14 ms·

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 Andro

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.)
- madez 9y ago
  This is why I don't like the web in it's current form. It's not anymore about freely sharing information. It is about creating uncopyable 'experiences' and programs in the web. I don't want services I may or may not use. That is not the web I want. Maybe if browsers didn't include JavaScript, the situation would improve. But even the supposedly user-friendly Mozilla is backing JavaScript.
  - tzahola 9y ago
    This is the future you chose :^) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-controversy-w3c-greenlights-drm-web https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-con...
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Mozilla was co-founded by the creator of JavaScript. Chances are they don't share your opinion regarding it.
  - Blaiz0r 9y ago
    I'm glad you and the above poster have said this, I also feel very strongly that the web has been completely trapped by coorporate interests. I feel like the web as we know it should be abandoned to coorporations and people that want an open platform for knowledge sharing should start something new that has to stay open.
    - rusk 9y ago
      This is the nub of the net neutrality argument for me. We don't need to "start something different" we just need to ensure that what's there can still be used for both corporations, and the public at large.
    - eloisant 9y ago
      The web is fine, the "closed garden" experiences are in native apps ecosystems.
    - krapp 9y ago
      >I also feel very strongly that the web has been completely trapped by coorporate interests. "corporate interests" haven't trapped the web. People are choosing to pretend that the web has somehow ceased to exist outside of a few silos, or that javascript has no purpose other than to further corporate or media interests, or that Facebook owns HTML now, but none of that is true. The web is just as open as it's ever been. Just because mainstream viewing habits tend to converge towards a few corporate owned social media sites does not mean the web has become owned by corporations, it just means people have gotten lazy and don't want to work to discover new content.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- simonh 9y ago
  I don't think the intention was to block access to the web site. The problem was that Amazon was using a proprietary native app to access YouTube videos, bypassing the web site and without support for any of Google's monetisation strategies they have in their own YouTube apps. That's clearly a foul and has nothing to do with the open web. Arguably Google went too far by blanket blocking based on device, but it might have been the only viable option available to them. Now that Amazon has folded and made the app a wrapper to the YouTube web page rather than accessing the videos directly, I expect Google will enable access again.
  - yread 9y ago
    Exactly the same thing happened with Windows Phone's Youtube app. https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-window-phone-youtube-app https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-win... What was Amazon thinking?
  - alaxsxaq 9y ago
    They are definitely blocking access to the web site now. First, Google blocked the app because it 'didn't comply with their policies'. Then Amazon changed it so YouTube access from these devices was, essentially, directly through the website. Now that is blocked as well. Google has a point about Amazon not carrying their devices, but I'd take a different approach - I'd lead every YouTube video played through a Fire device with an ad for Google's devices.
    - hrktb 9y ago
      What I find jarring is the asymetry of the effect. Amazon punishes Google directly as a company: users wanting Google product only have to change the URL in their browser. Google in return punishes customer having already bought their Amazon device. If the customer uses a Fire stick for intance, the only alternative to have youtube on the tv is to buy another dongle. The level of fucking with the end customer is disproportionate.
      - majewsky 9y ago
- mtgx 9y ago
  And it's only going to get worse now that EME/DRM is a standard spec of HTML. Video platforms will only work on certain DRM platforms.
  - Mindwipe 9y ago
    If anything, this shows how overblown the EME fuss was, given sevices that don't use it (like YouTube) are becoming less interoperable than services that do (like Netflix).
    - syshum 9y ago
      You sure YouTube does not use it... Even for the Commerical YouTubeTV Service?
      - Mindwipe 9y ago
        YouTube uses it for the viewing of full movies that you've bought from Google Play but view on the YouTube website. Which is about 0.0000000001% of the content on YouTube and not terribly relevant to this thread. The YouTube TV service doesn't use EME, no. And isn't terribly relevant to this thread either.
