Amazon Prime Strikes Deal for Most PBS Children’s Shows | Hacker News Reader

Amazon Prime Strikes Deal for Most PBS Children’s Shows

nytimes.com

77 pointsuptown93 comments

"Much of PBS Kids programming . . . will be REMOVED from rival streaming sites like Netflix and Hulu, and will be available only on Amazon Prime."

Oh goody.

So now instead of being able to use Netflix via Apple TV to watch her favorite PBS show my 5 year old is going to have to figure out how to bring up Amazon Prime through the shitty Samsung TV interface.

Or better yet maybe I'll have to buy another device that will be obsolete in a year.

This Amazon / Apple bs war of not supporting eachother's devices has got to stop, it sets a terrible precedence which seem to be aimed at protecting the devices which are so incredibly commoditized!

Apple - please just let us have an Amazon app on Apple TV. Is it such a protective move when I can just airplay prime from an iphone / ipad / macbook to apple tv?

Maybe it's time for app nuetrality along side net nuetrality.

Its called linux.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Thanks Richard.

Same here, just s/Apple TV/Chromecast/

While we are Amazon Prime subscribers, the hassle of actually watching anything on Amazon Prime Instant Video means we never bother. I think we have a BluRay player that is technically capable of it, but it's a couple minutes worth of annoying menu navigation to use it...

My three year old has an old android phone that she has no trouble casting from. Fortunately, it seems the PBS Kids app will still work.

Having had the unfortunate experience of using one Amazon app (xbox), I wonder if PBS will see viewership decrease, simply because of the buggy garbage interface their viewers will have to use. To me, it's actually that bad. I have AP for free, never use it.

As far as I've read and understand, Apple isn't preventing Amazon from releasing a video streaming app on the AppleTV. Amazon is the one that has been playing hard ball, removing other streaming devices from their store and not releasing a video app (just like they have on iOS) for AppleTV.

edit: I should add that I believe the reason Amazon isn't releasing on AppleTV is that Apple won't allow people to subscribe for Prime via the App without requiring their 30% cut. All the other streaming services (and there are dozens if not hundreds) on AppleTV require users to subscribe via means outside of the AppleTV app itself.

For what it's worth, PBS has an app[1] for Apple TV, and it has much of PBS' content.

With that said, the general problem of certain services being restricted from/to specific platforms is extremely frustrating, and will only get more painful as exclusives become common.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/anywhere/connected-tv/apple-tv/

From my experience on the AppleTV3, the PBS Kids channel/app had very limited access to past episodes. Is this different on ATV4?

Apple isn't preventing an Amazon app from existing! Amazon is just not willing to create one under the current terms-and-conditions.

The terms are the same as iOS: if your app allows in-app purchase of digital goods, then you have to use Apple's payments system and Apple gets their 30% cut.

On iOS, Amazon Video works fine, Amazon works around the 30% by not allowing signups within the app, and by not providing a link to the Amazon website for signing up.

Amazon is using the AppleTV as a test case for fighting against this policy. They can afford to do that because so few people have AppleTVs compared to iOS devices.

I refuse to use Amazon video for this specific reason. Their "prime instant" is really just a teaser; it is very difficult to search for stuff that you don't have to pay for.

It's designed to get you to buy/rent from the Amazon digital store, and hardly much else.

My children will simply not watch those shows. Zaboomafoo will be a big loss, but not much else was interesting to them.

We're basically witnessing the unbundling of cable providers networks and rebundling of content on different platforms and companies. Two steps forward, one step back.

My feeling is that since PBS is largely funded by taxes and donations, all their content should be available freely just about anywhere. They really ought to publish directly to YouTube as well.

IMO, there is a large gap between taxes and donations. Taxpayers would be better served by open access, but donors may feel funding for PBS is a better option.

As taxpayers are only 15 percent and this may reduce PBS's funding needs it's probably a good approach to licence the content widely for a reasonable cost.

It _was_ widely available, on Hulu and Netflix. Swapping those two ubiquitous services our for Amazon Instant Video is a dramatic decrease in availability, given the limited number of devices that Amazon allows access on (i.e. no Chromecase, no Apple TV, etc).

