Google Just Broke Amazon's Workaround For YouTube On Fire TV (cordcuttersnews.com) 264
Google has cracked down on Fire TV users once again. Today, the technology company blocked Silk and Firefox browsers from displaying the YouTube.com interface usually shown on large screens. Cord Cutters News reports: Now if you try to access YouTube.com/TV on a Fire TV through the Firefox or Silk browser you will be redirected to the desktop version of the site. According to Elias Saba from AFTVnews, "By blocking access to the version of YouTube made for television browsers, Google has deliberately made browsing their website an unusable experience on Amazon Fire TVs, Fire TV Sticks, and Fire TV Edition televisions." This fight over YouTube and Amazon has been going on for some time. The standoff heated up in early December as Google announced plans to pull the YouTube app from the Fire TV on January 1st 2018. Amazon responded by adding a browser to allow access to the web version on the Fire TV. Now Google has countered by blocking the Fire TV's browsers from accessing the made-for-TV edition of YouTube.com. Back on December 15th, The Verge reported that Google and Amazon are in talks to keep YouTube on the Fire TV, but as of today it looks like nothing has come from these talks.
access restored (Score:5, Informative)
apparently access to tv version was already restored: http://www.aftvnews.com/google... [aftvnews.com]
IMO it looks like a public trial of the blocking system to intimidate amazon in their talks.
Re:access restored (Score:5, Interesting)
Just do it.
I got my own domain name, and signed up with a local hosting/email provider. 5GB space, unlimited traffic, unlimited inboxes, CalDAV/CardDAV sync, calendar, full CPanel environment, automatic SSL/TLS, less than ~$2,50/month.
All of my email and scheduling is now gone from Google, I've moved the stuff on my Google Drive to Dropbox. and I'm working on moving away from Google Photos.
Google Play Music is probably going to be the last holdout, there simply aren't any good alternatives for an online music locker. In the end, maybe I'll end up keeping it locally on my phone instead. Almost everything is on Spotify, so it's only really ~1,500 songs from various indie artists and such. With Opus at 96kbps, they won't take up that much space.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't tried Subsonic (I actually wasn't aware of it), and since I will be running a low-power server at home for NAS and VPN (among other things), I will probably run a simple media server of some kind or rely on basic SMB/NFS, and VPN to my home network if I need anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you actually tried 96kbps Opus? I'm guessing you haven't, and you're stuck in a 1999 Napster-downloaded Xing-encoded MP3 mindset. A lot of development has happened on audio codec in the almost 2 decades since then. Opus is currently at the very peak of audio codecs.
And what's wrong with CPanel? What does GMail offer over a complete hosting solution?
Re: (Score:2)
Opus gets its ass kicked the second you introduce pitch shifting - even MP3s sound better once that's been put into the mix.
Superior codec my ass, boss. If it can't sound good through all of my tests, it's utter shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you using pitch shifting with lossy input files?
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's how I test things, in the ways you people don't think of. If it can't hold quality through a simple pitch shift a mere half a step down, the codec is obviously garbage at preserving sound.
Even FLAC fails. Guess what doesn't? RAW and WAV.
Re: (Score:2)
If your pitch shift is fucking up FLAC, then the software/method you're using is either extremely stupidly designed, or you're using it wrong.
FLAC decodes 100% faithfully to the original input, so any competent software should give the exact same result as a WAV file.
Are you applying simply bit manipulation directly to the data in the files? What kind of nonsense pathological use case is that? Does it have anything at all to do with playing back audio? Or is it simply some nonsense you dreamed up randomly o
Re: (Score:2)
"If your pitch shift is fucking up FLAC, then the software/method you're using is either extremely stupidly designed, or you're using it wrong."
It's a dedicated hardware pitch shifter, one many music professionals use. I also back it up by testing with a sound card with hardware pitch-shifting built-in (SBLive.)
It's how I find the flaws in supposedly 'superior' codecs. I've done music mixing and mastering for many years. All you people that think you've got superior tech versus old shit are quite often WRON
TV? (Score:2)
EU regulations to be applied (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't be douchebags (Score:2)
Hey Google, I think you picked up the wrong playbook. Give it back. Or better yet: burn it, and burn Bezos's copy too if you get a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality for me but not for thee (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought Google was in favor of net neutrality. What is it to them how people access their public web browser interfaces?
Are they liars?
Sounds like Congress (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or their policy to not be evil.
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
The do no evil policy was ditched a long time ago.
