Do you seriously think Apple wants people to control the AppleTV with this?
Unlike the Xbox - which is a game system that has some entertainment options.
The AppleTV is an entertainment box that can play some games. Obviously gaming is not the main focus for the AppleTV.
The AppleTV remote has a gyroscope, buttons, and touch surface. That should be enough to make many types of games. Its up to the devs to streamline their controls. There really isn't any reason why a game needs to have 10 buttons.
No I do not believe apple wants people controlling the apple tv with that. The gaming controller would be used for games. And whats to say that it can't be a powerhouse entertainment device that has great gaming experience? Give people the ability to choose, rather than killing potential. If they notice people want more of a gaming aspect to this device, then expand on that. The profits will only increase, and the potential demand will be met. I believe people are excited about apple tv, not entirely so they can use the apps from their phone (weather anyone?), but the gaming experience going to the tv. so why not expand on that? For the cost of manufacturing a controller. I see so much wasted potential.
To sell Apple TV with an Apple Controller as a $40 add on. The way they have iPad accessories. And for them to be sold as a must-have add-on next to the apple tv.
No I do not believe apple wants people controlling the apple tv with that. The gaming controller would be used for games. And whats to say that it can't be a powerhouse entertainment device that has great gaming experience? Give people the ability to choose, rather than killing potential. If they notice people want more of a gaming aspect to this device, then expand on that. The profits will only increase, and the potential demand will be met. I believe people are excited about apple tv, not entirely so they can use the apps from their phone (weather anyone?), but the gaming experience going to the tv. so why not expand on that? For the cost of manufacturing a controller. I see so much wasted potential.
To sell Apple TV with an Apple Controller as a $40 add on. The way they have iPad accessories. And for them to be sold as a must-have add-on next to the apple tv.
Correct, I saw that. And I feel thats the 2nd best option. I believe they had the ability to create their own controller as part of a more brand-centric experience. But this feels very much like a not fully-expressed product development. Like, "oh, let's put a controller that works with it". People want quality Apple products that feel and work like part of the Apple eco-system. It should have been advertised (not 100% of the time) with an apple gaming controller add-on, like Amazon, and sold side-by-side.
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.
please be careful with your statement. I for one have been saying EXACTLY this and focusing on the rental and movie purchases. please review my posts in this thread. If Amazon is going to offer an an app on AppleTV, then they would have some serious explaining to do if they decide give people the ability to watch subscription content but not allow them to rent or purchase movies.
The issue here is some people keep saying it is Apple who is not allowing on Amazon app on the current Apple TV and that come AppleTV 4, Amazon will appear. I say... not so fast..
No I do not believe apple wants people controlling the apple tv with that. The gaming controller would be used for games. And whats to say that it can't be a powerhouse entertainment device that has great gaming experience? Give people the ability to choose, rather than killing potential. If they notice people want more of a gaming aspect to this device, then expand on that. The profits will only increase, and the potential demand will be met. I believe people are excited about apple tv, not entirely so they can use the apps from their phone (weather anyone?), but the gaming experience going to the tv. so why not expand on that? For the cost of manufacturing a controller. I see so much wasted potential.
It's primarily a streaming device, not a game system. A controller would just collect dust in most situations.
Seriously, is our society getting that lazy that a couple of minutes for a one-time action is a huge barrier?
Is our society lazy??? Ask Amazon and Apple. It was Amazon who came up and patented "1-Click" purchasing and it was Apple who licensed it from them. Therefore, I think it is reasonable based on this to say that Amazon does in fact recognize the power of simple in-device purchasing for our "lazy society", which is already setup and ready to go with the user's pre-configured iTunes account that is required to setup AppleTV. Netflix recognized this, Hulu recognized this, Hbo recognized this, the and others recognized this. It is just that Amazo does want to play ball on Apple's platform and pay Apple's fee for 1-Click purchasing. Instead, they want people to buy FireTV which provides the "1-Click" purchasing feature without paying out to anyone except themselves.
"1-Click, also called one-click or one-click buying, is the technique of allowing customers to make online purchases with a single click, with the payment information needed to complete the purchase having been entered by the user previously."
"Amazon.com in 2000 licensed 1-Click ordering to Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) for use on its online store.[13][14] Apple subsequently added 1-Click ordering to the iTunes Store[15] and iPhoto.[16]"
so Ironically, Apple played ball with Amazon in 2000 and licensed their "ingenious" patent. Fair is Fair. Then Apple turned around and used it for in Apple-TV and iOS purchases against Amazon. Fair is fair.
