30 ms·

Google Is Blocking YouTube on Amazon's Echo Show and Fire TV

• nailer 9y ago
  This just hit me a few hours ago - big screen (and with voice search) is a much better way to view YouTube than small screen, 'casting' apps that don't work, or crappy virtual keyboards that are laborious to type on. Re: > Amazon has been trying to do it itself -- a move that cuts out features and also likely affects Google's ability to collect on some of the ad revenue that comes from its videos. My FireTV has always shown ads for YouTube.
  • 51Cards 9y ago
    I wonder though who is serving you those ads? If it's running a 'hacked' version of the Youtube app, could Amazon be the one serving you "Youtube" ads?
    • nyrikki 9y ago
      It is Google serving the ads, if you have Youtube Red you see zero ads on the firetv with youtube. The unfortunate that the Chromecast ultra etc...are braindead devices that require a phone or tablet to even use. I probably use my FireTV as a youtube interface more than any other type of content and pay for Youtube Red. I will most likely just drop my Youtube Red account and move onto more traditional content producers due to the poor UI on Chromecast and Google's decision here. The fact that Google is making me suffer for their partnership details demonstrates that they don't value us as customers.
      • tacomonstrous 9y ago
        >The fact that Google is making me suffer for their partnership details demonstrates that they don't value us as customers. It's a tough position for them, since Amazon has been blatantly inimical to consumers of Google products for years. It seems like they finally decided to use the point of leverage they have.
        • nyrikki 9y ago
          If they produced a device that was compelling or competitive, remember with Chromecast, content must be sent from a compatible device. But a quick search shows that the Chromecast Ultra is available at the following locations near me. Fred Meyer, Best Buy, WalMart, Bed Bath & Beyond, Target etc... Plus thousands of online stores. It isn't like Amazon is the only place to buy these devices. The difference is that to sell content they need to be inside peoples homes. They just made the decision that they don't want to sell content/ads to Fire TV users. Except for vendor lock in, which is why they want to sell ChromeCast devices, they have made the decision that their content consumers are less important to them than their device sales. Last I looked YouTube made money from ad views and/or subscriptions and not through device sales.
          • tacomonstrous 9y ago
            I don't understand how anything you're saying addresses the fact that Amazon is deliberately sabotaging their product for users of Google hardware. Years of consumer complaints haven't solved the issue. So what's the resolution? I'm not saying this is a great move by Google, but if it results in Amazon finally supporting my Prime membership to the same extent it does for Fire TV owners, then I'll take it.
            • nyrikki 9y ago
              > Subscribed: Feb 15, 2016 I have never had a problem with youtube on Fire TV, which is the reason I subscribed to YouTube Red. Amazon failing to support ChromeCast doesn't justify throwing your customers under the bus. Which is exactly what YouTube chose to do.
              • tacomonstrous 9y ago
                My question is: if Amazon doesn't want to resolve this in good faith, then what other avenues does Google have?
                • 9y ago
      • jacksmith21006 9y ago
        Amazon is at fault here not Google. Amazon has now pulled Twitch from the Roku. Hopefully Google can stop Amazon anti competitive behavior. Heck Google created the Chromecast and then added YouTube support to the Roku.
• the_common_man 9y ago
  Isn't this sort of like anti-net neutrality.
  • dingo_bat 9y ago
    You see Google supports net neutrality but only for the ISPs, the companies who actually built the infrastructure. But even though YouTube is a massive monopoly, they will easily block your account if you say anything they don't like, or they will block YouTube from competitors devices like in this article.
  • oxymoran 9y ago
    what is net neutrality? Any thing that benefits google. What is not net neutrality? Anything that hurts google. War is peace and the only monopolies to fear are the ISPs.
  • eftychis 9y ago
    As commented above (just saw your comment): Yes. And the timing is ironic. If one trusts Google (or any other company in that matter -- have no delusions in the matter) to guide them toward utopia or show them the right way to democracy, they are up for a surprise.
