Google Blocks YouTube Access from Amazon's Streaming Devices(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Google Blocks YouTube Access from Amazon's Streaming Devices
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/google-blocks-youtube-access-from-amazon-s-streaming-devices
83 comments
This is one reason why the Roku is such a great streaming platform, they're neutral.
You can receive VUDU (Walmart), Prime Video (Amazon), and YouTube/Play Movies (Google). The only thing you cannot receive is Apple's ecosystem (but no non-Apple streaming hardware can as far as I know). Same reason why Spotify is so prevalent, they too are neutral in this war between titans.
I have no sympathy for Google or Amazon in this particular situation since both have a track record of blocking out competition when they can. I do have sympathy for customers who get caught in the middle of these little disputes.
You can receive VUDU (Walmart), Prime Video (Amazon), and YouTube/Play Movies (Google). The only thing you cannot receive is Apple's ecosystem (but no non-Apple streaming hardware can as far as I know). Same reason why Spotify is so prevalent, they too are neutral in this war between titans.
I have no sympathy for Google or Amazon in this particular situation since both have a track record of blocking out competition when they can. I do have sympathy for customers who get caught in the middle of these little disputes.
I may be wrong but Google can block itself from being shown on Roku right? It seems weird to call Roku neutral when it's not them but Google calling the shots.
Google can block YouTube wherever it wishes because their YouTube clients are either:
- first-party, so they make them on platforms where they wish to be present on, and conversely withdraw from platforms on which they no longer wish to be present; or,
- third-party, such they are bound by the YouTube API Services Terms of Service [1], which reserves their right to terminate any client for specifically enumerated reasons, or any or no reason at all.
[1] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/api-services-ter...
- first-party, so they make them on platforms where they wish to be present on, and conversely withdraw from platforms on which they no longer wish to be present; or,
- third-party, such they are bound by the YouTube API Services Terms of Service [1], which reserves their right to terminate any client for specifically enumerated reasons, or any or no reason at all.
[1] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/api-services-ter...
There are clients like Newpipe[1] that directly parse the Youtube website instead of using the API.
[1]: https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/
[1]: https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/
I'm a big user of NewPipe. They have features for free that the YouTube app would make you pay for, such as listening to audio only in the background, removing ads. Plus many other useful features such as having a scaled down video display in front of other apps and downloading video/audio to listen later offline.
I think the ideas is that Google has less of a reason to block Youtube on the Roku because they don't compete in any meaningful way.
fun fact Roku was spun out of netflix just so they could remain neutral https://www.fastcompany.com/3004709/inside-netflixs-project-...
Google had all unofficial YouTube apps removed from the Roku Channel Store. It wasn't until the Roku 3 if my memory serves me right that they had an official one made.
With YouTube TV and Prime Video coming to the Apple TV, it actually will be the one device that has everything.
Until it isn't of course. It is challenging to understand how greedy these people are such that they really want both all the data (viewing habits, demographics, etc) and all the revenue.
Prime Video has been struggling so Amazon can't afford the strategy tax of limiting it to their own devices [1]. The more Apple TVs that are sold by Apple, the more untenable their position becomes, especially when Netflix will be on any device. Amazon vs Google might be turning into a hot war (which makes sense since they're competing in an increasing number of businesses), but that's not the case with Apple.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-amazon-is-failing-to-domi...
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-amazon-is-failing-to-domi...
Amazon just pulled Twitch from Roku
It's unfortunate but the app has some real issues. It tends to crash people's Roku or lag the devices to the point of being unresponsive to input. There's a Twitch channel for Plex you can use with the Plex app, but it has audio sync issues, most noticeably with 1080p @ 60fps
They had obviously stopped working on it a while ago but I can't be the only one who regularly uses it to watch streams.
Oh my God, how very crappy of Amazon to do this?
Exactly right. I bought a roku last week for this reason. I support vendors that believe in openness and inclusion.
Can we advance some kind of peace treaty?
