If they are no longer the "Everything Store" then they won't be where I go to for everything...
I have Prime and prefer Netflix, because Prime Video still doesn't have a great selection.
This is why it almost seems like Amazon's Google+ moment: one underperforming product area somehow manages to convince leadership to change the company's underlying principles in its advantage to the long-term detriment of overall brand perception.
Edit: 32 points in 19 mins for this comment. I really hope someone from Amazon is reading.
It's certainly not a good precedent to set banning competitor's products from their store. I could come up with a dozen different slippery-slope scenarios.
Streaming (music or TV) is just a new distribution and pricing mechanism for the same product. For Google, social media is a fundamentally different product to search. You can argue that they are both ways of 'finding things' but there are still huge fundamental differences.
Amazon on the other hand seems to be subscribing to the amputation school of thought. I don't know a soul that's ever bought an Amazon gadget that wasn't exclusively named "Kindle." If people truly preferred Amazon's devices to those from Apple or Google, they would have bought them.
I could see it being shady if you were talking about denying people access to things they need, but we're talking about selling on the Internet here. It's not like people will have a hard time buying Apple TVs or Chromecasts because they aren't on Amazon. They just have to type the name into their address bar.
I would guess they got a lot of complaints from people who said they couldn't get Instant Video to work on their streaming devices, someone calculated the cost of customer service vs profits of selling those devices, and decided it wasn't worth it... how is that any different form any other retailer choosing to drop a product because it isn't working for them? Customer service costs and returns are probably the most common reason for anyone dropping something.
I know Amazon has a bigger selection than pretty much everyone, but does that give them a moral imperative to not discriminate on products? Seems like people are considering Amazon as if they were a public utility, which seems like a pretty impressive achievement for them.
That's because google and apple aren't the Walmart of the internet, they make electronics. Amazon specializes in selling stuff, google and apple make stuff and also happen to sell them on their website, or you could buy it from somewhere else (in google's case)
I think the equivalent for Google would be deliberately not listing duckduckgo or bing in search results for "duck duck go" or "bing".
But this is literally the first time that I've seen Amazon play that way. So it may not be different from any other retailer, it's different from how Amazon used to be. (Or at least was perceived to be, which amounts to the same thing.)
Now I don't know the licensing terms they have with the content providers, but they certainly aren't fulfilling the consumer demand.
Digital music sold used to have DRM, because it just couldn't be avoided since the licensing terms of the content required it. The Primecast seems likely to be the same.
It's more like them saying, "Sorry, user, we can't let you do that."
Where as this (and what Apple does) is more like, "What's that user? You want <competing thing>? Well, fuck off!"
Thinking on it though, massively slowing down deliveries of books from publishers Amazon doesn't like was actually the first time I've seen Amazon do something like this. So this actually isn't the first time; now its a pattern.
Side rant: Amazon Prime's media crap is also especially annoying to me personally, since I spend most of the year outside of the US, where it doesn't work at all. (Go Netflix!))
(But it's perfectly fine for Amazon's search to only show Amazon stuff, because universal search is not part of their claim.)
Go there right now and type macbook pro in the search. You'll get a page of results with these top results:
Apple MacBook Pro MF839LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop with Retina Display (128 GB) NEWEST VERSION
Apple MacBook Pro MD101LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop
Apple MacBook Pro MJLQ2LL/A 15.4-Inch Laptop with Retina Display (NEWEST VERSION)
Apple MacBook Pro MB990LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop
Apple MacBook Pro MJLT2LL/A 15.4-Inch Laptop with Retina Display (NEWEST VERSION)
The whole thing is a mess.
But yeah, I bought prime 4 years ago and amazon became my one stop shop for everything. This is their threat to google's business of taxing ecommerce via owning discovery. Amazon wins if search starts there and skips google; excluding items from prime dilutes that value.
But let's be honest: this is obviously amazon leveraging their ecommerce power to force apple to build amazon prime video into apple tv.
The other day I went to buy a pair of standard issue Apple headphones. The same exact ones that come with the iPhone. Yeah they are slightly overpriced but I am really used to them and they sound good and my pair was getting ratty and I wanted another one.
It was literally impossible to do. Try it and see what I mean. I see "Original OEM iPhone Earbuds with Mac and Volume Control" as the first result, for $4.94. As a non-clueless person I know those definitely aren't real. But are the results for $24.99 or $29.99 real? It's really just impossible to be sure, you can look for "Sold by Amazon" itself but even that can be ambiguous. The day I went to do it I literally could not. I gave up and went to apple.com where it took 30 seconds.
That's not an uncommon experience. I typically buy Apple stuff from the Apple online store, or from B&H, as a rule, because this is such a problem. And I'm noticing it more and more with other products, things like USB hubs or IP Cameras and the like.
My default has always been to buy almost everything I can from Amazon as the first preference, but it's getting harder and harder to do in entire categories of products. I hope someone there is paying attention to this problem, it's real.
From an ethical standpoint, I'm also starting to wonder if Bezos is one of the most unhinged, corrupt people on this planet. Stories from their top tech employees down to their warehouse workers have been nothing short of horrifying.
Amazon doesn't care; thousands of people complain, and they keep letting it happen.
Amazon is simply a store for majority of the people who shop there.
If Google banned Amazon from search results you would probably be outraged.
The news article says that they're banning video streaming devices that don't support Amazon Video. So if that's true, it's not that they're banning competitors, but that they're forcing streaming devices sold on Amazon to support Amazon Video in addition to whatever else they support.
I don't know what the primary motivation is, but I could genuinely see some customers being confused. Imagine you're a customer that's just signed up for Prime. You don't have a TV stick to watch it on, so you shop around the store and find a streaming device that's highly reviewed. You buy it and plug it in, only to find that Amazon Video does not work on it, or works poorly. This is plausible; this kind of thing happens, especially with unsophisticated, less computer savvy buyers (the kind of people who think the Google search box is the Internet). I could easily see my parents making this kind of mistake.
Whether that's the primary motivation, I wouldn't know. It seems like you could also deal with that problem by changing the way the product is displayed, for people who have Prime Video, and show a big warning like "This product does not support Prime Video" on the side so they can't overlook that fact when buying it. (Though this could lead to other complications - I could imagine there being weird legal or anti-competitive issues with making claims like that about competitors' products in a way that they can't control, that's not part of the product description. Banning them might be the simplest way.)
The only reason the devices don't support Amazon Video is because Amazon has chosen not to build apps that support those devices.
This is a problem entirely of Amazon's making. And I don't understand it. No one makes money on the devices, they make money on the subscriptions. It's in their best interests to be on as many devices as possible.
They obviously treat their vendors like red-headed stepchildren; they know they have to be on Amazon to make sales, but the margins have to be tiny. Ever notice how when you order something from an Amazon "partner", the tracking information is magically worse than worthless? And of course, if you have a problem they'll correct it immediately at their own cost, because Amazon threatens to turn off the sales faucet if they don't make the Amazon Experience pleasant for the consumer.
Don't get me wrong, I still shop there. Particularly for electronics -- 3% cashback on my Amazon card is nothing to shake a stick at.
But it's feeling worse and worse to do so.
MacBook Pro (mid-2015)
One problem is that Amazon is now inviting consumers to open a direct relationship with Google or Apple. If a user makes a purchase of an Apple TV or Chromecast directly, Google or Apple now know exactly who they are.
Generally speaking, making it hard or cutting off sales channels for specific products can work to divert sales. Big retailers do it. However, if it is a product the consumer really, really wants they are going to jump through the loopholes to get it. I imagine Apple TV will eventually fall under that category.
Alternatives? Let Apple TV and Chromecast continue to be sold but place large warning messages and suggest buying a Roku or Amazon whatever device instead.
I didn't want a device coming from a company participating in multi-sided markets. It just ends up with an internal conflict of interest and it's always not clear to the customer what side is the win.