  • jamesredman 9y ago
    Yeah it’s funny how the content and service providers want to control the entire internet when they’ve proven countless times to abuse their power and regulate legal content that is not of their liking. If YouTube decides to start blocking certain devices from its servers, ISPs can at least retaliate, in a free market and throttle their connection to pressure them to stop uncompetitive practices. Since the ISPs must consider the interests of their customers. Right now there is no check and balance on these behemoth technology companies and they appear to be acting above the law.
    • b4lancesh33t 9y ago
      I feel like goog's best case outcome is everything open. They want amazon to sell their stuff, support their users, and they want to support Amazon too. But when one side is playing hard-ball for years, at some point you have to do something.
• adamio 9y ago
  Customers could really benefit if YouTube has some competition
• ikeboy 9y ago
  Amazon started this fight by blocking sales of Apple TV and Chromecasts on Amazon.com. That really should have attracted some anti trust concerns. Other companies deciding to fight back is perfectly legitimate.
  • mrgordon 9y ago
    Yeah I was shocked to read a different article that appeared to blame Google for their action. Seems like Amazon asked for this one. I was just thinking the other day how weird it is they don't sell Apple TV.
  • AznHisoka 9y ago
    Google should respond by blocking Amazon in their search results. Then Amazon will really see who gets hurt the most.
    • trekforever 9y ago
      Better yet - Google Maps should change the directions when someone is navigating to an Amazon office to end up at a sewage treatment plant instead
      • noncoml 9y ago
        What's going on with HN??
        • letsgetphysITal 9y ago
          Content quality decreases as popularity increases. HN is about to go full Tumblr / Digg / reddit.
          • pault 9y ago
            People have been saying that since I started reading HN in 2010. It still hasn't happened.
• adrianmonk 9y ago
  As a consumer, I don't like losing options, but turnabout is fair play. I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device, although if I had an Amazon Kindle device I could watch them there. (And Kindle devices are an Amazon fork of Android, thus benefiting from Google's work.) When it comes to physical streaming devices, I can use my Prime membership to buy an Amazon Fire TV, but I can't buy an Apple TV or a Google Chromecast. I could understand if Amazon wants to sell only their own device, but they do sell third-party Roku devices ("ships and sold by Amazon.com"), which means they are selectively targeting certain products. This is pretty clearly a case of Amazon trying to use its leverage to improve its position in the streaming hardware and streaming content markets.
  • JoshMnem 9y ago
    All of this is exactly what the Web is not supposed to be. Users shouldn't need to buy certain hardware to access different parts of the Internet. It's one of the big problems with the appification of the WWW in general.
    • chrismcb 9y ago
      You don't. But if you want specialized hardware, that hardware might only access certain parts of the net.
      • katastic 9y ago
        Depends entirely on what you mean by specialized. Has a GPU to run games/movies? Fine. Has an "Amazon" logo so it won't load any Amazon competitor's websites? Bull. Hocky.
      • B-Con 9y ago
        It isn't specialized hardware, it's generalized hardware with a specialized software stack. Nothing prevents you from accessing the content except for business-level decisions. The point was that we want to avoid tangling business decisions with the general purpose hardware. (Almost everything these days is a general purpose computing device, even our "specialized" hardware is general purpose.)
• dec0dedab0de 9y ago
  Couldn't Amazon just change the signature to look like firefox or something? I wish google would have just made their own prime app instead of blocking them.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • sushid 9y ago
    It's not a matter of Amazon's programmers being unable to, it's a matter of Amazon being uncompetitive and Google deciding to fight back.
    • dingo_bat 9y ago
      Google is literally blocking access to the youtube.com website. This is clearly anticompetitive too.
      • cargo8 9y ago
        No one is arguing it's not – but most people agree its warranted given Amazon's previous anti-competitive behavior, i.e. de-listing competing Google + Apple streaming boxes + Nest products + never offering integration of Prime Video on the Apple/Android TV in a clear move to promote FireTV + Prime membership
        • dingo_bat 9y ago
          > but most people agree its warranted Is it warranted for you to kill me if I steal your car?
