Engadget suggests it has Miracast but I've not seen that mentioned anywhere else.
"Naturally, you can also mirror your smartphone and tablet display, both if you're rocking a Fire phone or tablet or a Miracast-equipped device, and you can use app-based voice search with the hardware."
So it's cheaper than a Roku stick (right now) and offers much of the same stuff. I'm still backing Roku here, though, as I don't want one video provider to control my hardware. There's a horrifying future in here somewhere where I have an Amazon stick for my Prime videos, an HBO stick for HBO Go, etc. etc.
Exactly. I have a Roku 3. I don't love it, but it works and it's fast and it supports everything (Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon Instant Video, Plex). In that sense, they don't even have competition right now.
I have multiple Rokus in the house, LT, 2 and 3, and they all seem really prone to crashing and lockups. But that's only been recently. They used to be rock solid. I dig all this stuff though, so I bought one (and a couple of Matchsticks to develop and fart around with as well as hand out at Christmas)
I'm looking forward to a somewhat dedicated device. Chromecast is nice, but it still requires a smart phone/Computer to make it work. It might be nice to have something that can actually fully replace one or two of my failing Rokus cheaply.
Price and perf difference are very attractive. I was thinking about picking up a Roku 3 (perf complaints made me un-choose the stick) or a Chromecast, but I might get this one instead.
Am I alone in wondering why neither Amazon, Roku, nor Apple have tackled the OTA DVR space? I know there are some options out there like Tablo and SimpleTV, but their implementations are not very good. This would seem like a big differentiator for these set top boxes, b/c they are all kind of the same right now.
I always assumed that was Apple's ultimate goal: Record (essentially) everything in their big data centers and offer live-TV-on-demand as a service. But the licensing issues for something like that are daunting, unless you want to take a chance on the courts giving you a pass because you're "just like a remote VCR".
That would require substantial storage, which none of the sticks or boxes have.
AFAICT, an OTA DVR is very much a secondary market; it's not big enough for the big guys to justify building a box with that as its primary purpose. However, it definitely would be a good differentiating point between the available boxes.
But requiring secondary storage is probably a no-go. It's complicated and failure prone.
Which is why the best hope lies in video game consoles, which do include substantial storage. And in fact, the XBox One is gaining DVR-type capabilities in Europe. If it is successful there I hope we will eventually see it in North America too.
I think DVR is going to die out (or become a very small niche) as TV is moving to on-demand, and away from channels that broadcast programs at a specific time.
> Am I alone in wondering why neither Amazon, Roku, nor Apple have tackled the OTA DVR space?
Because they're investing in replacing OTA TV rather than owning it, and most of the people interested in spending money on non-web TV already have cable/satellite with provider-issued DVRs.
Yes, but it is an imperfect replacement. There is a lot of content offered locally (e.g. local sports, news, weather, local PBS) that is just not on these devices.
And at the very beginning, horseless carriages were an imperfect replacement for horse carriages, but that doesn't mean that people investing in building horseless carriages should also have invested in building accessories for horse carriages (e.g., buggy whips.)
It makes more sense to invest in making the new technology a more adequate replacement.
In the UK at least, all the major channels have apps that provides reasonable access to shows you've missed. E.g. I have BBC iPlayer installed on my Fire TV.
So while it's certainly not exactly the same, here the available apps covers the 80% use cases, which presumably makes it much less attractive to take the cost of adding lots of local storage to support the remainder.
It is there on checkout, but not in your cart. There is a banner at the top that states this on the product page, but it's pretty easy to miss as it looks like an advertisement.
Are you sure this will work in Hotel Wifis? I tried in the past with Google stick and couldn't get it to work because of something with getting both devices on the Wifi. I think it had to do with the fact that you needed to open a browser to accept some terms before allowing the device access to the network.
And then there's the issue of hotel WiFi having enough bandwidth to stream efficiently without stutter.
I am assuming that over time the average hotel WiFi will get faster. I also frequently hook my Macbook up to the wired internet and share it over a private wireless network, which typically solves the ToC-via-web problem.
It looks like they are going to account for this. From their Fire TV page:
"Coming soon—take Fire TV Stick with you to use with HDTVs in hotels, college dorms, or anywhere with captive portal Internet access that requires entering a password or a log-in.
