Apple not only company fighting Google over video, as YouTube is cut from Amazon Echo Show...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 2017
On Tuesday afternoon, Google withdrew YouTube service from the Echo Show personal video device, and the two companies have issued dueling statements about the matter.




At approximately 3 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, users looking to find YouTube videos on the Echo Show were presented with a message telling them Google was no longer supporting YouTube on the device. The Verge first noted the service unavailability on Tuesday evening.

"YouTube used to be available to our shared customers on Echo Show. As of this afternoon, Google has chosen to no longer make YouTube available on Echo Show, without explanation and without notification to customers," Amazon told The Verge in a statement. "There is no technical reason for that decision, which is disappointing and hurts both of our customers."

Google appears to have a difference of opinion on why the withdrawal of the ubiquitous YouTube was executed.

"We've been in negotiations with Amazon for a long time, working towards an agreement that provides great experiences for customers on both platforms," wrote Google in a statement. "Amazon's implementation of YouTube on the Echo Show violates our terms of service, creating a broken user experience. We hope to be able to reach an agreement and resolve these issues soon."

The debate between the pair may have roots dating back to 2015. In the same action that saw the Apple TV removed from Amazon, the e-commerce giant still refuses to sell the Google Chromecast, citing "consumer confusion." A listing for the Apple TV 4K appeared on Tuesday, but was swiftly deleted.

Apple and Google are still at loggerheads about 4K content on YouTube. Google warned that a shift to its own VP9 video codec was coming in early 2016, and it finally executed the shift from December 2016 to January 2017.

As a result, Safari users are unable to view embedded 4K content, and the Apple TV 4K is limited to 1440p resolution at best from the service.

"We haven't supported VP9 in Safari," AppleInsider was told by a source within Apple corporate not authorized to speak on behalf of the company when Google shifted to VP9. "[Google] has seemingly made a conscious decision to not stream H.264 4K video to Apple users from the YouTube homepage, when it clearly could if it chose to."

A timetable for YouTube's return to the Echo Show is unknown. Regarding Apple, there appears to be no initiative from either Google or Apple to support the VP9 codec in Safari, or on the Apple TV 4K.

AppleInsider found the Echo Show "good enough" as a personal video viewer -- but the current absence of YouTube impacts the functionality of the device profoundly.



«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 1,892member
    I wonder if it had anything too do with cutting out ad's? That's been a issue in the past with Google.
    calilostkiwiAvieshekwatto_cobra
  • Reply 1 of 27
    TomETomE Posts: 118member
    One more thing - Google is not my default search engine now.

    calianton zuykovmagman1979RacerhomieXlostkiwi[Deleted User]Avieshekcincymacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,322member
    sog35 said:
    Advertisments are the BANE of society.

    I'd me more than willing to pay for content without ads.

    I wish there was a way to get Youtube without ads. And after watching a video I can choose to pay a couple pennies to the content maker.
    You can. It's called YouTube Red. It's a subscription service.
    As regards Apple and Google I wasn't aware they were fighting over it. Apple has their reasons for wanting to support h265 and Google has their reasons for supporting vp9 and vc1. There's no fight as far as I know
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 4 of 27
    sog35 said:

    I want to be able to choose to pay AFTER I watch a video. 

    I think it would work pretty well.  If tens of thousands of people pay 20 cents for a 5 minute video the content creator can make some $
    If tens of thousands of people pay nothing after viewing a 5 minute video the content creator makes nothing.

    Avieshek
  • Reply 5 of 27
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    onepotato said:
    sog35 said:

    I want to be able to choose to pay AFTER I watch a video. 

    I think it would work pretty well.  If tens of thousands of people pay 20 cents for a 5 minute video the content creator can make some $
    If tens of thousands of people pay nothing after viewing a 5 minute video the content creator makes nothing.

    Most people are like this. The bottom feeders who own iKnockoffs especially. They actually brag about stealing content. 
    magman1979Avieshekwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 27
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,451member
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    Advertisments are the BANE of society.

    I'd me more than willing to pay for content without ads.

    I wish there was a way to get Youtube without ads. And after watching a video I can choose to pay a couple pennies to the content maker.
    You can. It's called YouTube Red. It's a subscription service.
    As regards Apple and Google I wasn't aware they were fighting over it. Apple has their reasons for wanting to support h265 and Google has their reasons for supporting vp9 and vc1. There's no fight as far as I know
    YouTube Red has a free three month trial period which I signed up for. Very nice but I decided not to subscribe. No other reason than I already subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, and Curiosity (a very good technology and historical subscription service), oh and WWE Network (Pro Wrestling is the only true sport left in America!) Things start to add up and that’s the Achilles heel of cord cutting.
    edited September 2017 Avieshek
  • Reply 7 of 27

    Wait, you can watch YouTube videos on your computer and phone for free, no one asked them if you could stream their video to lots of devices, do you think Dell and MS and Apple all pay licensing fees to Google so YouTube video can be seen on those devices. So what would the Amazon Echo Show need a special license, hell it is running some bastardize version of Android, google should be happy.

