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!
Did you try to open your web browser on your phone and go to http://youtube.com ? please try. I don't have a windows phone, but when I tried it in a store, it seemed to work well - and other people on this thread claim it also works well,
> 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 terms of service actually mandate either flash or html5, nothing else. Microsoft chose not include flash. Microsoft chose to avoid using HTML5 for the youtube app. They are not complying with the terms of service, and it is ENTIRELY their fault.
> Remember when google maps was blocked on Windows phone's browser? A negative PR was required to caused Google revert the stance.
Yes, and at that time Google was at fault, and it took them a couple of days to make things right. In this case, Microsoft has been playing the PR game for more than 3 months now, instead of doing the right thing (honoring terms of service).
> Again, no they don't work perfectly and Youtube is sadly not something you can just substitute!
Again, go to youtube in your web browser. it worked for me. Yes, it's not as nice as a YouTube app, but you don't actually lose out on any content.
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.
No, they're just refusing to give Microsoft preferential treatment. Microsoft can write a native app as long as they comply with Google's terms. There are at least 5 different YouTube native apps in the iOS store last I checked, and at least 5 in the Android Play store. See "Jasmine" on iOS for a great example.
If Microsoft is so bad at writing software that they can't follow simple terms and conditions, maybe they should hire the Jasmine guy.
> allowing Microsoft's version which shows ads
That would require them to develop a new API for microsoft, and maintain it. Why would they do that, when they already have a perfectly good API that Microsoft refuses to use?
> 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.
This is an assertion without proof, which personally I find implausible.
> Sounds like a reason for "No more Google products" if anything.
You are welcome to stop using Google products. Especially, you should stop using YouTube. Please do. Please. Blacklist the youtube.com website (which works perfectly well on WP) so you don't go there accidentally.
Anyway this is a good read from Google's official blog.
From http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html
"At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important."
It's hard to read that and then say Google is not being hypocritical here.
