7 ms·

They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV - including listings from third parties. If you contact support, they will lie about it (it's out of stock, we tempo

They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV - including listings from third parties. If you contact support, they will lie about it (it's out of stock, we temporarily withdrew it due to customer reports, we're not allowed to sell those products - never would they admit a ban). And it's just to promote their shitty Fire/Prime offering (searching Chromecast has a top result of Fire TV). So they're definitely trying to be anti competitive.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Google has refused to allow Amazon products to use their apps, like the Chromecast app, despite them being based on Android, and functionally compatible. Amazon does not want to sell products which are explicitly blocked from compatibility with their products. And I'd argue that's a reasonable position. Being upset about Amazon's response here would be like throwing a fit you couldn't buy a charger for your Chromebook at an Apple Store, it just doesn't make any sense.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  Uh, that doesn't put Amazon in the right. It just puts both of them in the wrong.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    I don't disagree that Amazon has antitrust issues, but this simply isn't an example of it. Amazon is arguably trying to ensure competition (in this case, their competing platform) survives against an illegal anticompetitive action. The exact terms that Google uses to block Amazon devices from using Chromecast and other Google Apps is the same one they're expected to face a new recordbreaking fine for in the EU (larger than the last one) by the end the year. I mean, I guess I could be sold on the statement that it's two behemoths throwing around their leverage to try and force each other to play ball.
  - hinkley 9y ago
    Any time a company starts to try to compete with their own vendors, things get awkward really quickly. When Amazon was selling other people's products, there were no problems. Now they have their own, and any time they push those in favor of a competing option that they used to sell without any qualms they're going to be in trouble. Apple has this same problem, but it's mostly limited to accessories. If they stopped selling Belkin and Beats and LaCie in their stores, we'd hear a similar clamor and people would be justified in being pissed off. By that logic, one could I think make an argument that Apple are being jerks by not carrying Logitech products in their physical or online stores. Considering Logitech (no affiliation) has without exception made the best mice for OS X for over 15 years, Apple offering their overdesigned and underdelivered 'mice' and excluding Logitech is a protectionist move.
    - tracker1 9y ago
      I believe Apple bought Beats...
- hmmdar 9y ago
  Na that's a bunch of BS Amazon came up with to validate their position. There is nothing stopping Amazon from putting Chromecast app support other than Amazon. The only thing I can guess is Amazon wanted chromecast to enable support for their player format and chromecast didnt'.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    The Chromecast app is a Google App. Google App access is conditional on agreeing to a Google contract called the MADA which requires device makers preinstall all of their software and set Google Search as default. One of those apps is Google Play Books. So in order for Google to permit them to support Chromecast, Amazon would've had to agree to pre-install their competitor's ebook store on every single Kindle. See the issue?
    - Rebelgecko 9y ago
      I read the Google Cast SDK license agreement and didn't see anything about search engines or requiring certain apps to be installed.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        The Cast SDK is not at issue, the Google Cast app likely is. (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.chromecast.app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...)
    - am1988 9y ago
      They also already have a contract with Bing for search.
    - tracker1 9y ago
      That would be for adding chromecast support to their devices... doesn't preclude them from supporting chromecast, or having Amazon Video in the Google Play store, supporting chromecast for playback.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  Do you have a source? I searched and got this story [0], that says Bezos wanted "Prime Video Player to be a pack-in app on units sold through Amazon" and Google/Apple refused, so he pulled it. 0: https://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/06/amazon-ceo-explains-dont-sell-chromecast.html https://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/06/amazon-ceo-explains...
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    I'd refer you to Ben Edelman's explanation of the Google MADA. http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html (Note: He has been paid to consult for Microsoft, he's a biased source. But he's the person who initially discovered these agreements and put them somewhere public on the Internet.) EDIT: Sidebar, but the whole "Private business discussions should stay private" comment in your link... Bezos knows how appalled we'd all be if we saw the way these companies acted behind closed doors. There's a reason the MADA is confidential too.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      There's zero mention of Amazon there. My link has a purported quote direct from Bezos on the issue. If you want to make the case that Amazon's Fire devices aren't Google-suite compatible because they don't follow Google's requirements, uh, yeah, that's fine. I don't see the conflict. That has nothing to do with Prime Video on Android (i.e. in Google Play) not supporting Google Cast. That's an intentional decision by Amazon. To enable Chromecast in their iOS/GPlay apps, Amazon just needs to register the app (https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/registration https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/registration), not agree to the MADA on other devices. Amazon might as well ban all Microsoft products because MS doesn't allow Amazon to replace Cortana with Alexa on all sold-thru-Amazon PCs.