        syshum 9y ago
        1. It is relevant because the claim was "YouTube does not use it" not that "most of youtube does not use it" 2. I firmly believe now that EME is standard YouTube will start using it, especially as they start rejecting independent creators in favor of more High Budget Commerical Creators and Tradional media whom they already show a preference for. These Companies will demand it just like the big Movie Studios 3. I am not subscribed to YouTube TV service so I can not confirm but do you have a source or technical document showing they do not. I would be shocked if they were allowed to get Commercial deals to carry main stream cable channels and stream then in the clear with no copy protection.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      YouTube does use EME for paid content. Also you have to use a native app for Netflix and if they wanted to, they could also stop supporting Amazon devices at any time. There wouldn't even be a work-around thanks to EME.
- niceperson 9y ago
  None of it is free, you know. Saying "It's not supposed to be this way" isn't an argument.
- ptero 9y ago
  I agree. To narrow it down, IMO the main problem is breaking interoperability (on both sides). Web is built on open standards to ensure diverse systems can talk to each other. As long as systems comply with well defined interfaces they should be able to communicate. A company can introduce additional constraints on top to limit access. However this should still be done based on standards. Using a variety of derived properties to block specific device type is evil in my book. My 2c.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  There's a huge irony that Google, who has spent millions of dollars investing in net neutrality supporting organizations and astroturfing 'grassroots' efforts to allegedly protect the open web is blocking users from a website based on the device accessing it for anticompetitive business reasons.
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    Google Fiber did a similar thing: they initially banned home servers, which was later relaxed a bit to only ban commercial home servers, but regardless it shows Google's hypocrisy regarding neutrality. (Sure they had some rationalization that since they were prohibiting something entirely it wasn't really interfering with net neutrality.)
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      As a particular hilarity, Google Fiber has repeatedly dodged being classified as a telecom so that it isn't subject to the regulations Comcast and Verizon are.
- DerfNet 9y ago
  I mean, instead of buy proprietary devices like Fire Sticks and Chromecasts, you could just connect a computer to your TV, have it all, and call it a day. Of course, "all" does not include 1080p playback on Netflix unless you use Edge or Safari
electriclove 9y ago
I'd like to be able to cast Amazon Prime Videos (which are part of my Prime membership) to my TV using my Chromecast.
scarface74 9y ago
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.) This is so weird and dumb it's unbelievable. There is an Amazon Video app for iPhone and iPad why are they not supporting Android? There is one for Roku but they have been dragging their feet with supporting the AppleTV even though they promised one "by the end of the year". They support AirPlay to AppleTV but not ChromeCast.
- oh-kumudo 9y ago
  There is an Android App, just not in Play Store. https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-Amazon-Prime-Video/dp/B00N28818A https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-Amazon-Prime-Video/dp/B00N... Edit: it is on Play Store apparently. Might changed recently https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avod.thirdpartyclient https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avo...
- ikeboy 9y ago
  I watch fine on my Motorola phone, not sure what they are talking about. Prime Video is well supported on regular Android phones.
  - endemic 9y ago
    When I last had an Android phone, the Prime Video app wasn’t available in the Play Store... you had to side load Amazon’s App Store app in order to download it. Pretty much a giant annoyance.
    - ikeboy 9y ago
      Annoying but doable and much easier than rooting
    - nulagrithom 9y ago
      It's in the Play Store on my S8. Wonder what's going on here...
ikeboy 9y ago
Does https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avod.thirdpartyclient https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avo... not work for you? What android do you have?
- rtkwe 9y ago
  Is this new? Last time I looked a few months back I don't remember finding this.
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    Looks like it was added at the end of August. 200,000 reviews over that time is a lot.
