[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 81 KB, 1539x971, Anti Competitive Practices.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
33831524 No.33831524 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

Let's discuss how Google is being anti-competitive and are trying to establish complete and utter monopoly.

I'm a WP developer, and I have a YouTube app in WP store. I received a letter from Google's legal team that I am to take down my app by 22nd of May.

Why isn't anyone doing anything to stop Google from doing this? Microsoft got ravaged in the 90s and yet no one says anything about Google being anti-competitive today.

I'm not a Microsoft employee, I did not work on their YouTube app, I'm a 3rd party developer.

>> No.33831537

Did you violate copyright?

>> No.33831558

They are well within their legal rights. Stop being a dick.

>> No.33831563

>blocking ads
>overriding platform restrictions
>expecting to not get shut down.

>> No.33831568

Did Google violate the law by banning the usage of their product on certain platforms?

How is it that you are available to search for, let's say Eminem on iPhone/Android phone and watch his videos and you're not allowed to do so on Windows Phones?

Also why the fuck does Google refer to WPs as "mobile devices with limited feature sets"?

>> No.33831573

what are they gonna do if you do not take it down?

>> No.33831577

>WP developer
lol, that's not something I would proudly declare.

>> No.33831579

The only thing they can legally get you for is their logo. Everything else they will have to actively prevent themselves.

>> No.33831581

>blocking access to users using competitor's operating system
The case with both Google Maps and YouTube now.

>> No.33831595



>> No.33831597

Probably nothing.

Suing will bring them bad publicity which will probably be exploited by microsoft.

>> No.33831603

Most likely law suits. They already changed their search API rendering my app near useless at the moment.

The retarded thing is I can't even say it's a YouTube client in the description. If I mention YouTube anywhere they can have me. And how the fuck are users supposed to know what the app is about?

"3rd party client app that let's you allow videos on -you-know-what-site-"

>> No.33831623

>Error: Our system thinks your post is spam. Please reformat and try again.
fucking hell
basically, youtube wants to take down microsoft's own "official" youtube app as well because it violates their terms, just like yours

google "Google demands Microsoft remove YouTube Windows Phone app, cites lack of ads"

>> No.33831629

>Why isn't anyone doing anything to stop Google from doing this? Microsoft got ravaged in the 90s and yet no one says anything about Google being anti-competitive today.
You wrote an app for their service in ways they do not permit.

You are using their service, and thereby must use it in the way they restrict you to, or you suffer legal penalties.

You agreed to this when you began using their service.


>> No.33831648

Yeah I know I've seen the article. That's why I'm posting here. For people to see it's not only against Microsoft.

Ironically, me being a developer on a closed platform, I'm starting to believe Stallman now.
He was right all along.

>> No.33831653

>You are using their service, and thereby must use it in the way they restrict you to, or you suffer legal penalties.
>You agreed to this when you began using their service.
What. You're telling me someone can't choose how to display a public website, can't buy an application that allows them to display a public website in a different way?

Fuck off. That doesn't violate the law at all.

>> No.33831668

It's not even a paid app, it's completely free.

>> No.33831669

Hey OP, the point you raise is one worth discussing, if only to clarify your misconceptions.

You don't have a right to access Youtube. Nor do you have a right to the content or anything else like that. So let that be the backdrop to the rest of this answer.

Google puts ads on the videos they host on Youtube. That's how they make money on Youtube. There's not much of an alternative revenue model for them. They have premium content now, but it's a very small part of their business, and it's not sufficient to sustain the whole business. But more importantly, advertising is the direction they decided to take it in.

They decided to provide an API for developers like you to access Youtube through apps, but that was contingent on the premise that you push ads through as well - which you very likely agreed to by using their API.

This isn't anti-competitive. You REALLY need to understand what anti-competitive practices are before you throw that accusation around, because simply calling any behavior you dislike "anti-competitive" will make you less credible if/when it actually DOES happen and you try to raise that red flag.

>> No.33831675

Most websites have Terms of Service. Did you read those before developing your app?

>> No.33831678

It has nothing at all to do with the platform.
If you wrote the same app that did the same thing for Android, they would nail you there, too.

YouTube mobile is a service, not a website.

But yes. They just don't feel like persecuting a bunch of single users for blocking their ads.

>> No.33831680

>Fuck off. That doesn't violate the law at all.

muh eula

once microsoft put in their eula I forfeit all my assets to them by using their website, so I can't complain

>> No.33831682

The website is public but not a public good/resource. Do you understand the difference there?

>> No.33831697

'Don't be evil' is not actually legally binding, while API terms of service are. Just remember that the internet is big and you don't need to put your faith in evil corporations going forward.

>> No.33831698

Don't develop for a shitty company like microsoft.

>> No.33831723

They don't allow ads on windows phone, and they don't allow youtube without the ads. They don't provide ad api.

Get it?

>> No.33831741

So there's no YouTube on WP until Google writes their own ad service for it.

>> No.33831742

This isn't an "evil corporation" thing. Moot did the same shit with 4chan until not that long ago.

I remember people emailing moot asking for help to make a 4chan iOS/Android app and him effectively telling them to fuck off. He might have even blocked access to them at some point. That's not evil. He has a right to deny service to people who try to use his site in a way he doesn't want. He can do it for ad revenue reasons or for quality of service reasons or for whatever, but it's not your right to access the site.

The level of entitlement apparent in OP's post is suffocating.

>> No.33831746

Why doesn't Google just start using API keys for their YouTube API?

If a certain app breaks their ToU, just invalidate that particular API key and the app stops working, and then refuse giving a new one, once said app developer comes crawling bag begging for a new key.

>> No.33831749

>dat /fur/

>> No.33831770

But can moot sue them because they accessed his site through an app he doesn't like/device he doesn't like (app/device that "violates terms of service")?

I doubt it. The most he can do is block them, there is no way they will suffer repercussions for doing it.

>> No.33831778

And they won't. That's anti-competitive. They are using their advantage of huge market share in video sharing against WP platform.

I do not make any money from the application. My application is completely free and it is there for the users to be able to browse youtube just like they would be able to on an iPhone or Android.

If Google is hurting anyone with this, it's the users.

>> No.33831780

Are you intentionally using "they" two different ways in the same sentence?

The "They" at first is Microsoft.
The "They" secondly is Google.

You're caught between a rock and a hard place, but don't tell me you find it ambiguous where that leaves you. You can't break the rules you agree to. Go from there. If all the rules together mean that you just can't make a Youtube app at all, then that's the conclusion you come to.

Why are you acting like this is somehow a right for you to access?

>> No.33831782

Moot doesn't have the same amount of money Google does.

