the difference may be that ios has a browser that allows direct access to amazon.com. because apple tv doesn't have a browser, any transactions would be subject to the standard 30% fee without a special deal from apple.
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
the difference may be that ios has a browser that allows direct access to amazon.com. because apple tv doesn't have a browser, any transactions would be subject to the standard 30% fee without a special deal from apple.
Really? I actually prefer amazon prime over netflix. The only downside to prime is that I'm out of the country a lot so it is not available for me to watch. But when I'm in the states I watch quiet a bit of it.
They're both going to ask for more than they're given, and neither is wrong for trying. However I think Bezos comes off second-best because Apple hasn't bent on 30% for anyone.
I use Amazon Prime video rarely - it sucks.
I am glad that I've yet to buy an Apple TV; so much disappointing features for a great company like Apple to include, or not include.
Meanwhile, PS3, PS4, TiVo, Sony Bluray players all give me access to Amazon, if I want to use it.
I rarely purchase movies or CDs from iTunes.
I am glad that I've yet to buy an Apple TV; so much disappointing features for a great company like Apple to include, or not include.
Meanwhile, PS3, PS4, TiVo, Sony Bluray players all give me access to Amazon, if I want to use it.
I rarely purchase movies or CDs from iTunes.
As has already been pointed out, Apple only gets 15% of subscription fees from Netflix, HBO, Hulu, etc.; and that's only if the user signs up thru the app. If a user logs in with an existing subscription then Apple gets nothing, ie. how Amazon Video works on iOS.
One of the reasons Apple supposedly lowered rates for Netflix, HBO, et al, was because the Feds were looking into anti-trust issues with the way Apple locks down purchases through their own app store and media mart.
"Supposedly" being the key word in that statement. Have a link to substantiate, supposedly or otherwise...?
Yep, that's why I said "supposedly". If it was a known hard fact, I'd not have included that modifier.
If you're interested past that, let Google be your workhorse.
Always a good idea to provide backup when you "quote" information, otherwise it is perceived that you have an overactive imagination. If I were to make such a statement, I'd certainly back it up with a link. Let Google be >your< workhorse.
Personally, I have no confidence in the accuracy of your claims and no desire to google it. Thanks though for stopping by
Always a good idea to provide backup when you "quote" information, otherwise it is perceived that you have an overactive imagination. If I were to make such a statement, I'd certainly back it up with a link. Let Google be >your< workhorse.
Personally, I have no confidence in the accuracy of your claims and no desire to google it. Thanks though for stopping by
The feds were most certainly looking into Apple in this area. Here is a link to the WSJ arcticle.
Two quotes from the article to provide a quick view:
'Apple also would have the option of changing its practices, if need be, to head off any possible formal action by antitrust regulators.'
and article ends with:
'In September, Apple backed down on both issues, revising its rules and taking the heat out of that investigation.'
Seems pretty obvious to me. No overactive imagination.
Last edited:
That's not the case for others on the platform, and people that have a subscription they set up elsewhere could still watch it anyway on the Apple TV. That's how others do it. Bezos is being an utter liar and he knows it.
That article is from February 2011, covering activities that happened in late 2010 -- your quotes are from different parts of the article and aren't actually related to each other, the last one relating to the FTC's examination of Apple's rules preventing app developers from using tools made by software maker Adobe Inc. It also investigated restrictions that appeared to impede Google's ability to effectively serve ads on Apple devices, something that potentially gave Apple's own iAd service an edge. Apple has since ditched iAd -- new apps can't use it, developers can continue existing implementations through June 30th 2016.
Nothing more current that isn't over 5 years old? Or here's a thought: something relevant to this topic thread...?
Last edited:
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
1. Would you expect a shop to have a place in a shopping centre without paying rent?
2. They can remove the sign up from the app and leave the login screen like some other services.
You can bet that Amazon won't separate active prime video users out from Prime as a whole, if they were to issue figures.
Apart from the fact that the Xbox app, amongst some others also do not have the ability to buy/rent streaming content from Amazon either, so that renders that moot
So you also have issues with eBay or eBay taking a cut off any sales people make through them too? Or are you just ignoring that fact.
You don't see Amazon boycotting releasing an app for the Xbox, they released one there without the ability to rent or buy, but just stream and arguably that's a bigger audience than the Apple TV. Just makes them look like their deliberately picking on Apple.
Kind of makes your point seem irrelevant....
Or they can do the same as they do on iOS and Xbox and not have a sign up via the app and just steam the prime free content....
Please explain the Xbox one app then, which does exactly that.
Not at all. But if the rent in the shopping centre is so high that shops are unable to make a profit then they will have trouble attracting tenants.
No analogy is perfect. In this case, Coca Cola is content. It would be stupid for Microsoft 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 Xbox at a loss, only to make it easier for their customers to buy 'premium' content from Microsoft.
You don't need an MBA to get this.
Nice try. That's not same native iTunes Music app only available on iOS that I was referring to. But you knew that already.
Last edited: