[beagle3]

Cry me a river. If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem. There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone.

Just as it was the problem of users buying early Linux notebooks / eees and expecting it to run Windows software.

And it's not like the WP users are left out in the rain. They can just use the browser to view YouTube videos. Lesser experience, sure. I might care when Microsoft implements or makes it possible for others to implement e.g. SilverLight for linux.

edit: typos

[wslh]

> If users buy a Windows Phone expecting to have a YouTube app, when one is not legally available, it is their problem.

The problem is when you extrapolate this reasoning:

- Do you want support for nvidia cards on Linux?

- Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

- Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

And so on. I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. My mantra is: you can't reverse engineer the cloud.

[beagle3]

Your arguments are nonsensical:

- Yes, I do want to view SilverLight videos on Linux. But I can't. Because Microsoft won't let me (or Xamarin or Ximian) implement the DRM parts.

- Yes, I do check that an nvidia card is supported on Linux before I buy it; That's why, for example, I avoid AMD, and it IS my problem if I buy an AMD card for which there is no good driver on Linux

> I think Microsoft is more open than Google in a broader sense. My mantra is: you can't reverse engineer the cloud.

The implied argument (Microsoft is more open because you CAN reverse engineer their products) is complete bullsh*t. Evidence: http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html

[wslh]

Your arguments are nonsensical

I am neither trying to write a formal proof here nor defending Microsoft in all their battles. I tried to argue against pervasive double standards: we love free software but Google business is not harmed publishing Chrome source code like Microsoft business is publishing the code of Microsoft Windows. Google is harmed if everyone install AdBlock (you can read something along these lines in their investor reports) or connects to their search engine without showing any ad.

[jorgecastillo]

Even Apple has published plenty of open source code (non GUI stuff). Microsoft doesn't make significant open source contributions, because they don't get open source or because the only thing that makes them valuable is their huge desktop market share.

[kvb]

Even at Microsoft there are several open source projects (though maybe fewer than you'd hope for a company their size). See F# for one compelling (IMO) example. And it's not the same thing, but Microsoft publishes way more research than the other tech giants.

[wslh]

I am not defending Microsoft actions (even if they make some few open source contributions).

I just said that Google Achilles' heel is in another place and because we have a bias in favor of free software we are not seeing the big picture clearly.

[jorgecastillo]

I have no bias in favor of free software. I do think open source is awesome. I do think open source UNIX-like systems are awesome. I do think open source programming languages are awesome. With all this said I use whatever software I like and can afford. I don't think open source software is inherently better, it is inherently more awesome but not necessarily better. My favorite desktop OSes are OpenBSD, OS X & Linux, I am only using Linux currently. My favorite GUIs are Cocoa & KDE.

[mncolinlee]

- Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PPTP and Kerberos. - Nvidia produced their own closed drivers on Linux. How does that involve Microsoft?

Are you really making the argument that if your application doesn't encrypt its interfaces, then you're open?

[wslh]

Before answering your question my extended rant is here: http://blog.nektra.com/main/2012/06/01/reverse-engineering-a...

Samba and Wine were both created using reverse engineering. Microsoft frequently made changes that broke both products. Don't get me started on Microsoft's PPTP and Kerberos. - Nvidia produced their own closed drivers on Linux. How does that involve Microsoft?

You agree with me then! that was my point. You can't reverse engineer Google Search, you can't connect with it in an unlimited way (except using web scraping techniques or using the restricted local search API). With Microsoft you can reverse engineer it.

And I have an story to tell: my company started selling a full API for a Microsoft product without one. Not only we reverse engineered the product but we built a complete API on top. One day Microsoft QA call us if they can help to test the compatibility of our product in operating systems under development.

[jorgecastillo]

One big difference is that you can choose to use or not to use Google Search. For all intents and purposes you can't avoid using Microsoft products.

[wslh]

You can't avoid AdWords. Have you tried to sell your software products via Bing/Yahoo? There is no audience there.

