Amazon not releasing app for Apple TV - partial refund of Prime membership

[thesaint024]

The closes analog to the Amazon's subscription service is Netflix, and Netflix takes initiative and usually is the first in developing apps for seemingly even the most insignificant platforms. I think Amazon is being stubborn just to be stubborn, there is no plausible reason for it.

Come on man! Do you hear yourself, stubborn for no reason? This is not how companies operate, especially not ones the size of Apple, Amazon, and Netflix. Personal grudges only happen with elected leaders, not for profit companies. There are some obvious contractual differences in getting the app to ATV. Beyond the 15%/30% fee, Apple is probably bullying some exclusivity or some sticking point for some reason unbeknownst to us. This is just the history of Apple. They are the ones killing this deal. Amazon was able to work with Roku. Another point I mentioned is Netflix is not participating in the new killer TV app on ATV. I am admittedly jumping to conclusions, but history tells me Apple is being a bitch about some particular issue, maybe money, maybe something else. This is likely all on Apple.

 

[d21mike]

Come on man! Do you hear yourself, stubborn for no reason? This is not how companies operate, especially not ones the size of Apple, Amazon, and Netflix. Personal grudges only happen with elected leaders, not for profit companies. There are some obvious contractual differences in getting the app to ATV. Beyond the 15%/30% fee, Apple is probably bullying some exclusivity or some sticking point for some reason unbeknownst to us. This is just the history of Apple. They are the ones killing this deal. Amazon was able to work with Roku. Another point I mentioned is Netflix is not participating in the new killer TV app on ATV. I am admittedly jumping to conclusions, but history tells me Apple is being a bitch about some particular issue, maybe money, maybe something else. This is likely all on Apple.

Not according to Apple.

Incidentally, that Amazon Prime Video is the exception to the conga line of content offerings above is entirely Amazon’s doing. A ~magnanimous~ Apple tells BuzzFeed News that “all are welcome” on its new Apple TV platform.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczko...s-finally-here?utm_term=.ogE1Lrv0A#.wskZnzMVP


Regarding Netflix not supporting the New "killer" TV App. First I would not call it a "killer" anything. So far the New TV App does not support Profiles like Netflix does so not sure which Profile would be used to feed the TV App. Apple has a long way to go to improve the TV App.

But back to the Amazon not on the Apple TV. Not sure how after all the Apps that have been added to the Apple TV you can seriously think Apple is simply preventing Amazon is a real stretch. Recent adds like Sling TV, PS Vue and now DIRECT Now and with prior shows like HBO, SHOWTIME, CBS All Access and before them Netflix and Hulu. All of the streaming services figured out a way to work with Apple and add their Apps to Apple TV 4. No, without a doubt this is Amazon deciding for whatever reason (more then likely not able to sell from their App without paying a fee) deciding not to be on the Apple TV.

Lastly, my personal complaint about them not being on the Apple TV is because they raised the price of 2 Day Shipping from $79 to $99 because of all of the New Prime Streaming Options. Remember Prime Video Streaming is Fee. Renting or Selling Movies and TV is extra.

And to compare to iTunes not being on the Amazon Fire TV. Apple does not bundle iTunes with some other service that I pay for. I think most that are not in the Apple ECO System do not buy or rent movies and tv from iTunes.

 

[thesaint024]

Regarding Netflix not supporting the New "killer" TV App. First I would not call it a "killer" anything. So far the New TV App does not support Profiles like Netflix does so not sure which Profile would be used to feed the TV App. Apple has a long way to go to improve the TV App.

But back to the Amazon not on the Apple TV. Not sure how after all the Apps that have been added to the Apple TV you can seriously think Apple is simply preventing Amazon is a real stretch. Recent adds like Sling TV, PS Vue and now DIRECT Now and with prior shows like HBO, SHOWTIME, CBS All Access and before them Netflix and Hulu. All of the streaming services figured out a way to work with Apple and add their Apps to Apple TV 4. No, without a doubt this is Amazon deciding for whatever reason (more then likely not able to sell from their App without paying a fee) deciding not to be on the Apple TV.

I think you need to take Apple's comment on the situation with Amazon with a grain of salt. They are obviously going to say it's Amazon not playing ball. Essentially they are saying all are welcome, as long as you pay our fees, is not exactly giving Amazon an easy choice to go to ATV. I'm getting a little annoyed at Apple's inflexibility in this. Amazon already has a base. ATV may sell more hardware if they let Amazon stream with fees. It's Amazon's content and subscribers, Apple is just providing the hardware in this case.

