or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Amazon aiming to take on Apple TV with March launch of new set-top box
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Amazon aiming to take on Apple TV with March launch of new set-top box

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
Internet retail giant Amazon is reportedly planning to preempt Apple's rumored springtime Apple TV refresh with an Android-powered set-top box of its own --?and the device could go on sale as soon as next month.

Instant


There is no word on what features the device might ship with or whether Amazon has struck new content deals that go beyond the agreements currently in place for its Prime streaming service, according to Re/code. Word of Amazon's living room ambitions first surfaced last October with news that the company was readying a streamer, code-named "Cinnamon," for the holiday season.

At the time, it was believed that Amazon was planning to allow the box to stream movies, television shows, and music from Amazon's own cloud streaming services. The company was also said to be considering the ability to run games and third-party applications from content providers, similar to the way the popular Roku box operates.

Amazon is thought to have delayed the device's launch until this spring after Amazon senior management was "underwhelmed" with the product's direction and market fit.

Then, earlier this month, a report emerged placing Amazon in "early stage" negotiations with major content providers to add live television streams. Amazon later denied that report, saying it was focused on its existing Prime video service and new content from Amazon Studios.

If Amazon does launch such a device in March, it would enter the fray just weeks before Apple is expected to introduce a long-awaited update for the Apple TV. That update would bring new hardware, including a faster processor, and a revamped user interface alongside potentially major content deals.

Apple is thought to have been in negotiations with cable provider Time Warner to provide live and on-demand programming through the new box. It is unknown how the the surprise announcement of Time Warner's merger with Comcast could have affected those negotiations, as Comcast has a set-top entrant of its own.
post #2 of 45
Very tempted, if Apple decides to not release a proper refresh with a channel store (at the minimum) I'll dump my ATV in the bin and get something like this.

The lack of channel/App store is an absolute joke, it would have been a piece of cake for them to roll it out years ago. Not as if the channel apps take up a lot of space, Apple could easily have set guidelines as to the design of each channel.

Stop trying to sell us content Apple, leave that crap to the cable companies etc and leave them the choice of providing an app just as they do for the iDevices. Charge an extra £100 and make your money on the hardware!
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #3 of 45
Who's Time Warner?

/s
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #4 of 45
And next week is MWC where Samsung and others are showing off new devices so I'm sure it will be lots of FUD and D&G for Apple. The media is in full Galaxy S5 hype mode. No doubt the new phone will be proclaimed the best "iPhone killer" yet and Apple stock will tank.
post #5 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

Very tempted, if Apple decides to not release a proper refresh with a channel store (at the minimum) I'll dump my ATV in the bin and get something like this.

The lack of channel/App store is an absolute joke, it would have been a piece of cake for them to roll it out years ago. Not as if the channel apps take up a lot of space, Apple could easily have set guidelines as to the design of each channel.

Stop trying to sell us content Apple, leave that crap to the cable companies etc and leave them the choice of providing an app just as they do for the iDevices. Charge an extra £100 and make your money on the hardware!

I wouldn't pay an extra £100 for an Apple logo. What's stopping you dumping your Apple TV in the bin now? I personally only require YouTube/Netflix/AirPlay. My biggest gripe with Apple TV is not apps or UI, but the crappy IR remote. Typing and Bluetooth are two areas I'd like to see Apple address with the new Apple TV. And no, a Bluetooth Apple keyboard on my coffee table is definitely not what I mean, nor the crumby remote app. I need custom dedicated hardware from Apple for this. Rest assured I still sleep at night, but Apple would do well to fix these issues.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #6 of 45
I can see why they want to do this and for those without the Apple Eco System it might make sense but the timing might not be too good. I suspect /hope Apple is about to move from 'it's a hobby' to 'really serious' with the next update. It will be interesting to see what the new product offers from Apple.

