Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is quoted from a Vudu Employee in the Vudu forums:

"I imagine a full Apple TV app will happen eventually but it's not as much of a priority given that Apple basically prevents 3rd parties from selling movies in their apps."

Perhaps Amazon insisted on selling movies on Apple TV?
 
Apple will budge. The Shareholders will demand it.
Doubtful -- it would create a domino effect of other content providers demanding the same treatment, shareholders aren't going to "demand" a huge revenue loss of all that 30% revenue share.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: igorsky
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.

I used to be like that. Then I started exploring past where I usually looked, and found Prime included things like most/all seasons of Doctor Who, Rome, and neat BBC shows like The Bletchley Circle.

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.

Like The Man in the High Castle?

"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.

My devices are MY devices.

I don't even think it's right that Apple should force all its device buyers to only use its own App Store. Eleven years ago, if Microsoft had tried that, the outcry would've rightfully been huge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerwin
Like The Man in the High Castle?
That's the only thing that people are continuously repeating, it doesn't bode well for the rest of their offerings. I still remember watching a portion of their awful attempt at doing a Zombieland spinoff TV Show. Yikes.

Additionally, they need to refine their UI before they even try to move forward, as I think that alone is going to be enough to deter people from utilize Prime Video, more so than having to use a computer to subscribe/add/buy/rent videos.
 
And yet, Amazon is perfectly happy to operate their iOS app that way.

I hope they keep supporting iOS.

iOS is different than TV. It's fairly easy to buy video on iOS through the Safari web browser. You can also have web apps; Amazon has an icon you can install for the Kindle Store; new purchases don't go through Apple, don't have a 30% revenue share, and open in the Kindle app. They could do the same thing for a Prime Video Store.

And having a separate media store from the media player is no different from Apple's iTunes Store vs. Video app.

So on iOS devices, there isn't quite so much a gap between the experience Apple offers and what Amazon can offer.

That said, I'm not even considering an Apple TV until they support Amazon. My personal experience with Apple TV has been pretty bad; about 80% of the time, my purchased content won't play. Amazon works on both my Roku and my TiVo, and if I buy content from Amazon, I have more playback choices.

(And I was able to get into purchased video before I had an HD TV, Apple never offered an SD option on Apple TV.)
 
I hope they keep supporting iOS.
That said, I'm not even considering an Apple TV until they support Amazon.
They do - as seen by Amazon's iOS apps, it's Amazon that doesn't want to support Apple.

My personal experience with Apple TV has been pretty bad; about 80% of the time, my purchased content won't play. Amazon works on both my Roku and my TiVo, and if I buy content from Amazon, I have more playback choices.
It sounds like you've got a faulty ATV. If it's been that bad, why didn't you return it??
 
  • Like
Reactions: igorsky
Bezos is the Anti-Christ.

Never heard of him before today. All I can think is, that surname sounds like a foreign word for kisses.

Mister Kisses, sat at a big shiny round table with top ten automotive tech influencer Timmy Cook. Pulling each other's pigtails until acceptable business terms are reached and then everybody squeals with pleasure and finally off they go – Kissypops and Timmykins – skipping down and around the loop, and all the shareholders say "Ooh!".
 
...My devices are MY devices.

I don't even think it's right that Apple should force all its device buyers to only use its own App Store. Eleven years ago, if Microsoft had tried that, the outcry would've rightfully been huge.

When you buy an iPhone, you do so knowing that's what the deal is. iPhones live in a walled garden environment. Sure, that's limiting in some ways, but some of those ways are precisely why your iPhone isn't a virus-ridden, system-crashing wreck. Also, Apple makes its money by selling generally reliable devices, not your personal data. Limiting app sales to their own app store helps them assure the safety and compatibility of the apps you buy, which leads to the reliability of the device. Deriving income from that app store is part of how they are able to bypass ad revenue as a major portion of their business model.

Finally, eleven years ago, the Apple App Store didn't exist, and 99-cent apps pre-screened for system compatibility and quality assurance were unheard of. This is one of those Steve Jobs ideas that created a whole new industry for software developers. No one could have imagined being able to make a living by writing software where the developer only gets 70 cents per copy sold, but where that software is instantly available for sale on hundreds of millions of devices. No one could have imagined a platform with a UI so consistent, stable, and user-friendly that consumers would be willing to purchase applications that don't come with instruction books and other documentation.