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.
profit and Amazon is the same sentence? You understand why they want to sell eBooks at a loss and offer a free service (profit loss to pay for content) to Prime members for movies.. right? Its not about making a profit, its about how much of a loss does Amazon want to take in order to gain market share and kill off all competition like Netflix and Hulu.
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?
for the same reason that we won't have it on Apple TV 4 either. If there was any favoritizm happening on AppleTV which prevented Amazon from being included on current AppleTV but let countless others on, then you darn well know Amazon would have used their connections with the DoJ to drag Apple into court.
Amazon's workaround for in-app AppleTV purchases is the iOS Airplay App. Which Amazon has apparently decided provides a crappy experience and is trying to shift customer completely onto Fire TV (to give them the premium in-device experience) by preventing the sale of AppleTV on Amazon.com from direct and apparently indirect sales through its 3rd party merchants. The reason for the pull provided is completely BS. Either way they would have been dancing. Pull the iOS App? , update the App and disable Airplay?, block sales of AppleTV on Amazon? Pay Apple for in-App AppleTV purchases?
Rule #4: Occasionally preface arguments with "I love Apple, but…" or "As an Apple stockholder…"
why sell games in app store if you’re not making it easy
Because they did make it easy. The remote serves as a controller.
kids now have to go out and look for third party controllers that are rarely compatible with apple tv.
Or they could actually look for ones that ARE compatible, as that will be listed on the box, or just use the remote.
INSANELY stupid move in their part.
Rule #12: Hardware, software, and other specs always leave something to be desired.
Rule #15: Express that the community as a whole will be disappointed if the above numbers do not come to pass, which will make others start to believe the same.
Rule #16: When Apple invariably falls short of the above three statements, refer to #1 and #45.
most adults will not...
Utter garbage.
investigate which 3rd party controllers are compatible with the apple tv.
Then they get to waste their currency on something that isn’t compatible AND THEY LEARN A VALUABLE LESSON.
most kids... ...will not have the ability to do it on their own.
The Internet exists.
gets me so irritated how stupid that (lack of) move is.
So shut up and go make your own controller.
Sure you can play the games with the new apple tv remote
See. Problem solved.
realistically nobody wants to play on that little thing. i mean you can, and some will, but its not comfortable/convenient for ios gaming.
Rule #15: Express that the community as a whole will be disappointed if the above numbers do not come to pass, which will make others start to believe the same.
Originally Posted by marvinmeraz
You didn't even give a valid argument.
Irony.
Originally Posted by marvinmeraz
I’m heavily invested in Apple stock...
Rule #4: Occasionally preface arguments with "I love Apple, but…" or "As an Apple stockholder…"
Originally Posted by marvinmeraz
I don't think apple is trying to "re-invent" the gaming controller by making their remote controller a gaming control either.
Rule #4: Occasionally preface arguments with "I love Apple, but…" or "As an Apple stockholder…"
Because they did make it easy. The remote serves as a controller.
Or they could actually look for ones that ARE compatible, as that will be listed on the box, or just use the remote.
Rule #12: Hardware, software, and other specs always leave something to be desired.
Rule #15: Express that the community as a whole will be disappointed if the above numbers do not come to pass, which will make others start to believe the same.
Rule #16: When Apple invariably falls short of the above three statements, refer to #1 and #45.
Utter garbage.
Then they get to waste their currency on something that isn’t compatible AND THEY LEARN A VALUABLE LESSON.
The Internet exists.
So shut up and go make your own controller.
See. Problem solved.
Rule #15: Express that the community as a whole will be disappointed if the above numbers do not come to pass, which will make others start to believe the same.
Irony.
Rule #4: Occasionally preface arguments with "I love Apple, but…" or "As an Apple stockholder…"
So why do it?
I agree, but not about the gaming.
This sad part about this "Apple does no wrong mentality" and "who are you to say you're smarter than a giant successful corporation" is that, its people like me (any many others), that are not afraid to criticize and push innovation further. It's not until Apple comes out with it in 1 or 2 generations more with the things I (and others) have already asked for (many generations ago), that everyone praises Apple them with "genius" or "well timed" or "they didn't come out with it first, but they released it when it was proven or until they were able to perfect it". Oh please, split screen, notification center, iPad keyboard, music streaming and many obvious well proven things have taken Apple forever to realize. Not everything of course is this far behind, but on many things they have not completely realized the product (that everyone knows they could have). I don't want to wait 2 more generations for an Apple game controller and for everyone later to praise them, me and many others want it now.
