And I just bought the new Roku Streaming stick...I'll be curious to see how they stack up. Amazon offers a comparison of FireTV to the Roku3, but not the Roku Streaming Stick. And the Stick is just $49.
Slightly more weirdly, Google TV does have an Amazon Instant Video app. But non-TV Android does not. Well, Kindle. But non-TV Google-standard Android does not.
My guess is that Apple insists that they are the only source for pay per view/purchased films/TV programs on the Apple TV and the Amazon won't just bring their subscription Prime service without the PPV side.
This guess is made without knowledge of the specific situation between Apple/Amazon but having dealt with some similar service providers (when working for an electronics company).
I think you mean "any device that isn't Amazon branded", since Android devices that aren't in the Kindle Fire family also can't watch Amazon streaming stuff.
Interesting. I went to look it up because I thought you were wrong. You can get the Amazon Appstore on non-Amazon android devices, but it seems you are correct about AIV.
Wonder if its a DRM issue, or other hardware security issue for Android devices.
I wondered if it was security but the banking apps don't have a problem with being installed...
I suspect it's to attempt to railroad people into buying the Fire range of Android-based devices. Not for me thanks! Why do I need another Android device?
Mind you, if the Lovefilm "By Post" application is anything to go by, Amazon can't find any decent Android developers in the world to employ because that piece of software is dreadful. Truly truly dreadful. Buggy, crashy, laggy, all three. They decided to not use native lists but use some weird HTML system; look at the licenses on that app. It's rubbish.
So, either railroading or they can't find decent developers to write a video streaming app. After all, BBC iPlayer uses Air I think. That was never a painfree experience on Android.
Blatantly false. I have a Sony Blu Ray player that has Amazon Instant Video on it and I use it along with Hulu and Netflix.
If this thing played Blu Rays, I could dump my DVD player, my XBOX 360 (my wife and I mostly only play casual games or Wii, this seems like a good fit), and my reliance on other gaming consoles.
Amazon wants all roads to lead back to Amazon. This strategy is clear. They have their Instant Video streaming service, as well as their Appstore on pretty much any device or platform they can get on. They want ubiquity, so they can attract streaming customers from other services and THEN, and only THEN, lock them in with original content or a better customer experience.
They haven't done "vendor lock in" the same way we think of when we think of Microsoft or Apple. In fact, they've made it pretty clear they want fully compatibility with Android, which almost assumes its helping Google in the process.
There are hundreds of devices out there capable of playing Amazon Video, they can't because Amazon either doesn't allow it (Android devices that aren't their branding) or charges a fee/device (ie. $1/Roku).
They want Vendor lock in, not in the sense that your data isn't portable, but that you rely on only their services. They do this by slowly pushing you onto more of their specific hardware and bundling more services essentially exclusively with their products
This is a valid point, and I suppose you could look at it as lock-in. Amazon of course would see customers simply choosing the better deal. Its what they do, after all.
Looking at it the other way, Amazon could build 20 teams to maintain the streaming software on all the devices, something that would be difficult to do at scale, profitably, while providing the solid customer experience Amazon has come to be known for. The detractors there would say "who cares if they don't lock you in, they cant, it sucks its slow and it crashes all the time." In my mind, Amazon is making the right choice, especially in the wake of Apple and Google.
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.
That's still much less locked in than Apple's approach (IIRC another manufacturer asked Apple to name their price, and was told they just weren't interested)
This looks really cool but I'll have to wait and see how it compares to the other devices that accomplish the same objectives. I would have liked to see it include gigabit ethernet instead of just 10/100. Interesting that they have a game controller available.
I've been looking for something to replace my Popcorn Hour, but I haven't been able to find anything in this price range that will play MKV files and allow playing movies over USB. Maybe this will be the answer?
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 some of those cheap Android PCs on an HDMI stick by now but they've been holding out probably to use as a carrot to get people locked into their app store.
I hate having to side-load apps but if I can on the FireTV and get local network playback working I very well might buy one.
Edit: Looks like it will have Plex and Miracast support.
I don't think this device and a Steam Machine (just a PC with a badge on it) will be in the same realm of competition. This would most likely compete with the Ouya, where the Steam Machine would compete with the 5th gen consoles.
Well this is running android and Steam Machine is running full fledged linux(debian?). Comparing a set top box to a personal computer isn't really fair.
