***The Official Nokia Lumia 920 Thread***
- Thread starter RSR
- Start date
That clearly isn't so open.
Also there is double standards on how the application is programmed to hand content, that's pretty much the short and curly's of it.
I'm guessing primarily because Windows Phones market share is so small... they currently sit at 3.7% market share of smartphones. I'm guessing if Windows Phone ever makes it upto 15-20% market share Google will become much more interested.
It always amuses me when people compare big businesses with school children, like they are throwing their toys out of the pram or other euphemisms.
Big businesses assess all situations and act in a way they feel will earn them the most money. If Google thought it was in their interests to release a Windows Phone app they would have course do it, they would be stupid not to.
Put Microsoft in Google's shoes and they would likely be doing the exact same thing.
Youtube does not have an open policy. Some of Google's products are indeed open, Youtube is not one of them. There's a strict set of T&C's involved with making a Youtube app, most (if not all) 3rd party Youtube apps break them.
Microsofts attempt obviously drew the most attention.
It is open, even with T&Cs. They keep stating they want it on as many platforms as possible and allow third party participation. So yes it is open.
Tht is the issue, everything le one breaks it, yet they do not pull the plug on them. Only the one made by Ms do they pull. And you don't see an issue with this?
Iif they don't want it to be open and control it, then just state that and then it's fair game.
The T&Cs explicitly show they want to control it... the reason that Microsoft are the first creators they choose to use the T&Cs to shut-down is because clearly shutting it down is assessed as being best for their business... I thought that would be obvious?
It's not open because the T&Cs are so prohibitive, just because Google have been lenient on enforcing them in the past does not mean they don't have the right to enforce them when they see fit.
Microsoft were disabling and reverse engineering Googles ad delivery system on the first iteration of the app, and partially disabling it on the re-release. How could Google not take offence to that?
Lol who said they aren't doing what's best for them?
And yes it's kind of hard to implement ad system 100% when google isn't giving them the info.
It is open despite the t&c, it's very clearly underhand play and that is why people get annoyed.
I so hope they release that, so many rumours, and growing stronger as we near 8.1. Shame it's an rt and not a pro though, rumours are Qualcomm 800, 1080p screen, MS style keyboard/case.
And yes it's kind of hard to implement ad system 100% when google isn't giving them the info.
It is open despite the t&c, it's very clearly underhand play and that is why people get annoyed.
I so hope they release that, so many rumours, and growing stronger as we near 8.1. Shame it's an rt and not a pro though, rumours are Qualcomm 800, 1080p screen, MS style keyboard/case.
Last edited:
It's actually very obviously not underhanded in any way at all, Microsoft were not following the terms provided to create the app and therefore Google choose to shut it down. They own Youtube they have every right to enforce and protect it and their business in any way they see fit.
'Open' is clearly very subjective then, personally I would call Android 'Open' as anyone can fork it and do what they want even completely abolishing any and all Google services. I would describe a strict set of usage terms the opposite of open personally.
I also agree with what Microsoft are doing too, it's clever of them to try to make Google look like the bad guy here as obviously they want Youtube on their platform as it helps them sell more phones... they employed a very similar strategy when Google were threatening to remove support for the Windows active synch protocol essential removing gmail support but were thwarted with great success with a similar strategy. Clever.
What I don't agree with is this whole trend of calling massive companies evil or taking sides like you would in a school playground. All of these businesses are trying to make as much money as they can. Make any of the big companies switch places on the majority of these brandished actions and they would likely do close to the exact same thing.
People making these bold expressive statements like "I REMOVED ALL GOOGLE FROM MY LIFE THEM EVIL EVIL PEOPLE!" are doing the act of competition a great disservice. Use services that provide the best features and functionality, not the one's you have been tricked into fanboying.
I'm not taking sides, as I said who cares.
And yes it is very clearly underhanded. Lets just block one app from an upcoming competitior, that is clearly what's happening. Plenty of youtube apps don't even have adverts. iPhone has to much marketshare to block in the same way. Google are doing it purely to help stall MS marketshare. Which ii never said iOS a bad or not allowed to do. But when gogle themselfs keep stating it is open and want it on as many platforms as possible, it iOS understandable why so many get annoyed with googles stances recently. They were seen as a good guy for some odd reason. They're all evil and google is losing the good boy image.