    - tacomonstrous 9y ago
      It's been available in non-US markets for a lot longer, which explains the number of reviews.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- gothroach 9y ago
  That package name is relevant enough to be mildly amusing.
- adrianmonk 9y ago
  Oh, the situation has changed then! Thanks for the correction.
lowmagnet 9y ago
You also can't chromecast from Amazon Prime video app.
torgoguys 9y ago
>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. You've been able to do this for at least 3 years. Not one-step-you're-done-easy, but officially supported with no magic incantations required: https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/9/6126165/amazon-prime-instant-video-comes-to-all-android-phones https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/9/6126165/amazon-prime-insta...
tacomonstrous 9y ago
>I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device FYI, Amazon finally released their app on the US Play Store a couple of months ago. Not that this excuses all their other crappy behavior, and the years it took for them to finally do the right thing.
- ehsankia 9y ago
  But can I cast it on my TV? I don't want to watch a movie on my phone, I want it on my TV...
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Nope. If you want something plug-and-play your best bet right now is a Roku. Around these parts I suspect Media Center PCs are popular too but you're limited by the browser (or what native apps are available). This spat is dumb.
  - vinay427 9y ago
    I believe Google started this specific fight by not allowing devices on Amazon's fork of Android to have support for controlling a Chromecast. Even if they used Google's fork, they would be required to include various competing Google apps.
- vinay427 9y ago
  However, Prime Video is a paid service that has never been publicly accessible so its users know what they are getting into. It seems more inflammatory to me for Google to block access to a YouTube app, particularly one that Amazon apparently created for their own devices. The two don't seem equivalent. That being said, Amazon (I believe) started this duel with stopping sales of various Google devices on their website.
surement 9y ago
> I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device Why not? I regularly watch Prime Video on Android.
princeyesuraj 9y ago
I'm a Prime subscriber and can watch amazon prime videos on my Android Device. You should check the play store again.
jsilence 9y ago
I can use the amazon app on Android to watch prime videos just fine. Casting to chromecast qith localcast app. So what are you all talking about?
jimnotgym 9y ago
The issue is not really who blocked which app or who didn't sell what. The issue is that when a retail store delisting a product can cause market damaging competition problems, then that retailer has become a monopoly. Retailer, manufacturer or marketplace? You can't be all three. It is time to break up Amazon.
eastern 9y ago
This is not true. There's a Prime app on Android, available through Google's Play Store. Works fine for me.
pmlnr 9y ago
> I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device What are you talking about? Either in a browser or via https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avod.thirdpartyclient https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avo... - both are working fine, even on systemless rooted android.
jdmichal 9y ago
> (And Kindle devices are an Amazon fork of Android, thus benefiting from Google's work.) You can't call something open source and get all the benefits of that, while also allowing statements like this. Forking is fair play in open source, and if you don't like it, don't make your thing open source.
- jlillyreed 9y ago
  Pretty sure that his point in bringing that up isn't to say that what they are doing is unethical from a FOSS point of view, but rather he was making the point that it is entirely within Amazon's technical prowess to make their content available on Android devices
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    I think the addition of the phrase, "thus benefiting from Google's work", refutes an interpretation of purely technical capability. If that phrase had been omitted, I would be in agreement with you and would have had no reason to comment.
- jhasse 9y ago
  > [...] if you don't like it, don't make your thing open source. Or you use the GPL license instead of Apache.
tacomonstrous 9y ago
Talking about turnabout, there's also this: http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-roku/ http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-r...
kumarvvr 9y ago
I'm from India and I can watch Prime on my OnePlus 3 Android phone. Not being able to watch, is it a US thing? I don't get it.

