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.
While these comments aren't directed at me, I think many are salient to what we've been discussing.
Does Apple forfeit their ecosystem when they make apps on Android? Apple Music is a thing, and by the nature of Android is on a huge range of 3rd-party devices.
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.
No, though in no way have I stated any of this is clear cut ... much the opposite.
Android's ubiquity and how it's dealt with Amazon has no similarities to the console app stores. And as I've argued countless times, the console manufacturers are not demanding a 30% cut of purchases. So to pretend all of these situations are at all similar is not just an oversimplification, it's flat out wrong.
Now obviously if Amazon were to drop its services on consoles and there wasn't a reasonable business rationale for it, then there would obviously be a discussion worth having - up to and including the potential of 'vendetta-esque' accusations if there aren't good business reasons.
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.
Officially embedding cast support is done using the SDK, and is for apps in the Google Play (Android and Chrome) or Apple App Store.
https://developers.google.com/cast/
It was added to Twitch since there are actual official apps in those stores for it. That is not the case with Amazon Video, which is obviously a much more complex discussion. If and when such an app exists, I'm sure casting support will be there.
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.
I haven't and won't pretend Amazon's public rationale for stopping carrying the devices they did was great. However this is simply a bad example even if I were to make that case. The
VUDU Spark is not a platform. It's a purpose-built device that specifically does one and only one thing. There is no reasonable argument for confusion with it. And if Amazon were to drop it, it would only hurt their (already questionable) argument.
Keeping it is not inconsistent. Though I agree they should have been honest with their reasoning. Their 'confusing customers' line has merit, but only within a greater whole. As the only explanation it is obviously weak.
Wii U isn't exactly in a plurality of homes, either, and yet...
I've never stated that where Amazon places its apps is a simple userbase metric. How could it be? There seems to be a lot of oversimplification going on here, and that does no one any good. It's a business decision with numerous considerations.
One of the most obvious since we're discussing VOD being fee structure. There's a reason why Amazon and several other video apps have hit consoles early - the console makers are not charging fees (or if they are, not significant fees) for in-app purchases.
That said even the above overlooks some other important considerations. While I don't know the usage numbers for Amazon specifically, it's well known that Netflix saw huge adoption on consoles. For quite some time the PS3 was actually its number one player. What a lot of people may have forgotten was that Wii was actually really huge for Netflix as well (IIRC it was #2 for a while). While that doesn't guarantee Amazon usage, obviously the demographics are favorable - so it's not a big leap to assume Amazon had large adoption there in relative terms. So obviously supporting consoles in general is a logical business 'need' for Amazon.
Now from a development standpoint, the Wii U is backwards compatible with the Wii. While I've never messed around with the SDK, it's not a great leap to suspect porting the Wii app to the Wii U was relatively trivial.
The biggest dagger to your point though is the fact that the Amazon app was one of the launch Wii TV apps. At that point they had no idea it would tank and have such a small userbase. Much like Plex trying to be a launch app on Apple TV, companies make a bet by considering past sales, expectations of the launch, etc.
These decisions are complicated. They need to consider fees, demographics, development ease, sales expectations, etc. That sort of information is used to determine not only if a platform will be supported, but also when. They need to schedule their development teams.
I think a lot of people are coming at this from a strictly users' perspective - an 'I want the services I like on the devices I like', without any knowledge or concern for the business realities. Be it cost, development time and complexity, ecosystems, higher level business concerns including existing company negotiations between companies, etc. Of course we all want nice things. And I think quite obviously Amazon would like to service its content to as many people as possible, but it's not that simple. They are a business and need to weigh said business interests with how to best serve users.
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 sorry but that's simply unrealistic. I could point to practically enumerable services / apps that are on a large number of platforms, but not all.
Even if a providers' intent is to be on the most number of platforms it can, it has to demonstrated a proper 'business need' and factor in everything before signing on the dotted line. Amazon is a publicly traded company. It has to answer to its board and shareholders. If a deal is bad for them, they can't just 'do it for the users'. It's obviously not that simple.
Can you point me to documentation of this fact?
Regardless, that has never been the crux of the argument. Even if it is the case, I've maintained that there are complex business rationales for where stuff like this goes. I'm not the one oversimplifying it, nor making the argument Amazon has some ridiculous expectation to literally be everywhere.
Of course this is again straying from the main discussion. We are talking about Apple TV in this thread, which is where my specific arguments were targeted. Apple does in fact charge for in-app purchases, which inherently makes Amazon uncompetitive on the platform.
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.
They are inexorably linked in your mind maybe, not for most people.
Amazon was never on either of those platforms, and have never been on literally everything even when you discount Apple and Google.
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.
...
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.
...
When it comes to device compatibility? Unlikely. That part of their messaging is always exceptionally clear.
Let's say I grant you that they could be more specific in this case. What does that actually have to do with the main argument I'm making. The argument you continue to dance around and it now seems clear, are refusing to actually discuss?
I'm trying to have a civil discussion about why as things stand, Amazon inherently
cannot be on Apple TV due to Apple. At least that's the first hurdle and is not a complex one to cite.
That all said, you are overplaying your hand when it comes to this particular point. Instead of me taking the time to find ambiguous listings for other services - which I and others have most certainly seen from plenty of web pages - we should take a look at the listing Amazon actually directs you to if you want detailed information.
If you go to Amazon and click on their video section there is a
Watch Anywhere hyperlink. This categorized visual listing clears up the ambiguity and is meant to be the main place to find such information.
From there is a
See More link if you want a very exhaustive historical list of devices.
The crux of this particular argument is all based on a single sentence on one page. A summary that I can cite plenty of similar examples of. Their main links very clearly list out the info and are in no way ambiguous. Placing any weight on a single summary line when they have easy to find detailed info is an odd foundation for the point you're trying to make.
LOL ... I actually have to split this post in two because it's too many characters
Is there a list of voice commands for X1 anywhere ?