The limits of Google’s openness

[ChromeFoundry]

[small]15 Aug 2013 12:26 PM

Posted by David Howard
Corporate Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Litigation & Antitrust, Microsoft[/small]

You may be wondering what happened to the YouTube app for Windows Phone. Last May, after we launched a much improved app on our platform, Google objected on a number of grounds. We took our app down and agreed to work with Google to solve their issues. This week, after we addressed each of Google’s points, we re-launched the app, only to have Google technically block it.

We know that this has been frustrating, to say the least, for our customers. We have always had one goal: to provide our users a YouTube experience on Windows Phone that’s on par with the YouTube experience available to Android and iPhone users. Google’s objections to our app are not only inconsistent with Google’s own commitment of openness, but also involve requirements for a Windows Phone app that it doesn’t impose on its own platform or Apple’s (both of which use Google as the default search engine, of course).

When we first built a YouTube app for Windows Phone, we did so with the understanding that Google claimed to grow its business based on open access to its platforms and content, a point it reiterated last year. As antitrust enforcers have launched investigations against Google – some of which are still ongoing – the company has reiterated its commitment to openness and its ability to stick to its openness commitments voluntarily.

...

It seems to us that Google’s reasons for blocking our app are manufactured so that we can’t give our users the same experience Android and iPhone users are getting. The roadblocks Google has set up are impossible to overcome, and they know it.

...

Full Article Here

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

1. Hmmm. Gee, sounds like back in the day when microSoft

claimed it was necessary to bundle the world's worst internet browser for "free," claiming it was an integral part of their proprietary operating system.

Is the pot now whining about the kettle?

[ChromeFoundry]

2. They never blocked other browser makers

from installing them on their OS. They only required theirs (IE) for Windows Updates (for Genuine Advantage), so they could prevent piracy.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

3. Really? Do check United States v. Microsoft Corporation 253 F.3d 34 (2001)

A rather complex case spanning 8 or more years, but the evidence is pretty clear. Never blocked? Just set up "reasonable requirements," claimed (falsely as it turns out) that IE was integral to windows, and lied about the "ease" with which other browsers could be used. Even finally admitted to multiple attempts of trying to introduce falsified video evidence in court.

And now their paid mouthpiece is on a political blog whining about google? Hmmm... pretty expensive blogging.

[ChromeFoundry]

4. Yes really.

Netscape wanted their browser to be shipped with the OS. No different than if Google wanting Chrome shipped with iOS or MacOS. (HA!)
So, in your view, they should not be allowed to ship the OS (Windows) with Calc.exe or MSPaint.exe.

The claim was that MS had an unfair advantage over Netscape to gain dominance in the browser market, plain and simple. Microsoft stated that the operating system needed a browser for disseminating updates and accessing Internet resources over the HTTP protocol as part of the standard API.

They never even tried to make it so Netscape Navigator would not run on their OS. Heck, they even bailed out Apple from bankruptcy. It's not like they have resorted to Apple tactics of late. But, hey, believe what gives you comfort... doesn't affect me either way.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

5. "But, hey, believe what gives you comfort... "

Well said.

As to the rest of your opinion, do read the case. But don't try to misrepresent my view. microSoft is welcome to ship calc or mspaint with their operating system. They could even ship their (very expensive) office products with their operating system.

What the case and the resulting settlement was about was that they couldn't claim that their browser was "an integral part" of their operating system - a claim that was proven false, admitted to be false by them, and ultimately withdrawn.

But whatever gives you comfort...