Amazon started this fight by blocking sales of Apple TV and Chromecasts on Amazon.com. That really should have attracted some anti trust concerns. Other companies deciding to fight back is perfectly legitimate.
And Google supports Net Neutrality too. Isn't what it is doing exactly opposite to the spirit of Net Neutrality?
Just because your opponent did something bad, doesn't mean it's ok to sink to their level.
I'm pretty sure you need a lot more market share than that before any judge is going to rule your behavior as anti-competitive.
A store that dominates its market tends to cause competing stores to close. Which creates the problem in that customers get fewer choices in stores to buy products. This would create the possibility that a dominate store would take steps to cause the competition to shut down; such as price dumping or other unethical things.
But that problem doesn't happen on the web. There's absolutely nothing Amazon could do to prevent Google from selling their product on their own site. I mean, price dumping could still be an issue but it seems no one considers that one anymore. So how can it be proven that Amazon is anti-competitive by refusing to sell a product on their site that competes directly with one of their products sold on their site? Especially when the competitor has no barrier created by Amazon to prevent them from selling the product on their own site?
After all, to be fair, shouldn't I be able to purchase an Amazon product on Google's site?
That said, I also think that regulators should keep a close eye on what's going on in online retail, particularly when it comes to specific sections of the market like books/publishing.
No, not in general, but have you seen the comments on this story? I wouldn't call them stellar and well thought.
Google should do what Amazon does and when search for a Fire give the person a chromecast.
In response to a competitor being a big meanie, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read about why they smell in our blog.
Just because it's an invaluable service now core to using the internet, doesn't make it a public utility.
Here's the actual difference:
If Google started blocking Amazon search results there would be an upoar.
Amazon has blocked selling certain Google items, and there is barely a whimper.
Here's the other difference: When GOogle shows Amazon search results, and users go through those results to make an Amazon purchase, Google gets a cut. That's how e-commerce works on the internet.
I don't have any horses in this race, so I am not trying to take anybody's side, but since you ask, here is my opinion:
A retailer is by default selecting what items to sell.
A search engine is by default crawling everything.
So one is kind of opt-in and the other opt-out.
Google could remove Amazon app from play store. Or remove Amazon from search. Or change terms of Android that Amazon uses for the Fire and Echo.
They already got in trouble with the European union for promoting their own sites in search due to their market share.
There is a point where the EU may have to take steps beyond fines, and bar Google from doing business in... effectively, an entire continent. I don't know where that point is, but if a company doesn't really care about the fines for it's illegal activity and continues to violate the law, you've got to escalate.
And that wouldn't just impact Google's global profits, but it'd likely entail shutting down multiple Google offices in multiple countries, and if their employees weren't interested in immigrating to another country, they'd potentially lose a lot of talent as well.
I just had a look at Alphabet's stock graph from this year. I couldn't tell from it when the fine happened. So I guess they can afford another two of those.
> There is a point where the EU may have to take steps beyond fines, and bar Google from doing business in... effectively, an entire continent.
I doubt that we're anywhere near that point. Google is way too important, I also guess that the population wouldn't like everything-Google gone.
Google could even threaten to brick all Android phones in the EU, no one would risk that.
At risk of losing their data due to a legal fight, everyone would migrate their email away from Gmail. Businesses would transfer away from G Suite.
Google would never even threaten to brick all Android phones, because even threatening it would likely put them out of business.
> There is a point where the EU may have to take steps beyond fines, and bar Google from doing business in... effectively, an entire continent.
If Google couldn't do any business in the EU, they would be going out of business anyway. So they might as well leave with a bang ;)
I mean, sure, their stock price would probably crater if they got kicked out of the EU, but they've got half a trillion dollars lying around, it's not like they're actually in need of money.
But such a outright hostile act as you suggest would lose them every partner and resource they have on a global scale.
The same applies for the EU though: It would be quite a hostile act to ban Google from doing any business in the EU, so I think this won't happen either.
Did they block them, or do they simple not carry them? It is completely different.
2. Not carrying them, is Amazon simply not having an interest in carrying the item as a retailer.
Aren't they two completely different things?
No-one, Amazon directly or Marketplace resellers, is allowed to sell Chromecast on Amazon.
The MADA has anticompetitive terms, not just prohibiting signatories from developing Android forks, like Fire OS, but requiring any devices with Google apps include all of Google's mandatory apps, including many apps which compete directly with Amazon's own offerings. In short, it is not reasonably possible for Amazon to sign the MADA.
Amazon is therefore blocked from offering apps like the Chromecast app to set up Chromecasts for use with their hardware. Just as Apple does not sell hardware in it's stores which don't work with their devices, and Google does not sell hardware on their site which doesn't work with their devices, Amazon chose to not sell products which don't work with their devices.
Ergo, you can't buy an Amazon device, buy a Chromecast, and get them to work together without another outside device. And there is no technical reason for this limitation.
Big Amazon customer but their behavior hurts all of tech and hope Google can straighten them out.
Google has a lot of leverage and Amazon has none as they used what they had by banning Chromecast in their marketplace.
Google should have removed the Amazon app from the play store the day Amazon started the anti competitive behavior.
Google could block their services from the Echo. Amazon is now using Chrommium for their browser and do something here. Fire is really Android and an option.
I get Google wanted to take the high road but Amazon needs to be forced to behave and hope Google has the balls to force it and we get Twitch back on the Roku.
BTW, Google came out with the chromecast 2013 and then added the YT app to the Roku or the opposite of Amazon behavior.
http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-r... Amazon Pulls Their Twitch Channel from Roku - Cord Cutters News