And yes it is very clearly underhanded. Lets just block one app from an upcoming competitior, that is clearly what's happening. Plenty of youtube apps don't even have adverts. iPhone has to much marketshare to block in the same way. Google are doing it purely to help stall MS marketshare. Which ii never said iOS a bad or not allowed to do. But when gogle themselfs keep stating it is open and want it on as many platforms as possible, it iOS understandable why so many get annoyed with googles stances recently. They were seen as a good guy for some odd reason. They're all evil and google is losing the good boy image.
I agree that is exactly what is happening. The difference is you are taking sides because you are taking it personally. Youtube belongs to Google, it's not in any way underhanded to use it's property in any way it sees fit. It's just business.
You don't see Google crying that there is no Xbox Live app on Android.
We disagree on what qualifies as underhanded and also clearly on what qualifies as open.
If it was in Microsoft's interest to remove Skype from Android they would do it in a heart beat. I wouldn't call that underhanded in any way whatsoever I would call it business.
I'm not at all, where have I taken it personally?
Yet again. You missed the I don't care part and was rely pointing out why other people get annoyed.
Xbox live is not open, so hardly a fair comparison.
Skype also is not open, no one else can make a third party Skype app.
Just like people can't make third party apple apps, that utilise apple infastructure.
People do make they party gogle apps as google is meant to be open.
Yet again. You missed the I don't care part and was rely pointing out why other people get annoyed.
Xbox live is not open, so hardly a fair comparison.
Skype also is not open, no one else can make a third party Skype app.
Just like people can't make third party apple apps, that utilise apple infastructure.
People do make they party gogle apps as google is meant to be open.
Neither is Youtube lol... show me a statement where Google claims it's Youtube service is open.
Twitter isn't open yet you can make 3rd party apps. Same with facebook. Just because a service allows 3rd party app creation under strict T&Cs does not mean it's open.
Google+ is Google surely its OPEN right?!?!?! No its not.
Google does not = "Open"
Yes it does mean it's open. Open is free to make apps. Just becuase there are t&cs does not mean its not open.
Every single thing has t&cs even Linux distros have t&cs are they not open?
Your reliance on t&cs means nothing. It is very much open. Google say they want people to make apps to utilise it, therefore it is open.
I'm not talking about google+
We are talking about youtube and google have said it is open and you are free to make this party apps, of which there are many to choose from.
Again where did I say google = open.
Perhaps try reading rather than just making stuff up.
Every single thing has t&cs even Linux distros have t&cs are they not open?
Your reliance on t&cs means nothing. It is very much open. Google say they want people to make apps to utilise it, therefore it is open.
I'm not talking about google+
We are talking about youtube and google have said it is open and you are free to make this party apps, of which there are many to choose from.
Again where did I say google = open.
Perhaps try reading rather than just making stuff up.
This is getting boring very quickly.
This thread is supposed to be about the Nokia Lumia 920 and not to moan about semantics and which corporation is the most evil (hint: they are both as bad as each other).
If you want to carry on, then take it elsewhere.
This thread is supposed to be about the Nokia Lumia 920 and not to moan about semantics and which corporation is the most evil (hint: they are both as bad as each other).
If you want to carry on, then take it elsewhere.
T&Cs are there to be enforced?
Really not understanding your argument if im honest. It's open but only partially open if you follow this massive list of terms... lol k.
Your example is unbelievably poor. Linux itself IS open, anyone can take it and do what they want with it, once they have created their distro they can then add T&Cs at which point it is no longer open, it is protected by the T&Cs.
Like said your version of open and mine are completely different.
Not going to bother with this anymore, I think I made my point.
Really not understanding your argument if im honest. It's open but only partially open if you follow this massive list of terms... lol k.
Your example is unbelievably poor. Linux itself IS open, anyone can take it and do what they want with it, once they have created their distro they can then add T&Cs at which point it is no longer open, it is protected by the T&Cs.
Like said your version of open and mine are completely different.
Not going to bother with this anymore, I think I made my point.
Who siad t&cs are not to be enforced? Enforcing them on a very specific company for no reason and nt for others makes people annoyed, how do you not get this simple fact.
Most Linux distros are still open, you can still modify, distribute etc, under certain t&cs.
Most Linux distros are still open, you can still modify, distribute etc, under certain t&cs.