  - jethro_tell 9y ago
    uh, for chromecast, they have an open API and you are responsible for making your android app compatible with that. There are no built in apps for chromecast.
- cecilpl2 9y ago
  It's a prisoner's dilemma, and they are structurally locked into the defect position. Neither company can switch to cooperating of its own accord without coordinating with the other. It's simply a coordination problem.
  - gertef 9y ago
    If it were simply a coordination problem, Sundar has Jeff's phone number.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Google's entire business model around Android depends on withholding their apps unless manufacturers agree to preload their apps and set default search and the like. It's not a coordination issue, their whole business depends on them not backing down on the requirement. And being required to preload Google Play Books, a direct competitor to Amazon's Kindle platform, is similarly fundamentally unacceptable to Amazon. These two companies are completely unable to come to terms on this because their requirements are so blatantly opposed to each others' businesses. As these mega-conglomerates start selling everything under the sun service-wise in lock-in ecosystems, these sorts of clashes are likely to increase in impact and number.
grecy 9y ago
> They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV This is such an interesting topic. If I open a fresh-fruit stand and refuse to sell the Chromecast and I being anti-competitive? How about if I grow my own fresh-fruit and refuse to sell yours in my stand? The whole reason for me to spend money running my own store it to sell my stuff, not yours. What about if Apple open an "Apple Store" and refuse to sell Microsoft products? Ford dealership refusing to sell GM? It's Amazon's store, they can sell whatever they want, or not sell whatever they want. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.
- kjksf 9y ago
  It's about intersection of "anti-competitive" and "big enough to alter market dynamics". In your hypotheticals, if Ford controlled all dealerships then refusing to sell GM would be anti-competitive. If Apple controlled all physical stores where computers are sold, it would be anti-competitive to refuse to sell Microsoft. Amazon directly competes with Chromecast and is dominant on-line retailer in US so they do have have the power to alter dynamics of Chromecast vs. Fire TV competition. That's what makes that anti-competitive. Notice that a big part of amazon.com value is being a platform to others to sell their stuff. I certainly bought stuff via amazon.com that was not sold by Amazon, merely distributed by them. To go against that platform "neutratlity" (if you will) and refuse even 3rd parties to sell a very specific product, while allowing thousands more, is pretty damning evidence that it's straight up, anti-competitive leverage of their position in one area to gain advantage in another area while negatively affecting customers.
  - electric_sheep 9y ago
    Yeah, what I can't fathom is what they even stand to gain by such a brazen move. They want to be a services company, not hardware. So why are they discriminating between $30 dongles rather than just making their streaming work on every type of device? That's what they want out there, not Fire Sticks.
    - tracker1 9y ago
      No kidding... I finally broke down and got an NVidia Shield TV so I could have one device for just about everything, I also wanted a 4K capable device, but that was secondary.
hinkley 9y ago
This is when I cancelled my Prime account and started trying to figure out how to put a gift wishlist somewhere else.
- dzink 9y ago
  Try https://www.dreamlist.com https://www.dreamlist.com
gehwartzen 9y ago
That's the thing; Amazon itself has sort of become a search engine of things/products. There are so many third party sellers that only sell their products through Amazon and not even their own websites that many people use Amazon as the first place to look for a product.
yellowapple 9y ago
Better yet: if you search for "Chromecast" on Amazon, guess which company's $40 multimedia stick is the first result? Hint: it's named after a South American rainforest, starts with an "A", and ends with a "mazon".
martin-adams 9y ago
I recall their reasoning at the time was because those devies didn't support Amazon Prime Video and this was 'confusing' to customers. I see this as flexing their muscles and stopping the sale of competitive video on demand services unless they play nice and support Amazon Prime Video. What we don't know is if Amazon refuse to build their app for these devices.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Google has refused to allow Amazon products to use their apps, like the Chromecast app, despite them being based on Android, and functionally compatible. Amazon does not want to sell products which are explicitly blocked from compatibility with their products. And I'd argue that's a reasonable position. Being upset about Amazon's response here would be like throwing a fit you couldn't buy a charger for your Chromebook at an Apple Store, it just doesn't make any sense.

