This is sort of a good point. I hate this behavior on Amazon's part, and I want them to stop. I would like it if the US government compelled them to stop. The bigger thing to me is how they prevent their customers from using Chromecast solely to attempt to hurt their competitors' products. That is anti-competitive behavior, and in a better world, the US government would compel them to allow their users to stream via Chromecast.

However, it's not that big of a deal if Amazon doesn't sell something. You just buy it somewhere else. I did not have any trouble acquiring a Chromecast when I wanted one, and I doubt anyone else did either. Using some kind of antitrust break-up to fix this would be like using a nuclear bomb to hammer in a nail. For a problem like this, a more targeted approach seems better, at least as an initial cut.

It’s also worth noting that Amazon has said as soon as those products support Prime Video apps they’ll allow them back on. It’s perhaps more reasonable that you don’t want to sell productd that are leveraging an anticompetitive position against you. So it’s kind of an antitrust tête-à-tête.

The products already "support" Prime Video apps. Amazon has just chosen not to create said apps. Amazon's language in this case is proof enough to me of its bad faith. But the point remains that this is a relatively minor case of anti-competitiveness, and I don't think the public interest would be served by breaking the company up.

>It’s also worth noting that Amazon has said as soon as those products support Prime Video apps they’ll allow them back on

source? IIRC amazon claimed it was confusing for its users if they sold the chromecast and their firestick at the same time.

Looking at the hundreds of duplicate Marketplace listings for pretty much every product ever, it's hard to get too excited about this argument.

Is Google banning Prime Video from using chromecast? I thought chromecast used an open API and anyone could cast to it.

https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/chrome_sender_integr...

No, but they have retaliated and blocked youtube on Alexa devices (Echo Show). I know Amazon struck first, but both sides are guilty of the same childish behavior at this point.

Echo Show violated Youtube's TOS, which is why they withdrew support from Amazon. If Amazon followed the rules and included the channels and subscriber functionality, they could use it like everyone else.

What anticompetitive position is being leveraged against Amazon in this case? The chromecast doesn't pretend to be an open marketplace for any apps. Amazon does pretend it's an open marketplace for goods.

Source? Last I checked, AppleTV has Prime Video and Google is not blocking Amazon from adding Chromecast to Amazon apps. Amazon is choosing not to add the feature.

>But it’s Amazon’s own fault that Prime Video doesn’t work with Chromecast. Amazon has the power to make it happen.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/5/16738752/google-youtube-a...

The Google chromecast store does not allow you to purchase amazon firesticks.

And I can't buy Windows laptops at an Apple store. That's because Apple stores only sell Apple products, nothing else. People don't go to an Apple store when they want to buy some arbitrary item. People do go to Amazon when they want to buy an arbitrary item, because Amazon sells almost everything (but not chromecasts).

If Amazon only sold Amazon products and accessories for those products, that would be an insightful observation. As it is, I think you're missing that these two stores are different in kind.

* Google refuses to support Amazon Prime Video on Chromecast.

* Amazon refuses to sell Chromecast devices.

There's nothing really "anti-competitive" going on here. Two consumer tech giants are refusing to support each others' stuff. That's it. Consumers are free to pick one, or both!

Chromecast is a feature that you develop on your own apps - i.e. Amazon can add it to their Prime App. Google isn't preventing Amazon Prime from having Chromecast support.

This is some pretty high level misinformation. Amazon (or anyone) can write apps against the Cast API (https://developers.google.com/cast/). Amazon has just chosen not to.

Yeah I don't get it either. It doesn't impact consumer's ability to get either product.

Would we force Ford dealerships to sell Hondas as well? For Whole Foods to carry Safeway-branded products?

Of course not.

Your car dealership analogy doesn’t hold any water. Amazon is an “open” marketplace with millions of products, some of which are amazon private label and compete against other third party sellers on Amazon. Amazons track record with this is ugly http://fortune.com/2016/04/20/amazon-copies-merchants/

This is more akin to a scenario if apple were to block Spotify from the App Store because apple provides a competing service to theirs, totally leveraging and abusing their power to diminish competition. It’s hard to argue that not allowing them to sell the physical product on amazon isn’t anti-competitive, regardless if amazon does or doesn’t develop chrome cast capabilities into fire sticks.

