David McManus says profit is behind Amazon’s controversial new move

Last week’s column was all about the fracturing of streaming video services and how it is impossible to buy into one ecosystem or purchase a single device that will give you access to everything that is on offer.

Shortly after I wrote the piece, Amazon stirred the pot even more by making a controversial announcement that it was to stop selling rival hardware from Apple and Google.

Amazon’s gripe appears to be based on the fact that there are no apps for its Prime Video service on either the Apple TV or the Google Chromecast, but the reason for their absence is unclear.

Has Apple banned a Prime app from its TV? It seems unlikely because such an app exists on iPads and iPhones. Amazon could certainly release an app for the open Chromecast but it remains absent. Why? The answer, it seems, is the usual answer when it comes to competition in the marketplace – money.

Both Apple and Google take a 30 per cent cut of all revenue taken through their respective stores. That cut doesn’t only apply to individual apps but also to anything sold through those apps. If Amazon put Prime on an Apple TV or Chromecast it would immediately surrender a third of its profits from paid streaming video and it is clearly not prepared to do that.

The Prime app on iOS allows for viewing of content already purchased and has no built-in store of its own. If you reach the end of a television series and wish to buy the next, you need to do it outside of the app so that Apple cannot claim its take on the revenue.

Such a system could be employed on an Apple TV app but Amazon likely considers it would be a poor user experience.

Apple and Google are unlikely to make concessions for Amazon because that 30 per cent commission is incredibly lucrative so instead we have a turf war between rivals.

Both the Chromecast and the Apple TV are currently huge sellers on Amazon – up there in the top ten bestselling products – so Amazon will take its own hit on this decision.

Twitter, once the darling of Internet start-ups, is considered by some to have an uncertain future.

The company has just employed a new boss in the form of Jack Dorsey, existing head of mobile payment company Square, as it struggles to find innovative ways of making more money as demanded by its shareholders.

Unlike Facebook, Twitter has a very limited profile of its users so targeted advertising is a problem.

Also unlike Facebook, it could be said to have reached critical mass of users.

My dad recently started to use Facebook because he wants to keep up with old friends and see their photographs. Twitter, so often compared to the social media giant, holds no such appeal.

One suggestion is that Twitter may start to allow tweets greater than 140 characters which would surely lessen its appeal.

It is possible to see Twitter fading away over time as the popularity of rivals like Instagram and Snapchat find dominance.