20 ms·

Amazon Will Ban Sale of Apple, Google Video-Streaming Devices

• Zikes 11y ago
  Isn't this anti-competitive?
  • savanaly 11y ago
    I thought anti-competitive would be Amazon selling its fire tv stick at a loss for a period of time long enough to force competitors to drop out of the market. Surely what they want to sell in their store should only be up to them?
    • potatolicious 11y ago
      That would be one form of anti-competitive behavior. Using one's market dominance in one field in order to defeat competitors in another field is also sometimes considered anti-competitive, though of course subject to a lot of considerations (e.g., how big your dominance is and what the behavior is specifically). This is precisely how MS got nailed in the 90s - they were using their dominance of OSes to spread IE and prevent the spread of competing browsers (well, Netscape at the time). Amazon isn't quite a monopoly like MS was in the 90s, but they're large enough that maybe it matters.
    • Coding_Cat 11y ago
      Both are. Legally I believe Amazon is allowed to discriminate against competitors products as long as they're not a monopoly or using their dominant position in the "online-store market" to squash competition in the "online video-market". I'm not sure of the exact definition, but in the EU at least Google has gotten in hot-waters before over something similar. Generally speaking, you are being anticompetitive if you're strong-arming the competition out of the market as opposed to challenging them based on the relative quality of your product. But at what point exactly it becomes illegal I wouldn't know.
      • jrochkind1 11y ago
        To you and me though, it does kind of sound like Amazon is using their dominant position in the "online-store market" to squash competition in the "online video market", doesn't it? To me, it sounds like that's exactly what they are doing. Whether it seems that way to the FTC or to a lawyer who understands the relevant laws is another question. You would _think_ Amazon would run this by their lawyers first.... and do it only if their lawyers thought they could get away with it? I dunno.
        • Coding_Cat 11y ago
          Yeah, as I said I don't know the exact border of legality. I wouldn't be surprised if: a) This would only be an issue in the EU, and Amazon is sticking to blocking on .com. b) The wording of the law is intentionally vague ("Such that a reasonable person would expect..." etc.) and Amazon believes to either be in the clear or that at least the risk/reward is good enough. To name another example of "kinda maybe I'm not sure"-legality. Supermarket home-brands. I remember a few years a go here in the Netherlands there was a price war going on between supermarkets and the producers were caught in the middle, and as a result of ever-dropping prices they did start to complain that it was anti-competitive to allow supermarkets to also be producers as in an ideal market it would be impossible for the producers to offer the same price-point for the same products. I don't believe it went anywhere, but I do feel they kinda have a point. Although I wouldn't be for banning supermarkets from having their own brand (not that it would really be possible anyway, given modern corporate structures).
  • pen2l 11y ago
    Is amazon prime not working on Apple TV anti-competitive?
    • RavingGoat 11y ago
      Agreed. Apple not allowing Amazon Prime on the Apple TV was far more anti-competitive. That should end when the new Apple TV comes out though.
  • bryanlarsen 11y ago
    Sure, but you're allowed to be anti-competitive as long you're not in a monopoly position in the marketplace.
    • outside1234 11y ago
      In the US. I'm not sure that's true in the EU.
    • slight 11y ago
      You don't have to have a literal monopoly afaiui, I think leveraging a strong market position in one area to benefit a different market can still apply. Not a lawyer though.
    • pm24601 11y ago
      No. The only requirement is a "dominant" player. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices This is the reason why Microsoft and Google have both been investigated for anti-competitive behavior even though neither one of them was a monopoly. The Sherman Act prohibits using a dominant position in one area as leverage to exclude competitors in the same or different area. In other words, a dominant player has to play (more than) fair in any new markets. I say "more than" because if Amazon was not so dominate in ecommerce this behavior would be perfectly fine.
    • dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Sure, but you're allowed to be anti-competitive as long you're not in a monopoly position in the marketplace. An antitrust "monopoly" is defined by market/pricing power. I wouldn't be all that confident that Amazon's online retail operation wouldn't be found to have such power.
  • debacle 11y ago
    Yes. They're going to get sued.
    • Borjez 11y ago
      The Apple Store doesn't sell Amazon devices, does that make the Apple Store anti-competitive?
      • spdustin 11y ago
        Probably not. Apple Stores are in business to sell Apple products, always have been. Amazon sells everything, always has. So that's one point. Also, we don't know that Apple would not carry FireTV if Amazon solicited for space in Apple's retail store the same as any other 3rd party vendor. I don't necessarily think this is anticompetitive on the part of Amazon, either. I DO think it's a cheap shot, and alienates me as a decade-long customer of Amazon.
        • gtremper 11y ago
          Amazon only sold books originally, and they still don't sell "everything"
          • Zikes 11y ago
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#History > Since June 19, 2000, Amazon's logotype has featured a curved arrow leading from A to Z, representing that the company carries every product from A to Z, with the arrow shaped like a smile.
    • apetresc 11y ago
      How is this different from suing Apple for not selling Chromecasts in Apple stores?
      • dntrkv 11y ago
        Because Apple stores don't hold a significant share of the retail market and Apple stores have never sold Chromecasts and aren't expected to sell them, Amazon on the other hand did sell them and is expected to sell them. If Amazon was an Amazon-product-only type store, this would be viewed very differently. This is blatantly anti-competitive behavior, the equivalent of Google de-indexing Spotify to "prevent confusion" with their Google Music product. I'll bet that this decision will be either quickly reversed, if not, they can expect retaliation from Google/Apple in the form of lawsuits and/or their own versions of this rule.
  • bduerst 11y ago
    Probably not anymore. Their claim of customer confusion would have been bunk because their fire phone used to support prime on chromecast. Now that the fire phone is no longer being produced, they can say that prime is not available on chromecast and it's "confusing" for customers. At least, I think that's how their lawyers probably green lighted it, seeing as their the online retail market leader.
• Jyaif 11y ago
  This is gold: "It’s important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion."
  • roymurdock 11y ago
    Copywriters must have had a laugh coming up with that one.
  • shogun21 11y ago
    There will be even greater customer confusion when people are wondering where are the Apple TVs and Chromecasts.
  • isomorphic 11y ago
    The new AppleTV has an App Store. Does this mean Amazon can't or won't create an app for Prime Video for the AppleTV? (Can't or won't, either answer would be telling.)
    • cordite 11y ago
      If a device comes with a useable app store, I'd rather it not come with tons of bloatware for every service ever out of the box. At this point it just seems Amazon is touting their weight.
      • robwilliams 11y ago
        This move is obviously them using their position in the marketplace but I would imagine they would avoid the App Store as Apple takes a significant chunk of every purchase.
        • jkestner 11y ago
          Millions of people using the Kindle app on iOS deal with the workaround. You just can't buy within the app.
        • 11y ago
• ryanobjc 11y ago
  This is a unfortunate turn of events. When I worked for Amazon we were a neutral vendor and would sell anything that is legal. There were a number of first amendment right fights as well. But clearly that era has come to a close.
  • driverdan 11y ago
    It came to a close a long time ago. Amazon refuses to sell many legal products, eg caffeine powder and anything with the confederate flag.
    • nerfhammer 11y ago
      There is a difference between refusing to sell things you think are unethical even if you disagree with the reasoning vs. refusing to sell things for baldly anti-competitive reasons
      • scott_karana 11y ago
        There is a difference, but it's definitely one that can be intentionally conflated if it suits them.
      • toomuchtodo 11y ago
        They still sell the current American flag, and we've killed what, over 100K civilians in the middle east in an unnecessary war? I guess fake outrage is necessary to fill the 24 hour news cycle.
      • Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        It isn't about ethics, it is about appealing to the masses under a very shallow guise of ethics. That might not change your point much, but for me personally, it leaves a more bitter taste in my mouth.
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    • 11y ago
• Artistry121 11y ago
  I don't think this move is in Amazon's best interests long term. Their competitive edge with Prime is that I go to them first because I assume they'll have what I want, at a fair price and the highest level of convenience. If they are no longer the "Everything Store" then they won't be where I go to for everything...
  • cwkoss 11y ago
    Totally agree. They are destroying their most valuable component of their brand, for a relatively weak one (Prime Video). I have Prime and prefer Netflix, because Prime Video still doesn't have a great selection.