zzalpha 9y ago
Uh, that doesn't put Amazon in the right. It just puts both of them in the wrong.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  I don't disagree that Amazon has antitrust issues, but this simply isn't an example of it. Amazon is arguably trying to ensure competition (in this case, their competing platform) survives against an illegal anticompetitive action. The exact terms that Google uses to block Amazon devices from using Chromecast and other Google Apps is the same one they're expected to face a new recordbreaking fine for in the EU (larger than the last one) by the end the year. I mean, I guess I could be sold on the statement that it's two behemoths throwing around their leverage to try and force each other to play ball.
- hinkley 9y ago
  Any time a company starts to try to compete with their own vendors, things get awkward really quickly. When Amazon was selling other people's products, there were no problems. Now they have their own, and any time they push those in favor of a competing option that they used to sell without any qualms they're going to be in trouble. Apple has this same problem, but it's mostly limited to accessories. If they stopped selling Belkin and Beats and LaCie in their stores, we'd hear a similar clamor and people would be justified in being pissed off. By that logic, one could I think make an argument that Apple are being jerks by not carrying Logitech products in their physical or online stores. Considering Logitech (no affiliation) has without exception made the best mice for OS X for over 15 years, Apple offering their overdesigned and underdelivered 'mice' and excluding Logitech is a protectionist move.
  - tracker1 9y ago
    I believe Apple bought Beats...
hmmdar 9y ago
Na that's a bunch of BS Amazon came up with to validate their position. There is nothing stopping Amazon from putting Chromecast app support other than Amazon. The only thing I can guess is Amazon wanted chromecast to enable support for their player format and chromecast didnt'.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  The Chromecast app is a Google App. Google App access is conditional on agreeing to a Google contract called the MADA which requires device makers preinstall all of their software and set Google Search as default. One of those apps is Google Play Books. So in order for Google to permit them to support Chromecast, Amazon would've had to agree to pre-install their competitor's ebook store on every single Kindle. See the issue?
  - Rebelgecko 9y ago
    I read the Google Cast SDK license agreement and didn't see anything about search engines or requiring certain apps to be installed.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      The Cast SDK is not at issue, the Google Cast app likely is. (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.chromecast.app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...)
  - am1988 9y ago
    They also already have a contract with Bing for search.
  - tracker1 9y ago
    That would be for adding chromecast support to their devices... doesn't preclude them from supporting chromecast, or having Amazon Video in the Google Play store, supporting chromecast for playback.
MichaelGG 9y ago
Do you have a source? I searched and got this story [0], that says Bezos wanted "Prime Video Player to be a pack-in app on units sold through Amazon" and Google/Apple refused, so he pulled it. 0: https://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/06/amazon-ceo-explains-dont-sell-chromecast.html https://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/06/amazon-ceo-explains...
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  I'd refer you to Ben Edelman's explanation of the Google MADA. http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html (Note: He has been paid to consult for Microsoft, he's a biased source. But he's the person who initially discovered these agreements and put them somewhere public on the Internet.) EDIT: Sidebar, but the whole "Private business discussions should stay private" comment in your link... Bezos knows how appalled we'd all be if we saw the way these companies acted behind closed doors. There's a reason the MADA is confidential too.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    There's zero mention of Amazon there. My link has a purported quote direct from Bezos on the issue. If you want to make the case that Amazon's Fire devices aren't Google-suite compatible because they don't follow Google's requirements, uh, yeah, that's fine. I don't see the conflict. That has nothing to do with Prime Video on Android (i.e. in Google Play) not supporting Google Cast. That's an intentional decision by Amazon. To enable Chromecast in their iOS/GPlay apps, Amazon just needs to register the app (https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/registration https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/registration), not agree to the MADA on other devices. Amazon might as well ban all Microsoft products because MS doesn't allow Amazon to replace Cortana with Alexa on all sold-thru-Amazon PCs.
- jethro_tell 9y ago
  uh, for chromecast, they have an open API and you are responsible for making your android app compatible with that. There are no built in apps for chromecast.
cecilpl2 9y ago
It's a prisoner's dilemma, and they are structurally locked into the defect position. Neither company can switch to cooperating of its own accord without coordinating with the other. It's simply a coordination problem.
- gertef 9y ago
  If it were simply a coordination problem, Sundar has Jeff's phone number.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Google's entire business model around Android depends on withholding their apps unless manufacturers agree to preload their apps and set default search and the like. It's not a coordination issue, their whole business depends on them not backing down on the requirement. And being required to preload Google Play Books, a direct competitor to Amazon's Kindle platform, is similarly fundamentally unacceptable to Amazon. These two companies are completely unable to come to terms on this because their requirements are so blatantly opposed to each others' businesses. As these mega-conglomerates start selling everything under the sun service-wise in lock-in ecosystems, these sorts of clashes are likely to increase in impact and number.

