Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon sells hardware not for profit, but to get you into the Amazon ecosystem. So I can see where they would like to have an app that allowed purchases/rentals etc without the 30% being taken.

However, I also see where they have Prime - which itself is a service just like Netflix - no buying/renting. They could easily add an app for Prime members to view Prime Video and Music. I can guarantee there are a TON of people that don't ever buy/rent anything from Amazon video, but are Prime subscribers. I'm one of them. I don't need to be locked into Amazon's ecosystem with purchases and their crappy hardware. If I'm going to be locked in, I'll do it with Apple. Better devices and believe it or not, with discounted iTunes money better deals.

Apple is also not blameless. The 30% take for media needs to stop. It's crazy and not needed - especially if they aren't utilizing the Apple payment system.

To the other posters point - yes Amazon takes a cut if you sell with them. But it's typically around 15%.

-Kevin
 
Let me know when I can pick up an Amazon Fire product at an Apple Store.

Again missing the point that Apple sells products for Apple devices and only Apple devices. Whereas Amazon is a general retailer.

If Amazon only sold Amazon products and items designed to work with Amazon products it would be a different story altogether. But they don't, they sell everything that doesn't offer a direct threat to their own devices and services. It actually speaks volumes about just how confident Amazon are that people would choose one of their Fire devices over a competing product, not very confident at all it would seem.

So a store can't decide what it wants to sell? I think you have some other issue you aren't disclosing and simply don't like Amazon.

Absolutely, everyone should have complete and total control over what they do and do not sell. As I've already said, I really couldn't care less if Amazon wants to sell any particular Apple, Google or any other companies products or not. That has no affect on anyone but Amazon, so by all means let them do what they like, I won't argue with it one single bit.

When they dictate what other companies get to sell though, that's a bit unfair to the little guys. That's what ruffles my feathers. I've been an independent retailer in the past and while I did ok, I know just how hard it can be to turn a profit at times. The last thing you need is some idiot company with deep pockets forcing you to remove your inventory from a storefront. Especially when they claimed to have an open marketplace when you started selling with them.

Read through Amazons terms for selling, I have. Look at what they say you can and cannot sell, read through all of the claimed benefits. They make it sound really good, in fact, excellent. Nowhere however does it tell you that at any point they will prevent you from selling any perfectly legal item, which just happens to be in competition with an Amazon product and for no other actual reason than it competes with an Amazon product. I'm sure you wouldn't be so happy about it if you were one of the people affected by the new Amazon policy.

You are right though I do have a problem with Amazon, now, because of what they are doing to independent sellers. I never did before. I was an Amazon customer from the beginning, when they sold books. Ive owned several Kindles and a couple of Fire TV's. I'd likely still have a Kindle now if it wasn't for Kobo bringing out a better product. Oh, wait that can't possibly be true can it, after all you seem to think I buy Apple products and only Apple products. How silly of me. I'll just go and burn the massive stack of non-Apple electrical and electronic devices I have so that I can conform to your twisted thinking.

I have spent a not inconsiderable amount of money with Amazon over the years and I'll happily start throwing some money their way again, if they ever reverse course and allow smaller companies to sell whichever products they need to sell to make a profit.

We could argue about it forever, it won't make a difference, you're clearly more than a bit pro-Amazon, whereas these days I'm less keen on them. Neither of us will change our opinion. I'm just more supportive of small independent companies, who need to make profits far more than Amazon does, than you are. That's perfectly fine, we're all different and by god thats how it should be, it would be a terrible world if we were all the same.

Which would make them completely uncompetitive of course.
Netflix doesn't pay 30%. Apple gave some of the streaming providers a sweetheart deal. Taking 30% for content sold through an app (not the app itself) on an ongoing basis is outrageous and Apple knows it.
Of course they do, but it's nowhere near 30%.

You're right, Amazon doesn't take 30% in many cases it's much lower and I applaud them for that. But it does however go as high as 45% when an Amazon product is involved. Amazon also take a 30% cut of all the profits made from apps sold through their App Store, now who does that sound like? Oh yeah, every current company with an App Store.
 
Again missing the point that Apple sells products for Apple devices and only Apple devices. Whereas Amazon is a general retailer.


Completely irrelevant. The only thing in play here is ecosystem access. Doesn't matter what else is in the store.


When they dictate what other companies get to sell though, that's a bit unfair to the little guys.

Apple is a little guy? Laughable. I find it really humorous you're here chastising Amazon for doing the exact thing Apple is doing. Its so transparent.

