Google pulls YouTube off the Amazon Echo Show(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Google pulls YouTube off the Amazon Echo Show
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/26/16371292/google-youtube-amazon-echo-show
166 コメント
Not supporting Amazon Prime video on Chromecast is a PITA. It forces yet another gadget into the HDMI multiplexer.
I agree, they are taking a lot of Google and are just trying to block them. Not mentioning forking Android and all other things related also.
Google is way too nice for amazon
Google is way too nice for amazon
I agree it's time to break the web into 4-5 apps that can be accessed on 4-5 separate devices and then sell us all Batman utility belts.
Android is open source - what was wrong with them forking it?
Was Google wrong for forking WebKit?
Was Google wrong for forking WebKit?
Where are the changes of Amazon? You can still fork Chromium
I'm not quit sure that by providing an answer, you could remove any doubt.
While they are required by the license to opensource their code, this is perhaps the most user unfriendly method ( multiple builds per version per device, no code history, ... - it's a mess)
Here is Chromium as you requested:
- https://cs.chromium.org/
Here's the source code: https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/?sq Here's the git: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git
While they are required by the license to opensource their code, this is perhaps the most user unfriendly method ( multiple builds per version per device, no code history, ... - it's a mess)
Here is Chromium as you requested:
- https://cs.chromium.org/
Here's the source code: https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/?sq Here's the git: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git
Sure it's fair from a company vs. company perspective. But as an end user, I don't give a crap. The more crap like this you pull the more I will hate your company. I hate when things are inconvenient and it's not because of a technical limitation.
Fair enough. But whom will you hate exactly? If one cannot see Youtube on Echo Show, I bet end users will hate Echo Show ("hey look, Youtube works fine on iPhone but not on this device") more than Youtube.
Which is why we need some "net neutrality" kind of regulations as alluded to in another comment on this topic.
Which is why we need some "net neutrality" kind of regulations as alluded to in another comment on this topic.
[deleted]
I'd rather see none of these things happening, regardless of whether it's fair. We need either competition, or if the market will not provide competition, regulation.
• I don't want a fire stick or whatever it's called.
• I want to pay a flat fee for access (Netflix), not pay-per-view PLUS subscription fee (amazon prime video).
• I want to pay a flat fee for access (Netflix), not pay-per-view PLUS subscription fee (amazon prime video).
Isn't Amazon's pay-per-view totally separate from prime? Prime has a bunch of totally free video like Netflix (and free music I think), and the apps that let you watch it also allow you to access Amazon's pay-per-view video on demand service under the idea that you might want to use that if what you are looking for isn't available for free.
In any case, what you are getting in the end is the equivalent of Netflix plus more options, which I'm not sure why it would be considered a bad thing. Just ignore the pay offerings, and brows the free movie section, and you have what you want.
In any case, what you are getting in the end is the equivalent of Netflix plus more options, which I'm not sure why it would be considered a bad thing. Just ignore the pay offerings, and brows the free movie section, and you have what you want.
Ha! This doesn't even register with me. Everything I've wanted to watch on Amazon Prime with my Prime account has been something I had to pay per view. So the net effect is I'm paying a subscription AND paying per view. Nope.
Seems odd to "punish" Amazon Video for offering more functionality than Netflix.
The Prime Video product is functionally equivalent to Netflix. The PPV videos are an additional service that Amazon offers that Netflix does not offer.
The confusion that seems to be bothering you is easily resolved. Here you can browse only videos that are free with subscription: https://www.amazon.com/Prime-Video/b?node=2676882011
Most Amazon Prime apps I've seen make a clear distinction between the two.
The Prime Video product is functionally equivalent to Netflix. The PPV videos are an additional service that Amazon offers that Netflix does not offer.
The confusion that seems to be bothering you is easily resolved. Here you can browse only videos that are free with subscription: https://www.amazon.com/Prime-Video/b?node=2676882011
Most Amazon Prime apps I've seen make a clear distinction between the two.
> Most Amazon Prime apps I've seen make a clear distinction between the two.
The ones on my Roku and Blu-ray player don't do it as distinctly as I'd like, and don't have an option to permanently ignore the PPV offerings. They're just highly-targeted ads that I'd really like to block, but can't.
The ones on my Roku and Blu-ray player don't do it as distinctly as I'd like, and don't have an option to permanently ignore the PPV offerings. They're just highly-targeted ads that I'd really like to block, but can't.
Functionality I don't want == Zero functionality. If anything I want to watch costs money to watch, the free stuff might as well not exist.
In which case, don't pay for prime, and just pay for the pay-per-view. In any case, you're complaining about them bundling something which they are not bundling.
Since you haven't found anything interesting on prime to watch, I'll give you a couple suggestions for prime original series which I found good (or have on good authority are worthy):
Goliath - This was excellent from start to finish. It's only 8 episodes, so easy to consume.
The Man in the High Castle - Interesting to me in how the geopolitics of two superpowers in the 60's play out when those superpowers are Nazi Germany and Militaristic Japan, and the parallels to the U.S. and U.S.S.R. during the same period. A little bit of mostly unexplained and low-key science fiction in-story to drive it keeps it interesting as well.
Red Oaks - Only caught one episode, but my wife has seen it all and thought it was fairly funny and it seemed interesting in an 80's John Hughes sort of way.
Since you haven't found anything interesting on prime to watch, I'll give you a couple suggestions for prime original series which I found good (or have on good authority are worthy):
Goliath - This was excellent from start to finish. It's only 8 episodes, so easy to consume.
The Man in the High Castle - Interesting to me in how the geopolitics of two superpowers in the 60's play out when those superpowers are Nazi Germany and Militaristic Japan, and the parallels to the U.S. and U.S.S.R. during the same period. A little bit of mostly unexplained and low-key science fiction in-story to drive it keeps it interesting as well.
Red Oaks - Only caught one episode, but my wife has seen it all and thought it was fairly funny and it seemed interesting in an 80's John Hughes sort of way.
Sneaky Pete is another Amazon Prime show that is excellent. One of my favorites.
> which I'm not sure why it would be considered a bad thing.
I find it annoying that I can't permanently hide the pay items. If I could, I'd completely hide them from the browsing UI, but make them show up with some kind of distinctive icon when they match a search that I make. If I want it that badly, I'll go shopping for the DVD/Blu-ray.
I'm never going to actually pay for an individual digital video, so it's grating to have them presented as equal candidates for viewing alongside all the "included with Prime" content.
I find it annoying that I can't permanently hide the pay items. If I could, I'd completely hide them from the browsing UI, but make them show up with some kind of distinctive icon when they match a search that I make. If I want it that badly, I'll go shopping for the DVD/Blu-ray.
I'm never going to actually pay for an individual digital video, so it's grating to have them presented as equal candidates for viewing alongside all the "included with Prime" content.
I want to pay a flat fee for access (Netflix), not pay-per-view PLUS subscription fee (amazon prime video).
This seems like a strange position to have. I agree Amazon's behavior in pulling the Chromecast from their store as a means to push their own stuff is unacceptable, but Prime has plenty of content that can be viewed for 'free' (beyond the cost of Prime). Having additional paid content seems entirely reasonable.
This seems like a strange position to have. I agree Amazon's behavior in pulling the Chromecast from their store as a means to push their own stuff is unacceptable, but Prime has plenty of content that can be viewed for 'free' (beyond the cost of Prime). Having additional paid content seems entirely reasonable.
The Chromecast is Google's fault.
Amazon will only sell the Chromecast if Google allows them to cast to the Chromecast from all of their apps — even on Kindle devices.
Google refuses to allow that, and also refuses to allow Amazon to build their own implementation of the Chromecast library (the Google-supplied one requires Play Services).
