Google Just Broke Amazon's Workaround For YouTube On Fire TV (cordcuttersnews.com)

Google has cracked down on Fire TV users once again. Today, the technology company blocked Silk and Firefox browsers from displaying the YouTube.com interface usually shown on large screens. Cord Cutters News reports: Now if you try to access YouTube.com/TV on a Fire TV through the Firefox or Silk browser you will be redirected to the desktop version of the site. According to Elias Saba from AFTVnews, "By blocking access to the version of YouTube made for television browsers, Google has deliberately made browsing their website an unusable experience on Amazon Fire TVs, Fire TV Sticks, and Fire TV Edition televisions." This fight over YouTube and Amazon has been going on for some time. The standoff heated up in early December as Google announced plans to pull the YouTube app from the Fire TV on January 1st 2018. Amazon responded by adding a browser to allow access to the web version on the Fire TV. Now Google has countered by blocking the Fire TV's browsers from accessing the made-for-TV edition of YouTube.com. Back on December 15th, The Verge reported that Google and Amazon are in talks to keep YouTube on the Fire TV, but as of today it looks like nothing has come from these talks.

Comments

Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for Net Neutrality?!

Re:Net Neutrality

[Dayze!Confused]

Or their policy to not be evil.

Re:Net Neutrality

[luvirini]

The do no evil policy was ditched a long time ago.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Plus1Entropy]

I don't see what a content provider restricting access to their own content has to do with Net Neutrality.

I host a website. If I don't want you to access content on it, too bad. If I only let you access content on it using Internet Explorer 6, too bad.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Plus1Entropy]

PS: Just to clarify, Google is being a dick. They're just not breaking NN.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Though Google are becoming very annoying. Amazon has always been a asshole company. Especially when they renewed my Prime (without there 3 day warning) Refused to allow me to add family member, and suspended my seller account after making a $900 sale. They refused an Amazon video app for years (making it only on Kindles) And treat their employees like shit

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is doing this because Amazon refuses to sell Google devices. Go on amazon, search for chromecast for example. First thing that comes up is Amazon Firestick... then a bunch of other streaming devices, none of which are chromecast that you searched for.

Re:Net Neutrality

[h33t l4x0r]

I believe Amazon started it though when they refused to sell Google products. Google is probably getting more screwed here than Amazon.

Re:Net Neutrality

[gravewax]

hardly a fair comparison. Any business has a right to choose what they do or do not sell and are certainly under no obligation to sell a competitors product. That is vastly different then saying you can't use us if you bought something from a competitor and we will actively prevent you from viewing our content because of it. Don't get me wrong, both sides are giant cunts in this saga, but Google is an order of magnitude worse in attacking end users experience.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 100% Amazon's fault.
- Amazon's prime video even on android requires installing amazon store app... for a long time it didn't exist at all
- Amazon refuses to make an app for chromecast/google cast for prime video, google can't do it on their own...
- Amazon refuses to sell google devices (some thermostat thing, chromecast, phones, etc..)
- Amazon cuts youtube and does its own voice commands and overlay which violates youtube service agreement (can't modify)

Google retaliates:
- You only get desktop version of youtube on Amazon devices (it's fair.... it's their service, don't amazonify google's youtube, it's not yours, but feel free to use it as is).

So there's a difference between "We will not sell your devices or write software for your devices AT ALL" and "We will only allow you to show our unmodified desktop version of our service". One is not at all, the other is you still get most of it.... Who's being the bigger d...k here?

Re:Net Neutrality

[pots]

No, Google isn't the problem here. Amazon is trying to keep their content off of everyone else's platforms, while retaining everyone else's content.

Google just wants to spy on you, they're generally very happy to do so in an accommodating cross-platform way. Amazon wants to spy on you and be a monopolistic walled garden.

Re:Net Neutrality

[dehachel12]

If I only let you access content on it using Internet Explorer 6, too bad.

That's a thorough kind of evil.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Powercntrl]

Google is doing this because Amazon refuses to sell Google devices.

Funny, I can't buy an Android tablet at the Apple Store. Sprint won't sell me a Verizon phone. Safeway wouldn't sell me a DJI drone. Target doesn't sell industrial arc welders.

And for fucks sake, don't even get me started about the argument I got into with the manager when Home Depot refused to sell me a sandwich.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

I despise amazon but everything you mentioned is Amazon doing what is, while not friendly, completely reasonable business with a competitor, you are under no obligation to do anything for a competitor or their products and they certainly started it. BUT, Google retaliated not through business means but by attacking users. Pulling support for Fire TV google app was as far as they should have gone, the current attack is a step way way too far once you start actively attempting to attack users

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is "hurt" because they're "forced" to watch the desktop version of Youtube.

Get a grip on reality, please.

Re: Net Neutrality

[mSparks43]

firstly a disclaimer:google and amazon suck hairy goats balls, you get everything you deserve if you give either of them content or money.

That said. This whole concept of google going after "end users" seems like tripe to me. I dont see any world where blocking access to the pirated content amazon was selling users is anything anyone can legitimately level any valid criticism towards google, whatever their reasons for prioritising blocking that particular piece of pirate software.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

For a car analogy, how about if a car that would let you drive through McDonalds but not Burger King. Other manufacturers would be BK only, and then the japanese car would only let you drive to Suchi Bars, you'll have to walk if you want Italian for dinner.

Here Google is going out of their way to degrade Amazon customer's user experience. The one silver lining is that Google, Apple and Amazon don't seem to be colliding to make their customers cash out more money, although the revenue models of the 3 is still quite different they do compete on many levels. That's refreshing from the time Apple and Google had an illegal non poaching agreement to screw their employees from getting a fair salary.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was 'Do Know Evil'

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that net neutrality looking these days, huh Google?

Oh that's right, Google says one thing and does another. Keep playing both sides of the field you freaks.
Fuck Google. Even their people are a bunch of unthinking whiny-ass far-left PC idiots. Can't tell a dick from a brick. ...and these people basically own the planet right now. We should be worried.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Plus1Entropy]

This is defeating the whole point of "net neutrality."

No it isn't. You don't have a right to access content if the content owner doesn't want you to. If you don't have an HBO Now account, you can't watch Game of Thrones. That doesn't violate Net Neutrality.

