6 ms·

GTalk is still as is. As for YouTube it is and always have been available on the web for windows phone. Microsoft in clear violation of Google's TOS used undo

by capo 13y ago

GTalk is still as is. As for YouTube it is and always have been available on the web for windows phone. Microsoft in clear violation of Google's TOS used undocumented APIs and stripped ads from YouTube and now they have the audacity to say that they would have complied by the TOS if it suited them better. Please take your anti-Google (probably Microsoft sponsored astroturf) elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=recoiledsnake https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=recoiledsnake https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=recoiledsnake https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=recoiledsnake These submission are a honeypot for your sort.

CloudNine 13y ago
Can we comment on the stories and not the commenters themselves? What is this? A witch hunt?
- capo 13y ago
  You don't think it's relevant? Microsoft is paying millions to run anti-Google attack ads and smear campaigns everywhere, it's not unthinkable that they would hire astroturf to roam sites like HN, so for the sake of the health of this community they ought to be pointed out.
  - CloudNine 13y ago
    No, it is not really that relevant. If Microsoft is paying recoiledsnake a billion dollars to make that post, does it change any of the facts in it? No? Then why whinge about possible or probably astroturfing instead of just addressing the facts in their post? Unless you want HN to do a full background check on every poster here, it's hard to identify Google/Apple/Microsoft fans/haters/employees/shareholders. You have the option to remain silent, vote and move on if you're not interested in a post.
    - capo 13y ago
      I've addressed the "facts".
  - iamshs 13y ago
    Just because you are paranoid, does not give you the right to label anyone as paid for roaming a site and attacking your favourite company. This feels like the "either you are with us or them" mentality". Please, if you do not have the proof, do not go down this path. It is dangerous, and lets anyone label anyone as being a shill and paid commentator.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    Do you have some proof that this person works for Microsoft ? Because if you don't then YOU are the one degrading the quality of HN with baseless allegations.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Working for Microsoft, or working at Microsoft. Whether or not he is being paid and regardless of who their employer may be, it seems pretty clear they are working for Microsoft.
  - pseut 13y ago
    There's up and down voting for that, and probably HN's spam filtering matters too. Making comments expressly meant to derail the conversation isn't necessary or useful.
- NicoJuicy 13y ago
  capo actually has a point :)
donalmacc 13y ago
Eh... https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=capo https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=capo Something about the pot calling the kettle black? You don't work for google by any chance do you?
- capo 13y ago
  Nope. You just joined to ask me that?
  - recoiledsnake 13y ago
    And I don't work for Microsoft, never worked for them or any affiliates nor own their stock or ever owned it and the closest that I know I was ever to any MS employee was when I was interviewing in Seattle at Amazon for a C++/Linux position. Now, can we get on with the discussion instead of trying to derail it by ad hominem attacks?
    - capo 13y ago
      There is no "discussion" going on, you are just repeating fact-free Microsoft press statements. If you're not getting paid you should be.
  - donalmacc 13y ago
    It's two lines of a form to fill in. I think it's unfair for you to give out to that guy about touting MS looking at your comment history. All I can see in that is defending Google, nothing more. Also picking on people for defending other companies
iamshs 13y ago
Except, Microsoft did not strip ads from the videos. They said yesterday that they will be happy to serve ads if Google lets them access. And please, let the legal departments decide if it is a clear violation or not. Do not take a decision on your own. I think you are the one who is astro-turfing here, if i apply the finger pointing criteria to you too. It is better if you reply to the argument leaving your personal preferences neatly tucked in.
- capo 13y ago
  http://readwrite.com/2013/05/09/microsoft-youtube-app-rule-breaker-strips-ads-downloads-video http://readwrite.com/2013/05/09/microsoft-youtube-app-rule-b... They built an unauthorized app and now they are complaining that the app is unauthorized.
  - iamshs 13y ago
    I am happy that the customers are getting access to the most widely used video site. I will let the companies dunk it out as to what is unauthorized or what is not. MS responded to it already, and said they are will be happy to work towards betterment of mutual customers on a day where Larry page loathed negativity among companies. Or something to that effect.
    - pi18n 13y ago
      They're abusing the patent system to extort money from Android device manufacturers and they have to gall to completely ignore requirements in a ToS. I'm looking forward to the day when Microsoft is completely irrelevant. They should just shut down everything except for the research and Xbox departments now.
      - iamshs 13y ago
        Ok love, they will listen to you and shut everything down. What else will make you happy? Motorola actually proving useful to Google?
threeseed 13y ago
How about attacking the argument instead of the person ? Trying to paint this black/white picture of someone just because they disagree with you is frankly pathetic.
- capo 13y ago
  I think I've attacked both.
untog 13y ago
You know, saying that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is "probably Microsoft sponsored astroturf" just makes me picture you with a tin foil hat on your head. Sometimes the truth is a lot simpler than you're thinking it is. You write a lot of posts that are pro-Google. Are you sponsored by Google?!?!?
- andyl 13y ago
  'Are you sponsored by Google?' I think so. I've been accused of being an 'anti-google astroturfer' before. 'Gosh that's odd', I thought. Then I read the posts written by my accuser. Pro-google, down the line - echoing PR talking points. Normal people don't do this. I do think Google hires PR flacks to post here on HN.
  - untog 13y ago
    That just makes you sound as bad as capo. We live in a world where weird fanboys exist for just about anything, including Google and Microsoft.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      Absolutely true, but we also live in a world in which people are paid to do this.
  - jgeorge 13y ago
    "hires"? No. Fanboys work for free. (From all directions, not just pro-google.)
  - dandelany 13y ago
    Seems more likely he is just a regular Google employee who supports what they are doing, albeit a bit aggressively. There are many of them on HN. Not sure why either of you are assuming malice here.

