5 ms·

That's an interesting point. When Google started pushing G+ social networks in general was all the tech media were talking about. Now it's the death of cable an

That's an interesting point. When Google started pushing G+ social networks in general was all the tech media were talking about. Now it's the death of cable and the rise of streaming services. And just like Google wanted it's piece of the buzz-worthy social media space, Amazon wants a piece of the growing streaming market. It's certainly not a good precedent to set banning competitor's products from their store. I could come up with a dozen different slippery-slope scenarios.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
G+ is vestigial at best and creepy at worst, but at least there's something to be said about a giant sprawling octopus of a tech company managing to wrap everything into one, centralized platform. Amazon on the other hand seems to be subscribing to the amputation school of thought. I don't know a soul that's ever bought an Amazon gadget that wasn't exclusively named "Kindle." If people truly preferred Amazon's devices to those from Apple or Google, they would have bought them.
- jon-wood 11y ago
  I'm one of those souls, and really like both the Kindle Fire and Fire TV I have. This move has really soured them to me though - Amazon have a great product in Prime Video and their Fire lineup, a product which doesn't need these sort of shady tactics.
  - ewzimm 11y ago
    I'm interested in why you consider it shady for a retailer not to sell a product. I don't see Google or Apple selling products from anyone but themselves (mostly. Apple does sell a few accessories and Google has some pure editions which they have a hand in). Pick any retailer, and there are brands and products they don't sell. I could see it being shady if you were talking about denying people access to things they need, but we're talking about selling on the Internet here. It's not like people will have a hard time buying Apple TVs or Chromecasts because they aren't on Amazon. They just have to type the name into their address bar. I would guess they got a lot of complaints from people who said they couldn't get Instant Video to work on their streaming devices, someone calculated the cost of customer service vs profits of selling those devices, and decided it wasn't worth it... how is that any different form any other retailer choosing to drop a product because it isn't working for them? Customer service costs and returns are probably the most common reason for anyone dropping something. I know Amazon has a bigger selection than pretty much everyone, but does that give them a moral imperative to not discriminate on products? Seems like people are considering Amazon as if they were a public utility, which seems like a pretty impressive achievement for them.
    - chipperyman573 11y ago
      >I'm interested in why you consider it shady for a retailer not to sell a product. I don't see Google or Apple selling products from anyone but themselves (mostly. Apple does sell a few accessories and Google has some pure editions which they have a hand in). Pick any retailer, and there are brands and products they don't sell. That's because google and apple aren't the Walmart of the internet, they make electronics. Amazon specializes in selling stuff, google and apple make stuff and also happen to sell them on their website, or you could buy it from somewhere else (in google's case)
    - veidr 11y ago
      But as an Apple user, I already know they are hypocritical control freaks who don't respect their users. But this is literally the first time that I've seen Amazon play that way. So it may not be different from any other retailer, it's different from how Amazon used to be. (Or at least was perceived to be, which amounts to the same thing.)
      - chinpokomon 11y ago
        Are you familiar with Primecast? A third party reversed how Amazon authenticated its movies and for a day, you could actually cast the movies that your Prime subscription allowed, including rentals. It was no different than if you authenticated on the website. Amazon quickly scrambled to shut that app down and still hasn't answered with their own method for Chromecast. It isn't even a technical issue, it is a control issue. Now I don't know the licensing terms they have with the content providers, but they certainly aren't fulfilling the consumer demand.
        veidr 11y ago
        No, I wasn't familiar with that. Still, the present issue seems one step worse than that. Digital music sold used to have DRM, because it just couldn't be avoided since the licensing terms of the content required it. The Primecast seems likely to be the same. It's more like them saying, "Sorry, user, we can't let you do that." Where as this (and what Apple does) is more like, "What's that user? You want <competing thing>? Well, fuck off!" Thinking on it though, massively slowing down deliveries of books from publishers Amazon doesn't like was actually the first time I've seen Amazon do something like this. So this actually isn't the first time; now its a pattern. Side rant: Amazon Prime's media crap is also especially annoying to me personally, since I spend most of the year outside of the US, where it doesn't work at all. (Go Netflix!))
discodave 11y ago
It's slightly different in that selling media was originally Amazons core business. First books, then DVDs, then Kindle. Streaming (music or TV) is just a new distribution and pricing mechanism for the same product. For Google, social media is a fundamentally different product to search. You can argue that they are both ways of 'finding things' but there are still huge fundamental differences.
- qubex 11y ago
  ‘Search’ isn't a product by Google, user impressions are.
tracker1 11y ago
Not to mention that it's completely Amazon's decision not to offer streaming apps for AppleTV or Android in general release. Do they really make that much on their hardware that they're willing to continue alienating most of their customers?
- glhaynes 11y ago
  So they offer it for game consoles, "smart" TVs, Roku, and handheld devices of all sorts… but not Apple TV or Chromecast? And that's by their choice, not Apple or Google's? Huh.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    They don't offer it for Android at all (even though their own fire devices are based on it), and I'm guessing they opted out of AppleTV (since iirc, they offer it for iOS devices)

