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

191–200 of 400 posts

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#191

Post by Touche »

parasubvert wrote: post #185
Touche wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's your point? I didn't say Amazon was available on every platform in existence, just that it's available on a large variety of platforms and is expanding. I wish it was on Android too, that would be ideal, but we're just comparing availability here. And Amazon's is pretty good.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#192

Post by laxatives »

ambler0 wrote: post #181
downandout wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Similarly, I've never understood the purpose of ChromeCast. The lag makes it completely unusable for video (I'm getting ~1 frame / 3 seconds), making it a glorified radio with cellphone/laptop remotes.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#193

Post by untog »

spinchange wrote: post #183
untog wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know, I have a Chromecast.

They still need to set up those apps on their phone. They need to log in to Netflix, Amazon Instant, etc. etc. even if they never watch content on their phone.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#194

Post by moskie »

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.

Something along the lines of a shared iPod Touch that sites on the table solves this problem. Perhaps it's not cheap and disposable, but I would view that as the price of a better solution to a remote control (that can also be more than a remote control).

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#195

Post by paulyg »

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.

But I already have a smartphone in my pocket. Its not like I'm gonna run out and buy one just so I can use with Chromecast. I don't find the delay to play any worse than my "smart" blu-ray player. And the navigating is so much quicker. Netflix saves my position in show or series so resume watching Sesame Street or House of Cards is a click away.

As to your other point, I see lack of shared remote as a good thing. I get to control what they kids watch. And when they are old enough to stay at home they will most likely have their own device.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#196

Post by matt_heimer »

keehun wrote: post #88
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…

I disagree that this will become a winner. No one wants to play crappy games on their TV, and Amazon can't become a winner with the small population of people who do.

Wrong audience, this is everything my Roku is but better. Better UI, better performance. Plus apps and maybe some games with a real controller. It is everything an OUYA is but better. And miracast support too.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#197

Post by Pxtl »

eclipxe wrote: post #158
Pxtl wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/...

... oh man, I missed that detail.

Seriously, Google needs to wake up and notice that other people are doing a better job with Android than they are.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#198

Post by smackfu »

Touche wrote: post #171
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

* Requires $500+ companion device.

Technically you only need an iPod Touch for $229. (Or maybe you need the better $299 one.)

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#199

Post by [deleted] »

gagaga wrote: post #187
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.

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. Peop…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#200

Post by smackfu »

dankoss wrote: post #176
bratsche wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AppleTV let me watch Amazon Prime video it would be perfect. I use Amazon Prime and Hulu+ for TV, and right now the only device I have that lets me watch both is my PS3, and its UI sucks (plus it's constantly requiring me to download updates).

Amazon added this about six months ago, but it requires another iOS device: http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/17/amazons-instant-video-app-a...

Interesting that Amazon now has a pretty good motivation to remove this feature.
Post reply on HN