It's definitely interesting in that this is a great example of the "when elephant's fight it's the grass that gets trampled".
Amazon trying to battle Google results in chx's purchased hardware not being supported by Amazon's service despite the fact it's a very standard streaming device.
It by no means gives any rights to breaching intellectual property laws, but Amazon are making a commercial decision to leave out Chromecast support because they believe it'll make them more money overall, with the express knowledge that it could drive some potential customers to alternative methods, which includes breach of intellectual property laws ("piracy"). It's not like "piracy" isn't known to be a potential option when the likes of Amazon and Google and all the others make business decisions.
No, it's not a justification of illegality, but it's an understandable position to take as an offset.
It also drives people away and reduces the viewers making it less attractive as a platform without piracy. That increases the cost as stars prefer a larger platform money being equal.
Amazon trying to battle Google results in chx's purchased hardware not being supported by Amazon's service despite the fact it's a very standard streaming device.
It by no means gives any rights to breaching intellectual property laws, but Amazon are making a commercial decision to leave out Chromecast support because they believe it'll make them more money overall, with the express knowledge that it could drive some potential customers to alternative methods, which includes breach of intellectual property laws ("piracy"). It's not like "piracy" isn't known to be a potential option when the likes of Amazon and Google and all the others make business decisions.
No, it's not a justification of illegality, but it's an understandable position to take as an offset.
Definitely interesting on both sides.