4 ms·

Okay, but how is Amazon violating TOS; they are using it the way it is meant to be used.

by quotha 9y ago

bitmapbrother 9y ago
The first version was a tour de force in TOS violations. It was such an abuse that I'm surprised Amazon were brazen enough to release it considering Google would drop the hammer once they saw it. I guess they thought they could do whatever they wanted with other companies properties. I don't know if the revised version violates the TOS, but I'm guessing it's compliant. This seems to be all about reciprocity with Google which I'm all for. At the end of the day, it's their API and they can determine you can and cannot use it. If Amazon wants to play games by banning Google from their ubiquitous store then Google can do the same with their properties.
- mulmen 9y ago
  The linked article doesn't make this case. Can you provide some more detail of what terms the original and current apps violate? e: Google's own explanation: “We’ve been trying to reach agreement with Amazon to give consumers access to each other's products and services. But Amazon doesn't carry Google products like Chromecast and Google Home, doesn't make Prime Video available for Google Cast users, and last month stopped selling some of Nest's latest products. Given this lack of reciprocity, we are no longer supporting YouTube on Echo Show and FireTV. We hope we can reach an agreement to resolve these issues soon.” Sounds like this is Google trying to exert leverage on Amazon.
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    The original version played YouTube videos without any ads, subscriptions, next video recommendations, auto-play and other things that Google thought were necessary for YouTube and its content creators. Amazon was basically stealing content from its creators and not even indirectly compensating them. >Sounds like this is Google trying to exert leverage on Amazon. Perhaps, but why should Google help Amazon sell their products, using content from Google's properties, when Amazon blacklists all of Google's products on their store.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      Ok but when was that version released? I have been watching YouTube on FireTV for years at this point with advertisements and subscriptions. The current move mentions nothing about TOS and instead mentions Amazon's refusal to sell Google devices. Google doesn't have to help Amazon sell it's products but it would benefit both companies to cooperate instead of harming their customers to try and get a little more platform dominance. In this case both Amazon and Google are not acing in their customer interests and it will hurt them in the long run.
      - bitmapbrother 9y ago
        We're talking about the Echo Show here and it's the version that was shipped with it. >Google doesn't have to help Amazon sell it's products but it would benefit both companies to cooperate Until Amazon decides to start selling Google products I doubt this will end anytime soon.
        mulmen 9y ago
        Right, they should both cooperate, it would be better for everyone.
mulmen 9y ago
Google has redefined the way it is meant to be used to include "not by Amazon".
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  ‘I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further’

Okay, but how is Amazon violating TOS; they are using it the way it is meant to be used.

by quotha 9y ago

Okay, but how is Amazon violating TOS; they are using it the way it is meant to be used.

The first version was a tour de force in TOS violations. It was such an abuse that I'm surprised Amazon were brazen enough to release it considering Google would drop the hammer once they saw it. I guess they thought they could do whatever they wanted with other companies properties. I don't know if the revised version violates the TOS, but I'm guessing it's compliant. This seems to be all about reciprocity with Google which I'm all for. At the end of the day, it's their API and they can determine you can and cannot use it. If Amazon wants to play games by banning Google from their ubiquitous store then Google can do the same with their properties.

mulmen 9y ago
The linked article doesn't make this case. Can you provide some more detail of what terms the original and current apps violate? e: Google's own explanation: “We’ve been trying to reach agreement with Amazon to give consumers access to each other's products and services. But Amazon doesn't carry Google products like Chromecast and Google Home, doesn't make Prime Video available for Google Cast users, and last month stopped selling some of Nest's latest products. Given this lack of reciprocity, we are no longer supporting YouTube on Echo Show and FireTV. We hope we can reach an agreement to resolve these issues soon.” Sounds like this is Google trying to exert leverage on Amazon.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  The original version played YouTube videos without any ads, subscriptions, next video recommendations, auto-play and other things that Google thought were necessary for YouTube and its content creators. Amazon was basically stealing content from its creators and not even indirectly compensating them. >Sounds like this is Google trying to exert leverage on Amazon. Perhaps, but why should Google help Amazon sell their products, using content from Google's properties, when Amazon blacklists all of Google's products on their store.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Ok but when was that version released? I have been watching YouTube on FireTV for years at this point with advertisements and subscriptions. The current move mentions nothing about TOS and instead mentions Amazon's refusal to sell Google devices. Google doesn't have to help Amazon sell it's products but it would benefit both companies to cooperate instead of harming their customers to try and get a little more platform dominance. In this case both Amazon and Google are not acing in their customer interests and it will hurt them in the long run.
    - bitmapbrother 9y ago
      We're talking about the Echo Show here and it's the version that was shipped with it. >Google doesn't have to help Amazon sell it's products but it would benefit both companies to cooperate Until Amazon decides to start selling Google products I doubt this will end anytime soon.
      - mulmen 9y ago
        Right, they should both cooperate, it would be better for everyone.

mulmen 9y ago

Google has redefined the way it is meant to be used to include "not by Amazon".

tinus_hn 9y ago
‘I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further’