    • atonse 11y ago
      Yeah I agree with this. There are a couple of shows that are only on Prime Instant Video that I use it for. But I'll still watch it on my Apple TV. If Amazon chooses not to build an app, I'll go elsewhere, I won't buy a whole Fire TV just to watch a show. All this for one of the weakest parts of Prime. I've been a Prime member for 3-4 years before I watched my first prime video. I simply don't care for the service.
    • danboarder 11y ago
      I also have Prime but wish I could display it on our TV using Chromecast. The only way to do this is to cast a tab (desktop) or cast the entire device display (Android). It would be great if Amazon Prime Video supported Chromecast with a cast button like Hulu, Netflix, Youtube, Vevo, etc...
      • zaphar 11y ago
        My wife was just complaining about this very thing. The solution to Prime's streaming issues isn't to ban the sale of Chromecasts it's to add Chromecast support to prime. This is a very odd choice on their part.
        • 11y ago
• chipgap98 11y ago
  Amazon can absolutely do this (but I think it is a slippery slope, possibly a sign of some bad changes ahead at amazon. They really should be neutral about the products listed on their site) but the reason they gave is kinda ridiculous [1]. I have a hard time believing the enough people don't know the difference between Prime & Netflix to make this a legitimate reason to stop selling Chromecast and Apple TV [1]: Over the last three years, Prime Video has become an important part of Prime," Amazon said in the e-mail. "It’s important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion.
  • Splines 11y ago
    The should use the competitor's pages as an opportunity to upsell prime-compatible devices. Show a "Prime Video" logo crossed out that you can click on that takes you to a page telling you why Prime is so much better than whatever you're trying to buy. (I don't know if that gets into legal hot waters or not, but couldn't be worse than actually not selling competing devices.) If someone wants to buy an Apple TV, chances are they're just going to go to apple.com to do it, and Amazon has lost the chance to turn that customer over.
    • tokenizerrr 11y ago
      Or, you know, just implement Chromecast support in their apps. There's SDKs to do so, and netflix, hulu and others have already done so.
      • Splines 11y ago
        Their lack of support for other devices is almost certainly intentional. (I'm surprised at the amount of sway the hardware teams appear to have over the Prime Video app team. Someone very high up is preventing this from happening for strategic reasons.)
  • ericfrederich 11y ago
    "Over the last three years, Prime Video has become an important part of Prime," Amazon said in the e-mail. "It’s important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion." Then make your damn Video application work with the Nexus Player.
• chedabob 11y ago
  "It’s important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion." What a load of rubbish. They could make it work on those devices but they choose not to. It's a ploy to get Prime users to buy Fire sticks and nothing more.
  • Zelphyr 11y ago
    I agree. I bought a Fire Stick and promptly returned it because it is garbage.
• radley 11y ago
  Odd way to say thanks to Google for providing open source Android OS to build out their platform.
  • ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    Google didn't really "provide" it. By open sourcing it, anyone can use it, Amazon has no reason to thank them. On the contrary, Google has used the "incompatible" excuse to refuse to let Kindle users have access to Google Apps. I think Amazon is fighting back with their strength (Amazon.com) against device platforms that use similar tactics but are much larger in the device market. Whether it's a good idea, that's questionable. Google is violating antitrust law, but by doing this... so is Amazon.
• jhspaybar 11y ago
  What are they thinking? Surely this must do more damage to seller goodwill than any supposed customer benefit?
  • pgrote 11y ago
    I don't know. You have to cast your lot with one of the 3 when you start leasing digital material. I went with Amazon for the belief they would be neutral when it came to hardware. Over the last year they have chosen to be protective. I won't cancel prime since I enjoy the benefits, but it is a pita. What it really comes down to is less digitial video leased for me.
• rjv 11y ago
  Surely it's Amazon's fault that Prime Video doesn't work on Chromecast. Amazon would get a lot more of my digital goods dollars if they took a "Kindle" approach to streaming video -- make it available everywhere.
  • livejamie 11y ago
    Of course it's their fault, it's their own product?
• spdustin 11y ago
  So there goes my hopes of a Amazon Instant Video app for the new Apple TV. Not that my hopes were too high, but it would've simplified my cable cutting to reduce down to a single device. With native apps and AirPlay mirroring, the new Apple TV was set to be my family's single set top box, but we have a number of kid movies and shows on Amazon Instant Video, and last I checked, there's no support for AirPlay there, so I guess I'm going to have "lose" those kid's movies I licensed on Amazon. I'm really not getting this - unless they have numbers to back up that their FireTV is in more households than ChromeCast (I don't know anyone non-technical who has one, so that's not tough) AND Apple TV (many of my non-technical friends have one), I don't see the point in this. Why not just release the instant video app for Apple TV, or support mirroring via AirPlay and whatever the name is for Android's mirroring nowadays, and be done with it? Edit: removed Apple logo glyphs - it was an autocorrect shortcut I had on my phone.
  • verbatim 11y ago
    I figured it out via Google, but, as an FYI, that glyph looks nothing like an Apple logo on my device.
  • Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 11y ago
    Is this a new trend, using the emoji instead of spelling out "apple"? (It's just rendering as square-box TV in chrome on windows, which is really ironic given the subject of discussion.)
  • srathi 11y ago
    Off topic: Can we use the word 'Apple' instead of the logo? It creates a visual distraction.
• donohoe 11y ago
  Wouldn't it be great if Google de-indexed links to pages regarding Amazon Prime citing the same reason "in order to avoid customer confusion."?
  • balls187 11y ago
    That would instantly backfire on google. Amazon isn't a search engine that indexes the web. It's a ecommerce site, and ultimately is allowed to carry the products they want to carry. This is only specific to Apple & Google video streaming devices, not all Apple & Google products.
    • ISL 11y ago
      By the same logic, Google is a website, and they can publish what they wish. This is a strange choice by Amazon. It's not at all clear that such a ban is in the interests of Amazon or their customers.
    • Grazester 11y ago
      What if Google removed all of Amazon's apps that stream competing content on Google Play store? Then what?
    • cracoucax 11y ago
      Except they're also a marketplace and they require their vendors to ban the same products. It's not an ecommerce strategy, they're very clearly using their huge leverage as the #1 ecommerce on the internet to attack their competitors and lure customers into their walled garden. I'm pretty sure in my country this will be forbidden by antitrust laws.
      • balls187 11y ago
        > I'm pretty sure in my country this will be forbidden by antitrust laws. On the surface, perhaps. However from the article, this is in response to seemingly anti-competitive practices by both Apple and Google's strategies regarding Amazon Prime on their TV devices. Apple and Google are acting like walled gardens, and so Amazon is retaliating. My guess is Amazons desired outcome is Apple and Google support Amazon Prime video Apple TV and Chromecast. Edit to add: this comment was pulled out of the ether. Disregard.
• danmaz74 11y ago
  This reminded me that I'm using Amazon too much lately. Time to give some juice to the competition, for my own future good.
  • gdulli 11y ago
    A while back I noticed my last Amazon purchase was in late December 2014. I set a goal of not making a single Amazon purchase in calendar 2015. I'm on track and it hasn't been difficult at all.
    • chx 11y ago
      The problem is AmazonGlobal. There's extremely little competition in this space. If I order from abroad (I am in Canada) then the courier will charge me a ridiculous amounts of money to process customs (http://www.ups.com/content/ca/en/shipping/cost/zones/customs_clearance.html http://www.ups.com/content/ca/en/shipping/cost/zones/customs... twenty percent, easily!). If I order from amazon.com / .de / whatever then at checkout I will pay all the necessary import fees and taxes (very low usually) and no customs processing fees. As far as I am aware, only eBay has a similar Global Shipping program.
      • apricot 11y ago
        I found that by asking the seller to use the USPS instead of a courier company, I could avoid brokerage fees and sometimes even duty/import fees as well. Not all sellers will agree to use USPS, but it doesn't hurt to ask.
        • chx 11y ago
          Canada Post will also charge a fee.
    • verbatim 11y ago
      What do you use as alternatives, and for what categories of shopping?
• ericfrederich 11y ago
  Amazon and Google are both ruining Android. Amazon for apps that arbitrarily only work on their hardware is awful, forcing customers to buy multiple devices (no Amazon Video on the Nexus Player). Google for not making the play store installable on non-Google approved hardware. At least the Amazon app store is made available as a download from Amazon even if Amazon Video won't work on your device.