What will an Apple controller be that existing others aren’t, and what prevents others from becoming that now anyway?
Apple innovation can probably figure that out easily. A lot can be in the design, ergonomics, etc. As well as buttons that take you to certain features of Apple TV shortcuts. What prevents others? Nothing, Apple has not created anything that others are not becoming now. Tablets, phones, mp3 players, etc.
IF it was so easy as you say it is, why doesnt Samsung or Google able to make products that beat Apple. It isn't easy. Its easy to find fault in ANY product.
You said why didn't Apple include split screen with iPad years ago. A simpleton answer. The tech was not ready. Apple is not going to release a half ass feature. If they did a split screen mode on the iPad4 it would slow down the system and make it laggy. A horrible thing. The iPad needed 2GB of RAM to run split screen. So why didn't Apple put 2GB in the iPad4? Because 2GB would drain the battery faster and make the iPad last only 7 hours. Is that what you want? Apple knows all these things and all the trade offs. Dude get off your high horse. IF you think you are so much smarter than Apple in product design go make a produce and compete with Apple.
Truth is Apple is balance dozens of different variables when they made product decisions.
IF you are impatient with Apple then go switch to Android or Windows. good luck
Simpleton? Right! Like 2gb of ram didn't exist back then? My wife had a tablet that had those features WITHOUT lag. Would I move to Android still? No. But it existed and I wanted it! But I didn't want the Android eco-system. Truth is Apple spaces out their tech so they can have things to release in further generation, but in my opinion they're too spread out. And they don't want to put a few dollars more worth of ram or whatever is needed. And no, doing those things won't make them like Android, I strongly believe its not black or white when it comes to these things. It's about more profit or less profit, and I'm all for that since I'm invested in them. But we do get left behind on a lot of things just to give them higher quarterly earnings.
Bullshit. Tell me what tablet that was able to run split screen smoothly. And how long was the battery life? And how thick was the tablet?
Apple has a dozen variables they take into consideration when they made design/hardware decisions: battery life, weight, thickness, speed, ect.
Left behind? My ass. Apple has the best smartphone, tablet, smartwatch, and laptop in the industy. WTF are you smoking
Thickness. Is that the main argument? Sure it was a few mm thicker at the time, but people can agree devices are nice and thin already a few more mm thickness (the way they've done with new iPhone 6 S series) won't hurt in the name of better technology. And I never said left behind in the sense of the entire product, I'm speaking certain aspects of software features. I don't recall the battery honestly, but I never heard her complain it was too short.
please be careful with your statement. I for one have been saying EXACTLY this and focusing on the rental and movie purchases. please review my posts in this thread. If Amazon is going to offer an an app on AppleTV, then they would have some serious explaining to do if they decide give people the ability to watch subscription content but not allow them to rent or purchase movies.
The issue here is some people keep saying it is Apple who is not allowing on Amazon app on the current Apple TV and that come AppleTV 4, Amazon will appear. I say... not so fast..
Only one of your posts touched on transactional rentals or purchases. All other posts on this thread were about subscriptions. Clearly few understand it. I don't believe that Amazon will release a video app either because they don't want to pay the price on the Apple platform. That is their business. Removing the AppleTV from sale is Amazon's right as a retailer. I doubt it will affect Apple. A non-story in that regard.
Well that seems...Dumb. They support AirPlay, so the Apple TV works as intended with their service. And the only reason the Chromecast doesn't work is they themselves refuse to do the relatively minor work to add the functionality to their Apps as part of their ongoing cold war with Google over Android and fireOS.
Based on their statement, I assume they will create an Amazon Prime Video App for tvOS and then presumably they will sell the new Apple TV once that's available. If they do not, it's a key indicator that they're spinning this for all they're worth. It would suggest they're unwilling to sell devices with rival services more prominently featured - which would be amusing and hypocritical considering they expect other people to sell Kindle and Fire devices.
The thing of it is, part of me thinks Jeff Bezos isn't making these calls out of some mis-guided business interests strategy. What the fire Phone taught me is that there's a very real chance Amazon has created in its corporate culture a bubble where senior executives - most particularly Bezos himself, are genuinely deluded into thinking their customers see themselves as "Amazon Prime People". The Amazon Echo and those stupid Buttons are further evidence of such a belief.