          • RhodesianHunter 9y ago
            I know you're being facetious, but in many states legally yes, provided you're caught in the act.
• brudgers 9y ago
  Google blocked Youtube on Windows Phone 7. Odds are it didn't affect you at the time.
  • chipperyman573 9y ago
    Google blocked it because Microsoft added in a feature that would skip the ads that play before vidoes. This broke Google's TOS, so Google revoked Microsoft's key.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • brudgers 9y ago
      Youtube would not work in Windows Phone 7's version of Internet Explorer either. Odds are it didn't affect you at the time.
      • abrowne 9y ago
        Didn't they also block other services, like Google Maps, too? (IIRC there were webview wrapper apps that faked the user-agent.)
        • brudgers 9y ago
          I think Maps was still usable through the browser unlike YouTube. And I don't think there was ever an official Maps app. At the time Microsoft's own maps were about as good...or rather Maps was often equally bad in equally surprising ways.
          • norlys 9y ago
            It wasn't working. At least on my device MS edge became super buggy and unusable whenever I went to maps.
      • flukus 9y ago
• bob_theslob646 9y ago
  >"We've been trying to reach agreement with Amazon to give consumers access to each other's products and services," a Google spokesperson said in a statement. "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." How is this even allowed? Is there any law on this type of stuff? Meaning as a consumer who is essentially held hostage? I have seen cable networks do this with channels, but never this.
  • azakai 9y ago
    It's actually worse than that. I thought Google didn't support some YouTube API access Amazon was using. But no, Google is selectively blocking access to the website: > "Echo Show and Fire TV now display a standard web view of YouTube.com and point customers directly to YouTube's existing website," Amazon's statement reads. "Google is setting a disappointing precedent by selectively blocking customer access to an open website. Google is saying Amazon customers can't view one of their websites. That's as anti-web as you can get. I understand Google is angry at Amazon, and maybe has good reason, but it crossed a dangerous line here.
    • eftychis 9y ago
      I concur. Google selectively blocks access for no temporary technical reason to a competitor out of spite or for profit. This is kind of hypocritical if you consider at the same they fight against the net neutrality fiasco (it is a fiasco, yes, among other things). If ISPs get it their way and repeal net neutrality, they will effectively apply the same treatment and reasoning against us, citizens and consumers, and against Google. So I find the timing of this post to be ironic at best. Of course the latter case has greater impact, but Google strides towards that freedom of access violation here. In a kind of similar tune: Netflix some time now refuses to run on Firefox on non Windows/Mac OS platforms. They claimed originally DRM issues, which was not the case. I am not sure if you can bypass the block in this case by altering the application's agent entry (which you can do in the case of netflix).
• djanogo 9y ago
  I wonder if amazon can pull Microsoft into this, Google refused to provide native client to Windows phones, and users had to use crappy web app. If I remeber correctly Google wouldn't even let MS pay for native client development.
• bogomipz 9y ago
  It's interesting that both of these giant very much support net neutrality but have no problem balkanizing the internet via hardware.
  • adventured 9y ago
    All of the big corporate net neutrality supporters are universal hypocrites about blocking anything they don't like when it suits them. If you take a look at the history of: Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter they've all done it at various times. The comical turn of control that Twitter instituted around their APIs for example. Oh, Twitter likes to control its own service and network? Big surprise right. If Comcast should be semi-nationalized into a heavily regulated public good, then why shouldn't every major web company be similarly nationalized? From Yelp to Zillow to Dropbox to Airbnb to Uber to Lyft to the giants like Google. These are big companies, what's the moral basis to force a telecom carrier to obey a net neutrality concept, but to not force huge services like Twitter or Snapchat to have to operate their own services on a strictly wide open basis such that they're barred from restricting or throttling any connections to their services? Why shouldn't all Internet services be forced by law to provide fully open API access to all of their non-sensitive data, with zero restrictions and throttling? They shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in any manner on the ability to access their data. It's an entirely arbitrary line being drawn, derived from subjective bias of the supporters. With these companies it's always do what I say and not what I do.