>> No.33831794

he probably could if he really wanted to, but in the case of this site it's just not worth it in monetary terms.

API Terms of Service

You may not use "4chan" in the title of your application, product, or service.
You may not use the 4chan name, logo, or brand to promote your application, product, or service.
You must disclose the source of the information shown by your application, product, or service as 4chan, and provide a link.
You may not market your application, product, or service as being "official" in any way.
You may not clone the live site and its functionality. This means don't suck down our JSON, host it elsewhere, and throw ads around it.
These terms are subject to change without notice.

>> No.33831798


No, they're probably going to.

Because they don't care about Android market share or how much Android makes them - they care about getting as many people to see ads as possible.

>> No.33831806

They is Google.
Google doesn't allow ads, doesn't provide ads api for wp, and doesn't allow youtube without ads (just for legal standing they actually don't want youtube on windows phone cause it's a reason not to buy a wp device for some users).

>> No.33831818

So google can successfully sue someone for providing a browser they don't like that is able to accesses their site, because they have money?

>> No.33831826

That's exactly right, and they care about user data/information. They can't log everything you do on windows phone, but they can on android.

Can you really not see how obvious this is?

>> No.33831833

As long as you remember that Apple and MS's users are customers, and Google's users are products, this decision makes perfect sense.

>> No.33831834

Pretty much.

>> No.33831835

Fuck Google, they are trying to own the web and are worse than Microsoft of the 90's.

I pretty much moved all the services away form them and hope Google gets assraped by antitrust regulations.

>> No.33831852

Uh, yeah.

>> No.33831853

What? He absolutely can send them a C&D letter and threaten to sue. They agreed to a contract and violated it. You realize that shit you agree to is still a formal agreement even if it just amounts to a checkbox and a submit button, right? You need to read these fucking things.

Whether you make money or not is not important; you're accumulating users and someday you might make money on it. They have these rules to keep people within a standard boundary of fair use of the service so that they don't have to make individual judgment calls on every single third-party Youtube app to determine whether the developer is misusing or abusing their access to the service.

And Google is hurting a VERY small number of users. This is why users don't buy Windows Phone devices; because the userbase is small and companies like Google, Facebook, etc... don't prioritize user experience above all else.

This wouldn't happen on iOS or Android. Don't act like this surprises or offends you. You're not a minority ethnic group here. You chose to adopt and develop for an obscure platform. Expect to get tossed around like a twink in a prison.

>> No.33831867

>Google doesn't allow ads
this is so adorably stupid I don't even know where to begin.

>> No.33831881

There is no checkbox and submit button when you access youtube.

>> No.33831891


Wait till Google Fiber gets rolled out US wide, they're tendrils will only keep drilling deeper into the flows of information of every single person that uses their services.

Google are the Walmart of the Information game. The only reason people don't complain or distrust them is because their services always seem to work...

I wonder why that is? Getting people to think "Google x" as an answer to a mental question is quite a powerful and deeply embedded brand engagement. Any other company would kill to have that kind of customer interaction.

You may read this and conjure images of Tin Foil hats... Perhaps I am being paranoid, but I'm not looking at it from the perspective of this big bad evil corporation, I'm looking at it from the perspective of every day people and how they access information. After all, you are nothing but a combination of the information that goes in and out of your brain.

>> No.33831900

This is you isn't it?


What a fagot

>> No.33831909

>"We’d be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs," says a Microsoft spokesperson.
And here you are a know it all. A backseat programmer and a developer.

And how is WP market share to grow if Google is actively trying to hinder it's growth?

>> No.33831922
File: 146 KB, 853x543, 1366801595001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Did you make MetroTube?

Also, could you write something that enables screen lock? Thanks in advance.

>> No.33831923

No that's not me. It seems google is being systematic about the matter.

>> No.33831926

that's the microsoft app.
op could be any one of these:

op contends (i believe rightly) that there is no mechanism for him to actually correct the ad/mobile restrictions objections that google is complaining about.

he shouldn't be using their logo or their name in the app tho.

>> No.33831936

>'3rd-party client app that let's you search for & watch videos on the worlds biggest video site'

>> No.33831944

Not the creator of MetroTube. MetroTube doesn't allow you to view all content of YouTube, for example VEVO videos. My app does.

Playing under lockscreen was to be added in the next update, which unfortunately won't be coming.

>> No.33831951

>And how is WP market share to grow if Google is actively trying to hinder it's growth?
Google has no obligation to foster growth of WP8. Even if you're making an anti-trust argument, the claim falls on its face. You're being an entitled, ignorant, obstinate faggot. Get over yourself.

>> No.33831974
File: 134 KB, 1568x494, Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 7.58.39 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Look, I should not have to do this for you, but you're apparently too stupid to search "youtube terms of service" yourself.

>> No.33831976

>What. You're telling me someone can't choose how to display a public website
Since when was Youtube a public website? Did the US Government buy Google or Youtube? Until that happens it's a privately owned website and they can do whatever they want within the law. It's a common misconception, but you are not protected by things like the 1st amendment when it comes to private property and private services.

>Fuck off. That doesn't violate the law at all.
It doesn't need to violate the law, it just needs to violate Youtube's terms of service. If you violate the terms of service then Google has every legal right to stop you from doing so.

>> No.33831984

microsoft was at odds with the juden
google is one with them

this is the entire story and reason. Of course Microsoft is now on their good side partly thanks to ballmer

>> No.33831996

I meant an app for my Lumia 920 that will stop it from rotating the screen, like any normal phone has. I'm willing to pay a buck for it.

>> No.33831999

So by accessing their site, I'm agreeing to terms I might not necessarily ever see, because I have to go to a link that says "term" in the bottom to ever find them?

And they can sue me for not complying with these terms?

>> No.33832004

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. They would shut it down if it was on the Play Market, or Apples Appstore. Your app is being shut down because it violates the rules.
This isn't "anti-competitive", anti competitive would be shutting down another youtube like service. Not your shitty WP app.

>> No.33832038

Thanks for the input google fanboy.

Google's properties extends to more than just youtube. They're blocking it because they don't want people to buy other phones, they want them to buy google's. That is anti-competitive.

>> No.33832047


>> No.33832050

>what are terms of services

lelele kids these days mang

>> No.33832066

Read the mail again.

you're blocking their ads and fucking with their artifical restriction system. What did you expect ?

>> No.33832076

>US Government

>> No.33832090
File: 223 KB, 450x601, 1367847579259.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Why are people only taking notice now? They've been anti-competitive for years now, just ask DDG.

>> No.33832092


>accessing their site

Accessing ANYTHING offered by Google.

"Don’t misuse our Services. For example, don’t interfere with our Services or try to access them using a method other than the interface and the instructions that we provide."