I shop at Amazon a lot. I see myself as no such thing, and I don't know anyone who does. But how many failed products will it take for Amazon to remember that their platform neutrality and ease of access - go to where the customer is, don't make them come to you - is their key strength?
Before the Apple drones blast Amazon for this, keep in mind that Apple doesn't sell Fire TV's or Google Chromecasts. What's more, they pulled Nest thermostats off their shelves when the company was bought by Google.
If you don't see anything wrong with that, you don't have a leg to stand on now.
I don't really disagree with the gist of your point but I am curious about the Nest thermostat and the Google connection. I had the impression that the acquisition by Google killed the possibility of Nest working with HomeKit. There is already a smart thermostat from another company that does integrate with HomeKit. Keeping the Nest in the Apple Store would imply to most customers that it should with Apple's ecosystem which could be a rude surprise when they try to set it up at home.
Comments
There really isn't any reason why a game needs to have 10 buttons.
"real gamers" use a keyboard and mouse
Do you seriously think Apple wants people to control the AppleTV with this?
Unlike the Xbox - which is a game system that has some entertainment options.
The AppleTV is an entertainment box that can play some games. Obviously gaming is not the main focus for the AppleTV.
The AppleTV remote has a gyroscope, buttons, and touch surface. That should be enough to make many types of games. Its up to the devs to streamline their controls. There really isn't any reason why a game needs to have 10 buttons.
No I do not believe apple wants people controlling the apple tv with that. The gaming controller would be used for games. And whats to say that it can't be a powerhouse entertainment device that has great gaming experience? Give people the ability to choose, rather than killing potential. If they notice people want more of a gaming aspect to this device, then expand on that. The profits will only increase, and the potential demand will be met. I believe people are excited about apple tv, not entirely so they can use the apps from their phone (weather anyone?), but the gaming experience going to the tv. so why not expand on that? For the cost of manufacturing a controller. I see so much wasted potential.
To sell Apple TV with an Apple Controller as a $40 add on. The way they have iPad accessories. And for them to be sold as a must-have add-on next to the apple tv.
No I do not believe apple wants people controlling the apple tv with that. The gaming controller would be used for games. And whats to say that it can't be a powerhouse entertainment device that has great gaming experience? Give people the ability to choose, rather than killing potential. If they notice people want more of a gaming aspect to this device, then expand on that. The profits will only increase, and the potential demand will be met. I believe people are excited about apple tv, not entirely so they can use the apps from their phone (weather anyone?), but the gaming experience going to the tv. so why not expand on that? For the cost of manufacturing a controller. I see so much wasted potential.
To sell Apple TV with an Apple Controller as a $40 add on. The way they have iPad accessories. And for them to be sold as a must-have add-on next to the apple tv.
Correct, I saw that. And I feel thats the 2nd best option. I believe they had the ability to create their own controller as part of a more brand-centric experience. But this feels very much like a not fully-expressed product development. Like, "oh, let's put a controller that works with it". People want quality Apple products that feel and work like part of the Apple eco-system. It should have been advertised (not 100% of the time) with an apple gaming controller add-on, like Amazon, and sold side-by-side.
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.
please be careful with your statement. I for one have been saying EXACTLY this and focusing on the rental and movie purchases. please review my posts in this thread. If Amazon is going to offer an an app on AppleTV, then they would have some serious explaining to do if they decide give people the ability to watch subscription content but not allow them to rent or purchase movies.
The issue here is some people keep saying it is Apple who is not allowing on Amazon app on the current Apple TV and that come AppleTV 4, Amazon will appear. I say... not so fast..
It's primarily a streaming device, not a game system. A controller would just collect dust in most situations.
Seriously, is our society getting that lazy that a couple of minutes for a one-time action is a huge barrier?
Is our society lazy??? Ask Amazon and Apple. It was Amazon who came up and patented "1-Click" purchasing and it was Apple who licensed it from them. Therefore, I think it is reasonable based on this to say that Amazon does in fact recognize the power of simple in-device purchasing for our "lazy society", which is already setup and ready to go with the user's pre-configured iTunes account that is required to setup AppleTV. Netflix recognized this, Hulu recognized this, Hbo recognized this, the and others recognized this. It is just that Amazo does want to play ball on Apple's platform and pay Apple's fee for 1-Click purchasing. Instead, they want people to buy FireTV which provides the "1-Click" purchasing feature without paying out to anyone except themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
"1-Click, also called one-click or one-click buying, is the technique of allowing customers to make online purchases with a single click, with the payment information needed to complete the purchase having been entered by the user previously."