I love my Amazon Prime shopping account but I have never used the Amazon Streaming HDTV service other than once to see what it was all about. Even with FiOS 75 Mb/s it was not in the same league as Netflix on my Apple TV in quality or experience. In fact, I would like to see Amazon split the delivery Prime from the TV prime as I presumably am paying for something I won't use.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #7 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

The lack of channel/App store is an absolute joke, it would have been a piece of cake for them to roll it out years ago.

 

A piece of cake, huh? And I suppose you have experience at all of this? Perhaps there's something stopping content providers from releasing apps for a set-top box? Like maybe, contracts with the cable companies? Remember Google's box? They couldn't even stream video from web sites - they were blocked by all the content provider's sites. It's not as cut and dry as you'd like to think it is.

 

Apps are released for other iOS devices because those devices aren't tied to the living room TV where cable companies (in the US) reign supreme.

 

An App Store is coming to the AppleTV but it will be restricted to Entertainment titles; media, games, education. ATV2 and 3 will have support for the new store, but restricted to content apps. Any games made available will more than likely require you to buy the new Apple TV.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #8 of 45

Now that Apple has released iRadio, I'd really like to see them enter the video streaming market. iTunes library is huge and would definitely add value to the Apple TV. Especially if they used the same model; free with commercials or a monthly fee without commercials. I think both Amazon and Netflix could use a little more competition. Hopefully Apple has been hard at work at bringing that together.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #9 of 45

I think you missed the point - the original poster is saying that the platform should be opened with content providers being able to decide when to release their content, within an available framework (SDK). This is similar to how the App store works, and would drive rapid competition vs Apple having to negotiate content deal separately.

 

The main problem with this approach being that this leads to a fragmented experience, but it could be tied together with a global programme guide across Apps. Apple have one chance to get this right, so we should afford them the appropriate amount of time to deliver to our high expectations

 

Mike

post #10 of 45

I think I will wait for the HD Kindle TV,  Paperwhite is great for reading books in the sun, but not so much for watching video.    :)

 

Seriously, until someone can serve up a la carte channel selection all the streaming TV solutions will be similar to the Apple TV and Roku.

 

Amazon's play will be serving up the Prime video they already offer,  plus maybe they will let you shop online from your TV.  Oh joy. Based on their Kindle model Amazon will practically give away the STB to get them in customers hands.

post #11 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

Very tempted, if Apple decides to not release a proper refresh with a channel store (at the minimum) I'll dump my ATV in the bin and get something like this.

The lack of channel/App store is an absolute joke, it would have been a piece of cake for them to roll it out years ago. Not as if the channel apps take up a lot of space, Apple could easily have set guidelines as to the design of each channel.

Stop trying to sell us content Apple, leave that crap to the cable companies etc and leave them the choice of providing an app just as they do for the iDevices. Charge an extra £100 and make your money on the hardware!

Totally agree. A sizeable market was virtually handed to Apple, but they did nothing. Missed out on a big opportunity. It was a no-brainer decision. 

post #12 of 45

I predict a selling price of -$20 (for the all ads all the time version).

post #13 of 45

Yawn - they are not competing with Apple, but with Roku.  

People buy the AppleTV to steam iTunes and/or Netflix, they buy the Roku to stream Netflix and/or Amazon prime.   The overlap of a new Amazon box will mainly be with the Roku.

45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #14 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Shanks View Post
 

I think you missed the point - the original poster is saying that the platform should be opened with content providers being able to decide when to release their content, within an available framework (SDK). This is similar to how the App store works, and would drive rapid competition vs Apple having to negotiate content deal separately.

 

The main problem with this approach being that this leads to a fragmented experience, but it could be tied together with a global programme guide across Apps. Apple have one chance to get this right, so we should afford them the appropriate amount of time to deliver to our high expectations

 

Mike

I think the main reason we haven't seen an ATV app store is because Apple doesn't want it to end up like, well, the iOS App Store.  Wading through thousands of entries with no way to swipe through the crap.  Remote app aside, I hate entering text with the included remote...I couldn't imagine trying to sort through tons of apps using the same paradigm.