On Netflix and the app, I've never used it, but it looks very promising. Netflix can easily make their platform or app usable if they wanted to. They have some leverage here since they are the largest content provider. They shouldn't have to do this on Apple's terms. Apple may need Netflix more than the other way around in this case of the app.

Again, I have service with Amazon, Netflix, and content on iTunes and VUDU among others. I would really like them to stop this posturing and come to a reasonable agreement for all, especially us consumers. Using 2 streaming devices is ridiculous, and the winner in all of this is Roku. I am making an assumption not based on any fact but only history that Apple is being inflexible and creating an impasse.

 

[d21mike]

I think you need to take Apple's comment on the situation with Amazon with a grain of salt. They are obviously going to say it's Amazon not playing ball. Essentially they are saying all are welcome, as long as you pay our fees, is not exactly giving Amazon an easy choice to go to ATV. I'm getting a little annoyed at Apple's inflexibility in this. Amazon already has a base. ATV may sell more hardware if they let Amazon stream with fees. It's Amazon's content and subscribers, Apple is just providing the hardware in this case.

On Netflix and the app, I've never used it, but it looks very promising. Netflix can easily make their platform or app usable if they wanted to. They have some leverage here since they are the largest content provider. They shouldn't have to do this on Apple's terms. Apple may need Netflix more than the other way around in this case of the app.

Again, I have service with Amazon, Netflix, and content on iTunes and VUDU among others. I would really like them to stop this posturing and come to a reasonable agreement for all, especially us consumers. Using 2 streaming devices is ridiculous, and the winner in all of this is Roku. I am making an assumption not based on any fact but only history that Apple is being inflexible and creating an impasse.

What exactly do you think Apple is so inflexible about? Do you think they should make a different deal with Amazon that they are willing to make with Netflix, Hulu, HBO, CBS, DIRECTV NOW and all of the developers for the Apple TV Platform? Don't you think that would be more problems for Apple? Obviously neither of us are in the room so we can only speculate. But it just not make sense for them to have some other reason to simply tell Amazon they are not allowed on the platform when they are perfectly welcome on iOS with the same exact restrictions. I think it makes much more sense to speculate that Amazon simply does not like the restrictions that everyone else (not including Vudu) has found a way to work around. Like Hulu charges more if you pay via iTunes. Others do not allow you to pay via iTunes. Not really complicated.

I have HBO, Showtime, STARZ, Feeln, Netflix, Hulu, DIRECTV Now and more. I have paid some via iTunes and some directly to the the supplier like Hulu for different reasons and timing. I am also beta testing iOS and tvOS. I have seen SSO and use the New TV App (just to test). But I use a third party Universal Watch List called WatchAid which is much better for TV Series (no movies). Which also supports Netflix and pretty much everything else. I know how the TV App works where the WatchList comes from the App I really do not know which Profile Netflix would use. It would need to allow me to say when you are supporting the TV App please use this Profile to provide the watch list. Again, I am not a fan of the current version of the TV App but not sure Netflix is just not supporting them just because Apple is saying they must do something really strange. WatchAid has it own Watch List based on iCloud ID so it does not rely on the watch list from any App which I believe is how the TV App works. And the TV App controls it based on your iTunes ID and not your iCloud ID.

 

[BrianKonarsMac]

I think the main reason is competition between streaming devices. Amazon has their Fire and Apple their Apple TV. It's to Amazon's advantage to make Prime Video only available on their streaming device for profit purposes.

Let's say I sell cookies. It costs me $5 to make a cookie (these cookies have gold flakes in them) and I sell them for $7 in my store.

You run a huge cookie business and your customers want my cookies! But you will only sell my cookies if I give you 30% of gross profits... at $7, that would be $2.10... now I am losing $0.10 for every cookie you sell at that price.

My choice seems obvious - raise the price at the store so I can profit right? Well sure, except the store ALSO has a clause that says I can't sell my cookies for less anywhere else! So I'd have to raise the price on my existing customers who are notoriously price conscious.

A $7 cookie is pretty expensive already... would my customers continue to want them at $8, $9 or $10 or would they switch to a less expensive brand for their cookie fix?