"Amazon.com in 2000 licensed 1-Click ordering to Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) for use on its online store.[13][14] Apple subsequently added 1-Click ordering to the iTunes Store[15] and iPhoto.[16]"
so Ironically, Apple played ball with Amazon in 2000 and licensed their "ingenious" patent. Fair is Fair. Then Apple turned around and used it for in Apple-TV and iOS purchases against Amazon. Fair is fair.
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.
profit and Amazon is the same sentence? You understand why they want to sell eBooks at a loss and offer a free service (profit loss to pay for content) to Prime members for movies.. right? Its not about making a profit, its about how much of a loss does Amazon want to take in order to gain market share and kill off all competition like Netflix and Hulu.
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?
for the same reason that we won't have it on Apple TV 4 either. If there was any favoritizm happening on AppleTV which prevented Amazon from being included on current AppleTV but let countless others on, then you darn well know Amazon would have used their connections with the DoJ to drag Apple into court.
Amazon's workaround for in-app AppleTV purchases is the iOS Airplay App. Which Amazon has apparently decided provides a crappy experience and is trying to shift customer completely onto Fire TV (to give them the premium in-device experience) by preventing the sale of AppleTV on Amazon.com from direct and apparently indirect sales through its 3rd party merchants. The reason for the pull provided is completely BS. Either way they would have been dancing. Pull the iOS App? , update the App and disable Airplay?, block sales of AppleTV on Amazon? Pay Apple for in-App AppleTV purchases?
which one would have you choosen?
Rule #4: Occasionally preface arguments with "I love Apple, but…" or "As an Apple stockholder…"
Because they did make it easy. The remote serves as a controller.
Or they could actually look for ones that ARE compatible, as that will be listed on the box, or just use the remote.
most adults will not...
Utter garbage.
Then they get to waste their currency on something that isn’t compatible AND THEY LEARN A VALUABLE LESSON.
The Internet exists.
So shut up and go make your own controller.
See. Problem solved.
Rule #15: Express that the community as a whole will be disappointed if the above numbers do not come to pass, which will make others start to believe the same.
Irony.
Rule #4: Occasionally preface arguments with "I love Apple, but…" or "As an Apple stockholder…"
I don't think apple is trying to "re-invent" the gaming controller by making their remote controller a gaming control either.
So why do it?
I agree, but not about the gaming.
Rule #4: Occasionally preface arguments with "I love Apple, but…" or "As an Apple stockholder…"
Because they did make it easy. The remote serves as a controller.
Or they could actually look for ones that ARE compatible, as that will be listed on the box, or just use the remote.
Utter garbage.
Then they get to waste their currency on something that isn’t compatible AND THEY LEARN A VALUABLE LESSON.
The Internet exists.
So shut up and go make your own controller.
See. Problem solved.
Rule #15: Express that the community as a whole will be disappointed if the above numbers do not come to pass, which will make others start to believe the same.
Irony.
Rule #4: Occasionally preface arguments with "I love Apple, but…" or "As an Apple stockholder…"
So why do it?
I agree, but not about the gaming.
This sad part about this "Apple does no wrong mentality" and "who are you to say you're smarter than a giant successful corporation" is that, its people like me (any many others), that are not afraid to criticize and push innovation further. It's not until Apple comes out with it in 1 or 2 generations more with the things I (and others) have already asked for (many generations ago), that everyone praises Apple them with "genius" or "well timed" or "they didn't come out with it first, but they released it when it was proven or until they were able to perfect it". Oh please, split screen, notification center, iPad keyboard, music streaming and many obvious well proven things have taken Apple forever to realize. Not everything of course is this far behind, but on many things they have not completely realized the product (that everyone knows they could have). I don't want to wait 2 more generations for an Apple game controller and for everyone later to praise them, me and many others want it now.
What will an Apple controller be that existing others aren’t, and what prevents others from becoming that now anyway?
What will an Apple controller be that existing others aren’t, and what prevents others from becoming that now anyway?
