5 ms·

Their failure to break in to the market was because they didn't make good products, not because Google kept them out because of a monopoly

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Actually, this is exactly incorrect. The reason Amazon couldn't include any Google Play Store compatibility in Kindle or Fire products, for example, is because in order to do so, Google illegally requires OEMs to also bundle other apps... like Google Play Books, a direct competitor to Amazon's Kindle. This is a practice called "tying" in antitrust law. The fact that Google doesn't allow OEMs to pick and choose what apps are included is the subject of an EU antitrust investigation, and Google has already been prohibited from doing so in Russia. It's also illegal under US law, but Google has an incredibly significant amount of money invested in the right US politicians.
- gondo 9y ago
  if it was true, why didn't Amazon sue Google?
  - threeseed 9y ago
    Because look what happened with Microsoft. You are talking about a multi decade long process that will go to trial. This sort of thing distracts companies and often ends up killing them. I don't know about the merits here but I can understand why Amazon would rather leave it up to governments.
    - gondo 9y ago
      what happened with Microsoft? i know what happened with Oracle when they sued Google about java in android. nothing. except they lost because they were wrong.
- Oletros 9y ago
  False, the reason for Amazon not including Play Store is because they didn't wanted it and they forked Android.
- johnsmith21006 9y ago
  Amazon will NOT allow competing products like the Google Home to be sold on Amazon as well as Apple TV and CC yet Google still has the Echo in search. Think you have it wrong and Amazon a problem not Google. I am a big Amazon customer but can still see what it is.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Why do you think Amazon did that? It was in response to Google's behavior. Google refused to allow their products to work with Amazon's products (without the painful concessions I mention here), so Amazon refused to sell them. It sounds like you've unfortunately only heard a small part of the story. Side note: Replying with the same incorrect comment three times is truly unnecessary.
    - hooluupog 9y ago
      Why should google's products must work with Amazon's products?It's not Amazon who sell google's products but google sell its own products via amazon online shopping platform.Does amazon echo have to work with google's product or install google's software or services to appear in search results?
    - s73ver 9y ago
      This is pure hyperbole. "Painful concessions," really?
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        I can't imagine a more painful concession than requiring that Amazon be forced to include a competitor's eBook platform on their device if they want to use an app store. I don't think that's hyperbole at all.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    You need to stop posting the same argument everywhere. It's a stupid one anyway since everyone knows that the only reason Google has been allowed to operate Search the way it does (limited transparency + oversight) is because we know that it doesn't interfere with search results. If they ever did and deliberately removed competitors governments would simply force Search to be an independent company.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Actually, this is exactly incorrect. The reason Amazon couldn't include any Google Play Store compatibility in Kindle or Fire products, for example, is because in order to do so, Google illegally requires OEMs to also bundle other apps... like Google Play Books, a direct competitor to Amazon's Kindle. This is a practice called "tying" in antitrust law. The fact that Google doesn't allow OEMs to pick and choose what apps are included is the subject of an EU antitrust investigation, and Google has already been prohibited from doing so in Russia. It's also illegal under US law, but Google has an incredibly significant amount of money invested in the right US politicians.

gondo 9y ago
if it was true, why didn't Amazon sue Google?
- threeseed 9y ago
  Because look what happened with Microsoft. You are talking about a multi decade long process that will go to trial. This sort of thing distracts companies and often ends up killing them. I don't know about the merits here but I can understand why Amazon would rather leave it up to governments.
  - gondo 9y ago
    what happened with Microsoft? i know what happened with Oracle when they sued Google about java in android. nothing. except they lost because they were wrong.
Oletros 9y ago
False, the reason for Amazon not including Play Store is because they didn't wanted it and they forked Android.
johnsmith21006 9y ago
Amazon will NOT allow competing products like the Google Home to be sold on Amazon as well as Apple TV and CC yet Google still has the Echo in search. Think you have it wrong and Amazon a problem not Google. I am a big Amazon customer but can still see what it is.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Why do you think Amazon did that? It was in response to Google's behavior. Google refused to allow their products to work with Amazon's products (without the painful concessions I mention here), so Amazon refused to sell them. It sounds like you've unfortunately only heard a small part of the story. Side note: Replying with the same incorrect comment three times is truly unnecessary.
  - hooluupog 9y ago
    Why should google's products must work with Amazon's products?It's not Amazon who sell google's products but google sell its own products via amazon online shopping platform.Does amazon echo have to work with google's product or install google's software or services to appear in search results?
  - s73ver 9y ago
    This is pure hyperbole. "Painful concessions," really?
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      I can't imagine a more painful concession than requiring that Amazon be forced to include a competitor's eBook platform on their device if they want to use an app store. I don't think that's hyperbole at all.
- threeseed 9y ago
  You need to stop posting the same argument everywhere. It's a stupid one anyway since everyone knows that the only reason Google has been allowed to operate Search the way it does (limited transparency + oversight) is because we know that it doesn't interfere with search results. If they ever did and deliberately removed competitors governments would simply force Search to be an independent company.