Besides, if you really want out of the walled garden, there are other device manufacturers and software developers who more closely follow the old Microsoft model. You can get your apps from wherever, and your device is your device.. but your data will belong to Google.
 
I have Amazon prime and every time I tried using there Amazon video app it asks me to pay for the movie to watch?! I don't get it and just deleted the app, didn't lose anything here.
 
When you buy an iPhone, you do so knowing that's what the deal is. iPhones live in a walled garden environment. Sure, that's limiting in some ways, but some of those ways are precisely why your iPhone isn't a virus-ridden, system-crashing wreck.

Neither are my Android devices, nor were my Windows Mobile devices before that.

Also, Apple makes its money by selling generally reliable devices, not your personal data.

Not for lack of trying. Apple really tried to get advertisers to jump on with iAds, which sold targeted slots using our personal data exactly the same way as Google does.

Plus don't get me started on Apple selling banks access to their own customers via the Apple Pay ransom. That's Apple profiting from using their customers as products, along with Apple getting back previously proprietary aggregate purchase info from the banks.

And then there's the way that Apple makes a billion plus each year selling Google direct access to its user's information by way of kickbacks from letting Google be the default search engine.

Apple might not be a prostitute themselves, but they're a heckuva pimp.

Finally, eleven years ago, the Apple App Store didn't exist, and 99-cent apps pre-screened for system compatibility and quality assurance were unheard of.

Actually, many of us were users of big stores like Handango, with vetted apps, many of them free.

This is one of those Steve Jobs ideas that created a whole new industry for software developers. No one could have imagined being able to make a living by writing software where the developer only gets 70 cents per copy sold, but where that software is instantly available for sale on hundreds of millions of devices.

Nor could anyone have imagined that writing a neat mobile app would mean that immediately two dozen copycat apps would show up and blow your chances at making any money. Over half the App Store revenue goes to a handful of huge app producers.

No one could have imagined a platform with a UI so consistent, stable, and user-friendly that consumers would be willing to purchase applications that don't come with instruction books and other documentation.

Actually, we were about to evolve into a platform agnostic Flash or Java ME Polish world. Jobs was rightfully terrified of what would happen once the newly purchased Flash platform was running well, and able to deliver highly interactive apps that ran on any device. No wonder he bent over backwards to diss it.

Besides, if you really want out of the walled garden, there are other device manufacturers and software developers who more closely follow the old Microsoft model. You can get your apps from wherever, and your device is your device.. but your data will belong to Google.

Since Google does not sell my data, and I can monitor / turn it off, and I get services in return, not a problem.
 
Neither are my Android devices, nor were my Windows Mobile devices before that.



Not for lack of trying. Apple really tried to get advertisers to jump on with iAds, which sold targeted slots using our personal data exactly the same way as Google does.

Plus don't get me started on Apple selling banks access to their own customers via the Apple Pay ransom. That's Apple profiting from using their customers as products, along with Apple getting back previously proprietary aggregate purchase info from the banks.

And then there's the way that Apple makes a billion plus each year selling Google direct access to its user's information by way of kickbacks from letting Google be the default search engine.

Apple might not be a prostitute themselves, but they're a heckuva pimp.



Actually, many of us were users of big stores like Handango, with vetted apps, many of them free.



Nor could anyone have imagined that writing a neat mobile app would mean that immediately two dozen copycat apps would show up and blow your chances at making any money. Over half the App Store revenue goes to a handful of huge app producers.



Actually, we were about to evolve into a platform agnostic Flash or Java ME Polish world. Jobs was rightfully terrified of what would happen once the newly purchased Flash platform was running well, and able to deliver highly interactive apps that ran on any device. No wonder he bent over backwards to diss it.



Since Google does not sell my data, and I can monitor / turn it off, and I get services in return, not a problem.

O.K., then. Enjoy!
 
Can't blame Amazon's CEO for his stance. Pretty common actually.

It's not like Apple has an iTunes/Music app available for Android.
 
While the app didn't launch for Apple TV, Amazon did debut a standalone Prime Video streaming service for $8.99 a month, allowing users to subscribe to the service without signing up for the annual $99 Amazon Prime bundle, which includes free shipping from the company's retail store, unlimited streaming music and more.
So with the prime video subscription you pay more to not get free shipping or prime music?
 