Can't you cast from the Amazon app on your Android and iOS phone?

Nope. Amazon does not support Chromecast.

You _could_ load it in your browser and cast the tab, but the quality is terrible and you end up playing it in two places...

I end up connecting my computer to the TV with an HDMI cable. Even then, I remember at one point it didn't approve of the make/model of the TV and would only play in 480p.

That sucks.

If there are ANY tax payer dollars involved, shouldn't the tax payers have some say in this?

> As taxpayers are only 15 percent

Only because they are very successfully at monetizing their content which was originally bootstrapped by tax and donations. After this exclusive deal that percentage may drop further.

It is freely available on PBS.com It makes sense to ask Amazon to pay something if they want to offer the content outside that venue.

The problem isn't with Amazon having to pay to serve the content. It's that Amazon now has an exclusive deal and this content is being removed from Netflix and other streaming services.

As others have noted, this isn't a great deal for consumers who also happen to already pay for some of the content via taxes.

This is presumably more money for PBS than they were getting before which means they will have a larger budget for new programming. Also, the content is already free to access for those consumers you are so worried about:

> All of the titles moving to Amazon will still be broadcast on local PBS stations, on PBS’s website and the PBS Kids Video app. Amazon Prime will have the streaming rights to shows approximately six months after their premiere date on PBS stations.

The website and PBS kids video app have maybe 3-4 episodes of each show. Not even close to what Amazon will now carry, and what Netflix used to have.

Also, from what I've seen most kids (mine included) are now watching PBS via streaming apps and not live tv. PBS is now locking most of their kids content behind one corporation.

My kids are perfectly happy watching the same episodes over and over and over.

Are you?

Is there a (good) reason PBS can't license it to both Netflix and Amazon? Is it possible Amazon (or Netflix) are really willing to pay more for exclusive access than Amazon and Netflix combined would pay for non-exclusive access?

> Is it possible Amazon (or Netflix) are really willing to pay more for exclusive access than Amazon and Netflix combined would pay for non-exclusive access?

Possible? That is certainly the case.

The good reason is precisely that one distributor is willing to pay more for the content on an exclusive basis than multiple providers would on a non-exclusive basis. If PBS were getting more from Amazon + Hulu + Netflix on a non-exclusive basis, they wouldn't have done this deal and reduced their revenue.

> This is presumably more money for PBS than they were getting before

Their priority is not profit, but public service. Since this reduces the availability of their programming, it is a disservice to the public that supports them through taxes, regardless of how much richer they are now.

> Their priority is not profit, but public service. Since this reduces the availability of their programming, it is a disservice to the public that supports them through taxes, regardless of how much richer they are now.

Public service can be defined many ways. Is it better to have less programming that is available on Netflix and Hulu or more programming that is available on Amazon? Amazon Prime has very wide reach, this may actually increase the number of kids with streaming access. If it did increase the number would you be for the move?

How can Amazon alone reach more people than Amazon, Netflix and Hulu combined? The difference will have to be huge to allow production of enough programming to offset the reduced streaming audience.

I understand they cannot neglect the broadcast TV segment, but this is nuts.

BTW, it's odd to me the Department of State doesn't see PBS as a powerful propaganda tool. It's your BBC.

I think that Mister Rogers' Neighborhood should be mandatory viewing for all children throughout the world. The show at its core teaches empathy, unlike a lot of children's programming these days that have the primary goal of selling merchandise.

If anyone is interested, there's a wonderful 4.5 hour interview with Fred Rogers: http://www.emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/fred-rogers#

Daniel Tiger's neighborhood is also a great show that takes a lot of the music and lessons from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, but is an updated and animated version of it.

I've always been very impressed with the music and talent of the musicians he had on his show - they actually played live during most of the shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peDn6XQ3bjI for an example.

Amazing. Thanks for sharing.

Also, +1 on Daniel Tiger's neighborhood. One of the few shows my 2.5 year old is allowed to watch, since the vast majority of them are trying to sell something, or promote disturbing body image messages, etc.

I can't help but imagine a future where every single resource that we consume will provided by one of a small number of megacorps (gigacorps?) and branded, right down to the home that you live in, the people that teach your children, the food you eat, the water you drink, and the air that you breathe.