 

I think whatever version of the app store ends up on ATV, I'd imagine it's going to be more heavily curated than the iOS store.

post #15 of 45

Amazon is 'evil' and should be avoided. I never use Amazon and I survive just fine. There has been much written about this so its and easy search.  Here's just one of countless articles...

 

http://blog.seattlepi.com/trevorgriffey/2011/04/03/top-10-reasons-to-avoid-amazon-com/

post #16 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

And next week is MWC where Samsung and others are showing off new devices so I'm sure it will be lots of FUD and D&G for Apple. The media is in full Galaxy S5 hype mode. No doubt the new phone will be proclaimed the best "iPhone killer" yet and Apple stock will tank.

Yep. That's the way it is; and that's the way it is.

Apple knows that's the way it is, and they're totally cool with that.

 

Enjoy.

post #17 of 45
Originally Posted by saarek View Post
Not as if the channel apps take up a lot of space

 

Contrary to what virtually everyone who whines about apps says, that is.

 
Stop trying to sell us content Apple…

 

No. Keep selling us content, Apple.

 

Originally Posted by mike54 View Post
Totally agree. A sizeable market was virtually handed to Apple, but they did nothing. Missed out on a big opportunity. It was a no-brainer decision. 

 

Nothing you have said here is correct.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #18 of 45

This re-enforced the importance for Apple to enhanced its Apple TV offerings asap.  Games, apps, more content, ...

post #19 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post
 

 

A piece of cake, huh? And I suppose you have experience at all of this? Perhaps there's something stopping content providers from releasing apps for a set-top box? Like maybe, contracts with the cable companies? Remember Google's box? They couldn't even stream video from web sites - they were blocked by all the content provider's sites. It's not as cut and dry as you'd like to think it is.

 

Apps are released for other iOS devices because those devices aren't tied to the living room TV where cable companies (in the US) reign supreme.

 

An App Store is coming to the AppleTV but it will be restricted to Entertainment titles; media, games, education. ATV2 and 3 will have support for the new store, but restricted to content apps. Any games made available will more than likely require you to buy the new Apple TV.

 

What is standard in the USA is rarely the same outside of the USA. Not releasing an APP/Channel store before now simply because content providers in the USA would not jump on board is not a good reason.


In the UK, for example, the BBC would almost certainly have their own channel on the ATV rather quickly.
Others providers such as Amazons Love Film etc would also be very likely to get their content onto the ATV as soon as possible.
From a US point of view the ATV as it stands may be a tad limited, but there is quite a bit of local content available. For the rest of the planet the offerings are very sparse indeed and the frequent "updates" add salt to the wound as the updates are almost exlusively for American consumers only.


The channel store would have fixed this imbalance almost over night and Apple would have sold a truck load more ATV units, they own the hardware and the software and could have arranged this a long time ago had they wanted to.

iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #20 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post
 

Yawn - they are not competing with Apple, but with Roku.  

People buy the AppleTV to steam iTunes and/or Netflix, they buy the Roku to stream Netflix and/or Amazon prime.   The overlap of a new Amazon box will mainly be with the Roku.

 

True, though Apple could compete if they wanted to. I hope Apple's strategy here becomes apparent this year so we can all stop wondering...and (some of us) waiting.

post #21 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmondRoca View Post

 

True, though Apple could compete if they wanted to. I hope Apple's strategy here becomes apparent this year so we can all stop wondering...and (some of us) waiting.


They could compete - I think that they made a mistake not supporting Amazon Prime, Roku would be a lot less popular if they had done it, and Amazon probably wouldn't have bothered with their own box.

I don't see the point of supporting Netflix and not supporting Amazon Prime - block both if you are worried about cannibalizing iTunes, or allow both, but don't just allow one of them.

45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #22 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post
 

Yawn - they are not competing with Apple, but with Roku.  

