Companies want to sell you X on the expectation that you've bought their Y. Given that they've already been extremely successful doing this, X is only available on their Y.
Because if they do they might just create another extremely profitable market place.
Remember when all phones expected you to use their own proprietary OS with their own proprietary apps and developers had to make apps for every brand and model separately?
That's vendor lockin taken to such an extreme that people can't even be bother to make apps anymore.
Plus these apps are quickly going to become obsolete or outdated base what developer can be bothered to keep up with all that crap.
Same logic applies just this time it's not phones it's smart TV's.
Except that Apple is still making money hand over fist with a proprietary OS with their own proprietary apps, happily built by people who aren't Apple employees for 70% of their value.
Where does the profit in the new marketplace come from?
Apple was the first to implement the concept properly before android caught up so they had a head start.
The combination of excellent implementation of a touchscreen in the phone (it was done multiple times before but every other implementation sucked) and the combination of that with a proper app store (by today's standards) gave them the push necessary.
Notice it wasn't any of the regular players at the time that took it in the right direction but a no name in the phone industry. Everybody else was too busy fighting each other instead of innovating.
The profit is where it gets a bit odd since most likely the only profit the manufacturer of the TV gets is the price of the TV and maybe some bonuses from the companies whose app get installed by default on the TV.
No different then a laptop now.
The TV may become popular because of its great flexibility app wise but the bulk of the profits will be earned by software companies distributing the apps through adverts or by charging for the app.
Because there's the example of the iPod. It wasn't the music player to have until Apple employees wore down Steve Jobs so they could let it connect with Windows.
Except that Apple still owned the ecosystem. Allowing you to connect iTunes on Windows is just like having Kindle on everything - a means to spread your ecosystem and platform. In fact, this is even BETTER for them, because you still had to buy an iPod!
The more you can treat the underlying OS as "dumb pipes", the more valuable/easily spreadable your ecosystem is.
1) People purchase products from you because they are happy that they can use those products anywhere.
2) People purchase products from you because they are happy they work on the device/service/ecosystem they've invested in, and they don't have lose their sunk cost.
I feel that 1 is a great lead in for new customers - if they have options. I know that 2 definitely wins in the long run - people want to avoid the pain of their sunk cost. That's why lock-in works.
The core of the issue is that people are asking companies who are wildly successful with locking people in to open up their ecosystem on some nebulous promise of future earnings based in popular goodwill.
You want to be able to consume X on any Y.
Companies want to sell you X on the expectation that you've bought their Y. Given that they've already been extremely successful doing this, X is only available on their Y.
Why should they change?