Microsoft YouTube App Strips Ads; Adds Download 381
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft appears to be sticking a finger in Google's eye with the launch of its new YouTube app for Windows Phone. The app, ReadWrite has confirmed, strips out YouTube ads when it plays back videos and allows users to easily download video by way of a prominent 'download' button."
Google will block it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Google will block it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Google will block it (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Google will block it (Score:5, Insightful)
it seems like MS is shooting themselves in the foot yet again.
They did that long ago when they refused to participate in other software ecosystems, and concentrated on locking competitors out by locking customers in.
Now their locked-in market is failing, and the world is bypassing their restrictions. They don't have time to develop good, competitive software, all they can do is assault competitors with any tools they have at hand.
It's an ugly, desperate thing we're seeing here.
Re:Google will block it (Score:4, Insightful)
because it worked so poorly for Apple too. they locked everyone in, a company that was about to fold, and then all hell broke loose. audio files that couldn't play on any other device are what killed the iPod's early years, and iTunes, and a phone that can only have apps that are bought through a closed store, of which the developers have to share money with Apple and can't have payments not through the store... it's just obvious that be being closed they strangled the industry. the app boom never happened, the smart phone market failed, and digital music services never took off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Apple's share of the global smartphone market fell from 23% last year to 17% share this year, the largest year-over-year decline in the iPhone's history." According to Sanford Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi, "if Apple does not introduce a new iPhone or lower-priced phone in CQ3 [Apple's fiscal Q4], it is quite possible that iPhone's smartphone market share could drop into the single digits."
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/tag/toni-sacconaghi/ [cnn.com]
Re:Google will block it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google will block it (Score:5, Insightful)
Apples stock also got cut in half. But if you want to ignore every financial number that means anything go right ahead.
Re: (Score:3)
A premium brand requires the features people expect. It doesn't require to be cutting edge. Premium brands are sold on quality, not novelty.
To take your example, if you look at the news Mercedes is reporting, what's prominent: testing, association with Formula 1 and Golf.
http://news.mercedes-benz.co.uk/ [mercedes-benz.co.uk]
Dig into the first news item about a new car, and you have to get to paragraph 6 before any features are mentioned. Before that it's all qualitative descriptions of it's form.
http://news.mercedes-benz.co.uk/p [mercedes-benz.co.uk]
Wrong measure (Score:3)
The total market however more than doubled in that time. Apple is still gaining market. It's just losing it's fractional share of unit sales.
If instead you measure the market in revenue, rather than unit sales. Then apple is rising in fractional market share. Moreover It's margins are also vastly higher. So in terms of profit it has a majority of the market.
Re:Wrong measure (Score:4, Insightful)
Moreover It's margins are also vastly higher. So in terms of profit it has a majority of the market.
Consequences aren't always immediate.
How long do you think they can keep overcharging without providing a better product?
Re: (Score:2)
So far it seems that they do have a better product. At least for large chunks of audience that can actually afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Apple's share of the global smartphone market fell from 23% last year to 17% share this year, the largest year-over-year decline in the iPhone's history." According to Sanford Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi, "if Apple does not introduce a new iPhone or lower-priced phone in CQ3 [Apple's fiscal Q4], it is quite possible that iPhone's smartphone market share could drop into the single digits."
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/tag/toni-sacconaghi/ [cnn.com]
Which I suspect is due more to lack of innovation since the death of Steve Jobs, for whatever reasons, than to a lock-them-in market strategy
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Google will block it (Score:4, Informative)
And? That was not the parents point. The fact that everybody and a dog are doing shitty, slow and ugly android handsets is nether news, nether surprise. In the high-end of the market Apple/Samsung seems to be about equals, in the $100 market android dominates because barely anybody else bothers with it (you can't compete with 1001 Chinese OEMs hashing out new models every week).
Of course given that the source you cited is 'estimates' and puts Microsoft at 18% while omitting blackberry or Nokia (at low end) altogether raises some credibility questions. Quite large credibility questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, is that Microsoft or Apple you're talking about now? Either would fit the bill quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... are you talking about Microsoft or Google here?