  • MichaelGG 11y ago
    You've got it backwards on Google Play. If Google had taken a bit of a stronger arm in the beginning, we wouldn't have the fragmentation and shitty experience (Huawei's crap UI, Samsung's crap UI, etc.) that we have today. Google's slowly trying to clean it up, and perhaps the few-restrictions early play was a Trojan Horse. But opening Android up now would certainly be a mistake as it'd only further encourage OEMs to screw it up. Look at Microsoft and how much they suffered at the hands of terrible OEMs.
    • Spivak 11y ago
      Look, if you want an iPhone, just buy one. You're describing their business model exactly. Having a walled garden is great up until the point they start making decisions you don't like. And usually by that point you don't have any control to stop them.
• slg 11y ago
  >"Over the last three years, Prime Video has become an important part of Prime," Amazon said in the e-mail. "It’s important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion." Google and Apple now both have open SDK's for creating streaming apps for their devices. Isn't the the fact these devices don't "interact well with Prime Video" entirely Amazon's fault?
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • atonse 11y ago
    Exactly. I bet they'll capitulate eventually though. Prime Video membership seems like such a small thing to gain in exchange for staying out of the Apple TV store.
  • zzleeper 11y ago
    If I was Apple I would try really hard to avoid Amazon's service working.. they are a more direct competitor than say netflix, as they sell both the hardware and the service
    • MCRed 11y ago
      I think you're thinking of it backwards. Amazon Prime video working on iOS and AppleTV is in Apple's interest because it means however many prime members will use those devices. Apple's content strategy is purely about selling hardware. Apple's not getting into the content business like Amazon and Netflix are (both of them are producing original programming... all Apple's done in that regard is the iTunes music festival in London which seems to be more PR event and technology test than anything else.) This is why Apple worked with Netflix, HBO, etc to get apps on the Apple TV even before the TVOS was ready.
    • astrodust 11y ago
      Apple isn't Microsoft in the 1990s where it was Apple or the highway. They've allowed Kindle, Netflix, and other apps, some featured prominently on their default configuration. They've even gone so far as to present options when looking at a movie in their store on the new hardware and OS so you know what other services offer it. I'm guessing Amazon will be removed from this list immediately.
• devit 11y ago
  There should be laws that force anyone who owns a platform without any perfect replacements (which includes all two-sided markets) to allow any legal and non-fraudulent content, products, businesses or people on it at non-discriminatory costs. Amazon should be forced allow selling anything legal, Apple should be forced to allow any legal apps, Facebook should not be allowed to ban people, Paypal should not be allowed to freeze accounts, Google should be forced to allow anyone to use AdSense and allow anyone to advertise on it, Airbnb should be forced to allow anyone to list properties, etc. Without these laws, our freedom and our ability to participate in the economy is at the mercy of whatever company wins the lottery and becomes the owner of the dominant platform in a niche.
  • gduplessy 11y ago
    What happens to the freedom of these companies to refuse your business?
  • anon4327733 11y ago
    As some have said above, things get awkward with gray areas. Would reddit be prevented from banning the many unethical but legal subreddits? I will bite that bullet, but many will not.
  • wrsh07 11y ago
    This is not a good idea. Should Amazon be forced to sell Confederate flags if they find them immoral? Curated app stores are a good thing for users. Should Apple be forced to compromise the quality of their user experience because of random laws? And Airbnb being forced to allow anyone to list properties seems like a major safety issue. There will always be competitors to Amazon, and it's ridiculous to suggest that them not selling something means you're freedom is being compromised. Neither Google nor Apple will suffer from this move, and people can buy those products from other reputable vendors. Besides, one of the barriers to competing with Amazon was a good payments system, and that has largely been solved in recent years.
    • logfromblammo 11y ago
      Being forced to sell something is quite a bit of moral distance away from being forced to allow anyone to set up a stall in your bazaar, regardless of the products they may be selling from it. If I wanted to buy a Confederate battle flag, it shouldn't be any more difficult for me to do so than buying a 50-star US stars and stripes flag, or a pirate jolly roger flag, or a UK union jack flag, or a North Korean flag, or a rainbow hippy peace-sign flag. A meta-merchant based out of the US should simply not be able to discriminate based on content, unless it also wishes to assume legal responsibility for those things it does allow to be sold in its marketplace. Someone, somewhere, will want to sell what I want to buy, and it is no more Amazon's place to prevent us from doing business on their general-purpose e-commerce platform than it is AT&T's or Verizon's place to prevent us from talking over their phone networks. The instant you pull CSA flags from your marketplace, everything else becomes a de facto Amazon-approved product. Like ISIS propaganda magazines. Whoops, better ban that, too. Eventually, it reaches the point where some employee has to decide whether a fill-in-the-blanks legal boilerplate form can be sold by a merchant that is not a licensed attorney in the buyer's state. Because if Amazon removed some offensive or illegal products, customers may rely on that when shopping, and assume that anything else bought from Amazon must therefore be legal and non-offensive. If Amazon wants to do that, fine. But do it on curated.amazon.com or only.amazon.com rather than the main www.amazon.com site. Maybe I'll go there if I only want to see stuff sold directly by Amazon without having to check that box in the search results every time. Curated marketplaces are fine, but only so long as there is a free, uncurated alternative. I think Apple should be forced to allow uncurated stores (like Cydia) or curated-by-someone-else stores (perhaps a Google Play for iOS) for those who wish to assume the additional risks posed by such offerings. They are certainly allowed to preload their own store, and make it the default, but if I want to take my property out of the walled garden, they had damned well better unlock the gates and let me leave. In my opinion, the extent to which the platform is completely neutral is inversely proportional to the responsibility the platform operators have for the things that make use of it. Of course, by this theory, if Silk Road had not policed its black market listings at all, it could not have been shut down for promoting commerce in outlawed goods and services.
• supster 11y ago
  This seems like a violation of anti-trust laws
• apricot 11y ago
  "To avoid customer confusion". That's not even good bullshit.
• paul 11y ago
  This is ridiculous. Google should delist Amazon.com to "avoid customer confusion" when searchers land there and can't buy a chromecast ;) Their explanation is just insulting.
  • JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    Google can't do that right now. The DOJ is looking into anti-trust practices. Even though everyone else should be looked into as well (this is article is a case in point).
  • wyldfire 11y ago
    > Their explanation is just insulting. Do they really need to explain their actions here to anyone? They don't owe Apple and Google a spot in their inventory.
    • TheBiv 11y ago
      Not they do not, but since they did explain their actions then we have the opportunity to cast judgement
    • qq66 11y ago
      Does Google owe Amazon a spot in its search results? Does Apple owe Amazon the right to not be blocked in Safari?
    • unethical_ban 11y ago
      Morally, they do owe an explanation. They're a giant in their market, shutting out competitors with no good reason.
    • dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Do they really need to explain their actions here to anyone? Well, potentially to the FTC.
      • res0nat0r 11y ago
        Why? Amazon isn't required to carry every product everyone on HN deems important. McDonald's isn't required to carry Pepsi products because someone likes Mountain Dew. To your follow up: some kind of anti-competitive explanation for why Amazon shouldn't be allow to do this isn't really going to hold any water in this case.
• RIMR 11y ago
  Well, if I needed a reason not to buy a Fire Stick, here it is. If you can't sell your product without striking down competitor's products, than clearly your competitors have a better product.
  • sandGorgon 11y ago
    Does anyone here have a Kindle Fire Stick? It seems to already have dual band, has double the memory/ghz of a chromecast and most importantly - does not need a phone or computer to work. It comes with an independent remote control and built in apps to run. Plus, it already has Spotify. I'm wondering why you would get the Chromecast over the Fire Stick.
    • moron4hire 11y ago
      I have the Fire TV box, not the stick. The availability of apps on it is kind of annoying, and in the early days video playback was really buggy. But the interface is one of the nicest set-top boxes I've personally used. I prefer it to Apple TV and certainly Roku. I haven't tried Chromecast, though.
