Big Deal: Amazon Fire TV

Amazon Fire TV is a big deal. Why? 

Because it's Amazon, it's new, and it's going up against products from Apple and Google. It's also a big deal for Amazon, because Amazon wants to own the world's content by owning the devices used to deliver and consume the world's content. Fire TV fills a big hole in Amazon's quest for world-content dominance. 

Do I want to buy an Amazon Fire TV? No. I already have an Apple TV, which satisfies my video-streaming and content-casting needs.


If I were new to video streaming would I buy Fire TV? No. It's unable to stream content from my other devices to my TV (content-casting).

Nonetheless, Fire TV has three distinct advantages. It's faster, which doesn't affect streaming performance, but does make the interface more responsive; it includes voice command, so you can speak into the remote to select movies, and there's a game controller available as an additional purchase.

Amazon's Hyperbole Machine

Despite the hyperbolic praise, these are not breakthrough features, and I get the sense that Amazon knows this. To me, there's something sinister behind the huge marketing campaign for Fire TV.

Have you seen the "Gary Busey Meets Amazon Fire TV" ad? It features a mentally-unstable-seeming actor playing himself and talking to inanimate objects. He talks at a Roku remote, nothing, but his Fire TV remote hears him when he says his own name and brings up movies he's in. He smiles an iconic Amazon smile (sort of).

It's a nicely produced ad, but as much a dig at Roku as it is praise for Fire TV. Oddly, Amazon.com makes money selling Roku devices. Isn't there something falsely ingenuous about this? 

What's Up Amazon's Sleeve?

Another example of the games Amazon is playing—let's have a look at Amazon's Apple TV product page. (They make money on these, too.) Looks like any product page, but there's something here I'm having trouble finding on other Amazon listings. There's a banner before the Apple TV information begins: in Amazon-smile orange, is the label, "Similar Items to Consider," which include two Roku models and Google Chromecast.

There isn't a similar banner across the top of the Roku or Chromecast product pages showing Apple TV as a similar item to consider. Nothing like this on the Fire TV page. Is Amazon saying, "We'd rather you didn't buy this product?"

But wait, there's more! Amazon, ever helpful to its customers, has created a "Streaming Media Players Store." More marketing sleight of hand—"Stream your favorite content anywhere, anytime." This statement is the real tip off, because Amazon is really a content store. Buy a Kindle or a Fire TV and you'll be paying for content from Amazon for the rest of your life (or at least for the life of your Amazon-branded device).

George Eastman, Mr. Kodak, made the remarkable discovery that if you give away cameras, you'll be selling film, forever. Ditto for Gillette and razors (the holder, not the blade). Same trick for Polaroid. 

God of Consumerism

Jeff Bezos sees each of us as a consumer, and whatever we want to consume, he's going to sell it to us. He wants all of us to be Amazon consumers, all the time. Fire TV is a trojan horse for content, a way for Bezos to get Amazon into our living rooms and keep everyone else, out!

This first iteration of Fire TV isn't going to win the battle of the living room. For one thing, its customer satisfaction rating on amazon.com is only 3.7, compared to 3.9 for Chromecast, 4.3 for Roku 3, and 4.4 for Apple TV. 

But if this one isn't quite good enough, you can bet there'll be another, better one. And if that doesn't make it, Bezos can cut prices so low that he's practically giving them away. He's not after huge profits, just total market domination.

Apple—Singin' & Dancin' in the Rain

I read the following article in Quartz: Why Apple should make its own TV shows, just like Netflix. It's a wrongheaded, poorly argued piece that made me angry. Here's the nutshell version:

• Statement: Netflix, Sony, Yahoo, Amazon, and Microsoft are all acquiring and/or producing exclusive content.
• Problem: Apple "confronts slowing growth in the sales of its devices."
• Conclusion: "Maybe it’s something Apple should consider as well."

So says Macquarie Equities, which, according to Quartz, "became the 63rd research house to cover the world’s biggest company this week." And they show an impressive lack of expertise on the subject.

Let's restate the problem by changing one word:

Apple notes slowing growth in the sales of its devices.

It's true, Apple's sales curve is no longer growing logarithmically. The numbers for Apple's most recent quarter, reported January 27th are as follows:

• 51 million iPhones vs 47.8 million the previous year, up 6.7% 
• 26 million iPads vs 22.9 million the previous year, up 13.5%

Both of these figures are all-time quarterly records for Apple. Since the article speaks of devices as a single category, I'll lump Apple's iDevices together, yielding:

• 77 million iDevices vs 70.7 million previously, up 9.1%

IF 9% growth is a problem, would 10% growth to 77.7 million units still be perceived as a problem? At what point is Apple's growth sufficient? Would 15% growth, 81.2 million units, avoid the need for problem confrontation?

This value judgement notwithstanding, the rate of growth has undoubtedly slowed, which is what one expects in any product lifecycle. At the same time, "Apple…, is being criticized for not innovating enough." To which we can only wonder, how much innovation is enough?

For the sake of argument, let's accept the assertions that slowing iDevice sales are a concern and that Apple's ability to innovate is in doubt. We must also assume that the likely introduction of an iPhone 6 in June will be a disappointment, requiring Apple to look beyond its devices for additional sources of revenue.

I know, let's make content! Macquarie says:

We believe that Apple would benefit from the deployment of some of its considerable cash balance toward securing exclusive media content. In our 15 years of covering the interactive entertainment space, we have frequently observed the value that can be generated through high-quality, desirable content that is exclusive to a platform (the original Xbox is a classic example of this, with early-stage growth driven in large part by the popularity of Halo). We think just one or two key exclusives could be very helpful in establishing new products and extending iOS’s reach.

Translation: sometimes high-quality movies, TV, and video games make money.

This is not a profound insight. Furthermore, what has this got to do with iDevice sales? The article says:

There are already reports that, as sales on iTunes dwindle, Apple is trying to convince record companies to provide it with music that only it may sell.

Except that Apple reported a 20% increase in sales on iTunes for the last quarter. So maybe there's something else?

Of course, there’s no suggestion the company is even contemplating this, but if it ever did, Apple’s ruthless obsession with quality means it would probably be worth watching.

There it is. We'd really like to see something produced with such ruthless attention to quality that only Apple could make it. If only they'd admit that they're getting clobbered in the marketplace by the likes of Google and Samsung, we could end this charade and get down to some serious entertainment!