Agreed, I own a roku and a chromecast, there is literally nothing here that makes me regret either, and nothing that would make me choose the Fire TV over AppleTV if I did want to be tied closer to one ecosystem.

I guess I'm bummed that it means it's unlikely the prime video interface will get any better on Roku, but Prime Instant video quality is already so much worse for me then any other source it's not that big a loss.

> and nothing that would make me choose the Fire TV over AppleTV if I did want to be tied closer to one ecosystem.

Well, Amazon is at least available on a variety of platforms whereas iTunes is only on Apple devices -- and will always only be available on Apple devices.

Um what? These restrictions are everywhere, just a little different across platforms.

For example

- All iTunes content is available on Mac, Windows & iOS devices, and all downloaded music is playable on all devices that support AAC. Apple doesn't offer a pure streaming service (AppleTV masquerades as one) so you're stuck with iOS, Windows, and Mac for purchased video content.

- Google Play content can be streamed to any device with an app or modern browser (Linux requires Flash hacks), but can only be downloaded to Android devices. You can't download a movie to play offline on your PC, Mac or iOS device.

- Amazon Instant Video is streamable to any device (Linux requires flash hacks) EXCEPT 3rd party Androids -- Amazon requires you to buy THEIR Android Kindle devices. Downloadable/offline content is only available on Windows.

- Netflix is streamable to any device with an app (Linux requires silverlight hacks). There is no downloadable content.

You seem to be saying these restrictions are equivalent, but we're talking about video here, and iTunes is only available on Apple devices and Windows desktop (who wants to watch movies on a desktop computer anyways), whereas Amazon Instant is available on dozens of blu-ray players, smart TVs, set-top boxes, video game consoles that they do not control.

Let's be clear here, iTunes is never coming to any non-Apple device unless the company takes a radical departure from what it has been doing the past 10 years.

Apple is in the business of selling devices and having the most content available to encourage adoption (and doing a pretty good job of it). I don't give a toss that iTunes isn't available on a bunch of Smart TVs or BluRay players, I'm rarely going to buy another BluRay player or Smart TV, nor are most people, they're happy with the one they've currently got.

Amazon is in the content distribution business and playing catchup on having the devices to support it (because, for some reason, having their app on a smart TV and set top box doesn't seem to be enough).

This is a pretty good offering, but it's clear that, HuluPlus and Netflix aside, the big players [Google|Amazon|Apple] wants to have their own device ecosystem, and are fighting to differentiate theirs. For $99, these streaming devices are a disposable income purchase that gives you benefits in a particular ecosystem. Amazon has no particular advantage in this race yet, they're still coming from behind.

No, they do have the advantage of being available on a large number of platforms. This means I can buy a movie from Amazon and feel confident that in 2 years if I decide to buy a different TV, a different set-top box, a different video game console, a different tablet, I probably (but of course not guaranteed) can still watch that movie on it.

That's like, a real advantage.

"iTunes is only on Apple devices"

No; iTunes runs on Windows.

Also, you can use Apple TV with non-iTunes bought stuff[1] although it does support iTunes sourced media of course, and fewer channels than Roku et.al. I usually just use it for Netflix, streaming radio stations and podcasts, and YouTube.

[1] http://www.apple.com/appletv/whats-on/

You're right, iTunes is on Windows as a legacy feature for the days when plugging your iPod into the computer was something you needed to do.

But let's not pretend like this means that it will becoming to Roku, Android, or the dozens of other places that you're likely to want to watch media content. Places where Amazon already is, and is expanding to more.

To my knowledge, you cannot stream Amazon Instant Video content to an Android portable device that isn't sold by Amazon.

What's your point? I didn't say Amazon was available on every platform in existence, just that it's available on a large variety of platforms and is expanding. I wish it was on Android too, that would be ideal, but we're just comparing availability here. And Amazon's is pretty good.

You are claiming that Amazon is on a wide variety of platforms and that's a reason to choose their ecosystem over Apple which encourages the purchase of an Apple device.

I don't agree. Google and Amazon are trying to get into Apple's device ecosystem game as it's way more profitable and offers more control than inserting apps on devices, which seems a failed strategy. Microsoft has already taken this approach with Surface and Xbox. And they're actively putting blocks up to their biggest competitors, which all about locking-in consumers to their ecosystem.