Re: Net Neutrality

[mSparks43]

owning rights to access content through one channel doesnt give you rights to access it through another. just because you pay for HBO satelite doesnt infer any right to use a kodi box to watch hbo shows, and hbo isnt targetting hbo users when it changes the encryption it uses therefore blocking the kodi box.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there a difference in the right to choose which product you sell and who you deliver content to?

I can't see how what google does is worse. Google delivers a web service for everyone and a special end user experience for some customers who where selected for that experience. Amazon found a loophole that allowed them to deliver the second experience despite not being in the selected group and google closed that loophole.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Google delivers a web service for everyone and a special end user experience for some customers who where selected for that experience. Amazon found a loophole that allowed them to deliver the second experience despite not being in the selected group and google closed that loophole.

Copied straight from the corporate memo handed out to employees.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Antique Geekmeister]

> are certainly under no obligation to sell a competitors product.

It can be monopoly abuse to refuse to carry a competitor's separate product or service in your storefronts or block compatibility when you have an overwhelming monopoly used to shut them out of a separate line of business altogether. This was precisely the case with AT&T when it was split up, and was very much the case with Microsoft with Windows and Netscape.

Re: Net Neutrality

[orlanz]

This has nothing to do with net neutrality nor its intent. Stop adding confusion to that topic, there are enough people who don't know what that is.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Megol]

In the same sense a person being robbed isn't hurt unless they get physically attacked.

You obviously aren't living in the modern world.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Maritz]

Who has the monopoly here, pray tell?

Re:Net Neutrality

[Ash-Fox]

Google is doing this because Amazon refuses to sell Google devices.

I went to Amazon, searched for "Google Pixel" and the first result was the Google device I searched for.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

google without a doubt.

Re: Net Neutrality

[Hal_Porter]

Apple are more evil than Microsoft. However they don't have the same monopoly power. Most people using Macs could switch to Windows - everyone except for people who want to run XCode and a few other corner cases where the application they need only runs on macOS. But for the average Mac user everything they need is on Windows. And probably on Linux too.

Google are also more evil than Microsoft and they control a larger chunk of the mobile market. E.g.

https://www.idc.com/promo/smar...

Right now it's 85.0% Android 14.7% iOS.

So Google has a domination of the mobile market similar to Microsoft's domination of the desktop market. And if you look at mobile and desktop you find that Android and Windows are level pegging.

http://gs.statcounter.com/os-m...

Windows still dominates desktops but tablets and phones are gradually taking over from desktops. Since Microsoft have given up on Windows phone the odds are that Google will eventually have a Microsoft like domination of the whole market.

I.e. Google already has the dominance of mobile Microsoft had on desktops. And as mobile takes over from desktops they will end up with the dominance they have of the whole market.

And of course the have the most used search engine, the most used video sharing site and the most used browser. Plus, unlike Microsoft or even Apple, they're willing to use their market dominance to shut down ideas they dislike. Microsoft and Apple only use(d) theirs to cripple their competition, something Google does with alacrity too.

Microsoft was a bit like the Shah or Czar - a dictator sure but so long as you didn't directly oppose them they'd leave you alone. Google is like the Ayatollah or Lenin - even if you didn't directly oppose them they might decide to target your group for purging for, as they see it, the good of the body politic.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm not insisting that Amazon or Google has one on this case. I'm pointing out that "Any business has a right to choose what they do or do not sell" can break down in monopoly cases.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Opportunist]

And as soon as either Google or Amazon have a monopoly position, you could maybe even start to have something resembling an argument!

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why this is fun. It's like being in a bar and seeing the two biggest assholes pounding each other in a fist figt.

Great entertainment and the only hope is that there won't be a winner and they both lose !

Re:Net Neutrality

[Opportunist]

So if the makers of Game of Thrones want me to see their show HBO Now has to give me an account?

Re:Net Neutrality

[AmiMoJo]

Because Amazon doesn't make a phone any more. You can't buy a Google Chromecast on Amazon though, at least in the UK, because it competes directly with Amazon's Fire TV dongle.

Re:Net Neutrality

[drinkypoo]

No, Google isn't the problem here. Amazon is trying to keep their content off of everyone else's platforms, while retaining everyone else's content.

Total fucking bullshit. You can watch Amazon content on all the most popular platforms.

Google just wants to spy on you, they're generally very happy to do so in an accommodating cross-platform way.

So why are they blocking the Youtube app on Prime? Which, by the way, runs Android! This is not only an attack on Amazon, and on users, but also on Android, which they control! The daft bastards are attacking their own reflection!

Amazon wants to spy on you and be a monopolistic walled garden.

Google has a web store where they sell Android devices. In that web store, they only sell Google-branded devices. It is completely discriminatory. It promotes their Android devices over all the other Android devices, because it is the only official web store from the owners of Android. This argument is literally over Amazon not being willing to carry Google-branded Android devices in their store. Google has enshrined their Android products over everyone else's by creating that web store, and now they want Amazon to help them defeat Amazon's own Android-based products by putting them in their store as well. And since they refuse to carry them, which is reasonable because of Google's undue influence over Android (Operating Systems must belong to the users, in effect, not used to bludgeon them) then Google sees fit to punish them by restricting access to content which the internet depends upon.

Google controlling the operating system and the content is exactly like ISPs who are also content providers controlling the internet connection and the content. They control both the content, and the means by which you consume the content, and they are attempting to force you to consume their content first. Every Google-branded Android device is a means of shoving a Youtube app in the user's face whether they go looking for it, or not. But you have long been able to install a Youtube app on your Fire TV device, which is why Amazon is not acting anticompetitively here. Google is. They are leveraging their OS monopoly to force Amazon to do their will, exactly like the Microsoft of old.

That anyone can root for Google here shows how brainwashed people are, due to their overbearing influence on the market. That Slashdotters will do it just makes me sad.

Re:Net Neutrality

[drinkypoo]

And as soon as either Google or Amazon have a monopoly position, you could maybe even start to have something resembling an argument!

Google does have a monopoly position, over Android. And they have a de facto monopoly position over user videos, because the vast majority of them are posted on Youtube. This is true at least for every genre but livestreaming of video games, and probably that one too. Amazon, of course, does not. They have a monopoly in no area. If I google for a product, I usually get one or two links to Amazon, but I don't get ten. And guess what? Amazon usually has a good price, too. A search engine would be failing at its job if it didn't return Amazon links.

Re:Net Neutrality

[drinkypoo]

No it isn't. You don't have a right to access content if the content owner doesn't want you to.