[jorgecastillo]

I am only a consumer so I wouldn't know about such issues. Maybe in the future my opinion of Google will change, but so far my experience with Google has been very positive. I can not say the same about Microsoft.

[asterix9]

One difference is that Microsoft and Nvidia are considered evil and are derided for it and they don't pretend that SMB or graphics drivers are open. While Google has a 'do no evil' official policy which many folks seem to think they comply with. Similarly, with regards to openness.

[moutarde]

Google has obligations (both legal and moral) to both the content providers of YouTube and to the organisations who buy adverts on it. In order to 'not be evil' they have to take actions that respect these obligations.

Microsoft's original version of the app either:

a) deprived YouTube partners of their share of the revenue from adversing

b) caused advertisers to be charged for adverts that were not shown

The download feature also posed a problem to content providers who only hold a streaming licence to their content. If it didn't respect YouTube's no mobile flag (I'm unsure about this but it seems possible) it would also have caused issues for content providers who only held non-mobile streaming rights.

Microsoft now has a new version of the software that supposedly corrects these problems and is whining about openness and anti-trust. But why should Google now trust them? They treated not only Google, but also their partners and advertisers, like dirt. Now they want special treatment. It's like walking into someone's shop, insulting both their sales staff and their customers, then next week coming back and asking for discount.

How is Google being evil by imposing restrictions on a known bad actor in order to protect their partners?

[kvb]

Did Google provide the APIs required for MSFT to show ads? Did Google's obligations to content owners not apply to the other platforms where ad-free official clients existed?

[beagle3]

> Did Google provide the APIs required for MSFT to show ads?

Yes. The API is an HTML5 iframe, (and it takes care of both movie and ads). Microsoft refused to use that API for their own reasons.

> Did Google's obligations to content owners not apply to the other platforms where ad-free official clients existed?

The iOS client is the only ad-free official clients in existence. It was created in 2007 with a five year license agreement to Apple. I have no knowledge of the details, but it is possible that Apple actually paid in lieu of showing ads.

Either way, there is no reason an 2007 agreement between Google and Apple should apply to Microsoft in 2013.

[amanne]

>Google has obligations (both legal and moral) to both the content providers of YouTube and to the organisations who buy adverts on it. In order to 'not be evil' they have to take actions that respect these obligations.

Aren't content providers losing revenue because Google refuses to make a Youtube App for Windows Phone in an effort to cripple it?

The latest numbers peg WP's marketshare at 3 to 10% in various countries. Assuming a one to one equivalence of users and views, content providers are losing ~3 to 10% of revenue because of Google's dithering on this to help Android.

I would assume both content providers and ad buyers would benefit if Google makes an official Youtube app or allowed Microsoft's version with ads in it. Am I wrong?

If Google wanted to fulfill it's obligations to content providers and advertisers, they would do what Amazon does with Kindle and have a proper app on every platform that lets them publish one.

The fact that they don't shows that the reason is all about Android and not about Youtube.

[beagle3]

> Aren't content providers losing revenue because Google refuses to make a Youtube App for Windows Phone?

If those Windows Phone users want to watch said content, they can do so in their web browser.

> The latest numbers peg WP's marketshare at 3 to 10% in various countries. Assuming a one to one equivalence of users and views, content providers are losing ~3 to 10% of revenue because of Google's dithering on this

That assumes that those people will not watch that movie anyway (on a desktop, on a friend's phone, or on the WP using the browser) - which is a completely bogus assumption.

> I would assume both content providers and ad buyers would benefit if Google makes an official Youtube app or allowed Microsoft's version with ads in it. Am I wrong?

The would also benefit if Google gave a free android phone to all WP users so they can watch it. So? Google is not a charity. They set terms and conditions for implementing a YouTube app. There are tens of youtube apps for both iphone and android that abide these rules (not talking about Google's official apps here! see e.g. Jasmine on iOS).

Microsoft insists on not observing the terms and conditions, and then blames google.

> they would do what Amazon does with Kindle and have a proper app on every platform that lets them publish one.