    • dsharlet 9y ago
      Of all of the companies you listed, only Comcast needed to obtain the right to dig a trench through much of the private and public property in America prior to doing business. In exchange for that right, they accepted many regulatory burdens (often very explicitly in contracted negotiations with various levels of government), and should be accepting of future regulatory burdens as well.
      • blackoil 9y ago
        But all company need right to do business, and for that they accept many regulatory burdens, like taxes, employment laws, PII laws which are different at country state and industry and company size level. So not unprecedented to have laws for web companies.
• Abishek_Muthian 9y ago
  "Amazon implemented what was essentially a hacked version of YouTube on both the Echo Show and Fire TV" What hack? don't tell me that they randomized requests across their network each time. They have announced that they are using generic webivew now.
• geekrax 9y ago
  Here is what I don't understand: If Amazon can block Google products from their marketplace, can't Google also block Amazon from showing in the search results? If blocking Amazon from search results falls under anti-trust laws, why doesn't the first one fall under same laws?
  • nocoder 9y ago
    They probably can but that will be next level escalation. Amazon is one of the biggest spenders on Google ads and Google drives a lot of traffic to Amazon, so this will materially hurt both companies. I don't see that happening very soon.
    • Buge 9y ago
      I wouldn't think so. Google got a $2.7B fine for showing shopping ads in search results, because it was an "illegal advantage". They would almost certainly say the same thing about deleting Amazon search results. https://www.recode.net/2017/6/27/15878980/europe-fine-google-antitrust-search https://www.recode.net/2017/6/27/15878980/europe-fine-google...
  • crucifiction 9y ago
    Amazon is not a monopoly, Google is. Retail is ENORMOUS and even in the area of online retail, which is still only a minor segment of all retail sales, Amazon still only has something like 30-50% marketshare depending on the type of good/week of the year. There is no "search" outside of the Web and google controls 90%+ of it.
    • namdnay 9y ago
      Not sure why you're being downvoted, you're correct
    • xapata 9y ago
      You don't have to be a monopoly to illegally use market power in one market to influence a different one. It all comes down to the lawyers.
• kdamica 9y ago
  Funny thing here, for me, is that the first time I ever rented a movie on Google play was because Amazon would not stream over Chromecast. They're shooting themselves in the foot for nothing.
  • waleedka 9y ago
    Same here. I had a movie available to me on Prime but I couldn't broadcast it to Chromecast and I didn't want to watch it on the small phone screen, so I had to buy it on YouTube.
• mmagin 9y ago
  Here's a nickle kid, get yourself a better computer.
• grandalf 9y ago
  Ironically, both of these firms are strong advocates for "net neutrality" while they practice such childish behavior. My personal view as a user of both companies' hardware and software is that Amazon is taking the lead. I bought a Fire TV a few weeks ago and it comes with a remote and turns any monitor into a useful, standalone entertainment device. I also have a chromecast, which requires an app to stream (and the streaming tends to freeze or hang and frequently gets confused if you try to stream something from a different app while another stream has hung). I also bought a $29 Kindle Fire that strongly outperforms my $200+ Nexus 7. When Google started getting into the hardware market I was hoping we'd see affordable, subsidized hardware, but instead we're getting high priced "luxury" phones which happen to be a bit cheaper than those sold by the market leader. Of the two companies, I think Amazon has a strategy that is poised to take the lead in hardware. I say this after also buying a BLU Amazon ad-supported phone for $59 that has a super large screen and performs somewhere between an iPhone 5 and iPhone 6+ (I bought it a year ago). One nice thing about the Alphabet reorganization is that we can see how hard this sort of competitive landscape is really hitting Google. We've already seen lots of free tier services getting taken away and many other signs of lower margins, and so the threat to block Youtube feels like an admission of weakness. Also, FWIW, the minute Google blocks the Fire Youtube app, Amazon can simply make the icon load Youtube in the web browser.
  • Mindwipe 9y ago
    Err...the Fire YouTube app literally already does just load the website in a borderless browser window.