FireTV is built on Android and has a real controller for gaming. It won't compete with Steam Machines for high-end games but there's certainly enough hardware to pull off some great games and apps.
I'll be curious how good the screen mirroring is. Does anyone know if it's using a direct connection (like miracast) or an indirect over your normal wifi rounter (like apple tv mirroring)?
You can also wirelessly mirror your tablet display to your Fire TV with Kindle Fire, as well as other Miracast-enabled phones or tablets starting later this year. Fire TV supports standards like DIAL, so app developers can enable multi-screen experiences based on open technologies.
It's not actually clear whether Amazon Instant Video will stream at 1080p for any/all HD material, or if the device just supports 1080p for other services like Netflix. Does anyone know?
Aside from it being available via Amazon Instant, note that HBO Go is listed as a partner, announced as "coming soon". It is an act of remarkable honesty that Amazon put HBO Go with no checkbox, as most vendors would have put a checkbox with a superscript indicating that it was coming soon.
I was an early Ouya backer and was really really disappointed I sold it (like 1 month after I received it. This Amazon Fire TV may be what the Ouya was supposed to be, I mean I know it's more seen as a Roku/Apple TV competitor but for me if it runs Android then I can use it as a decent Emulation machine (RetroArch etc... )
They're studying the mistakes of others, and paying attention to user reviews of competing products, so they can solve real pain points:
> During its presentation, Amazon said that it has been paying close attention to the complaints of customers who have been using the other companies' devices through Amazon—namely that search is difficult, performance is laggy, and the ecosystems are closed—in order to build its own streaming device." [1]
For instance, what they're doing with the child-oriented mode is what I wish Apple had done with the iPad and iPhone, a long time ago.
That's pretty funny, as a long-time Roku user. The search couldn't be easier, whether you're inside a specific app, or using the cross platform search feature. Performance is snappier than these services on a desktop browser, and the ecosystem is as open as anyone could want.
As a long-time Roku user I curse ours almost every day. Performance is slower than every other device we own (except the Chromecast). They constantly "reset" themselves while trying to navigate through the Netflix and Amazon listings. Videos will just sporadically stop playing or run into constant buffering issues. There are no parental controls. They didn't support DLNA until a few months ago.
How old is your box? I'm still happy with mine, despite it being a couple of years old. I was thinking of getting a new one, but if the new ones are of poorer quality...
We own a Roku 2 XD and a Roku LT, both about 2.5 years old. Both worked great for ~ 6 months and then... something changed and they haven't worked well since.
I used to have one of the originals, it was great.
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.
I actually find it much easier to search or browse for content using my tablet or phone, then choose to throw it up on the TV via Chromecast, as opposed to searching for content using a remote like on a Roku or my Xbox.
It just seems easier for me to do this in my hand than ten feet away, especially when I have to try to enter text into a TV interface.
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 we have (and Amazon Instant isn't on Android)... it's just clunky. Fine, but clunky. Having it all centralised on one box works better, as far as I'm concerned.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Your Chromecast takes 30 seconds to load content? In our house someone pretty much always has either their phone, tablet, or laptop nearby and with the HDMI-CEC, you don't even have to find the TV remote to switch inputs, you just queue up want you to want to watch and it plays. And then people can take turns with their respective devices (if you're watching YouTube videos or playing music, etc.)
We also have a Roku and used that before the Chromecast, but the Chromecast is more popular with everyone (kids) in the house for the aforementioned reason of communal use. It's like the Nexus Q was supposed to be, but for video.
So I got my Fire TV. It has some CEC support because it shows up as a source to my TV and the TV and receiver correctly switch to it. My TV remote, however, does not control the Fire TV. Given that the HDMI hardware supports CEC, I think this was their choice and one that they hopefully will change with a software update.
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.
Amazon FreeTime (coming next month, according to this page) is the most interesting piece for me - customized child safety settings for each child, with monthly subscriptions at $2.99 for children's TV shows.
It seems like Amazon recognized the popularity of streaming services for parents of young kids and is setting this up just for them...
Ugh it's $2.99 a month if you have Amazon Prime. Otherwise it's $4.99 month. That kinda changes the deal since $4.99 a month gets you closer in cost to other services.
That is incredible. Makes me consider buying a Kindle Fire for my daughter (age 5) instead of letting her use a legacy iPad when my wife upgrades her iPad 2.
