14 ms·

> They are destroying their most valuable component of their brand, for a relatively weak one (Prime Video). This is why it almost seems like Amazon's Google+

by yid 11y ago

> They are destroying their most valuable component of their brand, for a relatively weak one (Prime Video). This is why it almost seems like Amazon's Google+ moment: one underperforming product area somehow manages to convince leadership to change the company's underlying principles in its advantage to the long-term detriment of overall brand perception. Edit: 32 points in 19 mins for this comment. I really hope someone from Amazon is reading.

Artistry121 11y ago
This is a really good point. One difference here is that Amazon can quietly go back on their decision if it doesn't work and they see people aren't viewing the Apple TV, Chromecast and Fire as substitutes- since it is just a few listings. Google integrated everything with Google+ the vestiges are still all around.
- newjersey 11y ago
  For example, it still isn't possible to create a YouTube channel without Google Plus.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    Get over it already, single signon is here to stay a n d it is (now) easy to create a bunch of different "pages"-identities that are hard to trace back to your main account. Or am I wrong?
    - newjersey 11y ago
      Here is what I am referring to: >> So in the coming months, a Google Account will be all you’ll need to share content, communicate with contacts, create a YouTube channel and more, all across Google. YouTube will be one of the first products to make this change, and you can learn more on their blog. As always, your underlying Google Account won’t be searchable or followable, unlike public Google+ profiles. And for people who already created Google+ profiles but don’t plan to use Google+ itself, we’ll offer better options for managing and removing those public profiles. https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/everything-in-its-right-place.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/everything-in-its-ri... This was published on July 27, 2015
- EarthLaunch 11y ago
  Sort of, except Amazon loses some cred with everyone who tried to buy it from them during that time, and from press like this story where now I'll be a little hesitant to check Amazon first for Apple products in general (because who knows where else they're trying to compete). Which is a terrible impression to give.
robwilliams 11y ago
That's an interesting point. When Google started pushing G+ social networks in general was all the tech media were talking about. Now it's the death of cable and the rise of streaming services. And just like Google wanted it's piece of the buzz-worthy social media space, Amazon wants a piece of the growing streaming market. It's certainly not a good precedent to set banning competitor's products from their store. I could come up with a dozen different slippery-slope scenarios.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  G+ is vestigial at best and creepy at worst, but at least there's something to be said about a giant sprawling octopus of a tech company managing to wrap everything into one, centralized platform. Amazon on the other hand seems to be subscribing to the amputation school of thought. I don't know a soul that's ever bought an Amazon gadget that wasn't exclusively named "Kindle." If people truly preferred Amazon's devices to those from Apple or Google, they would have bought them.
  - jon-wood 11y ago
    I'm one of those souls, and really like both the Kindle Fire and Fire TV I have. This move has really soured them to me though - Amazon have a great product in Prime Video and their Fire lineup, a product which doesn't need these sort of shady tactics.
    - ewzimm 11y ago
      I'm interested in why you consider it shady for a retailer not to sell a product. I don't see Google or Apple selling products from anyone but themselves (mostly. Apple does sell a few accessories and Google has some pure editions which they have a hand in). Pick any retailer, and there are brands and products they don't sell. I could see it being shady if you were talking about denying people access to things they need, but we're talking about selling on the Internet here. It's not like people will have a hard time buying Apple TVs or Chromecasts because they aren't on Amazon. They just have to type the name into their address bar. I would guess they got a lot of complaints from people who said they couldn't get Instant Video to work on their streaming devices, someone calculated the cost of customer service vs profits of selling those devices, and decided it wasn't worth it... how is that any different form any other retailer choosing to drop a product because it isn't working for them? Customer service costs and returns are probably the most common reason for anyone dropping something. I know Amazon has a bigger selection than pretty much everyone, but does that give them a moral imperative to not discriminate on products? Seems like people are considering Amazon as if they were a public utility, which seems like a pretty impressive achievement for them.
x0x0 11y ago
Ditto, though here's the problem with amazon: buying apple stuff on there is a shit experience. Go there right now and type macbook pro in the search. You'll get a page of results with these top results: Apple MacBook Pro MF839LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop with Retina Display (128 GB) NEWEST VERSION Apple MacBook Pro MD101LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop Apple MacBook Pro MJLQ2LL/A 15.4-Inch Laptop with Retina Display (NEWEST VERSION) Apple MacBook Pro MB990LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop Apple MacBook Pro MJLT2LL/A 15.4-Inch Laptop with Retina Display (NEWEST VERSION) As a consumer, how the hell am I supposed to know what those are? I see a bunch of sellers called their listings "NEWEST VERSION" but is that true? What the fuck is a MF839LL/A? The whole thing is a mess. But yeah, I bought prime 4 years ago and amazon became my one stop shop for everything. This is their threat to google's business of taxing ecommerce via owning discovery. Amazon wins if search starts there and skips google; excluding items from prime dilutes that value. But let's be honest: this is obviously amazon leveraging their ecommerce power to force apple to build amazon prime video into apple tv.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  AFAICT, that problem is general to buying anything through Amazon except things sold directly by Amazon.