The options for Amazon are: remove all Amazon apps from the Kindle, install only Google apps by default, and provide Chromecasting support, or only provide Chromecast supports for users of Google Android, but not those on the Kindle.
This is a clear case of Google abusing its monopoly on Android, and Amazon responding by abusing its monopoly in online retail.
EDIT: This is exactly why I don't use any proprietary IoT devices, but only open products, or things I built myself. Open standards circumvent these entire issues.
Amazon will only sell the Chromecast if Google allows them to cast to the Chromecast from all of their apps — even on Kindle devices.
Google refuses to allow that, and also refuses to allow Amazon to build their own implementation of the Chromecast library (the Google-supplied one requires Play Services).
The options for Amazon are: remove all Amazon apps from the Kindle, install only Google apps by default, and provide Chromecasting support, or only provide Chromecast supports for users of Google Android, but not those on the Kindle.
This is a clear case of Google abusing its monopoly on Android, and Amazon responding by abusing its monopoly in online retail.
EDIT: This is exactly why I don't use any proprietary IoT devices, but only open products, or things I built myself. Open standards circumvent these entire issues.
I think you have your wires crossed on this one. Google has an open SDK for chromecast that allows any developer to use it, including Amazon, and has not "refused to allow Amazon" to develop on it.
Amazon is the one voluntarily choosing not to support chromecast.
Amazon is the one voluntarily choosing not to support chromecast.
That's false. The Chromecast SDK requires Google Play Services.
As result, it does not work on the Kindle devices.
Amazon would have to install Play Services (compliance with this would require setting Google as the default for all stores, apps, etc, and even removing a few of Amazon's own apps), or Amazon could enable Chromecast for everyone except Kindle users (which would convince people to buy less Kindles)
So when Google is asking Amazon to either destroy its own product, or make its own product work better with a competitors devices than with its own, then obviously Amazon won't do either of these things.
As result, it does not work on the Kindle devices.
Amazon would have to install Play Services (compliance with this would require setting Google as the default for all stores, apps, etc, and even removing a few of Amazon's own apps), or Amazon could enable Chromecast for everyone except Kindle users (which would convince people to buy less Kindles)
So when Google is asking Amazon to either destroy its own product, or make its own product work better with a competitors devices than with its own, then obviously Amazon won't do either of these things.
Maybe there's some subtlety that I'm missing, but there are clear counterexamples: almost all iOS video apps support chromecast, including Netflix and HBOGo (and HBONow). Amazon Prime Video is the exception here.
I'm not aware of any Google Play Services installed on my iPhone, and if it's something that's bundled with the apps, then Amazon Prime Video can bundle it as well.
The situation on Android might be different; at one point I certainly could cast from Netflix to Chromecast on my Kindle Fire (even though no Google Play Services existed) although from looking around on Google a bit that appears to no longer be the case.
I'm not aware of any Google Play Services installed on my iPhone, and if it's something that's bundled with the apps, then Amazon Prime Video can bundle it as well.
The situation on Android might be different; at one point I certainly could cast from Netflix to Chromecast on my Kindle Fire (even though no Google Play Services existed) although from looking around on Google a bit that appears to no longer be the case.
> The situation on Android might be different; at one point I certainly could cast from Netflix to Chromecast on my Kindle Fire (even though no Google Play Services existed) although from looking around on Google a bit that appears to no longer be the case.
Correct. Google removed that ability, and Amazon won’t support Chromecast until Google adds it back.
Correct. Google removed that ability, and Amazon won’t support Chromecast until Google adds it back.
We're not talking about Kindle devices, we're talking about Amazon Prime streaming services.
Both the web and mobile apps of Amazon prime can support chromecast streaming, but they made the decision not to - before the play services requirement for Android.
Both the web and mobile apps of Amazon prime can support chromecast streaming, but they made the decision not to - before the play services requirement for Android.
Amazon's Apps are developed Kindle first.
Amazon is not going to provide better functionality on Google Android than on Amazon Kindle Android. That'd cannibalize their own product.
If you want Chromecast support on Android, then ask Google to make it independent of Play Services.
Amazon is not going to provide better functionality on Google Android than on Amazon Kindle Android. That'd cannibalize their own product.
If you want Chromecast support on Android, then ask Google to make it independent of Play Services.
The android, kindle, and iOS versions of their app are developed on separate forks.
The web SDK also doesn't require play services, which is why, when combined with the fact Amazon did not say play services is the reason they don't support chromecast, it's a red herring to be focused on devices and play services.
Amazon made the decision to force users to use their own proprietary streaming service, and then dropped competing streaming devices from their store.
The web SDK also doesn't require play services, which is why, when combined with the fact Amazon did not say play services is the reason they don't support chromecast, it's a red herring to be focused on devices and play services.
Amazon made the decision to force users to use their own proprietary streaming service, and then dropped competing streaming devices from their store.
> The android, kindle, and iOS versions of their app are developed on separate forks.
Or maybe they don’t want to deliver functionality only to some users, which would lead to confusion and frustration?
Have you read the threads whenever Google launches a product and only 2% of users have access? Maybe they don’t want such a shitstorm to destroy their business-customer relationship?
Or maybe they don’t want to deliver functionality only to some users, which would lead to confusion and frustration?
Have you read the threads whenever Google launches a product and only 2% of users have access? Maybe they don’t want such a shitstorm to destroy their business-customer relationship?
And the Apple Home? Does Apple has a record of terrible customer relationships?
What's more likely here - That Amazon was worried about customer relationships specifically with the companies Apple & Google, or that Amazon wanted to block competition from it's store to force users to buy Amazon's streaming products?
This is also a far cry from your original assertion that Google was blocking Amazon from developing on chromecast. You seem like you have an axe to grind here - why is that?
What's more likely here - That Amazon was worried about customer relationships specifically with the companies Apple & Google, or that Amazon wanted to block competition from it's store to force users to buy Amazon's streaming products?
This is also a far cry from your original assertion that Google was blocking Amazon from developing on chromecast. You seem like you have an axe to grind here - why is that?
> This is also a far cry from your original assertion that Google was blocking Amazon from developing on chromecast. You seem like you have an axe to grind here - why is that?
I bought a Chromecast. Two actually. I refuse to use Google Play Services.
And guess what happened when Google made Chromecast require Google Play Services? I could throw 70€ away, because they had become useless.
So I used open source reimplementations and made my own apps, but guess what? Google decided to obfuscate the protocol and change it every week to prevent that.
I bought a Chromecast. Two actually. I refuse to use Google Play Services.
And guess what happened when Google made Chromecast require Google Play Services? I could throw 70€ away, because they had become useless.
So I used open source reimplementations and made my own apps, but guess what? Google decided to obfuscate the protocol and change it every week to prevent that.
>That's false. The Chromecast SDK requires Google Play Services.
Yep, and if I'm not mistaken, Chromecast initially didn't have the Play Services requirement(I seem to recall Netflix on the Kindle working at first). So definitely not all openness and friendliness from the Google side.
Yep, and if I'm not mistaken, Chromecast initially didn't have the Play Services requirement(I seem to recall Netflix on the Kindle working at first). So definitely not all openness and friendliness from the Google side.
Correct, and that's why Google added it in the first place, to hurt Amazon.
It's ridiculous how many people here are defending Google over this.
It's ridiculous how many people here are defending Google over this.
Thanks. This is the first explanation of this Amazon/Chromecast situation I've seen that makes sense.
Indeed, anyone who remembers the fate of Diapers.com in the hands of Amazon would find no mistake from Google. It's just something Amazon has been practicing for so long.