I could be wrong though - this is based on the limited info in the article.
Chromecast and Apple TV are more than popular enough to warrant app support, so it can't be a question of platform marketshare, either. (Chromecast support is so simple that the idea Amazon can't do it is laughable.) Android TV is not as popular, but Amazon already has an Android TV app, except it's restricted to Sony TVs:
This is not a retaliation. Amazon's suggestion that this is Apple or Google's fault is simply false.
One difference here is that Amazon can quietly go back on their decision if it doesn't work and they see people aren't viewing the Apple TV, Chromecast and Fire as substitutes- since it is just a few listings.
Google integrated everything with Google+ the vestiges are still all around.
Or am I wrong?
>> So in the coming months, a Google Account will be all you’ll need to share content, communicate with contacts, create a YouTube channel and more, all across Google. YouTube will be one of the first products to make this change, and you can learn more on their blog. As always, your underlying Google Account won’t be searchable or followable, unlike public Google+ profiles. And for people who already created Google+ profiles but don’t plan to use Google+ itself, we’ll offer better options for managing and removing those public profiles.
This was published on July 27, 2015
Hey, maybe we know where Vic Gundotra went!
This is a very odd choice on their part.
Amazon really does not like Google. This is not a failure on Google's part, this is all of Amazon's own making in an attempt at product lock-in.
Is there a new, new way to get it to work that I don't know about?
1) Sideload Amazon app APK
2) Sideload Amazon Video app APK
3) Open Amazon app and log in
4) Open Amazon Video app
However, it wasn't a pleasant experience. The version of the Amazon Video app I was able to get working didn't scale well to large screens, didn't work well with remote-based navigation, and didn't seem to do HD. I watched one episode of something, and haven't used it again since.
In others: http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-Amazon-Video/dp/B00N28818A
For most users, installing the Amazon Appstore is required.
Amazon makes some strange decisions.
By getting you to spend more time in their interface, they can add things. E.g. Prime Music had me spending a lot of time checking out playlists, some of which may very well lead to purchases of albums where only a couple of songs are available for free.
It also gets them penetration for whenever they add shopping to these devices, and e.g. lets you talk to Echo and ask it to bring up the top five best new phones on your TV for you to choose fro.
Getting Prime on Chromecast would help their penetration of Prime, but it might hinder their overall service penetration by giving some people a reason not to get a Fire Stick. Especially when the Fire Stick/Fire TV and Chromecast are all cheap enough that there's little stopping people from getting both...
It may very well backfire for them, but there's all kinds of reasons for them to want to push the Fire TV devices hard.
I don't have enough ports on my TV for a Fire Stick and a Chromecast (and everything else) so I'm going to choose the one with the most options (Chromecast).
They can lose a lot of users and still find it to be worth it for the extra engagement of the ones they did get.
Which unsurprisingly, doesn't support media from the Google Play Store. The only acceptable streaming device is one from a neutral third party (Roku, Tivo, etc.) who will support all providers.
On the other hand, maybe Amazon is angry at Google for not making Google Play Movies/Music available on the 'Fire' line of tablets, and this is retribution?
The equivalent to that would be refusing to release Amazon Video on the Play Store, which Amazon has done.
Banning hardware products from the Amazon marketplace is an escalation.
All this for one of the weakest parts of Prime. I've been a Prime member for 3-4 years before I watched my first prime video. I simply don't care for the service.
Shameless self-plug: See both your Netlix and Amazon Prime accounts' content at once at our site justwatch.com - filtered to your likings :)
It'd be nice if there was a way to hide all non-prime content (or at least, if it is there - then it should be the default with, say, a "Search again including pay video" option)
In my (limited) experience, the selection between Amazon Prime Video and Netflix is about the same. While this move very much feels like degrading performance of competing office suites on your OS or even refusing to run your windowing system on a competitor's OS (cough Microsoft cough), I can see why they would do it. For one thing, it's kind of the reverse: it's telling Apple and Google to get their shit together and not degrade performance of Prime Video on their devices (last I heard, my Apple loving family still couldn't watch Prime Video).