"Amazon Air. For a lighter, purer you."

"Apple iWater. Drink it for life."

"Drink different"

"IT'S WHAT PLANTS CRAVE"

Naturally formulated with iHemo and iElectrolytes. Dive underwater for up to an hour and power your implanted devices for 2 full days! iWater contains synthetic oxygenated liposomes along with other patented technology.

Like Perri-Air? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiabeNR_q0U

I really hope that either a) the PBS Kids app on the Apple TV still has a couple shows or b) Amazon and Apple work out their differences and get Amazon Video on the Apple TV, because my 16 month old gets to watch TV the only time a day for 15 minutes of Daniel Tiger everyday before his nap. He's such a creature of habit that I'd probably have to go get a Fire TV Stick or make significant changes to my home network so AirPlay worked with that TV, otherwise my wife have a month of struggle to get him adjusted to a new routine.

The article states: "All of the titles moving to Amazon will still be broadcast on local PBS stations, on PBS’s website and the PBS Kids Video app."

Whew. The article must have been updated after I read it, because that statement isn't in my cached copy of the article.

I totally missed that. I must have blacked out from my rage. Thank you for your clarity!

I love Amazon. I like Netflix. I haven't tried HBO go yet. Here's my problem with this... which may not be the actual point of this article. Amazon is going to remove PBS shows from competitors (like Netflix). I understand why Amazon would want to do this, but from a consumer aspect, it sucks having to get Orange is the new Black from Netflix, Silicon Valley from HBO, and Elmo from Amazon. To see shows fragmented across different digital providers is what bothers me. I wish they all could have access to all of them. So I could pick my provider and know that everything I want to watch is at that provider. This allows me to switch between Dish Network and DirectTV without too much inconvenience. When providers get shows to blacklist other providers, that fragmentation would cause me to have to now purchase multiple providers. I (as a consumer) do not like this.

I appreciate that they made a "deal". While there are reasons for giving it all away because it's public and paid for with taxes and donations, I think this just means that they will be able to produce more and better content for a longer period of time.

That being said, there are a few moments in parenting that are especially magical:

1) When the kids don't need diapers anymore.

2) When they stop wanting to watch these kid shows.

I've gotten to the point where I don't care if Netflix or Hulu get an exclusive for series or movies, but it really annoys me when Amazon does. Exclusives are a way for them to sell subscriptions and I get that. For Netflix and Hulu, they both work really hard to basically make their content available everywhere. I think nearly every one of my devices capable of playing video down to Nintendo 2DSs can have Netflix and Hulu.

The problem with Amazon that they seem to be more about pushing the hardware by limiting where the service is available. Amazon Instant video was unavailable on Android tablets for a very long time because Amazon wanted to push Kindle Fires and now we're seeing the same thing for Chromecast and AppleTV to push FireTV devices. And then there's the auxiliary complaint with Amazon instant video where when you do actually have a device that supports it, the subscription content is mixed in with rent and purchase content.

Damn. That explains why Dinosaur Train and Daniel Tiger are no longer on Netflix today. That's frustrating.

Not sure if this helps with your platform, but those are both available on the PBS Kids Video app.

Fun fact, the "dinosaur" family in Dinosaur Train are not actually dinosaurs, scientifically speaking. Of course, no self respecting 3yo will ever accept your explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pteranodon

Of course. Just like I have difficult explaining to her just how crazy it is that a T-Rex egg not only ended up in a Pteranodon nest, but also somehow got adopted by them. Pteranodon would be ideal prey for a T-Rex, there's just no way Mrs Pteranodon would ever keep Buddy around.

I dunno, raise the T-Rex up and have it be able to protect you. Classic Lion King type story there with Timon & Pumbaa using Simba. ;)

Mrs Pteranodon just gave buddy a loving family. Love works miracles. ;-)

And, apart from the fiction, it's good. My daughter learned that flowers didn't exist yet in the Jurassic.

This is definitely covered in one of the episodes. I believe there is a song called "that's not a dinosaur!"

(HN: your source for kids' TV information)

Shouldn't PBS programming be... erm... publicly... available?