Yes, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually it was 'Do Know Evil'
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon fucked Google royally then broke Youtube terms of service, then manually worked around a block after the resulting dispute and you come up with Google being the evil one? What does that make Amazon? A clone of Hitler that goes around kicking dogs and eating babies?
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly plausible that they can both be total shitheads.
Why is there this mentality that for one party to be evil, the other absolutely cannot be? It's not a god damn side of a coin.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody is "hurt" because they're "forced" to watch the desktop version of Youtube.
Get a grip on reality, please.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the same sense a person being robbed isn't hurt unless they get physically attacked.
You obviously aren't living in the modern world.
Re: Net Neutrality (Score:2)
But seriously, while it may be a first world problem, both the coffee and the method of viewing YouTube, it is something to complain about. Let's not allow ourselves to regress to a third world status by failing to speak up when things are not up to par. Let's just keep it in perspective. A bad cup of coffee is not the end of the world, it is hardly even a bad day. Likewise
Re: (Score:2)
So because Amazon is being a prick and violating terms of use, Google should block... users that aren't Amazon?
That's some incredible thinking you've got there. Very fanboy-ish.
How about if Google has a problem with Amazon products that violate Google terms of use, then maybe Google should take some action directly against Amazon, and leave users that:
A. have no idea what the hell;
and B. couldn't give a rats ass anyway
out of it.
Google is stooping to Amazon levels of asshattery here,
Re: (Score:2)
I got popcorn (and a Roku) a while ago :)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this is more like being in a bar and seeing the two biggest assholes punching other random people in the nuts for no reason.
How does Google blocking my nephew from being able to see YouTube videos on a FireTV hurt Amazon in any way?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. But maybe your nephew will get off his ass and go outside and play dirt-clod fight with the other kids. Maybe he'll play marbles or find out that girls exist outside the internet (whatever is age appropriate). Something, anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple are more evil than Microsoft. However they don't have the same monopoly power. Most people using Macs could switch to Windows - everyone except for people who want to run XCode and a few other corner cases where the application they need only runs on macOS. But for the average Mac user everything they need is on Windows. And probably on Linux too.
Google are also more evil than Microsoft and they control a larger chunk of the mobile market. E.g.
https://www.idc.com/promo/smar... [idc.com]
Right now it's 85.0% Andr
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see what a content provider restricting access to their own content has to do with Net Neutrality.
I host a website. If I don't want you to access content on it, too bad. If I only let you access content on it using Internet Explorer 6, too bad.
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
PS: Just to clarify, Google is being a dick. They're just not breaking NN.
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
Google is doing this because Amazon refuses to sell Google devices. Go on amazon, search for chromecast for example. First thing that comes up is Amazon Firestick... then a bunch of other streaming devices, none of which are chromecast that you searched for.
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Funny)
Google is doing this because Amazon refuses to sell Google devices.
Funny, I can't buy an Android tablet at the Apple Store. Sprint won't sell me a Verizon phone. Safeway wouldn't sell me a DJI drone. Target doesn't sell industrial arc welders.
And for fucks sake, don't even get me started about the argument I got into with the manager when Home Depot refused to sell me a sandwich.
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
For a car analogy, how about if a car that would let you drive through McDonalds but not Burger King. Other manufacturers would be BK only, and then the japanese car would only let you drive to Suchi Bars, you'll have to walk if you want Italian for dinner.
Here Google is going out of their way to degrade Amazon customer's user experience. The one silver lining is that Google, Apple and Amazon don't seem to be colliding to make their customers cash out more money, although the revenue models of the 3 is still quite different they do compete on many levels. That's refreshing from the time Apple and Google had an illegal non poaching agreement to screw their employees from getting a fair salary.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is going out of their way not to provide a free service on devices sold by a company that's intentionally being anti-competitive.
I've got my money on Amazon "giving in" later this year after they've used that time to fully establish the Alexa environment and cement their place...to the point where it doesn't matter if they sell chromecast v1.2.3.4 pro UHD 3D 480Hz direct-to-mind-video beaming. No one will want them because they won't work with the closed ecosystem of Alexa.
Then google sues, amazon c
Re: (Score:2)
For a car analogy, how about if a car that would let you drive through McDonalds but not Burger King. Other manufacturers would be BK only
How about.... McDonalds(Google)' will refuse to serve you unless you drive in with a McDonalds car.