Couldn't care less about your imagined social constructs about Amazon. Like the rest of the people in here, we just want ecosystem access.

Found a useful link for you:

https://forums.macrumors.com/forums/politics-religion-social-issues.47/
 
Last edited:
I guess it is only Fair to say We Do Not Know Who the Blocker is for an Amazon Prime App on the new AppleTV.

It could be Apple it could be Amazon. Neither has publicly stated which side is to "blame"
Going by court cases that is the Known and anything else is opinion or theory until proven otherwise.
 
Completely irrelevant. The only thing in play here is ecosystem access. Doesn't matter what else is in the store.

Strange, because before I highlighted the significant differences between a general retailer and a company who only sells items dedicated to its own products, your argument was, "Let me know when I can pick up an Amazon Fire product at an Apple Store."

Doesn't that qualify then something that doesn't matter if it's in the store. Your arguing around and around what I'm typing, yet you don't actually seem to be reading it. Ultimately, I couldn't give a toss about the ecosystem access, that will sort itself out in the end and I'm a patient person. (With the exception of just now, I've had a seriously bad day with my injuries and the morphine hasn't kicked in yet, so I'm not in the best of moods :rolleyes:)


Apple is a little guy? Laughable. I find it really humorous you're here chastising Amazon for doing the exact thing Apple is doing. Its so transparent.

Who the hell said anything about Apple? I was referring to the independent sellers on Amazon who are being prevented from selling Apple and Google products because Amazon is afraid of the competition. That is my issue with Amazon and for what it's worth, Apple are doing nothing off the sort. They can't, literally, because they don't provide storefronts to anyone.


Couldn't care less about your imagined social constructs about Amazon. Like the rest of the people in here, we just want ecosystem access.


I never even mentioned the ecosystem, just Amazons actions. But as you've brought it up, if you want ecosystem access you got it. There's plenty of ways for you to get access to any one you want, stop whinging about it and go get whatever hardware or software is needed to access it. You want Amazon services on an Apple TV? for the time being, Airplay it. You want it on non-Apple hardware, well then go get it, it's available on almost everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
I never even mentioned the ecosystem, just Amazons actions.

Amazons actions are because of their ecosystem, just like Apple. It is no different and that is all that is relevant here.

There's plenty of ways for you to get access to any one you want, stop whinging about it and go get whatever hardware or software is needed to access it. You want Amazon services on an Apple TV? for the time being, Airplay it. You want it on non-Apple hardware, well then go get it, it's available on almost everything.

Airplay is not the same, not even close. The amount of bandwidth lost in the process is a joke. How about Apple open up their product so I don't need to have two or three different sources for my digital library? Or are they afraid of competition? Its pretty clear they are or they'd build their own iTunes app for other devices. Even better, simply play in the sand box with everyone else and work with UVVU and no one would need another ecosystem app.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AstroDrew
Has anyone here directly asked Amazon if/when they will make an Apple TV app?

There is a reason Amazon dropped AppleTV. The only logical conclusion is that Apple is picking winners and losers on the AppleTV platform. In response Amazon said "screw you".
 
There is a reason Amazon dropped AppleTV. The only logical conclusion is that Apple is picking winners and losers on the AppleTV platform. In response Amazon said "screw you".

But did Amazon ever say that? Why are we all so quick to draw conclusions when neither company have told us anything? If Apple really did, as you say, pick winners.... Why would Amazon hide that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ and BJMRamage
Has anyone here directly asked Amazon if/when they will make an Apple TV app?


The logical conclusion, haha sorry that was a laugh above. …Apple has opened the AppleTV app system to any developer that follows the "rules" like any other Apple App Store has.


And as I stated earlier, nobody actually knows anything right now and is simply stating opinions.


"I guess it is only Fair to say We Do Not Know Who the Blocker is for an Amazon Prime App on the new AppleTV.

It could be Apple it could be Amazon. Neither has publicly stated which side is to "blame"
Going by court cases that is the Known and anything else is opinion or theory until proven otherwise."
 
The logical conclusion, haha sorry that was a laugh above. …Apple has opened the AppleTV app system to any developer that follows the "rules" like any other Apple App Store has.

And as I stated earlier, nobody actually knows anything right now and is simply stating opinions.

"I guess it is only Fair to say We Do Not Know Who the Blocker is for an Amazon Prime App on the new AppleTV.