But not in Canada. Not surprising given that Amazon would have to negotiate redistribution rights with an almost completely different set of distributors, but annoying none the less.
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-watch access to any TV show on Amazon Instant (not just the free Prime episodes). Kinda bummed because I really like Amazon as a content provider, but I'll be sticking with Roku for now.
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.
Agreed, I own a roku and a chromecast, there is literally nothing here that makes me regret either, and nothing that would make me choose the Fire TV over AppleTV if I did want to be tied closer to one ecosystem.
I guess I'm bummed that it means it's unlikely the prime video interface will get any better on Roku, but Prime Instant video quality is already so much worse for me then any other source it's not that big a loss.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
You are claiming that Amazon is on a wide variety of platforms and that's a reason to choose their ecosystem over Apple which encourages the purchase of an Apple device.
I don't agree. Google and Amazon are trying to get into Apple's device ecosystem game as it's way more profitable and offers more control than inserting apps on devices, which seems a failed strategy. Microsoft has already taken this approach with Surface and Xbox. And they're actively putting blocks up to their biggest competitors, which all about locking-in consumers to their ecosystem.
The the market leader in the "generic video streaming app everywhere" space (Netflix) is crowding out all competitors in this space unless they have exclusive content (HBO Go, HuluPlus, etc.) Apple maintains its market in the face of Netflix because of its wider content selection and the wide availability and affordability ($99) of its devices.
Amazon will be able to compete well here (this FireTV looks like a good offering) but we haven't seen what this year's AppleTV has in store, so it's not a slam dunk.
> You are claiming that Amazon is on a wide variety of platforms and that's a reason to choose their ecosystem over Apple which encourages the purchase of an Apple device.
Correct, can't wait for the counter argument.
> I don't agree.
Great, here it comes...
And then the rest of the post is about how the lock-in strategy is more profitable. Not sure if that's true or not, but doesn't have anything to do with my argument that being available on many devices is an advantage for the consumer.
This thread is about the introduction of the Fire TV, a strategy where Amazon is introducing their own device because the approach you laud, of supporting every device under the sun has FAILED to garner significant market share.
I spoke about profitability and the ecosystem because this shit matters and will affect your assumptions. Case in point: Microsoft and PlaysForSure, which they eventually undermined by pushing their own devices.
Amazon is already blocking Android tablets. Why won't they block future things? Will they support future SmartTVs and devices now that they have their own? Doubtful.
I don't see any evidence that they are going to abandon other devices. The Kindle Fire didn't stop them from releasing an iPad app for Amazon Video, for example.
In reality the number of platforms they need to target is fairly small. There is the iOS world, there is Android, Roku, and HTML5. The vast majority of TV and blu-ray player apps are the same HTML5 app.
I would be concerned if Fire TV and Kindle Fire became too popular that they might abandon/neglect the other apps, but that's not likely to happen.
They binned support for my 2011 LG TV. Yes, it really is only 3 years old.
To say sorry, they sent me a Bluray drive that would stream so I can't complain really. It is just a fact that with a renting subscription service, they can end it and change it any time they want without much warning, and you're stuck. I probably need to get out of the mindset that they're going to be loyal with you after you're loyal with them. There isn't any loyalty with a subscription service (I get a month's film viewing when I pay for the month so I get what I pay for).
This appears to be the problems of subscription services, and to some extent cloud services, particularly those from Google and Ubuntu (goodbye One!). Apple seems to be better as their MobileMe system has been going forever.
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 any device with an app or modern browser (Linux requires Flash hacks), but can only be downloaded to Android devices. You can't download a movie to play offline on your PC, Mac or iOS device.
- Amazon Instant Video is streamable to any device (Linux requires flash hacks) EXCEPT 3rd party Androids -- Amazon requires you to buy THEIR Android Kindle devices. Downloadable/offline content is only available on Windows.
- Netflix is streamable to any device with an app (Linux requires silverlight hacks). There is no downloadable content.
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.
Apple is in the business of selling devices and having the most content available to encourage adoption (and doing a pretty good job of it). I don't give a toss that iTunes isn't available on a bunch of Smart TVs or BluRay players, I'm rarely going to buy another BluRay player or Smart TV, nor are most people, they're happy with the one they've currently got.
Amazon is in the content distribution business and playing catchup on having the devices to support it (because, for some reason, having their app on a smart TV and set top box doesn't seem to be enough).