I have the impression their charter mandates them to operate for a public good and it eludes me how allowing a single company have a digital distribution monopoly on its... public programming furthers that goal.

On this topic, I am working on an app that aggregates toddler music videos or nursery rhythms. It will help to occupy the child when parents are temporarily busy or calm them down in public areas.

However, I have no experience in the music / video industry. I am starting with the simplest solution: embed Youtube videos. What can I do to allow parents to legally download the videos for offline viewing? (willing partnership, free public content, have my own production, ...). The songs I am looking for are ABC, Twinkle Twinkle Little Stars, etc. Would appreciate any feedbacks!

I'm sure everyone will enjoy explaining to their toddlers why they can't watch Daniel Tiger anymore.

We actually have Amazon Prime, but I had been streaming Daniel Tiger to the television over a Chromecast using the Hulu app on an iPad. I don't think Amazon Prime works with Chromecast so now I have to look into an alternative, equally convoluted, option.

I recommend you get a game console - all three current and last generation consoles support Amazon video (Wii/Wii U/PS3/PS4/Xbox 360/Xbox One). Plus they can play games.

Or a cheaper option of a blue ray player (I have a six year old sony blue ray player which has the Amazon video app )which you can probably get now for under $50.

And 37 menu navigation options later (including the always fun 'spell words like you're texting in 1997' search functionality) you can finally watch something.

As opposed to the 'use the native UI on your phone, then hit one button to cast it' experience.

We are Amazon Prime subscribers, but I can't remember the last time we watched anything on Amazon Prime Instant Video... it's just too much of a hassle...

This is definitely why I prefer the Chromecast experience over loading Hulu through the PS3 (which is actually also pretty good, given that Daniel Tiger is always on the front page). It's a small difference, but when trying to get myself and my daughter ready in the morning, any reduction in friction is appreciated.

Yep...

"Dad, can I watch a show?"

"Sure honey <give her the phone>"

Now?

"Dad, can I watch a show?"

"Sorry sweetie, but I'm feeding your brothers right now, maybe in a little bit..."

There's a pretty big difference between getting a $35 Chromecast vs even last generation's console. Other than the cost, I also feel that now that I'm a parent, my consoles are just terrible reminders that I will never again have the time or inclination to play any of the wonderful games that go with them.

I totally get that, but maybe it can become a gateway to playing games with your kids.

As mentioned below, the content is still available on PBS, PBS.com and the PBS app. It's not like this is locked into Amazon only.

I find a roku is much more convient than casting. Roku has Amazon, google play, and Netflix. The only thing it's really missing is Apple stuff.

The roku stick 2016 version is pretty cheap. Though if you want Ethernet you have to get a roku 3. If you want 4K you have to buy a roku 4.

Roku currently has Amazon, Google Play, and Netflix. I would definitely not pay for a new device on the promise that providers will continue to support it.

If only their interface weren't so painful. I love what my Roku does for my media on my TV with connecting everything, but man is it clunky to navigate.

Do you use the remote or the app. I find the remote painful for all but basic navigation, but the app makes up for it. I just wish the android app was not so obviously an iPhone app and the app let you use the headphone feature.

The headphone feature of the remote is great but it kills your batteries if you forget to unplug your headphones.

Am I missing something? My Android and iPad apps are both just giant representations of the crappy remote that looks like this[1].

I have an older Roku for what it is worth.

[1]http://www.technologytell.com/gadgets/files/2012/09/roku-mob...

I think the new stick actually lets you use the headphones connected to the andriod or ios app. I don't know why Roku 3 and 4 don't support it.

I use the remote. I like having a simple remote rather than pulling up an app on my phone. I use a harmony universal remote too. But I like the point anywhere rf remote that it comes with.

I switched to an Nvidia Shield (Android TV) almost a year ago, and it's by far the best media play device I've had. You can navigate with a remote (and it works great with my Harmony hub remote, which gives me one remote that can control the TV and audio). I primarily use Netflix, Plex, YouTube and Google Play Music. Very conveniently, it's also a Google Cast device.. so without switching inputs or doing anything, you can just instantly cast your phone/tablet.

