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

151–160 of 400 posts

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#151

Post by untog »

chetanahuja wrote: post #145
untog wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found Chromecast OK when I was using it by myself, but sharing it is a problem. It's difficult to have two or more people crowded around a smartphone screen deciding what to watch. The big screen interface works much, much better. Even that aside, my girlfriend doesn't want to use my phone to navigate, so she has to install Netflix on her phone too. And set up the user account there. Multiply that by every service…

This thread is perfect. I'm compiling a first-world-problems encyclopedia and needed material.

It's a thread discussing an on-demand video streaming box that costs a hundred dollars and is designed to solve a first world problem.

What exactly were you expecting to read in here?

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#152

Post by brewdad »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #129
declan wrote: post #96

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 watc…

Apple TV lets you watch all three (iTunes, Netflix, and Amazon Prime). Airplay is a thing.

Amazon Prime is not on Apple TV. That's why I have a Roku sitting next to my Apple TV.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#153

Post by moskie »

untog wrote: post #99
paulyg wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Chromecast requires you having another device to use with it.

So does the Fire TV. The remote control is still a device you have to have in hand. And, personally, I'd take using my phone or tablet instead anyday.

It's gotten to the point that I think any device that uses its own proprietary remote control with physical buttons is a failure in UI design.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#154

Post by Touche »

drivers99 wrote: post #138
Touche wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and nothing that would make me choose the Fire TV over AppleTV if I did want to be tied closer to one ecosystem. Well, Amazon is at least available on a variety of platforms whereas iTunes is only on Apple devices -- and will always only be available on Apple devices.

"iTunes is only on Apple devices" No; iTunes runs on Windows. Also, you can use Apple TV with non-iTunes bought stuff[1] although it does support iTunes sourced media of course, and fewer channels than Roku et.al. I usually just use it for Netflix, streaming radio stations and podcasts, and YouTube. [1] http://www.apple.com/appletv/whats-on/

You're right, iTunes is on Windows as a legacy feature for the days when plugging your iPod into the computer was something you needed to do.

But let's not pretend like this means that it will becoming to Roku, Android, or the dozens of other places that you're likely to want to watch media content. Places where Amazon already is, and is expanding to more.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#155

Post by spinchange »

dusing wrote: post #92
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.

Agree with both of you and also wanted to add, who cares about how much memory the Chromecast has vs. the other devices?

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#156

Post by Pxtl »

bitcrusher wrote: post #111
programminggeek wrote: post #84

This is pretty much what Google TV should have been all along, but Google cares too much about web search and not enough about what people actually want to do on a TV - watch shows and play games. The gaming aspect of this will make it a winner. OUYA's big problem is that it didn't do streaming and was a bit clunky. Amazon has a big game library and just needs controller support. As a parent, a $100 streaming box and…

It's interesting how different perspectives work: > The gaming aspect of this will make it a winner. OUYA's big problem is that it didn't do streaming and was a bit clunky. Amazon has a big game library and just needs controller support. I think the gaming aspects are the worst part and are entirely useless. Who wants to casual game with an underpowered box on a giant TV screen? Goofy games are fun on a 4-7" screen b…

> Who wants to casual game with an underpowered box on a giant TV screen?

Over 100 million Nintendo Wii consoles were sold. Now, we can bicker about how many of those buyers were into casual games or not, but regardless:

The market exists.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#158

Post by eclipxe »

Pxtl wrote: post #150
programminggeek wrote: post #84

This is pretty much what Google TV should have been all along, but Google cares too much about web search and not enough about what people actually want to do on a TV - watch shows and play games. The gaming aspect of this will make it a winner. OUYA's big problem is that it didn't do streaming and was a bit clunky. Amazon has a big game library and just needs controller support. As a parent, a $100 streaming box and…

To me the big questions is whether Amazon will release a first-party gaming peripheral for this device. If they make that kind of commitment to gaming, they'll have my attention. Even if it's a re-branded MadCatz PS3 controller, it would be an important move. There are tons of dongles and sticks with gaming added as an afterthought. I'm interested in seeing somebody truly tackle the space Ouya promised to deliver - t…

Like this: http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-53-000894-Fire-Game-Controller/...

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#160

Post by asabjorn »

stevenp wrote: post #85

For me, AirPlay is the killer Apple TV feature. Any time a new app comes out for iOS that supports streaming video, I know I'm going to be able to play it on my television. The local content provider apps on the device don't really matter that much to me. I can even stream Amazon Prime video to my Apple TV, so I'm having a hard time seeing why I would want this instead of waiting for the next generation Apple TV.

I just bought the G-Box MX2 and it can do almost everything you request; play Netflix, local media, pandora, etc. However, Prime is not available on it since that is Amazon exclusive.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CH643A8/ref=oh_details_o...

Post reply on HN