And yet, Amazon is perfectly happy to operate their iOS app that way.
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
Again, everyone is hung up on the 30%. While the business side of things is being worked out, what is stopping Amazon from releasing an Amazon Prime Video app for tvOS, just like they do for iOS, so that Prime customers can watch the content that they've paid for on their Apple TVs? Everyone is viewing Amazon as the good guy when in reality they're pulling some very customer-unfriendly bs here.
Woooshhhh, right over your head my post goes.
1. It has to do with the 30% because:
What else could that be referring to?
2. No kidding, I know that already, and that's what I'd love Amazon to do.
3. I never blamed Apple, I clearly blame Amazon, and that's why I said if they truly have an issue with Apple, there are easy workarounds to their "acceptable business terms" problem.
Would McDonald's let Coca Cola set up a vending machine in their store without taking a cut from the proceeds? I think not.
Actually Netflix sub doesn't. They basically spend $1 on content for every $1 in revenue. They fund their content spend with billions in new debt each year. It's a long way off before streaming services get close to breaking even let alone turning a real profit. While people are willing to give Netflix money and investors aren't too bothered about short term profits they are just trying to position themselves to be able to exploit the situation when people get less price sensitive with streaming and the sub fees can be vastly increased.
And similarly the consumer is the one who loses out, as you can only get Coke products at McDonald's, not Pepsi or something else.
So then why does Amazon have an iOS app? There is zero difference between AirPlaying content from the Amazon app vs streaming from a dedicated Apple TV app. One is ok, yet another is business suicide? Yeah, ok.
Agreed. Their one size fits all model is making some of their products seem like bloatware.
Although it may be fun to play around and trial some of the services, I would much rather have them broken out so I can pay for only what I need.
1. It's almost as easy to jump to Amazon.com on your iphone to rent a video and go back to your Amazon app to watch it on your iPhone as it would be to switch apps to rend the same video from iTunes, so Amazon has some hope of turning Prime content viewers into paying customers for content. You can't do that on Apple TV.
2. The money at stake for TV viewers is orders of magnitude more than what's at stake for people watching content on tablets and phones.
Last edited:
You can do it with the new one as well. Airplay from my ipad.
Remind me again what "must watch" programming is available on Prime TV that I can't already get from some other service.
With each additional step required to purchase content, you lose customers. Sure, some people will make a purchase or rental in a browser, then open the Amazon video app on their iPhone and then connect via AirPlay to watch on the TV. It's not really that hard to do. It's a lot easier, though, to just open the iTunes app on the ATV and go. Way more people are going to do that, given the choice. It's much better for Amazon if they can sell you (at a loss) a Fire TV stick, so that you'll leave the Apple environment entirely when you want to watch Prime, because once you're there, it's easier to purchase and rent content from them. These companies are in business to make money, and they're not going to take losses only to drive customers to the competition.
[doublepost=1464798197][/doublepost]P.S. Where is all the gnashing of teeth over the fact that iTunes and Apple music aren't available on your Amazon Fire TV? It's not, and it won't be, for many of the same reasons in reverse.
Once the app is downloaded, it's ON YOUR DEVICE ... NOT IN THE STORE ANY MORE.
So it's more like, you go buy a CocaCola machine FROM MacDonalds and take it home... but MacDonald's STILL wants a cut.
Well, accept these business terms, Jeff:
No Prime app on tv, no Prime subscription from me. Your move.
No Prime app on tv, no Prime subscription from me. Your move.
I have an Amazon Prime account because the included shipping services are worth the price of admission. But I spend zero time consuming any of their content. The one original show they had which I liked was Alpha House, and they cancelled it.
The only thing that would give Amazon some leverage over Apple would be if they produced some stellar content on par with the best content from Netflix or HBO, such as House of Cards or Game of Thrones.
[doublepost=1464798772][/doublepost]
"Your device" is still Apple's iPhone, iPad, or Apple TV. Your hypothetical would only make sense if McDonalds' primary business was designing and selling exclusive homes.
Last edited:
"And if you can't, we don't want to sell it to our customers because they're going to be buying it thinking you can watch Prime Video and then they're going to be disappointed and then they're going to return it."
1. Who uses Prime Video?
2. Not having Prime Video is not going to be the reason that anyone returns the device.
3. The real reason why Amazon stop selling the Apple TV is so that they can try to sell more Fire TV's.
1. Who uses Prime Video?
2. Not having Prime Video is not going to be the reason that anyone returns the device.
3. The real reason why Amazon stop selling the Apple TV is so that they can try to sell more Fire TV's.
No analogy is perfect. In this case, Coca Cola is content. It would be stupid for Apple to provide a competitor with the platform to sell the same content they offer, without taking a cut. At the same time it would be stupid for Amazon to put a Prime-only app on the ATV at a loss, only to make it easier for their customers to buy 'premium' content from Apple.
You don't need an MBA to get this.
the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-dog-dare... with a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare.
He's going to be just fine with that. He's offering you that Prime subscription at a loss to make it easier for you to spend money in his store. He's not interested in taking that loss to make it easier for you to spend money in Tim Cook's store.
Last edited:
It would but the Eco systems don't allow that to happen which is the problem. You get situations where they lock rivals out of features or take 30% cut which on rental/purchases is the whole profit the retailer makes.
It needs platforms to reduce rates and not offer two tier systems for everyone being on every platform and seeing which one comes out on top to be viable
[doublepost=1464800460][/doublepost]
Why exactly do they want to sell more loss leading devices?
I'm not hung up on the 30% - Amazon is. And reading this thread, there are certainly a lot of people who don't view Amazon as the good guy here. IMO, neither Apple nor Amazon are good or bad here, they are simply doing what they think is the best strategy for the long run.
It weakens Amazon's negotiation position as Apple get the benefit of having Amazon Prime so why give up anything on the percentage or for that matter on their two tier system that is unlikely that a rival is ever going to get an invite to thus locking them out of advanced features.
Also it weakens their position with Google which is a bigger dispute for Amazon as they face the same issue with the 30%, being locked out of core Android features and being unable to implement things like Cast ability on their Fire tablets
They want to sell more product to have more market share and to sell more of everything else through it. igorsky is right - why is this only a problem with Amazon?