This is laughable - >> Both the Apple TV and Chromecast were pulled from Amazon in late 2015. The company’s justification for the move was that consumers would be confused and frustrated if they purchased streaming devices that didn’t offer a direct, convenient way to view Amazon Prime Video content https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/12/14/16777508/...

How is Amazon any more an "open" marketplace compared to a grocery store? Because it's online?

I would say so, they are not limited to a certain amount of shelf space or square footage like grocery stores are. On average, grocery stores work much more intimately with their vendors than amazon works with theirs (or did, now that they’re breaking into the grocery business).

I was mainly thinking of how an unlimited number of third parties can essentially sell whatever they please on Amazon, unless of course you’re google or apple selling a competing product that doesn’t help amazon achieve their goals for an ancillary service that has nothing to do with their online marketplace. I can’t think of a good analogy to a grocery store scenario.

Amazon calls itself "The Everything Store" and has enough market share that it is legally reasonable to think about if it is a deal facto monopoly governed by antitrust law

Monopoly? There is nothing stopping other companies from selling the same things Amazon does.

Any what is Amazon's share of all retail sales? My understanding it's in the single digit percentages.

Amazon had 4% of US retail sales in 2017, although that's 44% of US online retail sales. Online sales were 9% of retail sales.

Apple policy is in fact to block aps that compete with iOS standard apps, unless the are so popular that apple is forced to concede

Can you point to anything in particular? I can't find any examples of them doing this recently. I saw something from 2008 but since then they have likely realized they would open themselves up to anticompetitive claims if they continued.

I'm just transferring rumors, but I've read multiple times that Amazon reacted this way after Google blocked YouTube access to Amazon's Echo Show and Fire TV.

Seems like it's a back and forth kind of a thing between the two companies, with users being the ones facing consequences.

Which was blocked (the app) because Amazon distributed it outside of the play store, which is against the TOS iirc.

I believe it's still possible to access YouTube through a browser, but can't test anymore because I flashed lineage os on my Kindle tablet.

Who do you trust more to do the right thing? Private industry or the government? Lately, it seems like private industry has been more on the side of the Angels than the government. Private industry - especially consumer facing ones - seem to be a lot more accountable to the public than the government.

That’s kind of a weird false dichotomy and the answer is “it depends”

Not really, once you get the government involved in capitalism, even if it is well meaning, there are always unintended consequences.

But in the real world, would Obama regulate tech companies? Would Trump regulate banks?

Read up on how antitrust law and labor law came into existence . The unfettered capitalism you love is actually quite fettered, and many people died for that right.

Technology moves much faster than regulation. It wasn't the slap on the wrist that MS received that brought down its influence - it was Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon. Especially Apple and Google that made PCs less relevant to most users and developers.

In 2016, the government was in the process of forcing cable companies to allow third party set top boxes. The cable companies fought back, the government dropped the pursuit and guess what? Technology made the need much less relevant.

https://www.recode.net/2017/1/31/14453444/fcc-tv-open-set-to...

Now even though the cable company "won" they loss anyway. They are still losing cable subscribers and companies like DirecTV and Sling came along.

I pay $35 a month for DirecTVNow, get all of the cable channels I care about and in my local market, get all of the OTA channels (NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, and the CW). While the government was fighting the last war - cable set top boxes - the industry had moved on to creating services that let you watch live TV anywhere - on your phone, tablet, internet connected set top boxes, game consoles etc.

While the government was worried about MS unbeatable dominance on the desktop, during the next 10 years, the battle had moved to mobile.

> Didn't Amazon ban products from Apple and Google

Yes, and you can't buy Rigid or Ryobi tools at Lowes either. (even on their website). You also can't find a Pepsi machine at the Coke headquarters. (You can even be fired for being seen drinking Pepsi). There is nothing wrong with not carrying products that compete with your own. There is something wrong with blocking access to purchasing those products from other places though. Right now, people are free to go to Overstock.com (please), Walmart.com, Target.com, Apple.com... the list seems endless.

