Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Fire TV

amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 400 posts

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#91

Post by barlescabbage »

Not enough differentiation, give us some other channels, live news, or broadcast TV and we'll buy it in a heartbeat. Otherwise your features are surprisingly irrelevant.

This is mostly bad news for Roku, before this, the paradigm was, Apple TV for iTunes, Roku for Amazon. During the holidays there were so many roku photos on amazon, I thought they owned them. I think Amazon will slowly strangle Roku. Amazon probably tried to buy Roku, they declined, so they said, "fine we'll make our on device and crush you" Typical Amazon.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#92

Post by dusing »

mmcclure wrote: post #77

I know this is a nitpick...I really do, but for some reason things like this in marketing copy really annoy me: "Remote with no line of sight required" - not checked for Chromecast. While kind of true since Chromecast doesn't have a dedicated remote, but the devices used to control it absolutely don't require line of site.

I agree, you could say the same thing for voice search since you can use voice search on your iphone/android to queue up videos to airplay/cast.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#93

Post by personZ »

WoodenChair wrote: post #45

I'm really not that impressed. This is just Apple TV for the Amazon eco-system with gaming lopped on. The majority of people don't care about the specs of their set-top box since that really doesn't affect the performance of streaming an HD video in this day and age. So the two differentiating features are: - Voice Search - Gaming Are those enough of a value proposition? Probably not to make converts. I suspect the m…

Smart TV saturation remains small, so I don't see it being a proposition where they need to convert people: If you put the Amazon Fire beside an Apple TV, for many people the Amazon device may very well represent a better choice.

As to the specs of the device, while it's certainly true that specs alone mean little (especially vague, close to meaningless specs like "quad core"), the hardware put a ceiling on what the device is capable of doing. And in this case right off the bat it can do voice search, which as an Apple TV user I would actually be a convert for: It is an act of pure brutality to search on the Apple TV device.

Even just that the remote does not use infra-red is a hugely compelling feature to me.

EDIT: given that I mentioned the specs being vague, I should correct that on Amazon's dev site they list specifics, and it has a powerful CPU/GPU combo. Actually the same SoC as the Nexus 7 (2013), running at a higher frequency.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#96

Post by declan »

This is a reasonable answer to Apple TV.

If you have videos on or subscriptions to iTunes, Netflix, and Amazon Prime (as I do), there's no box I'm aware of that will let you watch all three. So you end up using your Apple TV and then Roku or another box -- the Playstation 3 in my living room takes a long time to boot, and a long time to load the Netflix app, draws quite a bit of power, and is overkill for merely watching streaming video. The Amazon Fire TV, assuming it's fast enough, will add another device to my living room cabinet but make it a lot faster to switch to watching Amazon Prime videos.

Ideally Apple would allow Amazon to add Prime Streaming to the Apple TV box, or Roku would get the iTunes library. Then I could have an all-in-one box. But we all know that's not going to happen...

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#97

Post by caio1982 »

WoodenChair wrote: post #45

I'm really not that impressed. This is just Apple TV for the Amazon eco-system with gaming lopped on. The majority of people don't care about the specs of their set-top box since that really doesn't affect the performance of streaming an HD video in this day and age. So the two differentiating features are: - Voice Search - Gaming Are those enough of a value proposition? Probably not to make converts. I suspect the m…

There's a third feature that is not so obvious: competition. The more the better, for us customers.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#98

Post by alttab »

aroch wrote: post #40
alttab wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blatantly false. I have a Sony Blu Ray player that has Amazon Instant Video on it and I use it along with Hulu and Netflix. If this thing played Blu Rays, I could dump my DVD player, my XBOX 360 (my wife and I mostly only play casual games or Wii, this seems like a good fit), and my reliance on other gaming consoles. Amazon wants all roads to lead back to Amazon. This strategy is clear. They have their Instant Video…

There are hundreds of devices out there capable of playing Amazon Video, they can't because Amazon either doesn't allow it (Android devices that aren't their branding) or charges a fee/device (ie. $1/Roku). They want Vendor lock in, not in the sense that your data isn't portable, but that you rely on only their services. They do this by slowly pushing you onto more of their specific hardware and bundling more service…

This is a valid point, and I suppose you could look at it as lock-in. Amazon of course would see customers simply choosing the better deal. Its what they do, after all.

Looking at it the other way, Amazon could build 20 teams to maintain the streaming software on all the devices, something that would be difficult to do at scale, profitably, while providing the solid customer experience Amazon has come to be known for. The detractors there would say "who cares if they don't lock you in, they cant, it sucks its slow and it crashes all the time." In my mind, Amazon is making the right choice, especially in the wake of Apple and Google.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#99

Post by untog »

paulyg wrote: post #87
mkempe wrote: post #28

They're studying the mistakes of others, and paying attention to user reviews of competing products, so they can solve real pain points: > During its presentation, Amazon said that it has been paying close attention to the complaints of customers who have been using the other companies' devices through Amazon—namely that search is difficult, performance is laggy, and the ecosystems are closed—in order to build its ow…

Yet Chromecast solves those issues too. Searching for content is done on website or on existing app, so its only difficult or slow as website or app is.

Yes and no. Chromecast requires you having another device to use with it. Grabbing my phone, opening the Netflix app, choosing to Chromecast, searching for a show, hitting play then waiting ~30 seconds for the Chromecast to actually play is not a good user experience. I use my Roku almost exclusively now.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#100

Post by mkempe »

WoodenChair wrote: post #45

I'm really not that impressed. This is just Apple TV for the Amazon eco-system with gaming lopped on. The majority of people don't care about the specs of their set-top box since that really doesn't affect the performance of streaming an HD video in this day and age. So the two differentiating features are: - Voice Search - Gaming Are those enough of a value proposition? Probably not to make converts. I suspect the m…

If you have kids, you get some love in your parent role, too: limits to what kids see, and caps by content types and times of day -- no more negotiating! And they're launching an all-you-can-eat content subscription designed for kids under 9, including e-books.
Post reply on HN