
Google Is Blocking YouTube on Amazon's Echo Show and Fire TV - electriclove
https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/05/google-blocking-youtube-on-amazon-echo-show-fire-tv/
======
adrianmonk
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
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.

~~~
madez
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.

~~~
Blaiz0r
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.

~~~
krapp
>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.

~~~
CaptSpify
This is a joke, right?

We are building drm _into the browsers themselves_ now. We are letting
companies tell people that "there is no way to access media, unless you go
through our walled garden" and defending the company! The open web is farther
gone than it's ever been.

~~~
krapp
I shouldn't have to point this out to someone on Hacker News but _browsers_
are not _the web._ Facebook is not the web. Twitter is not the web. Not even
Google is the web.

No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to use EME when they
distribute media, and it certainly will no more be the case that _all_ media
will be forced through DRM and a walled garden than it ever was. The companies
that will use this are the companies that would have used DRM anyway, just in
another form. The web, as a whole, is unaffected.

~~~
CaptSpify
Wow, I've heard some bad arguments on here, but this one is great. Good work.

------
dagaci
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
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
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

------
ikeboy
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.

~~~
AznHisoka
Google should respond by blocking Amazon in their search results. Then Amazon
will really see who gets hurt the most.

~~~
noncoml
A retailer not carrying one item, is different from a search engine blocking
results.

~~~
deanCommie
Why? Search is a service provided by a company trying to make money, just as a
retailer.

Just because it's an invaluable service now core to using the internet,
doesn't make it a public utility.

Here's the actual difference:

If Google started blocking Amazon search results there would be an _upoar_.

Amazon has blocked selling certain Google items, and there is barely a
whimper.

Here's the other difference: When GOogle shows Amazon search results, and
users go through those results to make an Amazon purchase, Google gets a cut.
That's how e-commerce works on the internet.

~~~
noncoml
> Why? Search is a service provided by a company trying to make money, just as
> a retailer.

I don't have any horses in this race, so I am not trying to take anybody's
side, but since you ask, here is my opinion:

A retailer is by default selecting what items to sell.

A search engine is by default crawling everything.

So one is kind of opt-in and the other opt-out.

~~~
CaptSpify
That's what a search engine _should_ be. Google has strayed far away from that
already.

------
bob_theslob646
>"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.

~~~
valuearb
The correct solution is an anti-trust investigation into Amazon. Not carrying
or supporting competitors TV boxes is a clear restraint of trade when Amazon
Prime gives you a near monopoly on e-commerce for a huge block of customers.

~~~
RhodesianHunter
I really wouldn't use the word "monopoly" to describe it when anyone with the
ability to buy these things from Amazon can just as easily buy them from Apple
or Google's online stores.

~~~
Alterlife
Wouldn't the same logic have applied to Microsoft when they delivered IE pre-
installed?

If MS was abusing it's market dominance then, so is Amazon now.

~~~
rkangel
I'm not sure it is. You start off in a position where you don't have the
device, and you either go to website A or website B to buy it (leaving aside
details where you already may have an Amazon account).

With the IE case, you start off in a position where you already have a browser
and you have to perform an extra step to get a different one.

~~~
bdhess
> leaving aside details where you already may have an Amazon account

This ignores the most salient part of the whole scenario.

------
bogomipz
It's interesting that both of these giant very much support net neutrality but
have no problem balkanizing the internet via hardware.

~~~
adventured
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
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
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.

------
geekrax
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?

~~~
crucifiction
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
Not sure why you're being downvoted, you're correct

------
djanogo
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.

------
kdamica
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
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.

------
alex_young
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
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
And really, other than Amazon Video, everything else works perfectly fine.
Netflix, Youtube, HBO, Plex, etc.

------
hoppelhase
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.

~~~
Mindwipe
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.

------
brudgers
Google blocked Youtube on Windows Phone 7. Odds are it didn't affect you at
the time.

~~~
chipperyman573
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.

~~~
brudgers
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
Didn't they also block other services, like Google Maps, too? (IIRC there were
webview wrapper apps that faked the user-agent.)

