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.
Apps New applications
- Thread starter Ben524
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally I think Amazon are refusing to develop an app for the Apple TV because they don't want it to be a cut down app without the ability to rent/buy content. On every non Apple platform Amazon's Prime Video app does a lot more than just play free Prime content, it's essentially an iTunes style store with lots of content. On the iPad/iPhone Amazon aren't able to include this store as Apple would demand a 30% cut, which understandably they refuse to pay. Quite right too, it's total insanity for Apple to expect a cut from sales of content sold by Amazon, delivered by Amazon's servers and played by an Amazon app.
So Apple TV users suffer thanks to Apple's greed and sort sighted stupidity. Other platform holders with their own store to push (Sony for example with the PSN store) have zero issues with Amazon selling stuff there too, and don't demand a penny from Amazon. Perhaps someday Tim Cook will realise how idiotic he's being, or perhaps not, but until that happens the sales of Rokus and Fire TVs will continue unchecked.
So Apple TV users suffer thanks to Apple's greed and sort sighted stupidity. Other platform holders with their own store to push (Sony for example with the PSN store) have zero issues with Amazon selling stuff there too, and don't demand a penny from Amazon. Perhaps someday Tim Cook will realise how idiotic he's being, or perhaps not, but until that happens the sales of Rokus and Fire TVs will continue unchecked.
There are two ways to look at it of course, as with all things. Apple are providing Amazon with potential customers they might otherwise not have access to. In such a case it's not unreasonable for them to expect a share of revenue.
You can for example go to the Sony website and purchase any of their products directly, with no middle man involved. Alternatively you can pop along to an electrical store and purchase one from them.
Are you suggesting that the electrical store shouldn't be permitted to some profit for themselves, just because all they are doing is providing a customer Sony might otherwise not have had?
Or you can go to the website of the electrical store and purchase the same product, often these are supplied direct from the manufacturer, so all the electrical store is doing is providing a customer and handling the payment transaction. Surely then they shouldn't get money for that as they are providing a Sony product, made by Sony and delivered by Sony?
Just playing devils advocate.
And while we are on the subject of the evil Apple and their greed and disrespect to developers, publishers and content owners, with their bare faced cheek at demanding a share when, others such as Roku don't. Have you ever read through the Roku developer agreement and terms of service? I have, here's a couple of important points, feel free to go and read the several lengthy documents these facts are taken from:
2.2. For applications listed in the Roku Channel Store (i.e. public channels), subscription, transactional, and pay-to-install channels must enroll in the Roku Billing Services program and support the Roku billing API.
2.3. For applications listed in the Roku Channel Store (i.e. public channels), ad-supported channels may be asked to provide up to a 30% share of ad inventory.
However, program participants agree to pay Roku 20% of the revenues received (net of credits, refunds, etc.). In return, Roku handles customer payments, developer remittances, customer receipts, customer accounts and sales activity reports.
Public Applications that are Pay-To-Install Applications, Subscription Applications or Transactional Applications must use Roku billing services.
Revenue Share from Pay-To-Install Applications. For Pay-To-Install Applications, Roku will pay you 80% of the revenue from the purchase of your Pay-To-Install Application, and Roku will retain 20%.
6. Revenue Share from Transactional Applications. For Transactional Applications that use Roku billing services, Roku will pay you 80% of the revenue from each in-application transaction, and Roku will retain 20%.
7. Revenue from Subscription Applications. For Subscription Applications, that use Roku billing services, Roku will pay you 80% of the revenue from each subscription fee, and Roku will retain 20%.
Last edited:
If Amazon is able to supply an app on IOS, I don't see how having one on the TV should be any different. Amazon also has tablets and had a phone, which competes with IOS, just like the Fire TV with the Apple TV, so they must be okay with at least some form of competition.
Also, your argument about paying a 30% cut goes both ways. If a company want to sell something on Amazon as a third party, don't they also have to pay a cut to Amazon? Hypothetically, if Apple wanted to sell the Apple TV on Amazon as a third party, I'm sure Amazon would also want to take their cut -- but the point is that Amazon has banned the sale of the Apple TV, while at the same time Apple would probably not ban Amazon from releasing an app.
I'm not saying that Apple is not being greedy, but so is Amazon.
Terrible analogies and irrelevant anyway, as the only logical comparison is a like for like - how are third parties treated on other streaming platforms? Only Apple demand a cut for a transaction in which they play absolutely no part. Platform holders need to get out of the way of developers, stop meddling, stop demanding money with menaces.
Roku is the most popular streaming platform. Not really a surprise.
It has nothing at all to do with other streaming platforms and how they choose to run their operations. It's business and in business it's relatively common to expect reasonable remuneration for supplying another company with a customer.
Roku may well be, well is, the current leader in sales of streaming set-top boxes. But that doesn't mean we all like them (as a, until recently, Roku product tester I've had most Roku devices and I don't like them. Which is why I was a tester for so many years, I was objective rather than just telling them everything was great) or that all companies should follow their business model. In fact that's the exact opposite of what should happen.
Without companies doing things differently, we'd get the same ***** in a different box from everyone. Competition and differences are absolutely crucial for progress.
Is Apples way of operating something that should be the de facto standard for streaming boxes? Dear god no.
But Apple do know how to turn a buck and that is their objective, to make money. And as much of it as they possibly can. That's any businesses purpose. So long as Apple is making money, they will do things their way, with no regard for anyone or anything else and that's exactly how it should be, we wouldn't have the Apple devices we have now if it was any other way.
Other platforms also get a cut of sales from Amazon and other streaming apps. Nothing is free brah.
