Google pulls YouTube from Amazon devices, escalating spat
A rare public spat in the technology industry escalated on Tuesday when Google said it would block its video streaming application YouTube from two Amazon.com Inc devices and criticized the online retailer for not selling Google hardware.[...] In a statement, Google said, "Amazon doesn't carry Google products like Chromecast and Google Home, doesn't make (its) Prime Video available for Google Cast users, and last month stopped selling some of (our sister company) Nest's latest products. "Given this lack of reciprocity, we are no longer supporting YouTube on Echo Show and Fire TV," Google said. "We hope we can reach an agreement to resolve these issues soon."[...] Amazon said in a statement, "Google is setting a disappointing precedent by selectively blocking customer access to an open website." It said it hoped to resolve the issue with Google as soon as possible but customers could access YouTube through the internet - not an app - on the devices in the meantime.
A rare public spat in the technology industry escalated on Tuesday when Google said it would block its video streaming application YouTube from two Amazon.com Inc devices and criticized the online retailer for not selling Google hardware.
[...] In a statement, Google said, "Amazon doesn't carry Google products like Chromecast and Google Home, doesn't make (its) Prime Video available for Google Cast users, and last month stopped selling some of (our sister company) Nest's latest products. "Given this lack of reciprocity, we are no longer supporting YouTube on Echo Show and Fire TV," Google said. "We hope we can reach an agreement to resolve these issues soon."
[...] Amazon said in a statement, "Google is setting a disappointing precedent by selectively blocking customer access to an open website." It said it hoped to resolve the issue with Google as soon as possible but customers could access YouTube through the internet - not an app - on the devices in the meantime.
Meanwhile, Amazon Prime Video has come to the Apple TV.
Also at The Verge and Variety.
Previously: Google Pulls YouTube off of the Amazon Echo ShowGoogle's "Manhattan" to Compete With Amazon's Echo Show
Mark All as Read
Mark All as Unread
No more YouTube on home spying devices and TV attached spying devices from Amazon.
No film at eleven, as less than a fuck was given.
*Not Godwinning this thread, this is a pop culture reference [wikipedia.org].
Godwinning this thread
Shut up, Newman.
I could have sworn that Google supported Net Neutrality. Now, here they are blocking people based on the devices they chose to spend their money on. And, I suspect that Trump and his administration will support that decision.
They are just removing flowers (or weeds) from the walled garden.
Google is pure evil from Hell, and Michael David Crawford is Satan's loyal fluffer. [soylentnews.org]
You need help. Please get some.
It's almost as if they aren't ethical, they only care about what would make them the most money...
...so I wonder why they then support Net Neutrality?
Because they haven't rolled out enough fiber to compete with the other ISPs yet.
Hmm... as long as the Amazon devices can continue to access web sites, this isn't really violating net neutrality. Net Neutrality doesn't (shouldn't) have much to do at all with which apps can run here or there, or not. In this case, it's Google taking its YouTube app from Amazon's pretty walled garden as some sort of consequence for another issue.
Net Neutrality will be prepped for violation when Comcast starts making noises that it might have to block YouTube traffic because Comcast keeps asserting that Google does not do enough to police copyright violations in YouTube. And on behalf of all those content producers and copyright holders, it then seeks some sort of shakedown/reparations/compromise from Google.
What'll be interesting is if Comcast's Xfinity Mobile MVNO gets traction, and Comcast can then try to go onto users' phones and tablets and disable or remove apps it doesn't like today...
But at this point, it's all probably just trivial tomato vs tomato differences anyways.
They dropped support for net neutrality a while ago when they realized they're big enough for changes not to affect them.
well, they are not being nice that is true. But then, isn't amazon doing the same?
They do not seem to have many other options to fight back.
You're close, Amazon was violating an agreement on how the YouTube application is redistributed, the same thing happened a few years ago with Windows Phones.
What does this have to do with net neutrality?
Net neutrality is about preventing ISPs from discriminating against internet traffic, not about preventing the reciever of that traffic from rejecting some of it.
It's about people's right to data. A person wants some data from Google, and Google denies data based on which device they are using.
But the person can access the data.. with a different device - in fact on a general purpose device like a PC. There's lots of data on the net that are far less accessible..
They're blocking access to _small_ number of channels, proprietary channels at that, to that data that's all - and only because AWS did the same to them. Its a stretch to say that act in on itself is anti net-neutrality.
But yea, Google like any other mega-corp could careless about NN as long as it doesn't get in the way of profits.
Good riddance to the apps and split effort. Maybe they can focus on the web experience then and use the web like it was meant to.
Wait, no, we don't want "apps" on the net either, and certainly not the DRM nonsense.
Umm... guys, this is hard... can we just go back to posting stuff to alt.binaries.* instead?
I'll DCC it to you on IRC
Ah, good memories - thanks!
Sigh..., do you remember the time when knowledgeable people, often the developers themselves, answered questions and supported their software in a meaningful way, and trolls sometimes were actually funny or interesting? I'm getting old...
Mmm... but proper old-school trolling is *hard*. Though it is glorious when you see a troll elegantly lead someone on a marry chase around their own arguments only to end up arguing for the opposite they originally were.
You just forgot that Wars involve civlians and in this case the (cool-aid) buying public are the casualties.
