501–510 of 545 posts
This is ridiculous. Google should delist Amazon.com to "avoid customer confusion" when searchers land there and can't buy a chromecast ;) Their explanation is just insulting.
But the sane thing to do would be to remove these players from Prime shipping, not axe them altogether.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. They are destroying their most valuable component of their brand, for a relatively weak one (Prime Video). I have Prime and prefer Netflix, because Prime Video still doesn't have a great selection.
> They are destroying their most valuable component of their brand, for a relatively weak one (Prime Video). This is why it almost seems like Amazon's Google+ moment: one underperforming product area somehow manages to convince leadership to change the company's underlying principles in its advantage to the long-term detriment of overall brand perception. Edit: 32 points in 19 mins for this comment. I really hope som…
Google and Apple should pull the Amazon Video app from their app stores. That would settle this in about 30 minutes...
I don't think this move is in Amazon's best interests long term. Their competitive edge with Prime is that I go to them first because I assume they'll have what I want, at a fair price and the highest level of convenience. If they are no longer the "Everything Store" then they won't be where I go to for everything...
Totally agree. They are destroying their most valuable component of their brand, for a relatively weak one (Prime Video). I have Prime and prefer Netflix, because Prime Video still doesn't have a great selection.
Netflix just works. It'll even play in in higher resolution (not full HD) without the HDMI cable. Prime just says "no" and gives the low-res stream.
There are many things on Amazon's service I'd watch, but the actual viewing experience for me is awful.
I don't think this move is in Amazon's best interests long term. Their competitive edge with Prime is that I go to them first because I assume they'll have what I want, at a fair price and the highest level of convenience. If they are no longer the "Everything Store" then they won't be where I go to for everything...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in why you consider it shady for a retailer not to sell a product. I don't see Google or Apple selling products from anyone but themselves (mostly. Apple does sell a few accessories and Google has some pure editions which they have a hand in). Pick any retailer, and there are brands and products they don't sell. I could see it being shady if you were talking about denying people access to things they n…
Amazon have pitched themselves as a place to buy "anything" (with varying definitions of anything, granted). Apple and Google have never pretended that's what they were.
(But it's perfectly fine for Amazon's search to only show Amazon stuff, because universal search is not part of their claim.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are destroying their most valuable component of their brand, for a relatively weak one (Prime Video). This is why it almost seems like Amazon's Google+ moment: one underperforming product area somehow manages to convince leadership to change the company's underlying principles in its advantage to the long-term detriment of overall brand perception. Edit: 32 points in 19 mins for this comment. I really hope som…
That's an interesting point. When Google started pushing G+ social networks in general was all the tech media were talking about. Now it's the death of cable and the rise of streaming services. And just like Google wanted it's piece of the buzz-worthy social media space, Amazon wants a piece of the growing streaming market. It's certainly not a good precedent to set banning competitor's products from their store. I c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm one of those souls, and really like both the Kindle Fire and Fire TV I have. This move has really soured them to me though - Amazon have a great product in Prime Video and their Fire lineup, a product which doesn't need these sort of shady tactics.
I'm interested in why you consider it shady for a retailer not to sell a product. I don't see Google or Apple selling products from anyone but themselves (mostly. Apple does sell a few accessories and Google has some pure editions which they have a hand in). Pick any retailer, and there are brands and products they don't sell. I could see it being shady if you were talking about denying people access to things they n…
I think the equivalent for Google would be deliberately not listing duckduckgo or bing in search results for "duck duck go" or "bing".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just thinking about how they have buried a great product, google hangouts, inside a me too product, google+, and neglected it bc it doesn't have a business model attached. What a waste! Hangouts is much better and more reliable than Skype, but very difficult to find and sign up for. All it needs is its a stage of its own and a business model and it could destroy Skype, which needs to be destroyed imho. Combined…
http://hangouts.google.com no longer requires a G+ account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are destroying their most valuable component of their brand, for a relatively weak one (Prime Video). This is why it almost seems like Amazon's Google+ moment: one underperforming product area somehow manages to convince leadership to change the company's underlying principles in its advantage to the long-term detriment of overall brand perception. Edit: 32 points in 19 mins for this comment. I really hope som…
Actually, no. This seems more like when Apple stopped allowing Kindle books to be sold through an iPhone: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-cant-buy-kindle-books...