• kunab21 9y ago
  Net neutrality supporters too.
• kunab21 9y ago
  Biggest proponents for net neutrality are the biggest offenders.
• kuon 9y ago
  I am so scared at the direction things are going. Vendor lock in, DRM, anti neutrality... I should be able to use a laser to project a video on the back of I spoon if it's the way I want to watch it.
• alex_young 9y ago
  Owning both a Chromecast and a FireTv, I feel knowledgeable enough to say just buy a third party device to stream on. While Amazon and Google Duke it out, they both want to gain market share, so the only way you can see everything is to go to someone else. Know anyone who wants a used Chromecast or FireTv? :)
  • kkarakk 9y ago
    chromecast is fantastic though. i can just throw on any tab i'm browsing onto it and control it using google assistant. firetv is kinda trash though yeah
    • ehsankia 9y ago
      And really, other than Amazon Video, everything else works perfectly fine. Netflix, Youtube, HBO, Plex, etc.
    • Accacin 9y ago
      The actual hardware is fine, I've had one for two or three years and it's perfect.
    • vinay427 9y ago
      If you actually want an interface and a remote, the Fire TV is typically a much better value than competing Android TV products.
  • bo1024 9y ago
    I don't want to be the obnoxious person saying "Stallman told you so", but ... well ... we should all know by now what happens when companies sell you devices that are under their control and not yours. These devices are not designed to respect your wishes or freedoms. They are not designed to empower you. They are designed to keep you within a strictly limited set of options. You do not really "own" it and it does not owe you its allegiance; it acts in the best interests of its manufacturer, not you.
  • TorKlingberg 9y ago
    This is why I use Dropbox. It may not be tightly integrated into Gmail or Office or iOS or Amazon something, but it works with everything.
• justonepost 9y ago
  Google should just partner heavily with walmart.
• partycoder 9y ago
  Google is just reciprocating Amazon's strategy. I think it's a lose-lose situation, a scorched earth strategy you could say, but Amazon is forcing Google's hand. Google and Apple do not go as far as this on each other. The only other company known to compete in this manner is: Microsoft under Ballmer and Gates. Those two were ruthless CEOs and gained sworn enemies to their brand.
• Nursie 9y ago
  Ugh, it all sounds so childish. And because of this upper-management level spat, mind-numbing amounts of money are likely to fly around a courtroom, and consumers will lose out because they always do.
• noncoml 9y ago
  They support Net Neutrality but not Device Neutrality? Hypocrisy to the max!
• guardian5x 9y ago
  Reminds me, on when Google was blocking Youtube for Windows Phones... Then Microsoft published their own App, but they had to take it down. Google seems to use Youtube often as leverage.
  • 0xFFC 9y ago
    Please, provide complete context. As far as i remember Microsoft client skipped ads. That was the reason of blockage. Please correct me if I am wrong.
• NicoJuicy 9y ago
  I only wanted Amazon Video, if i could have played it through my chromecast. It's my most used device. I think Google is right, Amazon shouldn't abuse their powers for banning products for personal intrest, while they benefitted so much from Google ( eg. Android fork)
• Aissen 9y ago
  We're missing some kind of context here… Is the app on FireTV really just a webview, or do they intend to move to a webview by January 2018 ? If it's an app that uses the API, then Google is in their right to control how it's used; and they already did with many companies hacked apps, like Microsoft's Windows Phone app. If it's just a web browser in full screen mode, now this is something else entirely; unless it has hacks that cater specifically to YouTube, then Google can just block those hacks from functioning whenever they want. So which is it ?
  • Mindwipe 9y ago
    Amazon are scraping the YouTube website and presenting it in a slightly customised webview.
    • Mindwipe 9y ago
      (The Echo view tried to use the API and was blocked recently, so switched to the webview, that is also now being blocked.)
• titzer 9y ago
  In the war between the big players, it becomes increasingly obvious that for important (to you) media, you need to get the actual bits. Buy a DVD/Blu ray disk; it'll still be sitting there in 20 years. All you need is a reader. Streaming entertainment will come and go, but I want my movies and music forever.
