Yeah, I'd buy a Roku 4 long before an Amazon device. An Itunes option on an Xbox would push me to that device as well because of how it can integrate with any TV tuner. Not to mention the built in BD player.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apps Amazon Instant Video
- Thread starter thomamon
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, I'd buy a Roku 4 long before an Amazon device. An Itunes option on an Xbox would push me to that device as well because of how it can integrate with any TV tuner. Not to mention the built in BD player.
Apple has absolute control over what gets in the app store. Given that they don't allow alternative app stores, this gives them the power to force developers to either follow whatever policies they set, or get lost.
This is misleading. Apple are the only ones who force developers to use their in-app billing system and give Apple 30% for the kind of content we are talking about here, and they are the only ones who don't even allow links to an external sign-up page in such apps. The Google Play store allows external billing for in-app purchases of content that can also be used on other devices, and Amazon to my knowledge has no requirement at all to use their in-app billing. This is why apps like Hulu offer signing up directly with Hulu in the app on Google and Amazon devices, but not on Apple's. This is also why you can buy and rent movies in the Vudu app for Android, but not in the iOS app.
And your point is? Apple has control over what gets in, yes, just as Amazon can decide which products to sell in its store. Or are you suggesting that all products should be allowed? Shouldn't that also mean then that Amazon should have to sell the Apple TV?
Having control over their own store front doesn't give Apple any control whatsoever over who does and does not create an app for their devices. No one has to make an app for their devices, it's not compulsory. I hope we never see an alternative AppStore on an iOS/TvOS device considering the security implications that would bring. Thankfully the chances of that happening are less than slim.
And one last time for good measure, no one is forcing them to offer in-app subscription. They needn't pay Apple a penny. Customers can be instructed to go to any external source in order to provide payment. Incidentally, Amazon do also take 30% of in-app purchases and subscriptions when using their payments API, yes you can use an alternative payment method, bypassing the Amazon API. But you can also do that with the Apple AppStores as well
Last edited:
How long are you going to try and play this silly game? Dose of reality, Apple doesn't play nice in the sandbox. They never have. And once again, there is a reason multiple other ecosystem providers have apps on multiple other TV streaming devices, but not AppleTV. Let us all know when Apple decides to catch up.
By the way, app development in conjunction with large corporations comes through a negotiation process with lots of lawyers, they don't just build and app and submit it. So no, it's not open when it comes to major content providers. In other words, the world doesn't operate the way you think it does.
Don't waste your time. He is all knowing and Apple can do no wrong. And we'll, app development is the same whether you're a kid in moms basement or a mult billion dollar corporation, cause, you know, the later doesn't care if it gets hosed by Apple.
Last edited:
I agree with an above statement about having your Cable provider (or the like for firs, whatever) have an App on the AppleTV. sure, they miss out on the Box Fee...BUT then they don't need to worry about building fancy, new boxes and can focus on the UX of the App/box if people don't use streaming. Heck, charge a lesser fee for using the App on a streaming box rather than a Set-Top box.
just as a response...probably shouldn't but...
I didn't see Apple work with a "competitor" at the event. They worked with games and HBO/netflix I think. Basically the current slew of Apps/Channels and then gaming. (and I may be wrong, the event was a while back and I am not super interested in the new AppleTV)
UV is a direct competitor...as is Amazon Video, GooglePlay. so, while I can see them having an App on the new TV...I don't see Apple ever promoting it. IF Apple comes out with THEIR monthly streaming service and THEN removes Netflix or Hulu, then we can have an issue with Apple being the Bully.
AND, I see UV on other streaming boxes because that consortium wanted to cut Apple's power over the Film/Movie digital area. the movie studios saw what happened with Apple and Music and how Apple didn't want higher prices until enough Music "studios" (for lack of a better word) teamed up to demand a change in pricing. UV was created as a way to compete with Apple and be in the Studios pocket. to ensure that service would be able to do that, they needed to shut out Apple iTunes from their Bluray releases (WB and Sony don't offer iTunes Digital HD anymore) AND get their service (or the Flixster/Vudu/etc) onto as many streaming boxes and TVs as they could to flood the market and make people want to use UV rather than iTunes. I think Amazon is on Roku box? I'd assume for a similar reason to get Amazon Video streaming on more boxes and thus get some more footprint in the digital streaming/cloud area. I see Roku being fine with that because (as far as I know) there is no Roku Store to purchase movies...maybe there is, again, i don't know. BUT Roku is the BOX and they want to sell it...so they want as many partners as they can get on board. Apple has iTunes and a Box and they don't want to put an App on Roku because then their box doesn't sell.
Very well put thank you!
Apple wants lock-in for purchases. They all do (Google/Amazon/etc). They want you to not only buy content but buy their devices. Vudu/Walmart tried with their own boxes/sticks but it never took off (why would you buy a Vudu only device). So they went with just getting the app on as many devices as possible.
There were rumors last year that Amazon was talking about joining UV. That would be a HUGE boost for it.
To me if Amazon and Vudu were smart I would at least get a viewing only app on the device. Allow people to use the content they paid for. Apple will never promote it - but they don't need to. Amazon and Vudu can do the promoting. And neither of these companies are making money off hardware. They make money off content. So get the apps on as many devices as possible (even if people can't buy directly on it) just to be out there. I do think it sucks they can't get around the 30%. Apple should allow media companies 3rd party payment.
Roku is THE box to have if you don't have iTunes purchases. It does everything. Even the Amazon boxes don't have Vudu (I don't think). And you are right - there is no Roku movie store. I think they are partnering with M-GO to get front page placement.
-Kevin
I was just responding to your claim that Apple had no control. In fact they have full control since their platform is completely locked down. They can outright reject any app they don't like, or set policies that put any competitors at a severe disadvantage.
This is a nonsensical analogy. If Amazon doesn't sell a product, I can buy it somewhere else. If Apple doesn't allow an app in its app store, I have no option to go elsewhere since Apple doesn't allow alternative app stores on their devices.
This is getting silly. The ability to create an app is meaningless if ordinary users can't install it.
In fact they can't, since Apple doesn't allow links to external store pages.
This is wrong and you know it. Apple does not allow purchases of digital goods in apps unless they use Apple's billing system and give Apple a 30% cut.
They could just build-in that 30% into the price charged through the App Store, and explain that if the customer buys the same thing on their computer it will be 30% cheaper. This is what Hulu does, and seems to work fine.
Yeah. it is annoying with all the Ecosystems but only to a degree. I mainly use iTunes and am happy with it. I have a few UV but no TV or box that can easily play it (nicely, I can AirPlay from an app but the quality sucks).
I concur that having a Viewing App on the new AppleTV would be great. I'd still mainly buy iTunes Movies but have the ability to watch the few UV movies/shows I have and make use of Prime Video. *if there is no AppleTV App for Prime when my Prime membership is set to renew, I'll drop it. I don't find it that useful...all the extras after shipping are not great to use.
I also wonder with the DMA Partners if Disney pays each partner a small fee when a movie is purchased on a competitor's site and then linked to the NEW Partner(s) OR if Disney just said, we will pull all the films if you don't follow what we say. Disney has a big enough following that I can see that ploy work. and you can't D2D Disney titles...they know their movies' worth, and they are not worth the few bucks
Your utter devotion to Amazon is clearly clouding your judgement as there is a counter for every point you make.
I'm growing increasingly weary of this pointless diatribe against Apple, who as far as the subject matter of this thread is supposed to be concerned, have done nothing wrong. So here's one final rant and then I really don't give a rats ass for traipsing back and forth over the same thing again and again and again. I warn anyone now, my medication has only just started to kick in, so I'm in a ridiculous amount of pain and somewhat doped up. Read on at your own peril, this could go on for while, I'm likely to wander on and off course quite a bit as I rant happily away. I'll try my very best not to whinge and moan about my current bugbear of Apple still not adding backlighting to their wireless keyboards. Damn, too late, well it's bloody annoying it's not like tons of us haven't been asking for it for long enough. Are their blinking ears painted on ffs. So feel free to skip right past this and go to whatever post is below
As far as the subject matter of this thread is concerned, it's a situation entirely of Amazons own creation. Amazon don't want to sell (some) devices from their main competitors which are incompatible with services Amazon provide. Devices for which Amazon have thus far shown no intention of making said hardware compatible with those Amazon services. Something only Amazon can rectify by creating apps for those hardware devices. Yeah, I'm thinking Apple and Google are pretty much in the clear as far as that situation goes.
