亚马逊投下重磅炸弹，客厅争夺战再度升级

    “客厅争夺战”正在升温。日前，亚马逊（Amazon）强势推出了Fire TV机顶盒，可通过电视机播放流媒体视频。

    从价格的角度考察，这场软件性能和参数的竞赛是一场逐底竞争。最终的赢家将是提供最佳——且最多——内容的厂商。在这方面，亚马逊可谓开局大好。

    Fire TV功能繁多，能玩游戏；能播放音乐；支持Netflix、Hulu Plus、WatchESPN、VEVO、Showtime、YouTube、Pandora、iHeartRadio等多种第三方流媒体应用。当然，亚马逊自家的Prime Instant Video也必不可少。而且，亚马逊正与WWE Network（美国职业摔跤联盟电视台）、MLB.TV（美国职棒联盟电视台）、WATCH Disney Channel以及WATCH ABC四家有线电视商商谈合作。

    随着Fire TV的推出，亚马逊正式对已先行抢占市场的苹果（Apple）、谷歌（Google）还有Roku等公司宣战。Roku是惟一一家市场份额较高的独立机顶盒厂商。亚马逊Fire TV售价99美元，和苹果电视（Apple TV）价格相当。（这个价格让人颇为吃惊，因为此前有些人曾预测，为了与谷歌售价35美元的Chromecast电视棒竞争，亚马逊会采取低价策略，甚至可能推出免费的机顶盒产品。Roku设备的售价从49.99美元到99.99美元不等）。

    亚马逊副总裁彼得•劳尔森宣称，Fire TV要强于Chromecast和苹果电视，他兴高采烈地援引了不少关于Chromecast和苹果电视的负面评测。Fire TV拥有精确的语音搜索、简洁实用的遥控器、高度统一的内容搜索方法以及更快的视频传输速度，用户不用再面对“讨厌的”视频加载画面。Fire TV还有许多创新功能，例如可与智能手机同步照片、再例如附带定时和安全功能的儿童模式。但谷歌和苹果可以轻而易举地推出能与它媲美的补丁和功能。

    没有哪家公司能完全解决的重要问题在于综合提供内容。上述公司推出的机顶盒都未能“一统江湖”，因为他们都无法聚合所有内容。当然，亚马逊强调了自己平台的开放性。亚马逊的新闻稿宣称，它的平台是一个“巨大且开放的娱乐生态系统”。

    但BTIG Research公司媒体行业分析师里奇•格林菲尔德指出：“除非人人都开放了，否则就不是真正的开放（平台）。”同理，除非某个生态系统中植被茂盛，鸟兽成群（这里当然说的是内容），否则就不能叫做生态系统。

    一个真正开放的平台需要双向交流，然而亚马逊、苹果和谷歌都没有兴趣彼此分享内容。因此，亚马逊Fire TV包括来自许多主流服务的流媒体内容，但不包括iTunes。另一个重量级的缺席者是HBO Go，尽管其竞争对手Showtime的内容包括在Fire TV中。亚马逊的一名代表向我保证，更多内容合作正在推进中。

    然而，开放性在媒体高管中已是老生常谈：人们希望随时随地观看自己想看的内容。各技术平台已经慢慢说服内容所有者，也就是电影制片厂、游戏工作室、唱片公司和电视频道等，允许技术平台随时随地的向消费者分销他们想要的内容。这是一场艰苦的持久战，中间穿插着大量独家代理权和失败的交易。甚至有一大批新创企业，致力于帮助观众了解各服务平台上有哪些电影。

    令局面更加复杂的是，为吸引消费者，Netflix、亚马逊和Hulu等已开始自创节目。这样一来，即使某个平台内容并不全面，用户仍然会想订阅服务，以观看其新鲜热门的独家内容。

    这些对电视流媒体服务提供商Roku公司来说不是好事。这家公司获得了1.27亿美元的风险投资，预计将在未来几个月上市。Roku公司的部分资金来自Netflix；Roku公司原本会是Netflix的一部分，但Netflix后来决定不涉足硬件。现在，Roku的所有竞争对手平台上都可观看Netflix的内容，而Roku公司几乎没有任何独家内容。

    现在就判断这场客厅争夺战的赢家为时尚早。但Roku要对抗苹果、谷歌和亚马逊，目前看来好比螳臂挡车。（财富中文网）

    译者：项航

    The battle to control your living room is heating up, and today Amazon (AMZN) stepped up its efforts with Amazon Fire TV, a box for streaming video through a television set.

    The battle over software performance and specs is a race to the bottom in terms of price. The ultimate winner will be the one offering the best -- and most -- content. In that respect, Amazon is off to a strong start.

    Fire TV brings gaming, TV, music, and movie programming from Netflix (NFLX), Hulu Plus, WatchESPN, VEVO, Showtime, YouTube, Pandora, iHeartRadio, and Amazon's own Prime Instant Video. Partnerships with WWE Network, MLB.TV, WATCH Disney Channel, and WATCH ABC are in the works.

    With its new Fire TV service, Amazon is now competing with similar offerings from Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG), as well as Roku, the only independent player with strong market penetration. The Amazon device sells for $99, the same as Apple TV. (This came as a surprise -- some had predicted the devices would be cheaper in order to compete with Google's $35 Chromecast device, or even offered for free. Roku prices range from $49.99 to $99.99.)

    Amazon VP Peter Larson presented the device as a better alternative to Chromecast and Apple TV, while cheerily quoting negative reviews of each. Fire TV has accurate voice search, a simple remote, a unified way to find content, and fast streaming speeds, with "no more dreaded spinner" to signal a buffering video stream. Fire TV also has innovative features, such as photo synching with a smartphone, and a kid-friendly tab with a timer and a safety feature. But these fixes and features could be quickly matched by Google and Apple.

    The big problem no one company can completely solve is a comprehensive content offering. None of these companies have created a box to rule them all, because none of them can truly get all of the content in one place. Sure, Amazon emphasized how open its platform is -- a "huge, open ecosystem of entertainment," the press release boasts.

    But "open isn't really open if everyone isn't open," said Rich Greenfield, a media industry analyst with BTIG Research. And an ecosystem isn't an ecosystem until it's full of flora and fauna -- that is, content.

    A truly open platform requires a two-sided exchange, and Amazon, Apple, and Google aren't interested in sharing content with each other. In this instance, Fire TV includes streaming from many popular services, but does not include iTunes. HBO Go is also notably absent, despite the presence of rival Showtime. An Amazon rep assured me that more content partnerships were in the works.

    And yet, openness has become a tired trope among media executives: People want to consume whatever content they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. Slowly, tech platforms have convinced the owners of that content -- the movie studios, gaming studios, record labels, and TV channels -- to let them distribute it to consumers, whenever and wherever they might want it. It's been a slow, uphill battle, marked with lots of exclusive rights and broken deals. There is even a whole class of startups that exist just to tell you which service streams which movies.

    Complicating things, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and others have begun to create their own programming as a draw for consumers. That way, even if a platform isn't comprehensive, users still want to subscribe for access to a hot new show that can't be found elsewhere.

    All of this is bad news for Roku, another TV streaming service that's backed by $127 million in venture funding and was expected to go public in the coming months. Some of Roku's funding came from Netflix itself; Roku was meant to be a part of Netflix until the company decided to avoid hardware. Now Netflix's service is accessible on all of Roku's competitors, and Roku has little in the way of exclusive content.

    It's too early to call a winner in the battle for your living room. But Roku, pitted against Apple, Google, and Amazon, now looks like a David among Goliaths.