As a consumer, I don't like losing options, but turnabout is fair play.
I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device, although if I had an Amazon Kindle device I could watch them there. (And Kindle devices are an Amazon fork of Android, thus benefiting from Google's work.)
When it comes to physical streaming devices, I can use my Prime membership to buy an Amazon Fire TV, but I can't buy an Apple TV or a Google Chromecast. I could understand if Amazon wants to sell only their own device, but they do sell third-party Roku devices ("ships and sold by Amazon.com"), which means they are selectively targeting certain products.
This is pretty clearly a case of Amazon trying to use its leverage to improve its position in the streaming hardware and streaming content markets.
All of this is exactly what the Web is not supposed to be. Users shouldn't need to buy certain hardware to access different parts of the Internet. It's one of the big problems with the appification of the WWW in general.
I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device, although if I had an Amazon Kindle device I could watch them there. (And Kindle devices are an Amazon fork of Android, thus benefiting from Google's work.)
This is so weird and dumb it's unbelievable. There is an Amazon Video app for iPhone and iPad why are they not supporting Android?
There is one for Roku but they have been dragging their feet with supporting the AppleTV even though they promised one "by the end of the year".
They support AirPlay to AppleTV but not ChromeCast.
> (And Kindle devices are an Amazon fork of Android, thus benefiting from Google's work.)
You can't call something open source and get all the benefits of that, while also allowing statements like this. Forking is fair play in open source, and if you don't like it, don't make your thing open source.
>I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device
FYI, Amazon finally released their app on the US Play Store a couple of months ago. Not that this excuses all their other crappy behavior, and the years it took for them to finally do the right thing.
The issue is not really who blocked which app or who didn't sell what. The issue is that when a retail store delisting a product can cause market damaging competition problems, then that retailer has become a monopoly. Retailer, manufacturer or marketplace? You can't be all three. It is time to break up Amazon.
>I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device, although if I had an Amazon Kindle device I could watch them there.
Every time i open google-owned website in the Edge browser i get popup telling me to download or install Chrome
But I already have Chrome installed and use Chrome 90% of the time. I just find fantastically irritating to be badgered every time i don't use it. Now i see they are upping the ante and disabling accessing services because of corporate rivalry...
Amazon/Apple/Google are all engaging in this kind of passive aggressive low-level battle where they use their own consumers as weapons to fight each other and its a method that unfortunately works
I just hope that there will be some kind of backlash against this practice in the future, but given the level of Amazon-Apple-Google fanboism going around i'm really doubting it..
Amazon started this fight by blocking sales of Apple TV and Chromecasts on Amazon.com. That really should have attracted some anti trust concerns. Other companies deciding to fight back is perfectly legitimate.
>"We've been trying to reach agreement with Amazon to give consumers access to each other's products and services," a Google spokesperson said in a statement. "But Amazon doesn't carry Google products like Chromecast and Google Home, doesn't make Prime Video available for Google Cast users, and last month stopped selling some of Nest's latest products. Given this lack of reciprocity, we are no longer supporting YouTube on Echo Show and FireTV. We hope we can reach an agreement to resolve these issues soon."
How is this even allowed? Is there any law on this type of stuff? Meaning as a consumer who is essentially held hostage?
I have seen cable networks do this with channels, but never this.
All of the big corporate net neutrality supporters are universal hypocrites about blocking anything they don't like when it suits them. If you take a look at the history of: Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter they've all done it at various times.
The comical turn of control that Twitter instituted around their APIs for example. Oh, Twitter likes to control its own service and network? Big surprise right.
If Comcast should be semi-nationalized into a heavily regulated public good, then why shouldn't every major web company be similarly nationalized? From Yelp to Zillow to Dropbox to Airbnb to Uber to Lyft to the giants like Google. These are big companies, what's the moral basis to force a telecom carrier to obey a net neutrality concept, but to not force huge services like Twitter or Snapchat to have to operate their own services on a strictly wide open basis such that they're barred from restricting or throttling any connections to their services? Why shouldn't all Internet services be forced by law to provide fully open API access to all of their non-sensitive data, with zero restrictions and throttling? They shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in any manner on the ability to access their data. It's an entirely arbitrary line being drawn, derived from subjective bias of the supporters.
