Google tells Microsoft to take down unofficial YouTube app from Windows Phone store due to lack of a

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Google's YouTube on Wednesday sent a cease and desist letter to Microsoft requesting the company remove the made-for-Windows Phone YouTube client app from its store, citing a number of reasons for the takedown, one of which being an inability to garner advertising revenue.

Update: In a statement obtained by The Verge, Microsoft responded to Google's cease and desist order, saying, "We?d be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs. In light of Larry Page?s comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers."

YouTube App Windows Phone


According to the letter, obtained by The Verge, YouTube claims the Microsoft-authored client prevents ads from playing, allows users to download content, and plays back videos on mobile devices even when such actions are marked as restricted by content creators.

"These features directly harm our content creators and clearly violate our Terms of Service," YouTube's Director of Global Platform Partnerships Francisco Varela wrote to Windows Phone Apps and Store GM Todd Brix. "Content creators make money on YouTube by monetizing their content through advertising. Unfortunately, by blocking advertising and allowing downloads of videos, your application cuts off a valuable ongoing revenue source for creators, and causes harm to the thriving content ecosystem on YouTube."

Microsoft reportedly created the app without input from Google or YouTube, and instituted the features without the companies' consent. YouTube's official apps on the Android and iOS mobile platforms, as well as its main Internet portal, do not support the download of videos or ad skipping.

Put into context, the letter represents a larger problem between the two tech giants. On stage at today's Google I/O conference, CEO Larry Page said certain players in the industry are restricting innovation. More pointedly, Page told an audience member that "we struggle with people like Microsoft," The Verge noted.

Microsoft in April took a swing at Google's Android operating system with an ad campaign, dubbed "Scroogled," in which the audience was reminded that their personal information is shared with developers each time an app is downloaded.

YouTube demanded that Microsoft remove the app by May 22, but as of this writing it has yet to be taken down.

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 49
    bullheadbullhead Posts: 493member
    Microsoft supposedly values others intellectual property. After all they sued everyone under the sun who uses Android for "stealing their intellectual property", yet here they show their true colors and get caught stealing others intellectual property. Typical Microsoft.
  • Reply 2 of 49
    sambirasambira Posts: 90member
    "According to the letter, obtained by The Verge, YouTube claims the Microsoft-authored client prevents ads from playing, allows users to download content, and plays back videos on mobile devices even when such actions are marked as restricted by content creators. "

    Ok so, didn't MS create the client from either reverse engineering the protocol or from protocol specs on how to interface with FB? It sounds to me like the FB access protocol has a bunch of holes in it. For example, how can MS client play content that is supposed to have ad info? Does that mean FB is relying too much on the client to do this for them (i.e. xhtml or something like that)? Also, if a content creator wishes to restrict model devices from it's content, why is this the job of the model device to do so? Shouldn't this be blocked at the server? And if they cannot do that (i.e. they don't know the device), then how can they provide this feature? Does this mean that the only valid FB client is the FB client and no one else can create one? I dont' see how they can dictate this as long as MS didn't obtain the protocol by illegal means.

    Just my 2 cents
  • Reply 3 of 49
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Puts in perspective why Apple no longer bundles Google Maps and YouTube with every iOS device.
  • Reply 4 of 49
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 887member


    I don't even like Microsoft but I don't see where they stole anything in this case.  They created their own app that accesses a public website and filters the ads.  How is this different from using ad block plugins?  Google is really the hypocrite here.  They want to protect their platforms while their whole even today was aimed at leveraging Apple's to suit their needs.  Their actions will be their undoing.  

  • Reply 5 of 49
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,603member
    Now that's what I call EVIL to the core.

    What ever happened to "OPEN".
  • Reply 6 of 49
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post





    Microsoft reportedly created the app without input from Google or YouTube, and instituted the features without the companies' consent. YouTube's official apps on the Android and iOS mobile platforms, as well as its main Internet portal, do not support the download of videos or ad skipping.



    Put into context, the letter represents a larger problem between the two tech giants. On stage at today's Google I/O conference, CEO Larry Page said certain players in the industry are restricting innovation. More pointedly, Page told an audience member that "we struggle with people like Microsoft," The Verge noted.

     


     


    What about companies like Oracle who "struggle with people like" Google?


     


    Google wants "open and free" but not when it affects them.

  • Reply 7 of 49
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    The title for this article should have read:

    "Microsoft Inputs/Outputs Google and Google doesn't like it".
  • Reply 8 of 49
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    The only thing I think is fishy is the ability to download; otherwise, I'm guessing the app merely accesses the web, re-skins it, and blocks ads. Didn't think that's illegal.
  • Reply 9 of 49
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,976member
    sambira wrote: »
    "According to the letter, obtained by The Verge, YouTube claims the Microsoft-authored client prevents ads from playing, allows users to download content, and plays back videos on mobile devices even when such actions are marked as restricted by content creators. "

    Ok so, didn't MS create the client from either reverse engineering the protocol or from protocol specs on how to interface with FB? It sounds to me like the FB access protocol has a bunch of holes in it. For example, how can MS client play content that is supposed to have ad info? Does that mean FB is relying too much on the client to do this for them (i.e. xhtml or something like that)? Also, if a content creator wishes to restrict model devices from it's content, why is this the job of the model device to do so? Shouldn't this be blocked at the server? And if they cannot do that (i.e. they don't know the device), then how can they provide this feature? Does this mean that the only valid FB client is the FB client and no one else can create one? I dont' see how they can dictate this as long as MS didn't obtain the protocol by illegal means.