What about buying DeWalt, Bosch, Kobalt, Hitachi, Bostitch, Paslode, and Irwin tools at Lowes? Is Pepsi headquarters even open to the public?

Amazon didn't just ban it from their store, they also banned any of their sellers from selling it.

I use to be a part time fitness instructor and when I taught at the Coke headquarters I was told by my coordinator not to bring in a water bottle that wasn’t a Coke brand.

If you go the World of Coke in Atlanta, you won’t see Pepsi products.

Yep, I have a couple of family members who've done really well working for Coke throughout the years. The phrase, "they put the 'cult' in 'culture'" applies. I think it has done really well for them though. When you buy into culture, you become an automatic salesperson.

The latter part about not allowing their sellers to sell Chromecast is reprehensible, and I had no idea that was happening!

Regarding DeWalt, Bosch, etc, I'd highly expect Kobalt to have better product placement (at Lowes). Is that fair?

Would you expect that if you walk into Lowe's and ask for a DeWalt by name, they'd give you a Kobalt? That's what Amazon does with Chromecast

There is a problem if you are the de facto intermediary and using that to squash competition in other markets.

But are they using any tactics other than being cheaper and faster to ship? Their decision not to carry a Chromecast is sad, but, I was also unable to purchase one at radioshack.com. No one would accuse Radio Shack (do they even really exist anymore?) of attempting to use their weight against Google. My point being, it's just a simple business practice not to sell something competes with you in your own store. Apple doesn't sell Dell products either.

>tactics other than being cheaper and faster to ship?

Amazon regularly undercuts people to drive them out of the market - this is known as predatory pricing and it isn't new. It is an abuse of dominant position.

But most Western anti-competition efforts have measured abuse of dominant position in terms of consumer facing price gouging.

Operating under those assumptions, predatory pricing looks GOOD because it lowers consumer pricing, despite the fact that it liquidates market players, removes competition, and creates the accurate perception that you will use your bankroll as a barrier to entry of other market participants.

Once that occurs and you have control of the market's pricing and a dominant position on the logistics, your market already has price discovery problems, even before any further abuse of dominant positions occur. Best of all, this creates a 'new normal' which you can then use as evidence that things are fine in discussions with the competition bureaus you're dealing with.

Sounds like predatory behavior is the problem, since that’s been Walmart’s jam for decades

But let’s kick Amazon

The reality is they all need a kick in the stomach (figuratively speaking) to remind them the general public underlies their wealth

But it benefits the rich competition to use their media platforms for hang Amazon and Google.

Every time I see these stories it smacks of a Madoff type story: they knew he was a crook, but then he swindled rich people

> Didn't Amazon ban products from Apple and Google, that competed with their own, from their online store?

I witnessed something similar at a former company[0] I had worked for. We had mobile apps for a reading product that could, theoretically, compete with Amazon's book business. Sort of a Netflix for books. Successfully launched both on Apple and Google's marketplaces, the app worked, had traction, wasn't a sketchy business or anything.

We experienced what we took to calling a soft-rejection. The app itself was approved but we were not able to launch / have it available on any of Amazon's devices. Now, you might be willing to write it off as the vagaries of dealing with a billion dollar corporation, your typical "Google locked me out and I'm SOL" thing. However, the owners of this company had sold a previous business[1] to Amazon. They had contacts and relationships at Amazon, decently high-level too such that were it an "oops, edge case" it should have been easily dealt with. Silence. They were stonewalled.

[0] - Grain of Salt: I was not on the mobile team, but we were a small operation, ate lunch daily, very open culture from the CEO to the junior folks. We talked about this a lot. This was also 5+ years ago, and I know of few of my coworkers lurk so please correct me if my memory is corrupted.

[1] - Given our very good team atmosphere, we ended up hearing a bit of history from the founders about the Amazon acquisition. From what I understand, it was extremely cut-throat and underhanded on Amazon's part. A former coworker succinctly summed it up as "The only relationship you want with Amazon is to be their customer."

