Grooveshark blames Microsoft for no official app on Windows Phone

It's been revealed that Microsoft could be potentially blocking the development of an official Grooveshark client for Windows Phone. According to a conversation between the community developer and a consumer, it's reported that the Grooveshark team had previously looked at getting an app submitted to the store, but were told by Microsoft that such an app would not be approved.

So is this the end-all for Grooveshark fans? Not at all. There was an unofficial Grooveshark app in the works for Windows Phone Store, but there's also an official solution on the Grooveshark website, utilising HTML5. While not a native app, it's definitely worth checking out if you're an avid fan of the service. That said, Microsoft does offer its own Xbox Music service, which offers unlimited streaming and offline playback for a small monthly fee.

Blame it on Microsoft?

Grooveshark has run into some issues with music companies in the past regarding royalties and perhaps that is playing a role here. Or it could be Grooveshark deflecting blame, erroneously, to Microsoft. If that's the case, perhaps Microsoft's great developer support can reach out and rekindle that conversation with the Grooveshark folks.

However, third party submissions of Grooveshark clients to the Windows Phone Store have been blocked in the past, so there may be some truth to this report. Additionally, the third-party app referenced above by SciLor hasn't had its private beta updated since the beginning of April, and even then it didn't work too well, leaving us little hope for that project.

Are you saddened by not being able to get connected with Grooveshark on Windows Phone, or are you looking at alternatives?

Source: Reddit


Reader comments

Grooveshark blames Microsoft for no official app on Windows Phone


do you think they give a crap about that. There are apps with illegal movie and music lubraries in the store right now. Its simply it'll hurt their own xbox music service.

And the numerous 8Tracks apps. And Pandora. And Spotify. Yeah, no other music apps on Windows Phone other than Xbox Music. None. Not at all.

They do care. They don't have the time to police the small fish but taking out the biggest name and it gives an official stance.

no this is all horseshit.  In the early days of WP7 they threw up an excuse that they couldnt support us because IE9 wasn't HTML5 compliant so Microsoft went out of their way to supply code that would work on mobile ie.  These guys have no interest in WP and I have no interest in their service when there are tons of BETTER alternatives.

How does that mean they have no interest? Microsoft supplied the code and now they have a web app that works. Besides none of us know the whole situation.

the point is Microsoft was more than willing to work with them.  THey just threw up their hands it it took the community to get them and Microsoft together to work out the web problems.

That statement makes absolutely no sense.  The two are not even close to the same thing.  Grooveshark accesses content that is QUESTIONABLY legal.  The music doesn't belong to them, and I've certainly not seen any articulated agreements between Grooveshark and the music companies.  Instagram is a social network used by people of questionable photography skills.  The third-party Instagram apps simply use APIs to access the network by people who have VALID accounts.  Not even close to the same thing.

APIs that are hacked and therefore questionably legal. Microsoft blocking ads that therefore prevents revenue, no matter how miniscule, is also questionably legal.

Microsoft isn't blocking ads.  Google refused to assist them with the necessary APIs to make the ads work on the Windows Phone app.  Any shortcomings of the YouTube app were ENTIRELY at Google's doing (or lack thereof).

I agree with what Microsoft did because google were being douchebags but that doesn't change that what Microsoft did could be considered illegal.
Also currently google is working with Microsoft to make an app.
On the itsdagaram issue, I remember reading on this website specifically that they used APIs in a way that would be considered questionable.

The APIs aren't "hacked".  You make it sound like someone forcefully broke into Instagram's servers and changed their APIs or something.  Instagram doesn't even provide public APIs to post images to so there isn't anything to "hack" or missuse.  Itsdagram (aka Psuedogram) is most likely just automating the posting of pictures using the instagram website interface the same way a human would.  Therefore, they are not using API at all, they are using the human/user interfaces.
You might want to do some reading on the MS vs. Google Youtube app issue.  Microsoft was not "blocking ads."  Google's public APIs don't show adds and they weren't willing to cooperate with MS by providing APIs that would support ads.  Therefore, Google was denying themselves revenue to make Windows Phone less appealing to consumers.  Cutting off their nose to spite their face it you will. 
Google's position is hypocritical for at least a few reasons...