[deleted]
Everything is fair when Google does it, on HackerNews!
YouTube has some fairly specific requirements that third-party clients must adhere to [1]. According to my recollection and Google's own revision history [2], this general form of the document dates to August 2016, since at the time I submitted it to HN [3], although no discussion ensued.
In that update, they reformulated their Terms of Service and instead published a series of documents focusing on various topics that third-party developers must uphold to be able to serve as a YouTube client. This means that, as an easy example, clients which omit Google's ads [5] are running afoul of these policies.
That being said, as with most ToS, YouTube reserves the right to terminate access to its API Services at any time [4].
[1] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/required-minimum... [2] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/revision-history [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12409825 [4] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/api-services-ter... [5] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-polici...
In that update, they reformulated their Terms of Service and instead published a series of documents focusing on various topics that third-party developers must uphold to be able to serve as a YouTube client. This means that, as an easy example, clients which omit Google's ads [5] are running afoul of these policies.
That being said, as with most ToS, YouTube reserves the right to terminate access to its API Services at any time [4].
[1] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/required-minimum... [2] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/revision-history [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12409825 [4] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/api-services-ter... [5] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-polici...
[deleted]
Something similar happened in the past where Google blocked Microsoft's YouTube app on Windows Phone.
The reason was that the only official way Google allowed for non iOS/Android clients was if they used the HTMl API. Microsoft decided they wanted native performance so they wrote their own client to YouTube instead of using the HTML API. Microsoft's YouTube didn't play advertisements, which obviously Google wasn't ok with. So after some back and forth Google just said "No".
I think Amazon probably made a similar mistake here.
The reason was that the only official way Google allowed for non iOS/Android clients was if they used the HTMl API. Microsoft decided they wanted native performance so they wrote their own client to YouTube instead of using the HTML API. Microsoft's YouTube didn't play advertisements, which obviously Google wasn't ok with. So after some back and forth Google just said "No".
I think Amazon probably made a similar mistake here.
> if they used the HTMl API
That's not enough to satisfy Google. Not at all. They have far-reaching rules about what you do with the HTML.
That's not enough to satisfy Google. Not at all. They have far-reaching rules about what you do with the HTML.
Fyi... a guess about the "terms of service" being violated:
Author wrote:
>, I’d guess Google very much wants features that it thinks are essential for YouTube’s future growth included, stuff like subscriptions, next video recommendations, autoplay, and so on.
And similar excerpt from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/27/google-pulls-youtube-from-am...:
>The Echo Show had displayed YouTube videos without integral features, from video recommendations to channel subscriptions.
For more context, the importance of the above "recommendation" features to Google in The Atlantic article and related HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14910125
Author wrote:
>, I’d guess Google very much wants features that it thinks are essential for YouTube’s future growth included, stuff like subscriptions, next video recommendations, autoplay, and so on.
And similar excerpt from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/27/google-pulls-youtube-from-am...:
>The Echo Show had displayed YouTube videos without integral features, from video recommendations to channel subscriptions.
For more context, the importance of the above "recommendation" features to Google in The Atlantic article and related HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14910125
One more reason not to buy internet-enabled Things, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want my stuff held hostage by corporate disputes, regardless of who's "in the right" in a dispute.
Of course, there's the side issue of having an always-on voice-controlled computer hooked up to my LAN, but that's a different rant.
Of course, there's the side issue of having an always-on voice-controlled computer hooked up to my LAN, but that's a different rant.
This kind of dispute existed long before IoT. For example, television channels routinely disappear from carriers like cable and satellite providers [1] as contract disputes go on longer and the existing contract expires. The disappearance of a channel is used as a tactic by the channel's owners to entice complaints by the carrier's customers to the carrier, hopefully convincing the carrier that it should try to get the channel back.
The reality of the situation is that many things these days are fundamentally services instead of objects, and services are subjects to Terms of Service, and can often morph into something else or entirely disappear subject to the provider's strategies or whims. Internet-enabled devices merely enable this business model, which can be advantageous (e.g. it's really hard to consume live content without some kind of live content delivery; or, stuff I upload into a particular cloud is stored durably and resiliently with nice uptime SLAs and I can frequently access it from other devices; or, this device actually gets security updates instead of running an ancient 5-year-old kernel vulnerability), but also detrimental to the end-user (e.g. sometimes stuff disappears from Netflix and never comes back; online services that get shut down; DRM services that get shut down such that playback rights can no longer be renewed, etc).
It seems to me that in your comment, Internet-enabled things are standing in for 'captive devices'. A Fire Stick, a Google Home, an Apple TV are tiny outposts of their host companies inside your house, connected through your LAN to their HQ. They're not actually yours in any meaningful sense. You can use them if you wish to take advantage of the services they provide, but those services are ephemeral and may be radically altered or entirely go away at any time, and the giant wall of text that we all click through warns us of that, even if we shrug and use it anyway because it gates features we really want.
[1] https://consumerist.com/tag/blackouts/
The reality of the situation is that many things these days are fundamentally services instead of objects, and services are subjects to Terms of Service, and can often morph into something else or entirely disappear subject to the provider's strategies or whims. Internet-enabled devices merely enable this business model, which can be advantageous (e.g. it's really hard to consume live content without some kind of live content delivery; or, stuff I upload into a particular cloud is stored durably and resiliently with nice uptime SLAs and I can frequently access it from other devices; or, this device actually gets security updates instead of running an ancient 5-year-old kernel vulnerability), but also detrimental to the end-user (e.g. sometimes stuff disappears from Netflix and never comes back; online services that get shut down; DRM services that get shut down such that playback rights can no longer be renewed, etc).
It seems to me that in your comment, Internet-enabled things are standing in for 'captive devices'. A Fire Stick, a Google Home, an Apple TV are tiny outposts of their host companies inside your house, connected through your LAN to their HQ. They're not actually yours in any meaningful sense. You can use them if you wish to take advantage of the services they provide, but those services are ephemeral and may be radically altered or entirely go away at any time, and the giant wall of text that we all click through warns us of that, even if we shrug and use it anyway because it gates features we really want.
[1] https://consumerist.com/tag/blackouts/
> The reality of the situation is that many things these days are fundamentally services instead of objects, and services are subjects to Terms of Service, and can often morph into something else or entirely disappear subject to the provider's strategies or whims.
That, in a nutshell, is the heart of the problem, and it has only become worse as walled gardens proliferate.
That, in a nutshell, is the heart of the problem, and it has only become worse as walled gardens proliferate.
Yes, but the point is, if you just bring your laptop with you then you get a fully working experience without all this bullshit.
If I watch TV on my laptop, I don't have to worry about sticks and compatibility.
If I get my cooking videos on my laptop, I don't have to worry about compatibility.
If I listen to my audio on my laptop I don't have to worry about compatibility.
If I watch TV on my laptop, I don't have to worry about sticks and compatibility.
If I get my cooking videos on my laptop, I don't have to worry about compatibility.
If I listen to my audio on my laptop I don't have to worry about compatibility.
This is hardly about devices, though. This is about content.
Also, your laptop is still a device. It just so happens to be more compatible. Google could just as easily pull support for your laptop. It's highly unlikely for YouTube, but not for other services.
Whether you like it or not, if you consume media that you didn't create, this affects you.
Also, your laptop is still a device. It just so happens to be more compatible. Google could just as easily pull support for your laptop. It's highly unlikely for YouTube, but not for other services.
Whether you like it or not, if you consume media that you didn't create, this affects you.
Maybe it's time for a net neutrality requirement for market dominant services such as YouTube. If a user has access to content, then the user is allowed to request that content via the agent of their choice. Thus, what hardware to use to watch YouTube would be the consumer's choice.