It could be Apple it could be Amazon. Neither has publicly stated which side is to "blame"
Going by court cases that is the Known and anything else is opinion or theory until proven otherwise."

While you're laughing, no other ecosystem has an app. Not even the crap UV streamers Flixter and Cinemanow. Speaks volumes.
 
While you're laughing, no other ecosystem has an app. Not even the crap UV streamers Flixter and Cinemanow. Speaks volumes.

True. And while it would help those other ecosystems. The point of those was to stop the Apple control. So, perhaps they are just holding out. Honestly if Apple was the blocker you'd think a competitor would publicly mention it.

Going where the money goes I can see Apple not wanting other movie outlet apps. People might decide to skip iTunes and go with UV or the like. But going with the money I can see others not wanting to be on AppleTV either because if AppleTV gets bigger with UV and other apps on it then people might just prefer iTunes movies and drop the other streaming boxes. Not that AppleTV really surpasses the other boxes too much but Apple does have a way of making people desire new Apple products.

I've tried the UV apps on iPhone and they seem like crap to me. Not worth it to me. Amazon Prime video is decent but hate the AirPlay factor. If buy a new AppleTV of it had these two apps available (I don't especially like the new AppleTV enough as it stands to buy it). And even they have those apps on the AppleTV of still prefer the iTunes movies to the UV or Prime.

And with Plex apps (sure I understand these are not direct partner streaming) Apple hasn't restricted viewing movies by from Apple. Though I guess that is similar to HBO or the other apps.

With the AppleTV 3 and earlier I can see Apple blocking some apps/services. But now that it is open the onus is on those partners. Neither movie partner (including Apple) has mentioned any blocking of apps so we do not know it just yet.
 
Amazons actions are because of their ecosystem, just like Apple. It is no different and that is all that is relevant here.



Airplay is not the same, not even close. The amount of bandwidth lost in the process is a joke. How about Apple open up their product so I don't need to have two or three different sources for my digital library? Or are they afraid of competition? Its pretty clear they are or they'd build their own iTunes app for other devices. Even better, simply play in the sand box with everyone else and work with UVVU and no one would need another ecosystem app.

Apple don't need to open up access to their iTunes library any more than they have. They seem to be perfectly satisfied with the revenue they generate from it on the platforms it's available on. Or are you forgetting that for such a closed ecosystem that isn't available to anyone but Apple customers, that iTunes is also available ti Windows users. Maybe not so closed after all.

If that weren't the case, as they have shown with Apple Music on Android, and iTunes on Windows, they would likely extend the reach of iTunes to other platforms in order to gain market share.

As for Apple hardware, it's very open. Anyone is welcome to create an app to make their content available to Apple customers. So it's not really Apple who are the problem, the problem and solution lies squarely with Amazon. AirPlay isn't the best solution for Apple TV by a long shot, but it's currently the only option unless Amazon make an app for Apple TV. Or are they too afraid of the competition to release their services on TvOS?
 
Apple don't need to open up access to their iTunes library any more than they have. They seem to be perfectly satisfied with the revenue they generate from it on the platforms it's available on. Or are you forgetting that for such a closed ecosystem that isn't available to anyone but Apple customers, that iTunes is also available ti Windows users. Maybe not so closed after all.

If that weren't the case, as they have shown with Apple Music on Android, and iTunes on Windows, they would likely extend the reach of iTunes to other platforms in order to gain market share.

As for Apple hardware, it's very open. Anyone is welcome to create an app to make their content available to Apple customers. So it's not really Apple who are the problem, the problem and solution lies squarely with Amazon. AirPlay isn't the best solution for Apple TV by a long shot, but it's currently the only option unless Amazon make an app for Apple TV. Or are they too afraid of the competition to release their services on TvOS?

The least they could do is start playing nice with Ultraviolet so that digital copies can be linked like Disney does. Oh wait, they don't play well with others. And please, open to Windows users? On a PC or pro tablet. Get real. Let me know when they build a fully useable iTunes app for Roku, Xbox One, PS4 or Amazon Fire. When they do that you can talk about open platforms. Apple Music? Seriously? A failure if there ever was one.

As to your last paragraph, there is no evidence to indicate that is true at all. Apple is about as open as the North Korean border. It's perhaps the most frustrating thing about ever having bought into their products or redeeming my digital copies into their ecosystem.

By the way, what's Apple paying you to make excuses for them? They are totally getting their money's worth.
 