With these companies it's always do what I say and not what I do.
I wonder if amazon can pull Microsoft into this, Google refused to provide native client to Windows phones, and users had to use crappy web app. If I remeber correctly Google wouldn't even let MS pay for native client development.
Funny thing here, for me, is that the first time I ever rented a movie on Google play was because Amazon would not stream over Chromecast. They're shooting themselves in the foot for nothing.
Same here. I had a movie available to me on Prime but I couldn't broadcast it to Chromecast and I didn't want to watch it on the small phone screen, so I had to buy it on YouTube.
I don't want to be the obnoxious person saying "Stallman told you so", but ... well ... we should all know by now what happens when companies sell you devices that are under their control and not yours.
These devices are not designed to respect your wishes or freedoms. They are not designed to empower you. They are designed to keep you within a strictly limited set of options. You do not really "own" it and it does not owe you its allegiance; it acts in the best interests of its manufacturer, not you.
Google also blocked a proper YouTube app for Windows Phone. They even took out the YouTube App that Microsoft implemented themselves because it used "non-public APIs", IIRC. They never provided an official app.
The Microsoft app cut out advertising and allowed videos to be downloaded in breach of YouTube's music licenses. It wasn't a huge surprise Google blocked it. Still not quite sure what Microsoft were thinking there.
Can we do the same things for ourselves? In other words, is there a website that can scrape my identity off of Google/Amazon/Facebook/Twitter. I dont want them using me as their data/content to make a profit.
Or perhaps going forward the solution is simpler. Make a script that generates a false and impossible identity for every website I visit.
Randomize my name,email, birth date, gender, location, ip address, browser cookies for every socket that a browser opens.
Using incognito mode and not logging in to sites should be enough to remove most of that information you list.
Incognito mode shares information across tabs, and until you restart it. I think there are extensions that will make the identity change per tab (at least for Firefox if not Chrome).
If you don't want cookies shared over time within a tab you can disable the cookies, but this will render much of the web unusable.
IP address is the tricky part. TOR will work for this. I think there are VPN services that let you periodically reset your IP.
So, yeah, we can definitely do this for ourselves. The tools already exist.
I can watch YouTube just fine on my HTPC, because it's a real general-purpose computer that I fully control. I get to decide exactly how I want to consume content.
Buy a locked-down appliance, get a locked-down experience dictated by whatever the corporations want.
Ironically, both of these firms are strong advocates for "net neutrality" while they practice such childish behavior.
My personal view as a user of both companies' hardware and software is that Amazon is taking the lead. I bought a Fire TV a few weeks ago and it comes with a remote and turns any monitor into a useful, standalone entertainment device.
I also have a chromecast, which requires an app to stream (and the streaming tends to freeze or hang and frequently gets confused if you try to stream something from a different app while another stream has hung).
I also bought a $29 Kindle Fire that strongly outperforms my $200+ Nexus 7. When Google started getting into the hardware market I was hoping we'd see affordable, subsidized hardware, but instead we're getting high priced "luxury" phones which happen to be a bit cheaper than those sold by the market leader.
Of the two companies, I think Amazon has a strategy that is poised to take the lead in hardware. I say this after also buying a BLU Amazon ad-supported phone for $59 that has a super large screen and performs somewhere between an iPhone 5 and iPhone 6+ (I bought it a year ago).
One nice thing about the Alphabet reorganization is that we can see how hard this sort of competitive landscape is really hitting Google. We've already seen lots of free tier services getting taken away and many other signs of lower margins, and so the threat to block Youtube feels like an admission of weakness.
Also, FWIW, the minute Google blocks the Fire Youtube app, Amazon can simply make the icon load Youtube in the web browser.