    • hullo 11y ago
      We use an original generation Fire Stick specifically for Prime streaming (everything else is on Apple TV), and it's an okay product, but Amazon's dual goal to provide free streaming while also driving purchases makes it a flawed product in the same way that Apple Music within iTunes made me pull out my hair. The new generation with voice should be a good improvement (the amazon remote app for smartphones already incorporates it for the original generation of fire sticks).
    • RIMR 11y ago
      I always have a phone, tablet or computer within reach, so it's not a problem to have no dedicated remote (one less thing cluttering my living room, actually). I also use legal-greyarea services like Put.io, which only work on Chromecast because of how open the ecosystem is. Before this I used a Boxee Box, which I preferred over the competitors because you could load it full of homebrew (including Put.io). The Chromecast is most-used HDMI device in my house, because it works with everything I use.
• kertof 11y ago
  Ironically, Netflix is running on AWS.
  • outside1234 11y ago
    For now.
  • davb 11y ago
    I think this is a bit like Apple using Samsung SoCs. The consumer-facing parts of the business hate each other; the B2B units have a more reasonable view of each other.
• kertof 11y ago
  Ironically, Netflix is running on AWS.
• outside1234 11y ago
  Let the evilness begin! Seriously though, isn't this just asking for an anti-trust investigation? Especially in the EU, where it is more focused on competition inhibiting actions.
  • rubidium 11y ago
    I was wondering about anti-trust issues too. Seems to be a pretty clear case of using dominance in one area (online shopping) to try and increase dominance in another area (online video streaming).
  • caskance 11y ago
    Has Amazon ever pretended to not be evil?
• modeless 11y ago
  They refuse to make the Prime Video app available on the Play Store, they refuse to add Chromecast support, and now they refuse to even sell Chromecast because of their own decision to not support it? I've just canceled my Prime subscription and I hope a few others do as well.
  • TrunkleBob 11y ago
    I thought the reason the video app wasn't in the Play store was due to them having to give Google a cut of every sale if they did that?
    • Shooti 11y ago
      You can shop via an in-app browser within their Kindle app.
    • yohui 11y ago
      That's iOS, not Android. And even on iOS, Amazon has a video app for viewing videos, though you can't buy or rent directly inside the app: https://itunes.apple.com/app/amazon-video/id545519333 https://itunes.apple.com/app/amazon-video/id545519333
    • modeless 11y ago
      I think you're confusing Google with Apple. The Play Store's policies are much more reasonable, and allow third party payment processors for purchasing digital items that can be consumed outside of the app itself. In fact, here's a third party video store on the Play Store [1], and here's Amazon's own Prime Music app [2]. [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=air.com.vudu.air.DownloaderTablet https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=air.com.vudu.a... [2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.mp3 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.mp3
  • dfar1 11y ago
    You need 2 apps to run Prime Video, which I believe it's just called Amazon Video now. You need the amazon appstore app, to install it, and you need amazon shopping app installed to run it (have no idea why). It works fine on android once you have installed all the amazon bs, but last time i checked the app wasn't very good on iOS.
• mjt0229 11y ago
  I worked at Amazon for a while, and I was in a number of meetings with a number of senior executives, and I heard them ask, "What's better for the customer?". This move makes me think they've gotten out of the habit of asking that question.
  • brad0 11y ago
    It's Amazon's first leadership principle: http://www.amazon.jobs/principles http://www.amazon.jobs/principles I think Amazon is hitting the ceiling of what it can achieve - it's no longer following the system that got it so big and they're having to resort to systems like Amazon Flex to still be able to provide delivery on time.
  • shostack 11y ago
    That's all I could think of here. Google and Apple have sufficient brand awareness that those who want to purchase these devices will be able to buy them just fine. Unfortunately, those who want to purchase them through Amazon or would not have known about them outside of Amazon are now the ones that lose. Seems very contrary to that leadership principle.
• wyldfire 11y ago
  Bloomberg's title seems a little baity. The article states, "... its marketplace sellers that it will stop selling Apple TV and Google’s Chromecast." So "the everything store" will stop selling their competitors products? Not exactly earth-shattering.
• mark-r 11y ago
  Yet another reason to shop at Newegg.
• libraryatnight 11y ago
  If this is the beginning of a trend then I won't be a Prime customer much longer. If they don't sell the products I want, then I don't care if I have free super fast shipping and the value goes out the window. I could care less about their video services. I have Netflix and Hulu, it's been months since I watched something on Prime video.
• MCRed 11y ago
  Remember, this is Amazon. A PR machine whose primary product is their stock. The Amazon web store is almost an afterthought. I will bet that in a year these devices will be on sale there. (Amazon's going to give up selling the iPhone? Yeah right!) This is just PR generated clickbait.
• tdees40 11y ago
  That sound you're hearing is DOJ lawyers clearing their calendars for the rest of the year. They're going to have some work to do.
• RockyMcNuts 11y ago
  Amazon needs to do a better job of explaining why they think Apple TV and Chromecast's restrictions are unfair. Amazon's streaming is pretty good, I certainly wouldn't buy a device that doesn't support Prime Video. Roku is pretty good, supports everything except Apple streaming AFAIK. One could make a pretty good argument Apple is the one locking people out. But it might come across as Amazon throwing their weight around to hurt a competitor, which it doesn't even accomplish since there are so many other alternatives to buy those products.
  • MichaelGG 11y ago
    What's stopping Amazon from making Prime work on Chromecast? Even freebie apps in the Play Store stream just fine to Chromecast.
    • RockyMcNuts 11y ago
      geez, I dunno...that's why they really have to be more clear. Picture I had was, Apple was a walled garden, you bought Roku, Chromecast, Amazon Fire TV, it worked on everything but Apple TV. Seems like it will be a full-fledged shooting platform war now.
• ycitera 11y ago
  Does that mean that it is Google and Apple that don't want to implement Amazon Prime on their devices? and not the other way around
  • darkstar999 11y ago
    You should read the article to find out!
    • ycitera 11y ago
      "Amazon probably wants to teach Apple and Google a lesson about not making their devices more compatible," Grunes said. (Allen Grunes, a lawyer at Konkurrenz Group in Washington)
• wnevets 11y ago
  Wow, who was the genius that came up with this idea? I was literally just talking about how annoying it is that prime video doesn't work with chromecast. Is breaking my habit of checking amazon first when ordering online really worth propping up prime video?
• uncoder0 11y ago
  They won't even sell Chromecast or Apple TV? Wow. Now I'm sure they'll never support them for Prime Video. I was really looking forward to watching 'The House of Cars' or whatever the Top Gear trio call their new show. I won't buy a Fire TV for just that show though. It is a real pain in the ass that as a paying prime customer since launch I have to rip videos from their service in order to watch them on my TV.
• moron4hire 11y ago
  Perhaps AMZN being a single company that provides a retail store and provides video streaming and provides hardware designs and provides software isn't in the best interest of the public.
• pw 11y ago
  This does kinda feel like Amazon jumping the shark, particularly in light of claimed "customer obsession" and and that "Leaders start with the customer and work backwards." (http://www.amazon.jobs/principles http://www.amazon.jobs/principles)
• annasaru 11y ago
  Google and Apple don't sell Amazon devices on their stores, so I guess Amazon wants to take away that advantage from its competitors.
• ohitsdom 11y ago
  "Video-streaming devices" is very broad, and it shows how silly this decision is. Same argument can be applied to computers of any kind (tablets, laptops, desktops).
• josscrowcroft 11y ago
  I don't like this one bit. I've cancelled my Prime membership on principle... I have some way to go, but gradually I'm working to stop giving energy to organisations that don't align with my values... even if it makes my life marginally less convenient.
• leroy_masochist 11y ago
  "It’s important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion." It's a good thing my main man Jeff B has my back, otherwise God only knows what kind of confusion would ensue. Update: sorry for redundantly making a point that a half-dozen others have already made on this thread....but really, this is just epic shamelessness. I mean, this is like Microsoft-in-the-mid-90's-level shamelessness.
• pm24601 11y ago
  Sounds like an anti-competitive move. Cue the google/apple lawsuits and FTC investigation in 3, 2, ......
  • Blaaguuu 11y ago
    So will they also force Apple and Google to sell FireTV on their stores? Amazon tries to look like the place where you can buy literally everything... but they aren't legally obligated to sell anything.
    • pm24601 11y ago
      Apple and Google aren't dominant in ecommerce the way Amazon is. The rules are different if a company is considered dominant in its market sector.
  • ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    Yeah, but Google's being investigated by the FTC for how they restrict usage of Google Apps. The primary aggrieved party there is Amazon, who's been unable to offer the Play Store on their Kindle devices. Google should want to make this fight go away without the FTC, because it shines a light on Google's own misdeeds.
• guelo 11y ago
  After considering a Chromecast and an Apple TV I went with Roku because the main services I want are Amazon Prime Video and Netflix. If Apple and Google are playing hardball against Amazon video this move only makes sense in a tit for tat battle.
  • LukeB_UK 11y ago
    Apple and Google aren't doing anything, Amazon aren't making their services available on those platforms.
  • zaphar 11y ago
    How do get Apple and Google as the ones playing hardball here? Amazon is the aggressor here not Apple or Google.
    • guelo 11y ago
      How come Amazon video isn't available on Apple TV or Chromecast?
      • burglecut 11y ago
        because amazon video doesn't support them?
      • dragonwriter 11y ago
        > How come Amazon video isn't available on Apple TV or Chromecast? In the case of Chromecast, because Amazon hasn't built an app that uses the Chromecast API, because -- the same as the move here -- Amazon wants to use its position to promote and sell its own hardware that competes with Chromecast. Its not like Google prevents Amazon from using the Chromecast SDK the same as anyone else.
    • ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      If Amazon is the aggressor, why isn't Play Movies or the Chromecast app available on the Amazon Appstore? Surely Amazon would've liked Kindles to work with Chromecast. I think you're missing the reason for this fight.
• AaronFriel 11y ago
  Cancel your Amazon Prime, send a signal to Amazon. There are plenty of retailers with expedited shipping options now, and I've long preferred say, Newegg, over Amazon for technology products. I'm canceling my Prime. I don't even own a Chromecast, or any iOS devices, but I'm not going to support a company throwing its weight around in this abusive manner, even if it's entirely legal. (It is not without irony that I write this, because one of the reasons Amazon is doing this is the Apple tax on digital goods, which is why I don't purchase iOS devices for personal use. The idea that Apple should get a 30% cut of everything that flows through an iPhone or iPad is insane to me.)
  • yohui 11y ago
    Newegg's staunch opposition to patent trolls is nice, too: http://blog.newegg.com/newegg-vs-patent-trolls-when-we-win-you-win/ http://blog.newegg.com/newegg-vs-patent-trolls-when-we-win-y...
  • sudoherethere 11y ago
    I will not renew my Prime membership unless this decision is reversed. Though canceling would send a stronger signal.
  • Nicholas_C 11y ago
    >There are plenty of retailers with expedited shipping options now What about cheap/free 2 day shipping for books? Would love to find an Amazon alternative.
• LandoCalrissian 11y ago
  First thing in a while I have been disappointed in from Amazon. Pretty crappy move.
  • dingaling 11y ago
    I've been increasingly disappointed over the past year or two. Having been an Amazon customer since 1997 ( back when they still accepted cheques mailed-in for orders ) within the past couple of years they have fallen to my retailer-of-last-resort position. Many of the items we used to order are now add-ons that don't even qualify for free delivery if bought in bulk. Their website is now a constant hard-push for Prime. Products are pushed to secondary positions so that they can shove Prime banners in my face. I have to double-check every checkbox to make sure I'm not signing-up for a 'free' trial of Prime. If they want to push Prime so hard, just switch to being a Prime-members-only site.
• 51Cards 11y ago
  Also canceling my Prime membership. I would hope this comes to the eyes of the antitrust bureau as well as it seems like a fairly strong case. If Google de-listed Amazon from their results for having a competing product it would be huge news.
• methehack 11y ago
  Hubris. There are other channels and consumers will surely find them. And -- oops -- waddaya know, my kindle app just crashed :)
• atomicbeanie 11y ago
  Because Apple will not have difficulty fulfilling orders for its products on the Internet itself, I doubt anyone could claim Amazon is in violation of the rule of reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Rule_of_reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Ru... That said, this is only true of companies like Apple, who already have access to favorable terms to resources like UPS, etc. I think the much more important question is whether Amazon will assume this privilege with other companies and markets that will be adversely affected by such policies. I think Amazon has little to gain in trying to boost its sales by reducing the competition of Apple on its own web site store. What they have to loose is the faith that people have invested in Amazon in being a market creation and fair access vehicle. If companies cannot help keep the Internet open and available to all, then they're going to have to shut up later when they are riddled with regulations, tort and legal bills. Not to mention the obvious ire of their loyal customers (myself among them). I sure hope Amazon's web analytics pick up this comment :-) I won't give them the benefit of sending it to them directly. They obviously are more interested in their interests, not my interest in comparing devices directly on their web site.
  • atomicbeanie 11y ago
    I would also add, that once Amazon's product teams have protection from the competition, they are going to evolve to be less competitive. Moving to an easier league, never makes a team better :-)
• Zhenya 11y ago
  Interesting. So lets think this through. If they want to make money on prime and streaming, selling competitors products that offer this should be no problem. Yet THEY refuse to put PrimeVideo on chromecast. Seems like they are more interested in keeping their current customers of competitors platforms, than expanding their reach. Seems dumb to me.
• zaphar 11y ago
  If I were Google I would offer all customers a free license to any Amazon movies the customer already owns. A Mass exodus from Amazon to Google would subsequently ensue.
• curiousjorge 11y ago
  "Over the last three years, Prime Video has become an important part of Prime," Amazon said in the e-mail. "It’s important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion."
• cracoucax 11y ago
  This is a very bad move for Amazon on all levels, i'm pretty sure this will be cancelled and some heads will fly. I mean : - They piss their customers - They piss their merchants, probably killing some businesses along the way - They instill fear in their potential merchants. I was vaguely thinking about selling stuff on amazon mind you, and worried a bit about being locked in. Well, those fears are much more real now. - They piss google and apple, obviously. They're competitors of course but it's a bit of a harsh move, in fact it looks like a war declaration. - They have a very special place as the biggest merchant on the internet, people watch them and some fear for good reason what they could become (like the only e commerce platform on the internet), and what it could mean in term of market manipulation opportunities. Well they just gave those guys lots of cookies. - They lose sales, obviously All that for what ? Well that's ... not clear.
• madrox 11y ago
  Why is it when Apple does this to an app for the same reasons, it's ok? I suspect their announcement was a copy/paste of Apple's Kindle app rejection on the app store (when it included the option to buy books).
  • BryantD 11y ago
    Did Apple ever reject the Kindle app? They rejected Sony's app; from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/technology/01apple.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/technology/01apple.html?_r...: “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” Trudy Muller, an Apple spokeswoman, said Tuesday. “We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.” So not a copy/paste of that, either.
  • stock_toaster 11y ago
    Amazon pulled the kindle app's ability to purchase books, because to continue to do so they would have had to pay Apple the standard 30% cut. Amazon did not want to pay that. So they chose to instead to remove the ability for customers to purchase books inside the app.
• hypocrt 11y ago
  This is a trojan horse PR move to expose Apple's longstanding "customer confusion" argument for excluding competitive products (think Amazon MP3 downloads) from the App Store. If what Apple has been doing for years is legal, so is this, and Apple can't complain without exposing complete hypocrisy. In my view, Amazon wants to be forced back from this position in a precedent-setting way. This is Jeff Bezos's long-shot attempt to finally tear down the wall of Apple's closed marketplace.
  • caryhartline 11y ago
    Apple does not comment on a story like this. If people want to buy an Apple TV, they will see that it's not in the Amazon store then likely go to apple.com.
  • dragonwriter 11y ago
    > In my view, Amazon wants to be forced back from this position in a precedent-setting way. The only way that could happen would be through long, drawn-out antitrust proceedings. Which, I don't think its much of a stretch to propose, no business wants to get in and lose just to set a precedent that could be used later against preexisting practices of their competitors. Especially, since any such precedent would only be relevant if they could convince public authorities to prosecute their opponent, or if they choose to expend the resources to do so themselves, and in either of those cases they could do that first without the precedent and establish the precedent at the same time as realizing the benefit.
  • commandar 11y ago
    That doesn't make any sense given the way Amazon has treated the Android ecosystem for years now. This is just the most blatant, anticonsumer attempt they've made so far to forcibly leverage customers into the Fire ecosystem.