Of course, you probably don't know what 'literal' means either, do you?
It's like liberal, but with a T instead?
no, no.it refers to "letter", which is a drawing, or a picture.old people use them instead of emoticons.so a literal war is when people start typing U+1F4A9 at each other.
I'm talking about a literal war.Fighting against literals, fighting for literals, or using literals as weapons? :-)With guns and bombs and body parts scattered all about.I see, before the invention of bombs and guns people didn't fight wars. ;-)
I'm talking about a literal war.Fighting against literals, fighting for literals, or using literals as weapons? :-)
With guns and bombs and body parts scattered all about.
I see, before the invention of bombs and guns people didn't fight wars. ;-)
How about these two giant anti-human organizations go to war?
Have you watched the movie War Inc [imdb.com]? That pretty much explores how the world would look if corporations did go to war and the like - though in that case, it seems that one corp was just being used to fight an entire war. Still hilariously macabre whilst accurate if you have worked in large multinationals.
*SPOILER* (click to show)
*SPOILER* (click to hide)
I H A V E A H A R D T I M E R E A D I N G Y O U R F O N T S E T T I N G. M A Y B E I F Y O U U S E D E F A U L T I N S T E A D O F B E I N G S P E C I A L S N O W F L A K E , I T W O U L D B E N I C E R F O R A L L O F U S . T H A N K S I N A D V A N C E.
maybe you could configure your browser/fonts?
Looks readable enough to me. Why do you allow fonts that you do not like to read?
switch to VT100 theme
I can't read your font.
...between this and Apple getting in a spat with Disney and blocking all Disney IP's from resolving on all Macs, iPhones, and iPads?
Since when does the manufacturer of a device have the reserved right to determine whose content I may and may not consume with it?
This isn't a net neutrality argument - net neutrality is about network operators prioritizing traffic on the wire. This is about device makers claiming they should have veto power over what networks their customers may connect to. Different, and probably a significantly worse threat.
>>> device makers claiming they should have veto power over what networks their customers may connect to.
Ummm, no, backwards. This is about a web site having veto power over what software is allowed to view it, and thereby blocking a category of hardware using particular software. And it's about customers who did nothing wrong and have no input to the situation suddenly having functionality stolen away from devices they bought and paid for. It's about all of the openness of the Internet being sliced into walled gardens.
So same as websites falsely saying they require IE and not showing anything else when using a different browser. Nothing new to see here, move along youngster.
the people who want to watch youtube videos are not google's customers.the people in this story are actually amazon's customers, because they paid amazon for the privilege of watching youtube.
The difference, if I understand the article, is that Google is pulling their own app from Amazon's devices. The Echo and Fire can still access YouTube through a standard web connection though. Google's not blocking traffic, they're just pulling their app.
This is more akin to Google releasing Maps features on Android ahead of the same functionality (if at all) on their iOS apps.
Lads, I like you both. I have Google Play Movies and Amazon Prime videos.
I have a Google Chromecast.I subscribe to Amazon Prime.
And I've always played both through the Chromecast. Admittedly a one-button solution would be nice rather than having to stream the tab from Chrome, but that's neither here nor there.
Fact is, I bought the Chromecast from Google because I couldn't buy it on Amazon. You could have shared in your rival's profit but you wanted to make it difficult for me, and you also allowed a lot of Chromecast-related spam to sit in its place to trick people.
And I subscribe to Amazon because there's no similar Google Play offering.
However, the bottom line is this: If you force me to choose, I will. Permanently. That means I won't "lose" my videos that I bought. I'll still demand that you use your resources to send them to me whenever I want them. But you won't see a penny more of my money. Whoever "loses", misses out on that money I'm currently spending. Then I'll give it to their direct rival instead.
So.. bicker if you like. One of you will lose, and you will both miss out over time as my confidence in purchasing via any such service erodes if you guys just keep falling out to this extent. I know precisely which one it is I would choose. I won't be damaged by it at all. But I'll spend nothing with the loser, and I'll spend less with the winner and any similar service going forward.
When you have an answer, give me a shout. Because I think if you look, the only answer is "both stop being petty and support each other's gear". That means you get a percentage of everything your rival sells, if you negotiate it right, which is never a bad thing.
The alternative - the separation that you're threatening - ends well for no-one. And with two big players losing out, it means that you could break that industry as a whole. Or certainly hurt as a result.
Amazon - stock the Google hardware at the same prices as every other retail store, allow a Chromecast button to be put on if viewed by a Chrome browser, etc.Google - you have support for the fire stick, right? And you'll let them have YouTube like everyone else?
Honestly, when you start talking to multi-billion dollar corporations like children, there's something drastically wrong with their negotiating skills or attitude to business.
So much this, but I have slowly been leaning toward the negative for both companies. The whole spiderman "with great power comes great responsibility" thing. Except, where corporations are concerned, all I ever see is "great power" and "government bail-out" or "Quarterly Financial". How about "giant corporation X to devote some previously unheard of sum/resources" to help the homeless, or something that would directly benefit society as a whole. You know other than the whole, I have lots of money, I like to roll in it, and "Oh, can you help train this H1B?", thanks.
"I have Google Play Movies and Amazon Prime videos."
well, that's depressing.