“Amazon.com Inc. is flexing its e-commerce muscles to gain an edge on competitors in the video-streaming market by ending the sale of devices from Google Inc. and Apple Inc.,” Spencer Soper reports for Bloomberg.
“The Seattle-based Web retailer sent an e-mail to its marketplace sellers that it will stop selling Apple TV and Google’s Chromecast,” Soper reports. “No new listings for the products will be allowed and posting of existing inventory will be removed Oct. 29, Amazon said.”
“Amazon’s streaming video service, called Prime Video, doesn’t run easily on rival’s devices,” Soper reports. “Roku Inc.’s hardware, Microsoft Corp.’s Xbox, and Sony Corp.’s PlayStation, which work with Amazon’s Prime Video streaming service, aren’t affected, Amazon said.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: It’s a sure sign that what was once a hobby is a hobby no longer when desperate competitors panic. We’re surprised little baby Bezos didn’t run whining to the DOJ this time, too.
SEE ALSO:
Apple TV and voice control: What Siri does that the others don’t – September 18, 2015
With the all-new Apple TV, Apple changes the game, yet again – September 14, 2015
What Apple got right in Apple TV’s user interface – and what needs work – September 11, 2015
New Apple TV has the potential to do for television what iPhone did for mobile phones – September 11, 2015
Apple preps to conquer living room with all-new Apple TV – September 11, 2015
Hands-on with the all-new Apple TV – September 10, 2015
Gruber: Apple TV will define how all TVs will work in a few years – September 10, 2015
[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]
…but that doesn’t call for an investigation, nooooo…
No fooling!!! Talk about anticompetitive!
I bet Apple will be punished by the DOJ for complaining about this. 😛
Only if Apple doesn’t sell competitor’s streaming devices when they do submit a complaint.
Apple doesn’t sell Amazon streaming devices in its stores but that is because it seeks to sell and always has only Apple own label products or specifically those things that work directly with it or part of the eco system. That doesn’t mean that it is comparable to a company that acts as a ‘general’ store indeed based its whole business on doing so and did so long before it ever produced own label products not selling a competitor’s product to give those own label products exclusivity.
Its as if Amazon started to make own brand clothes and then stopped selling Benetton (or any other with their own shops) on the basis those shops don’t sell Amazon clothes or unless alternatively they do a deal ‘they can’t refuse’ with Amazon. This will be a real test for the authorities and is directly related to their giving Carte Blanche in the books fiasco to do as they like.
The difference is that Apple, as we are constantly reminded, doesn’t have a monopoly because Android has the biggest market share, therefore it’s theoretically not possible for Apple to abuse a dominant position that they apparently don’t hold. Amazon on the other hand clearly dominates online retail so arguably is in a position to act anti-competitively. For once the bizarre way that Apple’s market share is calculated serves to benefit Apple.
Well said, though it can be argued that “within” the ecosystem they have the most severe monopoly possible, and lock-in makes the cost of exit too high.
PS this is the same reason why Microsoft were in trouble for bundling IE with Windows, yet Apple is allowed to bundle Safari as part of OS X and iOS – Apple has no monopoly to abuse in the operating system market, whereas MS does.
It should also be noted that the real “abuse” on MS’s part was the integration of IE into many Windows functions, to the extent that it could not be removed without affecting Windows. MacOS has never had the problem; the events that the “default” web browser is expected to handle are well-documented, and many people never launch – or even remove – Safari with no impact to their operation. Even if Apple became the 800-pound gorilla overnight, it would not have the same “abuse” problem because of this.
Yes, this is why the case being brought against Google for restricting services will probably fail. No part of Google Services is essential for Android to work, as will probably will be brought up by showing existing forks of Android in the commercial market.
I made my comment with the intent of comparing Apple owned store to Amazon owned store.. If you argue that Amazon is more a general store, you are basically arguing that any company can force retailers to carry their product. Walk in to any grocer/drug store and you will see store brand items for sale, some even w/o a name brand counterpart sold elsewhere.
I’d lean towards the case being thrown out. If you claim Amazon is a general store, there is no way for suppliers to force retailers to carry their product. If you claim Amazon and Apple stores are on equal standing you will have to prove that Apple is in good faith carrying competitor’s products that are compatible with Apple products.
Really Amazon! You are no longer selling competitors’ products. That is pretty chicken-shit.
My Prime membership renewal is coming up. I might have to think a little harder about renewing this year.
I kicked myself (mentally) for missing Amazon’s $67 Prime flash sale a few days ago, as there is no way I’m spending $99 for it. I put it off until later in the day, fell asleep on my sofa, and didn’t wake up until after midnite.
Now I’m glad I did.
I guess I will have to hate the Amazon Prime channel on my Apple TV every time I see it now. Oh wait… Amazon Prime is not on my Apple TV. Maybe this is just a tit for tat on Amazon’s part. Apple won’t let Amazon compete for media rentals and sales on Apple TV. Should it be so surprising that Amazon doesn’t want to sell Apple’s competing products?
They’re only hurting themselves.
Meh. I prefer to buy Apple products from Apple anyway. If something goes wrong with my purchase, I know Apple won’t let me down.
This will hurt Google far more than it will hurt Apple.
Maybe.. On the other hand Electronics stores will now have a category that they won’t be competing against Amazon for..
Maybe their hosted vendors should sue. No reason to buy from Amazon, when you can get it from others like B&H Photo which has no sales tax outside of NY
B&H Photo does a fantastic job on Internet Sales……!!!! Many people have used them for years and they do sell items outside of the photography world………
Check it out for yourself…..!!
May not affect consumer purchasing much for those in Hawaii.. Free shipping is a strong incentive..
