Amazon requires services on Fire TV to give it 30% of ad impressions or revenue

[dakial1]

Point #1: This bait-and-switch tactic shouldn't be allowed by consumer regulations (Not in the US, but here in Brazil it would be a no-no) as in the end Amazon is tricking it's use base into paying for the Fire TV as a great deal, when in the end they will pay more for streaming as those costs that Amazon is putting on the streaming services will be paid by them in the end.

#2 Wouldn't this movement be (potentially) a great chance for Plex to better position itself in the legal side of streaming? Because by offering a free hub for streaming (even licensing it for hardware sellers like Dlink and others, like Boxee once did) might generate a good revenue stream for them...until somebody buys the whole team (I miss you Boxee!)

[Liquix]

Plex Inc. is not a good company. They are eager to collect and sell your data to advertisers. Jellyfin is a great alternative.

Plex may share Collected Information as expressly set forth in this Privacy Policy, including the following limited situations: [...] With third parties to improve and deliver advertising to you on our behalf.

Plex may also use third-party advertising companies to serve ads, which may, directly or indirectly, collect or use information about user visits to websites and mobile app usage over time and across non-affiliated websites and mobile apps to display advertisements more tailored to users’ interests on this browser or device, and those browsers or devices associated with it.

More in the "Data We Collect" section: https://www.plex.tv/about/privacy-legal/

[duped]

It's called the razor-and-blade model, it's not a bait and switch.

RE Plex, that's basically what Android TV does, except it's better than Plex (for streaming services and device manufacturers) and has the same model as FireTV

[RajT88]

PSA: VLC is available for Fire devices and is fantastic.

You can stream right off SMB shares.

[deely3]

How we can differentiate between bait-and-switch and honest price correction?

[nazcan]

Bait and switch for who(m)? The companies offering services on these providers?

Their is a simple fix - get a contract and don't assume current terms will continue without it.

[princevegeta89]

I am not sure I understand the Plex example here - their free streaming service that they are pushing so aggressively involves a lot of ads and some ad revenue as well. Eventually since they have to pay FireTV the 30% cut, they might end up raising prices of Plex Pass, or discontinue their "free" streaming service?

[paul7986]

Umm no need to pay for many or any streaming service then that consumer problem is solved just watch the free outlets like YouTube.

Hollywood's biggest competitor is content creators on Youtube, Tiktok, etc ... my bet is they will need to compete and many paid offerings will consolidate and become free / less expensive to compete with all the free content creators on YouTube, Tiktok and etc. If you look at where the eyeballs are the majority are on Tiktok. Personally after using Reels, Tiktok and tons more of YouTube i have a hard time watching long form content. I just want to watch stuff here and there in the background while im working or right before bed any other time Im far away from tv screen outside or with friends/family enjoying life.

Further .. i use to watch documentaries on the history channel and or other places ... there's tons of solid and good content creators doing that same thing on youTube.

[Workaccount2]

The trickle down effects of Apple being a $3T corporation that is widely beloved and did it all on the back of a fiercely guarded walled garden.

[HWR_14]

The difference is I feel Apple's walls protect me as well as their profits. I do not feel the same about Amazon/Microsoft/Meta/Google.

[joshl32532]

What does this have to do with Apple's "walled garden"?

They are able to charge 30% of app revenue because they can. They are a for profit company.

Amazon Fire did not do that because nobody uses it. Now that it has some traction, lo and behold, they want their cut as well.

If anything, Roku is the direct competitor (low cost streaming stick) and they take 30% ad revenue. But Apple gets the blame. lol.

[matt_s]

Back in the days when TiVo was a thing, I built a MythTV box including all the troubleshooting of a capture card, X windows settings, getting a remote to work, etc. to the point where my non-tech spouse could use it like a set top box. It even looked like a set top box. This was when Netflix was DVD by mail.