Re: (Score:2)
This is Windows Phone 8, not Win8.
With that said, how do you propose they block it? Filter by user-agent string? Assuming Microsoft isn't already spoofing that, this approach will work right up until they add such spoofing. Where are you going to go next?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
More likely they'll just insert ads directly into the video stream. Sending ads as a separate video stream makes them quite easy to remove. But no doubt Google would be able to produce a new stream containing both ad and content. That won't stop downloading the video, but the downloaded version would include the ad.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But that would be evil.
Re:Google will block it (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, without looking into the matter, it sounds like a TOS issue here. Its either against the terms of service or not.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, without looking into the matter, it sounds like a TOS issue here. Its either against the terms of service or not.
I've been watching YouTube videos forever as an unregistered visitor and never seen a TOS. And seriously, you can put anything you friggin want on your website about TOS for casual visitors or web browsers, nobody gives a crap. And if you try to file legal action based on your foolish TOS you'll be laughed out of court within 10.5 nonseconds.
Re:Google will block it (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been watching YouTube videos forever as an unregistered visitor and never seen a TOS.
So you're suggesting, based on your experiences, that the Microsoft Phone development team and their legal advisers can ignore any TOS that they choose not to read?
Fascinating...
Re:Google will block it (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been watching YouTube videos forever as an unregistered visitor and never seen a TOS.
So you're suggesting, based on your experiences, that the Microsoft Phone development team and their legal advisers can ignore any TOS that they choose not to read?
Fascinating...
A contract does not apply unless you agree to it. There is a lot of debate in the legal community whether TOS are valid at all, and the answer seems to be "it depends". I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know whether in this particular case the TOS applies but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't.
Microsoft's developers are not agreeing to any TOS. Even if they did agree to it they are not on the board of directors and they are not in the legal department, so they're not authorised to agree on behalf of the corporation anyway.
With no TOS in place, that leaves the DMCA... but google doesn't use any DRM to force ads ads to appear or prevent downloads so I don't think there is any DMCA violation either.
If google adds some DRM though, even if it's weak DRM, microsoft would be in deep shit if they bypass it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also basic copyright law. The courts seem to consider streaming and downloading to be two completely different things for copyright purposes. If Google has authorised streaming, but not downloading of their content, then this YouTube app could be considered a tool that enables and encourages copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:3)
Anybody who works for a company or organization becomes an "agent of the company" legally. The actions of that individual represent the company, whether they were authorized to do it or not. The company can choose to terminate the employment of the individual, but they still have to live with their actions.
You agree to the TOS of the service by using the service. If you produce applications that use Youtube content, there is a click-through that you agree to that gives you the info so you can develop for
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically M$ is not infringing copyright from Google, Google is mostly just hosting the content and providing an avenue by which people who upload that content can generate and add per view based revenue. So M$ is denying the opportunity for millions of it's potential customers to generate a revenue. So all Google needs to do is remind all those creative types that M$ is actively stealing their add revenue and leave it pretty much up to them to seek revenge in what ever way they choose, least of which wi
Re:Google will block it (Score:5, Informative)
Bottom left of their page, link: terms.
Section 4b
Section 4j
Section 5b
I'm sure there are also other sections that could be used as justification by youtube to block MS user's access to the content without any problem at all.
Re: (Score:2)
How are you supposed to use youtube if you aren't allowed to download anything? Do they mean "download and then not delete soon after"? Perhaps they define this some other place in the TOS, but as it is that clause makes it impossible to follow their TOS without completely blocking youtube.
Re:Google will block it (Score:4, Insightful)
The courts consider downloading and streaming to be two different things.
Downloading means receiving the transmission from their server and recording it on non-volatile storage.
Streaming means receiving the transmission and storing it only as required for processing to send it to the screen / speakers, and for buffering to deal with speed variations in the transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom left of their page, link: terms.
Section 4b
Section 4j
Section 5b
I'm sure there are also other sections that could be used as justification by youtube to block MS user's access to the content without any problem at all.
