Microsoft: We will put ads in Windows Phone YouTube app if we can use Google's APIs

Earlier today, it was revealed that Google has sent a cease and desist letter to Microsoft, demanding that the company remove its revamped YouTube app for Windows Phone devices. In the letter, Google claims that the app violates its YouTube API by stripping out the ads found in the videos.

Neowin asked Microsoft for a comment and received a response from a spokesperson:

YouTube is consistently one of the top apps downloaded by smartphone users on all platforms, but Google has refused to work with us to develop an app on par with the apps for other platforms. Since we updated the YouTube app to ensure our mutual customers a similar YouTube experience, ratings and feedback have been overwhelmingly positive. We’d be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs. In light of Larry Page’s comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers.

Google is currently demanding that Microsoft remove the Windows Phone YouTube app from the Windows Phone Store by Wednesday, May 22nd along with disabling the apps have have already been downloaded by users.

Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft adding Pointer Events support for Blink-based Chrome

Next Story

Microsoft Surface Pro goes on sale in the UK May 23rd

112 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

It's free via registration. So either MS is going around the API, or Google could just remove MS' auth token

Hmmm.. Are you a developer? If not, let me tell you that auth token is have to be removed after some time. When you login, you will be given auth token for entire our application. It is called SSO. Either by Kerberos, or OAuth, or anything. Knowing google, they must've used OAuth since OAuth is open source. It is by design to prevent unauthorized access using your old data, and to make hacking harder. you will have to hack a token within 1 hour, or your effort would be useless. And you can't use a browser to use a token stored within it after 1 hour. If token are not removed, other people can open your webmail easily after you use it. When you logoff, your token is also removed immediately, even though it will still exists in your browser's cookie for some time. If the said browser trying to send your token after your token removed, the authenticator will ask a password to verify that you are still in session. If you enter the correct password, it will send you a new token for another 1 hour.
If you are talking about getting a login from google, well... they are using OAuth.. so, create whatever account you want to if they dare to delete them. And I bet, google won't be that eager to scan millions of login only to find account belong to microsoft. Microsoft employee could just use averagejoe@hotmail.com as alternative email rather than bigfatbossass@microsoft.com to avoid detection, provided that google really blocked their access, which I doubt.

You know full well what I am talking about, second it's not that hard to get the app and pull it apart to see what API key they are using and block it

API 2 used a static developer key, and while API3 uses OAuth, that still gives you static identifiable keys (A Client ID and a "Client Secret")

Again, these are static and registered with Google

Yes, but developer key ID is unique, and it is not distinguishable than any other ID. And one can have as many developer ID as they wish.

Yes, but it is unique to that developer and to their apps, that's what I'm getting at. .net applications are very easy to tear apart, and it wouldn't be that hard to find out which ID is being used through that process. Once you have the key, you can lock the account and deny authorization requests to any of the keys used. One way to get around this would be for MS have their application call home for a DevID (for which MS can keep a repo of all valid keys) each time it starts up (meaning that the key is both semi dynamic, can be from one of multiple dev accounts and not hardcoded into the app)

That would be a bit of a pain to maintain, however, as the list of valid IDs would need to have new IDs added if Google decided to packet sniff to find the keys (assuming that MS doesn't even encrypt the ID lookup, which they would)


OR, we could have a real solution where both MS and Google puts aside their distrust/hate/whatever for each other and actually cooperate for once

Google is probably even more of a threat to Microsoft than Apple has been, directly.

Apple competes with Microsoft in the PC, tablet and mobile business but they are quite closely aligned in the software and web domains.

Google competes across all of Microsoft's areas apart from the desktop (and even then it's piggybacking on Windows with Chrome as a platform).

It's not surprising that Microsoft and Google don't like one another. They have everything to fight over and fairly little that they can align on.

MS aren't violating Google's API policies, they're violating YouTube's Terms of Service. Just because Google won't provide APIs to allow you to make something that meets your conditions doesn't mean you may violate the ToS.

Never used WP though, so does Google make their own official YouTube app? Or you can just view it through the web browser, right?

Maybe Microsoft should start their own video service to compete with YouTube. Then they won't have to worry about these problems anymore. I bet Google would be quick to get an app on the Windows Phone platform.

No, not their own video codec or API for writing software to view the video. I said their own video service for uploading, sharing and viewing videos. I have not defined the technology to use.

BillyJack said,
No, not their own video codec or API for writing software to view the video. I said their own video service for uploading, sharing and viewing videos. I have not defined the technology to use.