"
Probably because implementing a full browser is quite a lot of work, and it wouldn't gain them anything.
They're not designing these as nifty tech that gives you maximum usability, they're "money-making machines" that aim at making it easier for you to do further purchases online (movie and series rentals, games, and so on).
Having a full browser on there would proably make it easier for consumers to access open content outside of the particular walled garden the device gives you access to, which of course wouldn't make a lot of business sense.
> I dont understand why these things can't browse the internet
The general class of devices can; e.g., among the apps that support using Google Cast as an output device is the Chrome browser -- that's one of the reason that the original and most common Google Cast device is called "Chromecast".
Above the hardware specs on the page it says "Fire TV Stick connects to your TV's HDMI port. It's an easy way to enjoy Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, Hulu Plus, YouTube.com, music, and much more" in a bold font and has the logos of 10 entertainment services.
I also find it interesting that they point out "4x the storage and 2x the memory of Chromecast" in multiple places (it is the first feature listed at the very top, it is later on in the body text, and they made a special graphic for it along the side) but don't actually say how much storage or how much memory the device has until you get to the technical specs and comparison charts at the bottom, as it really doesn't matter... I own two Chromecasts: I have no clue how much storage or memory the thing has, and I am not certain why I'd care as the device is designed for streaming content, not storing stuff :/.
But they don't tell you: that's my point; it is only in the fine print way below that they have the actual size... for most of the article it is just "4x as large".
Anecdotally—noting I'm probably not the typical consumer—the fact that they mentioned the specs is a big plus for me.
I travel with a Roku Streaming Stick (plus a small travel router) as it's a great way to use Plex and others from a hotel room. The one problem, however, is that the Roku feels sluggish and underpowered (minutes to boot, minutes to open netflix, etc). If Amazon's stick avoids that problem, I'll be getting one.
I have a Chromecast as well and—prior to purchasing the Roku—used that when I traveled.
The reason I replaced it was because of the purpose it was designed to serve and how I was using it. A Chromecast is a remote viewport, not generally a consumer (save for Chrome and a handful of mobile apps). Take, for example, when I used Plex. I'd have my machine as the Plex server, my phone as the Plex consumer / controller, and the Chromecast as the viewport. All three would be on a private network served up from my travel router, disconnected from the WAN (hotel internet paranoia). All three of my internet-connected devices were required to make this setup work.
edit
Just remembered the requirement that the LAN be connected to the internet to use a Chromecast. When I'm streaming from Plex, I don't need to be on the internet. Getting connected just so I could then use Plex felt like an unnecessary hurdle.
end edit
Contrast that with the Roku which is not only the viewport but also the consumer / controller. It freed up my phone to remain on the cellular network. I could pass out watching a movie and not have to worry about missing "important" late night notifications / emails.
The alternative was to stream my screen to the Chromecast, but I found that to have tons of lag / frame-skipping.
I have a Chromecast currently, biggest issue for me is that it doesn't support 5 GHz (which matters a lot in a crowded city like San Francisco.) My 2.4 GHz signal is awful.
The remote is a nice addition, assuming the UI is good.
Using Chromecast with services like Netflix is sometimes pretty painful (Not always clear how to change the episode you're watching, if it's even possible. Unclear how to turn the dang thing off so it isn't just on some show, etc)
Chromecast is great, but it would be nice to have a somewhat standalone device to do everything, rather than needing a smartphone, computer, Plex server, etc.
Products like this do not have the burden of a trailblazer like the Chromecast. When the Chromecast was introduced, they must explain elaborately what it does. For this Amazon product, simply saying "4x storage 2x memory more than Chromecast" is sufficient in explaining what it does. People immediately know that it does what the Chromecast does. There's no confusion about that. Furthermore, it's also implying that it's better than the Chromecast. So, while that first line didn't entertain you, for many people, it says and implies a lot.
Having no idea what a Chromecast is (other than it has something to do with Google Chrome), this tells me nothing. And if I have no idea, then I guarantee none of my extended family has even the first clue.
I have a Chromecast sitting at my house that we won in a contest, and we haven't bothered to pull it out of the box because nobody can tell me what it does beyond "Less functional AirPlay for Chrome."
