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

181–190 of 400 posts

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#181

Post by ambler0 »

downandout wrote: post #107
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…

With screen mirroring, Apple TV offers the ability to play any game in the App Store on a TV wirelessly without having to buy a controller. That game library will likely always be larger than this one. Granted, you must have an iPhone or iPad, but I am surprised that Apple does not tout this feature more. I use it daily and it is pretty awesome.

The lag is terrible with mirroring. Apple TV won't be viable for gaming until the game is played on the box itself and there is a low-latency controller.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#182

Post by drawkbox »

Impressive, they beat Apple TV and Google to the app/game punch. This could be big. Disappointed in Apple doing nothing with TV apps/games, all the while having years of lead time.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#183

Post by spinchange »

untog wrote: post #164
moskie wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The remote is shared, though. It sits on the table. If my smartphone is the remote then no-one can use it when I'm not at home. So instead you have to set up every smartphone as a remote. And what about children? Do you want them to use your smartphone? A cheap, disposable remote is no bad thing.

If my smartphone is the remote then no-one can use it when I'm not at home. So instead you have to set up every smartphone as a remote

That's not how it works. Anyone connected to your Wifi, is "set up" to use the Chromecast and can stream from any number of apps like YouTube, Netflix, Google Play Music and Movies, Pandora, and now even Rdio and Vudu.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#184

Post by zemo »

paulyg wrote: post #168
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…

If you look back at the timetable, Google realized the Chromecast was a better direction then Google TV and but all efforts into Chromecast. That's why I'm really disappointed Amazon choose to create yet another platform for companies to develop apps and games for instead of building on one already in place. Games work just fine on my phone and tablet. So does searching for content. I say that as a parent that has be…

it's just an android sdk add-on: https://developer.amazon.com/sdk/asb/overview-gs.html

that's not quite the same as a whole new platform.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#185

Post by parasubvert »

Touche wrote: post #154
drivers99 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

To my knowledge, you cannot stream Amazon Instant Video content to an Android portable device that isn't sold by Amazon.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#186

Post by Touche »

parasubvert wrote: post #170
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.

Um what? These restrictions are everywhere, just a little different across platforms. For example - All iTunes content is available on Mac, Windows & iOS devices, and all downloaded music is playable on all devices that support AAC. Apple doesn't offer a pure streaming service (AppleTV masquerades as one) so you're stuck with iOS, Windows, and Mac for purchased video content. - Google Play content can be streamed to…

You seem to be saying these restrictions are equivalent, but we're talking about video here, and iTunes is only available on Apple devices and Windows desktop (who wants to watch movies on a desktop computer anyways), whereas Amazon Instant is available on dozens of blu-ray players, smart TVs, set-top boxes, video game consoles that they do not control.

Let's be clear here, iTunes is never coming to any non-Apple device unless the company takes a radical departure from what it has been doing the past 10 years.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#187

Post by gagaga »

moskie wrote: post #153
untog wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You do realize that a remote control is always going to be faster than pulling out your phone, unlocking it, and finding the app whose content you want to view, waiting for the app to launch?

I've done countless usability studies and in-home studies where we looked at the behavior of people who have access to a remote control and apps on their phone or tablet that can launch content or control their set-top box. People loved the idea of this, but guess what the majority of users end up doing? Picking up the physical remote control.

And tasks that you may think are easy and intuitive are not always for the average user. We saw many people struggle to play content via AirPlay.

Remember, part of good UI design is embracing 40 years of ingrained behavior.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#188

Post by jcastro »

moskie wrote: post #153
untog wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You would think that but a remote is handy because it's on the couch, and my phone is either in my pocket or charging.

The bummer with this remote (and the roku remote) is that if you have an AV system hooked to the TV you need a separate remote for volume. I wish there was a tiny bit of learning on these sort of remotes.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#189

Post by skrowl »

downandout wrote: post #107
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…

With screen mirroring, Apple TV offers the ability to play any game in the App Store on a TV wirelessly without having to buy a controller. That game library will likely always be larger than this one. Granted, you must have an iPhone or iPad, but I am surprised that Apple does not tout this feature more. I use it daily and it is pretty awesome.

Fire TV screen mirrors from Kindle Fire HDX tablets (smaller, lighter, cheaper than iPad). Not sure about other Android tablets (at least until XDA geeks get ahold of one).

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#190

Post by eddieroger »

Touche wrote: post #112
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…

> I suspect the main buyers will be those who simply have bought into Amazon Instant Video as opposed to iTunes in the past. But that includes anyone with Amazon Prime. > Let's see what Apple's next revision of Apple TV offers. Is Apple's next revision of Apple TV going to let me watch iTunes content from non-Apple devices? You're glossing over this as insignificant when, for lots of us, it's a deal-breaker.

For me, it's not. But that's just me. Besides, what happens when Amazon decides that it wants to focus on it's ecosystem and pulls their app from other devices?
Post reply on HN