[capo]

GTalk is still as is.

As for YouTube it is and always have been available on the web for windows phone.

Microsoft in clear violation of Google's TOS used undocumented APIs and stripped ads from YouTube and now they have the audacity to say that they would have complied by the TOS if it suited them better.

Please take your anti-Google (probably Microsoft sponsored astroturf) elsewhere:

https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=recoiledsnake

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=recoiledsnake

These submission are a honeypot for your sort.

[iamshs]

Except, Microsoft did not strip ads from the videos. They said yesterday that they will be happy to serve ads if Google lets them access. And please, let the legal departments decide if it is a clear violation or not. Do not take a decision on your own.

I think you are the one who is astro-turfing here, if i apply the finger pointing criteria to you too. It is better if you reply to the argument leaving your personal preferences neatly tucked in.

[bjustin]

Microsoft is flagrantly violating YouTube's terms of service. Saying they would serve ads if YouTube had an API for it is like me using your obviously not public WiFi and saying I would pay for it if you let me.

[cooldeal]

Comparison fail.

What Google's been saying from 3 years while dragging it's feet is that Windows Phone does not have enough users to make an app for, but now their claim is that so many people are using the Microsoft Youtube App for Windows Phone that it's hurting the content creators. Huh? Why can't they monetize them by making an app and show twice as many ads in it just to spite WP users? No, they won't. They want to disadvantage Windows Phone compared to Android. Vimeo has had a Windows Phone app from a long time, and Google' can't afford to make one? And you believe them?

Why don't they come out with the real reason then, like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Skype, do about closing down things and eat up the bad press? Why beat around the bush and play delay tactics and hide behind facts? Oh, they want to protect their clean image of being "open" and "do no evil". This is a ploy by Microsoft to force Google to tell the public exactly why they refuse to make a Youtube app and even ban Microsoft from doing so.

How can Windows Phone have so few users that use YouTube that it's not worth monetizing and have so many users that use Microsoft's new app that it's hurting Google and content creator revenue? Why not agree to allow MS to show Google ads and make money since they don't have to spend the money to create the app but can take the profits?

[pi18n]

1. Google is not obliged to create an app for any platform. Regardless of user count. WTF.

2. Microsoft is obliged to follow the ToS on websites they are pulling data from. Regardless of user count.

I'd love to see Google forced to admit what they are doing also, though.

[capo]

http://readwrite.com/2013/05/09/microsoft-youtube-app-rule-b...

They built an unauthorized app and now they are complaining that the app is unauthorized.

[Dylan16807]

HTTP baby!

Trying to enforce a client side rule of 'no downloading' when every web browser in the world can download should be disregarded and mocked heartily.

[iamshs]

I am happy that the customers are getting access to the most widely used video site. I will let the companies dunk it out as to what is unauthorized or what is not. MS responded to it already, and said they are will be happy to work towards betterment of mutual customers on a day where Larry page loathed negativity among companies. Or something to that effect.

[pi18n]

They're abusing the patent system to extort money from Android device manufacturers and they have to gall to completely ignore requirements in a ToS.

I'm looking forward to the day when Microsoft is completely irrelevant. They should just shut down everything except for the research and Xbox departments now.

[iamshs]

Ok love, they will listen to you and shut everything down. What else will make you happy? Motorola actually proving useful to Google?

[pi18n]

Of course they will shut it all down. Eventually they'll be forced to when nobody cares about them anymore.

[untog]

You know, saying that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is "probably Microsoft sponsored astroturf" just makes me picture you with a tin foil hat on your head.

Sometimes the truth is a lot simpler than you're thinking it is. You write a lot of posts that are pro-Google. Are you sponsored by Google?!?!?

[andyl]

'Are you sponsored by Google?' I think so. I've been accused of being an 'anti-google astroturfer' before. 'Gosh that's odd', I thought. Then I read the posts written by my accuser. Pro-google, down the line - echoing PR talking points. Normal people don't do this. I do think Google hires PR flacks to post here on HN.

[untog]

That just makes you sound as bad as capo.

We live in a world where weird fanboys exist for just about anything, including Google and Microsoft.

[pessimizer]

Absolutely true, but we also live in a world in which people are paid to do this.

[jgeorge]

"hires"? No.

Fanboys work for free.

(From all directions, not just pro-google.)

[dandelany]

Seems more likely he is just a regular Google employee who supports what they are doing, albeit a bit aggressively. There are many of them on HN. Not sure why either of you are assuming malice here.

[threeseed]

How about attacking the argument instead of the person ?

Trying to paint this black/white picture of someone just because they disagree with you is frankly pathetic.

[capo]

I think I've attacked both.

[donalmacc]

Eh... https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=capo Something about the pot calling the kettle black? You don't work for google by any chance do you?

[capo]

Nope. You just joined to ask me that?

[recoiledsnake]

And I don't work for Microsoft, never worked for them or any affiliates nor own their stock or ever owned it and the closest that I know I was ever to any MS employee was when I was interviewing in Seattle at Amazon for a C++/Linux position.

Now, can we get on with the discussion instead of trying to derail it by ad hominem attacks?

[capo]

There is no "discussion" going on, you are just repeating fact-free Microsoft press statements.

If you're not getting paid you should be.

[CloudNine]

Can we comment on the stories and not the commenters themselves? What is this? A witch hunt?

[capo]

You don't think it's relevant? Microsoft is paying millions to run anti-Google attack ads and smear campaigns everywhere, it's not unthinkable that they would hire astroturf to roam sites like HN, so for the sake of the health of this community they ought to be pointed out.

[threeseed]

Do you have some proof that this person works for Microsoft ?

Because if you don't then YOU are the one degrading the quality of HN with baseless allegations.

[jlgreco]

Working for Microsoft, or working at Microsoft.

Whether or not he is being paid and regardless of who their employer may be, it seems pretty clear they are working for Microsoft.

[iamshs]

Just because you are paranoid, does not give you the right to label anyone as paid for roaming a site and attacking your favourite company. This feels like the "either you are with us or them" mentality". Please, if you do not have the proof, do not go down this path. It is dangerous, and lets anyone label anyone as being a shill and paid commentator.

[pseut]

There's up and down voting for that, and probably HN's spam filtering matters too. Making comments expressly meant to derail the conversation isn't necessary or useful.

[CloudNine]

No, it is not really that relevant.

If Microsoft is paying recoiledsnake a billion dollars to make that post, does it change any of the facts in it? No? Then why whinge about possible or probably astroturfing instead of just addressing the facts in their post?

Unless you want HN to do a full background check on every poster here, it's hard to identify Google/Apple/Microsoft fans/haters/employees/shareholders. You have the option to remain silent, vote and move on if you're not interested in a post.

[capo]

I've addressed the "facts".

[NicoJuicy]

capo actually has a point :)