Google's philosophy is to "put users first and the rest will follow" [0]
Amazon wants to be the world's most customer centric company. [1]
- [0] https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/the-google-wa... - [1] https://www.amazon.jobs/working/working-amazon
- [0] https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/the-google-wa... - [1] https://www.amazon.jobs/working/working-amazon
Google's philosophy is to "put users first and the rest will follow" [0] Amazon wants to be the world's most customer centric company. [1]
I would recommend you judge everyone, but particularly corporations, by the effect they have and not what some subset of their mouthpieces claim they are doing.
I would recommend you judge everyone, but particularly corporations, by the effect they have and not what some subset of their mouthpieces claim they are doing.
Well, seemed like you worked for both of them, maybe you should write a couple letters.
For posterity, profile reads:
> Former Google and AWS product manager.
> Former Google and AWS product manager.
> Google's philosophy is to "put users first and the rest will follow"
We can file that under "Meaningless Feel-Good Corporate Propaganda", right below "Don't be evil".
We can file that under "Meaningless Feel-Good Corporate Propaganda", right below "Don't be evil".
That's not their philosophy, that's public relations.
The only thing both companies have in common is to grow and extract as much profits as possible.
Maybe it helps them sleep better at night but don't fall for the corporate PR BS that they're changing the world for the better.
Maybe it helps them sleep better at night but don't fall for the corporate PR BS that they're changing the world for the better.
No, Google's philosophy is to put Google first, and that's exactly as it should be. Everything else is just marketing to make their users believe they matter.
Know where I can still watch both Youtube and Amazon Video? On my ten year-old Playstation 3.
Interestingly enough, my Blu-Ray player lost Youtube access at some point because the vendor stopped pushing updates and Google changed the API.
I don't blame Google, nor do I blame the hardware vendor - I don't expect my devices to receive software updates forever, and I don't expect Google to keep the same API forever either.
I don't blame Google, nor do I blame the hardware vendor - I don't expect my devices to receive software updates forever, and I don't expect Google to keep the same API forever either.
I do blame Google for breaking millions of devices for what can't amount to much more than a rounding error's worth of developer time/pay for them to keep the old APIs working. I'm disappointed that people don't seem to care about backwards compatibility anymore. As a general point, not everyone out there can afford to keep buying new things when companies drop support, which is an angle that's maybe overlooked because of the relatively affluent demographics on tech sites. For me, if I developed an app that didn't have some extremely pressing need for some new API call, I'd prefer not to abandon the people who can't buy new phones every two years.
And yet, somehow, you could buy a TV appropriate to your country from any television manufacturer and you could receive programming from a range of different television broadcasters for seventy years.
But I also can't receive modern transmissions on that TV set, nor can I hook it up to a modern device (e.g., a Blu-Ray player that only has HDMI or RCA outputs)
iPad 1st gen built in YouTube app (iOS 5) is also out of commission. Probably cause they couldn't show ads on that API version.
Still use mine for media streaming all the time. Great interface, no ads, free internet access.
Until Google just decides to ban older players.
what about your pc?
I actually do have an HTPC hooked up to the TV, but the Youtube add-on for Kodi is flakey, and I'm not even sure if an Amazon one exists.
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no pity for Amazon here. They've consistently misrepresented things to remove anything google from the amazon store. They wouldn't support google's cast protocol for their streaming video service and they used that as an excuse to remove the chromecast. They won't carry the google home because it competes with the echo.
If anybody is abusing a monopoly here it is amazon. I'm glad google finally threw down the gauntlet, I hope they make amazon regret all of this.
I sincerely regret purchasing amazon tablets because they are junk for my kids. If it weren't for third party apps like netflix and plex those tablets wouldn't be worth the $40 I spent on them. I can install google play services and "almost" turn them into normal android tablets, except amazon makes sure you get constant errors if you do that.
When I found out that there was no youtube kids app on the amazon fire I nearly lost my mind. I don't want to get up every Saturday morning at 5 am just because my triplets don't have funny cat videos to watch...
If anybody is abusing a monopoly here it is amazon. I'm glad google finally threw down the gauntlet, I hope they make amazon regret all of this.
I sincerely regret purchasing amazon tablets because they are junk for my kids. If it weren't for third party apps like netflix and plex those tablets wouldn't be worth the $40 I spent on them. I can install google play services and "almost" turn them into normal android tablets, except amazon makes sure you get constant errors if you do that.