+1 for tough regulations here. I should be able to cast Amazon prime videos on Chromecast, browse Facebook on Ubuntu phone, install iTunes on Android to access my digital content already purchased there and read kindle books on Windows PC. Biggest improvement would be the ability to port my digital data across competing services (Emails, Photos, Videos, Calendars, browsing history etc)
Tech behemoths should not be allowed to (ab)use their monopolies to lock users inside their walled gardens.
Tech behemoths should not be allowed to (ab)use their monopolies to lock users inside their walled gardens.
...and then I can watch Amazon Prime on my Chromecast.
Yes. This net neutrality principle should apply to everyone.
Amazon always wanted this (the fire sticks are a loss for them), but Google does not allow you to cast to Chromecast without having Play Services installed, Google doesn't allow Amazon to use Play Services on Kindle without removing all competing Amazon apps, and Amazon won't enable chromecast in their apps only for some users.
"Amazon won't enable chromecast in their apps only for some users"
Some? You mean, "All Certified Android users"?
There's what, a billion devices like that?
Some? You mean, "All Certified Android users"?
There's what, a billion devices like that?
Which would basically be giving the middle finger to people who bought Amazon’s own products.
Remember, Chromecast used to work on Kindle apps until Google banned that.
Remember, Chromecast used to work on Kindle apps until Google banned that.
...probably because Amazon purposefully stopped Amazon Prime Video from working on Chromecast.
No, because Google made the Chromecast library require Google Play Services.
At the same time, Netflix also stopped supporting Chromecast on many devices, as did many other services. If you always had devices with Google Play Services, you’d never notice, but if you didn’t, it was quite an annoying change.
At the same time, Netflix also stopped supporting Chromecast on many devices, as did many other services. If you always had devices with Google Play Services, you’d never notice, but if you didn’t, it was quite an annoying change.
Considering that Google Home is completely black holed on Amazon, this kind of response only seems fair.
All Google-branded products are blacklisted on Amazon. If you search for "Chromecast", your results will be Fire Sticks and then knockoff Chromecasts called "Anycast".
The AppleTV was similarly blacklisted by Amazon until they made the deal to have Amazon Video on AppleTV.
There was nothing stopping Amazon from writing an app for the AppleTV 4 or for that matter working with Apple to make one for AppleTV 3
There was nothing stopping Amazon from writing an app for the AppleTV 4 or for that matter working with Apple to make one for AppleTV 3
Not at all, many Google oroducts are available, and easily found. The Nexus devices, for example.
But Google refuses to provide a way for Amazon to support Chromecast from all devices (including Kindles), so Amazon obviously had to make their own solution.
But Google refuses to provide a way for Amazon to support Chromecast from all devices (including Kindles), so Amazon obviously had to make their own solution.
>The Nexus devices
So you can buy used or refurbished phones from some third party retailer, great, but you cannot buy a Pixel or Chromecast or Google Home.
Also, is it Google preventing Amazon from getting Prime onto their devices? I've always been under the impression this was Amazon's choice, as it helps them move more Fire sticks.
So you can buy used or refurbished phones from some third party retailer, great, but you cannot buy a Pixel or Chromecast or Google Home.
Also, is it Google preventing Amazon from getting Prime onto their devices? I've always been under the impression this was Amazon's choice, as it helps them move more Fire sticks.
> So you can buy used or refurbished phones from some third party retailer, great, but you cannot buy a Pixel or Chromecast or Google Home.
New nexus devices are still for sale.
> Also, is it Google preventing Amazon from getting Prime onto their devices? I've always been under the impression this was Amazon's choice, as it helps them move more Fire sticks.
Correct, Google requires Play Services nowadays for Chromecast. Amazon Prime Video and Netflix both used to support Chromecast on Kindle devices and elsewhere, Google disabled that functionality, and Amazon removed it elsewhere. Fire sticks are sold at a loss.
New nexus devices are still for sale.
> Also, is it Google preventing Amazon from getting Prime onto their devices? I've always been under the impression this was Amazon's choice, as it helps them move more Fire sticks.
Correct, Google requires Play Services nowadays for Chromecast. Amazon Prime Video and Netflix both used to support Chromecast on Kindle devices and elsewhere, Google disabled that functionality, and Amazon removed it elsewhere. Fire sticks are sold at a loss.
Correct, Google requires Play Services nowadays for Chromecast.
How does that explain ChromeCast support for third party IOS apps?
How does that explain ChromeCast support for third party IOS apps?
Google has a separate, proprietary, obfuscated, binary for iOS.
Amazon can’t exactly use this on their Kindle devices.
Amazon can’t exactly use this on their Kindle devices.
Good point. I remember Marco Arment said he wouldn’t add ChromeCast support to OverCast because he wasn’t comfortable adding a third party binary blob to his code.
Search Amazon specifically for "chromecast" and see what you get.
First result is a Fire Stick. "Amazon's Choice" -- okay, that's fair, I guess.
Second result is a Roku Stick. Odd, but at least it's relevant?
Third result thru the rest of the page is a bunch of blatant knockoffs of both styles of Chromecast. That's pretty shitty.
Edit: to clarify, by "shitty" I mean "user hostile". They would rather push me towards a clear knockoff of what I'm searching for instead of the product I'm clearly searching for.
First result is a Fire Stick. "Amazon's Choice" -- okay, that's fair, I guess.
Second result is a Roku Stick. Odd, but at least it's relevant?
Third result thru the rest of the page is a bunch of blatant knockoffs of both styles of Chromecast. That's pretty shitty.
Edit: to clarify, by "shitty" I mean "user hostile". They would rather push me towards a clear knockoff of what I'm searching for instead of the product I'm clearly searching for.
I think this is less of a quid-pro-quo and more that Google doesn't want to lose control of the YouTube experience, of which they consider subscriptions and recommendations important.
If the result here is cast support for Amazon video and YouTube working again, I'll take it. It's not like Amazon isn't doing the same thing.
This fight started with Google. Google gates off their Android apps solely to manufacturers which agree to all of Google's demands on control of Android devices, things like the default search settings, which apps are preinstalled, etc. In order to comply with Google's terms, Amazon would've literally had to preinstall Google Play Books on their Kindles.
This issue is the subject of the EU's next antitrust case expected to be settled this year.
Amazon then in return chose to not sell Google products which were intentionally blocked from supporting Kindle products, which is why they won't sell the Chromecast, for instance.
This issue is the subject of the EU's next antitrust case expected to be settled this year.
Amazon then in return chose to not sell Google products which were intentionally blocked from supporting Kindle products, which is why they won't sell the Chromecast, for instance.
>This fight started with Google
This is simply incorrect. You put out some facts about licensing Google apps but you apply this completely subjective line in front of it which makes it sound like Google actively did something. These licensing terms have been around for years and every company you can think of has agreed to the terms. They aren't that onerous.
This whole mess is entirely in Amazon's court. They made all of the decisions and made all of the moves. It's their call to do everything themselves and want to own every piece of the system. They weren't forced to. They want to.
This is simply incorrect. You put out some facts about licensing Google apps but you apply this completely subjective line in front of it which makes it sound like Google actively did something. These licensing terms have been around for years and every company you can think of has agreed to the terms. They aren't that onerous.
This whole mess is entirely in Amazon's court. They made all of the decisions and made all of the moves. It's their call to do everything themselves and want to own every piece of the system. They weren't forced to. They want to.
> They aren't that onerous.
Yes they are. Installing 20 google apps and placing them extremely prominently, forced google widgets, google has to be the only search, the only voice...
Google is putting these very strict rules on anyone that wants to use the play store, and being actively misleading about it because "android" is still "open".
