Actually, there are phone YouTube apps not made by Google, such as Jasmine for iOS, as has been brought up repeatedly. Unlike Microsoft, they complied with the rules, rather than throw a hissy fit.

The rules are arbitrary if Google doesn't abide by them when making publishing its own versions of YouTube apps on the dominant platforms. It's behavior is anti-competitive if it uses its position as gatekeeper to YouTube to stifle Windows Phone by placing requirements on Microsoft that it doesn't place on itself.

The rule exists to ensure the continued compatibility of third-party applications with requirements of the YouTube service. Google can fix its own apps, and it can fix the content of an iframe loaded from its servers, but it can't fix apps it doesn't control.

There are good reasons for this very simple rule that everyone but Microsoft seems able to comply with. By definition, such a rule cannot be "arbitrary".

It's disingenuous to say "everybody but Microsoft" when the group size of third-party apps that act as realistic YouTube viewers is something like 2-4.

If you pride yourself and market yourself on openness any rule that flies in the face of said openness is entirely arbitrary, because there shouldn't be any rules limiting your openness.

It's disingenuous to treat your religious dogma on the word "open" as shared by everyone else. I don't believe for a second you understand how Google is using the term nor what they are applying it to.

The "rules" are for third-party users. Google controls the service and the access to it.

>The Windows Phone YouTube app would be the first significant (1) phone OS to have a YouTube app not made by Google, there are no others to compare Google's behavior on for fairness. This is the first event of its kind.

It's also the only significant phone OS that doesn't ship with Google search as the default.