  • Certhas 11y ago
    Apple doesn't have a monopoly or a market commanding position. Amazon does.
    • 11y ago
• tomelders 11y ago
  Anti Trust. Corporate censorship.
• funkysquid 11y ago
  What are some good Amazon Prime (shopping) alternatives? Yearly fee for low cost or free fast shipping, with an inventory of pretty much everything?
  • Johnny555 11y ago
    https://www.shoprunner.com/ https://www.shoprunner.com/ provides free 2 day shipping from a number of merchants (including NewEgg), and is free for American Express cardholders, otherwise it's $79/year.
  • stock_toaster 11y ago
    From what I understand, Newegg has a kinda similar thing (Newegg Premier or something). Edit: found the link http://www.newegg.com/neweggpremier http://www.newegg.com/neweggpremier
• arunitc 11y ago
  The only reason I didn't sign up for prime was the inability to Chromecast.
• aet 11y ago
  This hurts Google, but not Apple. Why ever order Apple device from Amazon.com? Seems very risky.
• user_235711 11y ago
  This definitely seems like a bad move, and not very customer-centric. It reminds me of when they disabled the download of any mobile browser alternatives in the 2nd-Generation Kindle Fire in order to push their Silk browser (which itself was terrible nearly to the point of being unusable). This is not to say that Amazon Instant Video is not a great service. It's pretty awesome IMO. But forcing people who want alternatives to seek them out elsewhere will just inconvenience them and drive them away from amazon.com.
• Spooky23 11y ago
  Bye, bye Amazon. First the rabbit hole of going to war with UPS to launch various harebrained schemes for delivery. Now picking stupid fights and annoying customers over something with marginal impact to the business. Amazon is easily replaceable, Netflix, Google and Apple, not so much. My guess is that the corporate numbers aren't doing good as they've started ratcheting prices up, and this is a smokescreen.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• ruok0101 11y ago
  If they just put some effort into their streaming user experience, they wouldn't have to resort to these sort of tactics. Sad.
• chrismarlow9 11y ago
  I wonder when they'll use that AWS stronghold they have to do similar things in that industry. But that's okay, keep putting all your eggs in their proprietary tech. It just means I'll have a job when that day comes.
• jlarocco 11y ago
  The best way to increase usage of their video streaming would be to make the interface suck less. Finding shows and videos is a pain in the ass, and it's very difficult to find shows and there's no way to find shows or movies that I've previously watched, even if I didn't finish them. I've been working my way through all of the Twilight Zone episodes, and even after completely watching seasons 1, 2, 3, and half of season 5, it still doesn't show up as suggested for me or anything. I have to search for it every single night, and the shows don't even show up in the top results, I have to scroll half way down the page to find it. And then a lot of shows are missing a random season or two. The Twilight Zone is missing season 4, for example. I only use it because I already have prime and don't watch enough to pay for Netflix. If I had to pay, I'd use something else.
• drewg123 11y ago
  What really, really irks me about this is that Amazon ALREADY HAS an Android TV app. They were (apparently) contractually obligated to Sony to supply it for their TVs, and it works perfectly well on Sony Android TV based Smart TVs. It was possible to sideload this app on other Android TV devices until Amazon put a halt to it. See http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/05/16/amazon-disables-the-instant-video-apk-for-non-sony-android-tv-devices-because-they-hate-you-and-your-money/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/05/16/amazon-disables-the-... I wonder if Netflix should be scared. The next thing you know, they might ban competing video services from running on aws ...
  • gtk40 11y ago
    Well, I also have a Fire Stick I use to watch Netflix and don't have a Prime subscription. I hope they don't make my Fire Stick useless.
  • discodave 11y ago
    If Amazon ever banned competitors from running on AWS it would pretty much be the end of AWS.
• theSoenke 11y ago
  I don't use Prime, because it does not work on my Chromecast.
• lerxst 11y ago
  I bought several cheaper Apple products, including an Apple TV, on Amazon because of my Prime membership. While the user experience is not the best for these products (especially the higher end laptops; how often is NEWEST VERSION updated?), it provides a way for Amazon customers to quickly purchase Apple products with a stored CC and take advantage of their Prime two day shipping. I am not going to boycott Amazon because of this, but it does make me question Amazon's leadership and decision-making. Now I think of them as the one stop shop for everything except for Apple products. Adding exceptions for products like this is a slippery slope.
• asteadman 11y ago
  So, as a Canadian, where does this leave me? I have an amazon prime account (on amazon.ca), but I don't have access to Prime Video (because Canada). Are they seriously going to de-list chromecasts on amazon.ca because of the potential "customer confusion" of a service they don't even offer here?
• port6667 11y ago
  I didn't understand prime video. I tried to watch a movie when i had prime, following their link for the "free videos!" Only to find that it was 5 bucks for every stream or something. Ok. Searched out ghostbusters or something older, guess what? $5. Also no way to sort by free for prime, at least not then. Don't have prime anymore, and these days amazon is around 10-15% more than what you can easily google elsewhere. Miss the shipping priority though, but as soon as you drop prime, expect them to wait 7 days before bothering to package your stuff and ship it out.
• nyc_cyn 11y ago
  After reading Bezos' biography a few weeks ago, this sounds like something that he would never, ever do. Amazon is the everything store. What's going on?
• Johnny555 11y ago
  If you're a Prime customer, this would be a good time to leave them feedback and let them know what you think about this policy: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/contact-us https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/contact-us? I understand Amazon not wanting to sell competing products themselves, but preventing Marketplace sellers from selling them goes over the line. Amazon shouldn't dictate which (legal) products that Marketplace sellers sell.
  • commandar 11y ago
    Thanks for the link. I emailed them making it very clear that I'd be a non-renewal and taking every penny of the several thousand dollars per year I normally spend with Amazon elsewhere if they stay the course on this one.
• SwellJoe 11y ago
  It's easy to paint Amazon as the bad actor here...and, they are. But, I think Google and Apple are also bad actors in this situation. The reason Google and Apple TV devices have a bad Amazon Prime experience, I suspect, is because they want a huge cut of revenue from Amazon Prime viewership (just as they expect a huge cut of revenue for anything sold on their platform), and they aren't being reasonable about getting it. The notion that these services can be profitable, can pay creators a reasonable amount, and can be offered at a fair price to consumers, while also paying massive rents to the platform owners is questionable, at best. If your margins are razor thin, having a company demand 30% for that last mile to the customer is probably not sustainable. Amazon is not faultless, but it is bad actors all around in this situation. Somebody needs to break the 30% model. I don't think this move from Amazon will do it for the industry as a whole (though Apple and Google might work on a compromise specifically with Amazon), but I understand entirely why they're doing it. They're facing off against the biggest bullies in the world, who are demanding Amazon's lunch money in the media market (not that Amazon is treating anyone that much better on their own platform).
  • narrowingorbits 11y ago
    Nope. Incorrect. Google and Apple both have open SDKs for streaming to their devices. Amazon has chosen not to support them
    • SwellJoe 11y ago
      Ah, then Amazon is just being an ass.
  • iheart2code 11y ago
    The 30% revenue share is only for purchasing content that is discovered & purchased on Apple devices. Amazon Prime subscribers pay Amazon directly through the website, and would not be subject to that revenue share. For non-Prime Instant Video purchases/rentals, users could purchase through the website and have content made available through the app. This is how Amazon Kindle currently works on iOS.
  • oaktowner 11y ago
• larubbio 11y ago
  This move really saddens me. When I left Netscape to work at Amazon one of the things that I was excited about was a quote from Jeff. "Focus on the customer, not competition." It seems they hve forgotten that. I found it frustrating when I couldn't stream Prime videos to my android phone (is stock android that different from the version on Fire?) I found it frustrating (but understandable) when they said they wouldn't support Google TV anymore. (Although the 'support' was letting me watch videos in Chrome). Now this? It seems like they have forgotten completely about the customer and are focusing solely on the competition.
  • JohnTHaller 11y ago
    Prime instant video always worked on Android. Amazon just didn't want you to use it because they wanted to sell you a tablet. Or a horribly overpriced clunky phone. Amazon now lets you use Prime instant video on your Android device, but there's a big catch. You have to manually install it from their site and allow untrusted apps on your phone to do so. And it's not just Prime instant video you're installing, you're installing the full Amazon App Store on your Android device and giving it full permissions to everything on your phone so it can install and update other apps. This type of behavior is only focused on the competition and a big middle finger to the customer.