• dagaci 9y ago
  Every time i open google-owned website in the Edge browser i get popup telling me to download or install Chrome But I already have Chrome installed and use Chrome 90% of the time. I just find fantastically irritating to be badgered every time i don't use it. Now i see they are upping the ante and disabling accessing services because of corporate rivalry... Amazon/Apple/Google are all engaging in this kind of passive aggressive low-level battle where they use their own consumers as weapons to fight each other and its a method that unfortunately works I just hope that there will be some kind of backlash against this practice in the future, but given the level of Amazon-Apple-Google fanboism going around i'm really doubting it..
  • ororoo 9y ago
    Microsoft is also part of this battling, if you use chrome, and oh well try to search some windows api doc help on microsoft site, there will be "Try edge now! its faster than chrome". Actually when you reinstall windows10, and open up browser, the first thing the browser does, is show some marketing about how much faster edge is than chrome and firefox.
    • dagaci 9y ago
      The browser thing was really just to illustrate a starting point. I was going to mention Microsoft in the same breath, but Microsoft isn't important because they are kinda lost in the consumer space i feel. And surprisingly Microsoft hasn't actually limited me with the apps i can use, services or buying physical products with Today you have the closed-app store system's, restricted services to preferential devices and not even being able to buy products from one of the world largest outlets. They do this because in the past these companies have gained loyalty and now use that loyalty like cattle funneling customers away from competitors
  • ftxrcc 9y ago
    It's called competition...
  • rplnt 9y ago
    It's not just "now". They've been blocking features outside of Chrome for years. Just simple user-agent check to disable something here and there and show an ad.
• rekshaw 9y ago
  "Don't be evil"
• chenning 9y ago
  Nothing like a good feud to warm up credit cards. Wonder if sales are up today?
• Paraesthetic 9y ago
  Is this unexpected, they did this to Microsoft years ago, and they have been doing this to small phone operators in between.
• staticelf 9y ago
  These companies are way too big.
• awiesenhofer 9y ago
  If one decides from this to leave both Amazon and Google behind, what are good, if possible open, third party streaming devices as a replacement for firetv/chromecast(/appletv)?
• hoppelhase 9y ago
  Google also blocked a proper YouTube app for Windows Phone. They even took out the YouTube App that Microsoft implemented themselves because it used "non-public APIs", IIRC. They never provided an official app.
  • romanovcode 9y ago
    Yeah, this actually sucks hard because WP pretty much died since it had no apps. Technically it was a viable phone. Now if Google can block their major apps for a behemoth like MS, imagine what they can do to some smaller companies.
  • Mindwipe 9y ago
    The Microsoft app cut out advertising and allowed videos to be downloaded in breach of YouTube's music licenses. It wasn't a huge surprise Google blocked it. Still not quite sure what Microsoft were thinking there.
• rusk 9y ago
  So Google are campaigning for net neutrality out one side of their mouth while breaking equality of access on the other. Isn't this Anti-trust territory?
• n8n3k 9y ago
  I wonder how Amazon calculates decisions like not selling competitors hardware. Suppose a company that produced dish washers asked Amazon to stop selling their competitor's stuff. Surely Amazon would demand a lot of money for that. Likely more then it is worth to the dish washer company, since otherwise such deals would already have been made. But then how can it be a good decision for Amazon to refuse to sell it's own competitor's stuff? The loss in reputation is the same whether a customer doesn't find something from an Amazon competitor or something from a company that doesn't compete with Amazon.
• turbinerneiter 9y ago
  Break em up. Both. Make the pieces really small.
• rootw0rm 9y ago
  Amazon's hardware is shit anyways.
• blackoil 9y ago
  It is not just Amazon and Google, Google search had inferior/old UI in Firefox for Android. Similar for Windows phone google had none of the apps, and had actively blocked third party apps. OSx support for Android phone is mediocre. As a user we cherish vertical integration but as consumers in long run, it is a losing proposition.