People buy the AppleTV to steam iTunes and/or Netflix, they buy the Roku to stream Netflix and/or Amazon prime.   The overlap of a new Amazon box will mainly be with the Roku.

Exactly.  Roku already has Amazon streaming so the only way the Amazon box will be successful is if it has something major that Roku and Apple TV does not.

 

The first streaming box that has nearly all of the major network, cable network, and premium network channels with the latest live episodes of current shows is going to be the winner.  If it's true that Apple has partnered up with TWC and will have access to all content that TWC has, that's a homerun and Apple TV could be the first device to provide all content cable does with all of the benefits of the Apple interface and on-demand streaming.

post #23 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I wouldn't pay an extra £100 for an Apple logo. What's stopping you dumping your Apple TV in the bin now? I personally only require YouTube/Netflix/AirPlay. My biggest gripe with Apple TV is not apps or UI, but the crappy IR remote. Typing and Bluetooth are two areas I'd like to see Apple address with the new Apple TV. And no, a Bluetooth Apple keyboard on my coffee table is definitely not what I mean, nor the crumby remote app. I need custom dedicated hardware from Apple for this. Rest assured I still sleep at night, but Apple would do well to fix these issues.

I'm going to throw out this glass of beer because the glass is half empty.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #24 of 45

Apple TV is easily the superior streaming box so I wonder if Amazon will offer anything new and different or just another Roku-like device. If anything, they'd be crazy not to include some sort of Kindle airplay like functionality. It'll probably be dirt cheap too.

post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I'm going to throw out this glass of beer because the glass is half empty.

 

Apple's remote isn't bluetooth and makes typing inconvenient, but that's my fault, right?

 

I only said so because I'm a glass is half empty guy. You're not making any point.

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #26 of 45

My Logitech Harmony One controls my Apple TV just fine.

And my iPad when I want to type searches.

post #27 of 45
So it takes approximately $1000 of external hardware to control a $99 box.
Nice!
post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Apple's remote isn't bluetooth and makes typing inconvenient, but that's my fault, right?

I only said so because I'm a glass is half empty guy. You're not making any point.

No. I find it interesting that you take comments about beer so personally.

It's a response to all the posts that say "I'm gonna dump my (insert Apple product here) unless the next version has (insert pet feature here)". If the AppleTV contained enough features or value to get one to buy it in the first place, why it so horrible now?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #29 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Yawn - they are not competing with Apple, but with Roku.  


People buy the AppleTV to steam iTunes and/or Netflix, they buy the Roku to stream Netflix and/or Amazon prime.   The overlap of a new Amazon box will mainly be with the Roku.
Bur Roku doesn't generate page views like Apple does so of course this mythical product is an Apple TV killer.
post #30 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike54 View Post
 

Totally agree. A sizeable market was virtually handed to Apple, but they did nothing. Missed out on a big opportunity. It was a no-brainer decision. 

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.    The cable channels cannot easily do deals with Apple for two reasons:  either they don't have full rights to the content that they're licensing from a producer -or- their deals with the MSOs (the cable companies) prevent them from doing such a deal.   Furthermore, the MSOs (like Time-Warner Cable) can't do a deal either because they don't have full rights to the content.   Their rights, if they have any non-cable rights at all, are for a few episodes on their VOD and/or websites.  

 

That's why I never believed the Apple/Time-Warner rumor.  At best, all Time-Warner Cable could do is have the Apple device (or any device) support HBO GO, where you still have to have a cable subscription to HBO in order to view it on another device.    Do you think the MSOs are just going to let the cable channels compete with them and do whatever they want?    They have contracts and $billions of revenue is at stake.

 

I have first hand knowledge of this as I help produce rights management enterprise software that is used by the major cable channels.   Rights are extremely complicated.    The contract for every single program would have to be reviewed by a team of lawyers before they could do any deal.   And they generally won't go back to the content producer (if it's not them) to ask for more rights because it opens up the entire contract to renegotiation.