Products like this do not have the burden of a trailblazer like the Chromecast. When the Chromecast was introduced, they must explain elaborately what it does. For this Amazon product, simply saying "4x storage 2x memory more than Chromecast" is sufficient in explaining what it does. People immediately know that it does what the Chromecast does. There's no confusion about that. Furthermore, it's also implying that it's better than the Chromecast. So, while that first line didn't entertain you, for many people, it says a lot.
I have a Sony TV purchased this year. It has apps on board including YouTube and BBC iPlayer. But I don't use that. I have connected it to a PS3 on which I can play DVD and blue-ray disks, and YouTube, BBC iPlayer and Blinkbox apps. Both the TV and PS3 are, of course, connected to the internet via the home broadband.
What additional features would this kind of device give me?
It is supposed to fill a void between having nothing, and at the other end, buying a full device like a PS3. $20-40 sticks that let you stream to your television or dumb panel.
If you have a SmartTV or similar smart device, not much. At least Chromecast gives you the ability to "cast any tab" from Chrome, whereas this stick doesn't seem to even have that.
Like you, my living room TV already has Netflix, hulu, YouTube, Pandora, etc. However, it doesn't get updates, and it's missing Amazon Prime Video (not that I care...).
What's nice is that it's portable (someone else mentioned hotels) and that I can throw one on my bedroom TV (which isn't a Smart TV).
Still, even at $20, I can't see a reason to pick one up.
My Samsung Smart TV has bundled apps as well, but they are often not very good and don't receive updates. For example, I can't get 1080p Ultra with Netflix on my built-in TV app, but Chromecast provides it.
How's the user interface of your Sony TV? Does it have a touch-enabled remote? If it doesn't then you can use a Chromecast or fireTV to use a touch-enabled phone or tablet as the remote.
Mobile phone based remote control. Also, casting your screen onto your TV. Also, lots of people don't own PS3s... or in fact even set-top boxes, given that most TVs have a Freeview receiver built in. TVs with apps built in are still more expensive than ones without.
Chromecast is £30, which is somewhere in the range of "entertainment money" for a number of people, so it doesn't necessarily have to do that much better than the alternatives.
You, probably nothing. Me, with an older low-end TV and no PS3, it'd be more useful.
Separating things out from the TV is preferred, as far as I'm concerned. If there's a credible Netflix competitor in 3 years, your TV isn't going to support it. A game console works if you have one, a streaming stick does the same if you don't.
It's for people who want an easy way to watch Netflix, don't have a smart TV (or have one that's out of date and no longer useful), and aren't interested in spending hundreds of dollars on a console that takes up a lot of space and wastes a lot of electricity just to watch videos. I suspect that's a pretty large market.
If it's a Smart TV, then chances are it has a type of "App Store" for it. There are TONS of apps for my Samsung TV. That means if a credible Netflix competitor does pop up, it'll probably be supported long before some other devices (Xbone just recently got Plex for example)
While this may be of little concern, compared to your PS3 this will use significantly less power. Comapred to your TV is is very possible that the ecosystem for this product will be larger.
I use mine mostly for Youtube. Or rather, my son does. He loves to be able to browse Youtube on any of his moms iPad, his Android tablet, any of our laptops, any of our phones, with the convenience of a proper input device, yet get the video onto the TV.
I've just gotten an Amazon Fire TV (not the stick) and while you can get Youtube apps for it, I'm not sure I'll be bothered for this reason - a tablet or my phone is a superior interface for deciding what to watch. And frankly, I'm more likely to know where either is than where my TV remote is, while it'd be hard to turn around without seeing a couple of devices that can control the Chromecast in my house...
I also use it for Rdio, and (very occasionally) I cast a Chrome tab.
I have no interest in the smart TV's because of the lifetime of TVs: I've owned the TV's I've had for 5-10 years each. In that kind of timeframe, how I've wanted to use the TV has changed drastically each time.
I prefer my TV to be dumb in most ways, and instead replace the devices I use to control. The only functionality I wish for from my TV would be the ability for input sources to request volume changes, change input source, or turn the TV to/from standby.
Speaking for Chromecast, it's mostly an incredibly easy way to "fling" video from my browser up to my TV (and over my TV speakers) for YouTube video, webcasts, class lectures, etc. I've also used it for slideshows. I have various other TV connected devices (plus some built into the TV) but using Chromecast takes me all of 15 seconds or so.
I want to show someone a funny YouTube video? Just send it to the TV they're sitting at. Boom, playing in up to 1080p.
