Amazon Wants 'Acceptable Business Terms' to Offer Prime Video on Apple TV

[igorsky]

Bezos wants it both ways.

Indeed. He simply wants to sway people away from the Apple TV to Amazon's Fire products, and by using double-speak like "acceptable business terms" he's trying to make it sound as though Apple is somehow keeping the product away from the Apple TV.

Only difference between Bezos and all the other phony corporate sleazebags is that his company has a $600 share price.

 

[NoahK17]

Apple won't budge, others would demand the same. The only way Prime will ever wind up on AppleTV is from a constant flow of complaints from Amazon customers that it isn't available...

I bought the new Roku Streaming Stick primarily for a Prime app -- the UI is so klunky that I prefer AirPlay casting from my iPhone.

Apple will only budge if Amazon proves that Apple is missing out on X dollars by Amazon not carrying their products. Once that $$ amount gets high enough... Apple will budge. The Shareholders will demand it.

 

[igorsky]

People actually use the Prime video? I wish I could just subscribe to the Prime shipping and pay less. Dumping the video service and other junk services. The only reason I have Prime is for 2-day shipping. All the media that is included is a bunch of junk movies and TV shows I could care less about. Every once in a while I look to see if there is anything. All the good stuff you have to purchase.

Despite my anger at Bezos for his ********, you are completely wrong in this regard. There is some excellent original content on Amazon (that some of you have already mentioned). Transparent is an award-winning show.

 

[antzero]

Meanwhile Bezo's is forgetting that his competition is Netflix and Hulu, not Apple. Put your prime app into as many devices as you can to keep up with your real competitions...moron...

 

[machpost]

I wouldn't mind having Prime Video on my Apple TV, but it's by no means a deal breaker. I subscribe to Amazon Prime for the free shipping. The streaming video content is pretty disappointing. It doesn't seem like I'm missing out on much.

 

[2010mini]

Apple will only budge if Amazon proves that Apple is missing out on X dollars by Amazon not carrying their products. Once that $$ amount gets high enough... Apple will budge. The Shareholders will demand it.

Why exactly does Apple have "budge"???? NOTHING is stopping Amazon from releasing the same type of app they currently offer for iOS devices. This is pure B.S. from Bezos

 

[aced411]

Hopefully you're not another who thinks the planet revolves around America.

I'm not sure how the societal/governance background is relevant when Alibaba is "the dominant marketplace" - given their sales.
From the article:
"Sales for 2014 [were] estimated at $420 Billion. In 2012 sales were $170 Billion. This dwarfs Amazon, its closest competitor…"

No of course not and I don't doubt they're killing. I could go on with opinions about the influence of being a business in an authoritarian state (and plenty would be ready with counter arguments) but I'll kindly withdrawal from this portion of this discussion. I'd hate to turn it into a political debate

 

[igorsky]

Do you feel that Apple should get 30% of any sale that's made from said app within Apple TV?

That seems to be part of the sticking point. It isn't as simple as Amazon won't let you you use it everywhere you want...it's that Apple wants a significant cut to let them do it.

I'll never understand how consumers, even if they are Apple fans, will blindly defend a 30% Apple tax on things like monthly subscriptions or in-app purchases for content delivered through multiple sources.

I'm really amazed sometimes at how ignorant people can be when it comes to Apple's business. What's to "blindly defend"? This is how platforms work. A company develops a platform and charges people to use it. Nobody seems to complain when eBay or Sotheby's or PayPal take a cut for allowing you to use their services. Do you know that Amazon charges you a fee for selling something in the Amazon Marketplace? Are you upset at the Amazon Tax?

 

[aced411]

Or, you know, they could release the app so us paying customers can use Amazon Prime on whatever device we choose. I understand the desire for good business terms but this is hurting their customers/market share by keeping this up.

If they ever want to be taken seriously as a competitor with Netflix they need to get off their high horse. If Amazon separated Prime shipping from Prime video they would lose a ton of video subscribers (including me). They over estimate their leverage. Apple has had the same app store policies for years. Suck it up. I just want to watch Man in the High Castle without switching inputs. I'm not buying a Fire TV. Stuff it Bezos.

Since we can't have Amazon on Apple TV, I have a new request. Please let me get Prime Shipping for a few bucks cheaper without Amazon Video.

 

[orbital~debris]

No of course not and I don't doubt they're killing. I could go on with opinions about the influence of being a business in an authoritarian state (and plenty would be ready with counter arguments) but I'll kindly withdrawal from this portion of this discussion. I'd hate to turn it into a political debate

Yes, apologies - wasn't trying to derail the thread . (Perhaps MacRumors could use this as an example of how differences of opinion can be amicably resolved.)

 

[Scarpad]

What "acceptable business terms" do they currently get on iOS (where the app is available now) that are not currently available to them on tvOS?