The last Windows laptop I bought bricked itself in a week, the Amazon stick needed constant reboots, I don't care about side-loading apps/widgets/software on my devices - I want them to be like my refrigerator and just work. AppleTV devices are much better than others. Once you're in the Apple walled garden things are much easier on me as an end user. There are seamless transitions from device to device if I want, sharing between them is a breeze. Sure other platforms are "open" or might have more advanced features, but I don't want to waste my time doing tech support having the BeenThereDoneThat™ patch.

Edit to add: "open" usually just means you have countless versions of "standards" to try and get things to interoperate. I deal enough with that at work to be turned off from dealing with that at home when I just want to chill and consume whatever nonsense I'm into.

[intelVISA]

I love Apple, their white walls keep me safe; they even open and read all my letters (bins) for me to double check I'm safe :)

[turquoisevar]

Hardly comparable.

One started a platform with an upfront communicated commission rate that, at the time, was literally received with applause because before that the rates were significantly worse for developers and has never raised the rate in its entire history (instead lowered it for certain circumstances).

The other is a bait and switch, luring people onto the platform under one set of rules, only to pull the rug from under them years after the status quo was established and change the rules to impose a commission that didn’t apply to them until now.

One is hard to argue as an anti-trust violation and the other is pretty much a textbook example.

[neaumusic]

I personally think Apple does things correctly, and they do charge a premium, but they sell good products rather than requiring more of your time and energy (ads)

[nikodunk]

I have 7 HDMI slots on my TV, ready for Peacock Stick, Hulu Disney Plus stick, Netflix Stick, Paramount Plus stick, Max Hub etc etc

Not more than seven though mmmkay?

[intelVISA]

You'd probably DoS your router if they're all on concurrently due to all the data exfiltration they're performing.

[foobarian]

Not sure if you're joking or not but already content is being filtered based on the client device. In my case of an Xfinity Flex TV box Plex refuses to play self-hosted content, and Amazon's app has restrictions on nested subscriptions.

[aionaiodfgnio]

Sounds like you need a KVM.

[princevegeta89]

I used to be like this, with a fewer number of devices. Now I eliminated them all, and I have everything under my own Jellyfin server in the cloud.

[rtsil]

You can always use a switch to multiply the inputs.

[NicoJuicy]

That's not how it works...

Those services get hidden discounts.

[kneebonian]

Did you know that you could just grab an old computer slap Ubuntu on it, and get all of those services through only 1 HDMI slot?

[Booktrope]

Well, the article says, Amazon already charges this wherever Amazon Publishing Services is available. The change is to extend this charge to places where Amazon Publishing Services isn't available. Then the article provides some background info about how Amazon Fire works economically. So, basically, not much new here.

[wmf]

Roku does the same. At this point I would be surprised if any box or TV isn't taking 30%.

[afavour]

One of the reasons the state of smart home TV really disappoints me. Logical conclusion is we'll all end up with Netflix HDMI sticks, Hulu sticks etc etc etc. DRM means we're never going to end up with a fully open TV player.

[jzb]

I don't love the model, but it's hard to see long term how Roku sustains itself on hardware sales alone. How many new Roku devices does one house need in a 3-5 year period? Investors want recurring revenue streams, and a new Roku device every few years isn't going to do that.

Kind of surprised that Roku hasn't been bought up yet.

[michaelmior]

AFAIK, Google TV isn't.

[pja]

Every streaming device manufacturer does this. Roku demands a revenue cut if you want your app on Roku devices, last time I paid for something Amazon Video on my Apple TV Apple forced the transaction to go through Apple Pay and presumably took their cut there.

It’s the standard business model in this market: sell a streaming device at or below cost and then turn to the streaming services & tell them that if they want access to the XX million people who own your device they’re going to have to pay up. 30% seems to be the going rate.

[bdcravens]

Low cost computer, free software updates, backend infrastructure, several years of functional life, for $40 in sales (is there any profit there?). Exactly how is it surprising that they need to make some sort of additional revenue via kickback?

[mdasen]

The thing I'd point out is that if you're taking 30% of revenue from 4 streaming services, you're getting more revenue than if you operated a streaming service. I agree that these boxes/sticks need some recurring revenue (120% of the revenue of the streaming services). However, should they receive more revenue than the services themselves?

