Amazon to halt sales of Apple TV, Google Chromecast in bid to push Fire TV & Prime Video

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 163
    pmcdpmcd Posts: 396member
    dacloo wrote: »
    Apple removes competitor products on their website as well. Big deal.

    True. It just never seemed like something Amazon would do. Will they continue to sell "Android TV" and win8.1 media players from China?
  • Reply 102 of 163
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,681member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    I don't think that would be illegal since you have to agree to Amazon's TOS to sell on the Amazon marketplace. It's just like Ebay how they banned sales of the confederate flag. People weren't happy, but its their right to do so. Regardless, I think Amazon's decision is going to backfire for sure. 




    That's not even remotely the same thing. Amazon is banning products that compete with their own. It is the same thing as Google giving their services top billing in search results. Or Microsoft forcing people to use Internet Explorer.

     

    Yes, it's Amazon's store, Google's search engine, and Microsoft's operating system, but these are entities that grew to monopoly positions in their respective markets by being "open". And it seems once they grabbed a majority share, they decided to use it to their advantage and crush competition. This is anti-competitive behavior as it applies to monopolies.

     

    Maybe Apple should start banning all media apps that don't provide links into iTunes/Apple Music?

  • Reply 103 of 163
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,681member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dacloo View Post



    Apple removes competitor products on their website as well. Big deal.



    There's a big difference... Apple's website was originally designed to sell Apple's products. They chose to add 3rd party products in service to their customers. Both the website and retail stores are company outlets for direct sales - both are designed to sell their own products.

     

    Amazon started out as a general goods shopping site and later decided to build and sell their own devices. And now, ban sales of devices that aren't in service to their own gains.

  • Reply 104 of 163

    First they want to charge sales tax to me, while I get the same price or better from other merchants who offer free shipping and no sales tax. They want to give me free shipping on their under $35 items for only $99 per year. Now they want to not sell the most advanced set top box in the market, or allow anyone else to sell it on their site. Hmmmmmm........

  • Reply 105 of 163
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    mjtomlin wrote: »
    dacloo wrote: »
    Apple removes competitor products on their website as well. Big deal.


    There's a big difference... Apple's website was originally designed to sell Apple's products. They chose to add 3rd party products in service to their customers. Both the website and retail stores are company outlets for direct sales - both are designed to sell their own products.

    Amazon started out as a general goods shopping site and later decided to build and sell their own devices. And now, ban sales of devices that aren't in service to their own gains.

    I remember when The Gap used to sell Levi's, and then stopped selling them in favor of their own jeans. It's not an uncommon business practice.
  • Reply 106 of 163
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 276member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by justbobf View Post



    It is not anti-trust. Anti-trust is when two or more companies collude to set prices, thus giving them an unfair competitive advantage.

     

    No. This is just no.

     

    Collusion and cartels is one small part of anti-trust. Please don't ever utter these words again.

  • Reply 107 of 163
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 276member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post

     

    First they want to charge sales tax to me, while I get the same price or better from other merchants who offer free shipping and no sales tax. They want to give me free shipping on their under $35 items for only $99 per year. Now they want to not sell the most advanced set top box in the market, or allow anyone else to sell it on their site. Hmmmmmm........


     

    Really? I don't think they ever wanted to charge you sales tax. The governments want to charge you sales tax. Other merchants don't reside in your state, thereby making sales tax collection unenforceable. Amazon fought this for a long time.

    Come on. At least stay on point.

     

    Honestly, I don't care if they sell the ATV or not - they are just being dumb, whether or not it is illegal. And they can probably skirt by the laws, in all honesty, they have a reasonable enough defense.

     

    This is a mole hill, really.

  • Reply 108 of 163
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

    What's the difference between an iOS app and ?TV "channel"? Amazon has apps on iOS. Are the terms different for ?TV?



    I think what Amazon did is silly but I also don't agree with Apple getting a 30% cut of reoccurring subscriptions. If I sign up for Netflix why should Apple get 30% of that subscription on an ongoing basis? Apple isn't hosting or streaming the content. Perhaps in the case of subscription services Apple should allow different payment options in-app. Let Spotify, Netflix etc. be responsible for the transaction rather than demanding a 30% cut.



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snova View Post

    The workaround is even more of PITA on AppleTV (which does not have a browser) and Amazon knows it.   On iPad or iPhone, at least its less of a PITA as you don't have to go to a different device to purchase context.

     

    This is why HBO, Showtime and Netflix are willing to the hit on a cut when a customer decides to signup for their service directly on AppleTV.  Payments come straight from iTunes account and Apple takes a cut.  

     

    Why would they allow this when a workaround is possible? Because its a much bigger PITA to work around on Apple TV than iPhone/iPad. 


    Many seem to be confused with how Apple has managed "apps" (across all devices) which allow access to subscription content.  If a user signs up for the service outside of the Apple app (e.g. at www.Netflix.com), they can log-in (one-time action) for the service, and there is no 30% (or 15%) cut.  This is the case with Netflix, Hulu, and many others.  Apple only takes their cut when the subscription is purchased through the app.  In other words, Apple is taking their cut for content discovery & ease of subscribing, but that is purely optional to getting the service.  This is the same for iOS or AppleTV.