    Just my 2 cents

    FB?
  • Reply 10 of 49
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,565member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post



    The only thing I think is fishy is the ability to download; otherwise, I'm guessing the app merely accesses the web, re-skins it, and blocks ads. Didn't think that's illegal.


     


    It's not illegal, but it's against the terms that Google lays out for developers which interface with YouTube from what I'm understanding. It appears that Microsoft is:


     


    1) Blocking ads that show on devices. This is a no-no because it blocks ad revenue that Google would receive, along with ad revenue that content creators that upload the videos would receive


    2) Allows downloading of videos. I think everyone can pretty much agree that this is not allowed


    3) It allows content that is not intended for mobile devices (i.e. smartphones) to be played back on said devices. Google, for whatever reasons, blocks certain content from mobile devices. I know that in some cases, you can watch movies and certain TV shows on YouTube via the desktop app, but those same movies aren't available to view on an iPhone or Galaxy S4 for example due to restrictions put in place (by let's say Fox or ABC or Disney).


     


    This isn't some end-user installing third-party tools to hack away to disable ads. This is a well-known company with big-boy pants doing stupid s**t that is against Google's T&Cs.


     


    Microsoft is just saying, "F**k it, I don't care"

  • Reply 11 of 49
    msilsbymsilsby Posts: 4member
    I had a good chuckle about this story.

    I seem to remember not too long ago Google doing something similar with news content. Admittedly it wasn't through an app.


    Oh. Wait a minute...
  • Reply 12 of 49
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

    Puts in perspective why Apple no longer bundles Google Maps and YouTube with every iOS device.


     


    But anyone lucky enough to have iOS 5 (or any Mac) gets to have it without ads!

  • Reply 13 of 49
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,331member


    They aren't stealing intellectual property. At worst, they are using a service without abiding to a terms of use... with those terms of use are "thou must show our advertising". Personally, I hate ads and I hope YouTube dies a nice death. I'm really tired of all the ads.

  • Reply 14 of 49


    Microsoft's responded, saying they'd be happy to include ads, but Google hasn't provided them with the API's in order to do so. http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/15/4334956/microsoft-responds-to-youtube-windows-phone-takedown-notice

  • Reply 15 of 49


    It sounds like Microsoft made YouTube a pleasant experience, like it used to be...

  • Reply 16 of 49
    libertyforalllibertyforall Posts: 1,285member
    Hmm, seems like M$ has a good version of YouTube! ;) lol
  • Reply 17 of 49
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,565member
    jkichline wrote: »
    They aren't stealing intellectual property. At worst, they are using a service without abiding to a terms of use... with those terms of use are "thou must show our advertising". Personally, I hate ads and I hope YouTube dies a nice death. I'm really tired of all the ads.
    A five second or 15 second ad before a video is not going to kill you. How the hell do you think sites like AI get money?

    You don't want to look at ads, stop going to YouTube and stop freeloading content off the Internet with adblockers.
  • Reply 18 of 49
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,739member
    By this logic, Google should ban in-browser ad blockers. "For Inability to garner ad revenues."
  • Reply 19 of 49
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by genovelle View Post


    I don't even like Microsoft but I don't see where they stole anything in this case.  They created their own app that accesses a public website and filters the ads.  How is this different from using ad block plugins?  Google is really the hypocrite here.  They want to protect their platforms while their whole even today was aimed at leveraging Apple's to suit their needs.  Their actions will be their undoing.  



     


    "Inaddition to violating those provisions of the Terms of Service, your application also uses YouTube’s protected trademarks in ways that likely confuse consumers as to the source of the application and whether it is affiliated with or approved by YouTube. The YouTube API Branding Guidelines (https://developers.google.com/youtube/branding) state that you may never use the YouTube logo or theYouTube name in conjunction with the overall name or description of your application, product or service." 

  • Reply 20 of 49
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post





    A five second or 15 second ad before a video is not going to kill you. ...


     


    There are many many things that won't "kill you" that are still reprehensible, awful, nasty etc. IMO anyone who puts up with advertising is a fool of gigantic proportions.  


     


    Personally I'm offended (and sometimes enraged) by the fact that one often gets a 30 second ad in font of a web video clip that is itself only a minute long.  If they did that on TV an hour long show would be 30 minutes or less.  It's already pretty outrageous that it's only 50 minutes now.  


     


    Adverts are nasty and advertising is an entire industry based on deception.  Adverts are full of lies and half truths, they're usually misogynistic, sexist, violent or insensitive in a variety of other ways.  

Sign In or Register to comment.