If they want the benefits of being "open" then they should walk the walk and let all android devices use these free android apps.
Yes they are. Installing 20 google apps and placing them extremely prominently, forced google widgets, google has to be the only search, the only voice...
Google is putting these very strict rules on anyone that wants to use the play store, and being actively misleading about it because "android" is still "open".
If they want the benefits of being "open" then they should walk the walk and let all android devices use these free android apps.
I've yet to see (which I acknowledge doesn't mean that it doesn't exist) any compelling argument that this is actually harmful to the users or anything of that line. All I see is tech people talking about hypothetical competition or the EU effectively trying to create protectionist policies in the name of anti-trust.
Personally, I have no issue with Google's licensing. Why shouldn't they be able to ship their software how they want? At the end of the day most users don't care. I love FOSS when it comes to my own development and I couldn't imagine being a developer without access to so many FOSS libraries. However, I don't give a crap if my phone is fully open source and neither do vast majority of the other billion+ Android users
Personally, I have no issue with Google's licensing. Why shouldn't they be able to ship their software how they want? At the end of the day most users don't care. I love FOSS when it comes to my own development and I couldn't imagine being a developer without access to so many FOSS libraries. However, I don't give a crap if my phone is fully open source and neither do vast majority of the other billion+ Android users
> Installing 20 google apps and placing them extremely prominently, forced google widgets, google has to be the only search, the only voice...
OK you clearly haven't read the licensing terms since most of this is bullshit.
The preinstalled apps don't have to be "extremely prominently" placed, and there is no forced google as the only voice.
Most of this you could trivially find out by just picking up a Samsung S8 which its own voice search (Bixby), and a home screen where the only Google app is Play Store. Even still they can (and do) then shove the other Google apps into its own Google folder in the app launcher.
OK you clearly haven't read the licensing terms since most of this is bullshit.
The preinstalled apps don't have to be "extremely prominently" placed, and there is no forced google as the only voice.
Most of this you could trivially find out by just picking up a Samsung S8 which its own voice search (Bixby), and a home screen where the only Google app is Play Store. Even still they can (and do) then shove the other Google apps into its own Google folder in the app launcher.
Android is open unless Google says otherwise.
To be fair, it _is_ Google's operating system they're using. Those restrictions are basically the price of using Android, in lieu of an actual monetary cost for licensing the OS.
No. That's the price of using Google Play Services--Google's platform framework (which supports the Google apps including YouTube). Android can forked and built and deployed entirely independent of Google's framework services.
What's even funnier, all the restrictions to Android recently aimed at solving battery life.. guess who the worst offender is: Google Play Services. Guess who's excluded from all the anti-competitive restrictions Google is sliding into Android: Google Play Services.
(Now to be fair you could also vendor your own framework services/components/whatever and delivery them with your build of Android, but Google certainly has the upper hand in that in order to be licensed to use googles framework services and thus their apps, you have to pass a set of compliance tests, among other things.)
What's even funnier, all the restrictions to Android recently aimed at solving battery life.. guess who the worst offender is: Google Play Services. Guess who's excluded from all the anti-competitive restrictions Google is sliding into Android: Google Play Services.
(Now to be fair you could also vendor your own framework services/components/whatever and delivery them with your build of Android, but Google certainly has the upper hand in that in order to be licensed to use googles framework services and thus their apps, you have to pass a set of compliance tests, among other things.)
>What's even funnier, all the restrictions to Android recently aimed at solving battery life.. guess who the worst offender is: Google Play Services
I'm looking at my battery stats and with 10% battery remaining, Google services has used 4% of the battery. So you're either being disingenuous or you have an issue with your device.
I'm looking at my battery stats and with 10% battery remaining, Google services has used 4% of the battery. So you're either being disingenuous or you have an issue with your device.
> Guess who's excluded from all the restrictions Google is sliding into Android: Google Play Services.
Do you have a source for that? Because I'm pretty sure that's false. In fact, the Android 8.0 changelog even [explicitly says][1] that Play Services is affected by the new background location limitations:
> This behavior change affects all apps that receive location updates, including Google Play services.
[1]: https://developer.android.com/about/versions/oreo/android-8....
Do you have a source for that? Because I'm pretty sure that's false. In fact, the Android 8.0 changelog even [explicitly says][1] that Play Services is affected by the new background location limitations:
> This behavior change affects all apps that receive location updates, including Google Play services.
[1]: https://developer.android.com/about/versions/oreo/android-8....
That's location, not execution. Effectively Google is preventing 3rd party apps from running persistently in the background by limiting location (because that's how some apps would "cheat"--you could get around a user explicitly stopping your app if you registered for background location updates, similar scenario on iOS until they added the extra status bar informing the user when apps are using background location). Because play services can run persistently (how do you think GCM works) it doesn't really affect their stuff.
But it's good to see Google closing that gap because it's one of the ways naughty apps would piss in the pool for everyone else. And it's one of the criticisms a lot of people had against Google's upper hand.
But it's good to see Google closing that gap because it's one of the ways naughty apps would piss in the pool for everyone else. And it's one of the criticisms a lot of people had against Google's upper hand.
Ah, fair point. I looked into it further, and I believe you're correct that Play Services is currently excluded from the background execution limits (but not location limits) in Oreo.
That's not an arbitrary exception on Google's part though; the reason it's excluded is because Play Services targets Marshmallow, not Oreo, and the new background execution restrictions are currently only enforced for apps targeting Oreo (though there's a switch in settings to manually enforce them for individual apps, and you can flip that switch for Play Services if you want).
That's not an arbitrary exception on Google's part though; the reason it's excluded is because Play Services targets Marshmallow, not Oreo, and the new background execution restrictions are currently only enforced for apps targeting Oreo (though there's a switch in settings to manually enforce them for individual apps, and you can flip that switch for Play Services if you want).
I'm curious how they'll handle GCM. Maybe it will get registered as a VOIP or messaging app meaning the system will not remove its Services.
Google Play Services is the 'worst' battery offender because it provides services to many other apps. If there was no such central service then other apps would be polling location independently etc and battery drain would be even worse. Am I missing something?
So is Chrome “Apple’s browser” since it is a fork of WebKit? Android is open source.
From the consumer perspective, Amazon being forced to preinstall Google Play Books on their Kindles sounds like a good thing, it only increases competition for the actual content.
Which consumer has 2 thumbs and would rather have as little bloat pre-installed due to weird business requirements as possible? This guy!
on the other hand, book sales surely subsidize the hardware costs, so they'd have had to sell those android kindles for significantly more. which wouldn't have been a good thing for consumers. which one outweighs the other? beats me.
I think there's a significant difference between preinstallation requirements and support. It'd be excellent if antitrust action against Google required they compulsorily offer Google Apps to any device which can technically install them, so that Amazon users could install Play Books if they wish.
I do not think a company should be forced to preinstall a competitor's app. Imagine your Google Pixel being required to have the Windows Store installed. Wouldn't that be irritating?
I do not think a company should be forced to preinstall a competitor's app. Imagine your Google Pixel being required to have the Windows Store installed. Wouldn't that be irritating?
Am I the only one who thinks Amazon Alexa is overrated?
The only three voice features I use are:
- Set the timer to 10 minutes (mostly pasta)
- Wake me in 1 hour (for a nap)
- How is the weather today?
That's it and and I don't have a home which is connected to my phone like most out there.
I think voice control only makes sense for commands where you don't need further interactions with the system, like watching a result on a screen or when driving a car. Then it's ok, otherwise I can't imagine any voice driven killer app.
The only three voice features I use are:
- Set the timer to 10 minutes (mostly pasta)
- Wake me in 1 hour (for a nap)
- How is the weather today?