When I found out that there was no youtube kids app on the amazon fire I nearly lost my mind. I don't want to get up every Saturday morning at 5 am just because my triplets don't have funny cat videos to watch...
It used to be that putting a video on YouTube guaranteed it was available on basically any device anywhere. I guess Google is ruining that too now.
This should quash anyone's doubts that Google is using YouTube to strengthen their monopoly.
They played the same dirty trick on Microsoft with Windows Phone and now they're doing the same with Amazon.
They played the same dirty trick on Microsoft with Windows Phone and now they're doing the same with Amazon.
This is in retaliation for Amazon not selling Google hardware products on Amazon. It's Amazon that is abusing its monopoly.
Amazon isn’t selling the Chromecast (they’re selling all other Google hardware) because Google prevented Amazon from streaming to the Chromecast.
Which is Google abusing its monopoly.
Which is Google abusing its monopoly.
Ah no Amazon stopped selling google nest devices as well. And no google has not stopped Amazon from streaming to chrome-cast it is Amazon that is not implementing it apps for streaming to chromecast. If you can stream with vlc to chromecast I dont see how google is stopping Amazon
> If you can stream with vlc to chromecast
You can only if the device has Google Play Services installed.
Amazon doesn’t want to have separate versions of their apps for regular Android (as used on LineageOS, Amazon Kindle Android, MIUI, Replicant, CopperheadOS) and for Google’s version with proprietary Play Services.
You can only if the device has Google Play Services installed.
Amazon doesn’t want to have separate versions of their apps for regular Android (as used on LineageOS, Amazon Kindle Android, MIUI, Replicant, CopperheadOS) and for Google’s version with proprietary Play Services.
This is actually even worse than the future Stallman predicted, where our books would be blocked at the whim of the copyright holder. At least then you could sort of understand the rationale: the idea that the rightsholders should get to decide how you consume the content is intuitive, if ultimately false.
But now we cant watch stuff just because the megacorporations are fighting and we are collateral damage. They don't even care about the specific content, it's all about platform dominance. Corporate information proxy wars were cool in cyberpunk novels but really suck in reality :(
But now we cant watch stuff just because the megacorporations are fighting and we are collateral damage. They don't even care about the specific content, it's all about platform dominance. Corporate information proxy wars were cool in cyberpunk novels but really suck in reality :(
Agreed this absolutely sucks.
Amazon fired the first shots tho. This is their fault and they should put Google products back up on their store.
Amazon fired the first shots tho. This is their fault and they should put Google products back up on their store.
Is that a false equivalence?
A retailer chooses not to stock a product-their prerogative perhaps? There are plenty of places to buy a Chromecast.
A content provider withdraws access to it's service from consumers who have certain devices. This hurts consumers more than it does Amazon, perhaps?
In my view this is two companies demonstrating how they have become dangerous monopolies. Amazon has such a dominant online position that it is able to give its own product an unfair advantage merely by not selling the competition. I think the idea that you can be a manufacturer, and a retailer and own the marketplace (along with being the biggest hosting provider) as completely untenable long term.
Google on the other hand has put itself in the equivalent position of a TV station that blocks viewing from certain devices. Then add that you manufacture some of those devices? I hope the backlash from YouTube advertisers is colossal.
The individual action of Amazon vs Google here is kind of pathetic and I think Google come out looking worse. The real issue is the market dominance of these two companies. Time for a carve up
A retailer chooses not to stock a product-their prerogative perhaps? There are plenty of places to buy a Chromecast.
A content provider withdraws access to it's service from consumers who have certain devices. This hurts consumers more than it does Amazon, perhaps?
In my view this is two companies demonstrating how they have become dangerous monopolies. Amazon has such a dominant online position that it is able to give its own product an unfair advantage merely by not selling the competition. I think the idea that you can be a manufacturer, and a retailer and own the marketplace (along with being the biggest hosting provider) as completely untenable long term.
Google on the other hand has put itself in the equivalent position of a TV station that blocks viewing from certain devices. Then add that you manufacture some of those devices? I hope the backlash from YouTube advertisers is colossal.