    • lvs 11y ago
      And while you can get it running, it doesn't support Chromecast because they want you to buy their own competing product. I can feel the Justice Department's Antitrust Division rumbling from here.
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  • Brakenshire 11y ago
    Similarly, the normal buying experience is being compromised by the pushing of Amazon Prime. When you simply buy a product and want it sent to you, you really have to hunt out the small, unbolded text which allows you to do that without paying any subscription, as against a display of advert and button covering about 2/3rds of the screen to sign up to Prime. I have had an elderly neighbour ask for help after mistakenly signing up for the service, and personally, the experience reminds me of hunting out the real download button on free download websites, in amongst the flash adverts. I've always thought the big advantage of Amazon was its ease of use for casual purchasers, and I can't imagine that level of hassle and uncertainty is appreciated.
• javajosh 11y ago
  The idealists here call it a mistake, violating various capitalist principles. The clever argument against Amazon is that they are betraying that they think their product is weak, and can't stand competition. The deeper, more pragmatic issue is that this is a browser war. The browsers are weird because they are TV dongles. Some hardware manufacturers want to give us browsers that only work for some sites. I pay Netflix $20/mo to synchronize some of their streams into my brain, through a complicated path involving a world-wide internet, LEDs, and my eye-balls. Why does the hardware path through which those bits flow have to matter? Netflix, Prime, HBO, Comedy Central - aren't all of these just sources of those stream? My question is whether all of this is because Prime won't support certain hardware paths, or because certain hardware won't support Prime. (Given what I know about Chromecast, I'd say it's the former).
• j4kp07 11y ago
  To be fair...Google and Apple are doing the same thing to Amazon (shutting out a competitor). Tivo and Roku both offer PrimeTV and both are sold thru Amazon. So the theory that this is soley to block out competitors is demonstrably false. Business is business and Amazon is biting back. Shouting "boycott" seems extreme and won't have an affect on their bottomline anyways.
• LordKano 11y ago
  I'm happy that I went with Roku. I think that this is an underhanded move on Amazon's part but it's not beneath what Apple or Google would do in their position.
  • ndhc3 11y ago
    >it's not beneath what Apple or Google would do in their position. Explain.
    • LordKano 11y ago
      Based on their previous behavior in the marketplace, Apple and Google aren't above refusing to sell something they once sold if it's not in their own best interests to continue selling it.
• c3534l 11y ago
  This sounds like anti-competitive behavior. Even if legal, as someone who spends literally thousands of dollars a year on their site and have been for over a decade now, this will cause me to look for alternatives. I admired amazon because they were often aggressively pro-customer. But this move will not benefit their customers. They may well wind up destroying the customer loyalty they've built up over the years with this really stupid decision.
  • eco 11y ago
    > ...look for alternatives. What kind of serious alternatives are there to Amazon? There is Monoprice and Newegg for electronics and accessories. I just heard about Jet on Planet Money which sounded interesting. Anyone have any general shopping sites they like?
• ypcx 11y ago
  As an expat living in Greece, I frequently shop on the German Amazon site, where Amazon's Fire TV and Stick are pretty much destroying all competition, excluding perhaps Roku. However being from a different EU country, I can order neither Roku nor Prime. Not a huge problem for me since I'm 100% YouTube, but both Roku and Prime devices seem to have superior YouTube leanback performance over Chromecast (tried) and pretty much any Android TV box (didn't try). I'm currently waiting for my Nexus Player to arrive, I guess I've ordered it just in time.
• Zelphyr 11y ago
  This seems really short-sighted to me. Amazon is going to punish their own customers because of a feud they have with their competitors? How is that good? More and more I question whether I want to continue doing business with Amazon.
• draw_down 11y ago
  Aww, I was hoping more people here would defend the move. (I really enjoy watching people do mental gymnastics.)
• Merovius 11y ago
  It's not only about non-prime-customers either. I am a prime customer, but I don't use the video streaming, because amazon is a retailer for me. I go there to buy stuff and I use prime to buy stuff cheaper (and more). It's bad enough that they actually force me to buy the video streaming if I want the cheap and convenient buying (which, incidentally, is such a turnoff, that I won't be a prime customer in the future which will pretty much kill my amazon buying habbit).
  • oaktowner 11y ago
    This. I'd gladly pay for a Prime product that was $10/mo cheaper and didn't include streaming. I never use Prime Video Streaming (precisely because Amazon won't enable streaming to Chromecast).
• cmrdporcupine 11y ago
  Wonder if they'll try to pull this off on Amazon.ca and other geos, where they have not bothered to roll out their own streaming video service.
• X-Istence 11y ago
  Has this feature now been removed: http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/17/4740080/amazon-instant-video-airplay-support http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/17/4740080/amazon-instant-vid...
• martin-adams 11y ago
  I disagree with this. If Amazon want to avoid customer confusion, then make the products show a 'Amazon Prime Video Compatibility' notice on the product page. But where does it stop. Do they start banning gaming devices, tablets, etc? Will music players be next, and e-readers? It feels like this is Amazon's way to get those vendors to take note and consider and integration, or calling their bluff because they failed in their corporate negotiations to make that work. Having said that though, I do feel it's unfortunate that to run the Amazon App store on my Android phone I have to leave the phone in an insecure state because Android only officially supports the Google Play Store. It feels like both are battling with each other and doing it in a very public way by harming the consumer experience.
• endymi0n 11y ago
  I heard next they are trying out a mandatory Web Application Firewall on AWS that will shield their customers from exposing potentially malicious websites offering non-Amazon streaming devices...
• brightball 11y ago
  Confederate flag, Apple and Google are all in the same bucket according to Amazon now. Nice.
• nsxwolf 11y ago
  Is Apple going to refuse to let Amazon publish a Prime Video app on the new Apple TV? That's what they seem to be implying by saying a device doesn't "support" it.
• transfire 11y ago
  I don't think you understand. Amazon doesn't want to do this, but Google and Apple are leaving them little choice b/c they are undermining Prime service on their devices. And this is not the only place where this is happening. Have you tried to use the YouTube app on Roku? It is all but unusable. Why? B/c Google wants to control everything.
• cuillevel3 11y ago
  Is that even legal in the EU? Isn't that the same behaviour that got Google into trouble, allegedly putting their own products in front of others?
• InclinedPlane 11y ago
  Congratulations, you fucked up. A lot. What is Amazon built on? How does it work? Oh, you think it's built on web services running on cloud architecture. On fulfillment centers, supply chains, and all of that jazz. But that's only half of the equation, the other half is customer loyalty. Customers are loyal because Amazon is, in turn, loyal to them. Returns are mostly painless. Most problems are handled quickly with the customer feeling satisfied they've been taken care of. And Amazon has the best selection of stuff at the best prices and the smoothest transition from exchanging money for a product to having that product in your hands a short time later. That customer-company bond is what keeps Amazon humming. And Amazon works hard, damned hard, to maintain it. They continually refine the fulfillment, ordering, and delivery process to make it easier, more reliable, friendlier, and faster. That's a multi-billion dollar investment, and it keeps people using amazon even though there are tons of other ways to buy the same stuff. And yet here you have part of Amazon making the spectacularly poor choice to abuse and tear down that relationship for the tiniest and most dubious of returns. It would be so easy for Amazon to turn into a typical customer-hating corporation, there are so many opportunities for it. But any advantage that seems to buy in the short-term is going to be pissed away by a diminished view of Amazon in the eyes of customers. I've been an Amazon customer since 1996, and I'm seriously considering cancelling my prime account because of this bullshit.
• igorgue 11y ago
  Amazon, don't buy the hand that feeds you. If Google or Apple do something like that against you, you're done. We on the other hand have many many many many many other places to buy stuff online... Too many if anything. Amazon is my favorite but I wouldn't sweat it to buy elsewhere.
• coliveira 11y ago
  I think they are just attracting bad publicity with this. I don't know about Google's product, but when I want an Apple product I always go directly to the Apple store. So the fact that they don't carry Apple TV makes no difference whatsoever in my desire to buy an Apple TV.
