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.
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.