Despite what you seem to think, Apple doesn't have control over who makes an app for any of their devices. They don't go banging on doors demanding an app. If a company wants to make one, the can, if they don't, well no ones forcing them to. Apple can reject an app if they think it's not up to scratch, and they will quite rightly so, but then so can every other AppStore out there. And they do. Have a look through all of the App Stores currently in operation, the basic structure, terms and pricing models bear more than a passing resemblance to the model Apple created.
The fact that Apple has control over the AppStore is only logical. It's theirs, that Apple requires the use of some of their own systems for certain things is only good business sense. Let's look at it this way, being of a certain age I remember how it was before digital distribution. I actually owned several computer hardware and software stores, so lets apply that situation to this for just a moment. If the AppStore were a brick building where you went to purchase software for your device and then took took that software away with you, skipping happily through your fantasy world of daisies and butterflies to install it on your hardware when you got home. Do you think that the shop that sold you that software didn't add a bit onto the price to make themselves some money? (Do you believe for one second that that little bit they might have added on to the price of your item wasn't often significantly above 30%?) Do you think that any payment method other than cold hard cash you might have used in that shop were provided free of charge by some tall hat wearing smiling gentleman with a chocolate factory on the side? Did those payment methods have no running costs? Was the building the software was contained in provided free of charge and did all of the happy little workers inside go there every day for free just to help people because that's how lovely they all were? Do you live in a fantasy world of any kind?
Apple are providing the opportunity to offer up your software to millions of potential customers, it would be absolute insanity to not want some sort of remuneration for that kind of opportunity. There are after all many costs in keeping the AppStore up and running. And personally, and it is just a personal thing, I'd rather be giving my 30% to a company like Apple who take an individuals security and privacy very, very seriously and who's profits are gained from traditional practices. Companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook and many more all leverage their customers and users information in order to sell targeted advertising. Collecting and filtering a persons information in order to fill their coffers. I've never been keen on that, I'm an old-fashioned kinda guy at heart. But that's just an aside and clearly I'm in a minority if the massive user bases of these companies are anything to go by. Anyway, where was I, (told you I'd go off on tangents
)The capability to obtain software from other sources on, say an android device is a blessing and a curse. It's in a large part responsible for the lax security of android software, along with the fact that the device manufacturers aren't exactly great when it comes to updating and supporting even slightly older hardware. Which I'm sure you'll try and counter, but it takes no more than a few seconds of research to show that up to an estimated 97% of mobile malware is on the Android operating system, with Stagefright it was shown that an approximated 95% percent of Android devices can be compromised by a simple MMS message. Neither is perfect, that would be impossible, but there's a definite winner and I'll just let the numbers speak for themselves. (As i say though, much of those security issues come from the ability to install apps from outside of the controlled stores and from manufacturers being, well, crap.) I for one hope the day never comes when Apple loosens their grip on how software is distributed on their platforms.
You keep rattling on over this 30% nonsense, despite the fact that there are tried and tested ways companies have been using for years to avoid paying it. There may not be a link in the app, but there's nothing preventing a page with giant words that say, go to Amazon.com to sign up to Anazon Prime. Or, do what other companies do. Slap an extra 30% in the in-app subscription price and offer users the choice of that or going to an external website to pay less. It's worked for years without a hitch.
Do you actually believe that when any company or individual offers an in-app purchase using Apples system that they haven't taken into account that 30% fee? That's just ludicrous. As when dealing with any business transaction from any company or source, their percentage is always factored in. There isn't a payment system on the planet, not a single one, where the operators of that system don't take a cut. It is bizarrely enough, how they stay in business. You do understand how a business works don't you? None of them are charities, every single one of them are doing what they do for one reason and one reason only. To make money, and as much of it as they can.
