
Google Blocks YouTube Access from Amazon's Streaming Devices - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/google-blocks-youtube-access-from-amazon-s-streaming-devices
======
niftich
Also being discussed at 'Google Is Pulling YouTube Off the Fire TV and Echo
Show' [1], posted two hours prior.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855198](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855198)

------
Someone1234
This is one reason why the Roku is such a great streaming platform, they're
neutral.

You can receive VUDU (Walmart), Prime Video (Amazon), and YouTube/Play Movies
(Google). The only thing you cannot receive is Apple's ecosystem (but no non-
Apple streaming hardware can as far as I know). Same reason why Spotify is so
prevalent, they too are neutral in this war between titans.

I have no sympathy for Google or Amazon in this particular situation since
both have a track record of blocking out competition when they can. I do have
sympathy for customers who get caught in the middle of these little disputes.

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
I may be wrong but Google can block itself from being shown on Roku right? It
seems weird to call Roku neutral when it's not them but Google calling the
shots.

~~~
niftich
Google can block YouTube wherever it wishes because their YouTube clients are
either:

\- first-party, so they make them on platforms where they wish to be present
on, and conversely withdraw from platforms on which they no longer wish to be
present; or,

\- third-party, such they are bound by the YouTube API Services Terms of
Service [1], which reserves their right to terminate any client for
specifically enumerated reasons, or any or no reason at all.

[1] [https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/api-services-
ter...](https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/api-services-terms-of-
service)

~~~
onboardram
There are clients like Newpipe[1] that directly parse the Youtube website
instead of using the API.

[1]:
[https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/](https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/)

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
I'm a big user of NewPipe. They have features for free that the YouTube app
would make you pay for, such as listening to audio only in the background,
removing ads. Plus many other useful features such as having a scaled down
video display in front of other apps and downloading video/audio to listen
later offline.

------
ericand
Can we advance some kind of peace treaty? Google's philosophy is to "put users
first and the rest will follow" [0] Amazon wants to be the world's most
customer centric company. [1]

\- [0] [https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/the-google-
wa...](https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/the-google-
way/9781593271848/pt03.html) \- [1] [https://www.amazon.jobs/working/working-
amazon](https://www.amazon.jobs/working/working-amazon)

~~~
chickenfries
Well, seemed like you worked for both of them, maybe you should write a couple
letters.

~~~
chejazi
For posterity, profile reads:

> Former Google and AWS product manager.

------
AdmiralAsshat
Know where I can still watch both Youtube and Amazon Video? On my ten year-old
Playstation 3.

~~~
Mister_Snuggles
Interestingly enough, my Blu-Ray player lost Youtube access at some point
because the vendor stopped pushing updates and Google changed the API.

I don't blame Google, nor do I blame the hardware vendor - I don't expect my
devices to receive software updates forever, and I don't expect Google to keep
the same API forever either.

~~~
wang_li
And yet, somehow, you could buy a TV appropriate to your country from any
television manufacturer and you could receive programming from a range of
different television broadcasters for seventy years.

~~~
Mister_Snuggles
But I also can't receive modern transmissions on that TV set, nor can I hook
it up to a modern device (e.g., a Blu-Ray player that only has HDMI or RCA
outputs)

------
jenkstom
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no pity for Amazon here. They've consistently
misrepresented things to remove anything google from the amazon store. They
wouldn't support google's cast protocol for their streaming video service and
they used that as an excuse to remove the chromecast. They won't carry the
google home because it competes with the echo.

If anybody is abusing a monopoly here it is amazon. I'm glad google finally
threw down the gauntlet, I hope they make amazon regret all of this.

I sincerely regret purchasing amazon tablets because they are junk for my
kids. If it weren't for third party apps like netflix and plex those tablets
wouldn't be worth the $40 I spent on them. I can install google play services
and "almost" turn them into normal android tablets, except amazon makes sure
you get constant errors if you do that.

When I found out that there was no youtube kids app on the amazon fire I
nearly lost my mind. I don't want to get up every Saturday morning at 5 am
just because my triplets don't have funny cat videos to watch...

------
cgore
It used to be that putting a video on YouTube guaranteed it was available on
basically any device anywhere. I guess Google is ruining that too now.

------
dr1337
This should quash anyone's doubts that Google is using YouTube to strengthen
their monopoly.

They played the same dirty trick on Microsoft with Windows Phone and now
they're doing the same with Amazon.

~~~
xbmcuser
This is in retaliation for Amazon not selling Google hardware products on
Amazon. It's Amazon that is abusing its monopoly.

~~~
kuschku
Amazon isn’t selling the Chromecast (they’re selling all other Google
hardware) because Google prevented Amazon from streaming to the Chromecast.

Which is Google abusing its monopoly.

~~~
xbmcuser
Ah no Amazon stopped selling google nest devices as well. And no google has
not stopped Amazon from streaming to chrome-cast it is Amazon that is not
implementing it apps for streaming to chromecast. If you can stream with vlc
to chromecast I dont see how google is stopping Amazon

~~~
kuschku
> If you can stream with vlc to chromecast

You can only if the device has Google Play Services installed.

Amazon doesn’t want to have separate versions of their apps for regular
Android (as used on LineageOS, Amazon Kindle Android, MIUI, Replicant,
CopperheadOS) and for Google’s version with proprietary Play Services.

------
Analemma_
This is actually even worse than the future Stallman predicted, where our
books would be blocked at the whim of the copyright holder. At least then you
could sort of understand the rationale: the idea that the rightsholders should
get to decide how you consume the content is intuitive, if ultimately false.

But now we cant watch stuff just because the megacorporations are fighting and
we are collateral damage. They don't even care about the specific content,
it's all about platform dominance. Corporate information proxy wars were cool
in cyberpunk novels but really suck in reality :(

~~~
acchow
Agreed this absolutely sucks.