Except for a minority of content on the platform, Google is not the content owner. They are the content carrier, the platform provider. They have a de facto monopoly over user-uploaded web videos of all types but gaming, where there is meaningful competition in the form of Twitch. And they are refusing to permit these user videos to be seen on Amazon Fire TV devices, which run Google's operating system Android (over which they have a literal monopoly) because they are angry that Amazon chooses not to carry their products in their web store. Amazon does not have a monopoly over e-Commerce; in fact, Google has a competing web store, on which they refuse to sell anything but their own Android devices. Meanwhile, Amazon makes available an app that lets you play Amazon Video on any Android device with working DRM which lets you access their content — that which they own, and that which they have licensed.

Youtube's one job from the uploaders' standpoint is to provide user-uploaded videos to those people who would like to watch them. They are deliberately failing at that job in part in order to attempt to force someone to carry a product they don't want to carry.

Re:Net Neutrality

[AvitarX]

You'll notice that Amazon isn't the only seller on Amazon.

Re: Net Neutrality

[Monster_user]

I was right there with you, until you rebuked a complaint about java. That morning cup of Joe is sacred, and must be treated as such.

But seriously, while it may be a first world problem, both the coffee and the method of viewing YouTube, it is something to complain about. Let's not allow ourselves to regress to a third world status by failing to speak up when things are not up to par. Let's just keep it in perspective. A bad cup of coffee is not the end of the world, it is hardly even a bad day. Likewise not being able to use a premium service on a non-premium device is not a bad day, it is a lost customer for both companies.

Re:Net Neutrality

[AvitarX]

I think the bigger issue (or I hope it's the bigger issue as a consumer) is that Amazon refuses to integrate their products (the stated reason for not selling Chromecast is that Amazon video doesn't have the ability to cast).

It's really annoying that I need an apple TV of I want to out video from all of my providers on my TV.

Re:Net Neutrality

[AvitarX]

I'd actually say they started it when they refused to support Chromecast. Step two was refusing to sell them (which is what Google responded to).

Re: Net Neutrality

[Monster_user]

Just like if you are paying for AT&T phone service, you can't hook up a modem, much less third party modem. https://www.google.com/amp/s/a...

Re:Net Neutrality

[AVryhof]

Sometimes I wish Home Depot had grab and go lunch, or a cafe attached to it so I can grab lunch while I'm on a supply run for a job. That drink cooler and candy just isn't enough some times.

Re: Net Neutrality

[Gr8Apes]

Microsoft was a bit like the Shah or Czar - a dictator sure but so long as you didn't directly oppose them they'd leave you alone.

Microsoft was more like Putin, no dissent allowed, no upstart left alone, nothing that wasn't in their control would be allowed to run unfettered. And if you happened to find a niche that was profitable, they'd consume you or starve you. Apple hasn't done any of that. Even Google hasn't gone that far, yet. Despite Android's reach, Google doesn't control 95% of it, the telecoms and manufacturers mostly do. While they're trying to rein it in, I doubt Samsung, for instance, will follow suit.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Holi]

Except Amazon has reversed course on that, you can now get the Pixel and Nest products on Amazon. This happened back in December. So why is Google continuing their attack?

Re: Net Neutrality

[Holi]

When a state has strong anti-discrimination laws then yes if you sell wedding cakes you have to sell them to everybody.

But go ahead and ignore facts all you want.

Re: Net Neutrality

[mSparks43]

No

Re:Net Neutrality

[pots]

Total [google.com] fucking [apple.com] bullshit [roku.com].

The only one of those that applies here is Roku. The other links just go to the iTunes store and Google Play. Amazon Prime was only added to the Apple TV last month, and it's still not available for the Chromecast - the device that actually matters for this story.

Also, your rant about stores is... ridiculous. Google has first-party products and sells them through a first-party store, that's fine. Amazon has first party products and sells them through their store, that's fine too. The thing is, Amazon's store is way more than first-party. Let's pick another product, let's say paper towels - Google also doesn't sell paper towels through their store. Why? Because it's a first-party store and Google doesn't make paper towels. I am not going to criticize Google for neglecting to sell paper towels through their store. I would criticize Amazon for not selling paper towels, because that's exactly the sort of thing that I would expect to be able to buy there.

And while I'm at it, this "Google controlling the operating system" is not really true and it's one of the virtues of Android. In fact, Amazon has their own Android products which Google has no influence over. Google does control the Play Store, which gives it a lot of influence, probably too much. But as you point out, Amazon Prime is available through the Play Store... but only since last August. Why? Because for the last couple years Amazon has been trying to force people to download it through their own storefront, Amazon Underground.

Re:Net Neutrality

[duke_cheetah2003]

I don't see what a content provider restricting access to their own content has to do with Net Neutrality.

OK, so technically they're not stomping on NN, but this definitely violates the spirit of the thing. And it's a pretty dick move to alter a website's appearance to a certain class of users just because you have some kind of beef with those user's devices.

While it does sort of sneak outside of the actual Net Neutrality (since that mainly applies to ISPs, those providing the tubes between point A and B), it's definitely one of those things new Net Neutrality rules need to be addressing.

And this is the tip of the iceberg regarding preferential treatment based on arbitrary conditions. Telling someone they can't use your car wash because you drive a Chevy would definitely create some major outrage. Same thing.

Re:Net Neutrality

[mark-t]

Google is doing this because Amazon refuses to sell Google devices.

Uh.... What's this then, if not a Google device?

Re:Net Neutrality

[aquacrayfish]

A search engine would be failing at its job if it didn't return Amazon links.

Of course, a search engine is not doing its job if it fails to list devices made by a competitor. If an Amazon search failed to return Amazon products it would just be funny. The other is dishonest, hence this technology war which users are forced to witness.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not of the mindset that 2 wrongs make a right, but I would argue that Google simply rolling over and not responding to Amazon in a way that isn't visible would not be the way to go. I don't like that we're getting caught in the crossfire, but I think Amazon's anti-competitive behavior needs to be addressed. I think Google refusing to cater to Amazon devices is the right approach. YMMV.

Re:Net Neutrality

[mark-t]

I believe Amazon started it though when they refused to sell Google products.

No... they refuse to sell *ANY* products that compete with their own... you can't buy a Samsung Chromebook on the Apple store either.... why is this surprising?

And besides.... you can buy Google products from Amazon.... just not devices that compete with things that are made by Amazon.