If I were youtube, I would wait awhile and then sue Microsoft for damages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Legally, their TOS is a masterpiece.
indeed it is, but you are not bound by it at all, you can completely ignore it if you want but then you are left with the consequences of copyright law if you do. obey copyright law and anything consistent with that is allowed. want to do something otherwise not allowed under copyright law... follow the gpl. that's the difference to TOSs, no-one says you have to agree to anything use the software, but if you do want to go beyond what the law allows by default then the c
Re:Google will block it (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think that there was a bit of collaboration in creating it, maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not the companies, but yes, their lawyers are going to have a dick-waving contest.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think that there was a bit of collaboration in creating it, maybe?
Not a chance in hell.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe not collaboration between Google and Microsoft, but maybe collaboration between Microsoft and the content cartels.
"Hey, people are downloading stuff from YouTube and saving it. We wondered if y'all at Microsoft could fix that."
"If we give Google a reason to require obnoxious DRM on all YouTube content, it will serve both your needs, and also ours, because Google will have to spend a lot more on CPU time encrypting all that stuff."
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth my Panasonic TV has a YouTube app that never shows adverts. I just assumed it didn't support them, rather than deliberately removing them. I have no idea if the app was provided by Google or Panasonic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
They've never bothered with the 5 million or so AdBlockPro users, and (eventually) allowed ABP on Chrome, so why would they worry about the twelve people who buy a Windows Phone?
(If MS wanted to damage G, they would install an official adblocker into IE, all versions, as a "security" update. Instantly kill a third of G's ad revenue.)
Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. This is settled case law, beginning with the VCR. What comes to your device can be "time-shifted", meaning you are free to save ANYTHING which legally comes to your device, and play it back later. What used to be called "taping" is now, these days, known as "downloading" and the law is crystal clear about the legality of these actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You must have a mechanism for dealing with claimed copyright infringement.
*flexes middle finger*
My mechanism is working just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not quite sure whether a case that applies to content distributed by entities licensed to do so by government (cable, OTA) is 1:1 applicable to relationship between consumer and a private entity.
Nonetheless Microsoft is at the very least accessing Google API's in violation of the terms of service. Now, they could claim monopoly abuse or they could claim that ToS doesn't really apply and they are entitled to do whatever they want, but both of these routes appear to be rather ironically fraught with dange
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google makes tons of money in other areas, far more than enough to run YouTube.
Heheheh, do you think they are a charity? Grow up.
Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they really don't owe it to you.
How much do you pay Google anyway, and for what? Most people pay only by consuming the increasingly-obnoxious ads. I think the ads on youtube are atrocious. But I'm pretty sure they do not, in fact, owe you an ad-free youtube. What are you, majority shareholder?
I pay a lot of money for my Internet service. Doesn't mean they owe me grocery delivery, or any other random thing I'd like and that their service happens to enable in a tangential way.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see. I paid for several Android devices. I paid for numerous apps, books, movies and music on Google Play. I pay for Google Apps. I am a YouTube content producer and partner with a high traffic channel.
That comes out to well over the $2/month that Google is going to start charging for YouTube "premium" content.
Let see, do google deliver the goods that you have paid for? The numerous apps, books, music and movies? Do they deliver the google apps service? Do they provide you with space, interface and content delivery system for your videos? If so, why are you asking for more services than what you have paid for?
Re: (Score:2)
But hey, I paid that service station for my fuel, that means I'm entitled to whatever I want from the store!
If people don't agree with the way youtube operates then DONT CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT. There are plenty of other video hosting websites, all of which don't perform like SHIT when accessed via native IPv6 (issue I just tracked down last night - youtube is unusable when accessed via my native ipv6, rest of internet including vimeo, dailymotion, etc are all just fine).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is being stolen from Google?
Engineering time, designer time, bandwidth costs, server costs, etc...
YouTube.com didn't just magically appear and run itself completely free of charge.
Google makes money off the properties of others.
No shit sherlock. That's not justification for you to steal from Google nor the owners of said content. You seem oblivious to the fact that the content owners *GET PAID* when those ads are shown, not just Google.