1) Google made the API, but then they complain that an app using their own API doesn't comply with their own terms and conditions. Sounds like Google needs to fix its own APIs to me.
2) Google only complained about the MS YouTube app while ignoring all of the other apps that work the same way and are available in Google's own store.
3) Google states that they won't build a YouTube app (or any other apps) for Windows Phone because the user base is too small for them to make any money through ads. Google also claims that they aren't giving MS access to an existing advanced API that would support ads (and therefore meet the terms and conditions) for the same reason. However, when MS releases it's own WP YouTube app Google complains that they are losing money because the app doesn't show ads. Losing what money? The money that they said was too trivial to bother with in the first place?

Itsdagram aka INSTANCE not psuedogram.
I mentioned that it might have been hacked APIs because in Daniel Rubino's article, when he introduces itsdagram, it is implied that they are hacked. He might have,also mentioned it in a comment, another article, or podcast; i cannot remember. He also compares it to the YouTube clients with hacked APIs.

Itsdagram calls Instagram private API, and it is forbidden by point 10 of Insta ToS.
Anyway it is up to the owner to open an infringement request to Microsoft.
Microsoft by its own certifies all apps that are compliant with DevCenter rules only (and it seems that spoofing is now accepted).
Music is another think I suppose, as it involves author and label copyrights too.

Groove shark is a place where you can upload your music to share with others. You can then stream your songs and the songs of others if they made their songs public.

I see no problem with that. I stream my music all the time when I ride around town with my top down blasting. I hope I don't get sued for playing loud music in my convertible letting other people listen for free.

I think its different, unless you're planning to ride down and blast a specific track for a specific person every time they request it.. Oversimplifying an issue doesn't always solve it.

Oh crap I'm in trouble. I actually ride by this one Asian chic I know jamming Asian Hooker by Steel Panther all the time.

People seem to forget that spotify, pandora, xbox music etc does not play well outside the U.S
I did not even know abouto htlm5.grooveshark till this articlei and i'll be using this now because the radio option is exaclty what i'm looking for.

Spotify is available in a lot of european countries and has been for years. The US is actually one of the last countries to get it.

I'm using the HTML5 version as I write this (only use it for podcasts). Looks good, works perfectly well and runs in the background. Who needs an app?

Well if I'm not mistaken none of the mobile OS support Grooveshark. I think it's because Grooveshark doesn't charge for mobile and that would hurt apps like Spotify. All bs really....

My first thought was to other stories months ago (can't remember the app in question) where the app dev's got rejected a couple times, said "F this" and put it out there that they had an app that Microsoft kept rejecting.  The publicity got both sides to talkign and things worked out.  However, after finding out Grooveshark's legally questionable nature, I'm not entirely surprised that Microsoft would reject it since they, you know, partner with some labels to have a library of music in Xbox music and whatnot

I use Xbox Music in Europe and don't have any problem, in fact its library is pretty amazing. Now I know people who pirate throw all kind of excuses, some albeit valid, but lets be honest, most are just that, excuses for moral redemption. Not judging, people should just be honest, at least in admitting why they pirate - free.

Is it really a loss? We have an embarrassment of music streaming on Windows Phone: Xbox Music,, Nokia Music, Spotify, Pandora, etc.

I get and download or stream all my podcasts to my phone through the xbox\Zune music app.

It is in no way Microsoft's fault. There are several illegal music downloading apps in the store which have passed certification.

Now this doesn't,make sense. It is Microsoft that that certifies apps in the store. So if they certified illegal apps but are saying no to this one then that is very hypocritical.

I was using but I found that music playback would always screw up when the advertisements kicked in. I'd have to keep taking my phone out of my pocket and refresh the page.
To me it sounds like Grooveshark is simply passing blame. I highly doubt Microsoft would reject the app since there are several similar apps already available.
Nokia Music has launched in Canada. I no longer really need a native Grooveshark app on my phone. But it would be nice!

I have stored emails that clearly shows no intention of developing for Windows Phone 7 or the future (now actual) Windows Phone 8. This is a huge lie from Grooveshark peeps.