The individual action of Amazon vs Google here is kind of pathetic and I think Google come out looking worse. The real issue is the market dominance of these two companies. Time for a carve up
The war may be older than you think. Amazon's platform is not the first Google has refused their APIs access to.
What did Amazon do?
Amazon took all products that can't stream Amazon content off their store.
Google Cast players can't stream Amazon content because Amazon hasn't implemented the Cast SDK in their app.
Amazon doesn't implement the Cast SDK because their flavor of Android eschews Google Play Services which is required for the Cast SDK on Android.
Google doesn't license the Google Play Services to Amazon because....
We can go around for a while...
Google Cast players can't stream Amazon content because Amazon hasn't implemented the Cast SDK in their app.
Amazon doesn't implement the Cast SDK because their flavor of Android eschews Google Play Services which is required for the Cast SDK on Android.
Google doesn't license the Google Play Services to Amazon because....
We can go around for a while...
[deleted]
Amazon removed the Chromecasts from the Amazon store.
Because Google refused to allow Amazon to cast to Chromecasts.
There was once a time when the Amazon Video and Netflix apps on Amazon Kindle Fire could stream to Chromecast, Google then changed their protocol to prevent that (you now need to use their proprietary library for it).
Amazon reacted by removing the Chromecast from their store.
Because Google refused to allow Amazon to cast to Chromecasts.
There was once a time when the Amazon Video and Netflix apps on Amazon Kindle Fire could stream to Chromecast, Google then changed their protocol to prevent that (you now need to use their proprietary library for it).
Amazon reacted by removing the Chromecast from their store.
Amazon removed Chromecast devices from Amazon.com and refuses to support Chromecast protocol from their services. They also removed Apple TV devices at the same time.
> refuses to support Chromecast protocol from their services
That’s a funny claim, considering Google intentionally has changed the protocol several times, to prevent any third party implementation of the protocol – including Amazons, and many Open Source libraries for it.
I was building an open source library for it when these changes happened, and I can tell you, it’s not pretty.
The only way to actually reliably stream to Chromecast, and to receive Chromecast streams, is with Google’s proprietary library for it. On Android, this is included in the Google Play Services.
Obviously, on Amazon Kindles, these aren’t preinstalled (due to their restrictive terms), so Amazon had their own implementation (which, as mentioned, Google acted against)
That’s a funny claim, considering Google intentionally has changed the protocol several times, to prevent any third party implementation of the protocol – including Amazons, and many Open Source libraries for it.
I was building an open source library for it when these changes happened, and I can tell you, it’s not pretty.
The only way to actually reliably stream to Chromecast, and to receive Chromecast streams, is with Google’s proprietary library for it. On Android, this is included in the Google Play Services.
Obviously, on Amazon Kindles, these aren’t preinstalled (due to their restrictive terms), so Amazon had their own implementation (which, as mentioned, Google acted against)
they were never good at each other. To have the best of two worlds is to have one Chromecast and one Fire TV. At least I don't need an Apple TV nowadays because Chromecast is good enough for local streaming and some occasional mirroring from Mac (although not the same quality as Apple TV).
Or just use a device and content delivery platform that isn't developed by a content producer... like Roku, Kodi, etc.
Roku is a local US thing (cannot get that in Europe) and Kodi is not a match for Chromecast and/or Fire TV and I never want to think or spend too much of installing the right stuff on my "TV box".
What's to say Google doesn't pull YouTube API access from Roku or Kodi next? This salvo at Amazon isn't their first, and may not be their last.
Best way to prevent this kind of content hoarding is to support neutral platforms.
How does that actually prevent anything? Using Roku/Kodi to consume YouTube doesn't stop YouTube from content hoarding, and YouTube from having all the power in the relationship. You using a Roku doesn't have any bearing if a content creator is releasing to YouTube.
Yes, it would be great if there was a more neutral video sharing platform than YouTube, but it's not "you the consumer" that gets the power to choose that.
Not to mention that today's neutral consumer platform is tomorrow's acquisition target. You can scamper from platform to platform, of course, but again, you don't really have much in the way of power in those relationships either.
