Says who? Microsoft offered to show ads but Google refuses to give them access to the API since almost 3 years.
Perhaps you haven't read this story because Google fanboys on HN are flagging it heavily to keep HN readers like you in the dark.
Whether it's fair or not for Google to not provide a way to include ads is a different argument entirely. It sounds like it's just not even technically legal for MS to distribute their YouTube app in its current state.
Microsoft developers didn't have to read and accept the TOS to access Youtube videos. Perhaps they're trying the legal precedent of the equivalent of 'clean room reverse engineering".
Is it legal for Mozilla to distribute Adblock on their site which is a program that disables Youtube and Google ads and hurts content creators?
Would Mozilla be forced to remove it from https://addons.mozilla.org if Google sends a C&D to them?
>It sounds like it's just not even technically legal for MS to distribute their YouTube app in its current state.
So what? Google can sue them for billions and win and stop all Windows Phone users from easy access to YouTube videos despite their stated mission of "Organize the world's information and make it accessible to everyone".
Not sure why you're so worried about Microsoft's finances, they have 75 billion in the bank and some pretty good lawyers. No wonder they snuck in a "download video" button too. The WP Youtube app is the best Youtube app on mobile platforms because of that.
> Is it legal for Mozilla to distribute Adblock on their site which is a program that disables Youtube and Google ads and hurts content creators?
Yes. This is because AdBlock is a service that modifies the way your own browser - your property - works. It is not in itself a service that pulls YouTube content from YouTube.
For this same reason, it is available even in the Chrome Web Store itself.
I don't understand how you can say "so what" to pointing out that one of these companies is acting illegally, and expect to be taken seriously.
Also I think you meant to say "Google" in your last sentence instead of "Microsoft"? I can't tell and it doesn't seem to make sense otherwise.
Microsoft's original request is for Google to create a new API which would allow querying of richer metadata about videos. It's not apparent why this new API is required to write a TOS-compliant YouTube client.
https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/getting-started#quo...
To my knowledge the YouTube API doesn't ban users for excessive use of the API, it just throttles them temporarily.
The exact throttling values are not posted publicly, but there are multiple third-party apps using the YouTube APIs successfully, so I expect the limits are high enough for a standard client to work without problems.
---
If Microsoft wrote a TOS-compliant YouTube app and put it in their app store, but it was written in a way that bumped up against the quota limits, I'm sure they and Google could work out some way to grant them more quota.
MS has been requesting API access since three years, so I think there was no amicable resolution and MS was forced to do this.
From their statement:
"We’d be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs," says a Microsoft spokesperson.
1) Requesting Google design, implement, and publish a set of new APIs specifically to support a particular low-population platform owned by a self-vowed enemy of the technology stack Google is built on.
2) Requesting Google increment a few numbers in a database somewhere.