Nobody cares, Jeff. Netflix is eating your lunch every day you don't have an app on the ATV.
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.
Amazon Wants 'Acceptable Business Terms' to Offer Prime Video on Apple TV
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OK Bezos... what exactly is the product you are trying to push: the HARDWARE or the SERVICE?
- If you are pushing the hardware then you need to stop selling ANY device other that those made by Amazon.
- If you are pushing the service, then you need to make it available on ANY device I may want to use.
And they're getting the old Top Gear crew's (Clarkson, Hammond, and May) new series.
How about no Amazon, no one even cares. Apple TV, Roku, and Chromecast are doing great without you, and your amazon prime sucks compared to Netflix and even Hulu. (and to be lamer than Hulu is kind of sad.)
Kallum.
Kallum.
Roku does have Amazon Video.
I like having it. I don't watch a whole lot of Amazon Prime exclusive stuff (though I do watch some) and spend more time with Netflix, but when it comes time to rent or buy a movie or TV season, I usually go with Amazon.
I do think it's silly they've stopped selling AppleTVs and Chromecasts, and I, too, don't understand why I can have Amazon video and audio apps on my iPhone while they remain unavailable on the AppleTV.
I terminated my Amazon Prime membership several weeks ago because of Amazon's refusal to make their app available on AppleTV. I do not wish to tie up my iPhone with AirPlay - and the very existence of the Amazon app on iOS is evidence enough for me that Amazon is just having a stubborn contest with Apple. Amazon is not only losing my Prime membership subscription money, I have also stopped ordering any merchandise from their online store. I research items in their store and then order them somewhere else. I choose to let my wallet lodge my protest of their misguided decision to deny the app for AppleTV...
Yes, I am considering it because of them.
That said not sure just the top gear show warrants the money to pay for prime. Sure the 2 day shipping is awesome but I don't buy that much to justify it.
Two things,
One, I didn't know you could watch Amazon Prime on Nest Thermostat. I am definitely buying one now.
Two, no Amazon Video on my Apple TV means no more Amazon Prime subscription when it comes to an end. They need to create this last bit of convenience to keep me as a customer. Free delivery alone is probably not enough to justify the price.
One, I didn't know you could watch Amazon Prime on Nest Thermostat. I am definitely buying one now.
Two, no Amazon Video on my Apple TV means no more Amazon Prime subscription when it comes to an end. They need to create this last bit of convenience to keep me as a customer. Free delivery alone is probably not enough to justify the price.
Perhaps but lack of Prime was one of the main reasons I switched from Apple TV to Roku devices in our house. Them getting the old Top Gear crew is almost enough of a reason for wanting Prime on my TV.
It definitely is for us. We order tons of stuff through Amazon because of it.
I suspect authors would like "Acceptable Business Terms" also. You made your bed Jeff... what a knob
If you care about the junk movies and TV shows, then why do you wish you could just subscribe to Prime shipping?
While I still buy stuffs from Amazon, I cancelled their prime membership because of the same reason.
Just remove the membership signup links in the app like Hulu did awhile back. Your customers just want the service to be more accessible, its a little childish the way Amazon is acting really.
Exactly, what's baffling is how this question wasn't asked in the same session he was asked about the app not being on Apple TV? Either rubbish journalism, or a plant to get the soundbite out about 'Acceptable Business Terms'.
Jeff Bezos just insulted Amazon's customers as a whole there, stating they are basically too stupid to make their own decisions. Also, it's a bloody ridiculous and flawed statement.
Yep, I know about 20 people, personally, that have ditched Prime simply because of this.
They have a platform, just like any iOS device that they build an app on they're just not making the app. I'm not understanding what the issue is.
It's fair to say that Amazon is the dominant marketplace at this point. So not selling certain devices to further their own business interests smells a bit like using their monopoly status to benefit them at the expense of their competitors. The DOJ needs to look into this.
What does "Acceptible Buisness Terms" mean? Could Amazon gosh far as wanting to have a reciprocity agreement?
As in, if Amazon Prime Video comes to Apple TV, then iTuens Library goes to fire stick?
I would like to be able to use my iTunes library in other places, but Apple would probably never do it. It'll be interesting to see the speculation on this one.
As in, if Amazon Prime Video comes to Apple TV, then iTuens Library goes to fire stick?
I would like to be able to use my iTunes library in other places, but Apple would probably never do it. It'll be interesting to see the speculation on this one.
Well I guess he's right that some consumers are stupid, but Apple TV users are already used to having to sign in with an existing account or with having to jump on their computer to type in a code. Nobody with an Apple TV would be phased by that. It's the norm.
I do think Apple charging 30% in perpetuity for subscription sign ups is a bit rich, so I see where he's coming from there. I also understand it becomes an Amazon customer service nightmare to charge customers more if they sign up on their Apple TV (like Spotify did on their iOS apps) compared to signing up on their computer. Apple really needs to be a bit more reasonable with that. Make it 30% of the first transaction only or something.
In any case, I guess now we know for sure it's not coming any time soon
I do think Apple charging 30% in perpetuity for subscription sign ups is a bit rich, so I see where he's coming from there. I also understand it becomes an Amazon customer service nightmare to charge customers more if they sign up on their Apple TV (like Spotify did on their iOS apps) compared to signing up on their computer. Apple really needs to be a bit more reasonable with that. Make it 30% of the first transaction only or something.