It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the general gist.
[doublepost=1480635255][/doublepost]

I think you need to take Apple's comment on the situation with Amazon with a grain of salt. They are obviously going to say it's Amazon not playing ball. Essentially they are saying all are welcome, as long as you pay our fees, is not exactly giving Amazon an easy choice to go to ATV. I'm getting a little annoyed at Apple's inflexibility in this. Amazon already has a base. ATV may sell more hardware if they let Amazon stream with fees. It's Amazon's content and subscribers, Apple is just providing the hardware in this case.

I actually decided to not purchase an Apple TV because they don't have Amazon. I need Amazon more than Apple TV. I now am invested in the Amazon ecosystem (I've always been a prime member and initially resisted Fire but actually really like Fire TV) and find it very unlikely I will ever abandon it now.

 

[d21mike]

Let's say I sell cookies. It costs me $5 to make a cookie (these cookies have gold flakes in them) and I sell them for $7 in my store.

You run a huge cookie business and your customers want my cookies! But you will only sell my cookies if I give you 30% of gross profits... at $7, that would be $2.10... now I am losing $0.10 for every cookie you sell at that price.

My choice seems obvious - raise the price at the store so I can profit right? Well sure, except the store ALSO has a clause that says I can't sell my cookies for less anywhere else! So I'd have to raise the price on my existing customers who are notoriously price conscious.

A $7 cookie is pretty expensive already... would my customers continue to want them at $8, $9 or $10 or would they switch to a less expensive brand for their cookie fix?

It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the general gist.
[doublepost=1480635255][/doublepost]
I actually decided to not purchase an Apple TV because they don't have Amazon. I need Amazon more than Apple TV. I now am invested in the Amazon ecosystem (I've always been a prime member and initially resisted Fire but actually really like Fire TV) and find it very unlikely I will ever abandon it now.

Actually your cookie example is not very good. You see most customers already pay for Prime via amazon.com so no need to pay anything to Apple and that is the only real debate.

 

[thesaint024]

What exactly do you think Apple is so inflexible about? Do you think they should make a different deal with Amazon that they are willing to make with Netflix, Hulu, HBO, CBS, DIRECTV NOW and all of the developers for the Apple TV Platform? Don't you think that would be more problems for Apple? Obviously neither of us are in the room so we can only speculate. But it just not make sense for them to have some other reason to simply tell Amazon they are not allowed on the platform when they are perfectly welcome on iOS with the same exact restrictions. I think it makes much more sense to speculate that Amazon simply does not like the restrictions that everyone else (not including Vudu) has found a way to work around. Like Hulu charges more if you pay via iTunes. Others do not allow you to pay via iTunes. Not really complicated.

You seem to be validating my point, you just have a different perspective on it. Apple doesn't want to change the rules for Amazon to be on ATV or to a lesser degree Netflix regarding the app. You think it's crazy to think that Apple would need to be inconsistent with these two content providers compared to the others. They are being inflexible about changing the rules for these two. Amazon and Netflix are not like the other providers. They have much more leverage and don't have to play by Apple's stringent rules. It's a game of chicken, no one is budging, but who needs who more? That's admittedly debatable. I just know as a consumer, it's inconvenient and silly (and expensive) to have 2 streaming devices. This approach by all three of them is making us consumers choose sides basically. Instead of working together and being a little flexible, they're all waiting for the other to drive off the road. I am using my Roku more and more simply because of the content. I'm somewhat invested in the Apple ecosystem, but not enough to prevent me from streaming on a different box. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this shakes out if no one budges. I personally think the ATV will drop off in the current trajectory. Netflix and Amazon have the subscribers and they can be viewed easily on Roku. We are both agreeing on the key circumstance that Apple is not willing to be inconsistent. We just have different opinions on who is in the right.

Edit: I only speak of Netflix as it applies to the new app and their exclusion from it. No other point than they have leverage.

 

[d21mike]

You seem to be validating my point, you just have a different perspective on it. Apple doesn't want to change the rules for Amazon to be on ATV or to a lesser degree Netflix regarding the app. You think it's crazy to think that Apple would need to be inconsistent with these two content providers compared to the others. They are being inflexible about changing the rules for these two. Amazon and Netflix are not like the other providers. They have much more leverage and don't have to play by Apple's stringent rules. It's a game of chicken, no one is budging, but who needs who more? That's admittedly debatable. I just know as a consumer, it's inconvenient and silly (and expensive) to have 2 streaming devices. This approach by all three of them is making us consumers choose sides basically. Instead of working together and being a little flexible, they're all waiting for the other to drive off the road. I am using my Roku more and more simply because of the content. I'm somewhat invested in the Apple ecosystem, but not enough to prevent me from streaming on a different box. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this shakes out if no one budges. I personally think the ATV will drop off in the current trajectory. Netflix and Amazon have the subscribers and they can be viewed easily on Roku. We are both agreeing on the key circumstance that Apple is not willing to be inconsistent. We just have different opinions on who is in the right.