• joshAg 9y ago
  Between this latest spat and the impedning loss of net neutrality, maybe we should start working on a definition for something in between "intranet" and "internet". 'transnet' or something.
• kryptiskt 9y ago
  The user agent string contains too much information that sites can misuse in this way. It's time to put a stop to that. Just spoof some string that looks like plain vanilla Chrome and has nothing to do what actual browser and device is used. Why are Google giving net neutrality opponents ammunition in the current fight by blocking clients they don't like and looking like complete and utter hypocrites about the open web?
• userbinator 9y ago
  I can watch YouTube just fine on my HTPC, because it's a real general-purpose computer that I fully control. I get to decide exactly how I want to consume content. Buy a locked-down appliance, get a locked-down experience dictated by whatever the corporations want.
  • now_l93 9y ago
    Until Google blocks the user agent for your preferred browser from viewing youtube.
    • CaptSpify 9y ago
      But since it's a general computing device, he can simply change the agent.
• bawana 9y ago
  Can we do the same things for ourselves? In other words, is there a website that can scrape my identity off of Google/Amazon/Facebook/Twitter. I dont want them using me as their data/content to make a profit. Or perhaps going forward the solution is simpler. Make a script that generates a false and impossible identity for every website I visit. Randomize my name,email, birth date, gender, location, ip address, browser cookies for every socket that a browser opens.
  • nolemurs 9y ago
    Using incognito mode and not logging in to sites should be enough to remove most of that information you list. Incognito mode shares information across tabs, and until you restart it. I think there are extensions that will make the identity change per tab (at least for Firefox if not Chrome). If you don't want cookies shared over time within a tab you can disable the cookies, but this will render much of the web unusable. IP address is the tricky part. TOR will work for this. I think there are VPN services that let you periodically reset your IP. So, yeah, we can definitely do this for ourselves. The tools already exist.
• cryptos 9y ago
  If Amazon isn't willing to sell Google products, Google could be unwilling to show search results leading to Amazon ... This battle could be so entertaining that you don't need YouTube or Amazon videos at all ;-)
  • jacksmith21006 9y ago
    Agree. The day Amazon banned Chromecast and Apple TV from their marketplace Google and Apple should have banned the Amazon app from their stores. Somebody had to step up against Amazon anti competitive behavior. Amazon has now pulled Twitch from the Roku.
    • 8note 9y ago
      isn't the Amazon app store already banned from Google's app store?
• SQL2219 9y ago
  When will Amazon build something to compete with youtube?
• chepeadan 9y ago
  A Google, you either die young or live long enough to see yourself become the bad guy.
• StreamBright 9y ago
  Can't wait until Amazon introduces a video services. They got almost everything to create it.
  • yladiz 9y ago
    They already did, but it’s for Prime customers only.
• retnuh1337 9y ago
  This will be HUGE. Imagine if Google Blocks all Amazon Searches and Traffic on Chrome? I used my FireStick to watch YouTube stuff, so for one this is really sucks for me.
  • baldfat 9y ago
    I am a Prime Member and I couldn't watch Prime Videos on Android for YEARS. I could on my work iPad :( Amazon is certainly the bad player here but I don't know if going to war is going to do anything but piss everyone off.
• cyberjunkie 9y ago
  Amazon Prime Video just arrived on Apple TV.
• jwildeboer 9y ago
  It's AOL v CompuServe all over again. This time it's happening on top of TCP/IP. But that's the only difference IMHO. Walled gardens instead of a competitive, open ecosystem.
• sneak 9y ago
  Amazon should make the YouTube requests indistinguishable from a desktop user running Chrome.