grecy 9y ago

> They refuse to sell Chromecast and Apple TV This is such an interesting topic. If I open a fresh-fruit stand and refuse to sell the Chromecast and I being anti-competitive? How about if I grow my own fresh-fruit and refuse to sell yours in my stand? The whole reason for me to spend money running my own store it to sell my stuff, not yours. What about if Apple open an "Apple Store" and refuse to sell Microsoft products? Ford dealership refusing to sell GM? It's Amazon's store, they can sell whatever they want, or not sell whatever they want. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

kjksf 9y ago
It's about intersection of "anti-competitive" and "big enough to alter market dynamics". In your hypotheticals, if Ford controlled all dealerships then refusing to sell GM would be anti-competitive. If Apple controlled all physical stores where computers are sold, it would be anti-competitive to refuse to sell Microsoft. Amazon directly competes with Chromecast and is dominant on-line retailer in US so they do have have the power to alter dynamics of Chromecast vs. Fire TV competition. That's what makes that anti-competitive. Notice that a big part of amazon.com value is being a platform to others to sell their stuff. I certainly bought stuff via amazon.com that was not sold by Amazon, merely distributed by them. To go against that platform "neutratlity" (if you will) and refuse even 3rd parties to sell a very specific product, while allowing thousands more, is pretty damning evidence that it's straight up, anti-competitive leverage of their position in one area to gain advantage in another area while negatively affecting customers.
- electric_sheep 9y ago
  Yeah, what I can't fathom is what they even stand to gain by such a brazen move. They want to be a services company, not hardware. So why are they discriminating between $30 dongles rather than just making their streaming work on every type of device? That's what they want out there, not Fire Sticks.
  - tracker1 9y ago
    No kidding... I finally broke down and got an NVidia Shield TV so I could have one device for just about everything, I also wanted a 4K capable device, but that was secondary.

hinkley 9y ago

This is when I cancelled my Prime account and started trying to figure out how to put a gift wishlist somewhere else.

dzink 9y ago
Try https://www.dreamlist.com https://www.dreamlist.com

gehwartzen 9y ago

That's the thing; Amazon itself has sort of become a search engine of things/products. There are so many third party sellers that only sell their products through Amazon and not even their own websites that many people use Amazon as the first place to look for a product.

yellowapple 9y ago

Better yet: if you search for "Chromecast" on Amazon, guess which company's $40 multimedia stick is the first result? Hint: it's named after a South American rainforest, starts with an "A", and ends with a "mazon".

martin-adams 9y ago

I recall their reasoning at the time was because those devies didn't support Amazon Prime Video and this was 'confusing' to customers. I see this as flexing their muscles and stopping the sale of competitive video on demand services unless they play nice and support Amazon Prime Video. What we don't know is if Amazon refuse to build their app for these devices.