To someone like me, who owns no Apple products and isn't tied to Google either, but is an avid Netflix user, Amazon Video and Netflix fill my needs quite nicely. Of course, take this all with a grain of salt from someone who's logging so many hours climbing and hiking he hasn't seriously watched TV/movies in a while. But the couch potato wife hasn't complained, and she's the one who bought the Amazon Fire TV.
Chromecast only doesn't support Amazon Video because Amazon hasn't made apps (iOS, Android, or Web) that support the Google Cast SDK, not because Google does something to degrade performance.
AFAICT, essentially the same is true of AppleTV -- Amazon Video doesn't work on the platform because Amazon hasn't bothered to make an app for the platform.
> AFAICT, essentially the same is true of AppleTV -- Amazon Video doesn't work on the platform because Amazon hasn't bothered to make an app for the platform.
Interesting. Do we know definitively that this is the case? I mean, is it possible Amazon did submit apps and they were rejected? Or in the case of Apple they didn't want to give Apple their 30% cut?
And this may seem facetious, but are we begging the question of who should be supporting Amazon Video in the first place?
As a data point, when Amazon bought ComiXology, the in-app store was immediately removed, and replaced with syncing purchased made on the ComiXology website.
Apple doesn't make apps for the vendors, the vendors make apps for the platform. HBO and Showtime created apps for Apple TV. Amazon is deciding to not create apps on Apple TV and Chromecase, not the other way around.
I still have a Netflix DVD subscription, so I could go that route too, but I always forget. Are there other good ways to watch new releases? Looks like the iTunes store also lets you rent movies.
*Edit: I meant Amazon Video here when I said Prime Video. (The difference being that Prime has a set of included videos you can watch for free)
Netflix just works. It'll even play in in higher resolution (not full HD) without the HDMI cable. Prime just says "no" and gives the low-res stream.
There are many things on Amazon's service I'd watch, but the actual viewing experience for me is awful.
I see how Amazon loses from this but not how it will win.
terminated my testmonth after 3 hours because of this and went back to netflix
I did compare Bounty paper towels and Charmin Ultra about a month ago between Costco and Amazon and found that the dollar savings I got at Costco didn't make up for having to drive 20 minutes to get there (and battle all the soccer moms for a parking space). This might not be the case everywhere and for everyone, of course, but for me I am usually willing to pay a little more for next day delivery to my door in exchange for shopping in my pajamas.
I agree that before Prime Pantry, however, that Amazon was more expensive or I had to buy way to many items (e.g. 10 bottles of shampoo).
These days, for anything non-trivial, I'll treat Amazon as the virtual storefront, then look around for competing prices, with Amazon as the last resort.
People used to think the same thing about Walmart. But so long as they have you "in the door" they will try to get you on margin. (Their margin)
But if I lived in a more urban, city environment, where easy parking isn't a given and picking up groceries in a car is more a hassle, then the time savings of having Amazon deliver for close to the same price that I would pay in store is much more worth it.
When I was in college Amazon had better prices on these products than my local stores in Iowa.
This is why I'm much less excited about Amazon than I once was.
http://www.amazon.com/Ryobi-P882-Lithium-Ion-Impact-Driver/d... - $155
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Ryobi-ONE-18-Volt-Lithium-Ion-Dri... - $150
This just tells me they have no intention whatsoever of improving the situation. I guess I'll use Google Express now.
It seems a particularly bad move given the quick delivery space has many competitors now and Wal-mart, Target, Jet.com... have began competing with online orders. Reputation will be extremely important.
I get that you want more people to use your fire stick, but as a source of entertainment competing with Netflix and HBO, you want to be more accessible, not less.
I'm far less concerned with the availability of the streaming product itself, and more upset about the corporate mindset this behavior demonstrates.
