An Amazon Apple TV competitor

Written by

However, the location of the announcement and its proximity to Hollywood has some speculating that there may be more. One of the possibilities being raised is more content for Amazon’s Prime Instant streaming service. Of course, there’s another option: What if Amazon announced a streaming video device to compete head-to-head with Apple TV, Roku and Google TV?


  • http://twitter.com/forty2j Jim McPherson

    Does Amazon really need a device? They stream through TiVo.

  • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

    I’d absolutely welcome this because you know they’ll drive down the prices to affect the overall market; therefore, we win. :)

  • http://twitter.com/aarond Aaron Dunlap

    Amazon Instant and VOD are built into practically every internet-compatible device. It’s built into most internet-connected TVs, Blu-ray players, game consoles, and even Roku. What gap would they be hoping to fill with such a device?

    Unless the thing costs $20 or less, it would probably do nothing except confuse people if all it did was stream the same content as everything else.

    But what new could they add that other streamers don’t have? Access to your Amazon MP3 library or Cloud Music player? That could be interesting, but that seems better suited for a phone/tablet than a TV device.

    • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

      The gap is simply them controlling the entire experience. Right now, maybe, you use it out of the myriad other providers on your chosen device (sans Apple TV who has just a few destinations and not Amazon).

      In terms of what new could they offer, nothing. That’s not the point. The Fire wasn’t that much different from any other tablet. It was cheap (price-wise, not build quality) and was a gateway to all things Amazon.

      • http://twitter.com/aarond Aaron Dunlap

        So the market gap they’d be filling is people who don’t have internet-connected TVs, game consoles, blu-ray players, or boxes like Roku or the Vizio sidekick thing, and the value/benefit is exactly the same as if you already happened to own any of those devices? It would have to be $20.

        The Fire at least has the brand value behind Kindle to take advantage of, and they tout it as a reading device + movies + internet.

        • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

          Wow…pause for a second and consider Apple TV is against those very same odds. It offers nothing to those same people with the devices you mentioned yet it excels.

          Again…they don’t control the whole experience. They control 1 app on N devices. The Fire solved this on tablets for them and it did really well. This device would give them an entry into the living room.

          Why are you so passionately against this? A media provider may provide a device for TVs and you think it is ridiculous (my words, not yours) because they have an app that does the same thing. #weird

          • http://twitter.com/aarond Aaron Dunlap

            I’m not against it, I just can’t see the rationale behind it.

            AppleTV exists because it’s the only way to get iTunes and AirPlay on your TV. There are already a plethora of ways to get Amazon video content on your TV.

            Plus, if Amazon did try to sell a device just to do that they’d be competing with the hardware makers who they’ve already established mutually beneficial agreements with. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

            It would be Amazon doing to Roku/Sony/Vizio/etc what Microsoft did to Asus/HP/Samsung when they decided to start selling their own hardware (Slates). It’d be a bold move to turn a symbiotic business relationship into an antagonistic one, for not much gain.

            I’m not even saying it won’t happen. I just think that unless there’s an unseen variable here (an Amazon device having more features than other Amazon-compatible devices), it’s a strange business move.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            There is plenty of value in owning the experience. That would be the goal and rationale.

          • kibbles

            i had an internet-enable TV and bluray, but still got an Apple TV. why? because it offered much more than those other devices:

            superior Netflix UI superior UI in general iTunes store/rentals streaming from my own iTunes library streaming from my iOS devices hackability

            …those things offered value that my TV or BR did not.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            Kibbles, no issue on your, obvious, love for the Apple TV offerings. My point, which you helped make, is your Apple TV provided things your other devices already did but better.

            That’s why people would buy an Amazon TV device, which they didn’t announce today.

  • http://totalipad.com/ Christopher

    If it is cheap enough I will buy it. Why not? Amazon has a lot of great content to offer.