
Google: if you support Amazon Echo, you're cut off from Google Home and Chromecast - walterbell
http://boingboing.net/2016/10/02/google-if-you-support-amazon.html
======
tinbad
"Of course, having a live, networked, corporate-controlled mic in your
bedroom, living room and toilet is an idea that is so unbelievably terrible on
its face that you could use it as the introduction to a term paper in 2040
explaining how human civilization nearly collapsed in the early 21st century."

This was the highlight of the article for me.

~~~
back_beyond
What about one in your pocket?

~~~
eeZah7Ux
They are both bad in different ways. The first one is meant to listen all the
time.

~~~
gotthemwmds
that's why mine is next to a tv that sits on broadcast tv all day -- confuse
em

~~~
protomyth
It would be funny to let it listen to a Numbers Station[1] all day long. If
they are actually listening and processing, it might make for a fun feedback
loop particularly of any theories about those stations are true.

1)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station)

~~~
beardog
or setup your own number station from a russian VPS and waste millions of tax
dollars as intelligence agencies around the globe try to crack your garbage
data

------
Animats
Where are the DoJ antitrust people when you need them? This is called an
"exclusive dealing arrangement". That's legally questionable but some forms
are legal.[1] The FTC has defined a "safety zone" \- it's OK to do this if you
have less than 20% market share or there are at least four competing
technologies on the market. Google probably has too much market share for
that.

[1]
[https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/competit...](https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/competition-
policy-guidance/0558.pdf)

~~~
HillRat
Actually, I think the problem for Google is that the market is already pretty
fragmented, depending on how you slice it, and shows no signs of vendor
consolidation. In this particular case, Google's pushing hard on the flat side
of the boulder; they are trying to strongarm audio technology companies (who,
unlike software and media companies, don't have any preëxisting entanglements
with most software and service platforms) over a set of Google services that
don't hold a particularly commanding position in the market _vis a vis_
Amazon. I just don't get why they think they're in a strong negotiating
position here, except that they must assume that the Google brand is powerful
enough to create its own Kool-Aid-based distortion field.

~~~
biocomputation
>> the Google brand is powerful enough to create its own Kool-Aid-based
distortion field.

Google is slowly building their brand position as 'invasion of privacy'
despite their Kool-Aid colored logo.

Huge market opportunities for companies that can sell privacy by positioning
themselves as the opposite of Google.

------
dorianm
Ok, so the source for that is this article:
[http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/google-home-amazon-
echo...](http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/google-home-amazon-echo-
chromecast-1201874125/)

And their source is "multiple sources":

    
    
        Google’s own negotiations with consumer electronics manufacturers could be
        hampered by what multiple sources have described as overly aggressive
        muscle-flexing. At the meeting in June, Google is said to have told home audio
        vendors that they won’t be allowed to add any other digital assistants than
        Google’s own to their hardware if they want to continue to use Google Cast.
        Another source told Variety of similarly far-reaching demands made in
        negotiations with another big consumer electronics manufacturer — demands that
        ultimately led to talks breaking down.

~~~
Navarr
I'm having issues with Variety's website being awful.

I previously read another take on that source on AndroidPolice[1] where it was
framed more as "If you include Google Home you cannot include another Digital
Assistant (e.g. Alexa)" which makes a lot more sense (obviously you can't have
two assistants running at once) - though allowing it to be switchable would be
nice.

It'll be interesting to see what the truth of the matter is.

~~~
dorianm
I guess if somebody has Siri, Google Now, Google Home, Amazon Echo, etc. and
then they ask to change the music it would be a pretty fun mess.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
"Echo, change the music."

"Hey Siri, change the music."

The last service requested should be able to take over the device.

Google's problem is that if tries to bully the audio makers, the audio makers
will ignore Google Cast.

This is actually rather a stupid thing to do when Google is a minor player in
a much bigger market. It's also going to make builders in other markets wonder
if Google is good company to support.

------
dmoy
I saw a separate article that had this limited to Cast devices (also like
beaner points out, it was light on details). Is that true? If so, does the
fact that amazon refuses to sell Chromecast have anything to do with this?
(And other Cast-related restrictions from Amazon)

Disclaimer: work for Google, but so very far away from any of this stuff

~~~
ocdtrekkie
It's impossible for us to know why Google decided to do this. But both issues
could both be considered antitrust issues. Amazon's staggering market share in
shopping puts them at risk by them not selling a competitor's products in
another market segment. And Google's attempts to strongarm manufacturers into
blocking out a competitor is obviously problematic.

The argument could be made (and I think Amazon technically claimed it) that
Amazon blocked Chromecast from their store for incompatibility with their
products, because Google won't allow forks of Android to have Google apps on
them. Which is also anticompetitive.