This is a pretty good offering, but it's clear that, HuluPlus and Netflix aside, the big players [Google|Amazon|Apple] wants to have their own device ecosystem, and are fighting to differentiate theirs. For $99, these streaming devices are a disposable income purchase that gives you benefits in a particular ecosystem. Amazon has no particular advantage in this race yet, they're still coming from behind.
No, they do have the advantage of being available on a large number of platforms. This means I can buy a movie from Amazon and feel confident that in 2 years if I decide to buy a different TV, a different set-top box, a different video game console, a different tablet, I probably (but of course not guaranteed) can still watch that movie on it.
What's the prices for films on Apple TV? Can anyone enlighten me? When I last looked on iTunes, they wanted me to pay the equivalent of the price of DVD for a compressed download that I couldn't necessarily keep.
I'm in the UK. Is there some sort of subscription capability for a flat monthly fee? (Easier to budget for you see)
Looks like Roku with a better UI. I'll be getting one.
> I was expecting something like a monthly subscription for all-you-can-watch access to any TV show on Amazon Instant (not just the free Prime episodes).
That would be prohibitively expensive. You're talking about basically every popular show on TV.
I was actually impressed that they included the comparison chart, even though they didn't win every single category. Comparisons were the first question on my mind and they answered it without my having to go off page. Very sneaky of them, now people won't be so inclined to find independent comparisons that might be off-putting.
And amazon customer service, which while not talked about often is truly top-notch.
For a person already invested in the amazon ecosystem, this doesn't have to be better than roku, it merely has to be about as good.
I own two rokus, but I also have amazon prime and my kid has a kindle fire. I will definitely consider this next time I need to upgrade (about once every 3-6 years judging by history)
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.
The competitive advantage seems to be in the Voice Search and in the gaming. If the gaming takes off, it'll be hard for anyone to compete. Everyone so far is talking about the Roku and Apple TV as competition, which they are, but what about the Xbox and PS4? Those offer gaming and other streaming services like Netflix too. And it seems as though Amazon is trying to be at the center of all of them.
The problem is that gaming is hard. Look at the ouya disaster. If you want to build a successful gaming product, you need a big developer relations team and a bunch of good first party titles to kick things off. If amazon was really trying to build a gaming console here, they needed to announce with some compelling games. as it is, nobody is going to spend the extra 40 for the controller without any games and nobody is going to write games for a platform with no users.
Ouya only supported selected games because games designed for a touchscreen interface are hard to play on a TV and with a gamepad. Amazon can support all games if they want to, but they're going to run into the same problem where most of them suck.
I said in another comment , but you're thinking candy crush I'm thinking emulators and titles like GTA, Modern Combat, Minecraft, and many other rpg and fps titles.
Most of the games on the play store have controller support. With a ps or xbox controller and apps for mapping if necessary.
I'm curious myself if this will be capable of running XBMC or another app for streaming content over a LAN. FireTV runs an Android variant, so it seems like it's plausible, but it depends on if you need to root it or if it will be an installable app.
399 comments
[ 51.2 ms ] story [ 6637 ms ] threadIt probably has more to do with Apple than Amazon.
I think Amazon is trying to lock customers into thinking of Amazon products first whenever they search for anything Amazon sells.
This guess is made without knowledge of the specific situation between Apple/Amazon but having dealt with some similar service providers (when working for an electronics company).
Amazon is attempting vendor lockin.
Wonder if its a DRM issue, or other hardware security issue for Android devices.
I suspect it's to attempt to railroad people into buying the Fire range of Android-based devices. Not for me thanks! Why do I need another Android device?
Mind you, if the Lovefilm "By Post" application is anything to go by, Amazon can't find any decent Android developers in the world to employ because that piece of software is dreadful. Truly truly dreadful. Buggy, crashy, laggy, all three. They decided to not use native lists but use some weird HTML system; look at the licenses on that app. It's rubbish.
So, either railroading or they can't find decent developers to write a video streaming app. After all, BBC iPlayer uses Air I think. That was never a painfree experience on Android.
If this thing played Blu Rays, I could dump my DVD player, my XBOX 360 (my wife and I mostly only play casual games or Wii, this seems like a good fit), and my reliance on other gaming consoles.