Re:Net Neutrality

[mi]

I don't see what a content provider restricting access to their own content has to do with Net Neutrality.

Every argument you can make for forcing ISPs to not discriminate traffic, can also be repeated, verbatim, for forcing content-providers to not discriminate accessing devices.

Thus, every such argument is either right or wrong at the same time. Google are supporting "net neutrality" — their not applying the same principles to themselves is hypocrisy.

Re:Net Neutrality

[jittles]

No, Google isn't the problem here. Amazon is trying to keep their content off of everyone else's platforms, while retaining everyone else's content.

OOooooohhh is that why Amazon just released an Amazon Prime Video app for Apple TV? And all this time I thought it was Apple trying to keep them off of their streaming devices. And it also explains why there is an Xbox One Amazon Prime Video App, and an iOS App. I won't argue the Android App, since they want you to install their Android AppStore to download it.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

In this particular case? Absolutely. You see this started in 2015 when Amazon decided that Chromecasts were more popular than FireTV sticks so they removed them. Not only from the Amazon part of the store; they also mandated that third-party sellers on Amazon's platform could not sell Chromecasts either. They've also steadfastly refused to add Google Cast to their Prime Video app. Then, they started removing Nest products from their store and from 3rd-party sellers again. For example the Nest Theromostat E (the cheaper 'E' version) can't be found. Then, Amazon did what Microsoft did with Windows Phone several years back. They implemented their own YouTube app for their FireTV devices and for their Amazon Show devices that violated the terms of service of YouTube. It didn't have the required UI elements or didn't show ads or something - anyway, it was a violation. So Google blocked it. Then they did the web page thing. This is mostly Amazon's fault. So yes, Google is justified.

Re:Net Neutrality

[AvitarX]

For what, like three days?

Re:Net Neutrality

[pots]

The platforms we're talking about are not operating systems, they're streaming devices. i.e.: it's Chromecast vs. Fire Stick, it's not Android that's the issue. They both run Android.

Re:Net Neutrality

[91degrees]

It's not net neutrality but the same principle applies. Providers of internet services shouldn't discriminate based on the browser I use.

Re:Net Neutrality

[pots]

It's hard to say for sure whether Apple or Amazon are responsible for the fact that the Apple TV only just last month got an Amazon Prime video app. They are both walled-garden monopolists, and they both pull this shit. The topic at hand is comparing Amazon to Google, and Google is by comparison a wide open standards-compliant fountain of joy and love and venereal diseases. They want a finger in every pie, instead of a whole pie to themselves.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Xciton]

Amazon doesn't NOT ALLOW their content on any Roku device outside of the USA.

Amazon is a problem.

Re: Net Neutrality

[Khyber]

" and YouTube becomes the content owner."

That's not how copyright law works, you brainless Apple user.

Re: Net Neutrality

[mSparks43]

The car analogy would be better done as Ford cars that could only be filled at ford petrol stations. But the solution is easy - ThePirateBay.se

Re: Net Neutrality

[mSparks43]

oh, its back to thepiratebay.org now

Re:Net Neutrality

[Rob Y.]

Well, if that's the case, Amazon had better split up their retail and hardware businesses. Google search has a huge market share, and Google also makes a web browser - but the last time I looked, you can do a Google search on just about any web browser. Some advanced Google features might only work on experimental code in Chrome, but certainly not their core web browsing functions.

Amazon may not be a monopoly (yet) in any sense, but they certainly are a huge factor in retail - especially in online electronics sales. And they sell just about everything. So why not Chromecast? Sure, they can't be forced to sell all products, but specifically excluding a competitor's popular products is getting pretty murky. CVS doesn't sell Duane Reade's branded products - but when's the last time you saw CVS refuse to carry the brand name product they were cloning - just to get you to buy their store brand...?

Re:Net Neutrality

[GabeGhearing]

Amazon has completely given up on the Fire Phone so the Pixel isn't competing with them... search for "google chromecast"... You get a long list of look-alike products(Wecast, ArtPixel...).

Re:Net Neutrality

[Rob Y.]

Um, aren't Amazon's products based on Android? Some monopoly, that...

Re:Net Neutrality

[SirMasterboy]

It's not BS. Why did Amazon recently pull the Twitch.TV app from Roku then?

Because Amazon owns Twitch.TV and they want you to buy a FireTV instead of a Roku to stream it to your TV, that's why.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Roku/...

Re:Net Neutrality

[thegarbz]

"Google Pixel" and the first result was the Google device I searched for.

And can you use it to cast to the TV? Yeah thought not.

Actually it's far worse than the GP said. If you search for "Chromecast" on Amazon only the second hit is a Firestick. The first hit is a cheap fake Chinese knock-off of a Chromecast.

Re:Net Neutrality

[AlanBDee]

I searched for "Chromecast". Fire TV was first, Chromecast was eighth. The only other brand I recognized in between was the Roku. This is clearly intentionally done.

Re:Net Neutrality

[thegarbz]

- Amazon refuses to make an app for chromecast/google cast for prime video, google can't do it on their own...

Obligatory: And nothing of value was lost.

Re:Net Neutrality

[thegarbz]

Amazon fucked Google royally then broke Youtube terms of service, then manually worked around a block after the resulting dispute and you come up with Google being the evil one? What does that make Amazon? A clone of Hitler that goes around kicking dogs and eating babies?

Re:Net Neutrality

[thegarbz]

Google is not the content owner.

We regret to inform you that this thread is about Net Neutrality. Please find a thread about Copyright and repost.

Re:Net Neutrality

[networkBoy]

I got popcorn (and a Roku) a while ago :)

Re:Net Neutrality

[Outta_the_way_peck!]

And for fucks sake, don't even get me started about the argument I got into with the manager when Home Depot refused to sell me a sandwich.

You were in the wrong department. They sell the hot dogs and such at the exit.

Re:Net Neutrality

[mark-t]

I wasn't defending Amazon, I just don't see what everyone is getting all upset about... two competing companies don't want to support the other. What's surprising about that? Why would anyone want to waste the energy being upset with *either* company?

And for what it's worth, you can most definitely buy at least some products by Google on Amazon.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Ash-Fox]

Nice try, but I specifically quoted "Google is doing this because Amazon refuses to sell Google devices.", not anything else.

Re:Net Neutrality

[MatthiasF]

It's not Google's content, it's the user's content.