Re:Then stop breaking the terms of service. (Score:4, Interesting)
What exactly is being stolen from Google? Much of the content on YouTube isn't owned by Google or even licensed to Google, yet Google runs ads before content that often gets uploaders flagged for copyright infringement (old music videos for example). Google makes money off the properties of others.
Google makes money by facilitating access to property that youtube users want the public access. Youtube is a facilitator, Google earns money off the leechers that youtube user's content attracts and in return youtube users get to publish stuff for free to a much larger audience than they could otherwise easily attract without without paying up significant amounts of money. That's what scientists call a mutualistic relationship [wikipedia.org] since both participants benefit, not a parasitic one as you are rather snidely implying. Google is not a charitable organization, Youtube has massive overheads, Google is under no obligation to operate Youtube at a loss as a public service for your benefit. If they are pissed off at Microsoft showing Youtube content without ads and providing a download button they can block all Windows Mobile OS users. This raises some interesting questions though because Firefox, for example, has several Youtube download plugins and a whole slew of adblocker plugins available. Will Google also block Firefox users? I installed Ghostery on my Safari browser and I could install an adblocker if I wanted to. Will Google block all Mac and iOS users as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that Windows phone has a bit more users than just a few hundred. Last I heard almost close to five thousand!
Re: (Score:2)
Finally (Score:2, Insightful)
It's about time Microsoft did something nice for users.
Re: (Score:2)
Competition only benefits us consumers
Data Scraping (Score:3, Informative)
Data scraping [wikipedia.org] can work, as long as you have a team that can keep up with changes to the interface and counter various approaches to block the scraping-specific requests. Somehow, I don't think this will work for the long-term on Windows Phone systems - but then again, Windows Phone itself may not last too terribly long in this incarnation either, so it may be fine for its purpose, which is to latch onto low-information customers with shallow but momentary appealing features.
Ryan Fenton
Not rocket science (Score:2)
Getting the direct download link to the video is easy, every youtube app can implement this without any effort. And if you build your own player based on it, ads just disappear as a side-effect.
Soooo Xbox Live? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sooo can I get xbox live with ADs stripped out of also Microsoft? Seeing as I pay for the service!
Re:Soooo Xbox Live? (Score:5, Interesting)
Theoretically...
There are ways to blackhole ad servers at the router, if you use DDWRT or openWRT, assming MS hasn't deeply rolled the ad server In with the live server.
This means that you could inject alternatives to adverts and movie files, based on the structure of the query, and the remote IP. Eg, you could put a "no" sign around a $, in place of static image ads, and a "static screen loop" in place of streaming video ads. Unless the MS dash does some kind of data hash checking, it would display the downloaded content instead of the intended adverts.
(Makes you wonder if you could force MS xboxes to display trojanized swf files, or trojanized EMF or TIFF files, for clandestine execution jumping fun....)
I haven't tested this, and it is clearly against MS's ToS, (which as worded, says you cant even have wireshark running at the same time your xbox is turned on, let alone meddle with the replies the box gets.)
Danger if MS does a super dick move, like double verify image checksums of adverts the console downloads, and if "known surrogates/malware" are detected, ban the console though.
Defeating the ads is trivial, allow me to demo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Supposed you want to wish your mother a Happy Dub Step Mothers Day with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J0o65u73Nc [youtube.com]
But you want to strip the adds and go fullscreen:
Easy, simply change the URL: delete "watch?v=" and replace with "v/"
http://www.youtube.com/v/9J0o65u73Nc [youtube.com]
sarcasm
Microsoft must have some really smart developers to have figured out how to rewrite the YouTube URL using computer programming. I am going to run out and get a Surface with Windows 8 before Best Buy closes tonight. Microsoft might be adding more useful features soon and I don't want to miss out. It would be a shame to watch a 5 second YouTube Ad and support that rich Google company. Microsoft is sticking it to man! Wait, I thought they were the man. Hmmm... something has changed. I'm so confused.
sarcasm
A company and a society are judged and remembered by what they build and not what they destroy.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That does not remove the ads...