~~~
brudgers
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
It wasn't working. At least on my device MS edge became super buggy and
unusable whenever I went to maps.

------
adamio
Customers could really benefit if YouTube has some competition

------
bawana
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
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.

------
userbinator
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
Until Google blocks the user agent for your preferred browser from viewing
youtube.

~~~
CaptSpify
But since it's a general computing device, he can simply change the agent.

------
the_common_man
Isn't this sort of like anti-net neutrality.

~~~
jamesredman
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
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.

------
kuon
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.

------
grandalf
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
Err...the Fire YouTube app literally already does just load the website in a
borderless browser window.

------
cryptos
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
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
isn't the Amazon app store already banned from Google's app store?

------
owly
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
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.

------
Aissen
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
Amazon are scraping the YouTube website and presenting it in a slightly
customised webview.

~~~
Mindwipe
(The Echo view tried to use the API and was blocked recently, so switched to
the webview, that is also now being blocked.)

------
awiesenhofer
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)?

------
guardian5x
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
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.

------
rusk
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?

------
kryptiskt
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?

------
dec0dedab0de
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.

~~~
sushid
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
Google is literally blocking access to the youtube.com website. This is
clearly anticompetitive too.

~~~
cargo8
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
> but most people agree its warranted

Is it warranted for you to kill me if I steal your car?

~~~
RhodesianHunter
I know you're being facetious, but in many states legally yes, provided you're
caught in the act.

~~~
dingo_bat
I am not being facetious. IMO, it is not warranted for anybody to break laws
in retaliation to another person breaking a law.

~~~
jlillyreed
I agree with you.

however, the people murdering the thief would claim that they are not breaking
any laws.

------
turbinerneiter
Break em up. Both. Make the pieces really small.

------
titzer
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.

------
n8n3k
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.

------
vinay427
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.

------
joshAg
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.

------
jwildeboer
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.

------
jacksmith21006
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
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.

------
Nursie
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.

------
retnuh1337
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
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.

------
kunab21
Biggest proponents for net neutrality are the biggest offenders.

------
partycoder
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.

------
blackoil
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.

------
bitcuration
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.

------
NicoJuicy
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)

------
Abishek_Muthian
"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.

------
chepeadan
A Google, you either die young or live long enough to see yourself become the
bad guy.

------
staticelf
These companies are way too big.

------
lerie82
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?

------
skmurphy
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.

------
justonepost
Google should just partner heavily with walmart.

------
StreamBright
Can't wait until Amazon introduces a video services. They got almost
everything to create it.

~~~
yladiz
They already did, but it’s for Prime customers only.

------
sneak
Amazon should make the YouTube requests indistinguishable from a desktop user
running Chrome.

------
elheffe80
So now the most open way to watch content is to get an expensive ass AppleTV?
Dammit.

------
chenning
Nothing like a good feud to warm up credit cards. Wonder if sales are up
today?

------
rekshaw
"Don't be evil"

------
kunab21
Net neutrality supporters too.

------
zipwitch
Maybe they could both appeal to the Corporate Court on Zurich-Orbital?

------
SQL2219
When will Amazon build something to compete with youtube?

------
noncoml
They support Net Neutrality but not Device Neutrality?

Hypocrisy to the max!

------
cyberjunkie
Amazon Prime Video just arrived on Apple TV.

------
mmagin
Here's a nickle kid, get yourself a better computer.

------
nailer
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
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
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
>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
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
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
> 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
My question is: if Amazon doesn't want to resolve this in good faith, then
what other avenues does Google have?

~~~
kbwt
None, because Google itself is engaging in anti-competitive behavior left and
right. They sure as hell aren't going to lobby for the government to crack
down on these practices when they are so dependent on keeping the status quo.

~~~
jacksmith21006
This one is on Amazon not Google. Amazon anti competitive behavior had to be
stopped. Amazon has now pulled Twitch from the Roku.

