Print 29 comment(s) - last by Master Kenobi.. on Apr 1 at 9:08 PM









Microsoft complains about YouTube openness, stating:




Comments     Threshold


RE: Anti-competitive practices
By omnicronx on 3/31/2011 11:23:44 AM , Rating: 5
AND FYI.. the article kind of misses this but Google specifically blocked MS from using Youtube metadata.

The article also does not mention the orphaned book plan from the last few years in which the US essentially forced them to allow other parties to search these orphaned books. It seems as though they have blocked such access in Europe which had no stipulations as part of the deal.

The big part the articles misses is the search data stored on Google servers. Advertisers are not allowed to use their own search data to use on other engines. This serves no other purpose than to stop advertisers from making their data multi-purpose. From a monetary perspective it makes little sense for most advertisers to spend the time to move their ad campaign to other search engines. As a result, many just don't.

I love Google as a search engine, but if they truly are the 'best and most innovative', they should have no problem opening themselves up as it should be this 'great innovation' that keeps them so high on their pedestal, not what seem to be borderline business tactics at best.

RE: Anti-competitive practices
By BZDTemp on 3/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: Anti-competitive practices
By omnicronx on 3/31/2011 12:13:27 PM , Rating: 3
There is a huge difference between what you let somebody access on a website and using your hold on a OS to shoot down competitors.
No there is a huge difference between disallowing access to a website when you are a single entity. (nor is this what is happening here, most of the things mentioned here are external services)

Google is just as much of a giant in the web space as MS was/is in the desktop space.

The idea remains the same, both companies are using their market dominance to push things upon users. (in this case it means the Youtube experience will be better on the the devices Google has chosen to open it up too)

The fact that many users like Google products is completely irrelevant. You may like what they are doing now, but that's not the point, 10 years down the line when everything flows through Google and everyone will not be signing the same tune.

As for Google blocking access to data that is not what I see. We see fine in SiteCatalyst when our visitors come from Google including search words and so on.
Not what the article is question is discussing. What is being discussed is the data pushed to Google ad servers. Not even close to the same thing, what you are talking about is merely personal monitoring of your site.

As for you last line, you clearly don't seem to understand what MS was doing. They were tracking click through results, it has nothing to do with openness as anyone can do that, with or without consent.

By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/1/2011 9:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
On point. If Google is preventing access to metadata that allows MS to make an actual Youtube player for their platform just as iOS and Android have then Google is abusing their market position. Ironically while Apple won't allow Adobe Flash to be loaded on their precious little iOS, they did allow Google to stick a custom app to play youtube (flash) videos. Clever strategizing by Apple to give users what they want, and Google for sucking in a usergroup that has basically no alternative as flash can't run on the platform. Windows Phone 7 has every right to its own youtube application just as iOS and Android. If the EU is applying a standard policy approach to Monopoly suits then Google will likely be forced to open the metadata up for Microsoft and other companies to utilize in their products to stream the youtube videos as well. Ironically Google had no problem providing such an application for Windows Phone 6.1 and 6.5, back when they didn't have Android.

RE: Anti-competitive practices
By inighthawki on 3/31/2011 1:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft used Windows to push IE and Windows Media Player killing a market where Netscape, RealPlayer and others had build a business selling software.

If either IE or WMP weren't free than I may be inclined to agree, but including more (free) features in your OS is the definition of better competition .

RE: Anti-competitive practices
By drlumen on 3/31/2011 5:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that free is anti-competitive too right? Netscape was selling for $40-$50 before M$ decided they wanted the stranglehold on the browser market (for fear that the browser would displace the need for windows). How could Netscape, with a browser as their main revenue stream, compete with free?

M$ is the LAST to talk and complain about openness. NOTHING they release IS OPEN. Even between M$ products... Ever tried to open a Works document in Word or vice versa?

RE: Anti-competitive practices
By inighthawki on 3/31/2011 11:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's hard to take you seriously when you refer to Microsoft as M$ and make it sound like a free browser and media player are a bad thing. Also last I checked, I CAN open works documents in office, and the fact that works has been discontinued and is being phased out, it doesn't surprise me there would be little support.