The the market leader in the "generic video streaming app everywhere" space (Netflix) is crowding out all competitors in this space unless they have exclusive content (HBO Go, HuluPlus, etc.) Apple maintains its market in the face of Netflix because of its wider content selection and the wide availability and affordability ($99) of its devices.

Amazon will be able to compete well here (this FireTV looks like a good offering) but we haven't seen what this year's AppleTV has in store, so it's not a slam dunk.

> You are claiming that Amazon is on a wide variety of platforms and that's a reason to choose their ecosystem over Apple which encourages the purchase of an Apple device.

Correct, can't wait for the counter argument.

> I don't agree.

Great, here it comes...

And then the rest of the post is about how the lock-in strategy is more profitable. Not sure if that's true or not, but doesn't have anything to do with my argument that being available on many devices is an advantage for the consumer.

This thread is about the introduction of the Fire TV, a strategy where Amazon is introducing their own device because the approach you laud, of supporting every device under the sun has FAILED to garner significant market share.

I spoke about profitability and the ecosystem because this shit matters and will affect your assumptions. Case in point: Microsoft and PlaysForSure, which they eventually undermined by pushing their own devices.

Amazon is already blocking Android tablets. Why won't they block future things? Will they support future SmartTVs and devices now that they have their own? Doubtful.

They binned support for my 2011 LG TV. Yes, it really is only 3 years old.

To say sorry, they sent me a Bluray drive that would stream so I can't complain really. It is just a fact that with a renting subscription service, they can end it and change it any time they want without much warning, and you're stuck. I probably need to get out of the mindset that they're going to be loyal with you after you're loyal with them. There isn't any loyalty with a subscription service (I get a month's film viewing when I pay for the month so I get what I pay for).

This appears to be the problems of subscription services, and to some extent cloud services, particularly those from Google and Ubuntu (goodbye One!). Apple seems to be better as their MobileMe system has been going forever.

Thanks for making your point clear.

I don't see any evidence that they are going to abandon other devices. The Kindle Fire didn't stop them from releasing an iPad app for Amazon Video, for example.

In reality the number of platforms they need to target is fairly small. There is the iOS world, there is Android, Roku, and HTML5. The vast majority of TV and blu-ray player apps are the same HTML5 app.

I would be concerned if Fire TV and Kindle Fire became too popular that they might abandon/neglect the other apps, but that's not likely to happen.

What's the prices for films on Apple TV? Can anyone enlighten me? When I last looked on iTunes, they wanted me to pay the equivalent of the price of DVD for a compressed download that I couldn't necessarily keep.

I'm in the UK. Is there some sort of subscription capability for a flat monthly fee? (Easier to budget for you see)

Eh, looks pretty good to me. Our wants are diametrically opposed: Voice search (do care -- Apple TV search is painful), tech specs (non line-of-sight remote -- Apple TV is line-of-sight), games (eh, might be a nice diversion for a few minutes after an episode of Walking Dead), and I don't have an HBO subscription.

I know the Apple TV came with a remote, but I never use it, because I have an iPhone. The RF remote isn't a huge win for people that use their phones to control the TV, which, as time goes on, will eventually be "everybody".

Looks like Roku with a better UI. I'll be getting one.

> I was expecting something like a monthly subscription for all-you-can-watch access to any TV show on Amazon Instant (not just the free Prime episodes).

That would be prohibitively expensive. You're talking about basically every popular show on TV.

And amazon customer service, which while not talked about often is truly top-notch.

For a person already invested in the amazon ecosystem, this doesn't have to be better than roku, it merely has to be about as good.

I own two rokus, but I also have amazon prime and my kid has a kindle fire. I will definitely consider this next time I need to upgrade (about once every 3-6 years judging by history)

I was actually impressed that they included the comparison chart, even though they didn't win every single category. Comparisons were the first question on my mind and they answered it without my having to go off page. Very sneaky of them, now people won't be so inclined to find independent comparisons that might be off-putting.

I suspect the missing checkmark beside HBO GO is more about putting pressure on HBO than on Amazon. It's got to be just about price and term, with Amazon showing strength by announcing without them.

But when both sides agree on price and ink the deal, HBO will get a premium announcement compared to the others. It will work out just fine.