[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.