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to Ghengis Khan or Alexander (remember that Persian empire that stretched from India to Mesopotamia).
The good the men do is oft interred with their bones, but the evil that men do lives on.
Best Response (Score:5, Funny)
Behind the curve of innovation (Score:3)
There have been extensions for this, on various browsers, for years. I don't see how this is sticking anything to Google when any idiot user can install a few extensions to his browser and get the same result.
Not news. More like Olds.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been extensions for this, on various browsers, for years. I don't see how this is sticking anything to Google when any idiot user can install a few extensions to his browser and get the same result.
Not news. More like Olds.
you can't install an extension to your browser on windows phone 8..
Will Google even notice? (Score:3)
Windows 8 tablets have, what, 2% of the market? It might be a while before Google even notices!
Re:Who figured this out? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't have a youtube downloader in your browser, it's because you don't want one. And if you're seeing ads in youtube it's because you're not using adblock plus.
Youtube is supposed to paywall some premium content soon, which is fine. I'm not watching it anyway, so I'm not downloading it either. The kind of stuff I download from youtube mostly involves documentaries on subjects like Waco or what kids are eating, and I'm not also streaming it, so there's really no good reason for them to try to stop me.
Re:Who figured this out? (Score:4, Funny)
Youtube has ads?
Who knew?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I sometimes end up at a browser without adblock plut. It's like a totally different internet. (One that should be killed with fire.)
Re: (Score:2)
Does AdBlock Plus block inline video ads that have been seen in New Zealand for the past year?
If it doesn't, you'll be in for a shock when it's rolled out in your hemisphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Does AdBlock Plus block inline video ads that have been seen in New Zealand for the past year?
As far as I know, yes. I've seen inline video ads on services when I have forgotten to install ABP on a system, and installed and then not seen them any more. But, maybe not. I'm not in NZ so it's hard for me to tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google made a public gesture of refusing to develop official Google/Maps/YouTube apps for Windows Phone. This is just Microsoft's Tat to Google's Tit; no more "malicious" than Google's public snub.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Google and Microsoft get into a DMCA slap-fight, then it will be hilarious for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Standard process is having an ad blocker. It make not just YouTube but most web browsing faster and easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Do ad-blockers provide false feedback to the advertisers? Does it download the content and then not display it?
I only ask because I have a desire to:
a) Provide money to the content provider (YouTube).
b) Confuse marketers (scum).
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, that's fine. But it's definitely not "standard process everyone follows". Most people seem to either watch them or block them.
However, I have heard that what YouTube does give to its paid content creators is based on views, irrespective of whether or not the ads were actually played, so both of your points could apply more to blockers than ignorers.
Re: (Score:2)
Do ad-blockers provide false feedback to the advertisers? Does it download the content and then not display it?
I don't think so. I've noticed that YouTube (and Google search results page) don't display ads even when ABP is disabled for those sites. But they will include ads when ABP is completely turned off in the Addons Manager. I haven't dug too deeply, but I suspect they detect ABP in the request-header and simply don't display ads for users with ABP - which, IMO, is pretty decent behaviour.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My standard process when installing a web browser includes:
* Block all third-party cookies.
* Install an ad blocker (AdBlock Plus)
* Install a script blocker (NoScript)
* Install a tracker blocker (DoNotTrackMe)
No ads, nowhere, and a much faster, safer, more trouble-free browsing experience.
This isn't cable TV in the 1990s; it's the Internet in the age of web browser extensions. What you're doing is roughly equivalent to taking a piss during a commercial break. That's old, manual technology that requires you
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I forgot to mention the last bit:
* Enable the "Do Not Track" header (just to make sure they get the idea)
Re:Going to hurt videos available at some point (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to be mean to you personally, but we don't fucking care. Just like we don't fucking care that ABC doesn't like us recording shows on our DVRs and watching them later without having to suffer through the horrible, loud, insulting-to-the-intelligence ads. We don't care that Sony and BMG want us to buy entire CDs of music, rather than download songs, or worse yet, find other music to listen to.