Apple innovation can probably figure that out easily. A lot can be in the design, ergonomics, etc. As well as buttons that take you to certain features of Apple TV shortcuts. What prevents others? Nothing, Apple has not created anything that others are not becoming now. Tablets, phones, mp3 players, etc.
IF it was so easy as you say it is, why doesnt Samsung or Google able to make products that beat Apple. It isn't easy. Its easy to find fault in ANY product.
You said why didn't Apple include split screen with iPad years ago. A simpleton answer. The tech was not ready. Apple is not going to release a half ass feature. If they did a split screen mode on the iPad4 it would slow down the system and make it laggy. A horrible thing. The iPad needed 2GB of RAM to run split screen. So why didn't Apple put 2GB in the iPad4? Because 2GB would drain the battery faster and make the iPad last only 7 hours. Is that what you want? Apple knows all these things and all the trade offs. Dude get off your high horse. IF you think you are so much smarter than Apple in product design go make a produce and compete with Apple.
Truth is Apple is balance dozens of different variables when they made product decisions.
IF you are impatient with Apple then go switch to Android or Windows. good luck
Simpleton? Right! Like 2gb of ram didn't exist back then? My wife had a tablet that had those features WITHOUT lag. Would I move to Android still? No. But it existed and I wanted it! But I didn't want the Android eco-system. Truth is Apple spaces out their tech so they can have things to release in further generation, but in my opinion they're too spread out. And they don't want to put a few dollars more worth of ram or whatever is needed. And no, doing those things won't make them like Android, I strongly believe its not black or white when it comes to these things. It's about more profit or less profit, and I'm all for that since I'm invested in them. But we do get left behind on a lot of things just to give them higher quarterly earnings.
Bullshit. Tell me what tablet that was able to run split screen smoothly. And how long was the battery life? And how thick was the tablet?
Apple has a dozen variables they take into consideration when they made design/hardware decisions: battery life, weight, thickness, speed, ect.
Left behind? My ass. Apple has the best smartphone, tablet, smartwatch, and laptop in the industy. WTF are you smoking
Thickness. Is that the main argument? Sure it was a few mm thicker at the time, but people can agree devices are nice and thin already a few more mm thickness (the way they've done with new iPhone 6 S series) won't hurt in the name of better technology. And I never said left behind in the sense of the entire product, I'm speaking certain aspects of software features. I don't recall the battery honestly, but I never heard her complain it was too short.
what tablet was it.
I don't recall honestly, I'll have to ask her what it was. Never liked it as far as product design or OS design, so I rarely touched the thing.
Well that seems...Dumb. They support AirPlay, so the Apple TV works as intended with their service. And the only reason the Chromecast doesn't work is they themselves refuse to do the relatively minor work to add the functionality to their Apps as part of their ongoing cold war with Google over Android and fireOS.
Based on their statement, I assume they will create an Amazon Prime Video App for tvOS and then presumably they will sell the new Apple TV once that's available. If they do not, it's a key indicator that they're spinning this for all they're worth. It would suggest they're unwilling to sell devices with rival services more prominently featured - which would be amusing and hypocritical considering they expect other people to sell Kindle and Fire devices.
The thing of it is, part of me thinks Jeff Bezos isn't making these calls out of some mis-guided business interests strategy. What the fire Phone taught me is that there's a very real chance Amazon has created in its corporate culture a bubble where senior executives - most particularly Bezos himself, are genuinely deluded into thinking their customers see themselves as "Amazon Prime People". The Amazon Echo and those stupid Buttons are further evidence of such a belief.
I shop at Amazon a lot. I see myself as no such thing, and I don't know anyone who does. But how many failed products will it take for Amazon to remember that their platform neutrality and ease of access - go to where the customer is, don't make them come to you - is their key strength?
Before the Apple drones blast Amazon for this, keep in mind that Apple doesn't sell Fire TV's or Google Chromecasts. What's more, they pulled Nest thermostats off their shelves when the company was bought by Google.
If you don't see anything wrong with that, you don't have a leg to stand on now.
I don't really disagree with the gist of your point but I am curious about the Nest thermostat and the Google connection. I had the impression that the acquisition by Google killed the possibility of Nest working with HomeKit. There is already a smart thermostat from another company that does integrate with HomeKit. Keeping the Nest in the Apple Store would imply to most customers that it should with Apple's ecosystem which could be a rude surprise when they try to set it up at home.