This is why Roku has everybodies app....and FULL app, that wants one, they don't charge. Could they? well sure, you talk about customer base, they have had the best selling boxes for years. People buy Roku's because they don't have to discussions like this wondering why some wont take the time to write an app. Sounds like Roku's approach is best for the consumer...Apples is best for, well, Apple.....or is it when people keep buying more Roku's?
Incorrect, Apple, Sony, Microsoft roku and all the others all take a cut from sales / subscriptions on their stores. Do you think you're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Th fees range from 20-30%
Um, roku does charge 20% somim. It sure why you're making things up.
And chrome Asst is the best selling media steamer follows by Apple TV and then roku.
And chrome Asst is the best selling media steamer follows by Apple TV and then roku.
No, as there's no tvOS version in the iOS app. The Provenance app has a tvOS app. Unless someone has made an Amazon tvOS app and put it on github, you'll have to wait for Amazon to finish making theirs.
The bit in bold is something you could say to Amazon's lame reason for pulling Google Chromecast devices and Apple TVs from their site. Especially since Amazon are the ones that chose not to make apps for those devices.
Amazon knows that it can't compete in the tablet well enough to take the gamble of restricting thei Prime Video app to their own device. Also they know they have no chance at all in the phone market. They think their best chance for being top of the market and getting more sales for Amazon Prime Video and the Fire TV is by restricting it on TV devices. They know the 2 to beat are Apple and Google. They don't consider Roku to be much of a threat, due to name recognition. The general public know of Amazon, Apple and Google, not Roku. It's also why they made the lame excuse to try and stop selling chromecast devices and Apple TV on their site.
Also, the only Amazon product getting a lot of advertising on TV from them is not the phone or the tablet, but the Fire TV....
You obviously didn't read the post 5 posts before yours by @TrueBlou mdid you? Proves what you just said about charging wrong.
Last edited:
First, I don't consider chromecast in the same category as other streamers...no remote, $35. Second, unless your talking about monthly or quarterly sale numbers, Roku has led for some time. It will take time to see how the latest boxes pan out though. Some reports:
http://www.investors.com/roku-leads-streaming-media-player-market-parks-associates-says/
https://www.parksassociates.com/blog/article/ces-summit2015-pr3
http://www.cnet.com/news/more-households-buying-streaming-media-players-roku-still-tops/
I'm hoping Apple can gain some ground but they need to Allow/get some competition on their box...Amazon TV-Vudu---to name a couple.
Third. It's been my understanding that Roku doesn't charge a flat in app purchase tax. They sell ads, direct link buttons on their remote and stuff like that but I would like to see a link showing lets say how much they charge Amazon for having their FULL app on the Roku. If they are charging amazon, Vudu and the likes an Apple like tax, and still have all of those channels, full Apps....well that looks pretty bad for Apple to say the least.
http://www.investors.com/roku-leads-streaming-media-player-market-parks-associates-says/
https://www.parksassociates.com/blog/article/ces-summit2015-pr3
http://www.cnet.com/news/more-households-buying-streaming-media-players-roku-still-tops/
I'm hoping Apple can gain some ground but they need to Allow/get some competition on their box...Amazon TV-Vudu---to name a couple.
Third. It's been my understanding that Roku doesn't charge a flat in app purchase tax. They sell ads, direct link buttons on their remote and stuff like that but I would like to see a link showing lets say how much they charge Amazon for having their FULL app on the Roku. If they are charging amazon, Vudu and the likes an Apple like tax, and still have all of those channels, full Apps....well that looks pretty bad for Apple to say the least.
So, you're saying that the Roku Developer Agreement that @TrueBlou is a lie? It comes direct from Roku themselves. They take 20%
Also, it looks bad for Amazon, not Apple, as it just makes Amazon look petty and childish.
The Amazon Fire TV is not a big seller, probably because the UI is terrible and people just don't want hardware from Amazon. Once the Fire TV is in the dustbin of history they will have no choice but to put an App on Apple tv. And all those adds on TV have not produced sales numbers, latest i saw was Apple tv number one followed by chromecast and Roku
No, it's not a lie. But it is a new requirement that was introduced just a few months ago and doesn't affect Amazon. Before that, there was no requirement for apps to use Roku's billing system for in-app purchases. They also still allow apps to offer a login for an external billing system (although you are not allowed to link to external sign-up pages), in which case Roku will also not get a revenue share.
The Amazon app for Roku doesn't use Roku billing for either Prime subscriptions or individual movie purchases/renting (you will get charged through your Amazon account), so they are not paying a revenue share to Roku for purchases (although there may of course be some private agreement in place between Roku and Amazon that we don't know about).
Generally, Roku seems willing to negotiate this on a case-by-case basis according to their FAQ:
"What if I have a subscription, transactional, or pay-to-install channel but cannot support the Roku Billing Services program?
Please contact us at partners@roku.com to discuss."
Amazon are making an Apple TV app, simply because everyone noticed how their 'excuse' for pulling the Apple TV and Chromecast was moronic.
Well, apparently, in October 2014, Roku demanded new deals with some of the 'popular channels' demanding new agreements to give them a share. We don't know the details, but Amazon would have been one of them, so for all we know, Amazon might be paying them a share.
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/10/13/roku-pressuring-video-makers-for-a-cut-of-their-profits/
The billing requirement was added with an update of Roku's developer agreement in September 2015.
You can be certain that Amazon and other large providers will negotiate individual agreements with Roku and will not pay anywhere near Apple's 30%. You can also be certain that there have been negotiations between Amazon and Apple, but obviously they didn't lead to a mutually acceptable outcome so far.