Edit: I only speak of Netflix as it applies to the new app and their exclusion from it. No other point than they have leverage.

Then maybe I am. I have been responding to your point earlier when you said "This is likely all on Apple." My whole point is Apple is not preventing Amazon from creating an App for the Apple TV. It is all on Amazon that they do not want too and probably because they simply do not like the rules. You can say that Apple's rules are terrible and that would be your opinion and not sure I would argue with you. But still does not mean that only Amazon seems to feel as you do. Most all other providers are not having the same issues.

Regarding Netflix and the New TV App. I think that is still an open issue. I do not think it is clear why Netflix doesn't want to participate. My point earlier was it could simply be a technical one and Apple needs to update the App to accommodate. Netflix is the only App current supporting Profiles (that I am aware of). But to be clear it is Netflix's choice. Apple is not preventing them from supporting it. For me, I will probably not use it much unless Apple makes it much better. I can honestly see why Netflix is not supporting it yet. It really is not a great App at this point. But has potential.

 

[spacemnspiff]

There are some obvious contractual differences in getting the app to ATV. Beyond the 15%/30% fee, Apple is probably bullying some exclusivity or some sticking point for some reason unbeknownst to us. This is just the history of Apple.

You did not care to read the thread, the point I am making is that Amazon does not need to pay Apple anything if the app only provides the Prime Video subscription that I already pay for. There is no transaction that's going to happen through iOS. So Amazon does not pay Apple anything, so the onus is on Amazon to put the app on Apple TV.

You run a huge cookie business and your customers want my cookies! But you will only sell my cookies if I give you 30% of gross profits... at $7, that would be $2.10... now I am losing $0.10 for every cookie you sell at that price.

App for Prime Video subscription does not cost Amazon a thing to put on Apple TV.

And they already have those Apps on iOS app store system, implementing to Apple TV is as good as it gets.

Now if they want to sell me content through that app, that's different altogether, they can sort that out with Apple. All I asked was for Prime Video subscription Apple TV app, which has not cost other than development costs.

 

[tanfan]

What exactly do you think Apple is so inflexible about? Do you think they should make a different deal with Amazon that they are willing to make with Netflix, Hulu, HBO, CBS, DIRECTV NOW and all of the developers for the Apple TV Platform? Don't you think that would be more problems for Apple? Obviously neither of us are in the room so we can only speculate. But it just not make sense for them to have some other reason to simply tell Amazon they are not allowed on the platform when they are perfectly welcome on iOS with the same exact restrictions. I think it makes much more sense to speculate that Amazon simply does not like the restrictions that everyone else (not including Vudu) has found a way to work around. Like Hulu charges more if you pay via iTunes. Others do not allow you to pay via iTunes. Not really complicated.

I have HBO, Showtime, STARZ, Feeln, Netflix, Hulu, DIRECTV Now and more. I have paid some via iTunes and some directly to the the supplier like Hulu for different reasons and timing. I am also beta testing iOS and tvOS. I have seen SSO and use the New TV App (just to test). But I use a third party Universal Watch List called WatchAid which is much better for TV Series (no movies). Which also supports Netflix and pretty much everything else. I know how the TV App works where the WatchList comes from the App I really do not know which Profile Netflix would use. It would need to allow me to say when you are supporting the TV App please use this Profile to provide the watch list. Again, I am not a fan of the current version of the TV App but not sure Netflix is just not supporting them just because Apple is saying they must do something really strange. WatchAid has it own Watch List based on iCloud ID so it does not rely on the watch list from any App which I believe is how the TV App works. And the TV App controls it based on your iTunes ID and not your iCloud ID.