I used to use an Apple tablet to watch things in bed. I could not buy a day pass for Sky Sports, nor rent/buy things on Amazon Prime Video from the apps. That worked all right with the xbox apps and it works now on the Android tablet I replaced the Apple one with.

> If you tell Alexa, "buy me a chromecast", it orders you an Amazon fire stick instead.

This is not true. I just tried it.

Google Products: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3...

Apple Products: https://www.amazon.com/Apple-iPhone-GSM-Unlocked-32GB/dp/B01...

https://www.neowin.net/news/amazon-extends-olive-branch-towa...

> If you tell Alexa, "buy me a chromecast", it orders you an Amazon fire stick instead.

Need a source on that.

Not to be a dick, but you get a slew of sources with a cursory Google search.

https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/2/9439281/amazon-ban-apple-...

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/amazon-apple-tv-chromecast/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/amazon-ban-apple-tv...

And their more recent reversal: https://mashable.com/2017/12/14/amazon-to-sell-google-chrome...

The claim was, "If you tell Alexa, 'buy me a chromecast", it orders you an Amazon fire stick instead.'"

None of the articles you linked describe that happening. It seems pretty unlikely. Perhaps at one point it suggested a Fire Stick as an alternative, but it doesn't seem to be doing that currently.

you could just as easily make the argument against Apple and Google in these instances for not allowing Prime Video on their platforms.

Refusing to sell competitors’ products isn’t a very good case for antitrust when you can still buy them in hundreds of other places a click away.

> Apple and Google in these instances for not allowing Prime Video on their platforms.

They're allowed. Amazon is choosing not to support it...

It seems Amazon and Apple have settled their differences.

Prime Video is now available on AppleTV.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16741136/download-amazon-...

And AppleTV is available for purchase on Amazon.com.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B075NFX24M

Please don't take threads on flamebait tangents. Nothing good can come of it.

Sorry. I see how making that argument is likely to provoke poor discussion, will refrain in the future.

None of the "Chomecast" products are Google products, in fact the very first product says this in the description: "Special note: this isn't a Chromecast"

The iPhone while purchasable on Amazon, is not actually sold or shipped by Amazon.

I just tried it: "I couldn't find anything for Chromecast. What else would you like?"

The Apple iPhone isn't a competing product.

Apple TV: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3...

Those also aren't chromecasts showing in those search results that you linked to...

That "Google products" link doesn't show a single Google product.

AppleTV was the device in question. It’s available now.

In the case of google: Didn’t they do that in response to google blocking certain services from Alexa?

No. Alexa runs on it's own hardware. Where did you hear that?

GP is probably referring to the fact that google blocked the youtube app from working on Alexa devices.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/05/google-is-pulling-youtube-...

That happened because Amazon violated Youtube's TOS by stripping key services like subscriptions, channels, etc. Amazon can implement Youtube as long as they follow the TOS, which they're choosing not to.

It's a rule set that everyone has to follow when using Youtube, and isn't singling out Amazon the same way that Amazon is singling out Apple and Google.

Chrome cast is supposedly coming back

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-14/amazon-to...

But yeah “monopoly.” There is literally no where else to buy them online or otherwise

Damn you, Amazon!!!11

for case to be “antitrust” does not requires to be monopoly as such. it can be a company which is dominant in its market by big margin. Microsoft got involved in multiple antitrust cases, even if there are alternatives (mac, linux), but MS has captured majority of market. So I believe Amazon captured majority of online shop market too, so it can abuse situation in their favor.

It isn't illegal to be a monopoly, it's illegal to abuse your monopoly position. Which is what MS got in trouble for.

Big difference which people often forget.

I wonder when it's going to happen.

They banned products that didn’t support Amazon Video. You could always buy Roku boxes. Would Apple sell third party products in their store that only supported Android or Windows? Can you buy an Alexa powered device at an Apple Store? Does Microsoft sell PS4 or Nintendo games at their store?

Straw man argument. Apple doesn’t have a “general” marketplace that lets you sell almost anything under the sun. Neither is being a marketplace central to their business.