There are so many options for very small and quiet desktops. I don't understand the appeal of any of the various streaming devices from the major corps, AppleTV, Chromecast, FireTV, etc. With a small htpc you have total freedom. You can install your preferred OS, ad blocking, media player and more. You can play your own content or photo albums without uploading to a cloud service. You are not restricted to the main streaming services and can watch anything on the web. I suppose people are just lazy and would rather be frustrated. :)
We're missing some kind of context here… Is the app on FireTV really just a webview, or do they intend to move to a webview by January 2018 ? If it's an app that uses the API, then Google is in their right to control how it's used; and they already did with many companies hacked apps, like Microsoft's Windows Phone app.
If it's just a web browser in full screen mode, now this is something else entirely; unless it has hacks that cater specifically to YouTube, then Google can just block those hacks from functioning whenever they want.
[+] [-] adrianmonk|8 years ago|reply
I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device, although if I had an Amazon Kindle device I could watch them there. (And Kindle devices are an Amazon fork of Android, thus benefiting from Google's work.)
When it comes to physical streaming devices, I can use my Prime membership to buy an Amazon Fire TV, but I can't buy an Apple TV or a Google Chromecast. I could understand if Amazon wants to sell only their own device, but they do sell third-party Roku devices ("ships and sold by Amazon.com"), which means they are selectively targeting certain products.
This is pretty clearly a case of Amazon trying to use its leverage to improve its position in the streaming hardware and streaming content markets.
[+] [-] JoshMnem|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scarface74|8 years ago|reply
This is so weird and dumb it's unbelievable. There is an Amazon Video app for iPhone and iPad why are they not supporting Android?
There is one for Roku but they have been dragging their feet with supporting the AppleTV even though they promised one "by the end of the year".
They support AirPlay to AppleTV but not ChromeCast.
[+] [-] pmlnr|8 years ago|reply
What are you talking about? Either in a browser or via https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avo... - both are working fine, even on systemless rooted android.
[+] [-] jdmichal|8 years ago|reply
You can't call something open source and get all the benefits of that, while also allowing statements like this. Forking is fair play in open source, and if you don't like it, don't make your thing open source.
[+] [-] tacomonstrous|8 years ago|reply
FYI, Amazon finally released their app on the US Play Store a couple of months ago. Not that this excuses all their other crappy behavior, and the years it took for them to finally do the right thing.
[+] [-] jimnotgym|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] torgoguys|8 years ago|reply
You've been able to do this for at least 3 years. Not one-step-you're-done-easy, but officially supported with no magic incantations required: https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/9/6126165/amazon-prime-insta...
[+] [-] lowmagnet|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ikeboy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tacomonstrous|8 years ago|reply
http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-r...
[+] [-] surement|8 years ago|reply
Why not? I regularly watch Prime Video on Android.
[+] [-] electriclove|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] princeyesuraj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kumarvvr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsilence|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eastern|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dagaci|8 years ago|reply
But I already have Chrome installed and use Chrome 90% of the time. I just find fantastically irritating to be badgered every time i don't use it. Now i see they are upping the ante and disabling accessing services because of corporate rivalry...
Amazon/Apple/Google are all engaging in this kind of passive aggressive low-level battle where they use their own consumers as weapons to fight each other and its a method that unfortunately works
I just hope that there will be some kind of backlash against this practice in the future, but given the level of Amazon-Apple-Google fanboism going around i'm really doubting it..
[+] [-] ikeboy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bob_theslob646|8 years ago|reply
How is this even allowed? Is there any law on this type of stuff? Meaning as a consumer who is essentially held hostage?
I have seen cable networks do this with channels, but never this.
[+] [-] bogomipz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|8 years ago|reply
The comical turn of control that Twitter instituted around their APIs for example. Oh, Twitter likes to control its own service and network? Big surprise right.
If Comcast should be semi-nationalized into a heavily regulated public good, then why shouldn't every major web company be similarly nationalized? From Yelp to Zillow to Dropbox to Airbnb to Uber to Lyft to the giants like Google. These are big companies, what's the moral basis to force a telecom carrier to obey a net neutrality concept, but to not force huge services like Twitter or Snapchat to have to operate their own services on a strictly wide open basis such that they're barred from restricting or throttling any connections to their services? Why shouldn't all Internet services be forced by law to provide fully open API access to all of their non-sensitive data, with zero restrictions and throttling? They shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in any manner on the ability to access their data. It's an entirely arbitrary line being drawn, derived from subjective bias of the supporters.