What you can't do in an app in the Play store is implement your own app store and load arbitrary apps. And Amazon forces you to install the full Amazon app including its app store, rather than offering a standalone version of Amazon Video.
Amazon likely does this because people care enough about Amazon Video to jump through hoops to get it, and once people have jumped through those hoops, Amazon can then try to get them to use the Amazon app store instead of Play.
I'd not be surprised if someone has built something marketable on this stack already.
It makes sense, of course, considering that this approach will let Google -- but no one else -- know who all those identities point back to.
That's a brilliant idea, especially now that the multi-user support works on phones in addition to tablets.
This allows you discretion for apps you still wish to install but demand too many privileges.
I hope this is correct but I am unsure. People will probably not realize this is the case, and it is unlikely to affect _too_many_ people_ so the brand goodwill won't be that damaged. This is the same thing google does with search results, maybe not so much with competitors (maybe they do, I don't know) but they do penalize things they don't like. I remember the rapgenius penalty and to be clear I am not suggesting that this is the same thing as in the article, but to your point, I hope users get angry about this but I am unsure to what extent it will hurt them.
I don't think most people will care about this as a negative PR event - but the fact it can't be found may contribute to them not being the first search.
They crushed all the technical bookstores because they didn't have to pay sales tax. Their customer service beyond cheap refunds is abysmal. They understand how hard it is to distinguish between stuff that is only serviced through them, but choose not to fix it. And Bezos is famous for being both an asshole and micromanager.
One-stop? Sure. Efficient? Maybe. Trustworthy? Pardon me for laughing.
Um, no, they crushed all the technical bookstores because they could always get you the book you wanted very quickly and at a good price, unlike any other bookstore on the planet. Every one of those bookstores could have done the same thing in the Internet age, but the thing is, they didn't.
I do miss bookstores like Computer Literacy but that's pure nostalgia -- I'd never want to go back. I couldn't give a crap about sales tax one way or the other.
Their customer service beyond cheap refunds is abysmal.
What other kind of customer service is there, for a retailer? When something goes wrong with an Amazon order, I don't have pay for it. End of story.
They understand how hard it is to distinguish between stuff that is only serviced through them, but choose not to fix it.
That much is true... their UX is a dog's breakfast, and always has been. Best thing you can say about it is that it could be worse.
And Bezos is famous for being both an asshole and micromanager.
Well, I don't report to him, so... good. Retail is not a good business for dilettante CEOs.
One-stop? Sure. Efficient? Maybe. Trustworthy? Pardon me for laughing.
They've seldom put a foot wrong where I'm concerned. This does sound like a pretty dumb move, though. What's good for the customer is good for Amazon, and this isn't good for the customer.
First, Amazon had a built-in advantage on sales tax for a LONG time. That's 8% off the top where I live.
Second, Amazon leveraged its volume in the popular bestsellers to strong-arm the publishers on the technical area. So, while my local bookstore would have to eat the inventory if I ordered a book and didn't want it, Amazon could return the inventory. This was HUGE.
Third, Amazon often WASN'T any faster than my local bookstore, but they would always claim they were. A couple times I ordered a technical book overnight from Amazon that claimed it was "in stock" and it would appear 2 weeks later--just like my local bookstore said it would take to get it from the publisher.
Fourth, my local technical bookstore was really good about ordering online and jumped immediately. It still didn't help.
The combination of no sales tax, monopoly position to get better terms from publishers, and outright lying about stock simply crushed the technical bookstores.
Well, jokes on Amazon and the publishers, since I can't browse technical books any more, I don't buy technical books anymore. And those had huge profit margins.
Who cares if it's in their interests? Given the power they wield, the more relevant question is whether it's in the interest of the broader market.
They aren't the "Everything Store" and never were. It was a marketing slogan. They boot products from Amazon.com all the time.
Intentionally reduce your selection for customer-hostile reasons like this and I probably move some of my product search traffic to start with Google shopping, which is bound to cost them more than what they make from the incremental video rental I might make. It's not like I'm not going to have multiple Apple TVs in my house anyway...
