Topic: Microsoft complaining about Google

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Dave Heiner, vice president and deputy general counsel for Microsoft (MSFT), took aim at Google (GOOG) and the company’s unwillingness to develop for Windows Phone 8 in a blog post on Wednesday. Heiner claims that, “Google continues to prevent Microsoft from offering consumers a fully featured YouTube app [among other] for the Windows Phone.” Microsoft has been apparently been trying to get a full-feature YouTube app for its Windows Phone operating system for more than two years, however it has been unsuccessful.

Since MS now believes that you should produce your software for competitors Operating Systems I guess MS Office for Linux is about to be launched? 

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Dave Heiner, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft, wrote a post about the fact that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is not doing enough to force Google to conform with antitrust laws. More specifically, Microsoft is upset that Windows Phone still cannot get a full YouTube app while the competition (Android and iOS) are able.

"Despite government scrutiny, Google continues to block Microsoft from offering its customers proper access to YouTube," said Heiner. "This is an important issue because consumers value YouTube access on their phone: YouTube apps on the Android and Apple platforms were two of the most downloaded mobile applications in 2012, according to recent news reports. Yet Google still refuses to allow Windows Phone users to have the same access to YouTube that Android and Apple customers enjoy. Microsoft has continued to engage with YouTube personnel over the past two years to remedy this problem for consumers.

When did anti trust violations ever bother Microsoft?  (See the rest of the article for fines from the EU on MS for their violations).

If I recall correctly the MS terms for programs in the appstore are like Apples (which are obscene), they definitely want 30% of your gross on the sales through the appstore.  If they are like Apple they want 30% of the gross on ALL variants of that program whether sold through the MS Appstore or not  (See why I called it obscene?) .

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

The difference is Youtube is internet, avaliable for all with a net connection, MS Office for Linux would be an outside product not avaliable to all with a net connection and you have to elect to get it and pay (Same for just MS Office to Windows).. so this is kinda saying.. you can go to youtube on a Windows desktop all you want, or your android, or apple device or anything you want but you can't on a MS Phone... <_< , that just rings as No in Common Sense category

[Nemesis]

Actually you can using the browser.  But Microsoft wants Google to do a Winphone app why should Google spend the money?  Of course sometimes IE 10 gets broken and won't work on YouTube after MS does an update.

If Microsoft has no obligation to be compatible with their competitors OS why should Google have such an obligation?

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

Well in all honesty there is no 'replacement' for youtube (kinda), people have kinda made it expected standard what are some apps every mobile device should have. Maps, youtube, internet browser, calendar, just as an example. Maps can be replaced, so can browsers, but youtube is still youtube no matter. If there were absolutly -zero- replacement for MS Word, I'd bet they'd be in Linux for their software too but there are replacement softwares, so they need not nor want to bother with that.

Yea its not really a solid reason for making the app, but it certainly wont win Google any reputation points for those fond of Windows.

[Nemesis]

All Google really needs to do is point out the history of what happens to companies that "Partner" with the Black Widow Spider Microsoft. 

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

Considering they really could just hire an intern or 2 for at most $20k a year salary to write up this youtube app for windows, and probably keep a staff of 2 to maintain it, google doesn't need to risk/partnership risk much to write that app with MS...just so long as the contract isn't vague about it, they'd be good.

[Nemesis]

they'd be good.

History shows that is never true.

Why should Google spend even a dime on it?  If it is successful it takes away from Android.  If it fails they wasted money.  No win scenario for Google.

[knightstorm]

But Google has developed an app for IOS which is probably why MS is complaining.

[Nemesis]

IOS has major market share all ready.  Win Phone OS does not.  Just as MS makes Office for Mac but not for Desktop Linux.

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

Who really loses though is the end user. I am glad to see MS is at least trying to give the end user something which they expect. Google is just playing corporate, and while that may be good corporate side, it isn't so good for corporate image consumer side. They can all go play corporate with something else.

[Nemesis]

Who really loses though is the end user. I am glad to see MS is at least trying to give the end user something which they expect. Google is just playing corporate, and while that may be good corporate side, it isn't so good for corporate image consumer side. They can all go play corporate with something else.

MS is not trying to give the end user something.  They are trying to force Google to support Microsofts failing phone OS.   

Microsoft wants it on their WinPhones?  Pay Google enough to make it worthwhile.  Right off the bat stop all the antiAndroid lawsuits that they are behind.  Stop the anti Linux FUD.  Stop funding anti Google "think tanks". 

Don't forget that Steve (I'll F***ing kill Google) Ballmer is still boss at Microsoft.  Why should Google do anything to benefit a company whose head has declared that he is going to kill Google?