It is also extremely useful for music. Like sending Google All Access there over the Christmas holidays and having a "remote control" per the phone to control the music from another room.
We have both a Samsung and Sony Smart TV, but the screen sharing on both is just awful. Only works with their proprietary devices (e.g. Sony with Xperia phones, and Samsung with Galaxy phones, etc). Chromecast works with anything that has a recent-ish version of Android.
I mostly use mine to stream plex, watch youtube, show vacation photos, listen to podcasts and mirror my phone or computer to it to review powerpoint presentations or share webpages with people.
It's so cheap it's basically an impulse buy and it doesn't take up space under my TV so I forget about it until I need it. It pretty much just sort of disappears into the background.
Today's other headline: "Amazon has $83 million worth of Fire Phones it can't sell" [1]; hopefully this new Fire product will work out better for them ;P.
Amazon is pretty good for 'content' stuff - movies, music, and of course books. I'd consider buying this, but the phones and tables are, IMO, inferior compared to the Nexus equivalents for anything but Amazon Video.
I don't understand the niche for this product, especially against their own Fire TV (which FD I have and like a fair bit).
From the catalog page details, besides the portability of the stick model (use USB with some TVs so no need for AC power) it seems there are some games that will not play on the stick. That seems a bit crunchy and weird for customers and developers.
Any one see or know any other differentiators that make this worth an additional SKU, support costs?
As somebody owns two stick devices, the form-factor does make a difference. With a stick you don't have to decide where to put it, you don't need an entertainment unit or anything, your TV remains completely self-contained. I keep thinking about upgrading to a gaming-ready device and moving away from the stick form-factor is actually a stumbling block for me.
That said, I get what you're saying about running two SKUs. Hopefully in their next gen they can consolidate both devices into a stick.
Agreed, form factor got me to try the Roku stick, but I went back to box with the Fire TV after getting fed up with performance and terrible wifi signal (dongle basically touched the mount) I did get a great signal on unmounted tv upstairs but the slow UI & stream starting persisted (5-8 seconds between screens). I'm going to hold off on sticks for a while, but $19 does sound pretty compelling. I'm sure this reflects a recent pricing lesson regarding the Fire phone.
The form factor of the Fire TV is still small enough to easily hide, though, but I agree.
One thing I noticed with the Fire TV is that it very much feels "expensive". Very sleek and polished shiny black box and heavy for the size. They may very well be trying to hit different niches that way.
I really don't understand Amazon's strategy here at all.
Every large company goes through this stage where they switch from actively building their business to essentially being afraid that something will come along and kill them. It happened to Microsoft in the 90s (although, in fairness, the Internet did almost kill them). It's happened to Google (Google Offers anyone?). And it sure as hell looks like it's happening (big time) to Amazon.
Amazon is really good at two things:
- selling you stuff
- oddly enough, cloud services.
Several years ago they, for whatever reason, embarked on a strategy of wanting to be in online content and mobile platforms.
Amazon Prime was (and is) a hugely popular service. Yet it's been bundled with Prime Instant Video, essentially a Netflix clone. Why Amazon felt this was necessary or even a good idea is beyond me.
As soon as you force bundle one service with the other it makes the latter worse and hides the deficiencies of the former. Good products and services sell themselves at a certain point. If Amazon Instant Video was really great, why can't I buy just that? Why make Prime more expensive? Amazon is creating room for a comeptitor here.
And then we get to the Fire tablets, phones and now media sticks. Amazon decided to treat Google as a competitor here so none of their devices come with the Google apps. This is a curious move because Amazon obviously sees itself as a competitor and rival to Apple, Google and Microsoft here. Why exactly?
If you're going to be in the phone business and competing with someone, do you really want to be beholden to the platform that company produces (ie Android)? Sure they can fork it (and have) but you know they'll be taking updates too.
I really have to wonder if Bezos has gone all Howard Hughes lately. He seems to feel this strategy is deeply important yet, as best as I can tell, these products are mediocre at best and no one has really articulated why this is important to the future of Amazon.
Disclaimer: I work for Google. These opinions are purely my own.
Have you tried an Amazon Fire TV box? Then it'd be instantly clear why they are doing this.
