[1] Promoting Amazon products while searching for "Google Home": https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/135-4089858-540885...
[2] Not selling chromecast because it doesn't support Amazon video, which they themselves won't make available on chromecase
Google is way too nice for amazon
Was Google wrong for forking WebKit?
While they are required by the license to opensource their code, this is perhaps the most user unfriendly method ( multiple builds per version per device, no code history, ... - it's a mess)
Here is Chromium as you requested:
Here's the source code: https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/?sq Here's the git: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git
Which is why we need some "net neutrality" kind of regulations as alluded to in another comment on this topic.
• I want to pay a flat fee for access (Netflix), not pay-per-view PLUS subscription fee (amazon prime video).
In any case, what you are getting in the end is the equivalent of Netflix plus more options, which I'm not sure why it would be considered a bad thing. Just ignore the pay offerings, and brows the free movie section, and you have what you want.
The Prime Video product is functionally equivalent to Netflix. The PPV videos are an additional service that Amazon offers that Netflix does not offer.
The confusion that seems to be bothering you is easily resolved. Here you can browse only videos that are free with subscription: https://www.amazon.com/Prime-Video/b?node=2676882011
Most Amazon Prime apps I've seen make a clear distinction between the two.
The ones on my Roku and Blu-ray player don't do it as distinctly as I'd like, and don't have an option to permanently ignore the PPV offerings. They're just highly-targeted ads that I'd really like to block, but can't.
Since you haven't found anything interesting on prime to watch, I'll give you a couple suggestions for prime original series which I found good (or have on good authority are worthy):
Goliath - This was excellent from start to finish. It's only 8 episodes, so easy to consume.
The Man in the High Castle - Interesting to me in how the geopolitics of two superpowers in the 60's play out when those superpowers are Nazi Germany and Militaristic Japan, and the parallels to the U.S. and U.S.S.R. during the same period. A little bit of mostly unexplained and low-key science fiction in-story to drive it keeps it interesting as well.
Red Oaks - Only caught one episode, but my wife has seen it all and thought it was fairly funny and it seemed interesting in an 80's John Hughes sort of way.
I find it annoying that I can't permanently hide the pay items. If I could, I'd completely hide them from the browsing UI, but make them show up with some kind of distinctive icon when they match a search that I make. If I want it that badly, I'll go shopping for the DVD/Blu-ray.
I'm never going to actually pay for an individual digital video, so it's grating to have them presented as equal candidates for viewing alongside all the "included with Prime" content.
This seems like a strange position to have. I agree Amazon's behavior in pulling the Chromecast from their store as a means to push their own stuff is unacceptable, but Prime has plenty of content that can be viewed for 'free' (beyond the cost of Prime). Having additional paid content seems entirely reasonable.
Amazon will only sell the Chromecast if Google allows them to cast to the Chromecast from all of their apps — even on Kindle devices.
Google refuses to allow that, and also refuses to allow Amazon to build their own implementation of the Chromecast library (the Google-supplied one requires Play Services).
The options for Amazon are: remove all Amazon apps from the Kindle, install only Google apps by default, and provide Chromecasting support, or only provide Chromecast supports for users of Google Android, but not those on the Kindle.
This is a clear case of Google abusing its monopoly on Android, and Amazon responding by abusing its monopoly in online retail.
EDIT: This is exactly why I don't use any proprietary IoT devices, but only open products, or things I built myself. Open standards circumvent these entire issues.
Amazon is the one voluntarily choosing not to support chromecast.
As result, it does not work on the Kindle devices.
Amazon would have to install Play Services (compliance with this would require setting Google as the default for all stores, apps, etc, and even removing a few of Amazon's own apps), or Amazon could enable Chromecast for everyone except Kindle users (which would convince people to buy less Kindles)
So when Google is asking Amazon to either destroy its own product, or make its own product work better with a competitors devices than with its own, then obviously Amazon won't do either of these things.
I'm not aware of any Google Play Services installed on my iPhone, and if it's something that's bundled with the apps, then Amazon Prime Video can bundle it as well.
The situation on Android might be different; at one point I certainly could cast from Netflix to Chromecast on my Kindle Fire (even though no Google Play Services existed) although from looking around on Google a bit that appears to no longer be the case.
Correct. Google removed that ability, and Amazon won’t support Chromecast until Google adds it back.
Both the web and mobile apps of Amazon prime can support chromecast streaming, but they made the decision not to - before the play services requirement for Android.
Amazon is not going to provide better functionality on Google Android than on Amazon Kindle Android. That'd cannibalize their own product.
If you want Chromecast support on Android, then ask Google to make it independent of Play Services.
The web SDK also doesn't require play services, which is why, when combined with the fact Amazon did not say play services is the reason they don't support chromecast, it's a red herring to be focused on devices and play services.
Amazon made the decision to force users to use their own proprietary streaming service, and then dropped competing streaming devices from their store.
Or maybe they don’t want to deliver functionality only to some users, which would lead to confusion and frustration?
Have you read the threads whenever Google launches a product and only 2% of users have access? Maybe they don’t want such a shitstorm to destroy their business-customer relationship?
What's more likely here - That Amazon was worried about customer relationships specifically with the companies Apple & Google, or that Amazon wanted to block competition from it's store to force users to buy Amazon's streaming products?
This is also a far cry from your original assertion that Google was blocking Amazon from developing on chromecast. You seem like you have an axe to grind here - why is that?
I bought a Chromecast. Two actually. I refuse to use Google Play Services.
And guess what happened when Google made Chromecast require Google Play Services? I could throw 70€ away, because they had become useless.
So I used open source reimplementations and made my own apps, but guess what? Google decided to obfuscate the protocol and change it every week to prevent that.
Yep, and if I'm not mistaken, Chromecast initially didn't have the Play Services requirement(I seem to recall Netflix on the Kindle working at first). So definitely not all openness and friendliness from the Google side.
It's ridiculous how many people here are defending Google over this.