>> No.33832093

I'm only asking because you're pretending this is an agreement you actually consciously agree to, rather than one that you have to consciously make an effort to actually come upon, which you might (will) only see after having accessed their service in the first place.

If they can sue for that, and that holds up in court, it is because we live in a corrupt society.

>> No.33832127

If you mean for it to stay in portrait mode, it does.

There's no ads to block. There's no ad api.

>> No.33832128


While I believe their terms should be brought to the awareness of the users more frequently, ignorance of a rule or law does not excuse you from that rule or law. It's your responsibility as an intelligent person to be wary of businesses and the services they offer. Remember that deep down, anything a large company does is not in your best interest.

>> No.33832140

Are microsoft desperate to get a youtube app because they refuse to support VP8 or VP9 in IE?

They have been trying to prevent VP9 being adopted by threatening to sue through Nokia and refusing all requests to license any Nokias video related software patents.

>> No.33832146

OP, all your talk of a next update which "now isn't happening" is good. You should NOT be developing an app until you've read the terms associated with every service you access and use.

It was just grossly negligent of you not to know the terms associated with using Youtube and for that matter publishing an app on WP8. Read the terms associated with developing for the Windows Phone platform. Do the same for Youtube. If you don't understand a section, ask for help. Get legal advice if you need to.

What you've been doing up until now was irresponsible, and now you're just complaining that the rules - which were clearly outlined years ago - weren't written in your favor. Get a clue. Nobody here is sympathetic.

>> No.33832151

Thank you for acknowledging that you have received the request, OP! I have notified out legal team and the authorities as necessary.

Have a nice day.

>> No.33832155
File: 185 KB, 422x402, 1365707874275.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

what the fuck am I reading

>> No.33832158

lol this.. still I feel bad for you OP.

>> No.33832176


seriously? eminem is the best you could come up with? go away your dirty pleb

>> No.33832183

How is this corrupt? They have rules. They're not secret. There's no cabal here. You have no obligation to develop an app for - or for that matter USE - Youtube.

You're an entitled worthless little shit who thinks the whole fucking world is corrupt just because you're not given free reign to do whatever you want on this stupid obscure issue. Go fucking kill yourself.

>> No.33832186

I'm just reading the mail...

Now about those VEVO restricted videos...?

>> No.33832187

Oh and I've hurt millions of lives by allowing people to access content they are already able to access on other devices.

Seriously I can hear the screams of all those people suffering from my irresponsibility.

>> No.33832189

Google's terms are not the law.

You can disagree with their terms. And youtube does not ask you to agree to their terms before you access the service. This is akin to installing a software and instead of having the EULA turn up, there's a link in tiny font on the bottom of an unnaturally long and cluttered installing interface that says "terms" which, only if you click it, links you to the EULA.

If they can sue over a violation of those terms that you might not ever see and weren't prompted with, it's because society is corrupt.

>> No.33832194

this just in

User agent manipulating programs are bad cuz it lets me access jewtube content unavailable for mobile phones.

When is google gonna sue me?

>> No.33832204

Did you have "youtube" in your app's name?

>> No.33832207

>If Google is hurting anyone with this, it's the users

Bro, YOU are hurting google by giving people a way to watch videos without ads. It's their service, deal with it

>> No.33832214

You fucking retard. You've created an app that blocks Google's revenue and get buttmad when they request that it be removed from the store? Google makes their money off of ads, and your app doesn't show them

>> No.33832220

The agreement to there terms constitutes a formal contract, which is enforceable by law unless it attempts to bind you to doing something illegal.

You really need to stop posting in this thread and start reading the terms for Youtube and WP. Like, seriously, close this tab and go there now.

>> No.33832221
File: 32 KB, 408x632, 1368527218331.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>All this GIDF

>> No.33832222

You can see VEVO. That's mainly the reason why I developed it. Cause you could see VEVO on iPhone/Android and you're blocked from accessing the exact same videos on Windows Phone.

Unfortunately app is now almost useless, as I said, since YouTube changed something in search API rendering search in my app near useless.

>> No.33832241

>I'm not hurting anyone, so the terms don't [email protected]!
god it must be frustrating to be trapped in your mind.

>> No.33832243
File: 43 KB, 298x440, 1367552164030.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>google shilling intensifies

don't you fags have a fagroid homescreen thread to jerk off in?

Keep up the fight op. Don't stop now.

>> No.33832251


>Google's terms are not the law.

No, but they are legally binding.

>You can disagree with their terms

The only way to do this is not to use their service. Terms of Service agreements are something that have evolved with the Internet. It should be common knowledge that each site will have their own terms. The Internet isn't a new thing anymore.

>it's because society is corrupt.

How do you reach this conclusion.

>> No.33832254

>It's their service, deal with it

This OP.

Also, this doesn't look like a legal threat just yet. Do something about the artifical restrictions and come back to them to "fix the issue togeter to provide W8 users with a enjoyable and respectful way to be part of the YouTube ecosystem, even on the go with their WP devices."

>> No.33832255

You're hurting Google by pulling their main way of making money right out from under them you illiterate nigger

>> No.33832271

>people bitch about apple
yeh fuck apple that is bullshit
>people bitch about MS
yeh fuck MS that is bullshit
>people bitch about google
get over it you are retarded

>> No.33832279

Fucking Google shills don't even bother to read threads, or even to know their company's business.

Once again, there is no ads in the first place to block. There's no ads api. Even Microsoft said they'll incorporate it into their app if Google allows it. But they don't.

If I'm hurting them, it's cause they are not letting me help.

And it's fucking cheap to have users as a meatshield for their money-grabbing needs.

>> No.33832287


OP is blindly swinging haymakers and doesn't realise his armspan is equivalent to a 5 year old girl. If OP wants to make a difference it has to make more concise arguments and overall have thoughts that are further developed than a 14 year old discovering themselves and the world around them.

>> No.33832288

The terms cannot break the law however

And this is what is debatable

He may be violating the terms but the terms may be violating the law

>> No.33832295

Right, and you're saying by accessing a service you implicitly agree to a formal contract you are never necessarily shown, never necessarily asked to agree to, will most likely by their interface's design only have read after using their service for some time, and can be held legally accountable if you violate the terms of this contract.

Explain to me in what way this this doesn't completely violate freedom by it essentially meaning someone is forced into your contract by following a link to your website and then following several links to access services on your website, never being presented with the terms by which they're allowed to do so except if they consciously decide to go find them out.

And not by saying "because that's the law." I want you to explain how this this is not corrupt.

>> No.33832296

tfw really want to ditch google but I can't

>> No.33832297

Until Google ads an ad api, you can't have the app in the marketplace. Deal with it; it's not that hard to understand.