The least they could do is start playing nice with Ultraviolet so that digital copies can be linked like Disney does. Oh wait, they don't play well with others. And please, open to Windows users? On a PC or pro tablet. Get real. Let me know when they build a fully useable iTunes app for Roku, Xbox One, PS4 or Amazon Fire. When they do that you can talk about open platforms. Apple Music? Seriously? A failure if there ever was one.

As to your last paragraph, there is no evidence to indicate that is true at all. Apple is about as open as the North Korean border. It's perhaps the most frustrating thing about ever having bought into their products or redeeming my digital copies into their ecosystem.

By the way, what's Apple paying you to make excuses for them? They are totally getting their money's worth.

The UV consortium doesn't want anything to do with Apple. They made that to compete with Apple so it didn't get a stranglehold on digital movie/tv content like it did digital music.

Have you noticed that some studios are either letting you choose between Apple and UV or not giving out iTunes codes with DVDs lately???
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJMRamage and CarlJ
The UV consortium doesn't want anything to do with Apple. They made that to compete with Apple so it didn't get a stranglehold on digital movie/tv content like it did digital music.

Have you noticed that some studios are either letting you choose between Apple and UV or not giving out iTunes codes with DVDs lately???
That makes no sense. They add value to their brand buy increasing access. The best way for them to undermine Apple would be to offer their service on Apple's devices.
 
The least they could do is start playing nice with Ultraviolet so that digital copies can be linked like Disney does. Oh wait, they don't play well with others. And please, open to Windows users? On a PC or pro tablet. Get real. Let me know when they build a fully useable iTunes app for Roku, Xbox One, PS4 or Amazon Fire. When they do that you can talk about open platforms. Apple Music? Seriously? A failure if there ever was one.

As to your last paragraph, there is no evidence to indicate that is true at all. Apple is about as open as the North Korean border. It's perhaps the most frustrating thing about ever having bought into their products or redeeming my digital copies into their ecosystem.

By the way, what's Apple paying you to make excuses for them? They are totally getting their money's worth.


Normally I wouldn't bother replying to a message with such a sad, pathetic and childish remark as is contained in your last sentence. But what the heck, I've got a few seconds to spare.

As you and I both know, having both read through the contracts, guidelines and vast developer resources provided by Apple to developers. Apple places no restrictions on a developers freedom to create an application for local or networked media streaming provided that the content accessed is owned by the developers of the application, or is owned by the end user or the developers have the necessary contracts in place for the right to have access to the media.

If you require any evidence of this willingness to play host to any number of application types you need look no further than the AppStore on iPhone/iPad. Admittedly I am assuming here that you own a device other than those manufactured by Amazon of course.

The terms for publishing software to TvOS are essentially the same, as you must already know with your in-depth knowledge of the AppStore terms and conditions, as they are for iOS. Other than specific items that are not relevant to one or the other device due to the nature of their operation.

To cut a long story short. If an application is available for iOS and can transfer to TvOS without anything breaking. Or can be rewritten for TvOS providing a more suitable interface for the platform. Then it can be published on the TvOS AppStore. This rather obviously includes streaming media services from the likes of Netflix and Amazon. If only one of them were available to prove this theory.

So no, I don't work for Apple any more than you work for Amazon. Unless of course you do work for Amazon that is, you certainly seem the type. I'm happy to call Apple out when I feel it's warranted and I have many times. But likewise, I won't needlessly bash them for something they have no control over, such as another company's unwillingness to create an app.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BJMRamage and CarlJ
The UV consortium doesn't want anything to do with Apple. They made that to compete with Apple so it didn't get a stranglehold on digital movie/tv content like it did digital music.

Have you noticed that some studios are either letting you choose between Apple and UV or not giving out iTunes codes with DVDs lately???

So maybe Apple should have been more open once again. They seem to do a fine job of irritating every content provider. But yes, I have noticed which is why I am irritated with the announcement of some grand earthshatering product with the promise of an App Store we were all waiting for that lacks anything useful unless your entire world revolves around Apple. Given the current digital copy environment (with the one exception of Disney) it's pretty much everyone with Apple products and a catalog they can't access.
 
Last edited:
Normally I wouldn't bother replying to a message with such a sad, pathetic and childish remark as is contained in your last sentence. But what the heck, I've got a few seconds to spare.

As you and I both know, having both read through the contracts, guidelines and vast developer resources provided by Apple to developers. Apple places no restrictions on a developers freedom to create an application for local or networked media streaming provided that the content accessed is owned by the developers of the application, or is owned by the end user or the developers have the necessary contracts in place for the right to have access to the media.