Meanwhile.... this is in retaliation to Burger King(Amazon) being the major brand of gas stations that handles 60% of highway traffic and adopting a new policy where their gas stations will only sell to you fuel for your BK brand car, and people who drive in looki
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have hotdog stands? What 3rd world....wait, where I live now the hardware stores also don't sell hotdogs.
I miss Scandinavia.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually a lot of them around me (NYC area) do have a semi-fixed food truck/trailer parked outside.
Pretty sure their main patrons aren't the HD shoppers but the day laborers that hang out at HD looking for work...but that's besides the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I can't buy an Android tablet at the Apple Store. Sprint won't sell me a Verizon phone. Safeway wouldn't sell me a DJI drone. Target doesn't sell industrial arc welders.
And for fucks sake, don't even get me started about the argument I got into with the manager when Home Depot refused to sell me a sandwich.
I wasn't aware that Home Depot, Apple, Spring, or Safeway were all claiming to be the "Everything Store".
Re: (Score:2)
Home depot sells lots of their branded stuff right alongside other name brands. So does Safeway, target, and almost every general retailer.
Apple is their own manufacturer and retailer - so they specifically sell their own products (and select others that fit their ecosystem).
Sprint sells phone service - and the compatible products (from several mfgs) that work with their service.
You can get food at HD from the truck outside :)
This is Amazon using their dominant power in the marketplace to edge out competit
Re: (Score:2)
How about costco? They sell a very limited brand selections along with their own products.
Re: (Score:3)
I know a pretty blonde girl who once needed to send a fax. Not having a fax machine at home or work she asked her mom where she could go to have it sent. Her mom meant to tell her to go to Office Depot but accidentally said "Home Depot". Not thinking anything of it, she went to Home Depot and asked the guy at the customer service desk if he'd send this fax for her, and he did.
The moral of the story is, tits.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is NOT like those other retailers, because Amazon is a "big box" retailer that carries products of all kinds:
not products of a specific kind. Those other retailers are also small retailers and not subject to the possibility of anti-competitive behavior
within their retail segment. Amazon, on the other hand.... is a budding monopoly --- HUGE percentage of the eCommerce market, almost all the retail growth, and there are more Amazon Prime subscribers than subscribers to any cable company; A
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Amazon doesn't make a phone any more. You can't buy a Google Chromecast on Amazon though, at least in the UK, because it competes directly with Amazon's Fire TV dongle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Google Pixel" and the first result was the Google device I searched for.
And can you use it to cast to the TV? Yeah thought not.
Actually it's far worse than the GP said. If you search for "Chromecast" on Amazon only the second hit is a Firestick. The first hit is a cheap fake Chinese knock-off of a Chromecast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try, but I specifically quoted "Google is doing this because Amazon refuses to sell Google devices.", not anything else.
And I'm just giving you shit for splitting hairs in english where the context of the discussion every single person knows they are talking specifically about Chromecast and the FireTV here.
Re: (Score:2)
I searched for "Chromecast". Fire TV was first, Chromecast was eighth. The only other brand I recognized in between was the Roku. This is clearly intentionally done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Childish on Google's part (Score:3)
Especially with Google charging money for YouTube "Red" subscriptions, the smart move would be to allow the videos to be watched on as many devices as possible!
This feud with Amazon makes no sense, IMO, because there's no way it's more profitable selling people a few more Chromecast boxes, vs. having greater reach for viewers of the service itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is there a difference in the right to choose which product you sell and who you deliver content to?
I can't see how what google does is worse. Google delivers a web service for everyone and a special end user experience for some customers who where selected for that experience. Amazon found a loophole that allowed them to deliver the second experience despite not being in the selected group and google closed that loophole.
Re: (Score:2)
And as soon as either Google or Amazon have a monopoly position, you could maybe even start to have something resembling an argument!
Re: (Score:3)
And as soon as either Google or Amazon have a monopoly position, you could maybe even start to have something resembling an argument!
Google does have a monopoly position, over Android. And they have a de facto monopoly position over user videos, because the vast majority of them are posted on Youtube. This is true at least for every genre but livestreaming of video games, and probably that one too. Amazon, of course, does not. They have a monopoly in no area. If I google for a product, I usually get one or two links to Amazon, but I don't get ten. And guess what? Amazon usually has a good price, too. A search engine would be failing at i
Re: (Score:2)
Um, aren't Amazon's products based on Android? Some monopoly, that...
Re: (Score:3)
> are certainly under no obligation to sell a competitors product.