These are subscription services. Amazon, Vudu and the like are not. They wish to compete for rentals and purchases. Look at Fandangonow........why are they about everyplace except Apple TV....Because they sell and rent movies. It really is this simple imo.

https://www.fandangonow.com/?cmp=EM...44112134&_bta_c=3wzrhbrbmtzswolfsw8b9k5o6poqq

 

[d21mike]

These are subscription services. Amazon, Vudu and the like are not. They wish to compete for rentals and purchases. Look at Fandangonow........why are they about everyplace except Apple TV....Because they sell and rent movies. It really is this simple imo.

https://www.fandangonow.com/?cmp=EM...44112134&_bta_c=3wzrhbrbmtzswolfsw8b9k5o6poqq

I agree with you that it is probably that simple. However, I "partially" disagree that Amazon is not a subscription service. Amazon is a subscription service for Amazon Prime Video. But they also sell and rent movies. So they are both. And "most everyone (could be everyone)" that subscribes to Amazon Prime do so via the amazon.com web site. So, for Amazon they could easily support the Apple TV if they wanted too and it would cost them next to nothing since they already do the exact same thing on the iPhone and iPad.

 

[tanfan]

Let's say I sell cookies. It costs me $5 to make a cookie (these cookies have gold flakes in them) and I sell them for $7 in my store.

You run a huge cookie business and your customers want my cookies! But you will only sell my cookies if I give you 30% of gross profits... at $7, that would be $2.10... now I am losing $0.10 for every cookie you sell at that price.

My choice seems obvious - raise the price at the store so I can profit right? Well sure, except the store ALSO has a clause that says I can't sell my cookies for less anywhere else! So I'd have to raise the price on my existing customers who are notoriously price conscious.

A $7 cookie is pretty expensive already... would my customers continue to want them at $8, $9 or $10 or would they switch to a less expensive brand for their cookie fix?

It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the general gist.
[doublepost=1480635255][/doublepost]
I actually decided to not purchase an Apple TV because they don't have Amazon. I need Amazon more than Apple TV. I now am invested in the Amazon ecosystem (I've always been a prime member and initially resisted Fire but actually really like Fire TV) and find it very unlikely I will ever abandon it now.

I like the Fire boxes, have that and there stick. I buy most of them to try. However I'm always surprised when I hear (although I shouldn't be, your not the first lol) to buy the firebox when they couldn't get Amazon Video. Since most are also after other ones like Vudu and, Roku is the ONLY box that has literally all of them, including Amazon video why settle for another box that limits you? Anyway, they are a nice box.
[doublepost=1480698166][/doublepost]

I agree with you that it is probably that simple. However, I "partially" disagree that Amazon is not a subscription service. Amazon is a subscription service for Amazon Prime Video. But they also sell and rent movies. So they are both. And "most everyone (could be everyone)" that subscribes to Amazon Prime do so via the amazon.com web site. So, for Amazon they could easily support the Apple TV if they wanted too and it would cost them next to nothing since they already do the exact same thing on the iPhone and iPad.

They could. All they would have to do is make a separate app for the prime part. Then I think they would suddenly come to terms...However the fact that they don't do it this way suggests that they really want you to use prime, and have that lead you to making purchases. Just like Apple keeps itunes only on their box...so you buy it.

 

[thesaint024]

You did not care to read the thread, the point I am making is that Amazon does not need to pay Apple anything if the app only provides the Prime Video subscription that I already pay for. There is no transaction that's going to happen through iOS. So Amazon does not pay Apple anything, so the onus is on Amazon to put the app on Apple TV.

App for Prime Video subscription does not cost Amazon a thing to put on Apple TV.

And they already have those Apps on iOS app store system, implementing to Apple TV is as good as it gets.

Now if they want to sell me content through that app, that's different altogether, they can sort that out with Apple. All I asked was for Prime Video subscription Apple TV app, which has not cost other than development costs.

[doublepost=1480699645][/doublepost]Actually I did care to read the thread, and if you took off your Apple-colored lenses for a minute you might understand an alternative POV. Amazon has a ton of leverage. They have Fire TV and more important they have the subscribers. You want Amazon to limit what they can do in an ATV app to only stream subscribed video. What if they want to include option to buy individual shows or movies which I'm sure is more profitable than a Prime Membership? They would give Apple 30% off the top. Businesses frown upon giving away that much margin. They have much more favorable deals with Roku and their own streaming devices obviously. Personally as a consumer, I would prefer that Apple gave them a much more favorable deal since then I can have Amazon on ATV. Point is, they both are being a little inflexible on this. I personally think Apple's 30% is extortion, but that's just my opinion. I just want a good user experience as I have both ATV and Roku. You are not entitled to an Amazon app because you get Prime for practically nothing, that includes 2 day shipping. It's a pretty sweet deal.

