Safari should blank any page for the Amazon video player to "avoid customer confusion" about what works well with Apple products.

Google can't do that right now. The DOJ is looking into anti-trust practices.

Even though everyone else should be looked into as well (this is article is a case in point).

> Their explanation is just insulting.

Do they really need to explain their actions here to anyone? They don't owe Apple and Google a spot in their inventory.

Does Google owe Amazon a spot in its search results? Does Apple owe Amazon the right to not be blocked in Safari?

Not they do not, but since they did explain their actions then we have the opportunity to cast judgement

> Do they really need to explain their actions here to anyone?

Well, potentially to the FTC.

Why? Amazon isn't required to carry every product everyone on HN deems important. McDonald's isn't required to carry Pepsi products because someone likes Mountain Dew.

To your follow up: some kind of anti-competitive explanation for why Amazon shouldn't be allow to do this isn't really going to hold any water in this case.

Morally, they do owe an explanation. They're a giant in their market, shutting out competitors with no good reason.

This. To be honest, I think the customer confusion they say is coming from the fact that chromecast was a Prime product and therefore had a Prime logo next to it while buying. That could confuse some buyers.

But the sane thing to do would be to remove these players from Prime shipping, not axe them altogether.