It can be monopoly abuse to refuse to carry a competitor's separate product or service in your storefronts or block compatibility when you have an overwhelming monopoly used to shut them out of a separate line of business altogether. This was precisely the case with AT&T when it was split up, and was very much the case with Microsoft with Windows and Netscape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not insisting that Amazon or Google has one on this case. I'm pointing out that "Any business has a right to choose what they do or do not sell" can break down in monopoly cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if that's the case, Amazon had better split up their retail and hardware businesses. Google search has a huge market share, and Google also makes a web browser - but the last time I looked, you can do a Google search on just about any web browser. Some advanced Google features might only work on experimental code in Chrome, but certainly not their core web browsing functions.
Amazon may not be a monopoly (yet) in any sense, but they certainly are a huge factor in retail - especially in online electro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But go ahead and ignore facts all you want.
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
It's 100% Amazon's fault.
- Amazon's prime video even on android requires installing amazon store app... for a long time it didn't exist at all
- Amazon refuses to make an app for chromecast/google cast for prime video, google can't do it on their own...
- Amazon refuses to sell google devices (some thermostat thing, chromecast, phones, etc..)
- Amazon cuts youtube and does its own voice commands and overlay which violates youtube service agreement (can't modify)
Google retaliates:
- You only get desktop version of youtube on Amazon devices (it's fair.... it's their service, don't amazonify google's youtube, it's not yours, but feel free to use it as is).
So there's a difference between "We will not sell your devices or write software for your devices AT ALL" and "We will only allow you to show our unmodified desktop version of our service". One is not at all, the other is you still get most of it.... Who's being the bigger d...k here?
Re: (Score:2)
- Amazon refuses to make an app for chromecast/google cast for prime video, google can't do it on their own...
Obligatory: And nothing of value was lost.
Re: Net Neutrality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No... they refuse to sell *ANY* products that compete with their own... you can't buy a Samsung Chromebook on the Apple store either.... why is this surprising?
And besides.... you can buy Google products from Amazon.... just not devices that compete with things that are made by Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't defending Amazon, I just don't see what everyone is getting all upset about... two competing companies don't want to support the other. What's surprising about that? Why would anyone want to waste the energy being upset with *either* company?
And for what it's worth, you can most definitely buy at least some products by Google on Amazon.
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Google just wants to spy on you, they're generally very happy to do so in an accommodating cross-platform way. Amazon wants to spy on you and be a monopolistic walled garden.
Re: (Score:3)
No, Google isn't the problem here. Amazon is trying to keep their content off of everyone else's platforms, while retaining everyone else's content.
OOooooohhh is that why Amazon just released an Amazon Prime Video app for Apple TV? And all this time I thought it was Apple trying to keep them off of their streaming devices. And it also explains why there is an Xbox One Amazon Prime Video App, and an iOS App. I won't argue the Android App, since they want you to install their Android AppStore to download it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Total [google.com] fucking [apple.com] bullshit [roku.com].
The only one of those that applies here is Roku. The other links just go to the iTunes store and Google Play. Amazon Prime was only added to the Apple TV last month, and it's still not available for the Chromecast - the device that actually matters for this story.
Also, your rant about stores is... ridiculous. Google has first-party products and sells them through a first-party store, that's fine. Amazon has first party products and sells them through their store, that's fine too. The thing is, Amazon's store is way more than first-party. Let's pick another product, let's say paper towels - Google also doesn't sell paper towels through their store. Why? Because it's a first-party store and Google doesn't make paper towels. I am not going to criticize Google for neglecting to sell paper towels through their store. I would criticize Amazon for not selling paper towels, because that's exactly the sort of thing that I would expect to be able to buy there.
And while I'm at it, this "Google controlling the operating system" is not really true and it's one of the virtues of Android. In fact, Amazon has their own Android products which Google has no influence over. Google does control the Play Store, which gives it a lot of influence, probably too much. But as you point out, Amazon Prime is available through the Play Store... but only since last August. Why? Because for the last couple years Amazon has been trying to force people to download it through their own storefront, Amazon Underground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not BS. Why did Amazon recently pull the Twitch.TV app from Roku then?
Because Amazon owns Twitch.TV and they want you to buy a FireTV instead of a Roku to stream it to your TV, that's why.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Roku/... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If I only let you access content on it using Internet Explorer 6, too bad.
That's a thorough kind of evil.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see what a content provider restricting access to their own content has to do with Net Neutrality.
OK, so technically they're not stomping on NN, but this definitely violates the spirit of the thing. And it's a pretty dick move to alter a website's appearance to a certain class of users just because you have some kind of beef with those user's devices.