It's ironic, because I was just thinking about this earlier today as I was unplugging my Fire TV stick from my primary tv. I decided to see if (and how well) Amazon implemented airplay from the iPhone app. I was pleasantly surprised. It provides a top notch Airplay experience that allows you to close the app/turn off the display (it frustrates me to no end when apps don't have that for some reason) and even has in-show functionality that tells you the actors on the screen, some trivia about what you are watching etc. Also provides easy way to pause and skip forward/backward 10 seconds from the app, lock screen, and that utility tray thing.

Honestly, I think in many respects it's superior to do it this way than on the Apple TV itself. The only downside would be that a whole group wouldn't be able to pick a show as easily. Would require huddling or reading out loud, but not a huge deal.
 
Bezos, though often right, is dead wrong on this. The "Prime Video" is a limited set and often tries to trick you into paying for stuff not covered by prime
 
  • Like
Reactions: igorsky
Bezos wants it both ways.

So does Apple. At least in 2010 when I asked hwy certain editions of Adobe suites weren't on the shelves. The Genius replied that those versions complete with Apple's own video editing tools and it was not allowed.

Forgive me for siding with Bezos on this. Apple likes having it both ways as well, so we shouldn't get angry when someone else wants the same treatment Apple has put out. So maybe both companies are wrong. Or are they both right? Why or why not?
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Digital movie rental prices are ridiculous do to no competition. Why does it cost $6 to rent an HD movie from iTunes, but it only cost $2 to rent an actual Blu-ray from Redbox?
As a filmmaker, I think the rental prices are mostly okay. Though I think it would have been best to see general rental prices stay at $3.99 rather than $4.99 in HD. $4 was the price of a new release rental from Blockbuster 15 years ago... So it isn't bad inflation-wise. I only take issue with digital purchase prices, as it really isn't the same as buying physical media. Rentals are arguably a better experience now, but purchases don't come with physical packaging, (in most cases) extras, the ability to resell or even loan to a friend. When you rent a movie on iTunes and it finishes, they should just give you the option to own it for $2 more. $2 is better than nothing!

But on the subject of rentals again, Redbox got around the typical rental license fees that cost upwards of $100 per disc, and that changed things. It isn't good for the business, as it devalued rentals TOO much. Thankfully, due to the limited storage space, they typically only carry relatively popular movies that can afford the hit.

When you look at iTunes today, you've got a ton of movies that can't get a release in theaters. Movies that WOULD have had a theatrical release 15 years ago. Movies as big as Ex Machina only have an audience via rentals. We're talking movies with budgets that can exceed 10 million. If rentals were $2, they'd have to get around 7 million rentals just to break even... A pretty large chunk of the population for a small, R-rated sci-fi film.

With theaters only using their screens for superhero movies and having to use so many screens to accommodate the same movie at different times, in standard AND 3D AND IMAX... Then disc purchases dying out... Digital purchases being a tiny, tiny market... There are a ton of films that rely almost entirely on digital rentals to exist.

Like I said though, I think $4 is the sweet spot there and the few $10 rentals I've seen are absurd. That's the distributor putting too high of a wholesale price. I'm seeing less of those now, as I bet they got killed in piracy. What I'm seeing now is all of these purchase-only early releases for $15. Those annoy the heck out of me. Let people rent the damn movie.
 
I'm sure Amazon has lost a lot of customers to NetFlix since that has a player on AppleTV....
Under that premise - you would also have to say that Apple has lost alot of potential ATV customers to Roku, FireTV, smart tvs, game systems etc because they all have the Prime app. I don't think Amazon is losing a whole lot of customers because the vast majority were already Prime subscribers for the other benefits. While it hurts them both, IMO no Prime app on ATV hurts Apple more than it hurts Amazon. Personally - I had two reasons for not buying the AppleTV 4: No 4K and No Prime. The newest Roku and 4K SmartTVs have these features.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kdarling
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.

No it has nothing to do with the 30%. Apple only takes 15% currently from Hulu, Netflix, and HBONow. They have also said prices were up for negotiation based on other factors. It's been 15% since at least 2015 when HBONow launched.


Besides the old 30% and new 15% was only collected if they were new customers signing up in app. If they already had an account, or signed up online Apple doesn't collect anything.

It's much more likely to deal with not being able to rent or make purchases in app.

http://www.cultofmac.com/319040/apple-only-takes-15-cut-on-hbo-now-netflix-and-hulu-subscriptions/
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.