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

291–300 of 400 posts

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#291

Post by laxatives »

eclipxe wrote: post #230
laxatives wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think people confuse the ChromeCast tab/screen mirroring (which is slow and laggy) and ChromeCast DIAL/casting from apps like Netflix which actually just sends a URL to the Chromecast to stream

Okay, that's great. But I don't use Netflix at all. I'd like to watch something from VLC, but apparently the plug in that enabled that was killed. Google's so simple its stupid makes it impossible for me to find out how the thing actually works and why I can't try to configure it to work any better.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#293

Post by bashcoder »

swanson wrote: post #32

The side-by-side comparison with Roku/AppleTV actually looks pretty bad for Amazon Fire TV... Same price, the only differences are that the Fire TV has voice search (don't care), a bunch of technical specs that the layperson doesn't care about, and a bunch of games (don't care). It's missing the checkbox for HBO GO (deal breaker for me personally). I was expecting something like a monthly subscription for all-you-can…

I suspect the missing checkmark beside HBO GO is more about putting pressure on HBO than on Amazon. It's got to be just about price and term, with Amazon showing strength by announcing without them.

But when both sides agree on price and ink the deal, HBO will get a premium announcement compared to the others. It will work out just fine.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#295

Post by alttab »

aroch wrote: post #210
fixedd wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never been charged a fee for using Amazon Video on our Rokus. What are you referring to?

They aren't charging you (well, directly), they're charging the device manufacturer -- the $1/Roku amount is not the actual per-device royalty.

Good thing as a customer I don't care. I can't imagine Roku would sell their device for $98 without Amazon, nor would a $69 device without Amazon Instant Video seem attractive.

As the customer, I couldn't care less. There is no "lock in" in this regard.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#296

Post by alttab »

yincrash wrote: post #283
Osiris wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SDK is a big deal. According to the page, existing Android code should just work. Some tweaking may be necessary to properly support the controller(s) and fitting to a 1080p screen. I'm looking forward to XBMC or other local streaming software coming to the platform. If that happens, this will literally be the ultimate set top box for me.

Yup. It's basically just a Jelly Bean 4.2 (API 17) fork. Should be able to run anything JB can.

How do you know Amazon is forking Jelly Bean?

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#297

Post by alttab »

zemo wrote: post #184
paulyg wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It looks like it could take minimal effort to map controls to the controller or remote. This gives existing android games and developers a quick in-road to the living room.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#298

Post by Pxtl »

clarky07 wrote: post #281
Pxtl wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

comparing Wii games to phone games is a bit of a stretch. They might be more casual than xbox and ps4, but they are far bigger and better than than phone games. Mario, zelda, candy crush, which one of these is not like the others.

Wii didn't just sell Mario games though, it also sold a plethora of carnival games and the like. I mean, the bundled title was Wii Sports, and they made huge splashes with Wii Fit and Wii Music.

And meanwhile, there are phone games that are comparable to the big headline titles of the Wii etc - Bard's Tale, Oil Rush, GTA, etc.

If Amazon pushes the gamepad hard for the Fire TV, we could definitely see it in that space.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#299

Post by lsaferite »

mkempe wrote: post #100
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.

This is the exact reason I just ordered one. I was on the fence about getting the HDX due to cost, but with this we can attach it to an old TV, get the subscription, and have a hopefully well thought out limit system built into the console.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#300

Post by alttab »

clarky07 wrote: post #281
Pxtl wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

comparing Wii games to phone games is a bit of a stretch. They might be more casual than xbox and ps4, but they are far bigger and better than than phone games. Mario, zelda, candy crush, which one of these is not like the others.

Yeah, but I'd buy a lot more "Nintendo-like" casual-ish games if they were $5 a pop instead of $60. Add the fact I can sit comfortably on the couch with my wife and play, and I'm in.

I just hope there are enough 2 player games worthwhile.

Post reply on HN