed significant resources into making Android).
I dont think not actively preventing them from doing the same thing your apps do is 'bending over backwards'. The other points are irrelevant. If you claim to be open, you must be open to everyone, not just the people you do not consider competitors.
Especially the section "Open Information".
There's a lot of the world's information exclusively on Youtube, not just entertainment.
https://developers.google.com/gdata/docs/developers-guide?cs...
EDIT: According to itafroma, the Apple-authored YouTube app for Apple TV will play all videos without ads.
That's not correct. The original iOS app played all videos, regardless of whether they were monetized, as long as the creator checked the "make available for mobile devices" option. It works the same with with the current Apple TV app: monetization options have no effect on videos' availability.
Today is not 2007, and Google has different motivators. It was also my understanding that Google worked alongside Apple on that original app, and then licensed the same to Apple, with the app being removed once that license expired.
I don't know which of the two is in the wrong here, but Microsoft's history makes their protestations rather difficult to accept at face value. There are some gross misreporting occurring on this (the most common being "Google worked with Microsoft on new app and then banned it!", which it seems is entirely incorrect. Google worked with Microsoft on a new app...and then Microsoft decided to release the old, blocked one just to get the press rolling again).