So, if your profession is making videos, and your income is based on ads played during those videos on a communal website, you may want to think of a better revenue stream. This one isn't going to last, whether Microsoft can pull this off or not.
Re:Going to hurt videos available at some point (Score:4, Insightful)
No you have it backwards. If you don't want to be part of the culture, lock up your content and don't show it to anyone. If someone can see it, they can tell someone about it, sharing in its most basic sense. *GASP* without paying you!
I say you make your works private and then you can have them all to your self! no one will get your precious content in any way you deem unfit! Perfect solution.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This is *my* computer, you have absolutely no control over it.
This argument is fucking idiotic. If you take your own bag to the store and pack it full of stuff, do you bitch when security stops you from walking out? "But it's MY BAG!". Or how about if a cop gives you a ticket for speeding? "but it's MY CAR". If your boss decides not to pay you, I'm fairly sure he will be unable to convince you not to sue his ass by claiming "but it's my office!"
Yes, it is your computer. But it's not your content. Content you are using said computer to pirate. Ignoring the legal aspect
Re:Going to hurt videos available at some point (Score:5, Insightful)
fine... open your wallet... takers are SOOOO annoying.
I fucking wish I could pay as little to watch a TV show or movie as a comparable set of ads would return in revenue for being in front of my eyeballs.
Instead, some dickhead thinks I should pay ~5-10 cents a minute to watch one episode of his TV show. Naturally, 1080p costs twice as much too.
Re:Can they? (Score:5, Informative)
Youtube can say whatever they want. Whether it is enforceable is another matter.
Saving a YouTube video for later playback on your own machine (i.e. not distributing) is simply "time shifting"... time shifting has been tried time and time again in the courts and it is settled law. What legally comes to your device can be saved and played back at a later date (aka "taping" and now "downloading") and Google can TOS till the cows come home but no TOS ever written and tested in court has ever abridged the right of anyone at any time to time shift.
In other words, download all you want. Rip it to DVDs/CDs. Play it back a million times. Put it on all your devices. There's not a goddamned thing Google, or anyone, can do to stop you... they can add stuff to their TOS from now until doomsday but it does not matter in the least.
Re-distribution is another matter of course.
Re:Can they? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube can say whatever they want. Whether it is enforceable is another matter.
Of course it's enforceable. You are assuming you have a legal right to view YouTube videos, but you very much do not. If Google *chooses* to send you the video *THEN* you have the right to "time shift" it all you want. But the former is very much not a legal right. If Google decides to cut off your YouTube access there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Well, you can play the whole "arms race" game, but this is also a clear violation of YouTube's API rules and if MS gets serious about trying to bypass t
Re: (Score:2)
You mean when Google stopped paying the Microsoft tax to provide Exchange services, and Microsoft decided not to implement CardDAV and CalDAV (despite helping create WebDAV) because they would get better PR if they could claim Google broke their phones?
Someone was playing political games, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Tax? EAS is royalty-free, license fee-free and has a patent covenant-not-to-sue so long as it's implemented correctly. Continuing to support it would have cost Google nothing other than the man hours to keep it working. There was no "Microsoft Tax".
Re:Bad blood? (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft Tax? EAS is royalty-free, license fee-free and has a patent covenant-not-to-sue so long as it's implemented correctly. Continuing to support it would have cost Google nothing other than the man hours to keep it working. There was no "Microsoft Tax".
lol wut? No it isn't.
"Microsoft licenses the patents for Exchange ActiveSync please contact us for more information."
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IPLicensing/Programs/exchangeactivesyncprotocol.aspx [microsoft.com]
"Earlier today Google announced Google Sync, which is made possible by a patent license they obtained from Microsoft covering Google’s implementation of the Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync protocol on Google servers."
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2009/feb09/02-09statement.aspx [microsoft.com]
Did you even bother to search before you posted that? Or did you just feel like making up crap for giggles?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, CalDAV - you mean that thing Google is sun setting on the 16th of September 2013 in favour of their own, proprietary API?
http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-second-spring-of-cleaning.html [blogspot.com.au]
Doesn't look as tho Google is being the nice guy here, however you like to cast the other parties...