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

G+ is vestigial at best and creepy at worst, but at least there's something to be said about a giant sprawling octopus of a tech company managing to wrap everything into one, centralized platform. Amazon on the other hand seems to be subscribing to the amputation school of thought. I don't know a soul that's ever bought an Amazon gadget that wasn't exclusively named "Kindle." If people truly preferred Amazon's devices to those from Apple or Google, they would have bought them.

jon-wood 11y ago
I'm one of those souls, and really like both the Kindle Fire and Fire TV I have. This move has really soured them to me though - Amazon have a great product in Prime Video and their Fire lineup, a product which doesn't need these sort of shady tactics.
- ewzimm 11y ago
  I'm interested in why you consider it shady for a retailer not to sell a product. I don't see Google or Apple selling products from anyone but themselves (mostly. Apple does sell a few accessories and Google has some pure editions which they have a hand in). Pick any retailer, and there are brands and products they don't sell. I could see it being shady if you were talking about denying people access to things they need, but we're talking about selling on the Internet here. It's not like people will have a hard time buying Apple TVs or Chromecasts because they aren't on Amazon. They just have to type the name into their address bar. I would guess they got a lot of complaints from people who said they couldn't get Instant Video to work on their streaming devices, someone calculated the cost of customer service vs profits of selling those devices, and decided it wasn't worth it... how is that any different form any other retailer choosing to drop a product because it isn't working for them? Customer service costs and returns are probably the most common reason for anyone dropping something. I know Amazon has a bigger selection than pretty much everyone, but does that give them a moral imperative to not discriminate on products? Seems like people are considering Amazon as if they were a public utility, which seems like a pretty impressive achievement for them.
  - chipperyman573 11y ago
    >I'm interested in why you consider it shady for a retailer not to sell a product. I don't see Google or Apple selling products from anyone but themselves (mostly. Apple does sell a few accessories and Google has some pure editions which they have a hand in). Pick any retailer, and there are brands and products they don't sell. That's because google and apple aren't the Walmart of the internet, they make electronics. Amazon specializes in selling stuff, google and apple make stuff and also happen to sell them on their website, or you could buy it from somewhere else (in google's case)
  - veidr 11y ago
    But as an Apple user, I already know they are hypocritical control freaks who don't respect their users. But this is literally the first time that I've seen Amazon play that way. So it may not be different from any other retailer, it's different from how Amazon used to be. (Or at least was perceived to be, which amounts to the same thing.)
    - chinpokomon 11y ago
      Are you familiar with Primecast? A third party reversed how Amazon authenticated its movies and for a day, you could actually cast the movies that your Prime subscription allowed, including rentals. It was no different than if you authenticated on the website. Amazon quickly scrambled to shut that app down and still hasn't answered with their own method for Chromecast. It isn't even a technical issue, it is a control issue. Now I don't know the licensing terms they have with the content providers, but they certainly aren't fulfilling the consumer demand.
      - veidr 11y ago
        No, I wasn't familiar with that. Still, the present issue seems one step worse than that. Digital music sold used to have DRM, because it just couldn't be avoided since the licensing terms of the content required it. The Primecast seems likely to be the same. It's more like them saying, "Sorry, user, we can't let you do that." Where as this (and what Apple does) is more like, "What's that user? You want <competing thing>? Well, fuck off!" Thinking on it though, massively slowing down deliveries of books from publishers Amazon doesn't like was actually the first time I've seen Amazon do something like this. So this actually isn't the first time; now its a pattern. Side rant: Amazon Prime's media crap is also especially annoying to me personally, since I spend most of the year outside of the US, where it doesn't work at all. (Go Netflix!))

discodave 11y ago

It's slightly different in that selling media was originally Amazons core business. First books, then DVDs, then Kindle. Streaming (music or TV) is just a new distribution and pricing mechanism for the same product. For Google, social media is a fundamentally different product to search. You can argue that they are both ways of 'finding things' but there are still huge fundamental differences.

qubex 11y ago
‘Search’ isn't a product by Google, user impressions are.

tracker1 11y ago

Not to mention that it's completely Amazon's decision not to offer streaming apps for AppleTV or Android in general release. Do they really make that much on their hardware that they're willing to continue alienating most of their customers?

glhaynes 11y ago
So they offer it for game consoles, "smart" TVs, Roku, and handheld devices of all sorts… but not Apple TV or Chromecast? And that's by their choice, not Apple or Google's? Huh.
- tracker1 11y ago
  They don't offer it for Android at all (even though their own fire devices are based on it), and I'm guessing they opted out of AppleTV (since iirc, they offer it for iOS devices)