Amazon wants all roads to lead back to Amazon. This strategy is clear. They have their Instant Video streaming service, as well as their Appstore on pretty much any device or platform they can get on. They want ubiquity, so they can attract streaming customers from other services and THEN, and only THEN, lock them in with original content or a better customer experience.
They haven't done "vendor lock in" the same way we think of when we think of Microsoft or Apple. In fact, they've made it pretty clear they want fully compatibility with Android, which almost assumes its helping Google in the process.
They want Vendor lock in, not in the sense that your data isn't portable, but that you rely on only their services. They do this by slowly pushing you onto more of their specific hardware and bundling more services essentially exclusively with their products
Looking at it the other way, Amazon could build 20 teams to maintain the streaming software on all the devices, something that would be difficult to do at scale, profitably, while providing the solid customer experience Amazon has come to be known for. The detractors there would say "who cares if they don't lock you in, they cant, it sucks its slow and it crashes all the time." In my mind, Amazon is making the right choice, especially in the wake of Apple and Google.
As the customer, I couldn't care less. There is no "lock in" in this regard.
I've been looking for something to replace my Popcorn Hour, but I haven't been able to find anything in this price range that will play MKV files and allow playing movies over USB. Maybe this will be the answer?
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.
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 some of those cheap Android PCs on an HDMI stick by now but they've been holding out probably to use as a carrot to get people locked into their app store.
I hate having to side-load apps but if I can on the FireTV and get local network playback working I very well might buy one.
Edit: Looks like it will have Plex and Miracast support.
As for the gaming capabilities, it'll be interesting to see if they can compete with Steam Machine.
Of course not. Different market - Steam Machine will be an expensive flagship hardcore gamer device, while this is firmly casual.
The better question is whether gaming on this device can compete with a VitaStation or an Ouya... or even a Wii-U.
You can also wirelessly mirror your tablet display to your Fire TV with Kindle Fire, as well as other Miracast-enabled phones or tablets starting later this year. Fire TV supports standards like DIAL, so app developers can enable multi-screen experiences based on open technologies.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-ne...
Side note: if I were Jony Ive, I'd sue for design infringement - that remote is a blatant ripoff.
[1] http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/
[2] http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-ne...
Out of interest, it's not really instant. The application could be swifter to respond.
[1]http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/adam/845b7c4fc5f114cefc63df4...
The YouTube logo is not in the big image describing "What's on Amazon FireTV?" [0], apparently it is one of the "plus many more".
[0] https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/d...
I will buy one for sure
> During its presentation, Amazon said that it has been paying close attention to the complaints of customers who have been using the other companies' devices through Amazon—namely that search is difficult, performance is laggy, and the ecosystems are closed—in order to build its own streaming device." [1]
For instance, what they're doing with the child-oriented mode is what I wish Apple had done with the iPad and iPhone, a long time ago.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/04/amazon-reveals-video-...
How old is your box? I'm still happy with mine, despite it being a couple of years old. I was thinking of getting a new one, but if the new ones are of poorer quality...
I used to have one of the originals, it was great.
I'm waiting a bit to see if the next RokuBox or AmazonBox ends up supporting iTunes videos (which is a nice to have, but not a must have.)
I am getting ready to dump a good $500 on a brand new setup just to replace my Roku because it is so bloody painful to use.
It just seems easier for me to do this in my hand than ten feet away, especially when I have to try to enter text into a TV interface.
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 we have (and Amazon Instant isn't on Android)... it's just clunky. Fine, but clunky. Having it all centralised on one box works better, as far as I'm concerned.
What exactly were you expecting to read in here?
But there are other times when I wish there were another option available as well.
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.
A cheap, disposable remote is no bad thing.
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.
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.
Amazon Instant doesn't have an app that works with Chromecast that I'm aware of.
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.
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.
We also have a Roku and used that before the Chromecast, but the Chromecast is more popular with everyone (kids) in the house for the aforementioned reason of communal use. It's like the Nexus Q was supposed to be, but for video.
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.
It seems like Amazon recognized the popularity of streaming services for parents of young kids and is setting this up just for them...
The only Amazon device I have is an old Kindle, but FreeTime would be used a lot if I had a Fire.
The UI looks neat and I'm really impressed with Amazon's search results on my Roku, so this will probably improve on that.
If it wasn't so 'big' and 'expensive', I'd buy one.
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-watch access to any TV show on Amazon Instant (not just the free Prime episodes). Kinda bummed because I really like Amazon as a content provider, but I'll be sticking with Roku for now.