  - x0x0 11y ago
    Yeah, it's becoming annoying. Batteries are more likely fake/offbrand than not, even when the ad claims otherwise, and last at best 3 months instead of 24 in my car's key fob. I got frustrated and eventually bought them at a local hardware store. Replacement chargers are chinese imitation shit. I've had an increasing number of purchases that don't match their descriptions. Amazon has been very good about it, and always refunds my money, but I'm still left without the plant mite spray or battery or whatever that I needed in the first place, so that only helps so much. I would have thought amazon would be working to get a handle on this but maybe their analytics tell them it doesn't matter.
    - javert 11y ago
SonicSoul 11y ago
Great point. Don't they also earn money from each AppleTV and Chromecast sold through Amazon? Unless they were doing it at a 0 gain seems stupid not to profit from sales of competing products. They must really be banking on the increase in Prime sales making up that difference.
- alexandre_m 11y ago
  Perhaps they were relying on cross-selling purely on these products.
davidgerard 11y ago
That's precisely what it is. Hey, maybe we know where Vic Gundotra went!
AJ007 11y ago
This is more about Roku vs Google & Apple than Amazon vs Google & Apple. Roku has been the market leader by far up until 2015. One problem is that Amazon is now inviting consumers to open a direct relationship with Google or Apple. If a user makes a purchase of an Apple TV or Chromecast directly, Google or Apple now know exactly who they are. Generally speaking, making it hard or cutting off sales channels for specific products can work to divert sales. Big retailers do it. However, if it is a product the consumer really, really wants they are going to jump through the loopholes to get it. I imagine Apple TV will eventually fall under that category. Alternatives? Let Apple TV and Chromecast continue to be sold but place large warning messages and suggest buying a Roku or Amazon whatever device instead.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  If I understand the news article correctly, streaming video players will be allowed as long as they support Amazon Video too. If that's a correct understanding, then it implies that Amazon would sell Chromecast or Apple TV again if those companies add support for Prime Video. I could be wrong though - this is based on the limited info in the article.
  - yohui 11y ago
    Amazon claims it's removing Apple TV and Chromecast because they don't support Amazon Video... but Amazon was the one who decided not to support Apple TV and Chromecast in the first place. Chromecast and Apple TV are more than popular enough to warrant app support, so it can't be a question of platform marketshare, either. (Chromecast support is so simple that the idea Amazon can't do it is laughable.) Android TV is not as popular, but Amazon already has an Android TV app, except it's restricted to Sony TVs: 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-... This is not a retaliation. Amazon's suggestion that this is Apple or Google's fault is simply false.
    - kuschku 11y ago
poppup 11y ago
I was just thinking about how they have buried a great product, google hangouts, inside a me too product, google+, and neglected it bc it doesn't have a business model attached. What a waste! Hangouts is much better and more reliable than Skype, but very difficult to find and sign up for. All it needs is its a stage of its own and a business model and it could destroy Skype, which needs to be destroyed imho. Combined with some business features it could rule the meeting room worldwide, then expand into consumer from there.
- morgosmaci 11y ago
  http://hangouts.google.com http://hangouts.google.com no longer requires a G+ account.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    Of course each iteration of hangouts/voice/contact makes it harder to send an SMS message to someone in your contacts... you now have to type in the number, and if you happen to do it on your android phone from a contact, it tries to send an advite to use hangouts... It's really annoying as a fan of Voice/GrandCentral for years.
chimmy88 11y ago
Actually, no. This seems more like when Apple stopped allowing Kindle books to be sold through an iPhone: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-cant-buy-kindle-books-on-iphone-2014-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-cant-buy-kindle-books...
- chimmy88 11y ago
  Not sure why i got downvoted without an explanation. Must be some annoyed Apple fanboy.
  - westernmostcoy 11y ago
    Well, a notable difference is that the only party preventing Amazon from streaming to Chromecasts is Amazon.
- chinpokomon 11y ago
  Wasn't that because Apple wants 30% off all sales? Microsoft had a similar clash with Apple over Office for iOS. The apps were free, but if you wanted to buy a license to use them, you would have to purchase that license directly from Microsoft because Apple wanted a slice of the upsell. This would have added a 30% tax on top of the universal service fee Microsoft was selling, even if it was just a link to the website from within the apps. I don't know how that was finally resolved, but this is just how Apple conducts business.
uxcn 11y ago
Honestly, Amazon seems like they're in a bit of a panic to get into digital consumption. This is slightly reminiscent of Fire Phone.