Over the past 13-ish years, I've gone through a Roku, Chromecast, small form factor Windows 7 and 10 PCs, Pivos Xios, some random android box, and going back farther SageTV (amazing at its time), and a MythTV system.

Personally, I purchased all the seasons of Daniel Tiger on iTunes so that we can watch them offline when in the car on our tablets/iPhones. I have no doubt we have already gotten enough mileage out of them to be a worthwhile purchase. Our girl will likely continue watching them over and over for another couple years. We really try to limit the amount of screentime she has, but sometimes (like when in the car) it's a better alternative than her being upset and struggling in her carseat (she's hated being strapped in since she was an infant). And if we have to entertain her, Daniel Tiger is bar none one of the best cartoons for kids out there. The real life lessons and character interactions are just outstanding. I think Fred Rogers would be very proud of the continued legacy and positive impact Daniel Tiger brings to the world.

My daughter practically couldn't be in the car before we put some videos on an iPad for her, I definitely second this as a good investment. We just went with a handful of favourite episodes though - it amazes me how many times she can rewatch the same story but I think that given the option she prefers episodes she knows.

I realise now that we've been watching Daniel Tiger through the PBS for Kids app, the videos we bought on iTunes, casting to the TV over Hulu, sometimes catching the morning showing over cable, and now we have Amazon Prime over PS3 as an option. I should probably make a donation to PBS!

Amazon UI is terrible. PBS is making a huge mistake. Children don't use amazon prime and parent's aren't going to suddenly like using it because of the kids shows. Watch the clicks disappear by 60% overnight.

Meanwhile, I'm just waiting for anyone to put all the episodes of Long Ago and Far Away [1] online.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ago_and_Far_Away_(TV_seri...

"Amazon Prime reached a deal to become the exclusive premium streaming service "

The exclusivity is a real problem! And with something like PBS??? My family uses Netflix to watch many PBS shows like Dinosaur Train and now can't do that anymore. Screw you Amazon!

Edited to add: And Screw you PBS!

>Screw you Amazon!

Don't you mean "Screw you PBS!"?

It takes two parties to make a deal. And when one of them is a huge corp like Amazon, it is more plausible that PBS was "made an offer they couldn't refuse." Amazon is known to use underhanded tactics to monopolize markets. (Ie. Removing competitor items from their stores.)

Amazon is the one who chooses to block access on a wide range of media players (Chromecast, Apple TV, etc), in order to try to push their Fire TV platform.

We are Amazon Prime subscribers, and I wouldn't mind this a bit if I didn't have to either use an arcane interface on my BluRay player, or buy a separate dedicated media play in order to watch Amazon content.

Why not just use the PBS Kids app? My daughter adores it.

Does it have past episodes of all the shows?

Maybe if PBS was better funded thru all channels they wouldn't feel the need to do this.

Hope this means we get to see Voyage of the Mimi again.

I'm curious to see if this deal will get the same amount of backlash over Sesame Street's partnership with HBO.

They've had a ton of PBS content for a long time. I actually just lost 5 seasons of Wild Kratts today.

And this is why so many people pirate. I pay for these services, and get no notification.

I feel justified as long as it's on one of the services I pay for (Amazon, Netflix, Hulu), since I don't feel like having to remember which damn app to use. Nor can I get me 5yo to grasp it either.

So I use Kodi and a file server. Now my son can choose what he wants to watch, which makes him so happy. He'd much rather get the remote and change it himself than ask us to change it for him.

I know Netflix is notorious for this. Keeping titles up for a couple months, taking whole seasons of shows off, with absolutely no notice.

It's not like the upstream content providers have any part in this balkanization of content.

Screw Amazon, I was a customer for over 10 years, have every single Kindle model, bought dozens of thousands in goods.

Few days ago I got an email that my account was disabled (and i can not login) due to a billing issue. Seems my bank thought one of the purchases was suspicious. I rang but the customer support person on phone was an idiot. I replied to the email offering to sort out any billing issues but all I got was an automated reply.

Screw Amazon, just lost a good longtime customer due to stupidity of employees and whatever genius programmed whatever automated system decided to disable my account.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com