6 ms·

Given the shady tactics pulled by Amazon [1], [2] when it comes to Google products, this move seems totally fair. [1] Promoting Amazon products while searching

Given the shady tactics pulled by Amazon [1], [2] when it comes to Google products, this move seems totally fair. [1] Promoting Amazon products while searching for "Google Home": https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/135-4089858-5408855?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=google+home https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/135-4089858-540885... [2] Not selling chromecast because it doesn't support Amazon video, which they themselves won't make available on chromecase

choward 9y ago
Sure it's fair from a company vs. company perspective. But as an end user, I don't give a crap. The more crap like this you pull the more I will hate your company. I hate when things are inconvenient and it's not because of a technical limitation.
- RestlessMind 9y ago
  Fair enough. But whom will you hate exactly? If one cannot see Youtube on Echo Show, I bet end users will hate Echo Show ("hey look, Youtube works fine on iPhone but not on this device") more than Youtube. Which is why we need some "net neutrality" kind of regulations as alluded to in another comment on this topic.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
katastic 9y ago
Everything is fair when Google does it, on HackerNews!
amrrs 9y ago
Indeed, anyone who remembers the fate of Diapers.com in the hands of Amazon would find no mistake from Google. It's just something Amazon has been practicing for so long.
barrkel 9y ago
Not supporting Amazon Prime video on Chromecast is a PITA. It forces yet another gadget into the HDMI multiplexer.
noobermin 9y ago
I'd rather see none of these things happening, regardless of whether it's fair. We need either competition, or if the market will not provide competition, regulation.
nickbauman 9y ago
• I don't want a fire stick or whatever it's called. • I want to pay a flat fee for access (Netflix), not pay-per-view PLUS subscription fee (amazon prime video).
- subway 9y ago
  I want to pay a flat fee for access (Netflix), not pay-per-view PLUS subscription fee (amazon prime video). This seems like a strange position to have. I agree Amazon's behavior in pulling the Chromecast from their store as a means to push their own stuff is unacceptable, but Prime has plenty of content that can be viewed for 'free' (beyond the cost of Prime). Having additional paid content seems entirely reasonable.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Isn't Amazon's pay-per-view totally separate from prime? Prime has a bunch of totally free video like Netflix (and free music I think), and the apps that let you watch it also allow you to access Amazon's pay-per-view video on demand service under the idea that you might want to use that if what you are looking for isn't available for free. In any case, what you are getting in the end is the equivalent of Netflix plus more options, which I'm not sure why it would be considered a bad thing. Just ignore the pay offerings, and brows the free movie section, and you have what you want.
  - nickbauman 9y ago
    Ha! This doesn't even register with me. Everything I've wanted to watch on Amazon Prime with my Prime account has been something I had to pay per view. So the net effect is I'm paying a subscription AND paying per view. Nope.
    - hsod 9y ago
      Seems odd to "punish" Amazon Video for offering more functionality than Netflix. The Prime Video product is functionally equivalent to Netflix. The PPV videos are an additional service that Amazon offers that Netflix does not offer. The confusion that seems to be bothering you is easily resolved. Here you can browse only videos that are free with subscription: https://www.amazon.com/Prime-Video/b?node=2676882011 https://www.amazon.com/Prime-Video/b?node=2676882011 Most Amazon Prime apps I've seen make a clear distinction between the two.
NicoJuicy 9y ago
I agree, they are taking a lot of Google and are just trying to block them. Not mentioning forking Android and all other things related also. Google is way too nice for amazon
- mog777 9y ago
  I agree it's time to break the web into 4-5 apps that can be accessed on 4-5 separate devices and then sell us all Batman utility belts.
- scarface74 9y ago
  Android is open source - what was wrong with them forking it? Was Google wrong for forking WebKit?
  - NicoJuicy 9y ago
    Where are the changes of Amazon? You can still fork Chromium
    - scarface74 9y ago
      https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200203720 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
      - NicoJuicy 9y ago
        I'm not quit sure that by providing an answer, you could remove any doubt. While they are required by the license to opensource their code, this is perhaps the most user unfriendly method ( multiple builds per version per device, no code history, ... - it's a mess) Here is Chromium as you requested: - https://cs.chromium.org/ https://cs.chromium.org/ Here's the source code: https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/?sq https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/?sq Here's the git: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git
kuschku 9y ago
The Chromecast is Google's fault. Amazon will only sell the Chromecast if Google allows them to cast to the Chromecast from all of their apps — even on Kindle devices. Google refuses to allow that, and also refuses to allow Amazon to build their own implementation of the Chromecast library (the Google-supplied one requires Play Services). The options for Amazon are: remove all Amazon apps from the Kindle, install only Google apps by default, and provide Chromecasting support, or only provide Chromecast supports for users of Google Android, but not those on the Kindle. This is a clear case of Google abusing its monopoly on Android, and Amazon responding by abusing its monopoly in online retail. EDIT: This is exactly why I don't use any proprietary IoT devices, but only open products, or things I built myself. Open standards circumvent these entire issues.
- bduerst 9y ago
  I think you have your wires crossed on this one. Google has an open SDK for chromecast that allows any developer to use it, including Amazon, and has not "refused to allow Amazon" to develop on it. Amazon is the one voluntarily choosing not to support chromecast.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    That's false. The Chromecast SDK requires Google Play Services. As result, it does not work on the Kindle devices. Amazon would have to install Play Services (compliance with this would require setting Google as the default for all stores, apps, etc, and even removing a few of Amazon's own apps), or Amazon could enable Chromecast for everyone except Kindle users (which would convince people to buy less Kindles) So when Google is asking Amazon to either destroy its own product, or make its own product work better with a competitors devices than with its own, then obviously Amazon won't do either of these things.
    - bduerst 9y ago
      We're not talking about Kindle devices, we're talking about Amazon Prime streaming services. Both the web and mobile apps of Amazon prime can support chromecast streaming, but they made the decision not to - before the play services requirement for Android.

choward 9y ago

Sure it's fair from a company vs. company perspective. But as an end user, I don't give a crap. The more crap like this you pull the more I will hate your company. I hate when things are inconvenient and it's not because of a technical limitation.