Prime Instant Video has enough of a selection - split between a decent-but-not-comprehensive selection of the most recent releases, and a huge back-catalog of older movies (I spend half an hour or so just marvelling at the selection of 70's Kung Fu movies and 50's through 70's sci fi B-movies).
BUT, when you fire up the Fire TV, you are "assaulted" by a home screen that, while they are not at all shy about pushing the Prime Instant Videos at prime spots in the interface, is full of movies, games and apps you have to pay for, all nicely intermingled with free content. It took my son about 5 minutes to talk me into spending 5 pounds on the first game.
It also provides instant access to any music in my Amazon account, giving me one more reason to consider putting my music there.
In other words: This is a sales channel with massive potential. I'm expecting it'll become possible to buy music directly soon enough too - it'd be silly not to (though Amazons MP3 app is curiously not yet compatible with the Fire TV). And why not the full shopping app?
It's also a sales channel they need to address, because Amazon is a size where letting someone else win that market would be a substantial risk to their own sales: Streaming will eventually eat their DVD sales, and continue to eat their music sales and others.
Online content and mobile platforms is not at all so strange for Amazon when you consider that what they are really good at is selling lots of cheap things at minimal margins while shaving logistics costs to the bone. Selling bits of data is the ultimate target for that, and mobile platforms (and the Fire TV) is to Amazon as it is to Google: A way of increasing the amount of time users spends engaging with their products and services.
> these products are mediocre at best
I've not used the Fire tablet or phone, but the Fire TV is fantastic, and the box itself looks and feels amazing. The only thing preventing the Fire TV from being "Apple level" design quality is that they've crowded the interface too much (it's great to use, but too busy for Apple's design sensibilities). Frankly, I'd have expected a light, cheap plastic-y box.
This is exactly why I avoid their peripherals. If I'm already paying for Prime, I want to watch Prime movies. I don't want to wade through a bunch of crap just to get to the content I've already paid for.
I bought a FireTV. It wouldn't work with my TV and Netflix would constantly stop and buffer (I think it forced an HD stream). I returned it and got a Roku and it just works perfectly.
I wonder if this will have compatibility problems. The TV reported as meeting the requirements and my computer finds and configures it as a 720p monitor.
It is interesting. I have a streaming subscription to Amazon Film (previously Lovefilm) and Netflix.
The Android Lovefilm app (even for just choosing discs on a rental service) is hopeless. Despite being a massive company, they managed to employ what appears to be buffoons to write the software - it seems to embed a browser for showing film data and slow data parsing at that; there is no obvious navigation within it (guess where back goes - who knows if you follow down more than one tree node?!); it may crash if you press "BACK"; it doesn't cache images within the list (there's an article on Android Developer reference they could probably copy); it crashes frequently and has the largest licence list ever which makes me believe it was badly managed or written by an inexperienced developer. Surely it just needs to return JSON about the film and an image URL?
I can't comment on the streaming app as it isn't supported on my Android tablet, but it had been a long long long long time coming. Oddly, YouTube works on my tablet as does Netflix so the tablet can't be incapable of decoding video (it's a Motorola Xoom)....
The app on the LG TV was discontinued (it was an under-performing LG TV) so they sent me a Sony Bluray with the Amazon Instant app on it (and an ethernet port for network connectivity, not wifi) - thanks Amazon! Not only was the Amazon app slow in loading, it was slow to do anything. Starting to stream takes a while as it has to spend 30 seconds (?) working out what Internet speeds you have, and don't even attempt rewinding - it may or may not crash the Bluray player! (I have fibre Internet so it's not a bandwidth problem). Searching for films within it was an exercise in frustration.
The iOS app was far superior but didn't like me plugging it into a TV, limiting its use - unlike others, I don't want to sit around a tiny coffee table watching a film in mono out of the one tiny speaker on the back of the iPad.
Contrast this with Netflix - it started quickly on the Bluray, started films quickly, didn't take forever to use the menu system and actually coped with rewinding and fast-forwarding. And on Android and iOS too!
Additionally, Amazon streaming appears to want you to BUY all of the films you'd actually want to see, as they are not included in the subscription cost, making the subscription pointless. The only films they offer are horror films, from what I can see; if you want mindless violence and people hurting each other as entertainment (why would anyone want that???), it might be good. You get better films for selection if you go with their £2 disc option and get Blurays in the post - far better value and selection.