I congratulate you on squeezing a discount from Amazon. I'm sure you can squeeze a discount out of almost anyone if you push hard enough. I'm only saying that I think they did YOU a solid by giving you a discount. They have no legally binding requirement to do so. Everyone can try this too to get Amazon to change their minds and submit to Apple's 30% fee. I'm skeptical it will work. As you know, all the bitching in the world doesn't get Apple to change anything. Amazon is on equal footing with Apple, and I don't think they'll bend on this either. Amazon doesn't bend to the pressure of Wall Street, I don't think some ATV owners are going to get them to bend either. If push came to shove, how many Prime members/ATV owners would give up Prime to make their point. I would assume very few, and I think Amazon knows this.

 

[BrianKonarsMac]

App for Prime Video subscription does not cost Amazon a thing to put on Apple TV.

And they already have those Apps on iOS app store system, implementing to Apple TV is as good as it gets.

Now if they want to sell me content through that app, that's different altogether, they can sort that out with Apple. All I asked was for Prime Video subscription Apple TV app, which has not cost other than development costs.

True, they do this with Audible already... touche!

 

[thesaint024]

True, they do this with Audible already... touche!

Sorry, not clear on your comment. Already do what with Audible? I am not familiar with their product - books on tape Audible? If you're referring to a Prime subscription only app for ATV, why are you guys so convinced that Apple would allow an app that takes away all of Apple's opportunity for revenue? How do you know that they aren't the ones blocking that? Knowing Apple, this is what I'd assume. Again I'm speculating since I'm not involved in negotiations (or lack thereof).

 

[d21mike]

Sorry, not clear on your comment. Already do what with Audible? I am not familiar with their product - books on tape Audible? If you're referring to a Prime subscription only app for ATV, why are you guys so convinced that Apple would allow an app that takes away all of Apple's opportunity for revenue? How do you know that they aren't the ones blocking that? Knowing Apple, this is what I'd assume. Again I'm speculating since I'm not involved in negotiations (or lack thereof).

Because they said "all are welcome". And pretty much everyone is already there. And Amazon never said that Apppe is preventing them like some Apps have been rejected. I know you believe Apple just lies so must be them.

 

[thesaint024]

I know you believe Apple just lies so must be them.

Well, the discussion was good while it lasted. Amusing that you think I'm anti-Apple, and I get accused of fanboyism elsewhere on the forum. Things are not always black and white.

 

[niteflyr]

Sorry, not clear on your comment. Already do what with Audible? I am not familiar with their product - books on tape Audible? If you're referring to a Prime subscription only app for ATV, why are you guys so convinced that Apple would allow an app that takes away all of Apple's opportunity for revenue? How do you know that they aren't the ones blocking that? Knowing Apple, this is what I'd assume. Again I'm speculating since I'm not involved in negotiations (or lack thereof).

There are already many approved apps that have no "opportunity for revenue" for Apple.

 

[thesaint024]

There are already many approved apps that have no "opportunity for revenue" for Apple.

You are right except that they don't have the "opportunity for revenue" that Amazon subscribers have. Lots of free apps, but not a lot of apps that intentionally hold back significant purchasing to skirt Apple's 30% fee.

OK guys, you win. There is no other logical conclusion than Amazon must be stubborn for no reason. Bezos has some sick grudge against Cook that supersedes any profit goals. I was out of line to suggest it could possibly be otherwise. This is moot since I don't foresee this being resolved either way. Go Apple! ATV 4 life!

 

[d21mike]

Well, the discussion was good while it lasted. Amusing that you think I'm anti-Apple, and I get accused of fanboyism elsewhere on the forum. Things are not always black and white.

Maybe "Lies" is a bit strong. But was based on your comment below. Which was a reply to my comment that Apple clearly stated that "all are welcome". But of course "all our welcome" means that the Amazon App must follow same rules as every other App.
I think you need to take Apple's comment on the situation with Amazon with a grain of salt.
[doublepost=1480797065][/doublepost]

You are right except that they don't have the "opportunity for revenue" that Amazon subscribers have. Lots of free apps, but not a lot of apps that intentionally hold back significant purchasing to skirt Apple's 30% fee.

