521–530 of 545 posts
Sounds like an anti-competitive move. Cue the google/apple lawsuits and FTC investigation in 3, 2, ......
Google should want to make this fight go away without the FTC, because it shines a light on Google's own misdeeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But, you don't pay for the app, you shouldn't need to pay for the app--much like Netflix. The service is separate.
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...
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.
terminated my testmonth after 3 hours because of this and went back to netflix
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 n…
But as an Apple user, I already know they are hypocritical control freaks who don't respect their users. But this is literally the first time that I've seen Amazon play that way. So it may not be different from any other retailer, it's different from how Amazon used to be. (Or at least was perceived to be, which amounts to the same thing.)
Now I don't know the licensing terms they have with the content providers, but they certainly aren't fulfilling the consumer demand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Chromecast support is not really simple, considering Amazon probably uses a different DRM system than the one Google implemented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But as an Apple user, I already know they are hypocritical control freaks who don't respect their users. But this is literally the first time that I've seen Amazon play that way. So it may not be different from any other retailer, it's different from how Amazon used to be. (Or at least was perceived to be, which amounts to the same thing.)
Are you familiar with Primecast? A third party reversed how Amazon authenticated its movies and for a day, you could actually cast the movies that your Prime subscription allowed, including rentals. It was no different than if you authenticated on the website. Amazon quickly scrambled to shut that app down and still hasn't answered with their own method for Chromecast. It isn't even a technical issue, it is a control…
Digital music sold used to have DRM, because it just couldn't be avoided since the licensing terms of the content required it. The Primecast seems likely to be the same.
It's more like them saying, "Sorry, user, we can't let you do that."
Where as this (and what Apple does) is more like, "What's that user? You want ? Well, fuck off!"
Thinking on it though, massively slowing down deliveries of books from publishers Amazon doesn't like was actually the first time I've seen Amazon do something like this. So this actually isn't the first time; now its a pattern.
Side rant: Amazon Prime's media crap is also especially annoying to me personally, since I spend most of the year outside of the US, where it doesn't work at all. (Go Netflix!))
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 som…
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their solution is for you to buy an Amazon Fire Stick and use it instead of your Chromecast.
>Amazon Fire TV Stick Which unsurprisingly, doesn't support media from the Google Play Store. The only acceptable streaming device is one from a neutral third party (Roku, Tivo, etc.) who will support all providers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Absolutely, and if they really try to open up a front against Google, that might be a stupid move, as they risk an "accidental" visibility penalty in their Google SERPs. Usually, Google doesn't play this low, but Amazon has much more at stake. Shameless self-plug: See both your Netlix and Amazon Prime accounts' content at once at our site justwatch.com - filtered to your likings :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 n…