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."
the only people really hurt are the consumers caught in the middle.
Remember that this began with Amazon banning the sale of hardware devices that competed with its own products, including Apple TV.
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.
Amazon is not an ISP and Google is not using their ISP unit, Google Fiber, to block Amazon. This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I've heard many times that this war was over.... we'll see.
No end in sight
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Two monopolies?
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means...
There's a caucophany of others.
It's like the early '2000's all over again, when Microsoft was pushing its own "standards" and "services" (that it was wholly in control of).
The only difference is now, it's Google creating the "standard", and instead of paying for licenses, companies have to give up their right to sue for IP violations (on their own patents).
Google is great at making something "open source", and then making any community (or external) involvement pointless. Take AoSP, where it's "open source", but Google uses it to leverage other companies into doing its bidding.
Amazon forked from AoSP, and isn't doing Google's bidding, so Google is breaking Amazon's fork.
What good is Android being "Open Source" when Google leverages control over it like this?
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Though not a net neutrality battle, this is similar and, sadly, allowed by regulations to proceed.
Amazon is the overwhelming leader in the online retail market. They have chosen to become a provider of devices that they sell, thus competing with the retailers who use them to reach a large portion of the market. Google is the closest competitor to some of their devices, so they took advantage of their position and locked them out.
How is this different in nature from what can happen when ISPs that are regional monopolies merge with content providers and there is no net neutrality regulation in place? Do we really think the ISPs' content providers won't be given a leg up on other content providers? How long before the first competitor is blocked by an ISP?
At least when Amazon flexes muscle, we can go to Walmart or some other online retailer. In my area, we only have alleged competition to Spectrum.
Begun, the Tube Wars have.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
All I want is a box to plug into my TV to watch my media. I don't want to have to worry about who I bought the media from.
Currently, I have an Apple TV. I'm fine if my Music stays apple-only, but since Apple Music is available for Android, I feel like that's portable enough. Which leaves me with video.
I do Netflix, Amazon, and Apple. I used to do Youtube on the Apple TV, and still can (last I checked) by running the app on my phone and streaming THAT to my Apple TV.
There is no combination of devices that allows me to play all 3 vendors' material. Roku might be the closest.
I think these giants are all dropping the ball here, and perhaps they oughtn't not be the ones selling the media. Why can't the studios sell media licenses directly, so that if I buy a WB or Miramax movie, I can play it on ANY device with a WB or Miramax player, which they could then develop for Roku, Apple, Amazon, Google, etc. I guess that's the Model HBO is taking actually. I'm just sick of these disputes, where Company X wants to make money from selling someone elses content, and therefor moves to cripple its competitor by NOT letting it play the same content (even though that content is available for it on another App), etc.
It's just getting beyond frustrating, for us consumers.
I'd say follow Apple's lead and make the money off your hardware, but given that Apple won't let Amazon onto the Apple TV unless they get their slice of in-app purchases, that's not the way either.
These movie studios need to realize that consumers would be happy as hell to buy from them without the middle man, and wind up with media purchases that are portable across platforms. That seems like the only real solution.