Hacker News Reader

Comment by bob_theslob646 | Hacker News Reader

>"We've been trying to reach agreement with Amazon to give consumers access to each other's products and services," a Google spokesperson said in a statement. "But Amazon doesn't carry Google products like Chromecast and Google Home, doesn't make Prime Video available for Google Cast users, and last month stopped selling some of Nest's latest products. Given this lack of reciprocity, we are no longer supporting YouTube on Echo Show and FireTV. We hope we can reach an agreement to resolve these issues soon."

How is this even allowed? Is there any law on this type of stuff? Meaning as a consumer who is essentially held hostage?

I have seen cable networks do this with channels, but never this.

View on HN

The correct solution is an anti-trust investigation into Amazon. Not carrying or supporting competitors TV boxes is a clear restraint of trade when Amazon Prime gives you a near monopoly on e-commerce for a huge block of customers.

I really wouldn't use the word "monopoly" to describe it when anyone with the ability to buy these things from Amazon can just as easily buy them from Apple or Google's online stores.

Wouldn't the same logic have applied to Microsoft when they delivered IE pre-installed?

If MS was abusing it's market dominance then, so is Amazon now.

I'm not sure it is. You start off in a position where you don't have the device, and you either go to website A or website B to buy it (leaving aside details where you already may have an Amazon account).

With the IE case, you start off in a position where you already have a browser and you have to perform an extra step to get a different one.

> leaving aside details where you already may have an Amazon account

This ignores the most salient part of the whole scenario.

The Key difference was MS was an effective Monopoly in their market with something like 90+% of the market share

Amazon is big, but still is only about 36-40% of the e-commerice market share, and far far less of the over all retail Market Share which is still dominated by Wal-Mart

The problems Microsoft had at the time went way beyond having IE already installed with Windows. Besides, without IE already installed the casual computer user would have a more difficult time downloading a competing browser.

It pisses me off that Amazon doesn't support chromecast, but is it really their responsibility just because google wants them to implement their feature that they do?

...you can just buy it from Apple or google's sites, best buy, newegg, etc. Amazon is not a monopoly by any means necessary.

Completely off topic, so I apologise in advance, but you have an extra word on the end of that sentence. "necessary" isn't... er... necessary there.

So does an Apple store have to carry Chromecast and fire TV?

> Is there any law on this type of stuff?

It's too bad Americans don't have some sort of organization that could protect American consumers from companies like Amazon and Google who are breaking antitrust laws in this manner.

It sure would be nice if we had some some sort of commission on trade at the federal level, to enforce the law and fight for the rights of citizens.

A crazy idea, I know, but one can dream.

Like a federal trade commission?! Brilliant!

It's actually worse than that. I thought Google didn't support some YouTube API access Amazon was using. But no, Google is selectively blocking access to the website:

> "Echo Show and Fire TV now display a standard web view of YouTube.com and point customers directly to YouTube's existing website," Amazon's statement reads. "Google is setting a disappointing precedent by selectively blocking customer access to an open website.

Google is saying Amazon customers can't view one of their websites. That's as anti-web as you can get.

I understand Google is angry at Amazon, and maybe has good reason, but it crossed a dangerous line here.

I concur. Google selectively blocks access for no temporary technical reason to a competitor out of spite or for profit. This is kind of hypocritical if you consider at the same they fight against the net neutrality fiasco (it is a fiasco, yes, among other things). If ISPs get it their way and repeal net neutrality, they will effectively apply the same treatment and reasoning against us, citizens and consumers, and against Google. So I find the timing of this post to be ironic at best. Of course the latter case has greater impact, but Google strides towards that freedom of access violation here.

In a kind of similar tune: Netflix some time now refuses to run on Firefox on non Windows/Mac OS platforms. They claimed originally DRM issues, which was not the case.

I am not sure if you can bypass the block in this case by altering the application's agent entry (which you can do in the case of netflix).

Netflix actually works fine now, and has for a few months.

the sad/bad part is that it's only 720p.

1080p only works on chrome on chromeos, edge and safari. while 4k only works on edge.

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742

If by "fine", you mean in a limited capacity at best after you allow DRM to execute closed off code on your machine, then yes, it runs "fine".

As per http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-blocks-youtube-f...

"However, a source familiar with YouTube’s thinking told Variety Tuesday that this newer implementation also violated YouTube’s terms of service by layering voice control onto a web app that wasn’t designed for voice interaction."

>How is this even allowed? Is there any law on this type of stuff?

Well bob, it's called DRM and DMCA.

Don't want it? Stop buying products that use it. Richard Stallman was right. Again.

No it isn't. YouTube is just blocking on the basis of User Agent and JavaScript fingerprinting.

The DMCA could definitely be relevant. It mandates[0] that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." IANAL, but one could argue that YouTube (or large parts of it) are protected under copyright law, and that the user agent check is "a technological measure that effectively controls access" to it/them.

"(A)to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B)a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."[1]

[0]: (a)(1)(A) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=17...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com