Apple TV+ Coming to Amazon Prime Video as Add-On Subscription

[Gasu E.]

Not sure why anyone would want to add these subscriptions on to Prime simply because of their interface. I hate trying to jump ahead in a video on Prime, why can't they do it just like everyone else?

I use the Apple TV+ interface to manage my content on Prime, Max, Hulu, and other services I subscribe to from time-to-time. Everything except Netflix, which refuses to play nice with others. This just helps people who prefer the Prime interface to do the same.

 

[webkit]

That doesn’t equal money so I doubt it.

I assume Amazon does earn some sort of commission in this situation but Amazon does do things for "free" (not directly for money) in order to promote use of their platforms e.g., offering select ebooks for free without needing a Kindle device or buying anything from Amazon.

 

[Gasu E.]

This feels sloppy strategically and un-Apple to me. The very limited exposure this gives them doesn’t make up for the loss of control over distribution and degradation of brand.

I hope there’s some other undisclosed part of the deal. Prime Video being an Apple TV Channel would be a start. Maybe something to do with NFL or MGM content? Or something else entirely—even from another arm of AMZN’s business?

It means Apple is doubling down as a content provider. They want to generate more revenue from the very expensive content they develop. If a Prime subscriber wants to watch "Killers of the Flower Moon", now, instead of renting it for $4, they can subscribe for a month for an extra $5 and access all the other content. Maybe they'll get hooked on some content and stay for 2-3 months. This is even more important since Apple is investing heavily in sports content.

 

[webkit]

False comparison. Apple does not, and could not, charge 30% for streaming apps to be accessed inside the Apple TV+ app, since you can easily just download the streaming app yourself on the exact same device. No streaming company would pay 30% to save the customer 1 click, considering the millions they invest in their brand. This is an entirely different situation from the iOS Apple store, which is more of a monopoly.

A similarity would be to an in-app purchase in an app from an app store. If someone subscribes to Prime Video through the iOS app in the App Store, Apple gets a commission. If someone subscribes to TV+ through the Prime Video platform (or “app store”), Amazon could get a commission.

 

[ambientdaw]

At least then there will be a video player that works for Apple content. Much of Apple's software is surprisingly crappy. No image preview on the timeline like Netflix. Worse yet every time I switch apps on my iMac while using Apple TV the player disappears and there is no way to get it back without closing the app. And does Apple TV remember where I left off in a show or movie? Never. These problems have been there for many, many YEARS.

 

[StudioG]

I think I'm an anachronism. I don't have a smart TV or Apple TV device. I had a promotional trial of Apple TV+ when I bought my Mac mini and enjoyed For All Mankind and Severence in 4K HDR on my nice 4K monitor using the TV+ app. Meanwhile Amazon's pathetic Prime Video app and web interface limits me to 1080p (or is it 720p?) SDR. Think I'm going to put up with that for Apple TV+ content? Hell no.

 

[webkit]

Meanwhile Amazon's pathetic Prime Video app and web interface limits me to 1080p (or is it 720p?) SDR. Think I'm going to put up with that for Apple TV+ content? Hell no.

1080p. Yet, you can get up to 4K on Android devices.

 

[picpicmac]

The thing is, as tent-pole shows are concerned, Rings of Power draws a lot more viewers than Foundation or Severance.

Probably.

But Prime's big eye-draw is the NFL.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

while Amazon enhances its content offerings within the Prime Video ecosystem.

And allows them to provide content that actually has no commercials.

 

[webkit]

And allows them to provide content that actually has no commercials.

Not necessarily. Like "ad free" Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+ runs commercials during live sporting events. Both also run commercials/trailers for their other content.

 

[StudioG]

1080p. Yet, you can get up to 4K on Android devices.

And on iOS devices. Just not on desktop computers.

 

[webkit]

And on iOS devices. Just not on desktop computers.

4K on iOS? Is that something new? It didn't used to be that way.

 

[Bodhitree]

Probably.

But Prime's big eye-draw is the NFL.

That might be true in the USA, but not the rest of the world, where hardly anyone watches the NFL.

 

[amartinez1660]

Won’t the FTC, the EU (if offered there too) and friends go haywire over this?
After all they don’t want one company having or offering “too much”.

Or maybe not since it will hardly be anything substantial money wise, unless it such a business home run that puts all other streaming services to shame, then yes.

