Google: if you support Amazon Echo, you're cut off from Google Home and Chromecast

http://boingboing.net/2016/10/02/google-if-you-support-amazon.html

by walterbell • 10 years ago

133 61 10 years ago

boingboing.net

beaner• 10 years ago

I typically love Google but if true this is the kind of thing that makes me hope they lose.

The article is a little light on evidence however, so I'm a little skeptical.

thrill• 10 years ago

Seems fair. Amazon no longer lets me Chromecast Prime videos.

criddell• 10 years ago

Seems stupid to me. Amazon wants to cripple their product so Google needs to show that they can out-cripple Amazon?

rublev• 10 years ago

Digital crip wars.

TazeTSchnitzel• 10 years ago

Or prevent you buying their product. Amazon no longer sells Chromecast.

ikeboy• 10 years ago

And refuses to allow Chromecast or apple TV to be sold on their marketplace.

amelius• 10 years ago

Of course, having a live, networked, corporate-controlled mic in your bedroom, living room and toilet ...

Well, we already have that, it's in your cellphone.

lucb1e3• 10 years ago

Except that someone would have noticed if all sound was sent to NSA HQ (or whomever). With these mics, that's by design.

bryanlarsen• 10 years ago

It's fairly easy to tell that these devices do not send data until woken up by their keywords.

dmoy• 10 years ago

I saw a separate article that had this limited to Cast devices (also like beaner points out, it was light on details). Is that true? If so, does the fact that amazon refuses to sell Chromecast have anything to do with this? (And other Cast-related restrictions from Amazon)

Disclaimer: work for Google, but so very far away from any of this stuff

ocdtrekkie4• 10 years ago

It's impossible for us to know why Google decided to do this. But both issues could both be considered antitrust issues. Amazon's staggering market share in shopping puts them at risk by them not selling a competitor's products in another market segment. And Google's attempts to strongarm manufacturers into blocking out a competitor is obviously problematic.

The argument could be made (and I think Amazon technically claimed it) that Amazon blocked Chromecast from their store for incompatibility with their products, because Google won't allow forks of Android to have Google apps on them. Which is also anticompetitive.

So, if we want to suggest both companies are petty as all get out, it's plausible Google was anticompetitive, Amazon was anticompetitive in response, and then Google was anticompetitive again in reaction to that. What's next? Maybe Amazon will remove Chromebooks?

kuschku• 10 years ago

What's next? Maybe Amazon will remove Chromebooks?

And as a result, Google will refuse to list amazon in search, their DNS servers won’t resolve it, and Chrome will refuse to open it, and their malware filters will mark it as fraudulent page.

ajaimk• 10 years ago

Taken a little too far. Nest products (owned by Alphabet) support Amazon Echo. (Or is Alexa now?)

Animats2• 10 years ago

Where are the DoJ antitrust people when you need them? This is called an "exclusive dealing arrangement". That's legally questionable but some forms are legal.[1] The FTC has defined a "safety zone" - it's OK to do this if you have less than 20% market share or there are at least four competing technologies on the market. Google probably has too much market share for that.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/competit...

caseysoftware• 10 years ago

It all depends on the market they claim they're competing in.

If it's search, I'd wager you're 100% correct. They've won that by all measures.

If it's voice assistants, maybe you're right. Even with Android devices everywhere, it would be hard to show how much share they have.

If the market is home automation, then the Nest thermostat is probably their biggest risk/penetration in the space, especially, if they can frame DropCams as monitoring and not automation. Odds are security companies and others we've never heard of have most of this market.

But if they can position the market as voice-based home automation, they are almost definitely safe. Amazon and Samsung probably have the majority of that market and Google is the "little guy" coming into the fight.

The big variable is that if search gives them an "unfair advantage" in the Court's eyes... which will be up to lawyers to argue.

Animats2• 10 years ago

"But if they can position the market as voice-based home automation, they are almost definitely safe. Amazon and Samsung probably have the majority of that market and Google is the "little guy" coming into the fight."

That's a good point. Defining the relevant market is the name of the game in antitrust. Google could argue that they are a minor player in home appliances. If Samsung tried a lock-in contract, they'd probably be hammered in court. Google can argue they're a minor player in online retailing. If Amazon tried this, they'd probably lose.

JoshTriplett• 10 years ago

or there are at least four competing technologies on the market

Alexa, Cortana, Siri, Samsung S Voice, wit.ai, Mycroft, ...

ocdtrekkie4• 10 years ago

The former FTC Commissioner, Joshua Wright, had previously been paid to write "independent studies" defending Google's antitrust position while teaching at George Mason U, which Google then used as expert material. Unsurprisingly, the antitrust investigation against Google was buried during his tenure, despite the FTC staff wanting to go forward with a formal complaint. Then add in that the Obama administration has placed Google employees in almost every high level tech position...

Suffice to say, I've yet to see anything that indicates the FTC intends to do anything about Google yet. Until international cases and public opinion support action against Google so strongly that our government can no longer bury it, we're not going to see anything done here.

HillRat• 10 years ago

Actually, I think the problem for Google is that the market is already pretty fragmented, depending on how you slice it, and shows no signs of vendor consolidation. In this particular case, Google's pushing hard on the flat side of the boulder; they are trying to strongarm audio technology companies (who, unlike software and media companies, don't have any preëxisting entanglements with most software and service platforms) over a set of Google services that don't hold a particularly commanding position in the market vis a vis Amazon. I just don't get why they think they're in a strong negotiating position here, except that they must assume that the Google brand is powerful enough to create its own Kool-Aid-based distortion field.

biocomputation4• 10 years ago

> the Google brand is powerful enough to create its own Kool-Aid-based distortion field.