While it does sort of sneak outside of the actual Net Neutrality (since that mainly applies to ISPs, those providing the tubes between point A and B), it's definitely one of those things new Net Neutrality rules need to be addressing.
And this is the tip of
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Google's content, it's the user's content.
Google's Youtube acts as a common carrier for other's content. For them to restrict based on another user's choice of device is unethical.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see what a content provider restricting access to their own content has to do with Net Neutrality.
I host a website. If I don't want you to access content on it, too bad. If I only let you access content on it using Internet Explorer 6, too bad.
Actually, this is kind of like back in the old days when the Bell company didn't let you use non-Bell company telephones to receive/make telephone calls on their network (well, technically a company could by a really expensive license to make equipment to attach to the phone network, but it was so expensive a license it killed the secondary market for telphones).
Basically the telephone was the equipment you used to access the telephone network and encode/render the audio. Similarly your browsing equipment i
Re: (Score:2)
It may not have to do with Net Neutrality, but it is potentially anti-trust behavior...
Yes, I absolutely agree.
Honestly I think there is a concerted effort to conflate this issue with NN in order to confuse people about what NN is and further damage the idea in the mind of the public.
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
This is defeating the whole point of "net neutrality."
No it isn't. You don't have a right to access content if the content owner doesn't want you to. If you don't have an HBO Now account, you can't watch Game of Thrones. That doesn't violate Net Neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. You don't have a right to access content if the content owner doesn't want you to.
Except for a minority of content on the platform, Google is not the content owner. They are the content carrier, the platform provider. They have a de facto monopoly over user-uploaded web videos of all types but gaming, where there is meaningful competition in the form of Twitch. And they are refusing to permit these user videos to be seen on Amazon Fire TV devices, which run Google's operating system Android (over which they have a literal monopoly) because they are angry that Amazon chooses not to carry
Re: (Score:2)
Google is not the content owner.
We regret to inform you that this thread is about Net Neutrality. Please find a thread about Copyright and repost.
Re: (Score:2)
So if the makers of Game of Thrones want me to see their show HBO Now has to give me an account?
Re: (Score:2)
I think your logic is pretty close to what Aereo used before they got slapped down. "It's over the air, so it's free", right? Google is being generous. They could shut down Amazon's Firestick completely. d
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I don't know that you're right either.
However, assuming you are correct, it would be an issue between Google and the content owners (by your definition), not Google and Amazon.
So it becomes about Intellectual Property, not NN.
Re: (Score:2)
" and YouTube becomes the content owner."
That's not how copyright law works, you brainless Apple user.
Re: Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with net neutrality nor its intent. Stop adding confusion to that topic, there are enough people who don't know what that is.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is the exact reason people who are anti-NN are conflating the two issues. They want the confusion.
The less the public understands NN, the more it just sounds like "burdensome regulation that stifles the free market".
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon uses AOSP for their OS. They don't include the proprietary Android services that provide Google with a revenue stream.
Re:Where did it all begin (Score:5, Informative)
More like:
Amazon stopped selling Chromecast and other devices that don't "support" Amazon's streaming service, years ago. Amusingly (and childishly), they also stopped allowing third-party listings of the device. It was as if it didn't even exist.
The trouble with this is that Chromecast doesn't support anything. It's just a tiny little Chromium machine that runs apps, and those apps are generally those that play streaming video.
Because of this particular ecosystem. it is up to the content provider to support Chromecast, not the other way around. This fact makes Amazon's refusal to sell Chromecast a red herring.
After Google killed Youtube access for Fire TV users, Amazon started selling Chromecast again, which is certainly not coincidental. Amazon implemented a workaround for the lack of Youtube access, and Google is apparently now playing (like a cat with a mouse) with killing their workaround, too.
(Meanwhile all I want is for Amazon to let me stream Amazon movies on Chromecast. If Pornhub can have official support, so can Amazon. (Except I can't shop on Amazon with Chromecast, so they don't like it. But I never wanted the ability to buy things with a television anyway.))
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon refused to put there video service on anything but their Kindles.
That is a lie [google.com], and you are a liar. (and a coward)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously that's why they stopped selling Apple TV at exactly the same time, right?
It may be hard for the /. crowd to grasp, but there's companies out there who are simply miserable assholes to eachother.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/1... [nytimes.com]
Get the fuck off my lawn.
Google - Just As Evil... (Score:2)