Amazon v. Google: soon no YouTube on Fire TV

[leebase]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Oh, none of them are nice. I didn't mean to imply that at all. I just don't care for Amazon's Fire OS on tablets and wouldn't buy Fire TV due to missing YouTube (which I do watch a lot).

I love my Kindle Fire Tablets. But my iPad is my general purpose tablet, and my Fires are for watching/reading content (mostly from Amazon).

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

If anything, this fiasco teaches me to buy a streaming box from an uninterested third party like Roku. Amazon, Apple and Google can squabble. As long as Roku plays nice with all of them that's where my money would go.

Perhaps. Though I'm not sure they will be immune. Is PrimeVideo on Roku?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by leebase

I love my Kindle Fire Tablets. But my iPad is my general purpose tablet, and my Fires are for watching/reading content (mostly from Amazon).

I have a Fire that I got at a fire-sale price (pardon the pun). I didn't like it at all before installing Google Play.

I still use my Lenovo Tab2 and my cheap Windows tablet far more than the Fire tablet.

Perhaps. Though I'm not sure they will be immune. Is PrimeVideo on Roku?

According to Roku's website: Yes.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Oh, none of them are nice. I didn't mean to imply that at all. I just don't care for Amazon's Fire OS on tablets and wouldn't buy Fire TV due to missing YouTube (which I do watch a lot).

If anything, this fiasco teaches me to buy a streaming box from an uninterested third party like Roku. Amazon, Apple and Google can squabble. As long as Roku plays nice with all of them that's where my money would go.

You are just now learning that lesson.

I have known that for a long time. The way I looked at the first one was a business decision. I do not know what business you are in, but would you give FREE support to your competitors products. I understand the decision but apparently I'm just too stupid to realize that customers should be entitled to buy everyone's products at every store.
You can't buy Kroger foods at Walmart or Brookshires but I don't hear anyone complaining about that.
Why shouldn't Amazon or Google choose what and where they want to provide their stuff?
They are businesses.
I am pretty sure neither one really gives a care about what anyone thinks especially if you are giving them money.
If I don't like a company, I won't give them any money.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

You are just now learning that lesson.

Why would you think I'm just learning? You make many assumptions, my fine lady.

I have known that for a long time. The way I looked at the first one was a business decision. I do not know what business you are in, but would you give FREE support to your competitors products. I understand the decision but apparently I'm just too stupid to realize that customers should be entitled to buy everyone's products at every store.
You can't buy Kroger foods at Walmart or Brookshires but I don't hear anyone complaining about that.
Why shouldn't Amazon or Google choose what and where they want to provide their stuff?
They are businesses.
I am pretty sure neither one really gives a care about what anyone thinks especially if you are giving them money.
If I don't like a company, I won't give them any money.

Somehow I think you missed the entire point of the story. Amazon wants things Google has (Android access, YouTube). But they didn't seem to understand reciprocity and they got bit for it.

They did the same thing to Apple with similar results a few years back, but apparently didn't learn their lesson.

[ZodWallop]

And it looks like Amazon is learning: Amazon backs down in Google streaming spat

The BBC also does a nice little summary right at the beginning of the story:

Amazon has started selling Google's Chromecast devices two years after it originally removed them from its store.

Amazon said it removed them to end customer confusion about which services were available on which device.

Analysts said it was because they let people watch services that competed with Amazon's Prime Video.

Google retaliated by blocking access to YouTube on some Amazon gadgets and threatening further restrictions.

In September, Google stopped YouTube playing on the Amazon Echo Show. It said it took the step because the way Amazon got the video-sharing service working on the device was "broken".

It also threatened to stop Amazon Fire TV sticks getting access to YouTube from January 2018.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

And it looks like Amazon is learning: Amazon backs down in Google streaming spat

The BBC also does a nice little summary right at the beginning of the story:

In your quote: I believe what Amazon said over what the "let's make guesses about others" have to say. I have never put much stock in what someone says without proof.

That said: I do think the media makes companies appear to be childish at times.

I have no clue why Amazon and Google do what they do because I am not privileged to hear their back room conversations. I don't think the "talkers" know either.

Now was I the good girl that never did anything wrong or was I the party girl?
Rhetorical question but the answer would depend on who you ask.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

In your quote: I believe what Amazon said over what the "let's make guesses about others" have to say.

Politicians must love you. Of course they always retire because they want to spend more time with their families...

I guess Amazon figures customers have gotten smarter, since they now selling Chromecast again.

Since there are two parties involved, you could also listen to what Google had to say in the article:

The search giant said it took the decisions because of a lack of "reciprocity" by Amazon.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Politicians must love you. Of course they always retire because they want to spend more time with their families...

I guess Amazon figures customers have gotten smarter, since they now selling Chromecast again.

Since there are two parties involved, you could also listen to what Google had to say in the article:

No politicians don't like me. I know that most are usually full of male bovine excrement.