There's no kindle app for Linux. Or the Raspberry Pi. Or the the BeagleBone Black. Or the Chumby. or my smart Vizio TV. And yes, I run all these platforms at home. Does that mean Amazon doesn't care about Kindle content? (incidentally, the Chumby, Vizio and Linux all have native apps for YouTube, and each of them has sold more units than the Windows Phone).

> The fact that they don't shows that the reason is all about Android and not about Youtube.

Next time, you should start with the facts and work out to a logical conclusion, rather than starting with a conclusion you want, and trying to fit the facts into it.

[baddox]

> - Do you want support for nvidia cards on Linux?

Yes, but if I install Linux expecting to have support for nvidia cards, it is my problem.

> - Do you want to connect to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to connect to a Windows share, it is my problem.

> - Do you want to print to a windows share from Linux or OSX?

Yes, but if I install Linux or OS X expecting to print to a windows share, it is my problem.

There is no problem when you extrapolate this reasoning.

[wslh]

No, it's not only your problem.

If Google is a monopoly and this is probed in some court (EU/US) the issue will crystallize in another way.

Meanwhile, it can be analyzed in an ethical way and some people think that the problem extends beyond you.

[baddox]

No one said "only your problem" until you just then.

[wslh]

It doesn't make a big difference in this context.

[Mikeb85]

This has to be a joke.... Microsoft has tried their best to prevent Linux from working or even existing... The fact that Linux hackers are smarter than them doesn't make them open...

[NegativeK]

> There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone.

The argument is about openness, not about rights.

[Kylekramer]

The article makes it seem like Google was working with Microsoft on allowing a Youtube app until Microsoft said they didn't want to play by Google's rules and published an app anyway. I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff.

[cantankerous]

The whole article was written to point out that Google's not as "open" as they proclaim they are. In reality, they're just another one of the big guys. Apple is "Beautiful", Google is "Open". Neither of them is either. It's all marketing.

It's in Microsoft's favor to damage that image. Don't take it personally.

[Kylekramer]

And my point is that Microsoft's article fails to convince me of that. I am sure the image Google would like the public to have about their openness and the reality don't match up, but in this particular case I fail to see any Google hypocrisy.

[asterix9]

>I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff.

Then what does open mean? To me it means to provide an API on an equal footing among the various platforms. If Google is providing access to secret Web service APIs to their Android and iOS Youtube Apps, but not to Windows Phone, how is that open? Requiring to show ads is still understandable, but requiring HTML5? Why do they care if it's HTML5 or something else? It sounds fishy, and Google should come out with a real reason for requiring HTML5 if there is one, after all they call themselves open.

It is probably well within their rights to screw around since it's their stuff, but lets not pretend it's open. Didn't MS get lambasted for private APIs in Windows? Why does Google get a free pass now and get away with calling itself open?

[beagle3]

> Then what does open mean? To me it means to provide an API on an equal footing among the various platforms.

To most of the world, it means "you can interoperate with me as long as follow my terms and conditions", with those terms being considered reasonable. it does NOT mean "I must let everyone compete with me on equal footing".

[asterix9]

Even granting your point which I think is a bit of a stretch for "open", I think there are some unreasonable requirements at place here.

>"you can interoperate with me as long as follow my terms and conditions", with those terms being considered reasonable.

I wonder if the HTML5 requirement can considered reasonable. Why does the server's web service API care if the client is HTML5 or not?

Microsoft says this in their post:

>There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. This was an odd request since neither YouTube’s iPhone app nor its Android app are built on HTML5. Nevertheless, we dedicated significant engineering resources to examine the possibility. At the end of the day, experts from both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps.

Google's statement is totally mum on the matter except for "it violates terms of use". If they want to call themselves open, they should atleast let us know what the HTML5 requirement is about, as it is certainly strange for a web service API. And in my opinion this makes it a 'unreasonable' condition for an open API and Google's silence does not help it. I do think Google is within their rights(absent monopoly concerns) though.