by capo 13y ago

CloudNine 13y ago

Can we comment on the stories and not the commenters themselves? What is this? A witch hunt?

capo 13y ago
You don't think it's relevant? Microsoft is paying millions to run anti-Google attack ads and smear campaigns everywhere, it's not unthinkable that they would hire astroturf to roam sites like HN, so for the sake of the health of this community they ought to be pointed out.
- CloudNine 13y ago
  No, it is not really that relevant. If Microsoft is paying recoiledsnake a billion dollars to make that post, does it change any of the facts in it? No? Then why whinge about possible or probably astroturfing instead of just addressing the facts in their post? Unless you want HN to do a full background check on every poster here, it's hard to identify Google/Apple/Microsoft fans/haters/employees/shareholders. You have the option to remain silent, vote and move on if you're not interested in a post.
  - capo 13y ago
    I've addressed the "facts".
- iamshs 13y ago
  Just because you are paranoid, does not give you the right to label anyone as paid for roaming a site and attacking your favourite company. This feels like the "either you are with us or them" mentality". Please, if you do not have the proof, do not go down this path. It is dangerous, and lets anyone label anyone as being a shill and paid commentator.
- threeseed 13y ago
  Do you have some proof that this person works for Microsoft ? Because if you don't then YOU are the one degrading the quality of HN with baseless allegations.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Working for Microsoft, or working at Microsoft. Whether or not he is being paid and regardless of who their employer may be, it seems pretty clear they are working for Microsoft.
- pseut 13y ago
  There's up and down voting for that, and probably HN's spam filtering matters too. Making comments expressly meant to derail the conversation isn't necessary or useful.
NicoJuicy 13y ago
capo actually has a point :)

donalmacc 13y ago

Eh... https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=capo https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=capo Something about the pot calling the kettle black? You don't work for google by any chance do you?

capo 13y ago
Nope. You just joined to ask me that?
- recoiledsnake 13y ago
  And I don't work for Microsoft, never worked for them or any affiliates nor own their stock or ever owned it and the closest that I know I was ever to any MS employee was when I was interviewing in Seattle at Amazon for a C++/Linux position. Now, can we get on with the discussion instead of trying to derail it by ad hominem attacks?
  - capo 13y ago
    There is no "discussion" going on, you are just repeating fact-free Microsoft press statements. If you're not getting paid you should be.
- donalmacc 13y ago
  It's two lines of a form to fill in. I think it's unfair for you to give out to that guy about touting MS looking at your comment history. All I can see in that is defending Google, nothing more. Also picking on people for defending other companies

iamshs 13y ago

Except, Microsoft did not strip ads from the videos. They said yesterday that they will be happy to serve ads if Google lets them access. And please, let the legal departments decide if it is a clear violation or not. Do not take a decision on your own. I think you are the one who is astro-turfing here, if i apply the finger pointing criteria to you too. It is better if you reply to the argument leaving your personal preferences neatly tucked in.

capo 13y ago
http://readwrite.com/2013/05/09/microsoft-youtube-app-rule-breaker-strips-ads-downloads-video http://readwrite.com/2013/05/09/microsoft-youtube-app-rule-b... They built an unauthorized app and now they are complaining that the app is unauthorized.
- iamshs 13y ago
  I am happy that the customers are getting access to the most widely used video site. I will let the companies dunk it out as to what is unauthorized or what is not. MS responded to it already, and said they are will be happy to work towards betterment of mutual customers on a day where Larry page loathed negativity among companies. Or something to that effect.
  - pi18n 13y ago
    They're abusing the patent system to extort money from Android device manufacturers and they have to gall to completely ignore requirements in a ToS. I'm looking forward to the day when Microsoft is completely irrelevant. They should just shut down everything except for the research and Xbox departments now.
    - iamshs 13y ago
      Ok love, they will listen to you and shut everything down. What else will make you happy? Motorola actually proving useful to Google?

threeseed 13y ago

How about attacking the argument instead of the person ? Trying to paint this black/white picture of someone just because they disagree with you is frankly pathetic.

capo 13y ago
I think I've attacked both.

untog 13y ago

You know, saying that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is "probably Microsoft sponsored astroturf" just makes me picture you with a tin foil hat on your head. Sometimes the truth is a lot simpler than you're thinking it is. You write a lot of posts that are pro-Google. Are you sponsored by Google?!?!?

andyl 13y ago
'Are you sponsored by Google?' I think so. I've been accused of being an 'anti-google astroturfer' before. 'Gosh that's odd', I thought. Then I read the posts written by my accuser. Pro-google, down the line - echoing PR talking points. Normal people don't do this. I do think Google hires PR flacks to post here on HN.
- untog 13y ago
  That just makes you sound as bad as capo. We live in a world where weird fanboys exist for just about anything, including Google and Microsoft.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    Absolutely true, but we also live in a world in which people are paid to do this.
- jgeorge 13y ago
  "hires"? No. Fanboys work for free. (From all directions, not just pro-google.)
- dandelany 13y ago
  Seems more likely he is just a regular Google employee who supports what they are doing, albeit a bit aggressively. There are many of them on HN. Not sure why either of you are assuming malice here.