Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
The do no evil policy was ditched a long time ago.
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.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
PS: Just to clarify, Google is being a dick. They're just not breaking NN.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
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.
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.))
Kid-proof tablet..
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.
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?
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.
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.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Nobody is "hurt" because they're "forced" to watch the desktop version of Youtube.
Get a grip on reality, please.
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.
Actually it was 'Do Know Evil'
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.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
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.
839*929
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
I went to Amazon, searched for "Google Pixel" and the first result was the Google device I searched for.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Google - We're Just As Evil As Any Corporation
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.
"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.
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.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
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.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
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.