Yes, it would be great if there was a more neutral video sharing platform than YouTube, but it's not "you the consumer" that gets the power to choose that.
Not to mention that today's neutral consumer platform is tomorrow's acquisition target. You can scamper from platform to platform, of course, but again, you don't really have much in the way of power in those relationships either.
It helps by lowering the cost of acquiring new sources of content. The suggestion of buying both a fire stick and a chromecast is expensive and cumbersome. Downloading an app on Kodi or Roku is free and easy.
And Kodi, in particular, being open source isn't an acquisition target.
The point is to prevent being locked in, and shut out of good content from independent sources.
And Kodi, in particular, being open source isn't an acquisition target.
The point is to prevent being locked in, and shut out of good content from independent sources.
> they were never good at each other. To have the best of two worlds is to have one Chromecast and one Fire TV. At least I don't need an Apple TV nowadays because Chromecast is good enough for local streaming and some occasional mirroring from Mac (although not the same quality as Apple TV).
https://youtu.be/9pmPa_KxsAM?t=10402
My guess is this goes all way to the top, to Larry:
> It started when a guy from Mozilla asked a question about the future of the Web and mobile platforms. Page dove right in. “I’ve personally been quite sad at the industry’s behavior around all these things," he said. "If you take something as simple as IM, we’ve had an open offer to interoperate forever. Just this week Microsoft took advantage of that by interoperating with us. You can’t have people milking off of just one company.”
> He was referring to Microsoft’s announcement that it would incorporate Google Talk into Outlook.com, even though it doesn’t allow Google to incorporate Outlook functions into Gmail. But as AllThingsD’s Mike Isaac noted, he left out the part where Google recently sent Microsoft a cease-and-desist letter demanding that it remove the YouTube app from its Windows Phones.
> Page wasn’t finished. “You can’t focus on negativity and zero-sum games,” he said. “I don’t know how to deal with all of those things, and I’m sad that the Web isn’t advancing as fast as it should be. We struggle with people like Microsoft.” A question about Oracle and Java got him going again. “We’ve had a difficult relationship with Oracle, including having to appear in court,” Page said. “Money is obviously more important to them than any collaboration.”
> It turns out this is also the media’s fault. “Every story I read about Google is us vs. some other company, or some stupid thing. I just don’t find that very interesting. We should be building great things that don’t exist. Being negative isn’t how we make progress.”
> To recap, Page criticized Microsoft for treating Google as a rival, blasted Oracle for caring too much about money, and then whined about everyone being so negative. Heck, if it weren’t for those other companies standing in the way, Google would have probably already solved world hunger. Well, except for all the laws and bureaucrats and journalists who are also standing in the way.
https://archive.fo/OuL1T
I love the work that people at Amazon.com are doing. However, as we push upwards of 60% of US households on Amazon prime, I think we have reasons to be worried.
like acchow said:
> Amazon fired the first shots tho. This is their fault and they should put Google products back up on their store.
https://youtu.be/9pmPa_KxsAM?t=10402
My guess is this goes all way to the top, to Larry:
> It started when a guy from Mozilla asked a question about the future of the Web and mobile platforms. Page dove right in. “I’ve personally been quite sad at the industry’s behavior around all these things," he said. "If you take something as simple as IM, we’ve had an open offer to interoperate forever. Just this week Microsoft took advantage of that by interoperating with us. You can’t have people milking off of just one company.”
> He was referring to Microsoft’s announcement that it would incorporate Google Talk into Outlook.com, even though it doesn’t allow Google to incorporate Outlook functions into Gmail. But as AllThingsD’s Mike Isaac noted, he left out the part where Google recently sent Microsoft a cease-and-desist letter demanding that it remove the YouTube app from its Windows Phones.
> Page wasn’t finished. “You can’t focus on negativity and zero-sum games,” he said. “I don’t know how to deal with all of those things, and I’m sad that the Web isn’t advancing as fast as it should be. We struggle with people like Microsoft.” A question about Oracle and Java got him going again. “We’ve had a difficult relationship with Oracle, including having to appear in court,” Page said. “Money is obviously more important to them than any collaboration.”
