Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Pulls Access to YouTube on Amazon's Echo Show Smart Speaker
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Google stinks. Still, YouTube is their product, they can control how their service is accessed. Hopefully, Amazon makes whatever concessions Google is asking for and Google allows YouTube on the Echo Show again.
[doublepost=1506525135][/doublepost]
That may be the problem. Google is well within its rights to require third-party devices work exactly like it does in the web re: ads and such, and only allow ad-less viewing through Google-approved means (such as YouTube Red, which I do subscribe to, for instance).
[doublepost=1506525135][/doublepost]
That may be the problem. Google is well within its rights to require third-party devices work exactly like it does in the web re: ads and such, and only allow ad-less viewing through Google-approved means (such as YouTube Red, which I do subscribe to, for instance).
Yeah, there's definitely more going on. I mean, YouTube is accessible through any browser. So how does that work—does each browser have to adhere to a certain terms of service for YouTube and every website? I thought the responsibility was the other way around. Guessing Wcho show doesn't have a browser and that they're delivering YouTube through the proprietary SDK. Am I making any sense or just rambling?
It's time for Amazon to make their own YouTube. Many YouTubers are fed up with Google, switching to Amazon's Twitch service.
Google pulled access to YouTube through Amazon's display-based Echo Show smart speaker on Tuesday
I don't see the problem. Amazon has only recently put the Amazon Prime Video app on the Google play store even though it's been on Amazon store for a long time. Amazon still doesn't allow Prime Video to be installed on Android TV or steamed to Chromecast!
The way I see it, turnabout it's fair play!
I don't see the problem. Amazon has only recently put the Amazon Prime Video app on the Google play store even though it's been on Amazon store for a long time. Amazon still doesn't allow Prime Video to be installed on Android TV or steamed to Chromecast!
The way I see it, turnabout it's fair play!
I love how many people think they understand the details of this from the two dueling quotes we have.
"Google did this without notice and without a technical reason."
"We've been talking to Amazon about this for a long time and they're violating our terms of service."
There is absolutely no detail in there. It's a complete Rorschach test as to your deep seated feelings about two brands and how you think business and the internet works.
I've no idea what's happening here, myself. If I wanted to find an explanation where neither statement was technically wrong, I'd say that there isn't a technical reason YouTube won't play but that there is a business or contractual reason. Google probably has been discussing this with Amazon and may have pointed out that they were in violation of their terms of service, but probably didn't say "we're going to turn off access in T-minus 3 days and counting".
I'll also mention that this has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality-- Net Neutrality is about the ability to provide content on equal terms over a network, not the requirement to provide content through every outlet. YouTube isn't classified as a public utility, no matter how important people think it is-- it's just a very popular product.
Also, saying that this is about money is obvious and superfluous. These are two large, public, for-profit companies.
I've no idea whether this has anything to do with Chromecast, but that doesn't align with the "terms of service" statement which Google may be asked to back up and just generally sounds like nose-cutting/face-spiteing.
"Google did this without notice and without a technical reason."
"We've been talking to Amazon about this for a long time and they're violating our terms of service."
There is absolutely no detail in there. It's a complete Rorschach test as to your deep seated feelings about two brands and how you think business and the internet works.
I've no idea what's happening here, myself. If I wanted to find an explanation where neither statement was technically wrong, I'd say that there isn't a technical reason YouTube won't play but that there is a business or contractual reason. Google probably has been discussing this with Amazon and may have pointed out that they were in violation of their terms of service, but probably didn't say "we're going to turn off access in T-minus 3 days and counting".
I'll also mention that this has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality-- Net Neutrality is about the ability to provide content on equal terms over a network, not the requirement to provide content through every outlet. YouTube isn't classified as a public utility, no matter how important people think it is-- it's just a very popular product.
Also, saying that this is about money is obvious and superfluous. These are two large, public, for-profit companies.
I've no idea whether this has anything to do with Chromecast, but that doesn't align with the "terms of service" statement which Google may be asked to back up and just generally sounds like nose-cutting/face-spiteing.
Why not just load the regular YouTube webpage on there but alter how it appears? Nothing stopping them from doing that, or is there?