If you require any evidence of this willingness to play host to any number of application types you need look no further than the AppStore on iPhone/iPad. Admittedly I am assuming here that you own a device other than those manufactured by Amazon of course.

The terms for publishing software to TvOS are essentially the same, as you must already know with your in-depth knowledge of the AppStore terms and conditions, as they are for iOS. Other than specific items that are not relevant to one or the other device due to the nature of their operation.

To cut a long story short. If an application is available for iOS and can transfer to TvOS without anything breaking. Or can be rewritten for TvOS providing a more suitable interface for the platform. Then it can be published on the TvOS AppStore. This rather obviously includes streaming media services from the likes of Netflix and Amazon. If only one of them were available to prove this theory.

So no, I don't work for Apple any more than you work for Amazon. Unless of course you do work for Amazon that is, you certainly seem the type. I'm happy to call Apple out when I feel it's warranted and I have many times. But likewise, I won't needlessly bash them for something they have no control over, such as another company's unwillingness to create an app.

Normally I wouldn't respond either, but you appear to be more than willing to not call out Apple for their lack of willingness to work with other content providers which is precisely what is going on here.
 
That makes no sense. They add value to their brand buy increasing access. The best way for them to undermine Apple would be to offer their service on Apple's devices.

Apple can do no wrong. It's everyone else's fault. AppleTV is open to everyone. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Normally I wouldn't respond either, but you appear to be more than willing to not call out Apple for their lack of willingness to work with other content providers which is precisely what is going on here.

I don't normally feed trolls, but...

WHY should Apple work with Amazon? It is Amazon's option to make an app for the tvOS, not Apple's. Amazon could port their iOS app to the ATV4, but they are choosing not to... And before you say Apple is blocking this, or denying that... Don't you think that if Apple DID deny Amazon, that Amazon would make it known to the masses? That way it would look like they were being stopped by "The big bad Apple". No, instead they (Amazon) are acting like a spoiled child, and taking their ball and going home. I mean really, not selling Apple ATV4s themselves (yeah, whatever... it's their choice), but to block 3rd party storefronts from selling them (just bad form).

So, you can keep spouting off your Apple rhetoric, but until Amazon makes an ATV4 app and gets denied, you have no leg to stand on.

Just my 2¢
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJMRamage and CarlJ
Normally I wouldn't respond either, but you appear to be more than willing to not call out Apple for their lack of willingness to work with other content providers which is precisely what is going on here.


Not at all, if Apple were at fault here I'd be happy to join in. The trouble is, they aren't. You don't quite seem to grasp just who is responsible for the delivery of Amazon services on Apple devices. This isn't the same situation that existed with the Apple TV 3, the introduction of the AppStore to the Apple TV changed that dramatically.

Do you think Apple makes all of the apps in the AppStore? They do not, surprisingly enough. I'd have thought the word Amazon in the title of Amazons streaming service would have provided a subtle clue as to who's responsible for the development of an app for Amazon services. Clearly I was wrong and the subtle nature of the information is not as obvious as it should be. So let me help you out here, see if we can't shed some clarity on the matter, it's Amazon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJMRamage
I don't normally feed trolls, but...

WHY should Apple work with Amazon? It is Amazon's option to make an app for the tvOS, not Apple's. Amazon could port their iOS app to the ATV4, but they are choosing not to... And before you say Apple is blocking this, or denying that... Don't you think that if Apple DID deny Amazon, that Amazon would make it known to the masses? That way it would look like they were being stopped by "The big bad Apple". No, instead they (Amazon) are acting like a spoiled child, and taking their ball and going home. I mean really, not selling Apple ATV4s themselves (yeah, whatever... it's their choice), but to block 3rd party storefronts from selling them (just bad form).

So, you can keep spouting off your Apple rhetoric, but until Amazon makes an ATV4 app and gets denied, you have no leg to stand on.

Just my 2¢

You're actually asking the wrong question. The question is why wouldn't Apple work with everyone? If you want to offer the best product, then offer the best product. Apple users have proven time and again we'd drop the cash for a big badder product. This thing shouldn't have gone out the gate without useful apps ready to go. Even if they didn't have Amazon, they should have at least had Vudu. But hey, they were able to work with companies in advance so we'd have awesome games like Crossy Roads that look like something off an Atari 2600 (golf clap). Nice job! Way to get out in front with all of the important stuff! Imagine if you'd have spent that much time with useful apps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: spinningblade
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.