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Microsoft has complained about Google on antitrust grounds for some time.  Here is the result.

Now the FTC's antitrust investigation is over, with no charges brought, and some quite minor changes to Google's business practices. On the patent front, Google will make a sacrifice that's more substantial—but still doesn't outweigh the enormous benefits of being "in the clear" as far as the feds are concerned.

Here is what was fundamentally wrong with the complaint.

Is it a good thing that regulators won't be messing with Google? On balance, yes. Corporations that amass too much power are worth worrying about, and need to be watched—by governments, by non-profits, by journalists and by citizens at large. But at the end of the day, the insistence that Google wasn't playing fair wasn't coming from an enraged citizenry. It was coming from Google's rivals.

It is the same as with the YouTube app.  A rival complaining.  Microsoft on the other hand had the others complaining well before rivals, which is why in various countries around the world they have been penalized for anti trust violations and Google has not. 

Google can't force you to buy their products.  They can't strong arm distributors to not distribute the competition.  Because of the nature of their "monopoly" they don't have the power to abuse it the way Microsoft has done. 

The FTC guys understood what was going on.

When FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz announced the end of his investigation yesterday, he seemed to be speaking to some of Google's competitors/critics directly. And he sounded ready to head them off at the pass.

"Some may believe that we should have done more," said Leibowitz yesterday. That may come out of a "mistaken belief that criticizing us will influence other jurisdictions," he added.

"They'd rather try to win by hobbling Google through regulatory action rather than through inventing better products," said Balto. "Now Google will be able to innovate as much as they want, and price as aggressively as they want, without leading to an over-aggressive regulator." And that will be good for consumers.

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

If it is good enough for Microsoft . . .

It was only a matter of time: Windows RT has been hacked to allow non-Microsoft applications to run in Desktop. Prior to this hack, your Windows RT tablet (such as the Surface RT) could only run Metro apps, a special, touch-oriented version of Office… and that’s it. Now, in theory, you can run any Desktop app on Windows RT [See: What is Windows RT?]

They let their apps run in the desktop mode but no one elses? 

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

Of course they are trying to give the end user something, there are plenty of brilliant people at both Microsoft and Google that know this.. lawsuit wise and exec wise well what can I say, lawyers and execs love to play thump the chest moves lol, I generally tend to ignore legal depts.

Most of its nothing but technicalities in laws anyways, and fail to consider that technology trends are converging, not diverging, and multiple companies are going to claim infringment, copyright, trademark, he stole this or that, but in reality there's only so many ways you can have claimed to have invented a new table or a new universal design, Legal doesnt consider this though and they all go ring around the rosy, and will continue rattling sabers. Anyways point is, most the legal is just noise and not representative of the company. I look at it from the core, as in the programmers, the program managers, the design team. Those guys have done an awesome job in both Google and MS, and Apple, so I'm happy to support them all. INCLUDING them wanting to get a youtube app from Google.

As far as apps, well of course, their app store stuff is just begining, they've been slower to develop the store and they are going to be more restrictive till they get a good feeling for what they are doing with their apps and stores. I suspect you will see it open up some after a while of getting cozy with it.

What I do find kinda silly is that it would be rather easy for MS to write an app that'll parse through youtube, reconstruct its navigation, and then use the link to retrive the flv file for streaming and convert/play as necessary. SO while I frown on googles decision, MS does have alternatives it should use

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

More fun and games.  Google told MS make your own app using HTML 5.  MS looks says "it is too hard" and reposts the app that Google already made them take down.  Naturally they get ordered to take it down again.

Is Google playing fair?

In fact, Microsoft's claim that the YouTube apps for Android and iOS are written in native code is correct. But those two apps – and only those two apps – are written by Google itself. All third-party YouTube apps are expected to use the HTML5 API, and with the exception of Microsoft's, all of them do – including the apps for BlackBerry, PlayStation, and every smart TV or Blu-Ray player that offers YouTube.

So third parties can make HTML 5 apps but MS can't?  Could it be that the IE on Win8 Phone is the problem?

We're committed to providing users and creators with a great and consistent YouTube experience across devices, and we've been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service. It has been disabled. We value our broad developer community and therefore ask everyone to adhere to the same guidelines.

Yep Google says it is IE not them.  So why doesn't MS make their browser more HTML 5 compliant?  Maybe because then they wouldn't have a weapon to attack Google with?

[maelstorm]

Since MS now believes that you should produce your software for competitors Operating Systems I guess MS Office for Linux is about to be launched?

wine allows you to run it.