.. .the field in which I grow all the f**ks that I might give. And, lo, it is exceeding barren.
Google's low-intensity rivalry with Amazon has just escalated. Amazon's Echo Show speaker has been barred from playing YouTube videos. Google's explanation is that Amazon violated YouTube's Terms of Services, "creating a broken user experience". The two have been in discussions for some time, said Google, but had been unable …
I don't understand why anyone wants these data slurping spy machines. The best feature I've been shown is the echo thing hearing you even while music plays and you speak normally - but isn't that worse!? Every film-goer knows that you can avoid people spying on you by playing some background music - nope....
The big boys won't play nice, and you can buy a shiny that gets shunned by another big player and becomes a big waste of space and money.
Big deal? No.
I got a Google Chromecast - to watch a bit of iPlayer and NFL online. Which is fine, other than crap UI sometimes, which I can cope with.
Then I got the Amazon Prime trial. And not only was there not a Chromecast button on their app - but they'd also blocked the Chrome browser plug-in - so I couldn't cast it the hard way either.
With Kindle, they were hardware agnostic. I lost a lot of trust in their brand that day. Now, how do I know they'll keep that up with music and books, given they keep pushing into hardware devices?
I'm largely in agreement with you on this: especially regarding the calling to the mothership. But voice controlled services can be useful in some situations. For example, in the kitchen setting a timer or similar. My brother's got one and if you try it you realise that its use in some situations is pretty compelling.
The advances in voice recognition mean that the speech processing can be done offline but queries can be sent (no different to a search engine). The key privacy aspect is the separation of the speech recognition from the rest.
Regarding the device itself: looks like a typical "solutionist" piece of tat. Amazon's record with phones and tablets isn't spectacular and this is unlikely to enhance it.
I'm sure we've seen this behaviour from Google before...
Not that Google would buy out the front-runner of a service, push it to the top of their search results, then once it has the lions share of the market, pull its availability from competitors in other arenas.
Feels a lot like tying to me...
So when Amazon - becoming one of the largest players in the online shopping arena refuses to sell Chromecast or Apple TV because they won't include Amazon Prime for free that is fine.
When Google don't allow Amazon to show you tube unless they allow subscriptions and playlists then that is evil. For the video creator, if they can't get the subscribers then they risk their revenue, it's not really fair on them. Surely Google have the right to determine how companies utilise their product? I mean, would anyone think it was weird if Apple didn't allow the Amazon box to incorporate their own itunes implementation?
"For the video creator..."
If Youtube were an channel created by Google and contained exclusively content that Google had paid for the use of or commissioned themselves then yes, I would agree.
But it's not - anyone and their mother can load up a video to Youtube.
It would be like if a hosting company started making PCs, then turned round to everyone whose site was hosted on their servers and said "Oh, we're only going to be serving your sites to people using the PCs we've made from now on". Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
I think you missed their point.
If if the uploaded creators cannot have people subscribe, then ad revenue cannot be generated.
Now I'm not on about Googles revenue, because I can't be arsed igf they don't get it, but the content creators share.
Most people get little to bugger all, but many make a huge amount of money (think hundreds of thousands if not millions per year).
The crap channels my kids watch, some of them easily hit 30 million views per "show", sometimes pushing 60 million. That is a LOT of ad revenue for the creators (also explains why their parents have such nice houses).
Why? It already has a video service and that's where the money is, if there is any.
I'm sure if Google ever starts to make a significant amount of cash with YouTube it will let us know, but so far the only stuff I've seen is that about breaks even. YouTube, as Andrew Orlowski has indicated several times, acts as a constraint on licence fees for content from the main producers. If it wasn't full of copyrighted material it almost certainly wouldn't be as popular as it is. Google likes popular because it means data for its ad services but it wouldn't like it as much if it had to pay Hollywood rates for the content…
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022