>> No.33832299

No, they are blocking it because it blocks advertisements so neither google nor the content creators get money for the videos. Did you even read the fucking email?

You clearly violated the TOS, so you are the one at fault, not google.

>> No.33832306

Because Google isn't spitefully evil like Apple and Microsoft.

How can they be when they have "DONT BE EVIL" as a motto?

>> No.33832309

good tactic bro I'm totally sympathetic to your crying bitching and whining because you can't come off as sane.
I'm sure it seems that way since this actually affects the work you've put into your app. You need to get some objectivity though. Stop being a child.

>> No.33832311

Except it's GOOGLE that blocks the ads.

>> No.33832314

Free bump for my replay because do eet OP.

>> No.33832316


How may the terms be violating the law, genuinely curious. I'd be all for a class-action suit.

>> No.33832324
File: 424 KB, 1280x720, 1368554497592.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>they are blocking it
>it blocks advertisements
>Did you even read the fucking email?
This is purposely ironic isn't it?

>> No.33832326

You can't possibly be this retarded...

>> No.33832334

Google's not blocking their own ads silly

>> No.33832345

It blocks advertisements by the merit of being on a device google isn't supporting advertising for. Saying it blocks advertisements (which technically it does) is google's word play to make you think it's the software's fault when really they're preventing it themselves.

>> No.33832349

If Google refuse to make their own Youtube app, then they have very little say in the matter.

>> No.33832350

the only argument he needs to make is that Google is gay and the sole reason to develop this ToS breaking app is because fuck the police.

>> No.33832364

I am not on anyone side with this
But google seems to be pretty anti consumer here, there is a conflict of interest thats result benefits google, if this is reflected within the terms then what they are doing maybe unlawful

What I am saying is OP has most likely violated the terms

Although I believe OP is correct in saying that google is being anti consumer

>> No.33832376

They have all the say; as they own YouTube

>> No.33832379

They are not providing ad API for WP. Therefore they're blocking they're own ads for anyone using WP app.

>> No.33832386

Youtube is a Google-owned entity whose logos and trademarks all belong to them. Contrary to belief they are not obligated to support every platform that exists.

>> No.33832388

Do you seriously think anyone believes you didn't know there were terms of service just because you weren't flashed with them from the outset? There's a link to them on every page in the footer. It's your onus to read them.

A lot of ignorant, entitled hicks complained that they didn't read the terms of their home mortgages and should therefore not be held to them when the bank foreclosed on the homes. Is it the bank's fault that the lenders agreed to terms which resulted in ballooning, unmanageable monthly payments? No. It's your fault, ultimately. It's a fucking shame you didn't read the terms carefully, but in Youtube's case it's really hard to give a shit about your situation because the language is written in plain English, unlike virtually all other legalese.

>> No.33832391


>Explain to me in what way this this doesn't completely violate freedom

It doesn't violate freedom because you are free to not follow that link nor the following links to access their services. Ask the person that linked the document to provide a mirror to a GNU/Service or similar.

>they consciously decide to go find them out.

This seems to be the main axiom your argument rests on; The fact that a user has to actively seek out the rules rather than having them shoved in their face. Perhaps we could steer the conversation into how Google could implement a "Quick rules" list on the first load up of their services. Something to be agreed upon.

>> No.33832392

Then until there is an API, there cannot be an app for WP

>> No.33832399

Youtube is still accessible using the mobile version of Internet Explorer, just like all of Google's services.

>> No.33832404

really, cuz op's app seems to work well enough that it pissed off jewgle

>> No.33832405

I am definitely breaking the ToS because it the description it says "third party YouTube client app".

The only way for me not to break ToS is to actually not make a YouTube app for Windows Phone. Which is the whole fucking point. Google DOES NOT want their products on competing platforms. They are using their marketshare and wealth to make sure they build a monopoly.

>> No.33832417



>> No.33832419

>Google DOES NOT want their products on competing platforms. They are using their marketshare and wealth to make sure they build a monopoly.

So then delete your app and never bother to make another Google app for Windows Phone again?

>> No.33832421

Way to completely misunderstand my post you illiterate inner-city dwelling nigger

>> No.33832427

OP, take this to Red.dit. It's the type of thing they'll kick up a fuss about in a big way until Google caves. It's the only thing they're good for.

>> No.33832431

>Youtube is still accessible using the mobile version of Internet Explorer, just like all of Google's services.
But you can't view half of the videos there.

>> No.33832434

Yeh OP you are morally in the right while they are lawfully within the right

Google is honestly a fucking horrible company though, stating to think their evil levels are taking over MS

>> No.33832435


Is there an Android emulator for Windows phones? You could user Google provided API so you wouldn't be breaking their ToS.

>> No.33832436

They had to sign the terms of their mortgage. You don't have to sign or even click "I agree" to anything to access youtube. The service is designed so that the "terms" link is well out of the way of the interface that's supposed to catch your eye.

>This seems to be the main axiom your argument rests on;
Of course it's the crux it rests on. You can't be said to have to agreed to a contract they didn't prompt you with and ask you to agree to. Saying "by using this service you agree" on a separate page accessed by a link buried at the bottom of their interface should not constitute you agreeing to anything.

>> No.33832445

>Let's discuss how Google is being anti-competitive and are trying to establish complete and utter monopoly.
In a country that's against regulation why is this a problem?

>> No.33832446

That sucks

>> No.33832448

I love this argument
"don't complain"
Then shit will never change my friend

>> No.33832457

It's most likely what I'll do. And it's what every smart person will do. But it's not what every average Joe will do. They will still continue to have huge market share and just shut down their competition.

They don't allow you to use their products, and they sure as hell won't let you start something that will end up being their rival.

The only way to stop them from doing this is to get the average Joe to understand this.

>> No.33832465

>Saying "by using this service you agree" on a separate page accessed by a link buried at the bottom of their interface should not constitute you agreeing to anything.

But that's generally how it works for all internet services/websites. Can you imagine having to click AGREE on a TOS pop-up for every website you visit?

>> No.33832476


>Of course it's the crux it rests on. You can't be said to have to agreed to a contract they didn't prompt you with and ask you to agree to. Saying "by using this service you agree" on a separate page accessed by a link buried at the bottom of their interface should not constitute you agreeing to anything.

So take this energy, this passion, this annoyance, this hatred. And do something with it.

>> No.33832477

>It's most likely what I'll do
Good. Considering you're too stupid to read simple English in an email explaining why your app must be removed, you probably shouldn't be making apps anyways

>> No.33832489

what did I misunderstand? just because jewgle hasn't sanctioned some shitty ad serving api doesn't mean apps can't be built for the platform and anyone who takes a EULA seriously is massive faggot anyway.

