Bezos' goal from 1997 was to be the 'everything store' as it's succinctly put in the biography about Amazon's rise, and they're doing a fine job of that. I have friends and family that purchase just about everything short of groceries on amazon. But what happens when they decide to enter more markets with their own products and cut off other competitors from selling who don't have the clout or leverage of a behemoth like Apple or Google? If Google had not pulled YouTube from their Fire devices it's unlikely they would have let them sell their products once again. Which shouldn't have even had to happen in the first place.
Also, I think this was only in the US because I was checking Amazon UK last week and you were still able to buy chromecasts and Google Home. This is probably because the EU has laws that restricts companies from taking advantage of their monopolised position and pushing competitors out.
Which -- given that they clearly allow these obvious knock-offs -- puts paid to Amazon's initial stated reason ("avoid customer confusion") for not allowing Chromecasts on their store.
Basically, they're letting you validate the market and then jumping in once you've taken the risk and created the market.
Generics and private label brands are big business, especially in industries where consumers aren't brand sensitive (does anyone actually buy on-brand Motrin or Advil?). It's completely understandable that Amazon would want on that particular gravy train.
I saw Amazon Basics pants last night. But there's some places even I won't go.
There is a German supermarket chain who take the concept to its absolute limit, basing their entire business model on it.
> Basically, they're letting you validate the market and then jumping in once you've taken the risk and created the market.
I am not trying to defend Amazon but they also cut down the customer acquisition costs someone validating the market has to incur. So, it is now become a toss up between initial costs of finding and validating the market vs Amazon taking the sales data entering in direct competition. Which is better?
Plus, if you're doing "fulfilled by Amazon" they know you're paying an extra 30% on your cost of goods for fulfillment. They can price all that in and figure out if they can sell it for cheaper, also fulfilled by Amazon.
"He's selling 10k of these a day at 20 bucks, and he's giving us six bucks per sale. Can we sell the same thing at 15 bucks? Then it'll sell better and rank higher in the search results"
The result is pretty much stores as they were here in the 1980s socialism - filled with a single crappy product with no other choice. Let's not have that.
Um, go to the Apple website and order it or Walmart.com/Jet.com? If Amazon started purchasing or shutting down all other retailers, then it would be a monopoly. Simply being more successful than them doesn't make it so.
And if those don't suit you just about every company is happy to sell to you direct. Saying that Amazon has some kind of monopoly control on selling things is silly.
Will they maybe even open up the API?
I doubt it.
Chromecast still has only a single server implementation, which is proprietary, and either a single proprietary client implementation, or potentially two proprietary ones (in case Amazon has reverse engineered Google's Chromecast client for the Chromecast support in the Prime Music app, I haven't verified that yet)
I don't understand your point about proprietary APIs though - will Amazon now also allow Google to replace firmware on FireTV sticks? ;)
This only works on devices with Google Play services. On desktop, or on Replicant, LineageOS, CopperheadOS, or Kindle OS, it doesn't work at all.
This is important, especially the last part.
The company at fault for missing Chromecast support in anything is always Google, because they chose not to make it an open standard, and because they chose to rapidly, sometimes even weekly, change the already obfuscated protocol, to prevent Amazon — and open source devs — from supporting it.
I spent hours every week updating my reverse engineered library to connect to it, but in the end, I gave up. Now I have a very expensive brick here.
Cast services, like Airplay are proprietary technologies
Everything can be open, there’s no reason except greed for profit not to make them open.
Windows Phone, Echo Show, and Fire TV come to mind.
Is Youtube's share of the online video market large enough that this pattern of behavior would trigger antitrust concerns in the US?
How about under the EU's competition law, which kicks in at a much lower threshold? Would Amazon and Youtube both have a large enough market share to get them into legal hot water for anti-competitive behavior in the EU?
Net neutrality is about the middlemen in the network, not the endpoints. You can't just point to every unfair or unethical business practice related to the Internet and call it a net neutrality violation. Net neutrality has a more specific meaning than that.