Google is slowly building their brand position as 'invasion of privacy' despite their Kool-Aid colored logo.

Huge market opportunities for companies that can sell privacy by positioning themselves as the opposite of Google.

tinbad• 10 years ago

"Of course, having a live, networked, corporate-controlled mic in your bedroom, living room and toilet is an idea that is so unbelievably terrible on its face that you could use it as the introduction to a term paper in 2040 explaining how human civilization nearly collapsed in the early 21st century."

This was the highlight of the article for me.

back_beyond• 10 years ago

What about one in your pocket?

eeZah7Ux• 10 years ago

They are both bad in different ways. The first one is meant to listen all the time.

jrockway• 10 years ago

I live alone. I probably type a lot more intimate information into the computer than I say out loud. So if human civilization collapses, your term paper will probably start with that, and these always-listening devices will merely be an interesting footnote.

internaut• 10 years ago

Recovery of civilization by 2040?

What is this boundless optimism? :-)

nojvek• 10 years ago

Google is the Microsoft that wants to cripple competitors and stamp over its users to make a quick buck. Nothing to see here.

biocomputation4• 10 years ago

I'm off nearly all Google products, including search and Android. I've recently moved both my parents onto Windows phones.

History always repeats itself for all these huge enterprises. Microsoft did all the same types of things, and their anti-competitive behavior was a significant part of the reason why Linux got that toehold that turned into a handhold... that turned into a...

The same thing is going to happen to Google in lots of other markets. They can only force people to use, I mean line extend, their brand to a certain point before they paint themselves into a corner.

FT_intern• 10 years ago

You moved your parents from one anti-competitive company to an even more anti-competitive company?

Esau3• 10 years ago

I have moved almost entirely off of Google products. The sole exception at this point is search, which I use but without a Google account.

It should be noted my issues with Google is really more of an issue with corporate surveillance - of which Google happens to be king.

romanovcode• 10 years ago

Google is one of the evilest companies in the world.

dorianm2• 10 years ago

Ok, so the source for that is this article: http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/google-home-amazon-echo...

And their source is "multiple sources":

    Google’s own negotiations with consumer electronics manufacturers could be
    hampered by what multiple sources have described as overly aggressive
    muscle-flexing. At the meeting in June, Google is said to have told home audio
    vendors that they won’t be allowed to add any other digital assistants than
    Google’s own to their hardware if they want to continue to use Google Cast.
    Another source told Variety of similarly far-reaching demands made in
    negotiations with another big consumer electronics manufacturer — demands that
    ultimately led to talks breaking down.

Navarr2• 10 years ago

I'm having issues with Variety's website being awful.

I previously read another take on that source on AndroidPolice[1] where it was framed more as "If you include Google Home you cannot include another Digital Assistant (e.g. Alexa)" which makes a lot more sense (obviously you can't have two assistants running at once) - though allowing it to be switchable would be nice.

It'll be interesting to see what the truth of the matter is.

dorianm2• 10 years ago

I guess if somebody has Siri, Google Now, Google Home, Amazon Echo, etc. and then they ask to change the music it would be a pretty fun mess.

ocdtrekkie4• 10 years ago

So, you read the release more directly, and had an issue with it, but then went to a fan blog, which read it from the same source, but speculated a way to frame it as more positive for the company they depend on for their site's existence, and took that as the more valuable piece of information?

notatoad• 10 years ago

From a skim of the variety article, it seems that google is blocking access to their assistant at a vendor level - i.e. if you have a product that includes the alexa assistant, you can't also have a product that includes the google assistant. This seems fairly stupid if true.

I'm hoping that either i'm reading it wrong, or variety has misinterpreted the sources, and google is actually attempting to block multiple voice assistants on a per-device level. Because to me, that makes perfect sense - products like amazon's echo or google home would get very confusing if they included multiple different voice-triggered assistants.

ricardobeat2• 10 years ago

The lack of interoperability between devices is the biggest PITA for home entertainment right now. I currently have two Apple TVs (last gen has no audio out), a Chromecast Audio[1], a PS4, a NAS and a reasonably-smart TV all linked together and still can't stream fucking bluetooth audio to my sound system.

[1] which I only use for the (proprietary) Spotify Connect

h4waii• 10 years ago

Considering none of those devices have Bluetooth (well, the PS4 does for the controller) , why would you be able to? That's like buying a scooter, a sports car, and a diesel Volkswagen, and complaining you can't haul a 700lb snowmobile in the non-existent bed. It makes no sense.

Buy a simple $8 3.5mm -> BT transmitter and plug it in. Done.

ricardobeat2• 10 years ago

The chromecast I bought is the dongle. That's exactly the issue. A more apt analogy would be to buy a scooter, a sports car and a VW all with powerful onboard computers and audio systems and not being able to play music from your phone because there is no Bluetooth!

Actually cars are pretty far ahead in that sense, in any modern car BT "just works".

RaleyField• 10 years ago

Elon's new project can't come soon enough.

JabavuAdams3• 10 years ago

So you can live in a company town on Mars where your very survival depends on the company?

Google: if you support Amazon Echo, you're cut off from Google Home and Chromecast

Related Stories