Amazon’s announcement today of their media tablet the Kindle Fire was long anticipated. I won’t add to the countless virtual column inches discussing whether it can be an iPad Killer (though I do agree with my former colleague Michael Gartenberg that it is competing more with the iPod Touch than it is the iPad). Instead I think it is worth comparing and contrasting Apple’s and Amazon’s strategic reasons for being in the tablet game.
As I stated in a previous post, Amazon and Apple are 2 of Digital Music’s Triple A (Android making up the third). Both have in their respective ways shaped online music more than any other company (Apple with iTunes, Amazon with online CD sales). Both willplay a major role in digital music’s, at the very least, mid-term future. But they are in digital music, and digital content more broadly, for mirror opposite reasons (see figure).
Put simply, Apple is in the business of selling content to help sell devices whereas Amazon is in the business of selling devices to help sell content. There is a poetic symmetry the identical yet polar opposite strategies of the two companies.
The differences have direct implications that are also mirror opposites:
- Apple can happily ‘just about break even’ on music downloads because of the way it helps sales of their high margin i-devices
- Amazon can happily price the Kindle Fire so aggressively that it is priced more like an MP3 player (and expect to lose money for the near term at least) because of the volume of sales of content it expects / hopes it will drive
Perhaps most importantly music, video, games, books and all other forms of content are crucial to the success of both. 20th century media business models may be tumbling around our ears but the fact that the future of the tablet market depends so heavily upon media products will be among the foundations for future growth.
spot on!!! Thank you.
[...] a free cloud locker and music player. Beyond that, what does all this mean for music? As Mark Mulligan pointed out, yesterday showcased the huge difference between Amazon and Apple’s content [...]
[...] This is really, really interesting. Particularly when you take a look at the diagram in this article on why the iPad and Kindle Fire are Mirror Opposites. [...]
Great comparison, another great post! Thanks
[...] Even if those projections don’t come to pass, the Kindle Fire represents the opening of a whole new sector of the digital media frontier. (And it is worth noting that the digital frontier is playing the same role in 21st Century America that the Western frontier played in 18th and 19th Century America.) Apple created a viable tablet computer by leveraging its app ecosystem and premium customer base. Amazon is following up with a device that gives access to its digital media reservoir at a low cost. These two strategies complement each other more than they compete. This was a point first made last week by Mark Mulligan: [...]
[...] Kindle Fire brings into focus the difference. One analyst described the Kindle Fire and iPad as “mirror opposites.”Amazon will sell the Kindle for the low price of $199 (losing $50 on each) to make money on [...]
[...] As I explained in a previous post, Apple is in the business of selling hardware, not music. The ROI of music service innovation for Apple is not measured in digital music ARPU, but instead in sales of i-devices. Dominant market share is a nice-to-have symptom of success, not the measure of it. So Apple innovates music experiences only as much as it needs to, namely as much as is required to help sell its core innovations. Apple’s recent mini-flurry of music service innovation happened only because its music innovation rate had fallen so far below the market average that the Apple i-device music experience was beginning to look sub-par. i.e. there was a risk that i-device sales might suffer without music service innovation. [...]
[...] year of the ecosystems. With the launch of Facebook’s content dashboard, Android Music, the Amazon Fire (a name not designed to win over eco-warriors), Apple’s iTunes Match and Spotify’s developer [...]