Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Will Resume Selling Apple TV, Google's Chromecast (axios.com)
Ina Fried, reporting for Axios: Amazon confirmed Thursday that it will again sell the Apple TV set-top box and Google Chromecast dongle. The company had stopped selling the devices amid disputes with both giants. There's a lot of frenemy stuff at play here, with Google, Apple and Amazon all selling their own streaming devices, but also looking to offer their own services on one another's devices. Apple doesn't offer its programing on rival devices, but does move a lot of hardware through Amazon.
Amazon confirmed Thursday that it will again sell the Apple TV set-top box and Google Chromecast dongle.
This rarely happens. Amazon execs must have felt an uncomfortable lump in their throat before electing to cut their losses.
Way to go Google...
I tried to order a Chromecast through amazon along with other purchases a few weeks ago. At the time I was very confused when I found Amazon didn't carry them, and annoyed that I had to pay additional shipping to get it from Google.
Perhaps they realized they will need to work with Google against the ISPs now that they have no guarantee of access to their customers.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
This means Prime Video is coming to Chromecast.
Part of their original justification for stop selling the Chromecast was that "it was confusing, because it doesn't work with our service" which was of course a purely their decision.
I find it really annoying to whole tab/phone cast to watch Amazon.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
What's that? Amazon didn't want to sell competing devices once they provided their own? Too bad Amazon isn't as trustworthy as Comcast and Verizon who will absolutely not prioritize content that they are personally invested in.
Why not offer their content on rival devices through an App? It would only make sense to maximize profits exposure from the streaming service by making the offerings available on any and all platforms. And it costs them almost nothing in comparison since the only pieces they have to keep updated are the UI, since the platforms will all use the same API, right? And on the other side, if you've got a killer set top box, but the only thing keeping folks from buying and using your set top box is that they stream their content from your rival, if you offer an App to stream your rival's content, then they will at least buy your box, and you gain an avenue of exposure with opportunities for you to sell them your streaming content as well. It makes no sense to throw a tantrum because consumers actually want choice. So give them choice and make profit on superior products and superior services at competitive prices.
Amazon probably got scared after I bought a chromecast from Walmart and they lost out on a few pennies commission.
Hopefully now they'll stop artificially preventing their Amazon Video app *for Android* from working on non-Amazon Android devices. I've told them many times that I would not even consider becoming a Prime member until they fixed this nonsense and supported Android TV without any poorly-performing hacks.
n/t
I know personally, that in the last week after the AppleTV client launch, I have used Prime Video more than I have since the launch of the service (years ago now).
What happened was, Amazon saw the figures coming in from things like AppleTV clients and realized the simple truth that the way you get people to use your video service more, is to actually let people use it across many devices, not just the ones you sell. Now that the Prime Video client is on Chromecast and AppleTV, every one sold is potentially more prime subscribers for Amazon...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But can I Cast Prime now?
It's at times like this I'm glad I have a "vendor neutral" Roku. My Roku has YouTube, Amazon Prime , Google Play Video, Vudu and of course Netflix.
A lot of people seem to be throwing shade at Amazon for not carrying their competitor's products, but weird, I don't remember seeing Kindles or Alexa's for sale on Google Play or Apple ever allowing Amazon to put a competitive Amazon app store on their devices. So really, who's being the shady one here again?
Maybe they listened to their own net neutrality arguments, and realized that (1) it was hypocritical to be arguing for net neutrality against the ISPs while simultaneously blocking competitors from their store. And (2) while a direct opportunity to help their own product sales existed by blocking competitors, there were indirect consequences in that the competitors could block theirs as well. Since it was a zero sum game, there was nothing to be gained by going down that route, and a lot of money to be lost inconveniencing customers just to arrive at the same final destination. (That is to say, progress comes from making your stuff better than others'. Throwing roadblocks in front of others to drag their products down may temporarily help your product get ahead, but it results in a long-term loss for all of society once everyone starts throwing up roadblocks.)
In other news, tit for tat leads the prisoner's dilemma to the optimal solution again.
The three monopolists learning they can play nice with one another for mutual profit.