????“客廳爭奪戰”正在升溫。日前，亞馬遜（Amazon）強勢推出了Fire TV機頂盒，可通過電視機播放流媒體視頻。

????從價格的角度考察，這場軟件性能和參數的競賽是一場逐底競爭。最終的贏家將是提供最佳——且最多——內容的廠商。在這方面，亞馬遜可謂開局大好。

????Fire TV功能繁多，能玩游戲；能播放音樂；支持Netflix、Hulu Plus、WatchESPN、VEVO、Showtime、YouTube、Pandora、iHeartRadio等多種第三方流媒體應用。當然，亞馬遜自家的Prime Instant Video也必不可少。而且，亞馬遜正與WWE Network（美國職業摔跤聯盟電視臺）、MLB.TV（美國職棒聯盟電視臺）、WATCH Disney Channel以及WATCH ABC四家有線電視商商談合作。

????隨著Fire TV的推出，亞馬遜正式對已先行搶占市場的蘋果（Apple）、谷歌（Google）還有Roku等公司宣戰。Roku是惟一一家市場份額較高的獨立機頂盒廠商。亞馬遜Fire TV售價99美元，和蘋果電視（Apple TV）價格相當。（這個價格讓人頗為吃驚，因為此前有些人曾預測，為了與谷歌售價35美元的Chromecast電視棒競爭，亞馬遜會采取低價策略，甚至可能推出免費的機頂盒產品。Roku設備的售價從49.99美元到99.99美元不等）。

????亞馬遜副總裁彼得?勞爾森宣稱，Fire TV要強于Chromecast和蘋果電視，他興高采烈地援引了不少關于Chromecast和蘋果電視的負面評測。Fire TV擁有精確的語音搜索、簡潔實用的遙控器、高度統一的內容搜索方法以及更快的視頻傳輸速度，用戶不用再面對“討厭的”視頻加載畫面。Fire TV還有許多創新功能，例如可與智能手機同步照片、再例如附帶定時和安全功能的兒童模式。但谷歌和蘋果可以輕而易舉地推出能與它媲美的補丁和功能。

????沒有哪家公司能完全解決的重要問題在于綜合提供內容。上述公司推出的機頂盒都未能“一統江湖”，因為他們都無法聚合所有內容。當然，亞馬遜強調了自己平臺的開放性。亞馬遜的新聞稿宣稱，它的平臺是一個“巨大且開放的娛樂生態系統”。

????但BTIG Research公司媒體行業分析師里奇?格林菲爾德指出：“除非人人都開放了，否則就不是真正的開放（平臺）。”同理，除非某個生態系統中植被茂盛，鳥獸成群（這里當然說的是內容），否則就不能叫做生態系統。

????一個真正開放的平臺需要雙向交流，然而亞馬遜、蘋果和谷歌都沒有興趣彼此分享內容。因此，亞馬遜Fire TV包括來自許多主流服務的流媒體內容，但不包括iTunes。另一個重量級的缺席者是HBO Go，盡管其競爭對手Showtime的內容包括在Fire TV中。亞馬遜的一名代表向我保證，更多內容合作正在推進中。

????然而，開放性在媒體高管中已是老生常談：人們希望隨時隨地觀看自己想看的內容。各技術平臺已經慢慢說服內容所有者，也就是電影制片廠、游戲工作室、唱片公司和電視頻道等，允許技術平臺隨時隨地的向消費者分銷他們想要的內容。這是一場艱苦的持久戰，中間穿插著大量獨家代理權和失敗的交易。甚至有一大批新創企業，致力于幫助觀眾了解各服務平臺上有哪些電影。

????令局面更加復雜的是，為吸引消費者，Netflix、亞馬遜和Hulu等已開始自創節目。這樣一來，即使某個平臺內容并不全面，用戶仍然會想訂閱服務，以觀看其新鮮熱門的獨家內容。

????這些對電視流媒體服務提供商Roku公司來說不是好事。這家公司獲得了1.27億美元的風險投資，預計將在未來幾個月上市。Roku公司的部分資金來自Netflix；Roku公司原本會是Netflix的一部分，但Netflix后來決定不涉足硬件。現在，Roku的所有競爭對手平臺上都可觀看Netflix的內容，而Roku公司幾乎沒有任何獨家內容。

????現在就判斷這場客廳爭奪戰的贏家為時尚早。但Roku要對抗蘋果、谷歌和亞馬遜，目前看來好比螳臂擋車。（財富中文網）

????譯者：項航

????

????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.