I'm not sure how Alexa interacts with YouTube and whether you'd get the same experience via the website?
[doublepost=1506535771][/doublepost]
The point is though the article gives a perfectly good example of why people want to access YouTube through this device. I guess it's the same as those people that would rather use a $100 power saw vs a $10 hand saw, or a $200 stand mixer rather than a $5 whisk.
I understand your perspective and don't totally disagree, so rather than making a reply statement let me ask a question. At what point does an internet service become so pervasive and commonplace - particularly one that is a resource for knowledge/news/etc. - that it shifts between being a "service offered by a company" to a "Utility"? Sure, we're talking about YouTube, but as others have correctly noted it is a significant source of learning and news for many people. If it were just funny cat videos this would not be an issue. Thoughts?
Google should still have the right to choose what devices/platforms Youtube is offered on. Google should not be forced to make their product available on every device/platform just because it's so widely used.
Your analogies imply that somehow spending more gives you more power to do things faster or better. How is watching a a YouTube "recipe" (or anything) on a $240 Echo Show better or faster than watching the same video on a Fire HD8 Tablet? It isn't. My point was that for the example they gave, a much cheaper solution was available. Which still leaves my original question not really answered--that being why do people want to watch YouTube on this thing? It's not even portable like a tablet! To take it from the living room or bedroom to the kitchen to watch your video, you have to unplug the power adapter and take the whole thing to the kitchen, plug it in and wait for it to power up. When you're done, unplug it and go back to where it was and plug it back in again. Sorry, I don't see how this makes my life better.
A utility isn’t just a service. A utility requires a level of infrastructure that can’t be duplicated and thus is also a legal monopoly. So a service becomes a utility when it becomes impractical for a competitor to evolve.
Phones are a utility because of the lines they run or because of the limited spectrum available. Power for the same reason— it’s the electric lines and gas lines that make it a utility, not the generation plants.
Internet service is starting to be viewed as a utility, but no individual site will be. Aside from competitive forces, there’s no reason multiple video sharing sites can’t coexist. It would be like declaring a newspaper a utility just because so many people read it...
I've never used Alexa, or an Echo product, but I imagine it's all voice activated, so you can just ask Alexa for the recipe, and control the playback etc... without touching the unit (useful when you're hands are covered in raw meat). is that possible on the Fire Tablet? I just asked Siri to show me a video on my phone, and I got a selection to choose from and in watch one I had to then unlock the device.
Also re. tablet vs Echo Show, you don't have to find it, hope it's charged, prop it up, unlock it, stop the screen from locking etc...
I 100% agree with this. I buy most of my products from amazon and their cables are the best! LOL
Does anyone know exactly what the Echo Show did to violate the YouTube TOS? Did it show its own ads in relation to videos? Strip YouTube ads? I’m just going to assume it has something to do with ads.
Last edited:
I’ve never seen an ad while watching YouTube videos on my Echo Show so that might be the issue. Whatever it is I hope they fix it soon.
Huge fan of Amazon. But here they are stealing from YouTubers and that is just wrong. I get they are also stealing from Google but Google is huge and can afford it. But it is just shameless that Amazon is enabling the stealing of young YouTubers contents on the Echo Show.
Not owning an Echo Show I cannot confirm, but if this is indeed the case I fully agree. Google provides YouTube as a SERVICE between content developers and content consumers. The social contract is that in exchange for not having to directly pay for that content we have to view ads. Regardless of how we feel about it, that is a very reasonable business model.. and any intermediary that removes those advertisements is indeed in violation of the TOS... and deserves to be tossed.
If that is accurate, Amazon should easily be able to fix this by providing a YouTube client that has ads. Alternatively they could require that consumers have a YouTube subscription.
I had my Echo Show for 4 months and only used it for YouTube. I called up Amazon and they said (after going though 4 people and finally getting someone of influence, that they would refund me 80%. I said that's not right. I'll do it if they send a check in my name for the remainder to a charity for Puerto Rico.
I which they would just give me my money back. I would buy another echo without screen. Not happy with Amazon.