Yep, simple case of let's not play together.
Or if I was a gambling person, I would say nice marketing ploy on Google's part.
Let's see I can spend thousands on advertising or I can announce something and the media will pick it up for free. Especially since as you said yourself that Amazon started selling Chromecast again.
If this had come out during the non buying season, I would be more inclined to believe it.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

No politicians don't like me. I know that most are usually full of male bovine excrement.

You would do well to use that same cynicism when investigating other stories.

Yep, simple case of let's not play together.
Or if I was a gambling person, I would say nice marketing ploy on Google's part.
Let's see I can spend thousands on advertising or I can announce something and the media will pick it up for free. Especially since as you said yourself that Amazon started selling Chromecast again.
If this had come out during the non buying season, I would be more inclined to believe it.

So (according to your posts #51 and 53) the simple explanation (Amazon blocked competing devices to enhance sales of their own devices) is horse pucky.

But a nonsensical explanation (it was a long con by Google, somehow secretly controlling Amazon's decision to block their products for a couple of years) makes complete sense.

I sense that you are a conspiracy-minded person.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You would do well to use that same cynicism when investigating other stories.



So (according to your posts #51 and 53) the simple explanation (Amazon blocked competing devices to enhance sales of their own devices) is horse pucky.

But a nonsensical explanation (it was a long con by Google, somehow secretly controlling Amazon's decision to block their products for a couple of years) makes complete sense.

I sense that you are a conspiracy-minded person.

Look if I owned Rheem, I wouldn't expect a Lennox company to work on it.

I never said it was a con.
Both made decisions that were best for their company at the moment.
Now if you can get me the back room notes from both companies, I might believe you.
Otherwise, we have no clue and it is all speculation.

Go to your local Kroger grocery store and tell them they must start carrying Hill Country Fare products. You seem to want everyone to carry everything.

So what is the difference? A grocery store does not carry their competitors food so why should Amazon be forced too?
Amazon is no different from any other retail company.
It is not special.


Look as long as I can get my you tube someway, I am happy.

Oh and as far as conspiracy goes, since you seem to like making them look like the bad guy, why do you own any of their products?

Now is there a conspiracy, oh yes. Every company is trying to get all the money right now.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I never said it was a con.

Post #53

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Or if I was a gambling person, I would say nice marketing ploy on Google's part.
Let's see I can spend thousands on advertising or I can announce something and the media will pick it up for free. Especially since as you said yourself that Amazon started selling Chromecast again.
If this had come out during the non buying season, I would be more inclined to believe it.

Sounds like you were describing a con to me.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Go to your local Kroger grocery store and tell them they must start carrying Hill Country Fare products. You seem to want everyone to carry everything.

So what is the difference? A grocery store does not carry their competitors food so why should Amazon be forced too?
Amazon is no different from any other retail company.
It is not special.

Post #49

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Amazon wants things Google has (Android access, YouTube). But they didn't seem to understand reciprocity and they got bit for it.

They did the same thing to Apple with similar results a few years back, but apparently didn't learn their lesson.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Oh and as far as conspiracy goes, since you seem to like making them look like the bad guy, why do you own any of their products?

Post #11

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I don't have issues with Amazon. I buy books and random crap from them and I could live with a Kindle. But I don't feel the need to defend them when they do crappy things. They are corporations that are useful to me. Not friends or enemies.

I suspect you don't read my responses

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Post #53



Sounds like you were describing a con to me.



Post #49






Post #11



I suspect you don't read my responses

I did miss your last quoted one, Meathead.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Oh, none of them are nice. I didn't mean to imply that at all. I just don't care for Amazon's Fire OS on tablets and wouldn't buy Fire TV due to missing YouTube (which I do watch a lot).

If anything, this fiasco teaches me to buy a streaming box from an uninterested third party like Roku. Amazon, Apple and Google can squabble. As long as Roku plays nice with all of them that's where my money would go.

I had Roku and liked it. But I don't think Roku does iTunes and that's where I buy/rent most of my movies. I used both Roku and AppleTv before Tivo added Amazon Prime Video to the Tivo. Now that Amazon Prime Video is on AppleTv, it's got all the major streaming sources (iTunes, Amazon, NetFlix, YouTube) and seems to be the first platform for the smaller streaming services.

[4691mls]

I don't know how accurate this is, but it does say it was updated December 12 so it's recent - comparison of streaming media devices, including list of which media providers are not available on each device:

https://techforluddites.com/streamin...parison-chart/

[leebase]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I have a Fire that I got at a fire-sale price (pardon the pun). I didn't like it at all before installing Google Play.

I added Google Play store as well. There are a couple apps I wanted (like a non-Amazon Kindle book reading app). But that was simple enough to do.

What I didn't buy was a generic Android tablet. I think most folks that are disappointed are those who THINK they are buying an Android tablet. I knew I was buying an Amazon subsidized tablet who's purpose was to get me to consume Amazon content and buy things through Amazon. Both of which I do a fair amount of.

I haven't seen any Android tablet at the prices I buy Amazon Kindles (like the $49.99 sale on the Kindle 8 yesterday) that I would trust that I could get support for or send back to.