Exactly

 

[Rocketman]

Probably the central takeaway on that from an Apple perspective is Bezos was squarely behind Apple on the FBI suit, that Amazon is working on wearables it can't talk about, so it is serious, that Apple TV is not available on Amazon and will not be until Amazon Prime Video is available on the device, that APV is complimentary to Netflix, Hulu, HBO, not directly replacements. That over the top is a trend he expects to come to full fruition, that his media company will expand to internet delivery on a national and global scale, and space is the place.

He expects Earth to be rezoned residential and light industrial and all power production and heavy manufacturing to shift to space over the next 50-100 years.

Hmmm.

Rocketman

BTW APV is free with Prime so there are zero competitive spirits as compared to any other product. Netflix has sufficient value added and low cost owning both is truly common.

 

[Mr Bigs]

I'm sure Amazon has lost a lot of customers to NetFlix since that has a player on AppleTV....

Highly Unlikely !!!

 

[brewmonkey]

...we don't want to sell it to our customers because they're going to be buying it thinking you can watch Prime Video...

Yah, I completely expect everything I ever buy on Amazon to run its poor, behind-every-other video streaming service. What nonsense. Even he can't believe that rubbish claim, leaving the only remaining conclusion that he is an anti-competitive liar.

 

[applezulu]

This one is pretty simple, and neither Apple nor Amazon is 'right' or 'wrong.' There's just a huge impasse that's not easily cleared.

This is about virtual foot traffic.

Amazon Prime video includes prepaid content in a similar fashion to Netflix. Your annual Amazon Prime subscription gets you that content, plus free two-day shipping on Amazon orders, etc. If that was all that was in the Amazon video app, it would already be on every AppleTV, just like Netflix. For Netflix, that content is their business, and the subscription fee covers costs plus profit. For Amazon, that content is a loss-leader. It's there to drive customers to order more stuff (hence the two-day shipping) and -here's the crux of it- to buy and rent streaming video content that is not included in the cost of the Prime membership.

Apple and Amazon are both in business to make money. To achieve Bezos' acceptable business terms, both should be able to make money from the deal, or at least not have one lose money to the direct benefit of the other. To be competitive and functional, an Amazon app on ATV would provide not just pre-paid Prime content, but also access to their a-la-carte rentals and purchases right in the app. Here are the options:

• If an Amazon app on ATV only provides direct access to its pre-paid Prime content, then they're driving customers to Apple's built-in a-la-carte iTunes content (which is just a click away), so Amazon spends money on the loss leader, and Apple reaps the benefit.

• If an Amazon app provides full access for renting and purchasing content from Amazon, but Apple takes 30% off the top, then Amazon still loses money, and Apple makes money regardless of whether customers make their purchases and rentals through Amazon or iTunes.

• If an Amazon app provides partial access, offering the pre-paid Prime content, plus the ability to view purchase and rental transactions made on another device, then Amazon still gets the short end of the stick, because it's much easier to simply close the Amazon app and open iTunes than it is to go to another device, make a selection and transaction, and then return to the ATV to watch. (Yes, this is how the Amazon video app works on iOS, but there are two important distinctions. First, if you're going to watch on an iPhone or iPad, you can stay on the same device while switching around apps to make a purchase, and second, there's way more money wrapped up in the market for TV viewers than phone and tablet viewers.)

• If the Amazon app provides full access and Apple doesn't take a cut, then Apple loses money, because people are suddenly using the Amazon app to rent or purchase content that would have otherwise been rented or purchased from Apple.

• There might be some theoretical middle ground involving complicated math where an Amazon app offers full access to Amazon content and Apple takes a smaller cut that lets Amazon make some money and Apple not lose money, but it's difficult to imagine how that could work. Plus, Apple isn't going to be very interested in setting a precedent where each app maker can negotiate a different deal.

So the reality is, depending on the scenario, either Apple or Amazon could make or lose money, and there's really no realistic scenario where a mutually beneficial deal could be worked out. So don't look for an Amazon video app on your Apple TV any time soon.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Do you feel that Apple should get 30% of any sale that's made from said app within Apple TV?

That seems to be part of the sticking point. It isn't as simple as Amazon won't let you you use it everywhere you want...it's that Apple wants a significant cut to let them do it.

I'll never understand how consumers, even if they are Apple fans, will blindly defend a 30% Apple tax on things like monthly subscriptions or in-app purchases for content delivered through multiple sources.

I don't think any of us are in a position to absolutely state that 30% is too high. That said, I don't necessarily disagree with you either. The issue is a comparison of the value-add from Apple versus the value of Amazon.

Apple provides the infrastructure and support, takes care of billing, and is the glue that links everything up. Amazon provides the app and the content. What is the real value of that?

There have been several posts about this but it bears repeating: this is not about accessing the subscription content on Amazon. This is, instead, 'all about the paid content'. Rentals and Purchases. Amazon wants to be a central provider of content ownership... and that is absolutely reasonable on their part.

Apple has not (or at least has not publicly) stated that any competitor is unwelcome. That applies to both Amazon and any of the UltraViolet front-ends (Vudu, Flixster, etc.). All Apple has done is state that they will take a 30% cut on any content purchased via an Apple device. Amazon, Vudu, etc. are all welcome to compete directly with Apple by having an app capable of making purchases and/or renting. They are also welcome to complete indirectly by having an app that only provides the front-end.