In any case, I guess now we know for sure it's not coming any time soon
That's why I have a Roku rather than an ATV. Netflix, NowTV and Amazon Prime on Roku, no Amazon Prime on ATV so Apple have lost a sale from me.
Everyone I know has Amazon Prime for the free next day delivery, Streaming being a bonus, people who would never pay for a Netflix subscription (especially as Netflix UK is rubbish) but they like the free delivery and see the streaming as a bonus
I think you've nailed it really. Bezos has a point about the 30% though. Seems ridiculously high when it comes to subscription models. If you've got a service that costs £30 a month in the App Store apple take £10 of that each month for the whole term of the subscription. In a year that's £120 that the developer loses. The 30% figure was created to help pay for the hosting and distribution within the App Store it doesn't really make sense the keep that high a figure when all the data from there on comes from the app developers servers and not Apples.
In short; 30% fine for downloads and IAPs. Subscriptions services should be closer to 15%
I think the problem here is that a Prime membership gives a lot of different benefits, postage, books, movies etc. Jeff is probably a bit concerned that Apple want 30% of the annual despite only a small fraction being related to streaming services.
I guess Jeff could do a stand alone streamer and take less of a hit. The majority of people who Prime do it to benefit from free delivery, the other benefits are fairly ancillary.
I guess Jeff could do a stand alone streamer and take less of a hit. The majority of people who Prime do it to benefit from free delivery, the other benefits are fairly ancillary.
I don't think this comes down to Amazon wanting the ability for users to sign up in-app. What they REALLY want is to offer first-run rentals and purchases in app. They want to be able to offer an alternative to iTunes movies, not just an alternative to Netflix.
Apple doesn't need to allow competing platforms to operate on their box.
That said, it would greatly benefit us if they did... So it isn't exactly something to either judge Apple or applaud Apple over.
My movie (The Battery) was released on all platforms a few years ago. iTunes was charging $14.99 to buy in HD when Amazon was charging $9.99. The PlayStation network was charging $19.99! In my opinion, Amazon was the only one being halfway reasonable with our pricing. I wanted a $7.99 purchase price consistent on all platforms. (A logical and impulsively low step up from the rental price). I always assumed that we set our price and Apple, Amazon, etc, kept 30%.
In reality, the distributor sets a wholesale price which is more like a minimum price, then each platform sells for what they want to. Then they pay out 70%. So a PSN sale at $20 DOES pay us 70% of that $20, but our distributor (and especially us, the filmmakers) never wanted the movie to cost $20 in the first place. We made our distributor lower our wholesale price much lower and Apple continued to overprice, while Amazon lowered the price to $7.99 to buy in HD.
In the end, we got fed up and negotiated the rights from our distributor to also sell the movie direct, without DRM, for a flat $5. Our price was always fluctuating on ALL platforms and it made us look greedy. At least this way, we had control over the price somewhere and could keep it consistent and consistently low.
I rent from both Apple and Amazon... It really just depends on what input my TV is on. But having options when buying a digital movie definitely helps the consumer right now because of how ridiculous digital pricing is.
Apple and the big content companies hate how cutthroat Amazon is with digital pricing... But as a content creator, I'd MUCH rather make my money in volume than overcharging the honest people and pushing the rest to piracy. The Kindle was great when nothing was over $9.99. Now I consistently see physical books selling cheaper on Amazon than the digital version. So stupid. That's the publishers driving the wholesale price up on the digital copies.
Apple doesn't need to allow competing platforms to operate on their box.
That said, it would greatly benefit us if they did... So it isn't exactly something to either judge Apple or applaud Apple over.
My movie (The Battery) was released on all platforms a few years ago. iTunes was charging $14.99 to buy in HD when Amazon was charging $9.99. The PlayStation network was charging $19.99! In my opinion, Amazon was the only one being halfway reasonable with our pricing. I wanted a $7.99 purchase price consistent on all platforms. (A logical and impulsively low step up from the rental price). I always assumed that we set our price and Apple, Amazon, etc, kept 30%.
In reality, the distributor sets a wholesale price which is more like a minimum price, then each platform sells for what they want to. Then they pay out 70%. So a PSN sale at $20 DOES pay us 70% of that $20, but our distributor (and especially us, the filmmakers) never wanted the movie to cost $20 in the first place. We made our distributor lower our wholesale price much lower and Apple continued to overprice, while Amazon lowered the price to $7.99 to buy in HD.
In the end, we got fed up and negotiated the rights from our distributor to also sell the movie direct, without DRM, for a flat $5. Our price was always fluctuating on ALL platforms and it made us look greedy. At least this way, we had control over the price somewhere and could keep it consistent and consistently low.
I rent from both Apple and Amazon... It really just depends on what input my TV is on. But having options when buying a digital movie definitely helps the consumer right now because of how ridiculous digital pricing is.
Apple and the big content companies hate how cutthroat Amazon is with digital pricing... But as a content creator, I'd MUCH rather make my money in volume than overcharging the honest people and pushing the rest to piracy. The Kindle was great when nothing was over $9.99. Now I consistently see physical books selling cheaper on Amazon than the digital version. So stupid. That's the publishers driving the wholesale price up on the digital copies.