The limits of Google’s openness

Re:The limits of Google’s openness by beagle3 on Thursday August 15, 2013 @09:43PM (#6221740)

I actually think Google's response is very civil and restrained.

A much more suitable response would be to serve movies, but e.g. prefix every video by a 30 second "informercial" saying "You are using an unlicensed application. Please contact your OS vendor Microsoft, and inquire why they are not complying with the YouTube terms of service. Alternatively, you can use your Web Browser app to view YouTube. Incidentally, check the Android YouTube app when you can. It's awesome".

Or maybe just every 10% of the views randomly. I suspect that would simultaneously get the message out, shame Microsoft, and get them to comply with terms & conditions in record time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The limits of Google’s openness by sounds on Thursday August 15, 2013 @09:56PM (#6221782)

Kudos for your hard work answering so many posts.

Even if Google put the informercial in, this is Microsoft. They would probably write an article on technet about how unfair it was, then pretend everything was A-OK.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The limits of Google’s openness by kbaker on Friday August 16, 2013 @12:46AM (#6222216)

Except, Google might not be able to show that prefix video using the API MS is/was using, but they would be able to do it if MS supported the standard HTML5 iframe API...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The limits of Google’s openness by beagle3 on Friday August 16, 2013 @09:23AM (#6223815)

Even if it's a problem for them to prefix it, surely they can deliver it INSTEAD of the requested video.

[ Parent | on HN ]