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.
I guess I'm bummed that it means it's unlikely the prime video interface will get any better on Roku, but Prime Instant video quality is already so much worse for me then any other source it's not that big a loss.
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.
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/
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.
I don't agree. Google and Amazon are trying to get into Apple's device ecosystem game as it's way more profitable and offers more control than inserting apps on devices, which seems a failed strategy. Microsoft has already taken this approach with Surface and Xbox. And they're actively putting blocks up to their biggest competitors, which all about locking-in consumers to their ecosystem.
The the market leader in the "generic video streaming app everywhere" space (Netflix) is crowding out all competitors in this space unless they have exclusive content (HBO Go, HuluPlus, etc.) Apple maintains its market in the face of Netflix because of its wider content selection and the wide availability and affordability ($99) of its devices.
Amazon will be able to compete well here (this FireTV looks like a good offering) but we haven't seen what this year's AppleTV has in store, so it's not a slam dunk.
Correct, can't wait for the counter argument.
> I don't agree.
Great, here it comes...
And then the rest of the post is about how the lock-in strategy is more profitable. Not sure if that's true or not, but doesn't have anything to do with my argument that being available on many devices is an advantage for the consumer.
I spoke about profitability and the ecosystem because this shit matters and will affect your assumptions. Case in point: Microsoft and PlaysForSure, which they eventually undermined by pushing their own devices.
Amazon is already blocking Android tablets. Why won't they block future things? Will they support future SmartTVs and devices now that they have their own? Doubtful.
I don't see any evidence that they are going to abandon other devices. The Kindle Fire didn't stop them from releasing an iPad app for Amazon Video, for example.
In reality the number of platforms they need to target is fairly small. There is the iOS world, there is Android, Roku, and HTML5. The vast majority of TV and blu-ray player apps are the same HTML5 app.
I would be concerned if Fire TV and Kindle Fire became too popular that they might abandon/neglect the other apps, but that's not likely to happen.
To say sorry, they sent me a Bluray drive that would stream so I can't complain really. It is just a fact that with a renting subscription service, they can end it and change it any time they want without much warning, and you're stuck. I probably need to get out of the mindset that they're going to be loyal with you after you're loyal with them. There isn't any loyalty with a subscription service (I get a month's film viewing when I pay for the month so I get what I pay for).
This appears to be the problems of subscription services, and to some extent cloud services, particularly those from Google and Ubuntu (goodbye One!). Apple seems to be better as their MobileMe system has been going forever.
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 any device with an app or modern browser (Linux requires Flash hacks), but can only be downloaded to Android devices. You can't download a movie to play offline on your PC, Mac or iOS device.
- Amazon Instant Video is streamable to any device (Linux requires flash hacks) EXCEPT 3rd party Androids -- Amazon requires you to buy THEIR Android Kindle devices. Downloadable/offline content is only available on Windows.
- Netflix is streamable to any device with an app (Linux requires silverlight hacks). There is no downloadable content.
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.
Amazon is in the content distribution business and playing catchup on having the devices to support it (because, for some reason, having their app on a smart TV and set top box doesn't seem to be enough).
This is a pretty good offering, but it's clear that, HuluPlus and Netflix aside, the big players [Google|Amazon|Apple] wants to have their own device ecosystem, and are fighting to differentiate theirs. For $99, these streaming devices are a disposable income purchase that gives you benefits in a particular ecosystem. Amazon has no particular advantage in this race yet, they're still coming from behind.
That's like, a real advantage.
I'm in the UK. Is there some sort of subscription capability for a flat monthly fee? (Easier to budget for you see)
> I was expecting something like a monthly subscription for all-you-can-watch access to any TV show on Amazon Instant (not just the free Prime episodes).
That would be prohibitively expensive. You're talking about basically every popular show on TV.
For a person already invested in the amazon ecosystem, this doesn't have to be better than roku, it merely has to be about as good.
I own two rokus, but I also have amazon prime and my kid has a kindle fire. I will definitely consider this next time I need to upgrade (about once every 3-6 years judging by history)
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.
Most of the games on the play store have controller support. With a ps or xbox controller and apps for mapping if necessary.
If you're going to spend $99, you're probably going to wait for Apple or Google. If you want to spend less, you'll just get a Chromecast.
I'm surprised it's taken them this long to release it.