 

If it were easy, there would have already been many black boxes that would carry all the cable channels.   Steve Jobs talked about this back in the day.   He said it was a nightmare because there were two many parties to negotiate with. 

 

The only way I see this happening for Apple, aside from mediocre programming that no one cares about, is if Apple starts co-funding the programming.   As part of the co-funding, they get to use the program on Apple TV.   This would be similar to the way that Amazon co-funded "The Dome", for which they got exclusive online rights for.    The show would not have been produced without Amazon's participation because CBS had doubts as to whether it was going to be a hit.   In the end, it was a big hit. 

post #31 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post
 

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.    The cable channels cannot easily do deals with Apple for two reasons:  either they don't have full rights to the content that they're licensing from a producer -or- their deals with the MSOs (the cable companies) prevent them from doing such a deal.   Furthermore, the MSOs (like Time-Warner Cable) can't do a deal either because they don't have full rights to the content.   Their rights, if they have any non-cable rights at all, are for a few episodes on their VOD and/or websites.  

 

That's why I never believed the Apple/Time-Warner rumor.  At best, all Time-Warner Cable could do is have the Apple device (or any device) support HBO GO, where you still have to have a cable subscription to HBO in order to view it on another device.    Do you think the MSOs are just going to let the cable channels compete with them and do whatever they want?    They have contracts and $billions of revenue is at stake.

 

I have first hand knowledge of this as I help produce rights management enterprise software that is used by the major cable channels.   Rights are extremely complicated.    The contract for every single program would have to be reviewed by a team of lawyers before they could do any deal.   And they generally won't go back to the content producer (if it's not them) to ask for more rights because it opens up the entire contract to renegotiation.

 

If it were easy, there would have already been many black boxes that would carry all the cable channels.   Steve Jobs talked about this back in the day.   He said it was a nightmare because there were two many parties to negotiate with. 

 

The only way I see this happening for Apple, aside from mediocre programming that no one cares about, is if Apple starts co-funding the programming.   As part of the co-funding, they get to use the program on Apple TV.   This would be similar to the way that Amazon co-funded "The Dome", for which they got exclusive online rights for.    The show would not have been produced without Amazon's participation because CBS had doubts as to whether it was going to be a hit.   In the end, it was a big hit. 

Bear in mind that you are talking from an American perspective, many countries do not have this issue, i.e. the BBC in the UK.

iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post
 

Amazon is 'evil' and should be avoided. I never use Amazon and I survive just fine. There has been much written about this so its and easy search.  Here's just one of countless articles...

 

http://blog.seattlepi.com/trevorgriffey/2011/04/03/top-10-reasons-to-avoid-amazon-com/

Other than for reasons #7 and #9, the rest look like a personal rant.

post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post
 

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.    The cable channels cannot easily do deals with Apple for two reasons:  either they don't have full rights to the content that they're licensing from a producer -or- their deals with the MSOs (the cable companies) prevent them from doing such a deal.   Furthermore, the MSOs (like Time-Warner Cable) can't do a deal either because they don't have full rights to the content.   Their rights, if they have any non-cable rights at all, are for a few episodes on their VOD and/or websites.  

 

That's why I never believed the Apple/Time-Warner rumor.  At best, all Time-Warner Cable could do is have the Apple device (or any device) support HBO GO, where you still have to have a cable subscription to HBO in order to view it on another device.    Do you think the MSOs are just going to let the cable channels compete with them and do whatever they want?    They have contracts and $billions of revenue is at stake.

 

I have first hand knowledge of this as I help produce rights management enterprise software that is used by the major cable channels.   Rights are extremely complicated.    The contract for every single program would have to be reviewed by a team of lawyers before they could do any deal.   And they generally won't go back to the content producer (if it's not them) to ask for more rights because it opens up the entire contract to renegotiation.