So, if we want to suggest both companies are petty as all get out, it's
plausible Google was anticompetitive, Amazon was anticompetitive in response,
and then Google was anticompetitive again in reaction to that. What's next?
Maybe Amazon will remove Chromebooks?

~~~
kuschku
> What's next? Maybe Amazon will remove Chromebooks?

And as a result, Google will refuse to list amazon in search, their DNS
servers won’t resolve it, and Chrome will refuse to open it, and their malware
filters will mark it as fraudulent page.

~~~
rdtsc
Heh. "Which Internet would you like to connect to today? Facebook, Google or
Amazon?"

It is funny but sad. I think we'll look back at the golden age of open
Internet with fondness and nostalgia at some point

------
amelius
> Of course, having a live, networked, corporate-controlled mic in your
> bedroom, living room and toilet ...

Well, we already have that, it's in your cellphone.

~~~
lucb1e
Except that someone would have noticed if all sound was sent to NSA HQ (or
whomever). With these mics, that's by design.

~~~
bryanlarsen
It's fairly easy to tell that these devices do not send data until woken up by
their keywords.

~~~
lucb1e
That's different from what I previously heard. Mobile devices perhaps (because
limited bandwidth and battery), but about these mics (and the "smart" TVs) I
heard they upload everything and detect the trigger word online as well.

More processing power, everything centralized, I get it from a software
engineering standpoint, but it's a privacy nightmare.

Next time I read someone claiming this I'll look or ask for a source. Do you
have one that says they don't start sending until after the keyword?

~~~
wccrawford
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201602230)

> 1\. How do Amazon Echo and Echo Dot recognize the wake word?

Amazon Echo and Echo Dot use on-device keyword spotting to detect the wake
word. When these devices detect the wake word, they stream audio to the Cloud,
including a fraction of a second of audio before the wake word.

Maybe the others are different, but Amazon has claimed that they detect the
watch word locally and then start sending, but with a buffer that sends
starting just before you said the watch word.

~~~
lucb1e
Thanks!

------
beaner
I typically love Google but if true this is the kind of thing that makes me
hope they lose.

The article is a little light on evidence however, so I'm a little skeptical.

------
nojvek
Google is the Microsoft that wants to cripple competitors and stamp over its
users to make a quick buck. Nothing to see here.

~~~
biocomputation
I'm off nearly all Google products, including search and Android. I've
recently moved both my parents onto Windows phones.

History always repeats itself for all these huge enterprises. Microsoft did
all the same types of things, and their anti-competitive behavior was a
significant part of the reason why Linux got that toehold that turned into a
handhold... that turned into a...

The same thing is going to happen to Google in lots of other markets. They can
only force people to use, I mean line extend, their brand to a certain point
before they paint themselves into a corner.

~~~
FT_intern
You moved your parents from one anti-competitive company to an even more anti-
competitive company?

~~~
biocomputation
Better to have multiple, competitive companies vacuuming up the information
than 1 company.

~~~
Esau
Exactly. I use Google for search but nothing else.

------
ricardobeat
The lack of interoperability between devices is the biggest PITA for home
entertainment right now. I currently have two Apple TVs (last gen has no audio
out), a Chromecast Audio[1], a PS4, a NAS and a reasonably-smart TV all linked
together and _still can 't stream fucking bluetooth audio_ to my sound system.

[1] which I only use for the (proprietary) Spotify Connect

~~~
h4waii
Considering none of those devices have Bluetooth (well, the PS4 does for the
controller) , why would you be able to? That's like buying a scooter, a sports
car, and a diesel Volkswagen, and complaining you can't haul a 700lb
snowmobile in the non-existent bed. It makes no sense.

Buy a simple $8 3.5mm -> BT transmitter and plug it in. Done.

~~~
ricardobeat
The chromecast I bought is the dongle. That's exactly the issue. A more apt
analogy would be to buy a scooter, a sports car and a VW all with powerful
onboard computers and audio systems and not being able to play music from your
phone because there is no Bluetooth!

Actually cars are pretty far ahead in that sense, in any modern car BT "just
works".

------
notatoad
From a skim of the variety article, it seems that google is blocking access to
their assistant at a vendor level - i.e. if you have a product that includes
the alexa assistant, you can't also have a product that includes the google
assistant. This seems fairly stupid if true.

I'm hoping that either i'm reading it wrong, or variety has misinterpreted the
sources, and google is actually attempting to block multiple voice assistants
on a per-device level. Because to me, that makes perfect sense - products like
amazon's echo or google home would get very confusing if they included
multiple different voice-triggered assistants.

------
thrill
Seems fair. Amazon no longer lets me Chromecast Prime videos.

~~~
criddell
Seems stupid to me. Amazon wants to cripple their product so Google needs to
show that they can out-cripple Amazon?

~~~
rublev
Digital crip wars.

------
ajaimk
Taken a little too far. Nest products (owned by Alphabet) support Amazon Echo.
(Or is Alexa now?)

------
RaleyField
Elon's new project can't come soon enough.

~~~
JabavuAdams
So you can live in a company town on Mars where your very survival depends on
the company?