Amazon fired the first shots tho. This is their fault and they should put
Google products back up on their store.

~~~
TruthSHIFT
What did Amazon do?

~~~
firloop
Amazon took all products that can't stream Amazon content off their store.

Google Cast players can't stream Amazon content because Amazon hasn't
implemented the Cast SDK in their app.

Amazon doesn't implement the Cast SDK because their flavor of Android eschews
Google Play Services which is required for the Cast SDK on Android.

Google doesn't license the Google Play Services to Amazon because....

We can go around for a while...

------
therealmarv
they were never good at each other. To have the best of two worlds is to have
one Chromecast and one Fire TV. At least I don't need an Apple TV nowadays
because Chromecast is good enough for local streaming and some occasional
mirroring from Mac (although not the same quality as Apple TV).

~~~
nwah1
Or just use a device and content delivery platform that isn't developed by a
content producer... like Roku, Kodi, etc.

~~~
WorldMaker
What's to say Google doesn't pull YouTube API access from Roku or Kodi next?
This salvo at Amazon isn't their first, and may not be their last.

~~~
nwah1
Best way to prevent this kind of content hoarding is to support neutral
platforms.

~~~
WorldMaker
How does that actually prevent anything? Using Roku/Kodi to consume YouTube
doesn't stop YouTube from content hoarding, and YouTube from having all the
power in the relationship. You using a Roku doesn't have any bearing if a
content creator is releasing to YouTube.

Yes, it would be great if there was a more neutral video sharing platform than
YouTube, but it's not "you the consumer" that gets the power to choose that.

Not to mention that today's neutral consumer platform is tomorrow's
acquisition target. You can scamper from platform to platform, of course, but
again, you don't really have much in the way of power in those relationships
either.

~~~
nwah1
It helps by lowering the cost of acquiring new sources of content. The
suggestion of buying both a fire stick and a chromecast is expensive and
cumbersome. Downloading an app on Kodi or Roku is free and easy.

And Kodi, in particular, being open source isn't an acquisition target.

The point is to prevent being locked in, and shut out of good content from
independent sources.

------
freedomben
Curious, is this a violation of net neutrality? This seems even worse for the
consumer than simply having to pay more. At least then you still can get
access. Do we clamor for the government to come regulate it?

Be careful when considering this so as not to be inconsistent with your
reasoning behind NN for ISPs.

~~~
guelo
No. the network refers to the transit medium. Network non-neutrality would
make it worse because comcast could decide you can't watch youtube or amazon
video on any device.

~~~
wang_li
The network only refers to the transit medium if your premise is that the
power to control content lie with one particular interest group instead of
another.

What's special about Twitter that they get to decide who can use their
computers, routers, switches and so on, whereas level-3 is not allowed to do
the same?

~~~
guelo
The physical medium is the limited public resource. We have all the public
ground and all the radio spectrum we'll ever have. Tearing up roads, wiring up
cities, assigning spectrum, blanketing the country in antennas, are national
infrastructure projects that take decades and billions of dollars. In America
with our belief in the free market we've traditionally done these projects
with public/private partnership. But we can't give corporations complete free
reign because they're using our one set of physical resources, if they screw
those up then we lose access to our shared telecommunication infrastructure.

On top of these physical networks the digital companies are building virtual
networks. Twitter, Snapchat, Medium, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft,
Amazon, and a thousand more companies vigorously competing in these virtual
domains. The virtual worlds are so vast and we're still trying to understand
their potential that even when these companies seem to be forming monopolistic
locks we should give them free rein. You have more communication channels
today then anybody else in human history. Stop calling for government control
of our unlimited virtual resources.

------
g123g
The war we were all waiting for has begun. I am going to grab some popcorn and
watch it on my Roku.

------
matmo
Seems like a tit for tat thing here with multiple back and forths - but who
started it?

~~~
mulmen
Adam Smith

------
talyian
If only Net Neutrality went both ways...

~~~
luma
While I understand NN is a hot topic in these past few months, I'm having a
hard time understanding the connection here. Are we suggesting that there
should be some sort of mandated cross-platform compatibility requirement for
all cloud video services on all devices? Meaning, do we really want to require
that Google provides access to all YouTube content on everyone's device? What
if I post a video on my own homepage, am I then required to make it available
on all devices?

I think both Google and Amazon are acting like jerks here, but I can't think
of federal-level rules I'd change or put into place that wouldn't make things
worse.

~~~
mynameismonkey
> Meaning, do we really want to require that Google provides access to all
> YouTube content on everyone's device? What if I post a video on my own
> homepage, am I then required to make it available on all devices?

No, I think the point is once you've uploaded the video, please don't single
out a particular device and actively prohibit access. Web is Web. Let the Web
clients make Web calls to Web content. (I'm referring to them actively
blocking the workaround which was to access the regular Web version.)

------
alacombe
So much for a free and open internet.

Just a week ago, Google was among among the leading tech companies fighting
for people against censorship and arbitrary blocking, and now this...

