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

341–350 of 400 posts

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#341

Post by personZ »

tptacek wrote: post #337
ANH wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, looks pretty good to me. Our wants are diametrically opposed: Voice search (do care -- Apple TV search is painful), tech specs (non line-of-sight remote -- Apple TV is line-of-sight), games (eh, might be a nice diversion for a few minutes after an episode of Walking Dead), and I don't have an HBO subscription.

I know the Apple TV came with a remote, but I never use it, because I have an iPhone. The RF remote isn't a huge win for people that use their phones to control the TV, which, as time goes on, will eventually be "everybody".

That is really making lemonade out of lemons. Especially given that the Apple TV remote app is absolutely horrendous. Now you can push media from your phone, but it's pretty terrible to have to have the apps, and then download to your phone, then push out to your Apple TV.

Many, many people don't want to deal with apps on their phone to control the TV, especially around social or family settings. I use the terrible AppleTV remove, and not only is it infra-red, it is one of the most directional infra-red devices going. It has always seemed like a very un-Apple thing that they made it like that, or that the control app is so terrible.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#342

Post by jonathansizz »

sanderjd wrote: post #277
eclipxe wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, ChromeCast is a great product and a major marketing failure. Hardly anybody (even techies!!) understands that it is about competing with Apple TV (and now Amazon Fire TV) in the streaming market, not sending arbitrary stuff from the browser to your TV. Honestly, they should have launched without any of the confusing and crappy tab-casting functionality at all and probably called it something different than Chro…

I don't understand why Google are so bad at advertising and marketing. Probably the only reason Chrome itself took off was that they put a big ad for it on the Google homepage. Maybe they should now switch that ad and advertise something else?

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#343

Post by jonathansizz »

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…

Not if the remote control is e.g. a Roku remote control. By the time I've done all the things you list in your first paragraph on my phone or tablet with my Chromecast, you'll have typed about three or four letters into the onscreen keyboard that Roku uses.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#344

Post by jadavis »

officemonkey wrote: post #278
eddieroger wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Then they will fail. People want one box that does it all. Not a GoogleBox, AppleBox, and an AmazonBox. That's madness. They want one box, preferrable for less than 100 bucks, that will play Hulu, Netflix, Prime, Vudu, Youtube, GooglePlay, iTunes, Plex, etc. Right now, the _only_ way to do this with one box is to build your own NUC HTPC for a couple hundred dollars. Amazon offers Amazon devices because they think you…

They have that box already, and it's called Roku.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#345

Post by nkozyra »

Crito wrote: post #261
zequel wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd, I've streamed Netflix to Chromecast and my laptop video to Chromecast just fine. It may be your wifi connection.

I believe there is something more nuanced going on with Chromecast "casting" performance. Netflix is fast obviously because you are just telling the chromecast to stream netflix itself, not "casting" it to chromecast. Same goes with youtube. However "casting" performance for me is even worse than the described .3fps on my Chromebook Pixel that isn't running ChromeOS. And my LAN is fast enough to use mplayer over ssh/…

I find the critique confusing, too, because I streamed a 1080p movie to my Chromecast by dragging it into Chrome and then casting from Chrome itself.

No problems. It played fine.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#346

Post by chetanahuja »

untog wrote: post #151
chetanahuja wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

heh.. humorlessness is a treatable condition. Chill pills are often effective against it ;)

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#347

Post by travem »

matt_heimer wrote: post #101
oskee80 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western Digital's WDTV Live can play any file you throw at it. http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=330 It supports many online services as well, but unfortunately no Prime Instant Video. I have yet to see a box that offers everything I want: Local and network media playback, Netflix, Prime. However, I wish the WDTV had better specs and UI - it can be a little clunky.

Roku is close once you use Plex. You get local network playback + Netflix, Prime, Crackle, Hulu, Pandora which is what I want. The video quality, performance, bugs, and gaming support of the Roku suck though. I keep swapping my Roku for a Chromecast and back again. I'd like a box that supports Prime, local network playback, and casual gaming/emulation. If Amazon would have released a Prime Video app I'd switch to som…

I used to use Plex for network playback with my earlier roku's but with my Roku 3 I can play videos, mp3s, photos etc. natively directly from my NAS.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#348

Post by shakethemonkey »

officemonkey wrote: post #278
eddieroger wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Then they will fail. People want one box that does it all. Not a GoogleBox, AppleBox, and an AmazonBox. That's madness. They want one box, preferrable for less than 100 bucks, that will play Hulu, Netflix, Prime, Vudu, Youtube, GooglePlay, iTunes, Plex, etc. Right now, the _only_ way to do this with one box is to build your own NUC HTPC for a couple hundred dollars. Amazon offers Amazon devices because they think you…

Being as they don't support Prime Video on any Android devices (with very limited exceptions), it's very easy to imagine them "stopping" support of it.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#349

Post by ctdonath »

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? Goofy games are fun on a 4-7" screen because expectations are low. On my TV I expect a crazy immersive experience, not "Candy Crush".

Infinity Blade, Real Racing, etc. show you CAN get "crazy immersive experience" (or near enough thereto that 95% of users won't notice a difference) on a "phone". Given an iPad Mini (retail replacement cost $250 so you know it costs less than that to make) take away the HD+ display, touchscreen, cellular radio, battery, speakers, mic, and most of the flash storage, and you've got a sub-$99 dual-core 64-bit box that ALL your iOS games - from Candy Crush to Infinity Blade III - can run on right now ... and anything you get for that big screen can, in turn, run on your phone when Mom says you have to get in the car and you want to take the in-progress game with you.

Re: Amazon Fire TV

#350

Post by ctdonath »

jdminhbg wrote: post #312
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Voice Search God yes. The level of stupidity of all the set-top boxes I've used is staggering. I sit there and use a tiny keyboard to type in B-R-E-A and get tons of hits for things nowhere close to Breaking Bad until I practically type out the whole title. I'd love to be able to just say the title and be done with it. Heaven forbid I'm ever allowed to say "Season pass, bob's burgers, new episodes only," and walk aw…

> The level of stupidity of all the set-top boxes I've used is staggering. I sit there and use a tiny keyboard to type in B-R-E-A and get tons of hits for things nowhere close to Breaking Bad until I practically type out the whole title. I'd settle for a non-braindead mobile or desktop client, I don't even need voice. I have a Sony Blu-Ray/Internet box whose remote app on iOS is literally the same up-down-left-right…

And that Sony remote app has ads ... on top of being a royal pain to pair with the controlled device (haven't bothered pairing the new BD player after the 4yo stripped the tray-ejection gears pushing it in on the previous model).
Post reply on HN