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.)
madez 9y ago
This is why I don't like the web in it's current form. It's not anymore about freely sharing information. It is about creating uncopyable 'experiences' and programs in the web. I don't want services I may or may not use. That is not the web I want. Maybe if browsers didn't include JavaScript, the situation would improve. But even the supposedly user-friendly Mozilla is backing JavaScript.
- tzahola 9y ago
  This is the future you chose :^) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-controversy-w3c-greenlights-drm-web https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-con...
- icebraining 9y ago
  Mozilla was co-founded by the creator of JavaScript. Chances are they don't share your opinion regarding it.
- Blaiz0r 9y ago
  I'm glad you and the above poster have said this, I also feel very strongly that the web has been completely trapped by coorporate interests. I feel like the web as we know it should be abandoned to coorporations and people that want an open platform for knowledge sharing should start something new that has to stay open.
  - rusk 9y ago
    This is the nub of the net neutrality argument for me. We don't need to "start something different" we just need to ensure that what's there can still be used for both corporations, and the public at large.
  - eloisant 9y ago
    The web is fine, the "closed garden" experiences are in native apps ecosystems.
  - krapp 9y ago
    >I also feel very strongly that the web has been completely trapped by coorporate interests. "corporate interests" haven't trapped the web. People are choosing to pretend that the web has somehow ceased to exist outside of a few silos, or that javascript has no purpose other than to further corporate or media interests, or that Facebook owns HTML now, but none of that is true. The web is just as open as it's ever been. Just because mainstream viewing habits tend to converge towards a few corporate owned social media sites does not mean the web has become owned by corporations, it just means people have gotten lazy and don't want to work to discover new content.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
simonh 9y ago
I don't think the intention was to block access to the web site. The problem was that Amazon was using a proprietary native app to access YouTube videos, bypassing the web site and without support for any of Google's monetisation strategies they have in their own YouTube apps. That's clearly a foul and has nothing to do with the open web. Arguably Google went too far by blanket blocking based on device, but it might have been the only viable option available to them. Now that Amazon has folded and made the app a wrapper to the YouTube web page rather than accessing the videos directly, I expect Google will enable access again.
- yread 9y ago
  Exactly the same thing happened with Windows Phone's Youtube app. https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-window-phone-youtube-app https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-win... What was Amazon thinking?
- alaxsxaq 9y ago
  They are definitely blocking access to the web site now. First, Google blocked the app because it 'didn't comply with their policies'. Then Amazon changed it so YouTube access from these devices was, essentially, directly through the website. Now that is blocked as well. Google has a point about Amazon not carrying their devices, but I'd take a different approach - I'd lead every YouTube video played through a Fire device with an ad for Google's devices.
  - hrktb 9y ago
    What I find jarring is the asymetry of the effect. Amazon punishes Google directly as a company: users wanting Google product only have to change the URL in their browser. Google in return punishes customer having already bought their Amazon device. If the customer uses a Fire stick for intance, the only alternative to have youtube on the tv is to buy another dongle. The level of fucking with the end customer is disproportionate.
    - majewsky 9y ago
mtgx 9y ago
And it's only going to get worse now that EME/DRM is a standard spec of HTML. Video platforms will only work on certain DRM platforms.
- Mindwipe 9y ago
  If anything, this shows how overblown the EME fuss was, given sevices that don't use it (like YouTube) are becoming less interoperable than services that do (like Netflix).
  - syshum 9y ago
    You sure YouTube does not use it... Even for the Commerical YouTubeTV Service?
    - Mindwipe 9y ago
      YouTube uses it for the viewing of full movies that you've bought from Google Play but view on the YouTube website. Which is about 0.0000000001% of the content on YouTube and not terribly relevant to this thread. The YouTube TV service doesn't use EME, no. And isn't terribly relevant to this thread either.
      - syshum 9y ago
        1. It is relevant because the claim was "YouTube does not use it" not that "most of youtube does not use it" 2. I firmly believe now that EME is standard YouTube will start using it, especially as they start rejecting independent creators in favor of more High Budget Commerical Creators and Tradional media whom they already show a preference for. These Companies will demand it just like the big Movie Studios 3. I am not subscribed to YouTube TV service so I can not confirm but do you have a source or technical document showing they do not. I would be shocked if they were allowed to get Commercial deals to carry main stream cable channels and stream then in the clear with no copy protection.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    YouTube does use EME for paid content. Also you have to use a native app for Netflix and if they wanted to, they could also stop supporting Amazon devices at any time. There wouldn't even be a work-around thanks to EME.
niceperson 9y ago
None of it is free, you know. Saying "It's not supposed to be this way" isn't an argument.
ptero 9y ago
I agree. To narrow it down, IMO the main problem is breaking interoperability (on both sides). Web is built on open standards to ensure diverse systems can talk to each other. As long as systems comply with well defined interfaces they should be able to communicate. A company can introduce additional constraints on top to limit access. However this should still be done based on standards. Using a variety of derived properties to block specific device type is evil in my book. My 2c.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
There's a huge irony that Google, who has spent millions of dollars investing in net neutrality supporting organizations and astroturfing 'grassroots' efforts to allegedly protect the open web is blocking users from a website based on the device accessing it for anticompetitive business reasons.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  Google Fiber did a similar thing: they initially banned home servers, which was later relaxed a bit to only ban commercial home servers, but regardless it shows Google's hypocrisy regarding neutrality. (Sure they had some rationalization that since they were prohibiting something entirely it wasn't really interfering with net neutrality.)
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    As a particular hilarity, Google Fiber has repeatedly dodged being classified as a telecom so that it isn't subject to the regulations Comcast and Verizon are.
DerfNet 9y ago
I mean, instead of buy proprietary devices like Fire Sticks and Chromecasts, you could just connect a computer to your TV, have it all, and call it a day. Of course, "all" does not include 1080p playback on Netflix unless you use Edge or Safari