>> No.33832492


You're complaining on the wrong forum if you are seriously looking for change though.

Most of /g/ loves the botnet unconditionally.

>> No.33832496
File: 661 KB, 1280x1110, 1366798913898.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Company can't allow users of smartphones or tablets to view their videos due to third party agreements
>youtube realizes this and allows them to decide who sees their content in what region or on what device
>microsoft and dicks like OP ignore this fact and break their ToS

Yeah cry me a river OP. It's their service and they have a legitimate reason for telling you to fuck off.

>> No.33832507

[Shilling intensifies]

>> No.33832509

No I will still make apps. Just most likely not those that rely on Google services. And those that do I will post somewhere other than the official stores, for free. Just for the benefit of the user.

>> No.33832511


>> No.33832512

Put this on red.dit. They take a campaign seriously. /g/ is just trolling.

>> No.33832528

Holy shit, how old are you?

>> No.33832533

I'll need an account, but I think I will actually bother to make one and do it.

>> No.33832535

That's what should be required for a legally enforceable contract. And many sites do essentially do this by asking you to create an account and explicitly tick an "I agree" box or click an "I agree" button after being shown terms.

If they don't show it in this manner and have you agree and instead hide it at the bottom of a page where it's designed to not draw your attention, it should have no legal power whatsoever.

They could see that you're using the service in a way that they don't like and then make the effort to have you agree to terms by personally contacting you about it, but if they try to retroactively sue you for violating a contract you were never presented with, it's bullshit.

>> No.33832547

It does not matter, I could be twelve and the point would still stand.

>> No.33832550

Good luck, if I spot it, I'll upvote. If you tell me which subred.dit you put it in, it'd help.

>> No.33832557

>actually taking /g/'s advice to go to lebbit

Wow you really are retarded.

>> No.33832564

>Taking /g/s advice, period.

>> No.33832570
File: 110 KB, 1186x555, 1368121657759.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Most corporate policies don't allow the use of racial slurs when viral marketing

This might be a coordinated troll attempt trying to appear as microsoft shills. Or they're really stupid enough to use racial and homophobic slurs in their stealth marketing attempts here.

I think it's the later. They're desperate and will do anything.

>> No.33832571

>I could be twelve

But you're actually nine, right?

>> No.33832589

>Once again, there is no ads in the first place to block
Exactly, which is why they don't want youtube on WP
>Even Microsoft said they'll incorporate it into their app if Google allows it. But they don't
Maybe Google wants to make their own app for WP to ensure they don't get bad feedback from a shitty app developed by someone else? Google actually seems to care about making good software
>If I'm hurting them, it's cause they are not letting me help.
Stop being so self important
>And it's fucking cheap to have users as a meatshield for their money-grabbing needs

>> No.33832596


I actually want WP8 to do well. And if I wasn't locked into contract with my iPhone I would have one. The fact that Google are being anti-competitive goes to show that they are scared.

So if this campaign gets going and forces google to comply, then I am happy.

I don't care if this is a microsoft "shill", it's the right thing to do.

>> No.33832608

youtube belongs to google, their product their rules, if u dont like it u can just go fuck yourself

>> No.33832610

>Google actually seems to care about making good software

>> No.33832611

You know what's sad? /g/ was spouting shit about red.dit and it's really this place that's a shithole now.

>> No.33832618

Since when was /g/ such a Google faggot?

>> No.33832619


>> No.33832622


They have every right to tell microsoft to stop breaking their ToS

>> No.33832630

Since paid shills

>> No.33832632

So is this your first day on /g/ or have you, through divine intercession, never seen 'botnet' 'muh android' 'adshillsintensify' etc threads before?

Everybody gets their equal share of bitch here

>> No.33832638

>durrr fuck da ruelz

>> No.33832646
File: 30 KB, 567x572, googlelol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>That's what should be required for a legally enforceable contract. And many sites do essentially do this by asking you to create an account and explicitly tick an "I agree" box or click an "I agree" button after being shown terms.
>If they don't show it in this manner and have you agree and instead hide it at the bottom of a page where it's designed to not draw your attention, it should have no legal power whatsoever.

But Google does do this.

>> No.33832647

Don't use any trademarks, and there's not shit they can do.

>> No.33832649

The average internet user is a google faggot. A person who doesn't suck google's dick and use their services daily is in the minority. They already have control.

>> No.33832651

deal with it faggot, if you dont like google don't use their products, simple.

>> No.33832660

But that's wrong.

>> No.33832664

I remember all the government EULAs I had to sign when I started using us mail, drinking fountains, public highways, and having police protection

oh wait

>> No.33832665

They do for some of their services under some circumstances.

You are not shown this the first time you access youtube. You don't have to have an account to use it.

>> No.33832673

No, it's not.

>> No.33832685

Well then you get what you deserved.

Yes they are anti-competitive just like any other major tech company. Stop whining and take your shit to Reddit.

>> No.33832698

The law is different.

A contract with a company however has no legal power unless you agree with it. And of course it's never binding if its terms are illegal. Swindling your agreement implicitly when they never make an effort to show and have you agree to the contract's terms should not be legally binding.

>> No.33832718

If you violate the contract you made with them by accessing their services (which are NOT public services, contrary to popular belief) then they do have the right to pursue further action, which you agreed to.

>> No.33832720

Isn't that the fault of companies like VEVO though?

>> No.33832734

They don't show it the first time you access YouTube, no. And I agree that it could and should be much more obvious, yes. But it's still a legally binding contract.

>> No.33832762

If it is, it shouldn't be.

>> No.33832763

If this contract is not made clear, it's not legally binding.

>> No.33832792

Gmail, google search, google drive/docs, android, chrome

Besides their very very questionable data mining they make some of the best software out there

>> No.33832797
File: 1.14 MB, 250x250, 1367552978222.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>legally binding

oh fuck, muh sides

>> No.33832805

No, but it still is.

You aren't forced to accept whatever they request of you, but know that they will take it to court and you will have to prove to the court that you are in the right and they are not.

>> No.33832817

How stupid are you?
>A legitimate terms-of-service agreement is legally binding, and may be subject to change.

>> No.33832818
File: 169 KB, 412x338, 1362728725784.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Why isn't anyone doing anything to stop Google from doing this?

do what? managing a product they own? lol these delusional cunts think they're entitled to something they dont own or pay for

>> No.33832829

>go against Goygle
>Complain about it on /g/oogle

dude, you're at goygle's central fan club. You'll get no anti-goygle sentiments here. Get the hell out. This herd rejects you and your non-ad ideas.

