Slashdot Mirror


Google Is Pulling YouTube Off the Fire TV and Echo Show as Feud With Amazon Grows (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Three months ago, YouTube pulled its programming from Amazon's Echo Show device -- the first skirmish in what is apparently an ongoing war. Shortly after, Amazon stopped selling the Nest E Thermostat, Nest's Camera IQ, and the Nest Secure alarm system. Two weeks ago, Amazon got YouTube back on the Echo Show by simply directing users to the web version, a workaround that left a lot to be desired. But even that version won't be available after today. In a statement, Google said it has been trying to reach an agreement with Amazon to provide customers with access to each other's products and services. But, Google said, 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."

7 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. And as usual by jordanjay29 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the only people really hurt are the consumers caught in the middle.

    1. Re: And as usual by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A Chromecast is the google equivalent of your fire stick thingy.

      I have a Chromecast, and I have Amazon prime. But I never actually watch anything on Prime Video because their damn app won't cast to the Chromecast.

    2. Re:And as usual by kqs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Intentionally disabling your services on a competitors device is a dickweed move, and probably hurts Google in the long term too. How many affected consumers will be willing to purchase anything from a Google owned company after this short sighted, childish move ?

      So, you are unhappy that Google will not allow Amazon devices to use Youtube, but you have no complaints that for the last several years, Amazon has not allowed Prime Video to be viewed on Chromecasts and has not sold any Chromecasts or Nests? That's rather one-sided of you.

      "Intentionally disabling your services on a competitors device" is EXACTLY what Amazon has been doing for multiple years, but you only have a problem when Google does it?

    3. Re:And as usual by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Get a Roku. It gets YouTube. It gets Amazon Prime. It gets HBO, Starz, Hulu, etc. Anything you have a subscription to already.

      Roku is the perfect example of a content delivery platform that is NOT compromised by also being a content provider. It is also why we need Net Neutrality. If ISPs can also be content providers, this whole Amazon-Google spat will affect everything you ever want to see based on who your ISP is.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  2. Anti-consumer by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anti-consumer, anti-choice cr@p like this is why repurposing an old PC (or just using an Intel NUC) as an HTPC is better than any proprietary junk from Apple, Microsoft, Google, or Amazon. They're all interested in controlling their users instead of providing good, flexible software -- ta hell with all four of 'em.

    1. Re:Anti-consumer by WrongMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because Plex and Kodi are just players. They don't actually host any content. If you're pirating all your content, then Plex or Kodi are reasonable solutions. If you have some legal or moral hesitation over pirating, they aren't very useful.

  3. Problem is vertical integration by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is vertical integration - companies trying to use dominance at one level to leverage dominance in another level where they are weak.

    In the 1980s Microsoft had no presence in the productivity suite market (word processor, spreadsheet, etc). They used their dominance of the PC operating system market to steer the dominant companies (WordPerfect, Lotus) towards creating OS/2 versions in preparation for phasing out DOS, all the while assuring them that OS/2 was the future. Meanwhile they secretly worked their own productivity apps (Word and Excel) to run on what became Windows. Then suddenly they announced they were dissolving their relationship with IBM, pulling support from OS/2, and Windows was the future. WordPerfect and Lotus were caught flat-footed, but Microsoft said not to worry - you can buy our productivity apps which will work with Windows.

    Later they repeated this with Stacker (automatic file compression) and Internet Explorer, packaging those with Windows to drive the competition (Stacker and Netscape) out of business so they could dominate those markets.

    Today we're suffering from it with the data transport companies (Internet and cellular data service providers) (ab)using their position to influence other markets that they don't dominate (having to buy cell phone from branded or authorized stores to be sure it'll work with your carrier, holding up Android updates so they can "customize" it to their satisfaction, cable set-top boxes before the government mandated Cable Cards, Internet fast lanes, etc).

    In all cases, it's just companies trying to leverage their dominant position in one market to a dominant in another. This is more of the same. Amazon using its dominant position as online retailer to influence how you use the products you buy (whether they be FireTV or Chromecast). Google using its dominant position in user-created video content (YouTube) to as leverage to try to get Amazon to behave.

    The whole thing would be a lot simpler if companies were prohibited from certain types of vertical integration. If Microsoft had been split into an OS company and software company, both Windows and Office would've had to compete on their own merits. (In fact they refused to release Office apps for Android/iOS until it was clear that Windows Phone was a failure. Likewise if ISPs weren't allowed to sell or provide media services (and likewise Cable companies weren't allowed to provide Internet service - only sell access to other companies which provided Internet service), then none of this net neutrality/Internet fast lanes BS would be happening. And if Amazon were only allowed to act as an online store, their primary goal would be to support all hardware platforms without bias or prejudice and this problem would never be happening.