Amazon Modifies Ad Revenue, Impressions Share Policy for International Fire TV Apps

Amazon will soon require international app developers who offer ad-supported streaming video services available to Fire TV users to opt into their in-house ad publishing service or, where unavailable, offer up a cut of their ad revenue. From a report: Starting September 1, Amazon will enforce a new developer policy that requires domestic and foreign streaming services to allocate 30% of their in-country advertising impressions to Amazon. Developers who offer up ad-supported Fire TV apps in the United States and whose apps see 50,000 hours or more usage in a given month will be required to enroll in Amazon Publishing Services (APS). The same applies for ad-supported Fire TV apps developed and distributed outside the United States, except the threshold is lowered to 30,000 hours of use per month.

In countries where APS isn't available, Amazon will require ad-supported streaming video services to provide 30% of their ad revenue to the company, starting September 30. Amazon will contact app developers in those countries to notify them of the requirement, the developer's note said.

Walled Garden putting up their walls

[xack]

Also related is that AWS now charges people for the ipv4 that Amazon stole from amateur radio operators. I'm also sure they pay ISP operators to keep their customers on IPv4 so they can extort customers as well.

exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

The great thing about IPv4 was having big chunks devoted to important uses. Stanford had an A block but they gave it up decades ago. When I asked at the time I was told "It was always provisional." MIT gave up a big chunk of theirs not too long ago though I assume they actually got money for it. It's fucking outrageous that amateur radio's got sold off -- the answer to everyone else in the world not having IPv4 is "Use IPv6." "We were here first." and "Go fuck yourself" in that order.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ouch

[liqu1d]

Are they providing servers for the video playback or is this just a case they are hosting the gateway? If it is the latter then 30% is extortionate. I would imagine majority of these apps would be hosted on AWS in the first place so double dipping is especially harsh.

Re:

[ThePawArmy]

It's not extortionate, it's Amazon!

Re:

[mysidia]

or is this just a case they are hosting the gateway

Neither. They are hosting the App store, which the hardware their customers bought uses; it's just like the Goole Play store or the iPhone App store -- if the devs don't comply, then their app gets taken out of the store.

Hopefully Amazon's objections in attempt to avoid being classified as a Big Platform and Digital Gatekeeper will be found frivolous, and they will be forced to abandon their plans of taxing business that occur on their platforms that

Re:

[EvilSS]

Neither. They are hosting the App store, which the hardware their customers bought uses; it's just like the Goole Play store or the iPhone App store -- if the devs don't comply, then their app gets taken out of the store.

But unlike a smart phone, the Amazon devices are not "general computing devices". They are more like game consoles or cars or smart toasters so it's OK for the manufacturer to have a monopoly over the app store on them and charge whatever fees they want to apps.

Or so everyone keeps telling me.

Re:

[nash]

Of course if the vendors vote with their feet, fire stick becomes a lot less useful and people will stop buying them.

Re:

[mysidia]

But unlike a smart phone, the Amazon devices are not "general computing devices". They are more like game consoles or cars or smart toasters so it's OK

These have not actually been cleared. Not general computing devices sounds like a Microsoft excuse. Modern game consoles are general computing devices, anyway (They are programmable devices where software in the form of numerous apps and games is written for them which is distributed from online services).

Also, it's an artificial distinction not provided

Relevant product market

[tepples]

Amazon devices, and even game Consoles run software which is a product or kind of media distinct from the device and purchased or downloaded at a later date --- the manufacturer of a hardware product cannot create and abuse a monopoly around their product.

Then it becomes a question of determining the relevant product market [wikipedia.org] for a claim of monopoly abuse. Even if Amazon has a monopoly on approving applications for the Fire TV Stick that it markets, it lacks a monopoly on approving applications for an additional stick that the user could buy to run other applications. Determining the scope of the relevant product market largely depends on "the facts" on a "case-by-case basis." (These are code words for how much the parties can afford to spend on legal counsel

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Techies block adverts, so this should not be news.

[couchslug]

Why is this plebshit "news"? If you decline to control your media experience you deserve what that adult choice gets.

Amazon going the Apple route

[SmaryJerry]

The free and open internet is slowly dying. Instead of making money on device sales or their software products, tech giants focus on stealing money from third party companies that use the device. Phones are even more prevalent than PCs but we would find it outrageous if Microsoft Windows took a 30% fee on every piece of software that ran on it, like Apple, or limited advertising seen to only Microsoft approved advertisements, like Amazon here. Imagine if Google had to use Microsoft approved advertisements on their websites because Windows only accepted Microsoft advertisements in browser. This is the kind of abuse of power that is becoming the norm and it stifles innovation and only serves to keep big tech big. It's not good enough that Amazon monopolizes the advertising space on the home screens, now they want to dip into the space within apps as well? The US and EU should put a stop to this kind of abuse of power asap.

Shoppers watch adverts

[NotEmmanuelGoldstein]

... available to Fire TV ...

I'm trying to imagine a parallel behaviour: This is like a supermarket claiming shoppers at the check-out have to watch coca-cola adverts.

This is vendor lock-in purposed to monetize everyone else.

Maybe these streaming services will now stop cripp

[BellyJelly]

A while ago I got sick of my Fire Stick's crowded, ad-flinging UI and thought I'd build myself a little celeron-powered Linux media player launching streaming services in full screen browser sessions. It turns out that all major streaming services limit the resolution of browser-based streaming (even with widevine) to SD or 1080P HD if you're lucky, with 4K out of the question. This forces people to use apps from app stores or accept a restricted service. Maybe time to think again?