Apple one never seemed worth it for me. I wouldn't use most of what it offers
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.
Apple TV+ Coming to Amazon Prime Video as Add-On Subscription
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not sure why anyone would want to add these subscriptions on to Prime simply because of their interface. I hate trying to jump ahead in a video on Prime, why can't they do it just like everyone else?
I get angry at prime now cus its the one app I really need on my Vision Pro to watch cus they have no web interface
Apple's content fits the mentality of that Portland company very well. Its getting harder and harder to find good movies and stories like the 90s
I guess "people who want to watch Apple TV but don't have Apple products of their own but they have Amazon Prime" is the target audience for this move? 🤔
Well this sucks.
One less reason to buy Apple products. Will you be able to watch Apple TV on iKnockoffs now?
One less reason to buy Apple products. Will you be able to watch Apple TV on iKnockoffs now?
Shame on the first act!
Other shows to watch: Severance, Silo, Slow Horses, Bad Monkey, Servant, Bad Sisters, Trying, the Afterparty.
I get Apple TV+ for free as part of my T-mobile cell phone service. I only watch “For All Mankind” and “The Morning Show”. I would not pay $9.99 a month for it as there is not enough compelling content. Apple should have won the NFL streaming package instead of letting YouTube TV win it if it wanted to gain subscribers.
The only reason I have an Apple TV now is to watch a show in Surround Sound over my AirPods Pro 2. Otherwise the apps on the Samsung TV are just fine.
What sucks about it? Amazon has been an Apple authorized reseller for several years; it shouldn't be a surprise to see TV+ available through Amazon's Prime Video. Regardless, no one is forced to get or use TV+ through Prime Video anyway.
lol, maybe you didn't catch my sarcasm, because obviously Apple is not giving Amazon 30%. Nobody is expecting them to, because why would they give up that much profit if they also have alternative distribution.
Sure thing, pay Apple for use of their technology. That's fine if you make a decent profit. They have given you a business opportunity and want to be paid for it.
But comparing it to the costs of physical distribution is just silly. Apple didn't invent the internet, downloading software or webstores. They can't claim to have saved you money there.
However, I didn't comment about software at all. It's about media distribution. They're asking Spotify, Netflix or even Patreon to pay 30% of their revenue (never mind that their margins are way less than that). And at the same time, they would never, ever agree to give anyone 30%, because it's just not a reasonable percentage. The customers are mostly paying for the content and bandwidth, not the app and its use of clever APIs. 30% of profit (i.e. after licensing costs) would be more justified.
Nope, that wasn't Apple. Maybe Tim Berners-Lee. The distribution cost of software went to near-zero back in the dot-com era. Doing things over the web cheaply was the whole bubble.
Apple has build a really nice convenient store with many customers. That's why they're asking more money for it in return, not less than before.
I don't begrudge Apple their profits. But I can't stand the talk about how taking 30% of everything done on an iPhone is "justified". It's just hypocritical, as they'd never pay that much anywhere. They charge that much, because they can, because, as a result of their success, there is no way around the iPhone.
Oh, and I'm a developer, too. And I wouldn't even mind paying Apple 30% for distribution, myself.
How many streaming boxes or TV’s that have the Amazon app do not have the Apple TV+ app?
Good points, but all this fragmentation is just chasing a shrinking audience. Platforms like YouTube and TikTok are eating into viewership for legacy media.
When Apple consolidated subscriptions within the (miserable) TV.app, it was hailed by the maudlin, Apple-loving cognoscenti as the true pathway to bring simplicity and a single billing portal to the chaos of streaming. When someone else starts consolidating streaming subscriptions under their own billing and management umbrella, and Apple themselves says "cool, we want in to your portal!" we have three pages (and counting) of hand-wringing and questioning the utility.
Self-parody, all in the name of brand fealty.
Self-parody, all in the name of brand fealty.
This is SO F***ING LAME, SHORT SIGHTED, AND STUPID OF APPLE. I've said for YEARS Apple TV Channels should've been their main focus of competing with the likes of Netflix Hulu and Amazon. But they let an otherwise superior platform pretty much die in favor of just Apple TV+, which should've been treated as a showcase for what the rest of the channels were capable of in features. I see this move as Apple throwing in the towel in the most un-Apple-like way and telling everyone Amazon is the winner here. If I were them I would've ONLY agreed to this if Amazon themselves agreed to make Prime Video an Apple TV Channel on the TV App in return, along with Apple ACTUALLY PUSHING to match Amazon's channel lineup with services like Max, Discovery+, Crunchyroll, PBS, and many others integrating with the TV App. As someone who's tried to support Apple's TV products as much as possible, this was like a slap in the face. Total failure on Apple's part imo.
Yes.
And the stupid naming schemes definitely don’t help either. They should have a completely different name for their content service.
Maybe Amazon actually is the winner here. The TV app sucks, channels and service integration is weird and clunky, the name is confusing, … why would it not fail?
So yes, if they can get more views by moving where the viewers are, I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing. (Not saying the viewers are at Amazon or that their app is better).
My eyes just rolled back in my head so hard I think I caught a glimpse of my next migraine.
False comparison. Apple does not, and could not, charge 30% for streaming apps to be accessed inside the Apple TV+ app, since you can easily just download the streaming app yourself on the exact same device. No streaming company would pay 30% to save the customer 1 click, considering the millions they invest in their brand. This is an entirely different situation from the iOS Apple store, which is more of a monopoly.
Which Amazon platform? You can already load Apple TV+ on a Firestick. All this new agreement does is provide one-click access to people from within the Prime interface, which encourages people to stay within the Prime interface, rather than switching to another app. That, in turn encourages people who want to rent movies to do it via Prime, which is where Amazon makes its money. This one-click convenience is far more valuable to Amazon than Apple. I doubt Amazon charges Apple any significant amount of money for this. The alternative is for people who want AppleTV content to download the app itself onto whatever their device is, and click on the AppleTV app directly. That means people who are within that app could just as easily rent movies from Apple.
No, it won't. Nor is Apple abandoning the Apple TV steaming box, or Homekit. The app, the box, and Homekit are all part of Apple's home integration strategy.