    This does sound a bit fishy...

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 27
    Have a lot of Echo Show units been sold already to make much of a difference to Youtube viewers? The Echo Show just came out recently and it's Amazon's most expensive Echo model, so I was thinking it shouldn't have much of a Youtube-using consumer base as of yet for it to be sorely missed.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 27
    Google does love their proprietary video formats even if the quality is lower.
    lostkiwiAvieshekwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 27
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,289member
    I'd bet money that Apple will whisper to Google that it's considering changing iOS' default search engine.  That'll get their attention.
    lostkiwiAvieshekwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 27
    Have a lot of Echo Show units been sold already to make much of a difference to Youtube viewers? The Echo Show just came out recently and it's Amazon's most expensive Echo model, so I was thinking it shouldn't have much of a Youtube-using consumer base as of yet for it to be sorely missed.
    Amazon is a strong emerging content platform and its closed, not having access to that long term for Google, an advertiser vehicule, would be a major problem, just like not having access to IOS long term. When Samsung and the Chinese makers get fed up of Android, and go anti-trust on them in Europe, Google is in for a bad time.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 27
    Once upon a time, there was a lovely new website where anyone could create their own movies and put it online. Many were very happy with this non-corporatised viewing production and consumption experience, and the site grew and grew.

    About the same time, there was an excellent new search engine-cum+advertising company which changed the web from a garish, irritating billboard of pressure sales to a refined, user-friendly space where we, the viewers were prioritised.

    Unfortunately, the corporate culture of making a profit dorve the search-advert company to buy up all the web viewing spaces it could, and the very popular video site was an excellent target.

    Sadly, the monetisation of other people’s material, sticky rights management issues and making a profit, have all turned the video upload site into another revenue generator for a big company which shows no care for us, nor any style. 

    AdBlock is free and stops the stupid adverts from destroying the hyper-distracting and irritating layer of crap that has slowly invaded YouTube like terminal cancer. Many people use Patreon to support themselves, rathwr than random advertisements which often place terrorists next to skin care products, or human trafficking next to cpu testing rigs.

    There is no need, nor reason, to allow Alphabet to lock other people’s comtent up behind VP6 or whatever, just so they can continue trying to profit from thier disgusting and offensive business practices.

    it isn’t we who need to bend over, but Alphagoo which must try a new approach to staying in busniness, preferably one where we, not other comoanies wanting our private information, are the customers and beneficiaries.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 27
    19831983 Posts: 1,120member
    I'm getting sick of this f.....g duelling between the tech giants that's negatively effecting the user experience of customers. This VP9 debacle is crap! With Google more at fault in this case it seems. As H.264 is a global standard that's not specific to Apple, while VP9 is to Google. They should support it (H.264) at 4K like they do at 1080p and 1440p. Get over yourselves and stop screwing over users!
    edited September 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 27
    BTW my xbox one S does not support 4k youtube video either. My Vizio 4k doesnt have a native 4k youtube app.  The only way i can output youtube on 4k on my tv is by using chromecast, which is annoying, because its like airplay, its not native.

    they need to sort this out, especially with the xbox one X coming out in november.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,322member
    herbapou said:
    BTW my xbox one S does not support 4k youtube video either. My Vizio 4k doesnt have a native 4k youtube app.  The only way i can output youtube on 4k on my tv is by using chromecast, which is annoying, because its like airplay, its not native.

    they need to sort this out, especially with the xbox one X coming out in november.
    It's already sorted for the Xbox One X. It supports 4K 60Hz HEVC (H.265), VP9, and AVC (H.264) video formats. It also offers 10-bit high dynamic range (HDR) HEVC and VP9 playback.

    Microsoft doesn't have the same reasons to avoid VP9 as Apple.  While VP9 and the upcoming replacement for it, VC1, are freely licensed and have broad industry support, Apple went all in with the establishment MPEG-LA and HEVC, contributing patents and (presumably) collecting royalties as part of the standards group. Both Microsoft and Google (among other both large and small techs) have declined to include their applicable patents in that royalty-bearing pool.

    IMO far too many hands trying to steal sweets from the h.265 cookie jar, and I'm guessing more will come flocking especially if higher royalties are obtained from standards pools reading on h.265 (ex. Velos Media) other than MPEG-LA. 


    edited September 2017
  • Reply 16 of 27
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,451member
    sflocal said:
    I'd bet money that Apple will whisper to Google that it's considering changing iOS' default search engine.  That'll get their attention.
    Yeah, well, Apple already did that. They changed iOS 11 from Bing to Google.
  • Reply 17 of 27
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,451member

    sog35 said:

    I’d me (sic) more than willing to pay for content without ads.

    The vast majority wouldn’t and won’t. Advertising is why we have free OTA broadcasting in this country. Advertising is why people on limited budgets can partake of online news, music, video, research, etc.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 18 of 27

    "There is no technical reason for that decision, which is disappointing and hurts both of our customers."

    So, only two people own this device? Seems like a big to-do about nothing. /s
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 27
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,906member
    gatorguy said:
    herbapou said:
    BTW my xbox one S does not support 4k youtube video either. My Vizio 4k doesnt have a native 4k youtube app.  The only way i can output youtube on 4k on my tv is by using chromecast, which is annoying, because its like airplay, its not native.

    they need to sort this out, especially with the xbox one X coming out in november.
    It's already sorted for the Xbox One X. It supports 4K 60Hz HEVC (H.265), VP9, and AVC (H.264) video formats. It also offers 10-bit high dynamic range (HDR) HEVC and VP9 playback.

    Microsoft doesn't have the same reasons to avoid VP9 as Apple.  While VP9 and the upcoming replacement for it, VC1, are freely licensed and have broad industry support, Apple went all in with the establishment MPEG-LA and HEVC, contributing patents and (presumably) collecting royalties as part of the standards group. Both Microsoft and Google (among other both large and small techs) have declined to include their applicable patents in that royalty-bearing pool.

    IMO far too many hands trying to steal sweets from the h.265 cookie jar, and I'm guessing more will come flocking especially if higher royalties are obtained from standards pools reading on h.265 (ex. Velos Media) other than MPEG-LA. 
    Imagine that, technology companies which actually license/contribute to/create technology and want that technology to be the product (have value) instead of a means to deliver advertisements.  Rather than simply trying to find open source projects to exploit free labour from and then selling naive software developers on the ideal that they're contributing to some greater good.  The greater good of the bank accounts of the investors in the companies which benefit from that technology being used to sell cheap devices or advertising slots.

    And if you're going to talk about Apple's OSes being similarly built on open source projects, make sure to look into the history of NeXT's very close involvement with the BSD group in helping to build the BSD UNIX platform.  As opposed to taking a very mature version of Linux (which had already been used in mobile devices for years) and adding a mobile UI layer which heavily borrowed ideas from Blackberry and later iOS to create Android.  Then taking the Apache Harmony and Dalvik VM projects to create the Android SDK so they wouldn't have to pay a licensing fee for Java.  A storyline very similar to the usage of VP9 instead of paying the H.265 royalties.

    And of course a bunch of other companies are going to hop on board with VP9 because it's free.  They get to line their pockets deeper with the products they create from it.  It's basically come down to the companies which invest money in creating technology and who want that technology to have value vs the companies which want to either get it for free (spend little to nothing on R&D) so they can profit from cheap devices or those who will try to align with open source projects to create it as cheaply as possible and profit from it via advertising.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 20 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,322member
    auxio said:
    gatorguy said:
    herbapou said:
    BTW my xbox one S does not support 4k youtube video either. My Vizio 4k doesnt have a native 4k youtube app.  The only way i can output youtube on 4k on my tv is by using chromecast, which is annoying, because its like airplay, its not native.

    they need to sort this out, especially with the xbox one X coming out in november.
    It's already sorted for the Xbox One X. It supports 4K 60Hz HEVC (H.265), VP9, and AVC (H.264) video formats. It also offers 10-bit high dynamic range (HDR) HEVC and VP9 playback.

    Microsoft doesn't have the same reasons to avoid VP9 as Apple.  While VP9 and the upcoming replacement for it, VC1, are freely licensed and have broad industry support, Apple went all in with the establishment MPEG-LA and HEVC, contributing patents and (presumably) collecting royalties as part of the standards group. Both Microsoft and Google (among other both large and small techs) have declined to include their applicable patents in that royalty-bearing pool.

    IMO far too many hands trying to steal sweets from the h.265 cookie jar, and I'm guessing more will come flocking especially if higher royalties are obtained from standards pools reading on h.265 (ex. Velos Media) other than MPEG-LA. 
    Imagine that, technology companies which actually license/contribute to/create technology and want that technology to be the product (have value) instead of a means to deliver advertisements. 

    ...It's basically come down to the companies which invest money in creating technology and who want that technology to have value vs the companies which want to either get it for free (spend little to nothing on R&D)...


    Since neither VP9 nor its replacement VC1 are created for ad delivery purposes you can put them in the same "contributing and creating technology" group you've assigned Apple to. 

    ...and just like Apple has on occasion making it royalty-free and available for anyone to license with few strings attached.

    I also don't think you actually believe what you said when claiming VP9 and VC1 require no R&D expense and will have no value, I'm assuming because no one is charging everyone $ to use it. Is that your measuring stick or more your shtick when discussing not-Apple companies? Your fingers should have stopped moving before you got to that ridiculous part. You were doing sorta OK for a moment. 

    Even selfish motivation can lead to public value, and in this case it does IMO.  VP9 and VC1 encourages MPEG and the other 3 standards bodies tied in to h.265 to be honest and a little less greedy, while allowing companies deeply dependent on streaming and compression to avoid royalty uncertainties while minimizing base-cost increases which lead to consumer cost increases. 
    edited September 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.