If Amazon truly wants to compete with Apple on the value of the service, then they should enable the Apple TV and publish numbers on subscription content, rentals and purchases that are watched on the device. If that number gets high enough - particularly without Apple getting a cut - then Apple will be forced to compete on price and quality. IFF Apple gets a cut - even a small one - then the market remains at status quo. This applies equally to UltraViolet providers.

For my part I would much prefer to at least be able to access all of my content from a single device and don't particularly care if it has to be purchased or rented elsewhere.

 

[kyleh22]

Ever since I watched a video on Amazon Prime about Brazilian Beaches before a vacation there with my wife, Amazon Prime only recommends soft porns to me. It's pretty embarrassing when I have company over and they pull up Amazon Prime on my TV. I really need to figure out how to reset Prime's suggestions.

 

[KPandian1]

I think people want to do it all from one place. Why can't they just Airplay it from their phone, tablet or PC?

Why should they? It ties up two devices, and neither platform offers anything unique that other, cheaper streaming devices do.

 

[drewyboy]

What knob. All they have to do is port the iOS app to AppleTV. Currently the iOS app offers NO way to signup Amazon Prime or Amazon Video. Not even a link. So Mr. Bezo's, your current customers on iOS already know how to sign in. If people can't piece together the fact that if they don't have sign in credentials that they need to go to amazon.com to sign up, they shouldn't own an apple tv, or almost any piece of technology.

 

[OllyW]

Why should they? It ties up two devices, and neither platform offers anything unique that other, cheaper streaming devices do.

I agree but my reply was a tongue in cheek comeback to the other poster, hence the wink.

 

[BennyBean]

Not that I would expect anything different from this forum, but the cognitive dissonance here is hilarious.

Apple demands 30% of anything you buy through the app. They don't distribute the content. They don't host the files. They don't handle any bandwidth or metadata. They don't do anything at all, but they want 30%.

Amazon is actually in the better position here, and they know it. Jeff Bezos isn't a great public speaker, but he is an extremely good businessman. He's done the math, and either Apple caves, and everyone (not Apple) wins, or they don't. But either way, Amazon is on stronger footing.

Even if there were no other perks, I would have Amazon Prime. The fact that I can watch a TON of HBO content, and a fair amount of really good Amazon-exclusive streaming content, is just a bonus. They aren't Netflix, but they have stuff that Netflix doesn't, some of it things that people really like. Mozart in the Jungle was wonderful. Man in High Castle was wonderful. Catastrophe was hilarious.

Nobody has even mentioned the really great thing that is Amazon Prime Music.

 

[Wakey87433]

Or, you know, they could release the app so us paying customers can use Amazon Prime on whatever device we choose. I understand the desire for good business terms but this is hurting their customers/market share by keeping this up.

The thing is though if they just released the app it could be worse for us as users. Much of what Amazon seem to be doing is trying to push for a situation without the politics that get in the way for us as customers. They launched their FireTV platform on the basis that they wanted to make it easy for services to launch on it and to use the more advanced features while trying to push others to open up so that we have options for purchasing content and services without them being either financially or feature crippled (and with Google it's they want it so their streaming device that requires other devices to use aren't limited to basically just Android based devices that run play services i.e. Those who pay Google and push Google services, iOS or the chrome browser)

We kind of need people with power and resources like Amazon to fight for us otherwise we are destined to need multiple boxes to use all the content and services we have

 

[igorsky]

Ever since I watched a video on Amazon Prime about Brazilian Beaches before a vacation there with my wife, Amazon Prime only recommends soft porns to me. It's pretty embarrassing when I have company over and they pull up Amazon Prime on my TV. I really need to figure out how to reset Prime's suggestions.

Not to laugh at your misfortune, but that's pretty hilarious.

 

[aced411]

Yah, I completely expect everything I ever buy on Amazon to run its poor, behind-every-other video streaming service. What nonsense. Even he can't believe that rubbish claim, leaving the only remaining conclusion that he is an anti-competitive liar.

Goddamnit my new alarm clock won't run Amazon Prime, but I bought it on Amazon! What kind of nonsense is this? RMA! Oh well, at least I can stream Amazon on the Nvidia Shield video streaming device that Amazon sells.... oh wait ....it doesn't? Seriously that is one of the most BS excuses ever. Just say it like it is.

 

[rvinny]

If you want it, there is a way of officially way of getting it. You have to go through Amazon's android app store, is all. Nothing to difficult for an android user to figure out.

Wait, the Amazon Prime Video app that is available to iOS (and on my Sony AndroidTV) is not available in the Google Play store?! Didn't know this.

I harbor this seemingly elusive preference to have everything under one roof with the added benefit of openness and possibly lower hardware costs. I started going platform agnostic with my media and was considering the move to Android, thinking it would be more flexible.

I hate these ecosystem wars and don't think I'm interested in loading a 2nd app store to a device. This puts a damper on things.