by yid 11y ago

Artistry121 11y ago

This is a really good point. One difference here is that Amazon can quietly go back on their decision if it doesn't work and they see people aren't viewing the Apple TV, Chromecast and Fire as substitutes- since it is just a few listings. Google integrated everything with Google+ the vestiges are still all around.

newjersey 11y ago
For example, it still isn't possible to create a YouTube channel without Google Plus.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Get over it already, single signon is here to stay a n d it is (now) easy to create a bunch of different "pages"-identities that are hard to trace back to your main account. Or am I wrong?
  - newjersey 11y ago
    Here is what I am referring to: >> So in the coming months, a Google Account will be all you’ll need to share content, communicate with contacts, create a YouTube channel and more, all across Google. YouTube will be one of the first products to make this change, and you can learn more on their blog. As always, your underlying Google Account won’t be searchable or followable, unlike public Google+ profiles. And for people who already created Google+ profiles but don’t plan to use Google+ itself, we’ll offer better options for managing and removing those public profiles. https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/everything-in-its-right-place.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/everything-in-its-ri... This was published on July 27, 2015
EarthLaunch 11y ago
Sort of, except Amazon loses some cred with everyone who tried to buy it from them during that time, and from press like this story where now I'll be a little hesitant to check Amazon first for Apple products in general (because who knows where else they're trying to compete). Which is a terrible impression to give.

robwilliams 11y ago

That's an interesting point. When Google started pushing G+ social networks in general was all the tech media were talking about. Now it's the death of cable and the rise of streaming services. And just like Google wanted it's piece of the buzz-worthy social media space, Amazon wants a piece of the growing streaming market. It's certainly not a good precedent to set banning competitor's products from their store. I could come up with a dozen different slippery-slope scenarios.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
G+ is vestigial at best and creepy at worst, but at least there's something to be said about a giant sprawling octopus of a tech company managing to wrap everything into one, centralized platform. Amazon on the other hand seems to be subscribing to the amputation school of thought. I don't know a soul that's ever bought an Amazon gadget that wasn't exclusively named "Kindle." If people truly preferred Amazon's devices to those from Apple or Google, they would have bought them.
- jon-wood 11y ago
  I'm one of those souls, and really like both the Kindle Fire and Fire TV I have. This move has really soured them to me though - Amazon have a great product in Prime Video and their Fire lineup, a product which doesn't need these sort of shady tactics.
  - ewzimm 11y ago
    I'm interested in why you consider it shady for a retailer not to sell a product. I don't see Google or Apple selling products from anyone but themselves (mostly. Apple does sell a few accessories and Google has some pure editions which they have a hand in). Pick any retailer, and there are brands and products they don't sell. I could see it being shady if you were talking about denying people access to things they need, but we're talking about selling on the Internet here. It's not like people will have a hard time buying Apple TVs or Chromecasts because they aren't on Amazon. They just have to type the name into their address bar. I would guess they got a lot of complaints from people who said they couldn't get Instant Video to work on their streaming devices, someone calculated the cost of customer service vs profits of selling those devices, and decided it wasn't worth it... how is that any different form any other retailer choosing to drop a product because it isn't working for them? Customer service costs and returns are probably the most common reason for anyone dropping something. I know Amazon has a bigger selection than pretty much everyone, but does that give them a moral imperative to not discriminate on products? Seems like people are considering Amazon as if they were a public utility, which seems like a pretty impressive achievement for them.

x0x0 11y ago

Ditto, though here's the problem with amazon: buying apple stuff on there is a shit experience. Go there right now and type macbook pro in the search. You'll get a page of results with these top results: Apple MacBook Pro MF839LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop with Retina Display (128 GB) NEWEST VERSION Apple MacBook Pro MD101LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop Apple MacBook Pro MJLQ2LL/A 15.4-Inch Laptop with Retina Display (NEWEST VERSION) Apple MacBook Pro MB990LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop Apple MacBook Pro MJLT2LL/A 15.4-Inch Laptop with Retina Display (NEWEST VERSION) As a consumer, how the hell am I supposed to know what those are? I see a bunch of sellers called their listings "NEWEST VERSION" but is that true? What the fuck is a MF839LL/A? The whole thing is a mess. But yeah, I bought prime 4 years ago and amazon became my one stop shop for everything. This is their threat to google's business of taxing ecommerce via owning discovery. Amazon wins if search starts there and skips google; excluding items from prime dilutes that value. But let's be honest: this is obviously amazon leveraging their ecommerce power to force apple to build amazon prime video into apple tv.

