source? IIRC amazon claimed it was confusing for its users if they sold the chromecast and their firestick at the same time.
https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/chrome_sender_integr...
>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...
* 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!
Would we force Ford dealerships to sell Hondas as well? For Whole Foods to carry Safeway-branded products?
Of course not.
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/...
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.
Any what is Amazon's share of all retail sales? My understanding it's in the single digit percentages.
Seems like it's a back and forth kind of a thing between the two companies, with users being the ones facing consequences.
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.
But in the real world, would Obama regulate tech companies? Would Trump regulate banks?
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.
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.