• pixie_ 11y ago
  It's been awhile since the last big anti-trust trial. Get the popcorn!
• kqr2 11y ago
  Amazon has flexed its muscle in a similar way with its selling of books -- it temporarily made it difficult or impossible to purchase books from Hachette on its website. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/amazon-escalates-its-battle-against-hachette/?_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/amazon-escalates-it...
• fitzroy 11y ago
  They already have apps for iOS. I can only assume this is about the 30% cut that Apple takes for in-app digital purchases. While it doesn't matter for Prime videos, it matters for Amazon Instant Video sales and Rentals. On iOS they can nudge users over to Safari to buy. No such option on Apple TV.
• TheMagicHorsey 11y ago
  I think the fact that almost everyone here agrees that this is a mistake, but that Amazon still thinks its a good strategy illustrates a common problem with big organizations that have diversified focuses. The retail arm of Amazon wants to be the best it can be. That means stocking the best stuff. The video arm of Amazon wants to be the best it can be. That means getting its content storefront in the homes of as many customers as it possibly can. The problem is when the two arms have aims that are in conflict. Then one arm tries to drag the other arm towards its interest, and hampers that arm from doing the best it can do. That's when a single-minded, and focused organization kicks the butt of the arm of the big company. Yes, there are advantages of scale and cross-selling within big companies. But it seems to me that these days those advantages are far outweighed by these cross-purposed interests hampering product development.
• ChuckMcM 11y ago
  Kind of a sad move, I understand how someone might be convinced it was the right one based on near term goals but longer term it will bite them. I have a Prime account because I order a lot of stuff for business, and that wins on shipping cost. But Prime Video wasn't ever really the motivator. Its another part of the Amazon strategy that is opaque to me.
• g8oz 11y ago
  Note to self: Stallman's fatwas are always right https://www.stallman.org/amazon.html https://www.stallman.org/amazon.html
• Elizer0x0309 11y ago
  Can never trust a company with similar competing products.
• thrownaway2424 11y ago
  The branding here is awful, there exists confusion on the part of the public, the press, the commentators here, and even the executives from Amazon. Isn't their streaming video service called "Amazon Instant Video"? Isn't Prime simply a feature whereby a tiny fragment of their video catalog is provided at no additional charge to Prime subscribers? Isn't the entire rest of the catalog available on a pay-per-view or purchase basis? Everybody here is saying "Prime Video" but I can't imagine that's a major revenue stream for Amazon or a major source of entertainment for anyone else. If you only watched what's available to Prime subscribers you'd run out of things worth watching fairly quickly.
• thecosas 11y ago
  Wouldn't a great solution to Amazon's "problem" with Prime Video not being available on other platforms be to allow users of Prime Video to access it on those other platforms? I can't imagine they're making much on the hardware...
• mkhpalm 11y ago
  I find this interesting considering I wanted to stream amazon instant video on my android devices... but you can't do that unless you buy one of their kindle/fire android devices or something iOS. Not sure if that has since changed these days, I eventually got tired of waiting and moved on to other services that weren't held hostage to devices I didn't want. I would have thought this is a great lesson about bad decisions. Killing the strongest components of Amazon for the weakest. Somewhat concerning strategy if you ask me. Guess I'll start buying more things from google and apple stores.
• amaks 11y ago
  Fuck you, Amazon. I guess it's time to start online shopping elsewhere.
• jfoster 11y ago
  Is there a reason why Prime Video doesn't work on Chromecast and Apple TV? If I were trying out Prime Video, the first thing I'd be doing is trying to make it work with my Chromecast. If I find out I need to buy another Chromecast-like device to make it work, that would work against Prime Video.
• WCityMike 11y ago
  You know, it's kind of worth noting that Amazon's not the only culprit for this kind of behavior. Unlike Android, you can't buy a book through the iOS Kindle app because Apple has banned apps that directly compete with its own services.
  • solomone 11y ago
    That's not correct. Apple doesn't allowing purchasing digital goods through a non-apple payment method. The margins are so low for Amazon it doesn't make sense to give apple 30% for every kindle book purchased.
• rdl 11y ago
  FTC will ruin them, thankfully. This would be a horrible commercial decision anyway. It's about as stupid as Google shitifying all of their services to push the (ultimately unsuccessful) G+.
• EGreg 11y ago
  "by ending the sale of devices from Google Inc. and Apple Inc. that aren’t easily compatible with Amazon’s video service." I predict they'll make it easier soon. Amazon is pulling an "easier to ask forgiveness than permission" approach to negotiations.
  • dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I predict they'll make it easier soon. Aside from "Amazon said it in a press release", is there any reason to think that these services really aren't "easily compatible with Amazon's video service"? I mean, lots of other video services support Chromecast and AppleTV, and I haven't heard of it being particularly difficult.
• mark_l_watson 11y ago
  The largest reason this is a bad idea for Amazon is that right now is an important time for the "competition of the walled gardens" - I don't expect any of Apple, Google, or Amazon to do a winner take all, but someone is going to end up winning most of this pie. I am a tech nut, and have been since I first got to try programming a computer in the early 1960s. However I am getting tired of too much tech diversity. I have my Music collection on three different services (Amazon cloud, Google music, and Apple). Amazon cloud has the widest coverage over my devices, but I could see myself in the future choosing one vendor. I also subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Go. Three walled gardens is getting to be tedious. I have had my issues with Apple in the past, but Apple probably has the best shot of providing most everything that I need sometme in the future. Right now, Siri is far beyond Google Now as an AI assistant but that may change. Amazon Echo's Alexa is pretty good, but a really narrow context. Stuff like not carrying rival's products is probably a bad move.
• williamstein 11y ago
  Could Amazon similarly ban certain competitors from using EC2? Like Netflix...
• MaysonL 11y ago
  Have to love Gruber's snarky take on it: "LOOKS LIKE IT’S TIME FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO INVESTIGATE APPLE AGAIN"
• scosman 11y ago
  Google and Apple should pull the Amazon Video app from their app stores. That would settle this in about 30 minutes...
  • swetland 11y ago
    Amazon Video is not available in the Android Market -- you have to install Amazon's App Store App to install it, which is pretty obnoxious.
• irq-1 11y ago
  I just want to recommend Alpha House [0], a political comedy about Republican senators created by Garry Trudeau (Doonesbury) with lots of great cameos. Its original/exclusive content and the kind of thing that might help Amazon, unlike this dumb maneuver. YouTube has a trailer (irony?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iXYgtIYCTg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iXYgtIYCTg Bill (fucking) Murray does guest bits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa4jvMBjC8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa4jvMBjC8M [0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B00CDBTVM2 https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B00CDBTVM2
• msie 11y ago
  Amazon, Amazon, who's making all these bad decisions over there? Edit: There must be something about that company's culture that causes this to happen which would be baffling to outsiders.
• ttbutz 11y ago
  People overestimate Amazon's dominance. Amazon is only dominant in internet retail. In the wider retail world they're quite small. Rounded maths, Amazon is only about 5.4% of US retail sales, and that is only including the top 10. source: https://nrf.com/2015/top100-table https://nrf.com/2015/top100-table
• deserted 11y ago
  I'm getting mixed messages here. Amazon won't sell these devices because they don't allow Prime video streaming. Meanwhile, Amazon disabled Prime instant video on the Google TV, even though it's been working for several years. Do they want these devices to support Prime Instant Video or not?
• fma 11y ago
  The other streaming devices won't go away. It will be a nice boost for Best Buy and other brick and mortar stores. While people are there, they can up sale on cables and stuff.
• shmerl 11y ago
  Use standard technologies and no DRM garbage, and all devices will work with all services. But of course, some seem to never learn (i.e. video industry) and even try to use different feudal lock-ins for their dirty tactics.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• lisianne 11y ago
  Didn't expect this. It sets a wrong precedent and bad signal to Amazon partners. Let us say I have a software product in aws marketplace that competes with one of their core aws offerings successfully will they kick me out? This action doesn't give much confidence they won't do that
• chmaynard 11y ago
  I spent a few minutes scanning news articles about this alleged memo. It appears that it was leaked to some news organization (Bloomberg?) by an anonymous source. I think I'll wait for the NYT to determine if the memo is accurate before I get all hot and bothered about it.