They could expand skydrive to cover videos. In fact I expect videos will be the next area the SkyDrive team updates.

So it sounds like they didn't use Googles APIs which means they haven't violated any of Googles policies that cover the use of those APIs. If they want the ads in the app then they'll have to let MS use the APIs. I see this as win win as far as MS goes, Google seems to lose out either way this goes.

If you do it via google's API, THERE IS NO WAY NOT TO SHOW ADS. The only way to remove ads, is to let google's own database verify that you are eligible for adfree streaming, or working your way around it (read: manually split ad stream and movie stream, then filter the ad stream). Google would send multiple streams. Ever use firefox's extension like video downloader, or any youtube downloaders? They are using google's API, and they catches multiple stream offered by youtube. Then you can choose which stream to download.

And I don't care which one you believe.. The one that only talk, or the one that you can open it RIGHT NOW. As for me, I believe what my eyes can see, not what they say. The link I gave you, is the requested API. If you understand programming, then you'll see how to use it. Google even goes as far to provide MS's programmers an "example" on how to do it right. All you need to do, just copy the code, paste it on Microsoft's own visual studio, and compile it.

So it is clear to me, despite what Google and Microsoft said, that hard fact shows that despite google's extra work to help every single developer (not just microsoft) to do it right, on every platform, Microsoft took extra work to intentionally violates youtube's policy. Splitting ad and movie took extra work rather than just display everything if you are using the API.

Edited by Rudy Dajoh, May 17 2013, 10:20pm :

Google are fast becoming the new apple, **** sure and up their own arse, rewriting history at a whim and coming out with bull**** after bull**** claims. I cant believe people cant see their bull****.

I wonder how Microsoft can violate the terms of the YouTube API if they are not using Google's API? Something seems to be not right.

hin123 said,
I wonder how Microsoft can violate the terms of the YouTube API if they are not using Google's API? Something seems to be not right.

I'm pretty sure they don't have access to the new API, and are relying on the old one.

From Microsoft to Neowin:

YouTube is consistently one of the top apps downloaded by smartphone users on all platforms, but Google has refused to work with us to develop an app on par with the apps for other platforms. Since we updated the YouTube app to ensure our mutual customers a similar YouTube experience, ratings and feedback have been overwhelmingly positive. We'd be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs. In light of Larry Page's comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers.

I think it is more like: "do your own homework", or "why do I have to baby sit you? Take it by yourself. It's there". Or Microsoft want to say: "We need a closed API".

I've read somewhere, that Microsoft doesn't need the API, since it is readily available for free.. Microsoft wants youtube's metadata access. And metadata IS PROTECTED BY PRIVACY. So Google won't be able to share their metadata unless they violate their privacy policy. But youtube's metadata is HUGE. They can gather almost EVERYTHING. where did you access your content, GPS location, IP address, uploader, who watch that movie, etc.

I think it is more like: "do your own homework", or "why do I have to baby sit you? Take it by yourself. It's there". Or Microsoft want to say: "We need a closed API".

I've read somewhere, that Microsoft doesn't need the API, since it is readily available for free.. Microsoft wants youtube's metadata access. And metadata IS PROTECTED BY PRIVACY. So Google won't be able to share their metadata unless they violate their privacy policy. But youtube's metadata is HUGE. They can gather almost EVERYTHING. where did you access your content, GPS location, IP address, uploader, who watch that movie, etc.

I like how people on this site totally forget how Microsoft aren't exposing the nessasery API for making a modern browser on their mobile operating systems(RT, WP).
But I guess when Microsoft does it it's okay.

Denying access to the otherwise available API is different from putting more features into the API. It seems that Microsoft doesn't have access to the API because Google doesn't like them. In the case you mentioned, no one (except Microsoft arguably) has access to the Win32 API.

But that's a different matter. From what I understand from the blogs, it's possible to make a browser on RT, just that it will be slow.

Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right.

The API's available are available for all devs to make any app with, no special selection here. The reasons for the sandboxing and API's on RT are for reliability and security and to make sure no app can be a massive battery drain etc.

What google are doing is being selective with who they allow to use their API's for youtube to make an app with, which is totally different.

I'm pretty certain developers do have full access to the Win32 API on x86.

But at least in the Windows RT case it's a decision to restrict Win32 for internal use. Not a decision to play favourites with other companies.

They had to program it all by theirselfs I guess, since they don't have access to the regular YouTube API, they didn't have another choise.