That's it and and I don't have a home which is connected to my phone like most out there.
I think voice control only makes sense for commands where you don't need further interactions with the system, like watching a result on a screen or when driving a car. Then it's ok, otherwise I can't imagine any voice driven killer app.
It is overrated. I also just use Spotify/Google Play Music and what you listed above.
This shows how important competition is.
If YT wasn't the only silo with our videos, then Google wouldn't be able to play this trick.
If YT wasn't the only silo with our videos, then Google wouldn't be able to play this trick.
Well, now Amazon has a reason to build a Youtube competitor. I'd be quite happy with more competition, in the hope that it would be possible, one day, to have a both-liberal-and-conservative-friendly platform. But I'm probably dreaming.
Serious question: does Amazon lean right in the way that Youtube/Google leans left? Or do you just think the competition will force both to have a more open platform?
I don't really have an opinion on Amazon's tendancy, and even if it leant less left, it may have other biases. But I'm just discovering with James Damore how much Youtube is currently heavy dominating and how censorship is exercised. Anything that allows other platforms to develop means that people will stop searching only one platform for videos, and that will help when some ideas are controversial.
I'm sure Amazon will strike back with Twitch
there are competitors though, DTube (I'm affiliated), Vid.me, Vimeo
There are no meaningful competitors to YouTube in most markets, that includes Vimeo.
Google search has competitors too, none that are large or threatening enough to influence Google's product behavior around search. That's the key when it comes to competition. If a competitor is so small you can safely ignore them, they're a competitor in name only.
The only potential threat to YouTube in the near-term, is Facebook's watch product.
Google search has competitors too, none that are large or threatening enough to influence Google's product behavior around search. That's the key when it comes to competition. If a competitor is so small you can safely ignore them, they're a competitor in name only.
The only potential threat to YouTube in the near-term, is Facebook's watch product.
Twitch.
> Vid.me
Unfortunately, simply cloning youtube isn't a competitor without also cloning youtube's bankroll. For a very good explanation of why, see Folding Ideas video essay "VidMe or Why Platforms Aren't Your Friends"[1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snVCRo_bI
Unfortunately, simply cloning youtube isn't a competitor without also cloning youtube's bankroll. For a very good explanation of why, see Folding Ideas video essay "VidMe or Why Platforms Aren't Your Friends"[1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snVCRo_bI
Dailymotion
...and maybe I'll get to watch Amazon Prime Videos on my Chromecast.
Amazon has its own video service.
> Amazon’s implementation of YouTube on the Echo Show violates our terms of service, creating a broken user experience.
Does anyone know what specific terms Amazon is allegedly violating?
Does anyone know what specific terms Amazon is allegedly violating?
[deleted]
I think it was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but the Echo Show was not implementing YouTube features such as subscriptions, next video recommendations, autoplay, etc.
This may be a bit off topic, but one of the extensions I loved was forced to be unpublished from Chrome Store. Its called Streamus and it plays audio of a Youtube video in the background and it was really good!
Email Communications from Google: https://imgur.com/15gaOf6 HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9873255
I wish this extension existed still when I can legally not watch a video with Youtube RED.
Email Communications from Google: https://imgur.com/15gaOf6 HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9873255
I wish this extension existed still when I can legally not watch a video with Youtube RED.
@dang: Can you update the URL to the canonical url, not the Google AMP one?
Google has been acting all Gates era microsofty lately.
I'd say that's only fair for a ruthless adversary like Bezos, no? I already posted some examples of Amazon's behavior in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15349384
I was thinking Balmer but I’ll take it
I could be mistaken, but I thought Gates was the one who set the standard for hyper aggressive anti competitive tactics.
I think Gates has rehabilitated his image a little, but he was a pretty ruthless business man. He completely destroyed Netscape using the windows monopoly.
It's not popular to voice this, but some of Netscape's fall was due to self-inflicted wounds. In the end, they'd piled a package together called Netscaoe Communicator and it had become a bloated and buggy mess.
They weren't alone in these regards, but they took it to new levels and QA was seemingly nonexistent. IIRC, even Opera went so far as to have an email client and newsgroups reader included.
Netscape had both the email client and newsgroup reader, it also had a web authoring tool, conferencing software, Netcaster (which I never did figure out what it did), and a calendar. Heck, I think it even had other feature... It had all of those in what was theoretically a browser at a time when computers typically had RAM with double digit values in MB.
Microsoft certainly didn't help, but I'm not sure that they really destroyed it.
They weren't alone in these regards, but they took it to new levels and QA was seemingly nonexistent. IIRC, even Opera went so far as to have an email client and newsgroups reader included.
Netscape had both the email client and newsgroup reader, it also had a web authoring tool, conferencing software, Netcaster (which I never did figure out what it did), and a calendar. Heck, I think it even had other feature... It had all of those in what was theoretically a browser at a time when computers typically had RAM with double digit values in MB.
Microsoft certainly didn't help, but I'm not sure that they really destroyed it.
People don’t understand how badly Netscape sucked around IE3. I remember seeing an article back in the 90s talking about how badly Netscape crashed on every platform it ran on. Netscape routinely bought down my Mac at the time.
I think the communicator thing came after Microsoft had already had Netscape in its sights. In response to Microsoft going after their browser with their monopoly, Netscape expanded their server offerings from web server to include other stuff that competed with Microsoft's BackOffice and they did Communicator to almost be a groupware suite. While Communicator may not have helped, the Netscape ship was already on fire for Microsoft attacks at that point.
Oh, Microsoft certainly helped sink them, but I'm of the opinion that Netscape was gleefully poking holes in their ship at the same time.
I never did figure out what Communicator actually was meant to do. Someone likened it to ActiveScript (I think that's what it was called, IE's proprietary scripting stuff that required hosting on Windows).
I was largely an Opera user back then. I still am, but that leads to a long off-topic conversation.
I never did figure out what Communicator actually was meant to do. Someone likened it to ActiveScript (I think that's what it was called, IE's proprietary scripting stuff that required hosting on Windows).
I was largely an Opera user back then. I still am, but that leads to a long off-topic conversation.
[deleted]
Why do people keep focusing on which company to blame. It's not a Amazon VS Google issue. It's a Tech-Company VS Consumer problem.
If you give me a shitty experience because you want to dominate the world, well too bad, I'm opting out. I couldn't care less who's fault it is, I am the customer, I am right, and if you want to earn my money it's your duty to deliver me a great experience.
If you give me a shitty experience because you want to dominate the world, well too bad, I'm opting out. I couldn't care less who's fault it is, I am the customer, I am right, and if you want to earn my money it's your duty to deliver me a great experience.
I wouldn't say it's their duty. If you're not paying them, they don't owe you anything. If you are paying them, they only owe you what they promised.
However, your sentiment is correct since it is a two-way street. You don't owe them your time or money when they make stupid decisions. You just cut ties with them and they lose out.
However, your sentiment is correct since it is a two-way street. You don't owe them your time or money when they make stupid decisions. You just cut ties with them and they lose out.
Yes, I pay $900 for a "smart tv" that locks me into their shitty apps. I buy an echo show and am now in the middle of some war. If you bought an iPod you were locked in to their store.
fuck these devices. I'm not paying for less freedom.
fuck these devices. I'm not paying for less freedom.
Sounds anticompetitive to me.
About as anticompetitive as Amazon refusing to list Chromecast and Google Home devices, blocking installation of Prime Video on Android TV devices and several other customer hostile actions this spat has resulted in.
Thanks to walled gardens, we're now pretty much stuck in a shitty situation noone else can fix.
Thanks to walled gardens, we're now pretty much stuck in a shitty situation noone else can fix.