Well, DIRECTV NOW was just released and charges between $35 - $70 per month but you have to pay via the AT&T Web Site. DIRECTV does Rent movies (PPV) on their regular DIRECTV Service but they do not do so in the DIRECTV NOW App / Service. Not sure if that is temporary or not. But you do know that all TV Providers Rent Movies on their platforms for addition revenue. I do not have Sling TV but I think it is the same while they Rent on the DISH Service. I assume there may be more but these two are pretty well known. Amazon does have Channels which will grow to be a competitor to these and more to come.

And others like Hulu allow you to buy via iTunes but they charge about 15% more which I believe is the add on cost these days (not the 30% you keep posting). Also, CBS All Access is going to charge more for new customers if you buy via iTunes. HBO does not so I assume they feel the 15% is worth the exposure on Apple TV which they had an exclusive for 90 days.

Lastly, with Roku being so well liked, I am surprised DIRECTV Now is not releasing an Roku App until 2017. Maybe they do not feel that buying within the App is that big a deal.

Whatever reason Amazon has for not wanting a Apple TV App is all on Amazon in my opinion. They could easily do a Amazon Prime Video App where you subscribe on Amazon Web Site just like the others and also they would be able to sell add-on's like the HBO and MAX they just announced (they already have Showtime I think).

 

[jerwin]

While I don't have issues using AirPlay to stream Amazon Video from my iPad/iPhone to my ATV, it really would be nice if Amazon released a dedicated tvOS app. It just seems silly for me to purchase an Amazon Fire TV Stick or a cheap Roku to natively stream Amazon Video from that device.

Good for you, OP!

Appropriate use for a $35 refund, though.

 

[thesaint024]

Maybe "Lies" is a bit strong. But was based on your comment below. Which was a reply to my comment that Apple clearly stated that "all are welcome". But of course "all our welcome" means that the Amazon App must follow same rules as every other App.
I think you need to take Apple's comment on the situation with Amazon with a grain of salt.

Whatever reason Amazon has for not wanting a Apple TV App is all on Amazon in my opinion. They could easily do a Amazon Prime Video App where you subscribe on Amazon Web Site just like the others and also they would be able to sell add-on's like the HBO and MAX they just announced (they already have Showtime I think).

We agree that the crux of the matter is either one or both parties are being stubborn about some point. I can agree to disagree on who is likely the party holding this up. Honestly, they both probably are being stubborn. I don't think it's some strange grudge by either party, as has been implied. But we also agree that we are both speculating. So I will leave it at that. To address some others, I think it's unrealistic to feel entitled to s**t unless contractually obligated. Amazon is capable of bringing this app to ATV, but won't for reasons unbeknownst to us. I hope this summarizes it all. I don't want to beat a dead horse. Funny thing is I watch content on so many different devices, this doesn't even matter that much to me. Happy watching all.

 

[StarShot]

Anyone know their reasoning for not releasing an App?

Don't understand why Amazon would give a $35 refund for the failure to not be able to access it via ATV? I would think that would come under the "It is what it is rule". If the $35 refund is true, it should be available to ANY Amazon Prime subscriber. At $99 per YEAR, Amazon Prime comes out to around $8.25 a month. Disregarding the free Amazon shipping, who can come up with a video streaming service for less that $8.25 monthly that offers the free content that Amazon has. IF I was the Amazon supervisor that dealt with the OP, I would have given him a full refund and told him to get NetFlix.

My understanding and I may be wrong is the guilty party in this affair is Apple who didn't want free Amazon content "clouding" Apple's paid content.

 

[matrix07]

Don't understand why Amazon would give a $35 refund for the failure to not be able to access it via ATV? I would think that would come under the "It is what it is rule". If the $35 refund is true, it should be available to ANY Amazon Prime subscriber. At $99 per YEAR, Amazon Prime comes out to around $8.25 a month. Disregarding the free Amazon shipping, who can come up with a video streaming service for less that $8.25 monthly that offers the free content that Amazon has. IF I was the Amazon supervisor that dealt with the OP, I would have given him a full refund and told him to get NetFlix.

My understanding and I may be wrong is the guilty party in this affair is Apple who didn't want free Amazon content "clouding" Apple's paid content.

it will come later this year, won't it?

 

[triangletechie]

This thread is a little overly dramatic. Tim Cook said the app would appear this year. He didn't say it would appear on a specific date, so I'm not sure what the issue is? Amazon shouldn't have refunded anything.