Out of curiosity, why Goole before Amazon?
Google already owns my browser, my mail, Google Drive / Sheets, the best single sign-in, etc.
I understand the arguments for distributing your data - this is coming from someone who's given up on that privacy front sadly. If that doesn't apply to you, I can see why Amazon could make more sense for some products. For me, I more ascribe to giving my entire life to 1-2 that I trust and attempting to hold them accountable / influence their policies.
Google is faaaaaaar from perfect, but in sum it seems like the much better option for giving my life to.
I'm looking more at how much I trust the company to not leverage the data they have to give to NSA, turn the world into 1984, etc. Apple did the same type of legal protection of personal device data as Amazon, and I expect Google to do the same if asked, which will likely happen soon enough. What worries me about Amazon/Bezos in this regard more than Google is Amazon + WaPo + Whole Foods, all the industries they have swallowed and replaced, etc.
Again, both have that concern, and in the end I'm cautious but not really expecting either to turn like that. But it's one small data point. The Chromecast hookup is much more heavily weighted in this decision, but I think the psychology behind the argument above def nudges more towards Google as well.
I'll give you a hint: First Ctrl+F "Google", then Ctrl+F "Amazon"
Still, I'd argue they are absent because they store little of the things the NSA cared for at the time, reference slide 3:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#/...
Amazon at the time didn't have widely used social media, personal photo or video storage, person to person chat, email, etc. The basic info input by people was already collected via all the other companies. What does the NSA really gain from the Amazon dataset at the time?
I bet if Alexa was out and the NSA wanted data from these devices, however they got the rest to agree would have applied to Amazon. I'm inclined to believe it was pretty unavoidable extortion. That said, I hope that Apple / Google / Amazon can temper assistant always on recording by not doing it, let alone sending to a server. If they don't have the data it's hard to turn over when extorted.
Still, I concede my NSA standard looks to be failed by Google. That said, Google or Alexa, they have it all anyways, and I don't believe for a second that if the government decides to use these types of devices to collect voice data that they all won't take the same stance, whatever it may be. At that point, I'll be unplugging whatever one I have any serious conversations. Heck, I already do that to be safe now.
I'd still point to the industry breadth of Amazon as a concern. Though, these posts illustrate pretty well that privacy is a lost cause for most cases, or at least one technologically agnostic within our current major choices. Noted in case the Alexa / Amazon ecosystem improves.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/26/amazon-digital-advertising-p...
"Two media buyers said Amazon showed some willingness to share more user data than Google and Facebook have traditionally — if the advertising budget was big enough."
Pretty much the only way Amazon will have significant success here (IE not just stay #3 or worse) is if it is more willing to share data than Google or Facebook.
To me, the biggest difference is Google's biggest successes (Search, Gmail, and Android) come from giving something for free in order to increase ad revenue. Amazon's biggest successes (Amazon.com, AWS) come from selling things to me and profiting from the margin.
That alone has tarnished my opinion of the company.
Unless I use Chrome. Which I don't. Or Android. Which is annoying if I look at something on my laptop.
Personally Recommended (due to no having zero issues using):
https://github.com/muammar/mkchromecast
https://github.com/xat/castnow
https://github.com/Pat-Carter/stream2chromecastAs for Android, I was fairly certain iOS at least can cast as my Apple fanboy roommate was having fun messing with the volume and pausing playback.
But it's a crutch AND doesn't allow the same stuff: If I watch a YT video, it's in my browser. No way to throw it at the TV. If I watch Twitch, it's in my browser. No way to throw it at the TV.
Maybe it can handle URLs. But if I have to copy the URL, paste it somewhere, fiddle to get to the same spot in the video ... then I can just launch Chrome and curse just as much.
(Highly ironic that the player offers the option to install a Chrome extension to open movies in SodaPlayer. For me the whole selling point of the thing would be to .. not need Chrome ofc)
Publishing YouTube app on Windows Phone requires Google to put extra effort into developing an app for a completely new platform which I assume requires lot of engineering effort.
Selling Chromecast on Amazon probably does not cost Amazon any extra engineering effort. So, I do not believe that the two situations are equivalent.
It's fairly straightforward as these things go, but to suggest it doesn't require anything is flat out wrong.
That alone has tarnished my opinion of the company.
They had a nice YouTube app, too. Then, just took it away. Even has casting from the YouTube iOS app.
__________________________________________
It's like deciding who gets to sit at the Cool Kids table at lunch.
It's amazing how once Google retaliated Amazon finally allows chromecast on their store (but no streaming!)
Too bad our services vanish from thin air when it happens, instead of any actual resolution.
But now that Amazon purchased Twitch they removed the Twitch app from the Roku. Use to be a fan of Amazon but this is ridiculous behavior in their part.
What do you think about Google not allowing iOS or Firefox to become cast sources, or FireTV to act as a cast targetI just opened firefox up and had no issue casting from it. According to the below support thread[1] you may need to enable a flag in the about:config page. Although I didn't need too.
Does that piss you off, or are your feelings of outrage only limited to our own personal convenience?
[0] - https://developer.amazon.com/docs/fire-tv/faq-general.html
https://developers.google.com/cast/
Amazon is the one banning it.
Amazon is the one stopping casting from their devices. Not Google. Google Cast is free to setup for. https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/design_checklist/
Nothing needs to be sold through Google Cast, no royalties, etc. All Amazon has to do is SUPPORT it. Or atleast allow homegrown solutions to thrive.
I agree this is a stupid 'feud' that only hurts consumers and I have my likes and dislikes for both companies but if you cannot see the difference here then I'm not sure how to help.
2. It has great integration with other Google services if you're already a heavy Google user (maps, mail, calendar, Fi/GV, hopefully Keep soon...)
3. It has fantastic uses with chromecast (netflix, youtube, pause, rewind, volume, etc).
Obviously, #2 and #3 will vary heavily for people; you can probably get most of #3 if you get a Fire stick. It really depends if you're already a Google/Android/Chromecast user or not.
Amazon removing the twitch app from the Roku after purrchasing Twitch is just wrong. Also Amazon banning any company from able to sell the Google home or Chromecast in their marketplace is also a problem.
Amazon does not need to do this anti competitive BS.