• owly 9y ago
  There are so many options for very small and quiet desktops. I don't understand the appeal of any of the various streaming devices from the major corps, AppleTV, Chromecast, FireTV, etc. With a small htpc you have total freedom. You can install your preferred OS, ad blocking, media player and more. You can play your own content or photo albums without uploading to a cloud service. You are not restricted to the main streaming services and can watch anything on the web. I suppose people are just lazy and would rather be frustrated. :)
  • lostcolony 9y ago
    Are you kidding me? I own a roku; it was so, so worth it. < $50, and suddenly I can easily search and stream from Amazon, Netflix, Youtube, Sling, Hulu, HBO, etc. It runs off USB power from the TV; no additional plug, nothing even visible. I can control it with my phone or the provided remote. I can stream audio privately through my phone, even as I watch on the TV, so as not to bother my wife in the same room. I can play my own content via Plex, streamed remotely from my own media server. All with zero effort. The only configuration it took was selecting what apps, and putting in my credentials. Sure, I could have bought a raspberry pi...but just the unit and a case would have put me in the same price range. I'd still need cords and an SD card. And then spent the time to setup and install everything, finding the right third party libs, troubleshooting any issues, etc. And then I'd get to make sure I updated all of them periodically, or set up an autoupdater that I'd get to troubleshoot any time it updated and caused something to break, rather than have actual QA people testing before updates get pushed. Why would I do that? Why pay the same, and go through all that pain? I can see avoiding the companies that are also content delivery companies, but there is an obvious third party that exists -solely- to fill this niche.
  • cmiles74 9y ago
    My parents want to watch Amazon Prime on their TV and are not hugely technical. Plugging the little Fire TV dongle is _way_ easier than hacking something together with an HTPC box. The Nvidia Shield might be a valid alternative, but it's hard not to just recommend they use the Fire TV dongle and be done with it.
• zipwitch 9y ago
  Maybe they could both appeal to the Corporate Court on Zurich-Orbital?
• lerie82 9y ago
  In my honest opinion, I could care less. I don't use either product and probably never will. Why? Because I have a laptop and an HDMI cable. Is it really that big of a deal for anyone but Amazon or Google?
• jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Good to see Google finally doing this. Amazon anti competitive behavior had to be checked. Amazon banned Chromecast and Apple TV from their marketplace 2 years ago. That day Google and Apple should have removed Amazon app from their stores. Google created the Chromecast and within a year added YouTube to the Roku. Versus a couple weeks ago Amazon pulled Twitch from the Roku. Hope this straightens out Amazon. Big Amazon customer and fan of the company but their behavior is just awful and so unnessary as they won ecommerce and cloud.
  • vinay427 9y ago
    This isn't quite fair. Google makes it virtually impossible for Amazon to add support to cast from its own devices (Kindle Fire, etc.). This is likely part of why Amazon added a Prime Video app for Android but refuses to allow casting support for other Android devices when its own devices cannot use it. I don't, however, agree with Amazon's decision to not sell devices without Prime Video support. I don't think the case they make that customers will expect Prime Video support holds much merit. In any case, the Apple TV is expected to return now that the Prime Video app has been released on that platform. I would like to see Chromecast support added to Prime Video, which is easiest if both sides concede slightly.
  • now_l93 9y ago
    Finally, someone's punishing an anti-competitive company with anti competition! Wait, sorry. I don't understand what we're supposed to be cheering for? How is any of this good for consumers?
• vinay427 9y ago
  I'm hoping that users will still be able to sideload the corresponding Android TV apps onto the Fire TV, or that a version where this is possible is released by someone. Also, I think it's important to note that Amazon apparently develops this YouTube app for the Fire TV, and that YouTube has been a publicly accessible site as they mentioned. In contrast, Prime Video subscribers know what devices they can watch their content on, and sign up (or cancel) with that in mind. It seems like a stretch that Google is compelling Amazon to add a feature to their own app for their own service.
• skmurphy 9y ago
  There are going to be a lot of lawyers made wealthy by an inability of two tech giants to come to a working arrangement to benefit the consumer.
• bitcuration 9y ago
  In any case, blocking web site access is an act of control that should only be expected in N. Korea or China. It's a shame and there should be legal case no matter what the reason that drives it. Choosing what to sell on their merchant store is entirely a right of Amazon. Denied of access is not.
• elheffe80 9y ago
  So now the most open way to watch content is to get an expensive ass AppleTV? Dammit.