The EU is my last hope. Out of all governments and international entities, the EU is the only one I have a stretch of confidence in. The fact that Google and Amazon are located in the US means that the EU has nothing to lose if they want to regulate them. An additional fact that the EU consists of multiple countries that can bully each other to comply with their own laws makes it effective. I believe that if there is someone who can fix this shitty situation, it is the EU.
given complete freedom, the EU would probably ban youtube from the EU entirely as it doesn't meet the minimum requirement of 30% EU created content
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/25/eu_pegs_homegrown_n...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/25/eu_pegs_homegrown_n...
Nonsense, Youtube and Netflix offer two completely different services.
Satire?
The EU has some issues, but their decisions (both of the commission and the parliament) regarding tech monopolies have been quite sane.
The EU countries are also much better than the US at punishing companies for abusing personal information.
The EU countries are also much better than the US at punishing companies for abusing personal information.
Poe's Law...
One of those players has a virtual monopoly on internet videos by subsidizing a money losing service with the virtual monopoly on search revenues.
The other is a store that has lots and lots of competition.
The other is a store that has lots and lots of competition.
Is YouTube a money loser? Their revenues are estimated to be around $10 billion. Surely their expenses can't be that high.
According to Eli the Computer Guy, it is something like:
YouTube costs: $6.3 billion per year
YouTube revenue: $4 billion
So they are losing $2.3 billion per year.
Eli the Computer Guy made a lot of waves around a year ago because his account was both incorrectly flagged for a "Community Strike" and his appeal was incorrectly dismissed which effectively left his channel dead in the water and he announced he was quitting. After outrage, a human finally stepped in and fixed the mess. Then later that year, his account was deleted by Google in the middle of a live stream without any explanation. (It was later restored, without explanation.)
Eli, talking as business entrepreneur, has talked a lot about the problems of YouTube as a platform. He frequently does business analysis and goes over numbers.
He has also broken down their cost structure, and yes, their expenses can really be that high. In addition to the massive number of videos that get uploaded every minute, they must also make multiple encodings of each one, and then all that needs to be mirrored to all the CDNs. (He was trying to figure out if he could do self-hosting...he felt if he just needed to make downloadable video files you watch offline, it can be done cheaply, but for streaming convenience, that's where things get expensive.)
Eli also quoted Susan Wojcicki stating that they still see YouTube as in the investment stage, which means they still are pumping money into it with no expectation that it's going to turn a profit anytime soon.
YouTube costs: $6.3 billion per year
YouTube revenue: $4 billion
So they are losing $2.3 billion per year.
Eli the Computer Guy made a lot of waves around a year ago because his account was both incorrectly flagged for a "Community Strike" and his appeal was incorrectly dismissed which effectively left his channel dead in the water and he announced he was quitting. After outrage, a human finally stepped in and fixed the mess. Then later that year, his account was deleted by Google in the middle of a live stream without any explanation. (It was later restored, without explanation.)
Eli, talking as business entrepreneur, has talked a lot about the problems of YouTube as a platform. He frequently does business analysis and goes over numbers.
He has also broken down their cost structure, and yes, their expenses can really be that high. In addition to the massive number of videos that get uploaded every minute, they must also make multiple encodings of each one, and then all that needs to be mirrored to all the CDNs. (He was trying to figure out if he could do self-hosting...he felt if he just needed to make downloadable video files you watch offline, it can be done cheaply, but for streaming convenience, that's where things get expensive.)
Eli also quoted Susan Wojcicki stating that they still see YouTube as in the investment stage, which means they still are pumping money into it with no expectation that it's going to turn a profit anytime soon.
$4 billion is the lowest estimate I've seen anywhere. Most analysts guess it's about twice that based on what they pay out in ad rev share.
And yes - Wojcicki did say they are still investing in YouTube. Specifically she was talking about adding VR functionality.
YouTube is probably profitable.
And yes - Wojcicki did say they are still investing in YouTube. Specifically she was talking about adding VR functionality.
YouTube is probably profitable.
I've never seen anybody who's made a serious attempt to look at the numbers claim YouTube is profitable. All say the opposite.
Some random examples:
CBS Marketwatch: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/4-reasons-youtube-still-doesnt-...
Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-goo...
Motley Fool: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/01/youtube-is...
And none of these include this year's Adpocolypse.
Some random examples:
CBS Marketwatch: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/4-reasons-youtube-still-doesnt-...
Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-goo...
Motley Fool: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/01/youtube-is...
And none of these include this year's Adpocolypse.
Those are all from 2015 where the weren't profitable. Look for something more recent.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-y...
http://fortune.com/2017/04/27/alphabet-earnings-up-as-ads-su...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4096345-google-youtubes-pot...
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2017/0129/How-YouTube-and...
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/youtube-will-earn-9bn...
http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-youtube-alphabet...
Even if YouTube isn't profitable today (and I think they are), the growth indicates they will be soon.
> And none of these include this year's Adpocolypse.
That's true. That could be interesting for sure. The Variety link talks about it a little bit.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-y...
http://fortune.com/2017/04/27/alphabet-earnings-up-as-ads-su...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4096345-google-youtubes-pot...
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2017/0129/How-YouTube-and...
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/youtube-will-earn-9bn...
http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-youtube-alphabet...
Even if YouTube isn't profitable today (and I think they are), the growth indicates they will be soon.
> And none of these include this year's Adpocolypse.
That's true. That could be interesting for sure. The Variety link talks about it a little bit.
Amazon is far more than a store. For one, they are a monopoly on any content that's exclusive to Prime. And for a lot of us, that's meant choosing between our Prime accounts and our preferred streaming device. I personally would've probably chosen to buy an AppleTV except for the fact that Prime isn't available on the platform (though it appears that finally Amazon's spat with Apple on this front is coming to an end). Instead, I'm using a Roku because I don't want to reward Amazon for this crappy behavior by buying a FireTV.
And Google isn't really a monopoly on internet videos. In addition to many smaller competitors, Facebook and Twitch are competitors. It's hard to find reliable numbers, but from what I've seen YouTube gets around 2/3 or the hours watched in this category (i.e. excluding streaming sites like Netlifx and Prime). That's big, but not monopoly big.
And Google isn't really a monopoly on internet videos. In addition to many smaller competitors, Facebook and Twitch are competitors. It's hard to find reliable numbers, but from what I've seen YouTube gets around 2/3 or the hours watched in this category (i.e. excluding streaming sites like Netlifx and Prime). That's big, but not monopoly big.
You misunderstand what we're talking about.
Having the rights to a show is not having a monopoly, as we're talking about them. If not every single cable company in the world is somehow a monopoly.
You can watch other shows.
YouTube has an effective monopoly on internet videos. Almost ALL user generated videos, apart from few niches.
They're using their dominance in one market to try and give themselves an advantage in another, which is usually illegal.
Amazon, on the other hand, have plenty of competition. From Walmart to eBay. In videos there's Hulu and Netflix and Now TV, etc.
Having the rights to a show is not having a monopoly, as we're talking about them. If not every single cable company in the world is somehow a monopoly.
You can watch other shows.
YouTube has an effective monopoly on internet videos. Almost ALL user generated videos, apart from few niches.
They're using their dominance in one market to try and give themselves an advantage in another, which is usually illegal.
Amazon, on the other hand, have plenty of competition. From Walmart to eBay. In videos there's Hulu and Netflix and Now TV, etc.
> Having the rights to a show is not having a monopoly, as we're talking about them. If not every single cable company in the world is somehow a monopoly.