[beagle3]

> I wonder if the HTML5 requirement can considered reasonable. Why does the server's web service API care if the client is HTML5 or not?

Yes, it is very reasonable.

The server doesn't, but google does. The HTML5 requirement means that google can change everything about their service (e.g. they can switch the ads from being h264 videos today, to javascript games tomorrow, to 3d interactive items the next day when 3d screens become the norm on phones). If they had to expose an "ad inventory API", they couldn't change these things without breaking older clients.

An analogy: Microsoft relies on the TCP packets coming from YouTube being always 100 bytes or less (because they are). Google says "no, you must use a general TCP stack, because one day we might want to make our packets longer". Microsoft dedicates significant engineering resources to examine the possibility, and at the end of the day recognizes that even though they have a general purpose TCP stack, switching to it will result in some inconvenience to users. So they release an app that has a TCP stack that expects 100 bytes or less -- and google refuses to serve it.

This is exactly the same, except at a higher abstraction level. Google doesn't care to spell it out, because anyone who is capable of understanding that issue already does.

[nivla]

I am pissed because the outcome of my choice shouldn't be affected by faux restrictions. I was a Youtube user before Google was its buyer. So my choice to go with a windows phone shouldn't to be dealt with a degraded experience. 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? Its by now clear that Google wants to provide a degraded experience to the windows phone users, thus deliberately rigging the market place. 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.

[fpgeek]

Um, if Firefox OS needs a native app for YouTube, something has gone horribly wrong. The whole point of Firefox OS is to demonstrate that a phone can do everything it needs to with web apps in the browser, without native apps outside it.

[beagle3]

> I was a Youtube user before Google was its buyer. So my choice to go with a windows phone shouldn't to be dealt with a degraded experience.

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?

[nivla]

>If you were a youtube user then, you were using the website - which is PERFECTLY USABLE on your windows phone.

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!

[beagle3]

> No its not, you know since flash is disabled.

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.

[amanne]

>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.

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.

[beagle3]

> Wait a minute, isn't Google using YouTube content providers and advertisers as pawns in this game to hurt Windows Phone?

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.

[amanne]

You're making a lot of unfounded assertions about Google's terms.

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.

[dkuntz2]

Requiring someone to play by the rules to use the data isn't being not open. The data is accessible, and you can use it, provided you follow the rules. And there really only seems to be one rule that Microsoft keeps breaking (and even admitting to breaking), which is using an HTML5 video tag to wrap the video in.

If Microsoft can't put a simple web frame in their own application and have only an iframe, video tag, or whatever it is that Google wants to display the video, Microsoft has a problem.

The data is open, and free for anyone to use, provided they follow the rules. Microsoft doesn't want to follow one simple rule. One. Simple. Rule.

[beagle3]

> You're making a lot of unfounded assertions about Google's terms.

Which assertions am I making that are unfounded or not supported by fact (and examples from other native apps)?

> It's hard to read that and then say Google is not being hypocritical here.

It's actually quite easy. They are hypocritical in some places, but not here.

[solomatov]

> There is no inherent right to a YouTube app on a phone.

IMO, it's not about rights. It's about anti-competitive behavior of Google. WP might easily get on par with Android and OS and this why Google doesn't allow Youtube there.

[zobzu]

And.. thats pretty much being closed. Point microsoft, not you, nor google. Go "cry your river" elsewhere.

[beagle3]

open does NOT equal putting yourself on equal footing with your competitors.

[Anderkent]

Actually, yes, it does. If you're giving preferential treatment to your apps that's not possible to replicate, you're not being open.

[beagle3]

Proof by contradiction:

Google can close and shutter youtube, Microsoft cannot. Therefore, by your definition, there is no way for youtube to ever be open unless Google commits to irrevocably fund youtube forever and ever. Alternatively, they could give Microsoft the option to close YouTube at any point in time for any reason, just like Google can.

?!?!?

ergo, your definition of openness makes no sense.