> It turns out this is also the media’s fault. “Every story I read about Google is us vs. some other company, or some stupid thing. I just don’t find that very interesting. We should be building great things that don’t exist. Being negative isn’t how we make progress.”
> To recap, Page criticized Microsoft for treating Google as a rival, blasted Oracle for caring too much about money, and then whined about everyone being so negative. Heck, if it weren’t for those other companies standing in the way, Google would have probably already solved world hunger. Well, except for all the laws and bureaucrats and journalists who are also standing in the way.
https://archive.fo/OuL1T
I love the work that people at Amazon.com are doing. However, as we push upwards of 60% of US households on Amazon prime, I think we have reasons to be worried.
like acchow said:
> Amazon fired the first shots tho. This is their fault and they should put Google products back up on their store.
Curious, is this a violation of net neutrality? This seems even worse for the consumer than simply having to pay more. At least then you still can get access. Do we clamor for the government to come regulate it?
Be careful when considering this so as not to be inconsistent with your reasoning behind NN for ISPs.
Be careful when considering this so as not to be inconsistent with your reasoning behind NN for ISPs.
HA equating this to net neutrality is like HUH and WHAT!
Google nor Amazon control the pipes and here in the US for home broadband it's a monopoly or a duopoly. With Net Neutrality gone my monopolistic broadband provider can start blocking sites, charging me to access different sites and etc. They can turn the Internet into the horrendous model and experience that is Cable TV.
No way is Google's actions here have anything to do with Net Neutrality. Rather in this instance a consumer can go just go ahead and buy another streaming device if they choose to do so. That's because there's competition and lots of it in this space vs. fast uncapped broadband.
Google nor Amazon control the pipes and here in the US for home broadband it's a monopoly or a duopoly. With Net Neutrality gone my monopolistic broadband provider can start blocking sites, charging me to access different sites and etc. They can turn the Internet into the horrendous model and experience that is Cable TV.
No way is Google's actions here have anything to do with Net Neutrality. Rather in this instance a consumer can go just go ahead and buy another streaming device if they choose to do so. That's because there's competition and lots of it in this space vs. fast uncapped broadband.
> Curious, is this a violation of net neutrality?
No, Amazon leveraging it's exclusive content and video service to sell FireTV, or Google leveraging YouTube to sell Chromecast, is not a violation of Net Neutrality, or within the statutory mandate of the FCC even more generally.
Either might be a violation of anti-trust law within the purview of the FTC, of course.
No, Amazon leveraging it's exclusive content and video service to sell FireTV, or Google leveraging YouTube to sell Chromecast, is not a violation of Net Neutrality, or within the statutory mandate of the FCC even more generally.
Either might be a violation of anti-trust law within the purview of the FTC, of course.
Google can not be in favor of non-neutral net. They would be among the first impacted by ISP restricting content providers. This has nothing to do about "user"'s freedom, but all to do about their own business model. It doesn't matter if it's good for the end-user, Google main focus is Google (and its shareholders), not Joe Blow.
Now, this would probably not be in the scope of NN and the FCC, but more of anti-trust laws.
Now, this would probably not be in the scope of NN and the FCC, but more of anti-trust laws.
This reminds me of those older consumers who think "The Internet" is program on their computer. They have a confusion between labels and ideas.
Network neutrality means neutral behavior of the transmission networks.
It does not mean "Everything consumers think of when they hear the words 'The Net'" neutrality.
Network neutrality means neutral behavior of the transmission networks.
It does not mean "Everything consumers think of when they hear the words 'The Net'" neutrality.
No. the network refers to the transit medium. Network non-neutrality would make it worse because comcast could decide you can't watch youtube or amazon video on any device.
The network only refers to the transit medium if your premise is that the power to control content lie with one particular interest group instead of another.
What's special about Twitter that they get to decide who can use their computers, routers, switches and so on, whereas level-3 is not allowed to do the same?
What's special about Twitter that they get to decide who can use their computers, routers, switches and so on, whereas level-3 is not allowed to do the same?