If they're taking 30% from Netflix, 30% from Max, 30% from Disney, and 30% from Paramount, they're getting over $16/mo. Should it be $16/mo per user?

The problem isn't that they need revenue. It's that the revenue demands seem very high compared to the costs of maintaining those boxes. They aren't looking for $10/year to cover their costs and make some profit. They're looking to get more revenue than those actually creating the content.

[paxys]

They already get plenty of kickbacks:

- Service providers paying them to have their buttons on the remote.

- % cut for movies & TV shows that users purchase on the device.

- % cut for subscriptions/IAPs from all the installed apps.

- Directly driving subscriptions for Prime Video.

- First party ads all over the interface.

- Selling and monetizing viewership data.

Of course none of this is enough, and so the company must continue to squeeze the ecosystem to placate shareholders.

[the8472]

> free software updates

It's not like amazon is paying for the maintenance of the entire software stack. And the part they're doing they mostly have to do anyway to support new devices.

[hamandcheese]

You are right, it is entirely unsurprising that the monopolist expects to see a positive ROI on their dumping scheme.

[HWR_14]

The specs are seem roughly equivalent to a raspberry pi, which is produced with far less economies of scale, and sold for a similar price point.

[squigglydonut]

Hey people. Did we forget that everyone has access to the internet? It's not like a physical store!!

[hinkley]

Turns out we would in fact download a car.

[stormdennis]

Arrrr me hearty!

[kotaKat]

At what point does a streaming service build an installer that walks you through turning on ADB and push the app over network ADB and just distribute outside Amazon (and Google)?

(Sure, this is a lot of effort, but someone might go for the ol' sideload gag.)

[wmf]

Don't give DJI any ideas about starting a streaming service.

[asow92]

FireTV is a roughly a quarter of the OTT market in the US. Content providers could likely boycott the platform and survive if they got together and collectively stood against it.

[ChuckMcM]

I find it amusing that television makers haven't started demanding a share of revenue on TV shows that have ads that they display. /s

[happytiger]

Time to pay the rent for the stuff you thought you owned.

Closed ecosystems and walled gardens have all the charm of dental surgery these days but there are all the users.

This is why we need more open standards. Open standards mean open competition and helps reduce monopolies.

[not2b]

Cory Doctorow has been writing about this lately. It seems we are heading back to the economic system that preceded capitalism in Europe: feudalism, where almost all of the gains were taken by rentiers: people who made money based on what they own (land, exclusive rights from the king, etc). Want to sell an app? Pay 30% to the landlord, but only if what you want to sell doesn't conflict with their business model.

[PicassoCTs]

So all this only works if the consumers can not switch back en mass to piracy. Its sort of implicit. Either free computing dies or these companies.

[hnburnsy]

App availabilty will be the replacement for carriage fights we see for sat/cable. Soon you will need multiple devices to have all services.

[hrdwdmrbl]

A-priori, is there any explanation for a platform charging 30% other than monopoly? Imagine if a grocery store charged 30% for slotting fees?

[prasadjoglekar]

30% is too high, but historically, cable networks gave about 15% of their impressions to the cable or satellite company to sell locally. So, on MTV, you'd see about 15 minutes of ads sold by MTV and 2 minutes of ads from the local car dealership that were sold by the cable co.

[fennecfoxy]

Lmao what a joke. Imagine if Mozilla said that they should get 30% of every ad that was viewed within/using Firefox.

[southwesterly]

This is going to end well.

[Ekaros]

I'm waiting for the day when Microsoft starts asking 30% of revenue on Windows 12...

[amelius]

Yes, for Amazon. Ka-ching!

[albert_e]

intel and AMD : wait maybe we can do that on our hardware too?

[neaumusic]

advertisements are saturating everything, and I think chat gpt is replacing google largely due to this, avoiding quora and blogspam

[varispeed]

That's substantially more than many countries charge Corporation Tax on profits.