Google's Youtube acts as a common carrier for other's content. For them to restrict based on another user's choice of device is unethical.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Ash-Fox]

Nice try, but I specifically quoted "Google is doing this because Amazon refuses to sell Google devices.", not anything else. 2

Re:Net Neutrality

[Ash-Fox]

Nice try, but I specifically quoted "Google is doing this because Amazon refuses to sell Google devices.", not anything else.

Also, AC on another subthread stated:

Amazon make a variety of tablets and the Google Pixel C (a tablet) is still being sold.

Re:Net Neutrality

[naubol]

Funny, I can't buy an Android tablet at the Apple Store. Sprint won't sell me a Verizon phone. Safeway wouldn't sell me a DJI drone. Target doesn't sell industrial arc welders.

And for fucks sake, don't even get me started about the argument I got into with the manager when Home Depot refused to sell me a sandwich.

I wasn't aware that Home Depot, Apple, Spring, or Safeway were all claiming to be the "Everything Store".

Re:Net Neutrality

[slew]

I don't see what a content provider restricting access to their own content has to do with Net Neutrality.

I host a website. If I don't want you to access content on it, too bad. If I only let you access content on it using Internet Explorer 6, too bad.

Actually, this is kind of like back in the old days when the Bell company didn't let you use non-Bell company telephones to receive/make telephone calls on their network (well, technically a company could by a really expensive license to make equipment to attach to the phone network, but it was so expensive a license it killed the secondary market for telphones).

Basically the telephone was the equipment you used to access the telephone network and encode/render the audio. Similarly your browsing equipment is sort of the same thing for the internet. I think we broke up the Bell company back in 1982 because of monopolistic behavior like attempting to restrict the equipment used on the endpoint by using monopoly powers...

It may not have to do with Net Neutrality, but it is potentially anti-trust behavior...

Re:Net Neutrality

[sootman]

I know a pretty blonde girl who once needed to send a fax. Not having a fax machine at home or work she asked her mom where she could go to have it sent. Her mom meant to tell her to go to Office Depot but accidentally said "Home Depot". Not thinking anything of it, she went to Home Depot and asked the guy at the customer service desk if he'd send this fax for her, and he did.

The moral of the story is, tits.

Re:Net Neutrality

[MachineShedFred]

So because Amazon is being a prick and violating terms of use, Google should block... users that aren't Amazon?

That's some incredible thinking you've got there. Very fanboy-ish.

How about if Google has a problem with Amazon products that violate Google terms of use, then maybe Google should take some action directly against Amazon, and leave users that:
  A. have no idea what the hell;
  and B. couldn't give a rats ass anyway

  out of it.

Google is stooping to Amazon levels of asshattery here, and doesn't need you to make excuses for them.

Re:Net Neutrality

[MrDoh!]

True, but it's a bit rough selling YOUR devices using someone else's services to make it worth using. Google lets people use youtube and change UI bits for your device, but you have to agree to their terms. If you don't, you have to use the generic (free) version. Amazon are trying to have their cake and eat it. Using Google's services but cutting out branding/ads/revenue for using that service. They're not forced to use Youtube, they could make amazon video the one and only way to watch something (*cough* kodi *cough*), but they're trying to take something for free and not contribute.
Google's being rough here, yeah, but it's their service.

Re:Net Neutrality

[mattventura]

And Bose is any better?

Re:Net Neutrality

[MachineShedFred]

Actually, this is more like being in a bar and seeing the two biggest assholes punching other random people in the nuts for no reason.

How does Google blocking my nephew from being able to see YouTube videos on a FireTV hurt Amazon in any way?

Re:Net Neutrality

[fuzznutz]

HBO licenses content on the basis that they will charge people to see it. Youtube licenses content on the basis that they will display it to people free of charge. The app does not attempt to circumvent Google's monetization scheme for Youtube (commercials) so there is no legitimate reason to ban it.

I think your logic is pretty close to what Aereo used before they got slapped down. "It's over the air, so it's free", right? Google is being generous. They could shut down Amazon's Firestick completely. disclaimer: I own a Firestick and a Chromecast.

Re:Net Neutrality

[GNious]

They don't have hotdog stands? What 3rd world....wait, where I live now the hardware stores also don't sell hotdogs.
I miss Scandinavia.

Re:Net Neutrality

[losfromla]

I don't know. But maybe your nephew will get off his ass and go outside and play dirt-clod fight with the other kids. Maybe he'll play marbles or find out that girls exist outside the internet (whatever is age appropriate). Something, anything.

Re:Net Neutrality

[richpoore]

You can't buy a chromecast, but you can buy pretty much any other brand or off-brand of competing device. Amazon is targeting Google, and did so first. The first time I remember the targeting is when Amazon refused to allow amazon video on the chromecast (which they still don't without quality-hampering workarounds.)
Google have been playing nice, but Amazon keeps hindering google's customer experience (Amazon video and Chromecast sales). While I don't like it, and it is hurting customers, I can't really blame Google for fighting back.
I Just hope the fight will be over soon.

Re:Net Neutrality

[torkus]

Google is going out of their way not to provide a free service on devices sold by a company that's intentionally being anti-competitive.

I've got my money on Amazon "giving in" later this year after they've used that time to fully establish the Alexa environment and cement their place...to the point where it doesn't matter if they sell chromecast v1.2.3.4 pro UHD 3D 480Hz direct-to-mind-video beaming. No one will want them because they won't work with the closed ecosystem of Alexa.

Then google sues, amazon counter-sues. Billions later in judgements that are overturned in both directions 3-4 times they agree on some nonsense open standard that's so far out of date that no one cares and all the while...the consumer can't get his bedroom light to turn off without clapping twice.

Re:Net Neutrality

[torkus]

Actually a lot of them around me (NYC area) do have a semi-fixed food truck/trailer parked outside.

Pretty sure their main patrons aren't the HD shoppers but the day laborers that hang out at HD looking for work...but that's besides the point.

Re:Net Neutrality

[mysidia]

Amazon is NOT like those other retailers, because Amazon is a "big box" retailer that carries products of all kinds:
not products of a specific kind. Those other retailers are also small retailers and not subject to the possibility of anti-competitive behavior
within their retail segment. Amazon, on the other hand.... is a budding monopoly --- HUGE percentage of the eCommerce market, almost all the retail growth, and there are more Amazon Prime subscribers than subscribers to any cable company; Abusing their eCommerce monopoly to expand their Prime
  / Streaming devices monopoly and suppress a meaningful competitor (Google) could very well be the affect of Amazon's pulling the Chromecasts off their virtual shelves ------ Amazon normally carries almost everything that can be sold on their website; if not directly, then through 3rd party sellers. There's no explanation for Chromecast not being available on Amazon other than Amazon has banned the item as an anti-competitive practice within their burgeoning retail monopoly.