Cable companies don't generally produce content. In the case of the ones that do (like Comcast, after their acquisitions), they've absolutely used their content for anti-competitive purposes. This is exactly what Amazon has done with Prime...tried to leverage it to support their less established products. And it's exactly what Google is doing with YouTube. Amazon is getting the same treatment they've given others.
> You can watch other shows.
And you can watch other user-uploaded videos. There's plenty of other sites that host user-generated videos.
> YouTube has an effective monopoly on internet videos. Almost ALL user generated videos, apart from few niches.
This is just incorrect. YouTube is the biggest, but it's nowhere near "almost all" videos. As I said before, the numbers I've seen are around 1/3 of the watched hours are on platforms other than YouTube with Facebook being the biggest.
> Amazon, on the other hand, have plenty of competition. From Walmart to eBay. In videos there's Hulu and Netflix and Now TV, etc.
Hulu and Netflix don't manufacture streaming devices like FireTV. Walmart and eBay don't stream video or sell their own devices. Google and Apple are the only competitors relevant to this discussion since they're the only ones that compete on multiple products. And all three have artificially limited their cloud services to lock consumers into their platforms. All three should be reined in. But acting like Amazon is somehow the helpless victim in all this is just hypocritical. They're getting the same treatment they've given Google and Apple.
Cable companies don't generally produce content. In the case of the ones that do (like Comcast, after their acquisitions), they've absolutely used their content for anti-competitive purposes. This is exactly what Amazon has done with Prime...tried to leverage it to support their less established products. And it's exactly what Google is doing with YouTube. Amazon is getting the same treatment they've given others.
> You can watch other shows.
And you can watch other user-uploaded videos. There's plenty of other sites that host user-generated videos.
> YouTube has an effective monopoly on internet videos. Almost ALL user generated videos, apart from few niches.
This is just incorrect. YouTube is the biggest, but it's nowhere near "almost all" videos. As I said before, the numbers I've seen are around 1/3 of the watched hours are on platforms other than YouTube with Facebook being the biggest.
> Amazon, on the other hand, have plenty of competition. From Walmart to eBay. In videos there's Hulu and Netflix and Now TV, etc.
Hulu and Netflix don't manufacture streaming devices like FireTV. Walmart and eBay don't stream video or sell their own devices. Google and Apple are the only competitors relevant to this discussion since they're the only ones that compete on multiple products. And all three have artificially limited their cloud services to lock consumers into their platforms. All three should be reined in. But acting like Amazon is somehow the helpless victim in all this is just hypocritical. They're getting the same treatment they've given Google and Apple.
You're misunderstanding the meaning of the concepts you're using.
I'm not being rude, as I used to misunderstand them too. You need to read more about anti-competitive behaviour and the terms used.
Anti-competitive behaviour has specific meaning and nothing you're talking about meets those criteria, but everything I'm talking about does.
I'm not being rude, as I used to misunderstand them too. You need to read more about anti-competitive behaviour and the terms used.
Anti-competitive behaviour has specific meaning and nothing you're talking about meets those criteria, but everything I'm talking about does.
YouTube has a massive market share, I won't deny that. But it's far from a virtual monopoly. Even ignoring its numerous similar competitors like Vimeo, Metacafe and Daily Motion you still have Facebook.
That "store" has a virtual monopoly on cloud services, which it uses to subsidize its unprofitable online store and logistics network.
Edit: revenue is not profit!
Edit: revenue is not profit!
Search revenues (major) vs YouTube revenues (minor).
AWS revenues (minor) vs Store revenues (major) .
I'm not trying to defend Amazon or anything, but you really are comparing very different situations.
AWS revenues (minor) vs Store revenues (major) .
I'm not trying to defend Amazon or anything, but you really are comparing very different situations.
Amazon's refusal to list Chromecast and Google Home was in response to Google's refusal to allow Amazon products like the Kindle Fire to run Google Apps and/or interact with those devices.
Google didn't refuse to let Amazon use their apps. Tons of companies use their apps. There's a blanket license agreement that everyone signs. Every phone you buy has signed this agreement. Amazon simply refused to signed it and decided they wanted to own the whole system. Google didn't even have a say in this.
Says who?
Another theory is it's because Google (same as Apple) takes a share of any purchase you make on their platform.
http://www.androidauthority.com/bezos-sheds-light-amazon-gav... https://lifehacker.com/amazon-banning-the-chromecast-is-unbe...
Another theory is it's because Google (same as Apple) takes a share of any purchase you make on their platform.
http://www.androidauthority.com/bezos-sheds-light-amazon-gav... https://lifehacker.com/amazon-banning-the-chromecast-is-unbe...
But Amazon Prime Video has been available for iOS devices since at least 2010. You have to buy videos on Amazon’s site though.
Google didn't refuse; Amazon can use them on the same terms as everyone else does.
Amazon chooses not to, and that's their right, but that's not a Google decision. So, it boils down to Amazon refuses to list Chromecast and Google Home (but instead redirects searches to competitors) because Amazon refuses to use Chromecast or run Google Apps.
Amazon chooses not to, and that's their right, but that's not a Google decision. So, it boils down to Amazon refuses to list Chromecast and Google Home (but instead redirects searches to competitors) because Amazon refuses to use Chromecast or run Google Apps.
Why? Google would love nothing more than to get YouTube onto as much hardware as possible. They'd also love to have their ad revenue, and the Echo Show integration didn't show any ads.
Is it anti-competitive to say "please show our ads if you want to integrate with our free video service"?
Is it anti-competitive to say "please show our ads if you want to integrate with our free video service"?
They stopped supporting it on Wii consoles also. Yeah old tech I guess but I still use one for Netflix, Amazon Prime, and until recently YouTube.
My guess would be it's harder to monitize when they don't have access to all the other stuff they can track in a browser or phone app.
My guess would be it's harder to monitize when they don't have access to all the other stuff they can track in a browser or phone app.
In particular after they launched Youtube Red...
Looks like Google has not forgiven Amazon for pulling the chromecast's off of their store!
How do they detect that it's Echo? Can't Amazon send a different user-agent string?
Well, Amazon is likely using Google's YouTube API. When you use the API, you have to have an API key registered with Google and send all of your API requests with it. Google likely just banned the key, and given the potential for legal action, no corporation is going to try and "trick" Google by registering a different API key, spoofing their identity, etc., particularly since it's high profile and very easy to identify that Amazon has done something of the sort.
Ok. Can't they just run a browser inside the Echo? (So that the YT API is not used).
PS: One more reason not to depend on APIs.
PS: One more reason not to depend on APIs.
[deleted]
Sounds like YouTube is due for an effective competitor. I see plenty of free porn sites offering reliable quality video streaming, so I don't know what we're waiting for.
This is pretty lame because it's quite fun to ask for a video to be played.
The story is actually on the verge.yay amp links.
Do people over 30 actually use YouTube? I see my younger colleagues on there a lot, but be yet to find anything that was worth my time unless it broke copyright laws.
It's the DIY go-to for my parents and I'd argue most people - sure, my parents aren't subscribed to video game streamers or whatever you call people like h3h3 but if there's a channel similar to HGTV my mom is all over it
I use it all the time. There's a ton of educational material, news, how-to's, comedy, etc on it.
Additionally, it's usually pretty easy to find copyrighted content on there
Additionally, it's usually pretty easy to find copyrighted content on there
Canonical link: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/26/16371292/google-youtube-a...
First-party AMP link: https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/9/26/16371292/goo...
As-submitted link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...
First-party AMP link: https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/9/26/16371292/goo...
As-submitted link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...
[1] Promoting Amazon products while searching for "Google Home": https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/135-4089858-540885...
[2] Not selling chromecast because it doesn't support Amazon video, which they themselves won't make available on chromecase