I am wondering how google's employee work. I mean don't they use ms exchange for emails? Do they use chromebook or linux for their accounting staffs? MS should kick their ass by not selling them softwares.

I am so sick of Google lately. Been trying to cut them out. Please, Microsoft, make Bing better outside the US, and I can drop Google search. And then buy and make a badass out of Vimeo, then I can kick Google out of my life entirely.
In the meantime, I will continue using Google with Adblock Plus.

Ba Đạt Trần said,
I am so sick of Google lately. Been trying to cut them out. Please, Microsoft, make Bing better outside the US, and I can drop Google search. And then buy and make a badass out of Vimeo, then I can kick Google out of my life entirely.
In the meantime, I will continue using Google with Adblock Plus.

I would do the same. I would add one more to your list. I need a webkit based browser from MS to kick chrome's ass.

We don't need a webkit browser from Microsoft, we just need one with frequent updates (To speed not just security!). Although it would be nice to see them display the page as it's loading instead of only when it finishes loading, gives the impression of being slower than it is...

I would love to see Microsoft have a competitive video platform to compete with YouTube, but it's just not going to happen against that foothold Even if they got a good system for it & got a lot of users, I could see it being many many years before they got good channel content for shows like Wil Wheatons TableTop so I'd still have to use YouTube...

The level of mental retardation in your comments is astounding. Microsoft is violating Youtube's terms of service by blocking ads and allowing downloading of videos. The Youtube player in the XBox works just fine, and doesn't violate the terms of service. Microsoft is perfectly capable of writing an app that abides by Youtube's TOS, they're just being jerks.

For those of you yelling anti-trust, the DOJ has already investigated and found no reason to pursue charges.

You mean the Youtube app built with direct help from Google? That same type of support that MS is trying to get for their phone version but that Google won't give them?

Microsoft is not "blocking" ads. There are no ads on the WP app because Google will not provide Microsoft the needed APIs to display them. Google authorized the XBox app, but somehow doesn't allow the WP version.
Yes, MS is perfectly capable of writing an app that abides rules, but the problem here is that Google would not provide the needed tools to follow those rules for all these years, until MS is so fed up that went ahead and release the app anyway.

Oh, and there are no adds on iOS YouTube app, either. Also, the WP version that links to YouTube mobile site (created by Google, I believe) doesn't have ads, either.

I guess there must be /something\ they can link into to get the content, but it's just not the official api set which means getting the ads which are tacked onto the content, rather than part of the content, is not possible.

I thought Google always added the ads to the stream being sent though.
Didn't realise it was so easy to bypass them.

I think they do, but that's when you have proper access to their API's. Microsoft had to deal with them being stroppy children about access so they just did it another way.

For any Yu-Gi-Oh! fans, the YouTube app for WP8 was Microsoft's trap card. Google took the bait and now they're in a bit of a pickle. If they refuse to give Microsoft access to the necessary APIs, they'll be seen as the bad guy that doesn't want YouTube to exist in any form, aside from a website, on Windows Phone. And if they give access, then Microsoft gets what they wanted from the beginning.

It's quite clever and it makes me wonder if Microsoft planned this from the start. They published the app knowing Google would do something about it. It's not like Microsoft to play dumb and considering how much of a risk they took with this, they must have felt it was the only way.

Well, the YouTube app existed for a long time now. They just updatet it, but don't have access to the APIs that are used to display the adds (however, it makes it a lot better, without those adds).

Fair warning to Google, MS knows the antitrust laws pretty well from experience.

The whole release of the app was basically to force Google to release an official app. And slap them in the face a bit.

Used to live and breathe Google few years ago but have gotten so disgusted by them lately that I don't even want to use their search engine anymore although it provides better results for certain things than Bing sometimes (even though I've been fairly pleased with Bing for the most part). Can't stand that cocky little f**k Larry Page either...

Screw Microsoft I hope Google hangs them out to dry. I'm glad there is someone in the industry that can give MS a taste of their own medicine.

Sonne said,
Screw Microsoft I hope Google hangs them out to dry. I'm glad there is someone in the industry that can give MS a taste of their own medicine.

And what medicine is that?

Sonne said,
Screw Microsoft I hope Google hangs them out to dry. I'm glad there is someone in the industry that can give MS a taste of their own medicine.

None of this is good for consumers or innovation.

Sonne said,
Screw Microsoft I hope Google hangs them out to dry. I'm glad there is someone in the industry that can give MS a taste of their own medicine.