electriclove 9y ago

I'd like to be able to cast Amazon Prime Videos (which are part of my Prime membership) to my TV using my Chromecast.

scarface74 9y ago

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.) This is so weird and dumb it's unbelievable. There is an Amazon Video app for iPhone and iPad why are they not supporting Android? There is one for Roku but they have been dragging their feet with supporting the AppleTV even though they promised one "by the end of the year". They support AirPlay to AppleTV but not ChromeCast.

oh-kumudo 9y ago
There is an Android App, just not in Play Store. https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-Amazon-Prime-Video/dp/B00N28818A https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-Amazon-Prime-Video/dp/B00N... Edit: it is on Play Store apparently. Might changed recently https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avod.thirdpartyclient https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avo...
ikeboy 9y ago
I watch fine on my Motorola phone, not sure what they are talking about. Prime Video is well supported on regular Android phones.
- endemic 9y ago
  When I last had an Android phone, the Prime Video app wasn’t available in the Play Store... you had to side load Amazon’s App Store app in order to download it. Pretty much a giant annoyance.
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    Annoying but doable and much easier than rooting
  - nulagrithom 9y ago
    It's in the Play Store on my S8. Wonder what's going on here...

ikeboy 9y ago

Does https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avod.thirdpartyclient https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avo... not work for you? What android do you have?

rtkwe 9y ago
Is this new? Last time I looked a few months back I don't remember finding this.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  Looks like it was added at the end of August. 200,000 reviews over that time is a lot.
  - tacomonstrous 9y ago
    It's been available in non-US markets for a lot longer, which explains the number of reviews.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
gothroach 9y ago
That package name is relevant enough to be mildly amusing.
adrianmonk 9y ago
Oh, the situation has changed then! Thanks for the correction.

lowmagnet 9y ago

You also can't chromecast from Amazon Prime video app.

torgoguys 9y ago

>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. You've been able to do this for at least 3 years. Not one-step-you're-done-easy, but officially supported with no magic incantations required: https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/9/6126165/amazon-prime-instant-video-comes-to-all-android-phones https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/9/6126165/amazon-prime-insta...

tacomonstrous 9y ago

>I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device FYI, Amazon finally released their app on the US Play Store a couple of months ago. Not that this excuses all their other crappy behavior, and the years it took for them to finally do the right thing.

ehsankia 9y ago
But can I cast it on my TV? I don't want to watch a movie on my phone, I want it on my TV...
- Spivak 9y ago
  Nope. If you want something plug-and-play your best bet right now is a Roku. Around these parts I suspect Media Center PCs are popular too but you're limited by the browser (or what native apps are available). This spat is dumb.
- vinay427 9y ago
  I believe Google started this specific fight by not allowing devices on Amazon's fork of Android to have support for controlling a Chromecast. Even if they used Google's fork, they would be required to include various competing Google apps.
vinay427 9y ago
However, Prime Video is a paid service that has never been publicly accessible so its users know what they are getting into. It seems more inflammatory to me for Google to block access to a YouTube app, particularly one that Amazon apparently created for their own devices. The two don't seem equivalent. That being said, Amazon (I believe) started this duel with stopping sales of various Google devices on their website.

surement 9y ago

> I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device Why not? I regularly watch Prime Video on Android.

princeyesuraj 9y ago

I'm a Prime subscriber and can watch amazon prime videos on my Android Device. You should check the play store again.

jsilence 9y ago

I can use the amazon app on Android to watch prime videos just fine. Casting to chromecast qith localcast app. So what are you all talking about?

jimnotgym 9y ago

The issue is not really who blocked which app or who didn't sell what. The issue is that when a retail store delisting a product can cause market damaging competition problems, then that retailer has become a monopoly. Retailer, manufacturer or marketplace? You can't be all three. It is time to break up Amazon.

eastern 9y ago

This is not true. There's a Prime app on Android, available through Google's Play Store. Works fine for me.

pmlnr 9y ago

> I'm a Prime subscriber but can't watch Prime videos (TV and movies) on my regular Android device What are you talking about? Either in a browser or via https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avod.thirdpartyclient https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avo... - both are working fine, even on systemless rooted android.

jdmichal 9y ago

> (And Kindle devices are an Amazon fork of Android, thus benefiting from Google's work.) You can't call something open source and get all the benefits of that, while also allowing statements like this. Forking is fair play in open source, and if you don't like it, don't make your thing open source.

jlillyreed 9y ago
Pretty sure that his point in bringing that up isn't to say that what they are doing is unethical from a FOSS point of view, but rather he was making the point that it is entirely within Amazon's technical prowess to make their content available on Android devices
- jdmichal 9y ago
  I think the addition of the phrase, "thus benefiting from Google's work", refutes an interpretation of purely technical capability. If that phrase had been omitted, I would be in agreement with you and would have had no reason to comment.
jhasse 9y ago
> [...] if you don't like it, don't make your thing open source. Or you use the GPL license instead of Apache.

tacomonstrous 9y ago

Talking about turnabout, there's also this: http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-roku/ http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-r...

kumarvvr 9y ago

I'm from India and I can watch Prime on my OnePlus 3 Android phone. Not being able to watch, is it a US thing? I don't get it.