>> No.33832842

>Often the document being signed is not the full contract; the purchaser is told that the rest of the terms are in another location. This reduces the likelihood of the terms being read and in some situations, such as software license agreements, can only be read after they have been notionally accepted by purchasing the good and opening the box. These contracts are typically not enforced, since common law dictates that all terms of a contract must be disclosed before the contract is executed.

>> No.33832860

ToS is as legally binding as an arbitration agreement; as in, not at all.

worse they can do is ban you from using the service if you violate it.

>> No.33832864

If you don't think Google can win this argument against you in court, or you think this is not morally right, then by all means, take it up.

But you _will_ lose.

>> No.33832881

>Supporting a shit, dead platform like WINBLOWS PHONE

You deserve it, faggot OP

>> No.33832900

I'm not doing it for the platform, I'm doing it for the users. I thought /g/ would get this since all you guys shout is free and open source for the good of technology.

I'm just doing this for the good of users.

>> No.33832919

/g/ suits its own opinion. Not any pre-determined one.

I agree with you though.

>> No.33832925

/g/ is the the land of /g/oogle. We're all for free and open source, but just don't fuck with our overlord.

>> No.33832953

which part of google owns youtube you dont understand? they dont want your shitty app about their product out there.

>> No.33832960

But Google isn't about free and open source. They are about advertisement. Google Hangouts is closed source as fuck.

>> No.33832961

Yeah right. This sounds like a fake astroturfing campaign by microsoft trying to get us up in arms about something completely insignificant.

It's their service hosted on their servers they decide what the terms of use are. Even the most hardcore stallmanite would agree on this fact.

>> No.33832987

exactly. What good will their data mining do, if they can't apply it into their ads?

seriously OP, you don't get google.

>> No.33833020

yes, but it's fine when /g/oogle does it. How else can I kiss the ground they walk on?

>> No.33833033

They clearly explain in that e-mail why they are making you take down your 'app'. If you make an 'app' that don't violates their ToS then they probably won't threaten you again.

>> No.33833049

they only care about the ads, if it wasnt for that they would probably not even care about that shitty app OP made

>> No.33833059

yes... yes...

Shill harder /g/oy. harder still.

>> No.33833062

ITT: Google Shills everywhere!

>> No.33833079

They don't provide the add API, thus people cannot implement their ads.

They intentionally withhold the ad API so they can say it violates their ToS by stripping ads. So they actually don't give a shit. What they really want is their revenue from android phones. They want people to not buy their competitor's phones because they won't be able to access youtube. They build dependency on their services, and then make their services exclusive to their devices.

>> No.33833098

Youtube works fine on iOS.

>> No.33833104

For now.

>> No.33833106

BAHAHAHHAHA do u really think google is concerned about WP8 ? WP8 is nothing

>> No.33833117


Quiet you! The people mustn't know that!

>> No.33833135

Sorry fellow goyim. Back to your tinfoil hat theory crafting.

>> No.33833136

If only others could realise this.

>> No.33833148

Yeah because enforcing a ToS that allows your company to make money is such an anticompetitive action.

And Microsoft wouldn't do the exact same thing if it were in the same position? Why should they bend over backwards to let a competitor use their service?

It's their service. If they wanted it to only work on android or in chrome browsers sure people here would complain about it and try to get around it. But in the end it's their right to do so.

>> No.33833150

thank you fellow /g/oyim. it is good to be amongst my brethren.

>> No.33833152

It sure is nothing if they are sending out C&D letters. And knowing you're a stupid fuck, previous sentence was ironic.

>> No.33833154

who cares, what they should realize is that google doesnt force anyone to use their products

>> No.33833158

A good debate on this over on Red.dit:


A non-google biased debate.

>> No.33833164

Going around in circles. I only wanted to point out their true motives for doing it, since people are repeatedly claiming it's because of the ads (because Google words it because they want people to think that) I said nothing about whether it's in their right to do it or not.

>> No.33833169

Microsoft got burned hard when they did this in the 90s. There was law suits filed against them. Nothing is being done about Google being anti-competitive.

Other than EU investigation. It seems EU is the only one now having their head stuck up big companies' asses.

>> No.33833176

>A non-google biased debated
>going to leddit for real debates.

>> No.33833178

So when did all the /g/oogle accusations start? I was under the impression /g/ had an uneasy relationship with them between liking android and hating the botnet

>> No.33833185

>Implying /g/ has real debates

>> No.33833225

ITT: we pretend that anti-trust laws don't exist.

People seem to be under the impression that doing anything to hinder your competitors is fair game.

>> No.33833259
File: 66 KB, 612x600, Hitler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yes OP, we know, both Google and Microsoft are horrible. That's what you get for using horrible proprietary services. Next time make your app for a phone that isn't based on some bullshit walled garden app store. Oh wait there isn't one of those because you fucks will buy any shitty ass botnet phone that gets marketed to you. Thanks Steve.

>> No.33833270

/g/ is okay with google doing it.

We even have a Google shill for a mod.
Google I/O gets sticked, and Apple's Dev Conferences and Microsoft's Build threads get deleted.

>> No.33833290

You can't blame the dead cunt for the other cunts being cunts.

>> No.33833296

>/g/ is okay with google doing it.
doing what you motherfucker?

>> No.33833313

Being anti-competitive. Being jews, overall.

>> No.33833330

define anti-competitive in this context

>> No.33833338


This is the perfect environment after all. A company wants it's users to have a healthy amount of hatred for their company when they know the user will use their service regardless.

If you don't use their services, what do you use, and how is it better? We would like to offer you the best service over all. We're in the business of making you money, as long as you stay numb to our ever-present awareness.


>> No.33833356

But I do, they're all copycat products intended to compete with the iShit.

>> No.33833357

Purposely not helping develop an advertising API, then sending out cease+desist orders to microsoft & 3rd party developers when they try to bring out the product without their help.

>> No.33833374

This thread is like a summation of everything that has gone wrong with /g/ in the past three years

>> No.33833384
File: 156 KB, 600x857, flow, connection.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.33833395

>Purposely not helping develop an advertising API

it's their API they're not obligated to help anyone, why do you think you're somehow entitled to it?

>> No.33833404

So you're saying that they somehow have a legal obligation to help Microsoft build applications to use their services?

If that were the case Microsoft would have filled a lawsuit a year ago.

>> No.33833415


They're an advertising company, its in their interest to build one. Hell they even made an app for Blackberry that has less marketshare than WP8. This is purposeful.

>> No.33833431

>its in their interest to build one
who the fuck are you to to say its in their interest?

>> No.33833437

Because they previously depended on developers to succeed. But now that they have a monopoly they don't care anymore and will gladly shut them out and tell them all the 10000 things they can't do, and nobody can do anything about it.