If you're going to keep that 1997 mentality, go back to Slashdot or some other open sores site with that garbage.

Sonne said,
Screw Microsoft I hope Google hangs them out to dry.

Hang them out to dry? So if Google says no.. know who that hurts? Google's revenue, their image (especially with today's comments) and their users in general. Take that, Microsoft!

I really hop you understand that inaction on Google's part would do more damage to themselves than sticking to their word with Microsoft. It's like shooting yourself in your hand in the hopes that the bullet will pass through and graze your target.

Sure... can you tell google to block youtube or all google services from all Windows OS as well please ... lolz

Sonne said,
Screw Microsoft I hope Google hangs them out to dry. I'm glad there is someone in the industry that can give MS a taste of their own medicine.

MDboyz said,
Sure... can you tell google to block youtube or all google services from all Windows OS as well please ... lolz

I wish they would

Well at least they are smarter than you. Without Windows OS, they maybe not be what they are right now. That is why they are crying in EU about the browser ballot.

Sonne said,

I wish they would

Sonne said,

I wish they would

to be honest i wish they would too... MSFT ecosystem would be a far better place woithout the crap google puts into it

MDboyz said,
Sure... can you tell google to block youtube or all google services from all Windows OS as well please ... lolz

They try their bloody hardest... 'Oh we're blocking google maps and making an inferior version available to windows phone devices because it's not supported properly'...*cough bull**** cough*.

Sadly, while if they get much more dickish then I can change my email & calendar etc to Microsofts services, YouTube is pretty much the be all & end all of video content so I haven't much choice, so I want access to their stuff on Windows Phone. I'd like Microsoft to make those apps though as they're clearly better at it.

They don't need to, they just need to allow MS the same access as others have, besides the MS app is way better than anything google would make.

Google have absolutely no intention of releasing or making it easy to release any of their products on Windows Phone, not unless it gets to 25% market share or so & they can no longer ignore it.

Not allowing access to API's they freely let others access is ridiculous. Requesting a takedown just because of their refusal to play fair is just a joke.

Yep, clearly it's Microsoft that's refusing to work with Google. Google lives in their own world where they think they can rewrite history whenever it suits them...

So no, their issue is that Microsoft is violating terms of use for an API that Google won't allow them access to? Can't say as I'm surprised... I had a feeling this was Google's fault...

Very clever Microsoft. Its on google now to provide the relevant API if they want the app to have ads. The way Microsoft is speaking, they know google can get nailed for anticompetitive behavior with this, that's why they are so confident, and not backing down and removing the app.

YouTube is consistently one of the top apps downloaded by smartphone users on all platforms, but Google has refused to work with us to develop an app on par with the apps for other platforms.

this! I feel an antitrust lawsuit coming on, Google think they can get away with having an online monopoly. I have to give props to Microsoft, none should enter a courtroom with those guys they really know how to play ball.

Yea, this is far from over. Sure Google will come back with something. I still think all the CEOs should be locked in a room and not allowed to come out until issues are solved. No one is playing nice.

I see this going in front of a judge.

Edited by techbeck, May 16 2013, 12:33am :

techbeck said,
Yea, this is far from over. Sure Google will come back with something. I still think all the CEOs should be locked in a room and not allowed to come out until issues are solved. No one is playing nice.

I see this going in front of a judge.


The way I see it, Microsoft allows Google access to things that they might want to incorporate, but Google is the one that refuses to allow Microsoft access to things... If this weren't the case, Google+ would be incorporated into WP as well. Microsoft doesn't play the juvenile games companies like Google do by any means...

techbeck said,
I see this going in front of a judge.

This is begging for an antitrust investigation.

Google has a clear monopoly on online video. They are trying to leverage it to maintain dominance in an unrelated market (mobile).

M_Lyons10 said,

Microsoft doesn't play the juvenile games companies like Google do by any means...

Not what I said. MS has done its fair share of stuff as well. Doesnt have to be the same things Google is doing. MS goes after Google with crap marketing an accusing them of stealing user data then joins a group with the sole purpose of going after Google.

They are both acting like kids and its going to get much worse before it gets better. No one is innocent here.

rfirth said,

Google has a clear monopoly on online video. They are trying to leverage it to maintain dominance in an unrelated market (mobile).

Monopolies itself are not illegal. Depends on what the companies do. Google isnt saying that MS cannot produce its own app.