I would heartily NOT recommend Amazon streaming, but do think that the Lovefilm disc system is a good deal! If I were Amazon, I would even think twice about using Amazon Streaming as a selling point - it really is quite bad.
It's available on Android now. You need the "Amazon" app, however, so it's not easily discoverable. It seems they're trying to consolidate some of their various apps into that one master app.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that Android phones didn't get AIV until it was clear the Fire Phone flopped. And unless you mess around with sideloading, it still isn't supported on Android tablets (non-cellular ones, at least). And, from what I've heard, Android TV (or at least ADT-1) doesn't support the Google TV app even though it probably works (or, at worst, can be trivially made to).
It took forever just to get the Instant Video app on Android and still with a very clumsy installation process. But it did make it eventually. So, I don't think the evidence supports that assertion.
I keep looking for something that will make me replace my iPad2 with an HDMI adapter, and this doesn't do it. The app support on the iPad is much better, and it is a great way to use an aging device. Even the iPad2 plays videos very well.
There isn't really a dominant hardware platform. So, you can build an app for wii, Xbox, Samsung, etc and jump through their platform hurdles (both technical and business). But when you are Amazon, why bother? You have the resources to create your own platform.
If the cable providers weren't so stupid they could have been that platform since everyone already has their set top box.
They ought to implement DIAL (aka Google Cast). Then, instead of their pitch being "specs you don't care about have bigger numbers than Chromecast," it could be "everything that's great about Chromecast, and then some."
> Powerful performance—4x the storage and 2x the memory of Chromecast, plus a dual-core processor and 1 GB of memory.
This one line shows that they really don't "get" the appeal of a Chromecast. Even as a techie I really don't care what specs a Chromecast has, I just want it to "just work" and it does "just work."
If Amazon's one "just works" then that is good. But the fact they're trying to shove too much into it (games, remote, tons of apps, etc) suggests to me that they're over-thinking it and it will require more prodding.
Chromecast does one thing and it does it REALLY well (and inexpensively). More companies could learn a thing or two.
PS - Amazon locking Amazon Digital into their own devices is pathetic. All it does is decrease the value of their own services, it doesn't increase the value of their hardware.
Nope, sorry, not seeing that. Apple takes every opportunity to shove spec down our throats ("Retina HD display," "first 64 bit phone," "A8 chip," "motion processor," etc).
Back when the iPhone first got released it was all about the UX and they were very careful to avoid specs. This was a Jobs inspired strategy that was very effective at conveying the product's feel over its power.
However, and for a while now, Apple has become just as specs obsessed as Android and are letting the product's feel/UX fall by the wayside.
With the original iPhone's marketing, the question implicitly being asked and answered was "how is the iPhone better than my feature phone / BlackBerry?"
With the iPhone 6's marketing, the question implicitly being asked and answered is "how is the iPhone 6 better than my current iPhone?"
At this point, there aren't that many potential iPhone 6 customers in the US who still don't know what iOS feels like.
Not sure what you mean by "Amazon Digital". If you mean their digital movies and books, then you are incorrect. I use them on a variety of devices including a roku and a non-amazon tablet.
When Amazon first did Prime instant video it was widely available including the then popular Roku. Since then they have been actively rolling that back, so few new types of devices released have included it.
They're trying to make it a Fire exclusive service, they're just doing the slow-lobster-pot approach of slowing cutting more and more devices out, and adding more Fire hardware to their lineup.
Yeah exactly, to me the Chromecast is one of the first digital devices I've owned that I really don't care at all about the specs. It kind of reminds me a bit of radio, I have a vague idea about how the media is delivered (broadcast, frequency whatever), but I honestly don't know or care how my radio works, just that it does.
Totally agree. I don't want Chromecast to do anything except put what is on my phone or browser on my TV, which it does really well. I don't want another remote!
Most info is still under short term confidentiality but they are supposed to release that once marketing and sales begin. So complain to the FCC if you want so we can see the internal photos.
136 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 188 ms ] thread"Naturally, you can also mirror your smartphone and tablet display, both if you're rocking a Fire phone or tablet or a Miracast-equipped device, and you can use app-based voice search with the hardware."
http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/27/amazon-fire-tv-stick/
I'm looking forward to a somewhat dedicated device. Chromecast is nice, but it still requires a smart phone/Computer to make it work. It might be nice to have something that can actually fully replace one or two of my failing Rokus cheaply.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
AFAICT, an OTA DVR is very much a secondary market; it's not big enough for the big guys to justify building a box with that as its primary purpose. However, it definitely would be a good differentiating point between the available boxes.