[Dylan16807]

We're talking about openness of an API, not open business ownership or whatever the hell you're describing there. An open API gives consumers an equal footing in terms of the API. It doesn't affect any other part of the business.

Don't be willfully dense.

[beagle3]

> An open API gives consumers an equal footing in terms of the API. It doesn't affect any other part of the business.

When you get to define terms, that may be. Here on earth, you're just making no sense whatsoever.

[wklauss]

It actually does. It not only means that, but its one of the outcomes if you are truly open.

I think a bigger problem here is why people think YouTube or Google are "open" to begin with. There are some areas in Google businesses that being more open than the alternatives (note the emphasis on more, sometimes they are just "open" in comparison with Microsoft and Apple policies) serves them well, thats why the do it, but it's not a dogma inside the company and will never be.

[beagle3]

No, it does not mean that. You have things confused.

IF you are at equal footing with everyone else, THEN you are "open". But the other way around does not follow.

e.g. Mozilla (or Digia, or SourceFire, or thousand others -- take your pick) can relicense their open source software as closed source, and put out binaries for future versions without releasing the source. Others using the same source code base cannot. That does not make that source code any less open.

[Dylan16807]

1. 'open source' and 'open' are not the same thing. Look at android being open source but with closed development.

2. The property of being 'open source' applies to specific copies of software. All that 'closed' stuff you were talking about is applied to non-public copies so it has no relevance to the discussion of the open source copies.

[beagle3]

> Look at android being open source but with closed development.

But it's still an "open" system by everyone's definition of the word - the source is open, the API is open, everyone is welcome to use it and make changes. It's just that Google is not obligated to accept them into the official tree. Who cares how the development process looks like? Android is open, and claiming otherwise is foolish. e.g. Amazon's Kindle Fire version of Android.

> The property of being 'open source' applies to specific copies of software. All that 'closed' stuff you were talking about is applied to non-public copies so it has no relevance to the discussion of the open source copies.

Do you actually have an idea of how the GPL works? Because what you wrote here indicates you do not. SourceFire (the company that makes Snort) used to provide the source under the GPL, but then continued to develop it and provide PUBLIC copies without source. No one, except themselves (as the right holder) could legally do that. That does not make the open GPL versions any less "open source" or "open" in general.

[gebe]

Silverlight for Linux has existed through the Mono platform since 2007 under the name Moonlight: http://mono-project.com/Moonlight . With Microsoft's blessing I might add.

[beagle3]

Without the DRM parts, making e.g. NetFlix streaming unusable on Linux (until recently, when someone managed to get Wine to the point where it can run Microsoft's own SilverLight DRM properly).

[vetinari]

Even without DRM, Moonlight never worked correctly. I don't care for Netflix, it is not available in my country anyway. But I do care about other sites, for example autosalontv.cz and it never worked with Moonlight.

[Sven7]

Great point. Amazon should do the same thing. Since they host all these sites on their cloud. The only browser that should be allowed to access it should be Amazon's.

[jorgecastillo]

This is completely different, YouTube is a free service, Google has no obligations to third parties. AFAIK Amazon Web Services are not free, if Amazon imposed this sort of restrictions on their customers, I am sure they would show Amazon the door.

[Sven7]

You are right. Google owns all that content. Kim Dotcom should learn from the masters.

[moutarde]

Amazon is actually relevant here, because their Kindle Fire browser is partly cloud based. Microsoft may say that HTML5 on the Win Phone isn't feasible, but they own a giant cloud based server farm (Azure) just like Amazon. So if Amazon can make a browser that splits tasks between the cloud and the physical device why can't Microsoft handle HTML5 this way?

[beagle3]

.... and be in breach of their own contract with those sites, who pay amazon for the privilege - for which they would lose in court if sued.

If microsoft had a signed contract with google, (which would probably entail payment to google) they would have a case. As it stands, they don't.

[Sven7]

They are asking Google for open access to content Google doesn't own just as Google is telling Facebook the same thing.