Funny, I can't buy an Android tablet at the Apple Store.

Apple stores are not general retailers -- they only sell Apple products and accessories for Apple products.

Sprint won't sell me a Verizon phone.

Sprint is not a general retailer --- Sprint only sells phones for the convenience of their customers.

Safeway wouldn't sell me a DJI drone. Target doesn't sell industrial arc welders.

Not all retailers carry ALL types of products.

Re:Net Neutrality

[mysidia]

For a car analogy, how about if a car that would let you drive through McDonalds but not Burger King. Other manufacturers would be BK only

How about.... McDonalds(Google)' will refuse to serve you unless you drive in with a McDonalds car.

Meanwhile.... this is in retaliation to Burger King(Amazon) being the major brand of gas stations that handles 60% of highway traffic and adopting a new policy where their gas stations will only sell to you fuel for your BK brand car, and people who drive in looking for non-BK-brand-car-compatible-fuel are out of luck.

Re:Net Neutrality

[torkus]

Home depot sells lots of their branded stuff right alongside other name brands. So does Safeway, target, and almost every general retailer.

Apple is their own manufacturer and retailer - so they specifically sell their own products (and select others that fit their ecosystem).

Sprint sells phone service - and the compatible products (from several mfgs) that work with their service.

You can get food at HD from the truck outside :)

This is Amazon using their dominant power in the marketplace to edge out competition in a new area they want to be in.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

A website refusing to serve specific devices is not the same thing as an ISP treating data differently from different sources.

Re:Net Neutrality

[thegarbz]

Nice try, but I specifically quoted "Google is doing this because Amazon refuses to sell Google devices.", not anything else.

And I'm just giving you shit for splitting hairs in english where the context of the discussion every single person knows they are talking specifically about Chromecast and the FireTV here.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Zxern]

How about costco? They sell a very limited brand selections along with their own products.

Re: Net Neutrality

[FuzzyDaddy2]

Spending emotional energy on people on group chats complaining about their coffee is also pretty emotionally self indulgent. Just sayin.

Re:Net Neutrality

[MachineShedFred]

It's perfectly plausible that they can both be total shitheads.

Why is there this mentality that for one party to be evil, the other absolutely cannot be? It's not a god damn side of a coin.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Plus1Entropy]

It may not have to do with Net Neutrality, but it is potentially anti-trust behavior...

Yes, I absolutely agree.

Honestly I think there is a concerted effort to conflate this issue with NN in order to confuse people about what NN is and further damage the idea in the mind of the public.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Plus1Entropy]

I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I don't know that you're right either.

However, assuming you are correct, it would be an issue between Google and the content owners (by your definition), not Google and Amazon.

So it becomes about Intellectual Property, not NN.

Re: Net Neutrality

[Plus1Entropy]

I think this is the exact reason people who are anti-NN are conflating the two issues. They want the confusion.

The less the public understands NN, the more it just sounds like "burdensome regulation that stifles the free market".

Re:Net Neutrality

[Plus1Entropy]

FYI, I'm not "OK" with Google doing this. I think it smacks of anti-trust/restraint of trade, although IANAL so my opinion is meaningless.

But to conflate it with NN is to confuse the public about what NN is and what it is supposed to do. And IMO some people (not you) who are trying to conflate the 2 issues are doing it with the intent of damaging NN, not because they give a crap about Google's hypocrisy.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Plus1Entropy]

And it's a pretty dick move

I agree, and here's proof.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Plus1Entropy]

Maybe it goes without saying, but I didn't RTFA. The specifics of the issue don't really matter to me, because these are 2 of the largest companies ever, they can sort their own shit out.

The comparison with NN is what I take issue with. It confuses the issue, and the public, and frankly I think that is intentional.

Re:Net Neutrality

[drinkypoo]

I think your logic is pretty close to what Aereo used before they got slapped down. "It's over the air, so it's free", right? Google is being generous. They could shut down Amazon's Firestick completely.

Well, they couldn't. It doesn't contact Google for anything but Youtube. Out of the box, it doesn't have access to the Play Store, and it doesn't use any Google services whatsoever. It only uses Amazon services. And the device will actually still function without those, and you can run Kodi on it. It's a bit of a PITA if you haven't already loaded it, but once it's on there it can be used to load other things since it's got a file manager. I used ES File Explorer to install Kodi, then removed ES. ES is in the Amazon store in spite of its connection to Baidu.

Re:Net Neutrality

[drinkypoo]

Um, aren't Amazon's products based on Android? Some monopoly, that...

Yes, Google lured Amazon into using Android with pretty songs about interoperability, and is now blocking them from interoperating with their website. Amazon is surely considering other OS options at this point, which will set them back considerably (and therefore harm their users.) Thanks, Google!

Re:Net Neutrality

[mi]

But to conflate it with NN is to confuse the public

What "public"? This is slashdot — kindly stop the hand-waving. You can either acknowledge my point, that what Google is doing is (un)acceptable together with ISPs discriminating traffic, or identify any argument, which makes only one policy wrong, but not the other.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Plus1Entropy]

I'm not hand-waving anything. I said I don't agree with what Google is doing, that doesn't mean they are violating NN.

If you can't understand that I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Shirley Marquez]

In the short term it hasn't affected Amazon. But it might decrease future sales of Amazon devices, because they're not able to do one of the things that people would like to use them for.

Re:Net Neutrality

[david_thornley]

When Amazon and Hachette Publishing were having their pissing contest, an author I kinda knew told us that there were no good guys in that fight.

Re: Net Neutrality

[david_thornley]

As an iPhone user, let me point out that Google has few if any contractual obligations to people who upload video. YouTube isn't the content owner unless there's an explicit transfer of copyright, but YouTube can distribute the video as it pleases, not as the content owner pleases.

Re: Net Neutrality

[Brockmire]

We used to have a Harvey's in our Home Depot but they switched to Subway. So you could argue with the manager about making a sandwich.