In the end, all it would take to get me fully on board is a native XMBC plugin.
That might be changing. I can't say more than that.
I also go to them because they probably have what I want, and they have reliable shipping. So if they start cutting things out, what's going to be next?
It makes sense that they would, in turn, leverage their physical distribution platform against Apple and Google's physical streaming products.
Amazon probably feels as though they were hit first in this fight.
In what way? No idea about Apple but as other commentators have said - is there anything stopping them supporting Amazon Video on Android/Chromecast?
I'm working on it: http://percht.com , its still under heavy development and im not done crawling everything, but its coming. yeah you cant order on percht either, but i have to start somewhere...
There's cool stuff behind the scenes including react / nlp / and neural nets in case anyone would like to collaborate.
Edit: Disclosure: I worked on Junglee for two years, but don't anymore.
Google and Apple now both have open SDK's for creating streaming apps for their devices. Isn't the the fact these devices don't "interact well with Prime Video" entirely Amazon's fault?
And even on iOS, Amazon still has video apps, they just don't allow you to buy or rent directly within the app:
There's nothing stopping Amazon from supporting Apple TV or Chromecast, except itself.
Chromecast doesn't have any special connection to Google Play. Anyone can cast whatever they want. Amazon Prime Instant Video can already be cast, but the user experience is so bad that you probably don't want to.
Well, sure, you pay Google for the device -- that's fairly direct monetization.
And it increases the utility of (and thus the demand for) content from and subscriptions to Google's audio/video services (whose mobile apps all support Chromecast), so its monetized indirectly that way.
Other than that, its adoption drives app developer adoption and user familiarity for Google Cast, which, aside from its use in Chromecast, is a key feature of Android TV, which Google monetizes not just by selling hardware direct to consumers, but also via its cut of apps in the Play Store, and by (presumably) getting paid by Smart TV manufacturers to use Android TV as their Smart TV OS.
It probably leverages Android in some fashion also, though good iOS apps have chrome cast support as well.
It must be another reason... But what?
Apple's refusal to even allow links to external stores is petty and obnoxious, but Amazon is essentially playing the same game: if you won't let us play the way we want, we're going to make life difficult for our own customers while clutching our pearls and telling everyone that you made us do it.
Overall the article just says Prime "doesn't work well" on those devices, but does work well on others. It doesn't say why. At this point it's hard to say who's to blame. It would have been nice if the article had investigated the issue.
Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Crunchyroll, etc. all support Chromecast. It would be extremely easy for Amazon to support it, if they wanted to.
> But now it doesn't work. "License Error" codes have started showing up when running the Instant Video app on the Nexus Player, presumably because someone at Amazon saw that it was running on non-blessed hardware and shut it down.
> Amazon’s streaming service, called Prime Video, doesn’t run easily on its rival’s hardware.
So it does run, at least according to the article. But it's either hard to make it run, or it doesn't work well. Both of those seem to contradict your link. Very puzzling, I guess one of those must be wrong?
There are no technical or legal barriers preventing Amazon from supporting iOS and Android devices.
I don't think you can say Apple is to blame (or Google, though the google situation I can't speak as clearly to because I don't know the technical details there.)
On Android, it's Google Play Services, while on iOS it's a custom Cast binary that Google provides to developers to link in their apps. Due to this, almost all apps that support Cast are on iOS, Android, or Chrome because closed-source binaries are only distributed for those platforms.
Amazon would have to make special arrangements to include the Cast SDK on Fire OS. I still don't think this excuses them from bringing a proper Amazon Prime Video app with Cast support to iOS and (Google's) Android.
This is why Apple worked with Netflix, HBO, etc to get apps on the Apple TV even before the TVOS was ready.
They've even gone so far as to present options when looking at a movie in their store on the new hardware and OS so you know what other services offer it.
I'm guessing Amazon will be removed from this list immediately.
The "free" prime streaming seems to just be a marketing tool for getting you into their video-buying app. I'd be surprised if they have much interest in streaming anywhere where they can't push paid videos without having someone else take a cut.