The physical medium is the limited public resource. We have all the public ground and all the radio spectrum we'll ever have. Tearing up roads, wiring up cities, assigning spectrum, blanketing the country in antennas, are national infrastructure projects that take decades and billions of dollars. In America with our belief in the free market we've traditionally done these projects with public/private partnership. But we can't give corporations complete free reign because they're using our one set of physical resources, if they screw those up then we lose access to our shared telecommunication infrastructure.
On top of these physical networks the digital companies are building virtual networks. Twitter, Snapchat, Medium, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and a thousand more companies vigorously competing in these virtual domains. The virtual worlds are so vast and we're still trying to understand their potential that even when these companies seem to be forming monopolistic locks we should give them free rein. You have more communication channels today then anybody else in human history. Stop calling for government control of our unlimited virtual resources.
On top of these physical networks the digital companies are building virtual networks. Twitter, Snapchat, Medium, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and a thousand more companies vigorously competing in these virtual domains. The virtual worlds are so vast and we're still trying to understand their potential that even when these companies seem to be forming monopolistic locks we should give them free rein. You have more communication channels today then anybody else in human history. Stop calling for government control of our unlimited virtual resources.
No. This is not developing an app for a certain device.
The war we were all waiting for has begun. I am going to grab some popcorn and watch it on my Roku.
If only Net Neutrality went both ways...
While I understand NN is a hot topic in these past few months, I'm having a hard time understanding the connection here. Are we suggesting that there should be some sort of mandated cross-platform compatibility requirement for all cloud video services on all devices? Meaning, do we really want to require that Google provides access to all YouTube content on everyone's device? What if I post a video on my own homepage, am I then required to make it available on all devices?
I think both Google and Amazon are acting like jerks here, but I can't think of federal-level rules I'd change or put into place that wouldn't make things worse.
I think both Google and Amazon are acting like jerks here, but I can't think of federal-level rules I'd change or put into place that wouldn't make things worse.
> Meaning, do we really want to require that Google provides access to all YouTube content on everyone's device? What if I post a video on my own homepage, am I then required to make it available on all devices?
No, I think the point is once you've uploaded the video, please don't single out a particular device and actively prohibit access. Web is Web. Let the Web clients make Web calls to Web content. (I'm referring to them actively blocking the workaround which was to access the regular Web version.)
No, I think the point is once you've uploaded the video, please don't single out a particular device and actively prohibit access. Web is Web. Let the Web clients make Web calls to Web content. (I'm referring to them actively blocking the workaround which was to access the regular Web version.)
Except it doesn't, by definition. It's "Network neutrality", not "absolutely anything anybody thinks of when they say 'The Net' neutrality."
Similarly, "Road Neutrality" only applies to actual roads. It doesn't mean the local McDonald's has to let anybody could use their drive-thru for any reason, or that you're allowed to park in your neighbor's driveway, or that you can freely wander around a NASCAR track.
Similarly, "Road Neutrality" only applies to actual roads. It doesn't mean the local McDonald's has to let anybody could use their drive-thru for any reason, or that you're allowed to park in your neighbor's driveway, or that you can freely wander around a NASCAR track.
Fair enough. In this case, "Road Neutrality" protects the consumer's access to a restaurant or bank. However, in reality there are civil rights laws that in turn forbid those restaurants and banks from refusing service to customers based on their ethnicity and gender.
I don't think it's a stretch, if we're comparing Networks to roads, to also compare network services like Google and Youtube to public accomodations like restaurants, hotels and banks, and discuss a set of protected classes for internet nondiscrimination.
I don't think it's a stretch, if we're comparing Networks to roads, to also compare network services like Google and Youtube to public accomodations like restaurants, hotels and banks, and discuss a set of protected classes for internet nondiscrimination.
Right, there are expectations that We The People have created, and -- for better or for worse -- some of them were codified and given legal force.
It just doesn't all nicely fit under one "be cool to each other" umbrella.
It just doesn't all nicely fit under one "be cool to each other" umbrella.
So much for a free and open internet.
Just a week ago, Google was among among the leading tech companies fighting for people against censorship and arbitrary blocking, and now this...
Just a week ago, Google was among among the leading tech companies fighting for people against censorship and arbitrary blocking, and now this...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855198