Anyway, I will happily continue using a mixture of both MS and Google every day as I like certain products of each over the other. I dont hate either company but they both have issues that need addressing.

Edited by techbeck, May 16 2013, 1:56am :

techbeck said,

Monopolies itself are not illegal. Depends on what the companies do. Google isnt saying that MS cannot produce its own app.

Anyway, I will happily continue using a mixture of both MS and Google every day as I like certain products of each over the other. I dont hate either company but they both have issues that need addressing.

Google doesn't even technically have a monopoly they are just the biggest player in the game.

However that is enough to put them into an anti-trust case.

Google have and are refusing to let MS use the API's that are given to others such as blackberry and ios, so I would say that have stepped over the line, MS are setting Google up for a huge fall and Google are too stupid and childish to see that.

NastySasquatch said,

Google doesn't even technically have a monopoly they are just the biggest player in the game.

However that is enough to put them into an anti-trust case.

It's important to remember the difference between monopolies and market dominance. Monopoly implies a finite resource that a single party has control over (the old owning-an-oasis thing). User-generated content is submitted to YouTube, so to say Google has monopolized that content is a bit of a stretch--unless the right to post content forbids users from uploading the same content somewhere else.

M_Lyons10 said,

The way I see it, Microsoft allows Google access to things that they might want to incorporate, but Google is the one that refuses to allow Microsoft access to things... If this weren't the case, Google+ would be incorporated into WP as well. Microsoft doesn't play the juvenile games companies like Google do by any means...


Yeah, I see Microsft giving Android everything like Office, Xbox live Integration, IE, Zune Music Player,etc... and to quote Microsoft "consistently one of the top apps downloaded by smartphone users on all platforms, Since we updated the YouTube app to ensure our mutual customers a similar YouTube experience" .
And to fix it "Office, Xbox Live Integration, IE, Zune Music Player, etc.. are consistently the top apps for Windows phone users so to ensure our mutual customers a similar experience we are going to give Google Access to all of the API so they can create the apps themselves and to be extra nice we even will let them use the Zune Pass"

And while we are at it let Halo and all the Xbox exclusives go to PS3 it's for the good of the customer after all why should a customer suffer just because they are on a competing platform. Yeah right like if that is going to happen.

Joshie said,
It's important to remember the difference between monopolies and market dominance. Monopoly implies a finite resource that a single party has control over (the old owning-an-oasis thing). User-generated content is submitted to YouTube, so to say Google has monopolized that content is a bit of a stretch--unless the right to post content forbids users from uploading the same content somewhere else.

So maybe I have the wrong end of the stick completely, I have no reason to claim much knowledge of these things. Is the browser ballot & fines to microsoft for internet explorer being included in windows not because it was considered a monopoly? As there was never anything stopping users installing another browser...

Yes... but their advertising campaigns did not hurt MS customers using google platforms... But this does hurt youtube customers on the WP platform...

Superboy said,


Yeah, I see Microsft giving Android everything like Office, Xbox live Integration, IE, Zune Music Player,etc... and to quote Microsoft "consistently one of the top apps downloaded by smartphone users on all platforms, Since we updated the YouTube app to ensure our mutual customers a similar YouTube experience" .
And to fix it "Office, Xbox Live Integration, IE, Zune Music Player, etc.. are consistently the top apps for Windows phone users so to ensure our mutual customers a similar experience we are going to give Google Access to all of the API so they can create the apps themselves and to be extra nice we even will let them use the Zune Pass"

And while we are at it let Halo and all the Xbox exclusives go to PS3 it's for the good of the customer after all why should a customer suffer just because they are on a competing platform. Yeah right like if that is going to happen.

Does Microsoft prevent Google from using APIs that they grant to say Samsung, Apple, Blackberry?

If the answer to that is No then whether Microsoft chooses to port its own apps to other platforms is completely and utterly irrelevant - Google can go and right their own if they have the said APIs.

Google are just behaving as they always have done - brats.

ChristopherSmith said,

So maybe I have the wrong end of the stick completely, I have no reason to claim much knowledge of these things. Is the browser ballot & fines to microsoft for internet explorer being included in windows not because it was considered a monopoly? As there was never anything stopping users installing another browser...

The issue in Europe was with tying (the wiki on the Sherman Act, though from an American perspective, is a nice, short rundown of what tying is--and a good thing to read in general) Internet Explorer to Windows. Typically, tying is an anti-competitive practice in that a company with dominance in one market leverages that dominance to push an unrelated product to dominance in another market.