I found it frustrating when I couldn't stream Prime videos to my android phone (is stock android that different from the version on Fire?)
I found it frustrating (but understandable) when they said they wouldn't support Google TV anymore. (Although the 'support' was letting me watch videos in Chrome).
Now this? It seems like they have forgotten completely about the customer and are focusing solely on the competition.
Amazon now lets you use Prime instant video on your Android device, but there's a big catch. You have to manually install it from their site and allow untrusted apps on your phone to do so. And it's not just Prime instant video you're installing, you're installing the full Amazon App Store on your Android device and giving it full permissions to everything on your phone so it can install and update other apps.
This type of behavior is only focused on the competition and a big middle finger to the customer.
I have had an elderly neighbour ask for help after mistakenly signing up for the service, and personally, the experience reminds me of hunting out the real download button on free download websites, in amongst the flash adverts. I've always thought the big advantage of Amazon was its ease of use for casual purchasers, and I can't imagine that level of hassle and uncertainty is appreciated.
They've fixed that now. There was a time when you couldn't, but eventually the fire crashed badly enough that they started allowing it.
: Over the last three years, Prime Video has become an important part of Prime," Amazon said in the e-mail. "It’s important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion.
Then make your damn Video application work with the Nexus Player.
(I don't know if that gets into legal hot waters or not, but couldn't be worse than actually not selling competing devices.)
If someone wants to buy an Apple TV, chances are they're just going to go to apple.com to do it, and Amazon has lost the chance to turn that customer over.
May, maybe not. It depends if the FTC views this as an anti-competitive move. See https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
"It is unlawful for a company to monopolize or attempt to monopolize trade, meaning a firm with market power cannot act to maintain or acquire a dominant position by excluding competitors or preventing new entry."
All Amazon did with this is alienate people like me, who just want Prime to work with the 2 Chromecasts I already own. Good reminder that they are more interested in what they want than what I want.
Recall that they've also used the power of their catalog to fight publishers with whom they had pricing model disagreements (e.g. Hachette) by disallowing pre-orders of popular upcoming titles from those publishers.
If Google can't show its own products ahead of others in the Google search, why can Amazon show its own products ahead of all the other products on its store on its front-page?
I mean :
- They piss their customers
- They piss their merchants, probably killing some businesses along the way
- They instill fear in their potential merchants. I was vaguely thinking about selling stuff on amazon mind you, and worried a bit about being locked in. Well, those fears are much more real now.
- They piss google and apple, obviously. They're competitors of course but it's a bit of a harsh move, in fact it looks like a war declaration.
- They have a very special place as the biggest merchant on the internet, people watch them and some fear for good reason what they could become (like the only e commerce platform on the internet), and what it could mean in term of market manipulation opportunities. Well they just gave those guys lots of cookies.
- They lose sales, obviously
All that for what ? Well that's ... not clear.
But clearly that era has come to a close.
The smallest orders available online are enough to kill an elephant, and you need a $500+ scale to dose it accurately enough to keep a human from overdosing. And while most human overdoses will be uniquely unpleasant but not lethal, there is definitely the potential for a lethal dose if someone puts a tablespoonful into a drink or something.
Pure caffeine is a uniquely bad thing to have around your living quarters. It's basically a poison (because of the difficulty in measuring dosage and small range between useful and dangerous effect), but people feel very comfortable with it, imagine it's safe to eat, and a big enough chunk of people will act macho towards it.
Honestly, the only reason you should be dealing with powders is if you're making your own 'stack' of nootropics.
Every gram of secondary solution now has a milligram of caffeine. 2 tablespoons of secondary solution is roughly equivalent to a cola.
No you don't. It's not hard at all using milligram scales < $50. I do it all the time with various substances... including caffeine.
Or you can just get a super small 0.25 cent plastic scoop that amounts to normal dose.
Color me cynical, but I don't have the slightest faith in a corporation's fairness and integrity.