I wrote a long post quite a few pages back. Amazon and Google have major problems because Google is using it's position with Android to push itself while simultaneously making things very difficult for Amazon to utilize it, particularly their app store. It's not quite the same issues with Apple. Amazon uses Prime Video as leverage against Google Android for ecosystem competitive reasons, not really for hardware.
Amazon frequently squeezes when they don't like a deal. They do it with book publishers (notably Hachet), they've done it with Disney over DVDs, they recently had a lawsuit with Multi Time Machine watches (which they have never sold), Nintendo hardware etc. It's not out of character, they are a very hardball company.
Yes, and every time they try to squeeze something out and play hardball, they fall under immense scrutiny for doing so. I don't see why people are advocating that they get a free pass here because it involves Apple and "it's just business".
Also, Amazon doesn't HAVE an ecosystem, they forfeit that when they release their software on a wide range of 3rd-party devices. They have a service, nothing more.
By your logic, it will make perfect sense for Amazon to pull Video support from game consoles, as well, since they have app markets that compete for attention and Sony is even launching a television service. They could see Sony moving in and "leverage their position" again, as you say, and apparently everyone should be fine with that. But they don't and they likely won't. So it's not quite as clear-cut when and where they make those decisions. Their decisions appear almost vendetta-esque considering how non-uniformly they are applied.
And this is without mentioning Chromecast, which is a device with no app market to be squeezed out of. Hell, Amazon even brought Twitch to Chromecast, FFS, so their decision-making process of what is and isn't permitted under their banner is so terribly inconsistent.
And the devices they squeezed out for "confusing customers" was also inconsistent, as they left Vudu alone, which also doesn't serve Amazon content, among others.
So it feels very clearly that Amazon isn't doing it for consumers as they have said in press releases and is a blatant shot against who it feels are its strongest competitors. Truly should have been an all-or-nothing approach or at least honest with its reasoning.
As I've stated, there is no obligation for Amazon to be on everything. You seem to be stuck on this binary viewpoint. There are some obvious business reasons why Amazon would avoid certain devices, even with the sales of the Chromcast it's nowhere near a majority of the overall 10' UI market.
Wii U isn't exactly in a plurality of homes, either, and yet...
And no, there isn't an obligation, until you make it a wholly deserved expectation. When you're already present on so many devices, an expectation develops that cannot be shaken. And that expectation becomes a strongly-held marketing message that's re-inforced by Amazon's own ambiguity with its consumers.
I'm confused though. Is Chromecast and Android TV handled differently than the rest of the Play Store?
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/1153481?hl=en
According to this, there is a standard 30% fee for in-app transactions just like Apple? Would video rentals and purchases not be subject to this?
No, they are not.
Lol at citing Pachter of all people
, but where in this conversation did I say anything about their public reasoning to pull Apple TV and Android streaming devices as not being bullshit? I didn't comment on it either way. I haven't been arguing that. I personally think it may be bargaining move in order to negotiate a better rates. But who knows, it could very well be a straight play to gain market share.
The 2 things are now inexorably linked, as it demonstrates Amazon would rather shut its consumers out of using their service unless its on their extremely undefined terms. Google and Apple define the terms of what consumers should expect much more directly. Amazon consumers are at the whims of Amazon as to where their service will work with these decisions and will change on a dime if the makers of the devices Amazon Video is currently available on threaten their market position in any way, despite presenting themselves as consumer-friendly via wide device compatibility.
What in that is not true? You can watch it in your living room, online, or on the go. Is that not true?
Right now, I can't watch Amazon Video "anywhere" by virtue of the hardware I own. It's not true for me whatsoever. Apparently Apple TV isn't a set-top box now, which they've ambiguously included among the devices it's available on. It presents an impression of prolific usability across devices, when clearly it's not the case. They'll break down each individual console it's available on, despite being on ALL of them, but then suddenly goes ambiguous when being specific hurts that messaging.
If your argument that they're intentionally misleading consumers because they're going to assume whatever set-top box they have must obviously have an Amazon app? I think that's a bridge too far.
Not really. As I said, why be specific with game consoles despite being on all of them and then not when it does them a disservice to their marketing? Seems pretty clear to me what they're angling for, to present availability in the best light possible, which would be to present it as prolifically as possible.
If the point here is to dissect taglines and similar PR statements, I can find plenty from every company - including Apple and Google - that are in the same vein.
When it comes to device compatibility? Unlikely. That part of their messaging is always exceptionally clear.
Again, your quote is talking about Amazon's decision to not carry other people's streaming devices ... which is not at all what I've been discussing. What I was saying is I don't think the general populace has some expectation of Amazon Videos being on every device.