I hope Apple uses their influence on Capitol Hill to have DOJ open an investigation into Amazon and their shady business practices… What goes around, comes around.
there is no Department of Justice at the present time, hopefully there will be after January 20, 2017.
What influence?
Even if Apple has a smidgen of influence in D.C., I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Meh.
Cutting themself from some serious markup sells…
Wow! Idiocities can go a long way nowadays…
Wow – what a moronic move. This sort of thing never works out well. Apple should simply pull the rest of their products from Amazon ASAP.
HA! All that would be left is all the knock off Apple adapters and cables that short out when you look at them, yet are still labeled as “Apple Inc” on Amazon. Amazon loves counterfeits.
Hmmm surely Judge Côte must hear of this outrage and appoint a special master to perch on the shoulder of Jeff Bezos to keep him from accidentally restraining trade against a competitor.
Of course it would end up with the court forces Fire Sticks to be sold in Apple Stores and supported by the Genius Bar.
That ain’t right
Those who think Amazon is being anti competitive should consider that Apple pulled Bose products when it bought Beats.
This is the way of the world.
It will be Amazon’s loss and won’t affect Apple all that much.
All too true.
Not really the same, first Bose was suing Beats, second Apple didn’t ban sales by third parties on their platform like Amazon is doing here.
This would be more like like Apple banning the Bose app because they bought Beats… which is something they never done.
I was in an Apple store today in Ann Arbor, MI and they very clearly had Bose products on the shelves.
Yes, they took them back after reconsidering. But, for a while, they were out.
Apple isn’t a monopoly, Amazon is.
Isnt that anti competitive? Doj should investigate ….?
What DOJ?
DOJ has determined that is only anti-competitive if Apple does it; if it is Amazon, it is all good.
If Amazon makes an App for the AppleTV letting people stream Amazon Prime video…and if Apple rejects it…Judge Lucy will complain how Apple is being anticompetitive.
It would be one thing if Amazon had never sold AppleTV or Chromecast, but now that they make their own device, to stop selling others over a year after you released yours is anti competitive. It will be interesting to see if they list AppleTV as a “game console” and try to list it with XBox and PlayStation, will amazon ban all Game Consoles too?
If AppleTV gets an Amazon video app, it will probably be allowed. Amazon is being a bit fussy, but I thought they had the right to sell or not sell anything they pleased.
It’s not a about Amazon selling it themselves – they’re free to to pick what they want to sell of course.
The case here Amazon is banning third parties from selling it on their platform without any legal or valid reason other than defending their own interests.
Would you feel it was right if Apple now banned the Amazon app?
Does Apple sell the Fire TV in the Apple Store??? Not selling the Apple TV in the Amazon marketplace amounts to almost the same thing.
No it doesn’t. Apple doesn’t monopolize the retail sector, not even the computer retail sector, so it can’t abuse a dominant position that doesn’t exist. Amazon on the other hand dominates the online retail sector and engages in anti-competitive behaviour every day, abusing their dominant position. Amazon has got away with too much for too long, countless businesses have failed because of Amazon’s aggressive anti-competitive (not to mention tax avoiding) practices and needs to be stopped. I suspect the EU will be the first to take action.
Without a jailbreak I would think an argument will be raised that Apple has a far stronger monopoly on iOS App sales vs any type of monopoly Amazon has..
Apple should pull the Amazon app from their App Store.
No.
Like Apple sells Fire TV, Kindles, etc at the Apple Store.
Amazon features and sells the FireTV stick prominently on Apple’s platform, iOS, via the Amazon app.
Why is the OK for Amazon TO prohibit *third parties* from selling Apple TVs on their platform?
It’s all software after all. Amazon doesn’t have to stock, ship or support third party sales. Also Amazon owns an online retail monopoly, Apple doesn’t.
This is a clearly fis a breach of competition.
“Why is the OK for Amazon TO prohibit *third parties* from selling Apple TVs on their platform?”
I think it’s because their platform is their store, whether or not they’re selling things directly.
Amazon isn’t eBay and as a seller and a buyer, I’ve never considered them the same.
Most people will tell you that apps come from Apple’s App Store.
They’d be right too. Yet Apple doesn’t ban apps on competitive reasons, there’s plenty of streaming app for competitor platforms in there for example.
Why are third party sales via Amazon any different?
Perhaps 3rd party sellers are considered ‘suppliers’ in which case as a retailer Amazon has the choice to pick and choose what products to have/advertise in their store.
This is an example of why Apple had to build its own online store and its own brick and mortar stores.
Don’t let a competitor control any strategic asset critical to your product’s future.
20 years ago, a major retailer refusing to carry Apple products might have been an issue but no more.
correct analysis.
I bought my last Apple TV from Apple and I will again. So F-off Amazon!
Hmmm, then the gloves are off. Apple and Google should remove all Amazon apps from their respective stores. Of course Amazon will complain to the FTC and you know the rest. Bad Apple. Google you’re cool.
A monopoly is not illegal unless you use that monopoly to stifle competition.
Surely Amazon ‘banning’ a product that competes with it’s own, IS stifling competition?
I think Amazon will have to go further than their own store to make the ‘stifle competition’ claim stick. For example forcing Best Buy to only carry Fire products or restrict sales of competitors products.
Time for a new ad:
Apple TV – it’s so good Amazon refuses to sell it!
Unfortunately that could go both ways.. ‘good’ in this case might be taken to mean ‘good enough but not good enough to market at Amazon’.. 😛
Apple should take some of that money pile and create a full on competitor to Amazon that creates an Apple store that improves up Amazon and offers Apple Primetime, really shove it down Amazon’s throats. Apple needs to have some new “hobbies”.