But requiring secondary storage is probably a no-go. It's complicated and failure prone.
Which is why the best hope lies in video game consoles, which do include substantial storage. And in fact, the XBox One is gaining DVR-type capabilities in Europe. If it is successful there I hope we will eventually see it in North America too.
http://www.tivo.com/discover/antenna
Because they're investing in replacing OTA TV rather than owning it, and most of the people interested in spending money on non-web TV already have cable/satellite with provider-issued DVRs.
And at the very beginning, horseless carriages were an imperfect replacement for horse carriages, but that doesn't mean that people investing in building horseless carriages should also have invested in building accessories for horse carriages (e.g., buggy whips.)
It makes more sense to invest in making the new technology a more adequate replacement.
So while it's certainly not exactly the same, here the available apps covers the 80% use cases, which presumably makes it much less attractive to take the cost of adding lots of local storage to support the remainder.
EDIT: I figured out that it is $19 for Prime members. Leaving this up for anyone else that may be confused.
And then there's the issue of hotel WiFi having enough bandwidth to stream efficiently without stutter.
"Coming soon—take Fire TV Stick with you to use with HDTVs in hotels, college dorms, or anywhere with captive portal Internet access that requires entering a password or a log-in. "
They're not designing these as nifty tech that gives you maximum usability, they're "money-making machines" that aim at making it easier for you to do further purchases online (movie and series rentals, games, and so on).
Having a full browser on there would proably make it easier for consumers to access open content outside of the particular walled garden the device gives you access to, which of course wouldn't make a lot of business sense.
The general class of devices can; e.g., among the apps that support using Google Cast as an output device is the Chrome browser -- that's one of the reason that the original and most common Google Cast device is called "Chromecast".
"Powerful performance—4x the storage and 2x the memory of Chromecast, plus a dual-core processor and 1 GB of memory."
The above tells me nothing about how it will entertain me.
So they need to tell you so you know how many games you can install from their app store. For the Chromecast it is irrelevant.
I travel with a Roku Streaming Stick (plus a small travel router) as it's a great way to use Plex and others from a hotel room. The one problem, however, is that the Roku feels sluggish and underpowered (minutes to boot, minutes to open netflix, etc). If Amazon's stick avoids that problem, I'll be getting one.
The reason I replaced it was because of the purpose it was designed to serve and how I was using it. A Chromecast is a remote viewport, not generally a consumer (save for Chrome and a handful of mobile apps). Take, for example, when I used Plex. I'd have my machine as the Plex server, my phone as the Plex consumer / controller, and the Chromecast as the viewport. All three would be on a private network served up from my travel router, disconnected from the WAN (hotel internet paranoia). All three of my internet-connected devices were required to make this setup work.
edit
Just remembered the requirement that the LAN be connected to the internet to use a Chromecast. When I'm streaming from Plex, I don't need to be on the internet. Getting connected just so I could then use Plex felt like an unnecessary hurdle.
end edit
Contrast that with the Roku which is not only the viewport but also the consumer / controller. It freed up my phone to remain on the cellular network. I could pass out watching a movie and not have to worry about missing "important" late night notifications / emails.
The alternative was to stream my screen to the Chromecast, but I found that to have tons of lag / frame-skipping.
Admittedly, it's a very particular concern. <g>
The remote is a nice addition, assuming the UI is good. Using Chromecast with services like Netflix is sometimes pretty painful (Not always clear how to change the episode you're watching, if it's even possible. Unclear how to turn the dang thing off so it isn't just on some show, etc)
I have a Sony TV purchased this year. It has apps on board including YouTube and BBC iPlayer. But I don't use that. I have connected it to a PS3 on which I can play DVD and blue-ray disks, and YouTube, BBC iPlayer and Blinkbox apps. Both the TV and PS3 are, of course, connected to the internet via the home broadband.
What additional features would this kind of device give me?
Like you, my living room TV already has Netflix, hulu, YouTube, Pandora, etc. However, it doesn't get updates, and it's missing Amazon Prime Video (not that I care...).