>> No.33833451

They're an advertising company that makes money from mining everything personal about you, when is it not in their interests to not mine your data. What kind of retarded google shill are you?

>> No.33833457

monopoly on what? they dont force every smartphone manufacturer to install android by default

>> No.33833467

You're shilling too hard.

>> No.33833472

they dont mine my data cuz i dont use google produtcts you fucktard, try again

>> No.33833478

If the world was run by you, it would be a shit place.

>> No.33833479

Monopoly on search, video sharing and advertisement. And not only that.

>> No.33833494


>> No.33833512

>I don't use it so it doesn't effect other people
I want the underage to leave.

>> No.33833513

go back to school you fucking illiterate

>> No.33833531

>e instead of a validates my whole argument
Right, now don't you have some homework to do?

>> No.33833547
File: 966 KB, 381x216, 1328992228555.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

10/10 TOLD

>> No.33833548

Shilling is his homework.

>> No.33833557
File: 238 KB, 500x495, i love you.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Some questions/thoughts to consider...

Your app -prevents the display- of advertisements; How?
Google -needs to request- that you withdraw the application; Why?
disable 'existing' downloads; How?
Prohibiting the -download- of videos; Define download, isn't the app actually streaming?
-Authorized- Youtube player; Does the API count as part of this?
uses Youtube's protected trademarks; How?

Ask them to provide more information before you comply with the request. They will probably either warn you again or, seeing as how they are a reputable data mining company, send you the actually raw information behind their claims.

>> No.33833560

You can't. Their search monopoly allows them to put youtube videos at the top and bury every other site.

>> No.33833576


>> No.33833580
File: 329 KB, 940x565, Google Street View.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

that's right, because they can just get your personal information regardless.


I now hear google's looking to get into providing internet service. Why drive around to catch random bits of wi-fi info when you can just run tubes straight to the people and get it direct?

>> No.33833591

>Create app that violates a ToS
>Complain when they try to take it down for violating the ToS


>> No.33833603

Unfortunately me using DDG does not change that google is the most popular search engine and will be the number one source for most videos.

>> No.33833605

why should we stick our heads up their asses? I prefer to eat my shit off a silver platter.

>> No.33833614

it started when /g/oy began to let slip its true intentions.

>> No.33833623

>Refuse to support platform
>Don't open up API's for third party developers
>Third party programs can't even display the ads properly due to the API's used by the ads being closed
>Sue third party developers for blocking ads when they can't even show them

Seriously thou, this would be atleast somewhat defendable if Google had an official Youtube app that displayed the ads, but not when there isn't an official app and the third party ones can't even display the ads. It's basically just Google trying to sabotage the WP8/Windows RT platform and I'm saying that as an OSX/MeeGo Harmhattan user (who generally jumps on the bandwagon whenever Microsoft is being bashed and thinks the fines from the EU were justified).

>> No.33833624

>bullshit service has a monopoly and puts whatever ridiculous terms it wants in its ToS
>the entire service is based on user-uploaded content

fuck this gay earth

>> No.33833634
File: 143 KB, 408x543, the chicks knew the name of eminems band a few months ago, according to well thought out analysis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Why does this matter? Why concern yourself with society as a whole when you can enact change by focusing your efforts on a much smaller scale.

>> No.33833650

>Your app -prevents the display- of advertisements; How?
It doesn't. There's no ads to display in the first place.
>Google -needs to request- that you withdraw the application; Why?
They don't want YouTube on Windows Phone because WP is direct competitor to Android, and OS they use to mine data about users. They mine this data to shove targeted ads in your face everywhere on the internet. Even if you wish to avoid Google.
Legal stand they take on this, they are asking me to remove the app for violating ToS.

>Prohibiting the -download- of videos; Define download, isn't the app actually streaming?
It streams, doesn't download.

>-Authorized- Youtube player; Does the API count as part of this?
No idea actually, this is loose terminology they use so they can work around.

>uses Youtube's protected trademarks; How?
Just by having "YouTube" word anywhere within the app violates their ToS. You can't even describe the app as being a youtube client without violating ToS.

>> No.33833661

OP, why not just email back saying:
>I'd love to implement your ads in my app, where do I find the API to do that?

>> No.33833665

What is liveleak, metacafe and daily motion?

You shills really suck you know that? Google acts like a dick and everybody here sympathizes with them because you shill so hard. It's been pointed out over and over again that it's their right to dictate what the terms of service is.

>> No.33833688

They don't want YouTube on Windows Phone because WP is direct competitor to Android, and OS they use to mine data about users.
If you think they have more access to settings on WP than on iOS, you're retarded.

The reason they don't like your app is because it doesn't display ads. That is literally it.

>> No.33833699

>Can download paid content which is otherwise blocked by the content holders
>Can violate licensing agreements which may not even be dictated by Youtube themselves

>Not doing these are "unreasonable demands"

>> No.33833706
File: 30 KB, 390x310, 32.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

they can't live without google, but want things made their way not google's way

>> No.33833716
File: 117 KB, 500x342, 2445516616_f4ec8794a1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>implying you gotta use their products to get your data mines
>doesn't know about how they can grab data out of the air
>doesn't know that /g/oogle has an armada of vehicles doing just that
>doesn't think it will affect him

The only places google's map cars haven't touched are dirty back roads and 3rd world countries. I suppose this might be where /g/ comes in to boast about the benefits of living inna woods.

>> No.33833720

Apple pays Google though. Why do you think Apple's default search option was Google and used Google Maps and Youtube? Apple had paid for the privilidge.

>> No.33833722

Buried, buried and buried.
They don't have a right to dictate what their terms of service are because their service is an illegal monopoly that shouldn't even exist. Those fuckers should burn along with MS and Apple.

>> No.33833744

Goddammit I forgot to greentext. Hurf.

I'm sure, but even after Apple removed the default YouTube app, Google wrote their own. Why? Because ad revenue.

>> No.33833745
File: 84 KB, 232x234, 1312456920217.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.33833775

Your shilling is over the charts, anon.

>> No.33833776

>WP is direct competitor to Android

WP is less than 10 million devices. Android is almost a billion.

If this were true why is there a youtube app for iOS and blackberry?

The fact is they have the right to chose who gets to use their services or not. The idea that they're doing so to keep WP from overtaking android is beyond delusional.

>> No.33833790

I meant to quote the first two lines, sorry. You're agreeing with my argument.

>> No.33833799

>I'm mad I'm breaking their rules.

>> No.33833804
File: 27 KB, 640x360, adolf_hitler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>it's their right to dictate what the terms of service is

this man also felt that it was his right to dictate what the terms of service were for the air that you breathed and the ground that you walked on.