Re: Net Neutrality

[cornjones]

I often blame our inability to see beyond simple good and evil to our (my) cultural background of being raised around a monotheistic religion. It neatly divides everything. If it isn't a it must be b. I have a fantasy that pantheistic cultures are less blindsided about it but I could be wrong and we are all just blind.

Re:Net Neutrality

[mi]

that doesn't mean they are violating NN.

The distinction you are making between ISPs like Comcast and content-providers like YouTube is artificial and without difference. The principles of net neutrality would apply equally to both.

If it is wrong for Comcast to discriminate traffic, then it is also wrong for YouTube to discriminate devices. And the other way around, if there may be situation, when one is not wrong, the other would not be wrong either.

This is why it is valid to bring up net neutrality in this context — and your attempts to dismiss it on a technicality are just that...

Re: Net Neutrality

[MachineShedFred]

Not really. The FireTV "car" is trying to be able to use anybody else's "gas" and Google's gas stations keep changing out their nozzles to work with everybody but the FireTV "car" because the company that makes the FireTV "car" isn't selling Google's "car".

This would be like if Ford bought Sunoco or Chevron, and then years later decided they arbitrarily weren't going to pump gas into Toyotas any more, because Toyota dealerships aren't selling the F-150. There's still gas stations out there that will pump into your Toyota, but you are the collateral damage in a pissing contest between two corporations who can't play nice.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Plus1Entropy]

I disagree that it's a technicality. I have a server, and on that server is content. I can access the content and you can't. I'm not violating NN.

Am I violating the rules of a common carrier when I don't pick up the phone if you (and only you, I love talking to everyone else) call?

Content providers and ISPs are as distinct your car and the road. For you to drive safely, both have to be properly made. That doesn't mean they should face the same regulations.

Re:Net Neutrality

[squiggleslash]

How about.... McDonalds(Google)' will refuse to serve you unless you drive in with a McDonalds car.

More, McDonalds refuses to serve you if you drive in with a Ford, but is fine with any other car manufacturer. Meanwhile, Ford refuses to allow anyone to build a MacDonalds within one mile of any Ford dealership for some reason.

(Google supports the Roku just fine. And the issue apparently started because Amazon refused to sell Chromecasts. And they refused to sell Chromecasts because... we're still unsure about that one, but they did blame Google at the time.)

Re: Net Neutrality

[mSparks43]

pretty much exactly what ford did until the Japanese overtook them in car sales. Just like exactly what google will keep doing until the Chinese offer better search and email. (which they probably already do)

Re:Net Neutrality

[Rolgar]

It depends on if the search engine returns product searches for any retailers at all. If non, it may be an intentional choice, but at least they are consistent.

To your larger argument, isn't Amazon approaching a monopoly position in online retail? I think I read recently they are at over 50% in a huge market. And are they trying to leverage their position in online sales to reduce their competitor's sales in an unrelated business (retail to streaming hardware)? At this point, I think they should be classified as a monopoly, and forced to sell any product that anybody has as an alternative to something they already sell. If they are selling 1 streaming device, and they allow other sellers to sell the same or similar device, what non-anti-competitive reason can they give for not allowing Google?

access restored

[jarkus4]

apparently access to tv version was already restored: http://www.aftvnews.com/google...

IMO it looks like a public trial of the blocking system to intimidate amazon in their talks.

Re:access restored

[Anonymous Coward]

And/or perhaps a good indicator that maybe we're at/past (and probably well past) peak Google. Been thinking about changing my gmail accounts into dumb forwarders and starting to separate myself from them a bit more. captcha: covalent... gotta split that bond

Re:access restored

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Just do it.

I got my own domain name, and signed up with a local hosting/email provider. 5GB space, unlimited traffic, unlimited inboxes, CalDAV/CardDAV sync, calendar, full CPanel environment, automatic SSL/TLS, less than ~$2,50/month.

All of my email and scheduling is now gone from Google, I've moved the stuff on my Google Drive to Dropbox. and I'm working on moving away from Google Photos.

Google Play Music is probably going to be the last holdout, there simply aren't any good alternatives for an online music locker. In the end, maybe I'll end up keeping it locally on my phone instead. Almost everything is on Spotify, so it's only really ~1,500 songs from various indie artists and such. With Opus at 96kbps, they won't take up that much space.

Re:access restored

[AvitarX]

Did you find subsonic lacking?

I dropped it when I went to Google play music and wanted everything in one place, but I had a subsonic host that was pretty great for a while.

Re:access restored

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I haven't tried Subsonic (I actually wasn't aware of it), and since I will be running a low-power server at home for NAS and VPN (among other things), I will probably run a simple media server of some kind or rely on basic SMB/NFS, and VPN to my home network if I need anything.

Re: access restored

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Have you actually tried 96kbps Opus? I'm guessing you haven't, and you're stuck in a 1999 Napster-downloaded Xing-encoded MP3 mindset. A lot of development has happened on audio codec in the almost 2 decades since then. Opus is currently at the very peak of audio codecs.

And what's wrong with CPanel? What does GMail offer over a complete hosting solution?

Re:access restored

[AvitarX]

Subsonic is open source (I think), and has a nice phone app.

It may be the ideal way for you to host at home too.

Re: access restored

[Khyber]

Opus gets its ass kicked the second you introduce pitch shifting - even MP3s sound better once that's been put into the mix.

Superior codec my ass, boss. If it can't sound good through all of my tests, it's utter shit.

Re: access restored

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Why are you using pitch shifting with lossy input files?

Re: access restored

[Khyber]

Because that's how I test things, in the ways you people don't think of. If it can't hold quality through a simple pitch shift a mere half a step down, the codec is obviously garbage at preserving sound.

Even FLAC fails. Guess what doesn't? RAW and WAV.

Re: access restored

[KozmoStevnNaut]

If your pitch shift is fucking up FLAC, then the software/method you're using is either extremely stupidly designed, or you're using it wrong.

FLAC decodes 100% faithfully to the original input, so any competent software should give the exact same result as a WAV file.

Are you applying simply bit manipulation directly to the data in the files? What kind of nonsense pathological use case is that? Does it have anything at all to do with playing back audio? Or is it simply some nonsense you dreamed up randomly on a drunken bender?

Re: access restored

[Khyber]

"If your pitch shift is fucking up FLAC, then the software/method you're using is either extremely stupidly designed, or you're using it wrong."

It's a dedicated hardware pitch shifter, one many music professionals use. I also back it up by testing with a sound card with hardware pitch-shifting built-in (SBLive.)