With these companies it's always do what I say and not what I do.
[+] [-] noncoml|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hartator|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geekrax|8 years ago|reply
If Amazon can block Google products from their marketplace, can't Google also block Amazon from showing in the search results?
If blocking Amazon from search results falls under anti-trust laws, why doesn't the first one fall under same laws?
[+] [-] djanogo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kdamica|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waleedka|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alex_young|8 years ago|reply
While Amazon and Google Duke it out, they both want to gain market share, so the only way you can see everything is to go to someone else.
Know anyone who wants a used Chromecast or FireTv? :)
[+] [-] bo1024|8 years ago|reply
These devices are not designed to respect your wishes or freedoms. They are not designed to empower you. They are designed to keep you within a strictly limited set of options. You do not really "own" it and it does not owe you its allegiance; it acts in the best interests of its manufacturer, not you.
[+] [-] kkarakk|8 years ago|reply
firetv is kinda trash though yeah
[+] [-] TorKlingberg|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoppelhase|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mindwipe|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] romanovcode|8 years ago|reply
Now if Google can block their major apps for a behemoth like MS, imagine what they can do to some smaller companies.
[+] [-] brudgers|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamio|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bawana|8 years ago|reply
Or perhaps going forward the solution is simpler. Make a script that generates a false and impossible identity for every website I visit.
Randomize my name,email, birth date, gender, location, ip address, browser cookies for every socket that a browser opens.
[+] [-] nolemurs|8 years ago|reply
Incognito mode shares information across tabs, and until you restart it. I think there are extensions that will make the identity change per tab (at least for Firefox if not Chrome).
If you don't want cookies shared over time within a tab you can disable the cookies, but this will render much of the web unusable.
IP address is the tricky part. TOR will work for this. I think there are VPN services that let you periodically reset your IP.
So, yeah, we can definitely do this for ourselves. The tools already exist.
[+] [-] userbinator|8 years ago|reply
Buy a locked-down appliance, get a locked-down experience dictated by whatever the corporations want.
[+] [-] the_common_man|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kuon|8 years ago|reply
I should be able to use a laser to project a video on the back of I spoon if it's the way I want to watch it.
[+] [-] grandalf|8 years ago|reply
My personal view as a user of both companies' hardware and software is that Amazon is taking the lead. I bought a Fire TV a few weeks ago and it comes with a remote and turns any monitor into a useful, standalone entertainment device.
I also have a chromecast, which requires an app to stream (and the streaming tends to freeze or hang and frequently gets confused if you try to stream something from a different app while another stream has hung).
I also bought a $29 Kindle Fire that strongly outperforms my $200+ Nexus 7. When Google started getting into the hardware market I was hoping we'd see affordable, subsidized hardware, but instead we're getting high priced "luxury" phones which happen to be a bit cheaper than those sold by the market leader.
Of the two companies, I think Amazon has a strategy that is poised to take the lead in hardware. I say this after also buying a BLU Amazon ad-supported phone for $59 that has a super large screen and performs somewhere between an iPhone 5 and iPhone 6+ (I bought it a year ago).
One nice thing about the Alphabet reorganization is that we can see how hard this sort of competitive landscape is really hitting Google. We've already seen lots of free tier services getting taken away and many other signs of lower margins, and so the threat to block Youtube feels like an admission of weakness.
Also, FWIW, the minute Google blocks the Fire Youtube app, Amazon can simply make the icon load Youtube in the web browser.
[+] [-] cryptos|8 years ago|reply
This battle could be so entertaining that you don't need YouTube or Amazon videos at all ;-)
[+] [-] owly|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aissen|8 years ago|reply
If it's just a web browser in full screen mode, now this is something else entirely; unless it has hacks that cater specifically to YouTube, then Google can just block those hacks from functioning whenever they want.
So which is it ?
[+] [-] Mindwipe|8 years ago|reply