No, thats not what they're trying to say. Amazon is trying to send 3 message here:
1. The best e-reader on the market is the Kindle (very long battery life, highly supported, screen that does not beam light in your eyes, can be read in sunlight without glare issues)
2. If you desire multimedia functionality from such a device, there is the Kindle Fire and it costs significantly less money than an iPad 2.
3. Whether you desire a dedicated reading device or a multimedia tablet, the Kindle line are relatively highly affordable alternatives, so much so can have a Kindle to use as a book reader and a Kindle Fire (or two), potentially allowing you to share the devices among a family and still pay less money that you would for an iPad 3, which, as someone said earlier, puts into perspective how much money you're really spending.
They didn't say you need three different devices to do what the iPad does. That is completely missing the point. They addressed two key functions of these devices (reading and watching videos), both of which the Kindle Fire can do and in the case of reading, the Kindle arguably does best.
Amazon showed off 3 Kindles to emphasize relative affordability and value.