Amazon and Google have been in a running battle with each other for several months over the online retail behemoth's decision two years ago to not sell Google's Chromecast devices in its shops and stores, the rationale being that doing so confused its customers about which services were available on which devices; Google's Chromecast or Amazon's Fire TV and Fire TV Stick.
More likely, as many analysts have pointed out, it was because Amazon didn't want to let Google sell devices that let consumers watch services that competed with Amazon's Prime video.
Google of course retaliated, first by blocking access to YouTube, which Google owns, on some Amazon devices, starting with the Amazon Echo Show, and then -- earlier this month -- broadening that to include Amazon Fire TV Sticks, which were going to be blocked from showing YouTube this January 1st. Users of Amazon's devices would have had to find other competing devices, such as Chromecast dongles and Roku boxes and sticks, in order to watch YouTube, in other words.
Naturally, the only people who were going to be hurt in the dispute were consumers, but that's life in the big city, right? Fortunately for the spousal unit and I, we own Roku and Chromecast devices in addition to two Fire TV sticks (one for each TV in the house), mostly because we realize how the big boys on the internet, ISP and content provider (or platform) alike, play.
Equally fortunately, it seems that market realities and common sense prevailed as usual (as long as you keep government out of the mix, that is ;-), and the two giant ICPs began engaging in what Google called "productive discussions" that resulted in Amazon restocking some Google products and Google relenting and allowing YouTube to stream on Amazon products.
There's no doubt, however, that both companies probably heard from a great many users about their displeasure at the dustup between the two content providers. Threats of boycotts and the like probably were issued, as well. That's good, because it demonstrates that the power of consumers will almost always win out when it comes to this sort of thing.
Now, all the Big Government types here will read the article and remark that had said government had in place a regulatory scheme preventing such actions by Amazon and Google in the first place, none of this would have occurred and consumers wouldn't have been inconvenienced. I call these folks the "ex ante regulation" contingent. (i.e. A beefed-up precautionary regulator should preemptively prohibit such "disruptions" to services until private bodies -- in this case, Google and Amazon -- can prove them to be in the public interest.)
Those of us that believe the markets can best mediate these sorts of disputes would argue for just that: that these companies are best motivated to do what's "right" for their customers and consumers by precisely those forces the markets bring to bear on a regular basis, as long as those markets aren't distorted by the heavy regulatory hand of government, that is)
As for the spousal unit and I, we were prepared to go to the guns on January 1st. We'd have still used our Fire TV stick for most viewing uses, but if we wanted to watch YouTube -- say, to catch streaming newscasts from the cable news nets (and this is possible through YouTube) or watch videos of cute puppies and kittens -- we'd have just set our TV to HDMI 2 or 3 and used our Roku box.
If we hadn't already owned a Roku, we'd have gone right over to the local Meijer or Walmart and gotten a Roku stick. And if that didn't work we'd have simply QUIT WATCHING YOUTUBE ON OUR TV (or cast it to the TV using our Chromecast dongle).
The only power internet content providers (and their enablers, the internet service providers) have over us is the power we give them, after all, amirite? ;-)
Amazon backs down in Google streaming spat - BBC News
"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
More likely, as many analysts have pointed out, it was because Amazon didn't want to let Google sell devices that let consumers watch services that competed with Amazon's Prime video.
Google of course retaliated, first by blocking access to YouTube, which Google owns, on some Amazon devices, starting with the Amazon Echo Show, and then -- earlier this month -- broadening that to include Amazon Fire TV Sticks, which were going to be blocked from showing YouTube this January 1st. Users of Amazon's devices would have had to find other competing devices, such as Chromecast dongles and Roku boxes and sticks, in order to watch YouTube, in other words.
Naturally, the only people who were going to be hurt in the dispute were consumers, but that's life in the big city, right? Fortunately for the spousal unit and I, we own Roku and Chromecast devices in addition to two Fire TV sticks (one for each TV in the house), mostly because we realize how the big boys on the internet, ISP and content provider (or platform) alike, play.
Equally fortunately, it seems that market realities and common sense prevailed as usual (as long as you keep government out of the mix, that is ;-), and the two giant ICPs began engaging in what Google called "productive discussions" that resulted in Amazon restocking some Google products and Google relenting and allowing YouTube to stream on Amazon products.
There's no doubt, however, that both companies probably heard from a great many users about their displeasure at the dustup between the two content providers. Threats of boycotts and the like probably were issued, as well. That's good, because it demonstrates that the power of consumers will almost always win out when it comes to this sort of thing.
Now, all the Big Government types here will read the article and remark that had said government had in place a regulatory scheme preventing such actions by Amazon and Google in the first place, none of this would have occurred and consumers wouldn't have been inconvenienced. I call these folks the "ex ante regulation" contingent. (i.e. A beefed-up precautionary regulator should preemptively prohibit such "disruptions" to services until private bodies -- in this case, Google and Amazon -- can prove them to be in the public interest.)
Those of us that believe the markets can best mediate these sorts of disputes would argue for just that: that these companies are best motivated to do what's "right" for their customers and consumers by precisely those forces the markets bring to bear on a regular basis, as long as those markets aren't distorted by the heavy regulatory hand of government, that is)
As for the spousal unit and I, we were prepared to go to the guns on January 1st. We'd have still used our Fire TV stick for most viewing uses, but if we wanted to watch YouTube -- say, to catch streaming newscasts from the cable news nets (and this is possible through YouTube) or watch videos of cute puppies and kittens -- we'd have just set our TV to HDMI 2 or 3 and used our Roku box.
If we hadn't already owned a Roku, we'd have gone right over to the local Meijer or Walmart and gotten a Roku stick. And if that didn't work we'd have simply QUIT WATCHING YOUTUBE ON OUR TV (or cast it to the TV using our Chromecast dongle).
The only power internet content providers (and their enablers, the internet service providers) have over us is the power we give them, after all, amirite? ;-)
Amazon backs down in Google streaming spat - BBC News
"Politics is just show business for ugly people."