It's how I find the flaws in supposedly 'superior' codecs. I've done music mixing and mastering for many years. All you people that think you've got superior tech versus old shit are quite often WRONG. Example: Blockchains. We had those 40 years ago - distributed permissionless databases. They failed then for the same shit you're seeing happen now - insane fucking bloat and overhead which is wholly unsustainable even if Moore's Law held true.

You young fucks make me laugh.

Re: access restored

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Is your "dedicated hardware pitch shifter" meant to work on compressed audio? Is the pitch shift in the SBLive sound card meant to work on compressed audio?

If you're simply applying a pitch shift to the analog audio, something in your playback chain is seriously fucking something up, because FLAC decodes straight to 100% clean PCM audio, exactly the same as if you play back a WAV file directly.

I suggest you look into your flawed setup before you start blaming codecs.

Re: access restored

[Khyber]

"Is your "dedicated hardware pitch shifter" meant to work on compressed audio?"

If the audio is supposedly losslessly compressed, yes. MSU demonstrates no problems and that's a mixed-format lossless algo. Ditto Lagarith.

FLAC? Nope. no fucking way. The second you drop down half a step, anything played on strings sounds like it has extreme string fatigue with all the warbling.

Re: access restored

[KozmoStevnNaut]

What I mean is, are you feeding it compressed audio, because in that case it obviously doesn't decode FLAC properly.

If you encode a WAV file to FLAC and then decode it again, you get the exact same WAV file back, MD5 hash matches perfectly.

So there is absolutely something seriously wrong with your setup and/or your test case.

Re: access restored

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Also, what are you even on about? Lagarith and MSU are video codecs.

Are you just making shit up?

Re: access restored

[KozmoStevnNaut]

What codec is the audio compressed with, then?

Lagarith and MSU are purely video codecs. You can look through the Lagarith source code yourself, it doesn't touch audio at all.

Re:Where did it all begin

[ChunderDownunder]

Amazon uses AOSP for their OS. They don't include the proprietary Android services that provide Google with a revenue stream.

Re:Where did it all begin

[adolf]

More like:

Amazon stopped selling Chromecast and other devices that don't "support" Amazon's streaming service, years ago. Amusingly (and childishly), they also stopped allowing third-party listings of the device. It was as if it didn't even exist.

The trouble with this is that Chromecast doesn't support anything. It's just a tiny little Chromium machine that runs apps, and those apps are generally those that play streaming video.

Because of this particular ecosystem. it is up to the content provider to support Chromecast, not the other way around. This fact makes Amazon's refusal to sell Chromecast a red herring.

After Google killed Youtube access for Fire TV users, Amazon started selling Chromecast again, which is certainly not coincidental. Amazon implemented a workaround for the lack of Youtube access, and Google is apparently now playing (like a cat with a mouse) with killing their workaround, too.

(Meanwhile all I want is for Amazon to let me stream Amazon movies on Chromecast. If Pornhub can have official support, so can Amazon. (Except I can't shop on Amazon with Chromecast, so they don't like it. But I never wanted the ability to buy things with a television anyway.))

TV?

[dehachel12]

TV? checks his calendar It's 2018 right ?

We need some App Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about damn time someone brought this websites to heel and force them to cooperate with each other.

Re:Where did it all begin

[Powercntrl]

Amazon stopped selling Chromecast and other devices that don't "support" Amazon's streaming service, years ago.

Amazon probably got tired of getting them back from customers who expected it to come with a remote control and just friggen' work. The Chromecast is confusing to setup and use for non-geeks, and forget about actually getting customer service from Google.

It may be hard for the /. crowd to grasp, but there's still plenty of people out there who are totally baffled by the concept of products which require you to interact with them via your smartphone. As an example, most of the bad reviews on the $199 Yuneec Breeze drone at Walmart are due to people having problems with the smartphone-based control system.

EU regulations to be applied

[should_be_linear]

US corporations and laws are going wild-west version of capitalism obviously. Hopefully EU will explain Google this is not way to go. If they can go away with this, things will only get worse.

Don't be evil?

[ReneR]

It's disgusting how this multi billion dollar companies behave.

Don't be douchebags

[iTrawl]

Hey Google, I think you picked up the wrong playbook. Give it back. Or better yet: burn it, and burn Bezos's copy too if you get a chance.

Re:Don't be douchebags

[AVryhof]

It's the first result on Google Search, why would either choose differently?

Re:Where did it all begin

[drinkypoo]

Amazon refused to put there video service on anything but their Kindles.

That is a lie, and you are a liar. (and a coward)

FINE THEM

[Zurkeyon3733]

If its OPEN and FREE, then it should be so BETWEEN Competitors. Google Should be FINED for Anti-Competitive Practices.

Yes, but...

[Roger W Moore]

Dropping the 'no' from it was not the change we had been hoping for.

Google - Just As Evil...

[CRB9000]

Google - We're Just As Evil As Any Corporation

Net neutrality for me but not for thee

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I thought Google was in favor of net neutrality. What is it to them how people access their public web browser interfaces?

Are they liars?

Re:Net neutrality for me but not for thee

[david_thornley]

You can access YouTube just fine from a browser, no matter what that browser is running on. Some products can access YouTube in other ways, and Google is rather fussy about those.

Sounds like Congress

[mnemotronic]

They work about as well together as the Dems & Republicans in Congress. Granted, Google and Amazon are in business to make money for the shareholders and they do have competing interests so conflict can be expected. Come to think of it, just like Congress.

Childish on Google's part

[King_TJ]

Especially with Google charging money for YouTube "Red" subscriptions, the smart move would be to allow the videos to be watched on as many devices as possible!

This feud with Amazon makes no sense, IMO, because there's no way it's more profitable selling people a few more Chromecast boxes, vs. having greater reach for viewers of the service itself.

Re:Where did it all begin

[adolf]

Obviously that's why they stopped selling Apple TV at exactly the same time, right?

It may be hard for the /. crowd to grasp, but there's companies out there who are simply miserable assholes to eachother.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/1...

Get the fuck off my lawn.

So much for neutrality

[HyperStasis]

Lets watch as Amazon and Google show us the future of the internet via slap-fights and consumer harming restrictions because they wont share monetizable data collected by either.

 

Knock Off Revenge

[MercTech]

Could the war over the fire stick have anything to do with Amazon aggressively marketing second rate Google Chromecast knock off units?