Find me anything that says Amazon, Google, Nvidia, Sony, Microsoft or Roku is operating as a not for profit and I'll gladly eat humble pie. Until then, try and get your head around how a company can make the money they need and keep users as secure and private as possible, it's becoming increasingly more important as our lives transition further and further into the digital living extreme.
Ok, I'm more than suitably, lets say mellowed out
, by this point. So rant over, I need to eat something fast, the morphines making me very light headed.
I believe they lowered that to 15% for VIDEO Streaming Apps at around the time they announced the special 90 day deal with HBO. After we saw other Apps coming to the Apple TV like Showtime and CBS. Also, Hulu charges a little more if you buy via in-app purchase thru the Apple TV. But in regards to Amazon. You get Prime Video with your Shipping Subscription that you sign up for on the Amazon Site. I really do not see that as a problem. I mean they are also on the iPad and you have to sign up on the Amazon Site now. So I really think it is not related to this. Maybe they want to offer buy/sell options and not simply the Prime Subscription which is all I want. I will continue to buy/rent via iTunes Store.
This creates friction that puts them at a disadvantage. That's why Hulu and Netflix offer in-app subscriptions on Apple TV in the first place even though it costs them real money (although reportedly they and HBO got a sweetheart deal and pay 15% rather than 30%). And again, they can't really explain or even mention the option to sign up on their web pages in the app since Apple doesn't allow it, so many people will be unaware that this option exists.
But anyway, subscription services are different from sell-through stores like Vudu, Amazon or Flixster since they don't directly compete with Apple.
I've not read this whole thread but if Amazon really aren't going to develop an app for the Apple TV then I think that's very childish and petty, not to mention shooting themselves in the foot. The reason Netflix is the most popular service of its type is because its available on pretty much any device you can name. I won't continue paying for my Amazon Prime Video if I can't use it on my favourite TV viewing device (which is now the new Apple TV), I will simply switch to Netflix.
Well put as well. My beef is Apple wants to be THE box, heck I want them to be THE box because I have duplicative hardware and they aren't off to a good start. M-GO is the Roku partner. I read an interview with their CEO a while back. They are only interested in building boxes and porting software to devices like TVs and UHD BD players.
I think the way Disney deals with it is they just charge more up front. I never see Disney less than $15 for a digital version and even that's rare. They probably make so much of their catalog that they may not even care who gets paid what. It's all about making their media as accessible as possible. The fact that you can transfer your collection to someone else using DMA is probably indicative of this philosophy.
This would explain quite a lot....
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/25/9802940/amazon-prime-instant-video-add-other-services
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/25/9802940/amazon-prime-instant-video-add-other-services
Huge update!!
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/11/28/apple-tv-amazon-prime-video-tvos-app/
ATV to rule the world!
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/11/28/apple-tv-amazon-prime-video-tvos-app/
ATV to rule the world!
It is open to everyone! Look plex is there if it wasn't open it wouldn't be there.Apple can do no wrong. It's everyone else's fault. AppleTV is open to everyone.
Well except it's still missing BBC iPlayer, BBC Sport, All4, ITV Player, Demand 5, Animax, Blinkbox, Spotify ... Not to mention a modern looking Now TV app which isn't a pile of festering sewage.
But hey, Amazon is a huge win all the same.
That's not nice of Amazon. Now how will people complain about ATV on this matter. Lock in? Control freak? Unchecked.
So what else we will complain now?
Edit: Oh, I just looked at the previous response. People here never fail. lol.
No. Why do you ruin his day? Just admit Apple is a big bad wolf so he can have a good night sleep.
Last edited:
I hope it's true, it would be good for the Apple TV using Prime subscribers. But something about that just doesn't smell right to me. I don't know if it's the wording, the lack of and official statement of any kind or that whole, would they really ban the sale of the Apple TV and get bad press if they knew they had a solution releasing within weeks situation.
Not that it affects me but for once I hope I'm wrong
Not that it affects me but for once I hope I'm wrong