     

    There is a claim this is a real PITA on the Apple TV, but I disagree.  Have setup subscription services (Netflix, NHL) on multiple of my own ?TV and other family members.  You can type in the info on the on-screen keyboard, or use the AppleTV remote app.  Takes a few minutes, one-time, and you are done.  Seriously, is our society getting that lazy that a couple of minutes for a one-time action is a huge barrier?

     

    So, subscription services are not a problem.  Purchase via Apple or don't.  So no issue for Amazon Prime video which is subscription.  Now, if you are thinking of the Amazon video rental service, which requires transactions, then I agree that would be different, as Apple's policies would be require its cut for in-app transaction purchase.  But that isn't what people are talking about here.  Is Amazon pricing that much better than iTunes video rentals?  If you are already on an AppleTV, why do you really consider renting through an Amazon app to be so important?

  • Reply 109 of 163
    I wonder how many good retail jobs this country has lost as a result of Amazon. Giving up the revenue from successful Apple and Google products won't sink them, but I wish it would.
  • Reply 110 of 163
    croprcropr Posts: 1,133member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post





    The 30% wipes out their profits but they probably see some value in being on the platform.



    Which value???  Being on the platform only makes sense if one can make a profit.   In the past, there was some value for content providers and app developers to be on the Apple platform, because Apple did part of the marketing.  But now, given that there are million apps and an enormous amount of content availabe on the platform, a single provider (content and/or apps) is no longer visible for the end customer unless he is doing the marketing himself.  The 30% cut is no longer in line with the real value of the platform.  That is the main reason for the action Amazon took.

  • Reply 111 of 163
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cropr View Post

     



    Which value???  Being on the platform only makes sense if one can make a profit.   In the past, there was some value for content providers and app developers to be on the Apple platform, because Apple did part of the marketing.  But now, given that there are million apps and an enormous amount of content availabe on the platform, a single provider (content and/or apps) is no longer visible for the end customer unless he is doing the marketing himself.  The 30% cut is no longer in line with the real value of the platform.  That is the main reason for the action Amazon took.


    See post #112

  • Reply 112 of 163
    smaffeismaffei Posts: 237member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    Not everyone. I bought the Fire TV so I could use the Plex App. 




    I keep my Fire TV because I side loaded the Android TiVo App and can stream from my TiVo RoamIO to the bedroom (even live channels).

  • Reply 113 of 163

    i love apple devices, but apple really messed up with the apple tv in one manner.

     

    i like the way amazon advertises their streaming box with a branded gaming control. its so stupid to me that apple wouldn’t create an apple controller add-on for like $40 so its an easy system. why sell games in app store if you’re not making it easy, kids now have to go out and look for third party controllers that are rarely compatible with apple tv. huge mistake. have an apple controller for sale side-by-side to the apple tv, tons of kids will pick it up when their parents go buy the new apple tv. and it’ll spur a butt-load more of app/game sales. INSANELY stupid move in their part.

     

    most adults will not investigate which 3rd party controllers are compatible with the apple tv. and most kids (3-11 y/o) that gobble up ios games/apps, will not have the ability to do it on their own. gets me so irritated how stupid that (lack of) move is. Sure you can play the games with the new apple tv remote, but realistically nobody wants to play on that little thing. i mean you can, and some will, but its not comfortable/convenient for ios gaming.

  • Reply 114 of 163
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member

    Several people are saying Amazon should "just make an Amazon Video app" for the TV app store.  But how does this help older Apple TV models which don't have an app store?  Why has Amazon video not been available natively on the older Apple TV?

  • Reply 115 of 163
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    haggar wrote: »
    Why has Amazon video not been available natively on the older Apple TV?

    Who's to blame? Apple or Amazon?
  • Reply 116 of 163
    ignomini wrote: »
    I wonder how many good retail jobs this country has lost as a result of Amazon. Giving up the revenue from successful Apple and Google products won't sink them, but I wish it would.

    Good retailers survive. There are plenty of retailers that have no reason to be in business.
  • Reply 117 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    blah,blah,blah,blah, no innovation....

    but,but,but,but,but if Jobs was alive.....




    I have Apple everything, because they create great products, but they're not perfect and do lack in certain aspects. You didn't even give a valid argument.

  • Reply 118 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     



    I never said once if Steve was alive. And I think you forgot one, I'm heavily invested in Apple stock so I truly do care. It seems like you're attacking me personally instead of the statement I made about apple tv/gaming controller.

  • Reply 119 of 163

    Funny, this just showed up on the Web today:

     

    http://fortune.com/2015/10/01/carly-fiorina-apple-steve-jobs-ipod/

  • Reply 120 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Stop living in the past.  Just because the Sega Genesis had a certain type of controller it does not mean the AppleTV controller needs to be the same.  Its up to the devs to make the controller work for games.

     

    The remote is good enough.  AppleTV is not a gaming machine.  Its an entertainment box that can play games.




    Thank you for the argument, rather than personal attack. I disagree however. Do you think their profits on apple tv wouldn't be stronger with a gaming controller, and do you not think ios game sales would go up a lot more because of this controller? Tons of kids and young adults would love it. I don't think apple is trying to "re-invent" the gaming controller by making their remote controller a gaming control either. And I disagree, an entertainment device can definitely be a strong gaming device as well. The way a phone can be a gaming device. Apple is working on getting more processing and memory in their device to make them higher gaming devices. I feel you either do something right or don't do it all. This feels half expressed or realized.

Sign In or Register to comment.