I wonder how much Google cares about this stuff. It feels like they are really just interested in controlling the platform (Chrome, Android etc.) than making profit in these areas.
Seems to come very much from Microsoft's playbook (except in a much more tolerable form). All these free technologies protect their core platform where they make the profit (Search etc). In much the same way that Internet Explorer was designed to protect Windows.
I'm not sure I understand the value proposition over using the Chromecast. What's the main difference? It looks like the specs are better, it supports Amazon's streaming service and does not support HBO Go, and it has the potential for games. To me, none of those are convincing enough to choose this over the Chromecast that I already have, even at the discounted price. Am I missing something?
For Prime members I think it makes sense. I have a Chromecast, and use it regularly - mainly youtube and MLS games. I don't think I've ever bought a movie from the Play Store and casted it.
I would like to cast 'The Wire' and with the new Fire Stick, I can do that.
If you already have and use Prime, and want to be able to watch Prime (and non-Prime, rented/purchased media) on your TV, it's a relatively cheap way to do so (especially at the discounted $19). Plus it offers a bunch of other services into the bundle (Netflix, Hulu etc.). If you already have and use a Chromecast, not much use really except for Amazon content, which doesn't work with Chromecast (presently, at least; no idea if they plan to make it work or not, they may wish to restrict their services to their own hardware). If you currently have neither, Fire Stick might be a bit cheaper (with the Prime deal; non-Prime users can apparently take out a free trial and get the reduced price too), has a remote instead of relying on another device (phone/tablet/PC) like Chromecast does, supports different services (most notably Amazon's own service for Fire, HBO Go for Chromecast), has an actual interface and on-device apps, rather than again relying on external devices for these. Of course, if you have a Chromecast on your TV(s) already, none of these are probably enticing reasons.
I greatly enjoy the wired ethernet on my Roku because nothing wireless interferes with my streaming.
Wireless + streaming = bad experience. Oh sure, plenty of marketing, and plenty of wishful thinking that it would be really nice if it weren't true. I've had my rec room roku hooked up wireless and wired and I'll never voluntarily stream wireless again as long as I can plug in a cable. Just better / faster / no interruptions ever.
I agree. What would be perfect would be if devices with ethernet ports could bridge the network to hdmi-attached devices. I think this is technically a feature of hdmi, and would be a matter of programming for a device maker like oppo to integrate.
Even at $19 pre-order for Prime members, of which I am one, I can't even make this an impulse buy. I have an Xbox One and an Apple TV already, and all I see with this thing is "one more remote". (It doesn't help that my ancient Panny plasma only has one HDMI port, but I have a switch box.) Now it's possible I'm just not the target market, that being "I don't have a streaming box already".
I skimmed the list, though, and...nah. Music? Gawd, I've got more music options these days than I'll ever listen to. Video content, I've got video content. Hate to be the cranky old man here, but most TV content is crap (as it has always been), and of the non-crap stuff I just get it from iTunes or I can watch on Amazon Prime via the Xbox. Games? Did I mention I have an Xbox?
I'm not saying this is the next Fire Phone, but I do wonder who will be buying this. Not me, and I was looking for an excuse to spend $19 on a new gadget.
I don't like how none of the pictures display the FireTV Stick with power cord vs Chromecast which does not require one.
In fact, only 2 subtle note even alludes to a power cord.
Ordered one with the benefit of the Prime discount, don't think I would have done it for $39. At the higher price I'd be inclined to spend twice as much and get another Roku 3.
I'll hook it up to the one display that doesn't currently have a Roku attached. The discount price of $19 seems worth never using the horrible built-in apps on that display again.
That said, my expectations are low - even at $19. Amazon impresses me as uneven and lazy when it comes to everything but their core business.
It's stuff like the original Kindle Fire launching with the awful combination of no parental controls + one-click ordering or the Android Kindle app lacking basic display settings for ages and still lacking a consistent store experience.
Given that, plugging this stick in to find that it too lacks parental controls or runs some outdated or incomplete version of popular app like Netflix or YouTube would not surprise me in the slightest.
Looks interesting. Prime Instant Video I've had simply poor experiences with - paying for the privilege of paying to rent out things that are free on Netflix. Brilliant.
If it supports the Chromecast protocol so things that stream to it anyway work nicely.
Another plus would be if it supports ac.3 and MKV formats, so I could play to it from Plex without transcoding.
That would make me consider it.
Edit: Ah, looking here http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GDQ0RMG#tech it lists AC3 as a supported codec! This is actually great, because it means that you can play scene standard content (AC3/H264/MKV) without needing to transcode! I think what this really comes down to if it can do what the Chromecast can do but better, then.
18 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 51.1 ms ] threadI wonder how much Google cares about this stuff. It feels like they are really just interested in controlling the platform (Chrome, Android etc.) than making profit in these areas.
Seems to come very much from Microsoft's playbook (except in a much more tolerable form). All these free technologies protect their core platform where they make the profit (Search etc). In much the same way that Internet Explorer was designed to protect Windows.
"Dual band/Dual antenna (MIMO)"
So tired of having to do the channel dance to avoid my neighbor's routers interfering with my Chromecasts.
1) MHL port so I don't always need the power brick 2) Audio output from the remote control so my gf can watch her junk without me having to listen.
Oh wait Roku has both of these things.
I greatly enjoy the wired ethernet on my Roku because nothing wireless interferes with my streaming.
Wireless + streaming = bad experience. Oh sure, plenty of marketing, and plenty of wishful thinking that it would be really nice if it weren't true. I've had my rec room roku hooked up wireless and wired and I'll never voluntarily stream wireless again as long as I can plug in a cable. Just better / faster / no interruptions ever.
I skimmed the list, though, and...nah. Music? Gawd, I've got more music options these days than I'll ever listen to. Video content, I've got video content. Hate to be the cranky old man here, but most TV content is crap (as it has always been), and of the non-crap stuff I just get it from iTunes or I can watch on Amazon Prime via the Xbox. Games? Did I mention I have an Xbox?
I'm not saying this is the next Fire Phone, but I do wonder who will be buying this. Not me, and I was looking for an excuse to spend $19 on a new gadget.
I'll hook it up to the one display that doesn't currently have a Roku attached. The discount price of $19 seems worth never using the horrible built-in apps on that display again.
That said, my expectations are low - even at $19. Amazon impresses me as uneven and lazy when it comes to everything but their core business.
It's stuff like the original Kindle Fire launching with the awful combination of no parental controls + one-click ordering or the Android Kindle app lacking basic display settings for ages and still lacking a consistent store experience.
Given that, plugging this stick in to find that it too lacks parental controls or runs some outdated or incomplete version of popular app like Netflix or YouTube would not surprise me in the slightest.
If it supports the Chromecast protocol so things that stream to it anyway work nicely.
Another plus would be if it supports ac.3 and MKV formats, so I could play to it from Plex without transcoding.
That would make me consider it.
Edit: Ah, looking here http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GDQ0RMG#tech it lists AC3 as a supported codec! This is actually great, because it means that you can play scene standard content (AC3/H264/MKV) without needing to transcode! I think what this really comes down to if it can do what the Chromecast can do but better, then.