RestlessMind 9y ago
Fair enough. But whom will you hate exactly? If one cannot see Youtube on Echo Show, I bet end users will hate Echo Show ("hey look, Youtube works fine on iPhone but not on this device") more than Youtube. Which is why we need some "net neutrality" kind of regulations as alluded to in another comment on this topic.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

katastic 9y ago

Everything is fair when Google does it, on HackerNews!

amrrs 9y ago

Indeed, anyone who remembers the fate of Diapers.com in the hands of Amazon would find no mistake from Google. It's just something Amazon has been practicing for so long.

barrkel 9y ago

Not supporting Amazon Prime video on Chromecast is a PITA. It forces yet another gadget into the HDMI multiplexer.

noobermin 9y ago

I'd rather see none of these things happening, regardless of whether it's fair. We need either competition, or if the market will not provide competition, regulation.

nickbauman 9y ago

• I don't want a fire stick or whatever it's called. • I want to pay a flat fee for access (Netflix), not pay-per-view PLUS subscription fee (amazon prime video).

subway 9y ago
I want to pay a flat fee for access (Netflix), not pay-per-view PLUS subscription fee (amazon prime video). This seems like a strange position to have. I agree Amazon's behavior in pulling the Chromecast from their store as a means to push their own stuff is unacceptable, but Prime has plenty of content that can be viewed for 'free' (beyond the cost of Prime). Having additional paid content seems entirely reasonable.
kbenson 9y ago
Isn't Amazon's pay-per-view totally separate from prime? Prime has a bunch of totally free video like Netflix (and free music I think), and the apps that let you watch it also allow you to access Amazon's pay-per-view video on demand service under the idea that you might want to use that if what you are looking for isn't available for free. In any case, what you are getting in the end is the equivalent of Netflix plus more options, which I'm not sure why it would be considered a bad thing. Just ignore the pay offerings, and brows the free movie section, and you have what you want.
- nickbauman 9y ago
  Ha! This doesn't even register with me. Everything I've wanted to watch on Amazon Prime with my Prime account has been something I had to pay per view. So the net effect is I'm paying a subscription AND paying per view. Nope.
  - hsod 9y ago
    Seems odd to "punish" Amazon Video for offering more functionality than Netflix. The Prime Video product is functionally equivalent to Netflix. The PPV videos are an additional service that Amazon offers that Netflix does not offer. The confusion that seems to be bothering you is easily resolved. Here you can browse only videos that are free with subscription: https://www.amazon.com/Prime-Video/b?node=2676882011 https://www.amazon.com/Prime-Video/b?node=2676882011 Most Amazon Prime apps I've seen make a clear distinction between the two.

NicoJuicy 9y ago

I agree, they are taking a lot of Google and are just trying to block them. Not mentioning forking Android and all other things related also. Google is way too nice for amazon

mog777 9y ago
I agree it's time to break the web into 4-5 apps that can be accessed on 4-5 separate devices and then sell us all Batman utility belts.
scarface74 9y ago
Android is open source - what was wrong with them forking it? Was Google wrong for forking WebKit?
- NicoJuicy 9y ago
  Where are the changes of Amazon? You can still fork Chromium
  - scarface74 9y ago
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200203720 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
    - NicoJuicy 9y ago
      I'm not quit sure that by providing an answer, you could remove any doubt. While they are required by the license to opensource their code, this is perhaps the most user unfriendly method ( multiple builds per version per device, no code history, ... - it's a mess) Here is Chromium as you requested: - https://cs.chromium.org/ https://cs.chromium.org/ Here's the source code: https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/?sq https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/?sq Here's the git: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git

kuschku 9y ago

The Chromecast is Google's fault. Amazon will only sell the Chromecast if Google allows them to cast to the Chromecast from all of their apps — even on Kindle devices. Google refuses to allow that, and also refuses to allow Amazon to build their own implementation of the Chromecast library (the Google-supplied one requires Play Services). The options for Amazon are: remove all Amazon apps from the Kindle, install only Google apps by default, and provide Chromecasting support, or only provide Chromecast supports for users of Google Android, but not those on the Kindle. This is a clear case of Google abusing its monopoly on Android, and Amazon responding by abusing its monopoly in online retail. EDIT: This is exactly why I don't use any proprietary IoT devices, but only open products, or things I built myself. Open standards circumvent these entire issues.

bduerst 9y ago
I think you have your wires crossed on this one. Google has an open SDK for chromecast that allows any developer to use it, including Amazon, and has not "refused to allow Amazon" to develop on it. Amazon is the one voluntarily choosing not to support chromecast.
- kuschku 9y ago
  That's false. The Chromecast SDK requires Google Play Services. As result, it does not work on the Kindle devices. Amazon would have to install Play Services (compliance with this would require setting Google as the default for all stores, apps, etc, and even removing a few of Amazon's own apps), or Amazon could enable Chromecast for everyone except Kindle users (which would convince people to buy less Kindles) So when Google is asking Amazon to either destroy its own product, or make its own product work better with a competitors devices than with its own, then obviously Amazon won't do either of these things.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    We're not talking about Kindle devices, we're talking about Amazon Prime streaming services. Both the web and mobile apps of Amazon prime can support chromecast streaming, but they made the decision not to - before the play services requirement for Android.