 

If it were easy, there would have already been many black boxes that would carry all the cable channels.   Steve Jobs talked about this back in the day.   He said it was a nightmare because there were two many parties to negotiate with. 

 

The only way I see this happening for Apple, aside from mediocre programming that no one cares about, is if Apple starts co-funding the programming.   As part of the co-funding, they get to use the program on Apple TV.   This would be similar to the way that Amazon co-funded "The Dome", for which they got exclusive online rights for.    The show would not have been produced without Amazon's participation because CBS had doubts as to whether it was going to be a hit.   In the end, it was a big hit. 

 

It would still be legal for a cable company to offer there services through an Apple TV box app or an Apple TV set app without the need for a customer to used the cable set-top box.  For live feeds, if cable still offers its regular packages without any Apple interference, there is no need to re-negociate with content providers.

 

The negociations left to do with Apple and the cable company would be over on demand content, something Apple already does with itunes. There could also be negociations over the app interface.

 

For Apple, making content is NOT the way to go, they would then simply become another content provider. I dont see people dropping there cable packages because Apple produce a few shows... Making a few shows would make them another Netflix. This is getting ludicrous, most people wont commit to one content provider because most people like shows from a variety of content providers.


Edited by herbapou - 2/21/14 at 11:58am
post #34 of 45

The biggest differentiating for me with @TV is Airplay.

 

How is this Amazon thing going to do that for me? No platform-independent (read: OSX/iOS-compatible) Airplay substitute, zero interest.

post #35 of 45
1. If they actually launch and not announce for 'later this year' like most of these products that appear in the midst of Apple rumors I will be impressed

2. This isn't really a competitor to the Apple TV if it can only access Amazon stuff. Which has been kept from the Apple TV for ages (likely cause neither side really wants it).

My only real issue is that these deals are allowed that make items exclusive to one service. That is the kind of thing the DOJ needs to look at if they really are 'protecting the consumers' and not just whether Apple was the ringleader to the publishers collusion. End the systems that take away choice by allowing Amazon to demand exclusive rights to books, movies, shows and cutting them off of other services. Or limit the exclusive access to only the first 30-90 days of the items original launch but no backtracking of previous titles, seasons etc. So if they want, for example, exclusive streaming access to Downton Abbey Season 5 they can have it. For 30 days. And then Hulu, Netflix etc can also have it if they set up contracts for it. Nothing in Amazons contract can block it. Same with older seasons. Same with cutting off iTunes purchasing or 'in the cloud'. And while they are doing that the DOJ can deal with e oligopoly of cable TV and Internet which is extremely anti consumer.
post #36 of 45

If Amazon features UltraViolet and Apple does not- I will go with Amazon.

Even though they both have their own own stores Aamazon does't seem obsessed with making one only buy or rent from their own store.

post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Other than for reasons #7 and #9, the rest look like a personal rant.

Some of it, perhaps, but you don't have to look far to learn unsavoury truths about Amazon. I have nothing against Apple competitors but I have a lot against what I consider unethical business practices. I am sure Apple is not entirely squeaky clean but I keep being impressed by the way Apple appear to run their business, and seemingly attempt to do the right thing. You rarely read anything good about the way Amazons runs its business. On the contrary. 

post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Amazon is thought to have delayed the device's launch until this spring after Amazon senior management was "underwhelmed" with the product's direction and market fit.

But then the Amazon senior management heard that Apple were going to release one so decided "sod it", release it anyway.

post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post
 
I am sure Apple is not entirely squeaky clean but I keep being impressed by the way Apple appear to run their business, and seemingly attempt to do the right thing. You rarely read anything good about the way Amazons runs its business. On the contrary. 

Spot on.

post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

If Amazon features UltraViolet and Apple does not- I will go with Amazon.
Even though they both have their own own stores Aamazon does't seem obsessed with making one only buy or rent from their own store.

Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft; they all have a "walled garden" some just have better gardeners.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Amazon aiming to take on Apple TV with March launch of new set-top box