7 ms·

This is sort of a good point. I hate this behavior on Amazon's part, and I want them to stop. I would like it if the US government compelled them to stop. The b

This is sort of a good point. I hate this behavior on Amazon's part, and I want them to stop. I would like it if the US government compelled them to stop. The bigger thing to me is how they prevent their customers from using Chromecast solely to attempt to hurt their competitors' products. That is anti-competitive behavior, and in a better world, the US government would compel them to allow their users to stream via Chromecast. However, it's not that big of a deal if Amazon doesn't sell something. You just buy it somewhere else. I did not have any trouble acquiring a Chromecast when I wanted one, and I doubt anyone else did either. Using some kind of antitrust break-up to fix this would be like using a nuclear bomb to hammer in a nail. For a problem like this, a more targeted approach seems better, at least as an initial cut.

scarface74 9y ago
Who do you trust more to do the right thing? Private industry or the government? Lately, it seems like private industry has been more on the side of the Angels than the government. Private industry - especially consumer facing ones - seem to be a lot more accountable to the public than the government.
- austenallred 9y ago
  That’s kind of a weird false dichotomy and the answer is “it depends”
  - scarface74 9y ago
    Not really, once you get the government involved in capitalism, even if it is well meaning, there are always unintended consequences. But in the real world, would Obama regulate tech companies? Would Trump regulate banks?
    - fjsolwmv 9y ago
      Read up on how antitrust law and labor law came into existence . The unfettered capitalism you love is actually quite fettered, and many people died for that right.
      - scarface74 9y ago
        Technology moves much faster than regulation. It wasn't the slap on the wrist that MS received that brought down its influence - it was Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon. Especially Apple and Google that made PCs less relevant to most users and developers. In 2016, the government was in the process of forcing cable companies to allow third party set top boxes. The cable companies fought back, the government dropped the pursuit and guess what? Technology made the need much less relevant. https://www.recode.net/2017/1/31/14453444/fcc-tv-open-set-top-box-dead-ajit-pai https://www.recode.net/2017/1/31/14453444/fcc-tv-open-set-to... Now even though the cable company "won" they loss anyway. They are still losing cable subscribers and companies like DirecTV and Sling came along. I pay $35 a month for DirecTVNow, get all of the cable channels I care about and in my local market, get all of the OTA channels (NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, and the CW). While the government was fighting the last war - cable set top boxes - the industry had moved on to creating services that let you watch live TV anywhere - on your phone, tablet, internet connected set top boxes, game consoles etc. While the government was worried about MS unbeatable dominance on the desktop, during the next 10 years, the battle had moved to mobile.
austenallred 9y ago
It’s also worth noting that Amazon has said as soon as those products support Prime Video apps they’ll allow them back on. It’s perhaps more reasonable that you don’t want to sell productd that are leveraging an anticompetitive position against you. So it’s kind of an antitrust tête-à-tête.
- hueving 9y ago
  What anticompetitive position is being leveraged against Amazon in this case? The chromecast doesn't pretend to be an open marketplace for any apps. Amazon does pretend it's an open marketplace for goods.
  - benwilber0 9y ago
    * Google refuses to support Amazon Prime Video on Chromecast. * Amazon refuses to sell Chromecast devices. There's nothing really "anti-competitive" going on here. Two consumer tech giants are refusing to support each others' stuff. That's it. Consumers are free to pick one, or both!
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - bduerst 9y ago
      Chromecast is a feature that you develop on your own apps - i.e. Amazon can add it to their Prime App. Google isn't preventing Amazon Prime from having Chromecast support.
    - refurb 9y ago
      Yeah I don't get it either. It doesn't impact consumer's ability to get either product. Would we force Ford dealerships to sell Hondas as well? For Whole Foods to carry Safeway-branded products? Of course not.
      - prklmn 9y ago

scarface74 9y ago

Who do you trust more to do the right thing? Private industry or the government? Lately, it seems like private industry has been more on the side of the Angels than the government. Private industry - especially consumer facing ones - seem to be a lot more accountable to the public than the government.

austenallred 9y ago
That’s kind of a weird false dichotomy and the answer is “it depends”
- scarface74 9y ago
  Not really, once you get the government involved in capitalism, even if it is well meaning, there are always unintended consequences. But in the real world, would Obama regulate tech companies? Would Trump regulate banks?
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    Read up on how antitrust law and labor law came into existence . The unfettered capitalism you love is actually quite fettered, and many people died for that right.
    - scarface74 9y ago
      Technology moves much faster than regulation. It wasn't the slap on the wrist that MS received that brought down its influence - it was Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon. Especially Apple and Google that made PCs less relevant to most users and developers. In 2016, the government was in the process of forcing cable companies to allow third party set top boxes. The cable companies fought back, the government dropped the pursuit and guess what? Technology made the need much less relevant. https://www.recode.net/2017/1/31/14453444/fcc-tv-open-set-top-box-dead-ajit-pai https://www.recode.net/2017/1/31/14453444/fcc-tv-open-set-to... Now even though the cable company "won" they loss anyway. They are still losing cable subscribers and companies like DirecTV and Sling came along. I pay $35 a month for DirecTVNow, get all of the cable channels I care about and in my local market, get all of the OTA channels (NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, and the CW). While the government was fighting the last war - cable set top boxes - the industry had moved on to creating services that let you watch live TV anywhere - on your phone, tablet, internet connected set top boxes, game consoles etc. While the government was worried about MS unbeatable dominance on the desktop, during the next 10 years, the battle had moved to mobile.

austenallred 9y ago

It’s also worth noting that Amazon has said as soon as those products support Prime Video apps they’ll allow them back on. It’s perhaps more reasonable that you don’t want to sell productd that are leveraging an anticompetitive position against you. So it’s kind of an antitrust tête-à-tête.

hueving 9y ago
What anticompetitive position is being leveraged against Amazon in this case? The chromecast doesn't pretend to be an open marketplace for any apps. Amazon does pretend it's an open marketplace for goods.
- benwilber0 9y ago
  * Google refuses to support Amazon Prime Video on Chromecast. * Amazon refuses to sell Chromecast devices. There's nothing really "anti-competitive" going on here. Two consumer tech giants are refusing to support each others' stuff. That's it. Consumers are free to pick one, or both!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - bduerst 9y ago
    Chromecast is a feature that you develop on your own apps - i.e. Amazon can add it to their Prime App. Google isn't preventing Amazon Prime from having Chromecast support.
  - refurb 9y ago
    Yeah I don't get it either. It doesn't impact consumer's ability to get either product. Would we force Ford dealerships to sell Hondas as well? For Whole Foods to carry Safeway-branded products? Of course not.
    - prklmn 9y ago