Many...MANY people have argued that, because browsers have all been freeware for over a decade, it's unfair to call browsers a 'market' (they monetize through *search* deals). However, because the EU persists in its refusal to read random internet comment threads, these arguments have never gotten an official response.

Though other OSes also bundle default browsers, it's because of the dominance of Windows that browsers even on other platforms can be affected. The web is the web, regardless of OS, and when one browser dominates it, it impacts how sites are built. Ironically, the rise of WebKit could lead to the exact same outcome, but is for some reason immune to this criticism (and in fact, many people seem to welcome total dominance by the engine). This has fueled the argument that it's all ultimately just an extension of anti-corporatism, anti-proprietary software, or anti-Microsoft sentiment in general.

But to get back to your question, no. It was abuse of market dominance. There's nothing illegal about the state of being a monopoly, since it happens all the time, naturally, simply by being first to market or just plain the better product, and punishing success for being successful is the sort of silly crap you'd hear from an extreme anarchist sect of the FOSS community.

Google is the biggest ******* in Tech, and they just keep getting worse. Larry Page's entire speech was full of hypocritical comments, and the guy can't help but be creepy with his island of doom James Bond villain wet dream scenario.

You can already tell Larry Page is a douche because he's funding a research program at the Harvard Medical School for vocal cord paralysis (the reason he sounds a little weird). Thats the kind of thing selfish ****ers do (VCP is very rare so research will hardly benefit anyone but him). Instead he could be putting money in to something worth while like cancer research, or trying to wipe out diseases that kill millions like Bill Gates does. But nope, my voice sounds a little strange so i'll focus on that!

W32.Backdoor.KillAV.E said,
You can already tell Larry Page is a douche because he's funding a research program at the Harvard Medical School for vocal cord paralysis (the reason he sounds a little weird). Thats the kind of thing selfish ****ers do (VCP is very rare so research will hardly benefit anyone but him). Instead he could be putting money in to something worth while like cancer research, or trying to wipe out diseases that kill millions like Bill Gates does. But nope, my voice sounds a little strange so i'll focus on that!

Oh please. There currently is no research going it to vocal cord paralysis. Screw a guy for bringing attention to it and a lot of times research like this can produce breakthroughs in other areas. Also, not being able to speak is not the only problem caused by this. And a lot of times its the person who suffers from the condition that brings attention to it. So I guess there are a hell of a lot of selfish people out there.

Polio cases are rare as well but I guess Gates is wasting its money irradiating it

He could of just as easily spent the money on himself instead. Regardless of if it is selfish or not...its his money and it will help others.

Edited by techbeck, May 16 2013, 1:40am :

techbeck said,

Polio cases are rare as well but I guess Gates is wasting its money irradiating it..

Just because Polio has been eradicated in the west doesn't mean it's rare.. It still affects millions in third world countries.. I hope you won't fart out of your mouth about the third world too..!!

But everyone has the right to use their money how they so choose.. They worked hard for it..

I suppose by the same logic, Christopher Reeve was an ******* for looking into stem cell research and Michael J. Fox is an ******* for trying to find a cure for Parkinson's disease.

IanHead said,
I suppose by the same logic, Christopher Reeve was an ******* for looking into stem cell research and Michael J. Fox is an ******* for trying to find a cure for Parkinson's disease.

Well, yes? They're investing their money into research largely for self-serving purposes, it's not altruism when you stand to gain as much as the group you're helping.

I love the fact the microsoft person came back with "...In light of Larry Page's comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers." Because now theres no excuse for google to now work with microsoft on this issue XD

Sikh said,
I love the fact the microsoft person came back with "...In light of Larry Page's comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers." Because now theres no excuse for google to now work with microsoft on this issue XD

Exactly. It makes Google look like a bunch of idiots (with good reason).

Sikh said,
I love the fact the microsoft person came back with "...In light of Larry Page's comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers." Because now theres no excuse for google to now work with microsoft on this issue XD

Exactly my thought. Now they have 2 choices first to cooperate or They will throw chromebooks at Microsoft which would be funny.

Sikh said,
...we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers."

But I love the app just it is now. I hope the update will be optionally

You can wish lol, but Google is google.

"Google is currently demanding that Microsoft remove the Windows Phone YouTube app from the Windows Phone Store by Wednesday, May 22nd along with disabling the apps have have already been downloaded by users."

"disable the apps already downloaded"...probably means no option . Either remove it or fix it, per Google.