Let’s go point by point to determine where some flawed arguments occur:

This week, after we addressed each of Google’s points, we re-launched the app, only to have Google technically block it.

They obviously didn’t. In fact, they even admit this further down. Keep this in mind while reading: Microsoft claims here that they’ve addressed each of Google’s points. This will come into play later.

When we first built a YouTube app for Windows Phone, we did so with the understanding that Google claimed to grow its business based on open access to its platforms and content, a point it reiterated last year.

Follow those links and you’ll find references to how Google thinks that Open systems win over closed systems. Regardless, the limit of openness should be when it starts to negatively impact the company or content creator’s bottom line. That’s common sense in order for one company to not take advantage of another company so much that they suck them dry.

As antitrust enforcers have launched investigations against Google – some of which are still ongoing

Ahhh, here’s where things get interesting. Microsoft, of course, fails to mention that many of these antitrust investigations have come from them or their puppet groups, and that Google has never been convicted of an antitrust violation, while Microsoft has.

Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. This was an odd request since neither YouTube’s iPhone app nor its Android app are built on HTML5.

Hardly an odd request at all. In fact, YouTube’s iPhone and Android app are both made by Google.Thus, they are not subject to the same terms and conditions that third party apps are. Let’s continue.

At the end of the day, experts from both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps.

They assume incorrectly. Google in no way has to follow the TOS for third party apps. Therefore, they have no need to make a conversion for the iPhone and Android.

For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google long-term on an app based on HTML5…. Google, however, has decided to block our mutual customers from accessing our new app.

So out of a joint commission, Microsoft made a unilateral decision without Google’s consent and went ahead and published an app that violated the TOS Google had laid out….and somehow Google’s at fault for blocking said violating app?

It seems to us that Google’s reasons for blocking our app are manufactured so that we can’t give our users the same experience Android and iPhone users are getting. The roadblocks Google has set up are impossible to overcome, and they know it.

Woa woa woa, impossible? That’s extremely strongly worded from Microsoft. Previously, they had stated that it was merely difficult and time consuming. Changing their story much?

Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesn’t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators. Our app serves Google’s advertisements using all the metadata available to us. We’ve asked Google to provide whatever information iPhone and Android get so that we can mirror the way ads are served on these platforms more precisely. So far at least, Google has refused to give this information to us.

Correct, Microsoft. By making your own native app, you’re utilizing APIs that aren’t available to Google’s own native apps. Therefore, you’re not going to get metadata that is available to Google’s native apps. That’s not Google’s fault, because you’re not special in being a third party that wants to develop a YouTube app. The days of Microsoft being an 800 pound gorilla in the marketplace are over. They have very little mobile marketshare with Windows Phone, a struggling new desktop operating system with Windows 8, and increasingly irrelevant presence in the tablet space with the failed Surface RT and the outdated Surface.

So, to reiterate, Microsoft deserves no special treatment over any other third party app developer.

Google also says that we are not complying with its “terms and conditions.” What Google really means is that our app is not based on HTML5. The problem with this argument, of course, is that Google is not complying with this condition for Android and iPhone. Again, we’re happy to collaborate with Google on an HTML5 app, but we shouldn’t be required to do something that apparently neither iPhone nor Android has successfully figured out how to do.

Again, Google has no obligation to abide by the third party TOS because Google is not a third party. Try again.

Not to mention Google utilizes HTML5 on some of their iOS apps, and they work just fine. It’s not technically impossible, as Microsoft earlier claimed, but is merely difficult, as Microsoft also earlier claimed.

Finally, HTML5 could help Google retain control over layout and content, as with a native app, the only one who can make updates is Microsoft, while with an HTML5 based app, Google can make backend changes that reflect on the frontend without having to go through Microsoft.

Google raises concerns about our branding too. The funny thing about this point is that we’ve been using the same branding continuously since 2010 for an inferior YouTube app. Now that we have an app that gives users a fuller YouTube experience, Google objects to the branding (even though we’ve taken additional steps to clarify that we are the author of the app). Go figure.

Here’s where the letter reaches new levels of snark. We finally learn that, in fact, HTML5 was not the only reason that the app was blocked. Looks like Microsoft didn’t abide by the rules for branding that Google laid out for them. This is a perfectly reasonable reason to block said third party app: improper branding. Try making and selling a Skype app and see how far that gets you.

Secondly, they attempt to use a red herring argument that would fail under any other circumstance. Arguing that Google didn’t block their inferior app with improper branding does not in any way indicate that they shouldn’t block any new app due to improper branding. That would be like arguing that because a cop let you off with a warning the last time you sped, it’s totally all right to speed again, and you can’t understand why you got a ticket this time.

Finally, Google cites a degraded experience. Since 2010, Google permitted a Windows Phone app that was far below the iPhone and Android app experiences. Reviews of our new app are unanimous that the experience is much improved, and we’re committed to making adjustments to improve it further. If Google were truly concerned about a degraded experience, it would allow our users access to the new YouTube app they love.

That Windows Phone app was merely a link to the mobile version of YouTube in the browser. Obviously, Microsoft would rather not have this pointed out, but, hey, what’s another inconsistency?

They’re concerned about Windows Phone’s inability to properly render HTML5-based apps, unlike Android and iOS. This is most likely due to the fact that IE runs off of a different engine than the Webkit browser of Safari and Chrome. The Verge also confirms that IE on Windows Phone does not properly display HTML5 video content:

Sources at Microsoft tell us that Windows Phone has some browser control limitations within apps, and that they’ll be addressed in a future version of Windows Phone.

That’s, again, Microsoft’s fault, and Google has no reason to give them special treatment. We’ve heard this song and dance from Microsoft numerous times about issues with UX and tons of missing features: just wait for the next version. But how much more waiting is necessary before Microsoft finally pushes out a fully-featured OS?

Finally, they conflate the degraded experience of the new app with the standard experience of the old web-based interface. There are two separate degraded experiences: one that no longer exists on WP (and was provided by Google to any mobile platform through a web browser), and one that will exist going forward (that Google is itself worried about experience-wise). Google has only expressed opinion on the latter, and that’s the important point. Google has made no statement over the previous solution: Microsoft’s own opinion was that the past YouTube “app” was inferior and degraded, most likely because it was not really their app at all.

We think it’s clear that Google just doesn’t want Windows Phone users to have the same experience as Android and Apple users, and that their objections are nothing other than excuses.

Clearly Microsoft does not understand that, in fact, the reasons cited are for extremely good reasons, and that Google is under no obligation to treat Microsoft like anything other than a standard 3rd party app developer.