"Google and Apple now both have open SDK's for creating streaming apps for their devices." And with what provisos about selling through those apps? This is not a technical issue. Amazon just doesn't want to give up 30% of GMS (which would be an even higher % of its margins) on digital media.

Google does not take a 30% cut of all content sold through apps on Google Play. On Android, the in-app purchase rule only applies to content that can only be consumed via apps (so not Netflix, Amazon, etc.).

And even on iOS, Amazon still has video apps, they just don't allow you to buy or rent directly within the app: https://itunes.apple.com/app/amazon-video/id545519333

There's nothing stopping Amazon from supporting Apple TV or Chromecast, except itself.

Exactly. To build on your point, take Amazon's kindle app, available for both android and ios. With Apple devices you can't purchase any content within the app, but at least you can read what you've already purchased from Amazon through other means. They could do something similar with Amazon video.

> And with what provisos about selling through those apps

Chromecast doesn't have any special connection to Google Play. Anyone can cast whatever they want. Amazon Prime Instant Video can already be cast, but the user experience is so bad that you probably don't want to.

> But doesn't Google have some monetization plans for the chromecast ?

Well, sure, you pay Google for the device -- that's fairly direct monetization.

And it increases the utility of (and thus the demand for) content from and subscriptions to Google's audio/video services (whose mobile apps all support Chromecast), so its monetized indirectly that way.

Other than that, its adoption drives app developer adoption and user familiarity for Google Cast, which, aside from its use in Chromecast, is a key feature of Android TV, which Google monetizes not just by selling hardware direct to consumers, but also via its cut of apps in the Play Store, and by (presumably) getting paid by Smart TV manufacturers to use Android TV as their Smart TV OS.

Well they do charge you money for the device. I think in the long term the goal is probably more about connecting the internet to your living room (making that ubiquitous) which naturally means more YouTube usage which means more ads. They don't necessarily need a cut of every app's revenue.

By the way, almost every Youtube-on-TV app can be controlled Chromecast-like manner by the mobile app.

YouTube is great about compatibility. It automatically detects my Oppo Blu-Ray player for casting, and if nothing else you can always navigate on your display device to youtube.com/tv and pair the display with your mobile app via QR code or alphanumeric code. YouTube can control literally any device that is capable of browsing to the YouTube site.

The chromecast isn't necessarily something that brings revenue on its own -- it just lowers the barrier to entry for Google's other services. If it's easier for you to watch youtube, play Google Music, etc. on your TV, it's more likely you will do so... and be exposed to ads in the process. I'd liken it to Google Fiber.

It probably leverages Android in some fashion also, though good iOS apps have chrome cast support as well.

Do you think that Google may also have payment arrangements with HBO, Netflix, and others? I can't imagine it's very significant but there might be something there too, especially with the large early adoption of Chromecast v1.0.

Not AFAIK. I use my Chromecast all the time and unless there's something I don't know, Google never gets a cut of anything streamed through it.

Amazon already has Prime Video apps on Android and iOS that would be subject to the same policies yet those apps show no sign of disappearing anytime soon. After this announcement, I have to believe that is only because Amazon does not have a viable alternative smartphone like it does for streaming devices.

But Amazon already doesn't support purchasing in their iOS apps why can't they make an app but do the same on Apple TV?

I don't think that's the case because Prime Video is on Xbox and Playstation, where they instruct you to go to amazon.com to buy/rent videos. It could work exactly the same way on Apple TV. So why are they not on it?

It must be another reason... But what?

Presumably just like the Prime Video app on iPad & iPhone: you must buy from the website, because buying thru the app requires a nontrivial percentage of revenue (on iOS, 30%) go to the platform provider.

While that's true, you can get around it by just not having a store in your app at all. This is how Amazon's existing iOS Kindle app -- and Instant Video streaming app -- work, and (barring politics on Apple and Google's parts) there's absolutely no reason that they can't make apps for Apple TV and Chromecast that work the same way.

Apple's refusal to even allow links to external stores is petty and obnoxious, but Amazon is essentially playing the same game: if you won't let us play the way we want, we're going to make life difficult for our own customers while clutching our pearls and telling everyone that you made us do it.

I guess the question is whether those SDKs provide everything Amazon needs. And, are there no legal restrictions that affect Amazon either.

Overall the article just says Prime "doesn't work well" on those devices, but does work well on others. It doesn't say why. At this point it's hard to say who's to blame. It would have been nice if the article had investigated the issue.

Amazon Instant Video is available on Sony TVs running Android TVs, but Amazon disables the app from working on non-Sony TVs:

http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/05/16/amazon-disables-the-...

Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Crunchyroll, etc. all support Chromecast. It would be extremely easy for Amazon to support it, if they wanted to.

Are you saying that the article is wrong when it says that Amazon video worked, but poorly, on non-Sony TVs?

Are we referring to the same article? The Android Police article linked above reports that Amazon blocked users who tried to run the app on non-Sony TVs:

> But now it doesn't work. "License Error" codes have started showing up when running the Instant Video app on the Nexus Player, presumably because someone at Amazon saw that it was running on non-blessed hardware and shut it down.

I meant the original article this entire discussion is about, which says

> Amazon’s streaming service, called Prime Video, doesn’t run easily on its rival’s hardware.

So it does run, at least according to the article. But it's either hard to make it run, or it doesn't work well. Both of those seem to contradict your link. Very puzzling, I guess one of those must be wrong?

Assuming Bloomberg didn't just fudge the phrasing, they were probably referring to how Amazon Video requires the Amazon Appstore to be installed first: https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/splash/sd/t/appstore

There are no technical or legal barriers preventing Amazon from supporting iOS and Android devices.

Ok, thanks, I was confused by how they phrased it.

The biggest streaming competitor to iTunes in the video space has got to be Netflix. And Netflix as well as HBO, Showtime, and many networks have had apps on iOS for many years, and AppleTV for a couple years (and presumably with the bar limiting the number of AppleTV Apps going away this fall, there will be an explosion of such Apps.)

I don't think you can say Apple is to blame (or Google, though the google situation I can't speak as clearly to because I don't know the technical details there.)

Does the Cast SDK depend on google play services? If so, that's got a pretty spotty technical record on their Fire devices, and I don't think Amazon is allowed to redistribute it anyways. Might be they don't want to implement Chromecast support for every platform except their own.

If it did - how would it work on iOS?

My understanding is that to implement the Cast SDK in an Android or iOS app, one must link a closed source binary.

On Android, it's Google Play Services, while on iOS it's a custom Cast binary that Google provides to developers to link in their apps. Due to this, almost all apps that support Cast are on iOS, Android, or Chrome because closed-source binaries are only distributed for those platforms.

Amazon would have to make special arrangements to include the Cast SDK on Fire OS. I still don't think this excuses them from bringing a proper Amazon Prime Video app with Cast support to iOS and (Google's) Android.

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

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.

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.

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.

My guess is that this restriction will not apply to the latest Apple TV hardware when it ships.

Guessing here, but I suspect Prime Video runs at a thin margin (perhaps at a loss) and is used largely as a gateway for purchasing or renting non-prime video content. Amazon could only sell that content on device by giving Apple a 30% revenue cut, which may be unacceptably high.

Considering that the primary purpose of the Prime video app on the PS3 seems to be to make you think you can stream something, then tell you you have to buy it right before you start watching, I'd say this is likely correct.

The "free" prime streaming seems to just be a marketing tool for getting you into their video-buying app. I'd be surprised if they have much interest in streaming anywhere where they can't push paid videos without having someone else take a cut.