 

[victorvictoria]

Is anyone actually paying for Apple TV+? I feel like there is a voucher for X months for free all the time. Just yesterday I bought a AppStore gift card of 25 bucks on Amazon and when I applied the voucher on the AppStore on my iPhone, they also offered me 3 months of free TV+ in a pop up.

Yep. I ran out of promotional freebies about 3 years ago. But it's worth it for the content, which eclipses all the other streaming content. By far.

 

[Carrotcruncher]

Typical Tim, he would rather pay Amazon a whole heap of money to use their platform rather than just reduce the price of Apple TV to something a bit more reasonable and use the people he's already got on his platform. This guy is as tight as a Ducks arse, and that's water tight.

 

[svish]

This might be useful for Apple. More people may sign up for Apple TV+

 

[FriendlyMackle]

It seems only us mugs that have an Apple One subscription, everyone else seems to constantly get atv+ for free.

I have an annual subscription. It costs me around $6 per month. Same for Apple Music, which is around $8. I don’t use Apple One because I don’t want to pay for ‘games’ or fitness. Just music, news, and tv+ (+ a small icloud storage). I’d save $1 monthly with Apple One, but I’d prefer to wait until they offer a better bundle (ie with News+, and without Arcade/Fitness). I think the Music, TV+, and News+ are well worth the cost.

 

[-Gonzo-]

I have an annual subscription. It costs me around $6 per month. Same for Apple Music, which is around $8. I don’t use Apple One because I don’t want to pay for ‘games’ or fitness. Just music, news, and tv+ (+ a small icloud storage). I’d save $1 monthly with Apple One, but I’d prefer to wait until they offer a better bundle (ie with News+, and without Arcade/Fitness). I think the Music, TV+, and News+ are well worth the cost.

I’m sorry but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, you’d rather pay more because you don’t want to “pay for ‘games’ or fitness” 🤷🏻‍♂️🤪

 

[omenatarhuri]

Apple TV+ has a really good hit-to-miss ratio compared to competition. Feels like they do a bit less perhaps, but what they do is generally good quality.

 

[lysingur]

Apple should drop all original programming. It's Tim Cook's vanity project and he keeps it on life support for this long purely out of pride. It's not making money. It's not gaining enough new subscribers. Nothing justifies its existence at this point.

Direct the billions in savings to the next big thing and ask Tim Cook to retire. Otherwise, watch the spectacular fall of one of the greatest American companies as soon as either Meta, OpenAI, or Tesla comes out with a good enough product that competes directly with Apple's core business.

 

[jlc1978]

Apple TV+’s problem is the same as Apple’s problem with gaming: they refuse to become a full-fledged studio. One of the best things they could have done was bought a studio such as Paramount. This would have given them an instant library along with a number of popular IPs they could use.

Buying a studio would be very expensive and not easily integrated into Apple. It's a very different business, from how it's run to cost accounting. It would be a risky and likely costly experiment that is really peripheral to it core businesses. The are better off financially, IMHO, paying for content development.

Jobs could have merged Apple and Disney but I suspect he saw it would not work well.

If they bought a studio at the right price, a real play would be to split the studio from the catalogue and sell the studio and keep the catalogue and rights.

 

[lysingur]

It would be a risky and likely costly experiment that is really peripheral to it core businesses. The are better off financially, IMHO, paying for content development.

They should've never gotten into the "content creation" business, and now Apple TV+ is quickly becoming an unmitigated disaster.

 

[sflagel]

Won’t the FTC, the EU (if offered there too) and friends go haywire over this?
After all they don’t want one company having or offering “too much”.

Or maybe not since it will hardly be anything substantial money wise, unless it such a business home run that puts all other streaming services to shame, then yes.

They will love this, as it breaks up the vertical integration between content makers and distributors. At least on the surface.

 

[sflagel]

Apple should drop all original programming. It's Tim Cook's vanity project and he keeps it on life support for this long purely out of pride. It's not making money. It's not gaining enough new subscribers. Nothing justifies its existence at this point.

Direct the billions in savings to the next big thing and ask Tim Cook to retire. Otherwise, watch the spectacular fall of one of the greatest American companies as soon as either Meta, OpenAI, or Tesla comes out with a good enough product that competes directly with Apple's core business.

Why do you say this? Apple shows are very good (not the movies), only Amazon comes close.