I would think /g/oy and /g/oygle would be together on this.

>> No.33833812

>If this were true why is there a youtube app for iOS and blackberry?

For the new blackberry os there is no official Youtube app, they are stuck with mobile. WP8 > Blackberry this year users wise.

>> No.33833836

TITE GAPZ!!!!!!!!

>> No.33833847


Do you even realise how stupid that comparison is?

>> No.33833857


>> No.33833879

>Defending a company that openly mines all of your data, forces adverts down your throats & attempts with every product to force you in to their ecosystem.

Google shills please leave already.

>> No.33833911

Sorry OP. It must be hard to choke on dicks all day.

>> No.33833928

THIS ENTIRELY OP! Be polite and ask them for the APIs.

>> No.33833944

Who's defending them? Some faggot is crying because Google wont let him profit any more using their services and equipment. This deserves to be mocked and derided.

>> No.33833951

>>You are using their service, and thereby must use it in the way they restrict you to, or you suffer legal penalties.
Unless they actually have a site TOS, Nope.

>> No.33833959

How was he going to profit from it?

>> No.33833960
File: 484 KB, 166x133, spoonfeeding_a_retard.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

they dont force anyone to use their products you idiot, use something else. (pic related it is u)

>> No.33833989

>profiting from a free application with no advertising because Google purposely blocks it.

Shills please.


1/10 best I can do.

>> No.33834009

>they are stuck with mobile.

That's not true they can install android applications.

You shills are beyond terrible, it was funny to see your terrible arguments but this level of discourse is worse than slashdot.

I hope you guys stick around, in no time you'll convert everyone here to use anything not involved with microsoft.

>> No.33834048

i couldn't care less about microsoft, they made their own bed

>> No.33834089
File: 98 KB, 1024x768, bermuda.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Tor, protect yourself, know how you are protected. VPNs and 7 proxies, onions, blooming onions. Delicious and salty, fattening. Winter, winter is coming. We get fed media we might as well live life like a movie; We might as well lessen some of the anger I feel for being controlled by a self-serving corporation like that. You are what you eat, right? (This article of writing confirmed 100 bazillion percent not done by a shill, verbositys not included)

You know that when you get hypnotized, there is that little voice inside that tells you it isn't real. If you listen to that voice, you will know that it isn't real. You only get hypnotized because you want to, some part of you would have done that embarrassing act anyway. It's what you make of it.

Use magic, things happen because you say they happen.

>> No.33834098

It's your own fucking fault for making non-free software.

>> No.33834151

chill out ballmer, you're already rich dude

>> No.33834163

>My application is completely free
Really? What license?

>> No.33834195
File: 22 KB, 400x300, 1310675759912.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.33834298

Sorry let me rephrase then. It's completely gratis.

If code was prettier I'd make it open source.

>> No.33834352


>If code was prettier I'd make it open source.

Post it anyway, someone may fix it up who knows, you could always pay an Indian.

>> No.33834360

>open source
I don't condone the open source movement. It's an intentionally misleading term. Most of the time the users aren't even interested in looking at the source code.

>> No.33834363

Little did we know that when Steve Jobs passed away, that the torch had already been handed down to Google.

it's weird. it's like you've got either apple or google. Both are doing the same things, but their fan base defends their side against the other so aggressively.

>> No.33834373
File: 180 KB, 890x890, 1355192088895.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>makes app that violates ToS

They're pissed because your app apparently doesn't use the mobile YouTube APIs which support ads and block certain videos from certain partners.

Fix your app up to support ads and they won't bother you.

>> No.33834392


>interested in looking at the source code.

They're plenty interested in it when it's their own source code. Creating teams and selling products is how we motivate each other into caring about each other's code.

>> No.33834431


>> No.33834442

Fuck Google.

>> No.33834458


That's why free software is a better, more encompassing term.

>It's an intentionally misleading term. Most of the time the users aren't even interested in looking at the source code.

hurr. Open Source software is software distributed with access to its source code under an OSI-approved license. You only find it misleading because you're attaching some other strange connotations to it.

>> No.33834476

It's a lot harder to explain to non-technical people why they need to have control over their computing than it is to explain why they need to be able to look at the source code.

The people that the open source movement cater to only care about the costs and the return on investment, which is sometimes better with free software and sometimes worse, which leaves a whole lot of users powerless and divided because someone was able to make more money from it.

>> No.33834529


That is it's easier to explain freedom than reading source code to non-programmers.

>> No.33834732
File: 203 KB, 622x505, ipad-nexus-7-faceoff-0.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

so between the ipad mini and the nexus 7 - they perform equally for all routine uses (cause let's face it, you don't need 8 cores and 16gigs of ram to open mail and browse web) but then there's the price point and the extra digits on the specs for the nexus 7.

299 for an ipad min vs 199 for a nexus 7.

is that $100 dollars all it takes to earn /g/'s loyalty or is it the digits on the specs? How much did it cost to buy /g/, and why weren't any of the other companies trying to buy our favor?

>> No.33834817


>The people that the open source movement cater to only care about the costs and the return on investment

Yes, which is why we must communicate very clearly and in a language that investors will understand; If we make the software better to use, people will naturally be drawn to it. Look at Google as an example, their software doesn't have many faults because they try to simplify it's usage as much as possible. If something is simple to use, there's less likely that errors will happen, which means there will be less angry and confused customers.

We have to take a chance on the people using the software, they are intelligent people, but people nethertheless, annoyance effects us all. Even the smartest person is dumb if they can't convey their ideas in a language that the user can understand.

Investors are there to make money, if you share this goal you can both make lots of money.

>> No.33835635

Man OP, I can't believe this shit. They can't sue you (or at least win the trial) as long as you don't use any copyrighted names (e.g. YouTube) in your app's name, right? You should be allowed to program an app that surfs the web in any fucking way you want it to, shouldn't you? Will you take your app down? What's with firefox? You can browse through YouTube there as well and block ads. Is Firefox blocked in the Google Play Store? I'm appalled.

>> No.33836756

An Indian would definitely shit up my code. It's not pretty but it's levels above what Indians do.

>> No.33836910

They can on for copyright infringement. Because the app is described as a "YouTube client app" and using "YouTube" in any way in any sentence makes you violate ToS.

I will most likely hide it from the app store but I will see what I'll do in the future about it. Gonna see how Microsoft vs Google goes on this. If Microsoft doesn't back down I won't either. Microsoft youtube app violates same set of terms as my app does.

And I don't know about Firefox but it appears Google will go on a rampage about ad blockers same way EA/Ubisoft did about piracy. In other words they are only gonna fuck users over in the end.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.