If that wasn't an expectation, this discussion would never exist in the first place, would it?
I admittedly haven't paid attention to how Google advertises its existence, but let me share two pictures I just took from my Roku.
Here we have when you highlight the Streaming Channels section from the main menu. You haven't even clicked anything, it's just showing some of the apps they're promoting.
And here's when you actually click on the Streaming Channels which opens up the Channel Store. It starts on the Featured section, which just so happens to have Google Play in a prominent position.
Just pretending it doesn't count doesn't make it so.
That Roku wants to advertise that Google is there doesn't change Google's own marketing message at all. That's Roku, not Google.
Placing your app on the market leading box where it is advertised as a featured app is a baby step that doesn't change their message at all? That comes off as moving the goal posts after your statement was shown to not be the case.
It's one device outside of their prior parameters, which has not been replicated since, and Google never discusses. So yeah, it's no giant leap into expanding Google Play outside of Google's grasp.
That said, I'm confused how those 2 actions where really in tandem though. It's not like Amazon pulled apps it had on competitors' platforms.
Yet. The fact that it's being excused as OK to not be present because Amazon has a personal beef with Apple and Google opens up that removing it from devices it's currently on if it even slightly perturbs Amazon is "just business" and fully OK.
In fact, it may already be happening, as Amazon Video was removed from compatibility in a bunch of Samsung and LG smart TVs.
The shit they did pulling devices from their store was obviously newsworthy and I completely understand why people are pissed about it. I'm just confused how that's stirring such new ire about the lack of a video app
Because one move that's intended specifically to stifle select competitors but not others will inevitably lead to the other, especially when it involves the same names again, and thus can be assumed to be done for the same reasons. And considering the reasons they gave for pulling those devices was total bullshit, we can't exactly trust that any reasons given for a lack of Amazon Video support aren't bullshit, either, especially when their largest competitor, Netflix, isn't batting a single damn eyelash to be on literally everything under the sun.
The bigger issue on Apple TV (and Android devices unless I'm misunderstanding their fees) is the inability for Amazon to offer competitive 'in app' rentals and purchases, and that offering a 'view only' app is a non-starter. I have yet to see any of the people demanding an Amazon Apple TV app give a rational counter argument to the issues I've brought up.
Given how we're not privy to negotiations, and Amazon not being honest in their business reasoning, the issues you brought up might not be the issue we think is at the heart of this situation.
What are you upgrading from though? Is it a previous Apple TV? That isn't what I'm arguing.
It is.
Possibly. Though I wonder why those people hadn't already bought in?
By comparison to other Apple devices, it was:
- slow
- visually bland
- not marketed
- not heavily discussed in tech media
Also against it is the market, where it:
- began its existence prior to the major uptick in cord-cutting
- did not evolve beyond its second generation in 2010 in any meaningful way to distinguish itself beyond its 2010 feature set
I can admit that it ATV has not been a device intended to dazzle anyone. This device? Yeah, there's much to be said about how it takes away a lot of the issues above.
Both Amazon and Roku already have universal voice search though, and Amazon's update to use Alexa is already including natural voice features.
The voice search options has been tested against and Siri on Apple TV has left the other devices to seem severely lacking. It does it better, essentially. And Alexa may use natural voice features, but I wonder how flexibly? If the options to search with are still lacking, it still comes up short. We'll have to see if it can stack up.
I do really like some of the features Apple has done in terms of search groupings though, they are smart and useful, but to outright state Apple as having overshot the competition seems to be overshooting the reality. They've refined how search works, I'll give them that ... but how long will that advantage last?
That depends on how much work it takes to achieve it, and how it's achieved.
I guess I'm just disappointed by the hype stemming from what Jobs stated about 'solving TV'. I don't know if that was all fluff, referred to the physical TV that never happened, or was related to the TV service that still hasn't happened. Who knows, maybe he was talking about Siri searching. I guess if it was that or the TV service ... the problem is by the time Apple has gotten to it, others have already done it. Point being, I was hoping for more than just essentially matching the competition. Though like I said, that's better than where they've been. So I'm happy for people that are in the Apple ecosystem to finally have a competitive device. I just don't see it as offering a compelling reason for modern Roku or Fire TV owners to jump ship. Particularly given the price premium.
The market is so small, even now, that luring in existing consumers from other brands isn't even required, because the segment is growing. It's all about capturing new consumers at the moment until the addressable market hits a plateau. And that's where Apple, when it puts its mind to it, always has the advantage.