dragonwriter 11y ago
AFAICT, that problem is general to buying anything through Amazon except things sold directly by Amazon.
- x0x0 11y ago
  Yeah, it's becoming annoying. Batteries are more likely fake/offbrand than not, even when the ad claims otherwise, and last at best 3 months instead of 24 in my car's key fob. I got frustrated and eventually bought them at a local hardware store. Replacement chargers are chinese imitation shit. I've had an increasing number of purchases that don't match their descriptions. Amazon has been very good about it, and always refunds my money, but I'm still left without the plant mite spray or battery or whatever that I needed in the first place, so that only helps so much. I would have thought amazon would be working to get a handle on this but maybe their analytics tell them it doesn't matter.
  - javert 11y ago

SonicSoul 11y ago

Great point. Don't they also earn money from each AppleTV and Chromecast sold through Amazon? Unless they were doing it at a 0 gain seems stupid not to profit from sales of competing products. They must really be banking on the increase in Prime sales making up that difference.

alexandre_m 11y ago
Perhaps they were relying on cross-selling purely on these products.

davidgerard 11y ago

That's precisely what it is. Hey, maybe we know where Vic Gundotra went!

AJ007 11y ago

This is more about Roku vs Google & Apple than Amazon vs Google & Apple. Roku has been the market leader by far up until 2015. One problem is that Amazon is now inviting consumers to open a direct relationship with Google or Apple. If a user makes a purchase of an Apple TV or Chromecast directly, Google or Apple now know exactly who they are. Generally speaking, making it hard or cutting off sales channels for specific products can work to divert sales. Big retailers do it. However, if it is a product the consumer really, really wants they are going to jump through the loopholes to get it. I imagine Apple TV will eventually fall under that category. Alternatives? Let Apple TV and Chromecast continue to be sold but place large warning messages and suggest buying a Roku or Amazon whatever device instead.

Pyxl101 11y ago
If I understand the news article correctly, streaming video players will be allowed as long as they support Amazon Video too. If that's a correct understanding, then it implies that Amazon would sell Chromecast or Apple TV again if those companies add support for Prime Video. I could be wrong though - this is based on the limited info in the article.
- yohui 11y ago
  Amazon claims it's removing Apple TV and Chromecast because they don't support Amazon Video... but Amazon was the one who decided not to support Apple TV and Chromecast in the first place. Chromecast and Apple TV are more than popular enough to warrant app support, so it can't be a question of platform marketshare, either. (Chromecast support is so simple that the idea Amazon can't do it is laughable.) Android TV is not as popular, but Amazon already has an Android TV app, except it's restricted to Sony TVs: 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-... This is not a retaliation. Amazon's suggestion that this is Apple or Google's fault is simply false.
  - kuschku 11y ago

poppup 11y ago

I was just thinking about how they have buried a great product, google hangouts, inside a me too product, google+, and neglected it bc it doesn't have a business model attached. What a waste! Hangouts is much better and more reliable than Skype, but very difficult to find and sign up for. All it needs is its a stage of its own and a business model and it could destroy Skype, which needs to be destroyed imho. Combined with some business features it could rule the meeting room worldwide, then expand into consumer from there.

morgosmaci 11y ago
http://hangouts.google.com http://hangouts.google.com no longer requires a G+ account.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Of course each iteration of hangouts/voice/contact makes it harder to send an SMS message to someone in your contacts... you now have to type in the number, and if you happen to do it on your android phone from a contact, it tries to send an advite to use hangouts... It's really annoying as a fan of Voice/GrandCentral for years.

chimmy88 11y ago

Actually, no. This seems more like when Apple stopped allowing Kindle books to be sold through an iPhone: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-cant-buy-kindle-books-on-iphone-2014-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-cant-buy-kindle-books...

chimmy88 11y ago
Not sure why i got downvoted without an explanation. Must be some annoyed Apple fanboy.
- westernmostcoy 11y ago
  Well, a notable difference is that the only party preventing Amazon from streaming to Chromecasts is Amazon.
chinpokomon 11y ago
Wasn't that because Apple wants 30% off all sales? Microsoft had a similar clash with Apple over Office for iOS. The apps were free, but if you wanted to buy a license to use them, you would have to purchase that license directly from Microsoft because Apple wanted a slice of the upsell. This would have added a 30% tax on top of the universal service fee Microsoft was selling, even if it was just a link to the website from within the apps. I don't know how that was finally resolved, but this is just how Apple conducts business.

uxcn 11y ago

Honestly, Amazon seems like they're in a bit of a panic to get into digital consumption. This is slightly reminiscent of Fire Phone.