What's nice is that it's portable (someone else mentioned hotels) and that I can throw one on my bedroom TV (which isn't a Smart TV).
Still, even at $20, I can't see a reason to pick one up.
Not perfect, so I use the PS3. The PS3's BBC iPlayer app is very good.
Chromecast is £30, which is somewhere in the range of "entertainment money" for a number of people, so it doesn't necessarily have to do that much better than the alternatives.
Separating things out from the TV is preferred, as far as I'm concerned. If there's a credible Netflix competitor in 3 years, your TV isn't going to support it. A game console works if you have one, a streaming stick does the same if you don't.
It's for people who want an easy way to watch Netflix, don't have a smart TV (or have one that's out of date and no longer useful), and aren't interested in spending hundreds of dollars on a console that takes up a lot of space and wastes a lot of electricity just to watch videos. I suspect that's a pretty large market.
I've just gotten an Amazon Fire TV (not the stick) and while you can get Youtube apps for it, I'm not sure I'll be bothered for this reason - a tablet or my phone is a superior interface for deciding what to watch. And frankly, I'm more likely to know where either is than where my TV remote is, while it'd be hard to turn around without seeing a couple of devices that can control the Chromecast in my house...
I also use it for Rdio, and (very occasionally) I cast a Chrome tab.
I have no interest in the smart TV's because of the lifetime of TVs: I've owned the TV's I've had for 5-10 years each. In that kind of timeframe, how I've wanted to use the TV has changed drastically each time.
I prefer my TV to be dumb in most ways, and instead replace the devices I use to control. The only functionality I wish for from my TV would be the ability for input sources to request volume changes, change input source, or turn the TV to/from standby.
I want to show someone a funny YouTube video? Just send it to the TV they're sitting at. Boom, playing in up to 1080p.
It is also extremely useful for music. Like sending Google All Access there over the Christmas holidays and having a "remote control" per the phone to control the music from another room.
We have both a Samsung and Sony Smart TV, but the screen sharing on both is just awful. Only works with their proprietary devices (e.g. Sony with Xperia phones, and Samsung with Galaxy phones, etc). Chromecast works with anything that has a recent-ish version of Android.
I mostly use mine to stream plex, watch youtube, show vacation photos, listen to podcasts and mirror my phone or computer to it to review powerpoint presentations or share webpages with people.
It's so cheap it's basically an impulse buy and it doesn't take up space under my TV so I forget about it until I need it. It pretty much just sort of disappears into the background.
[1] http://www.geek.com/mobile/amazon-has-83-million-worth-of-fi...
From the catalog page details, besides the portability of the stick model (use USB with some TVs so no need for AC power) it seems there are some games that will not play on the stick. That seems a bit crunchy and weird for customers and developers.
Any one see or know any other differentiators that make this worth an additional SKU, support costs?
That said, I get what you're saying about running two SKUs. Hopefully in their next gen they can consolidate both devices into a stick.
One thing I noticed with the Fire TV is that it very much feels "expensive". Very sleek and polished shiny black box and heavy for the size. They may very well be trying to hit different niches that way.
Every large company goes through this stage where they switch from actively building their business to essentially being afraid that something will come along and kill them. It happened to Microsoft in the 90s (although, in fairness, the Internet did almost kill them). It's happened to Google (Google Offers anyone?). And it sure as hell looks like it's happening (big time) to Amazon.
Amazon is really good at two things:
- selling you stuff
- oddly enough, cloud services.
Several years ago they, for whatever reason, embarked on a strategy of wanting to be in online content and mobile platforms.
Amazon Prime was (and is) a hugely popular service. Yet it's been bundled with Prime Instant Video, essentially a Netflix clone. Why Amazon felt this was necessary or even a good idea is beyond me.
As soon as you force bundle one service with the other it makes the latter worse and hides the deficiencies of the former. Good products and services sell themselves at a certain point. If Amazon Instant Video was really great, why can't I buy just that? Why make Prime more expensive? Amazon is creating room for a comeptitor here.
And then we get to the Fire tablets, phones and now media sticks. Amazon decided to treat Google as a competitor here so none of their devices come with the Google apps. This is a curious move because Amazon obviously sees itself as a competitor and rival to Apple, Google and Microsoft here. Why exactly?
If you're going to be in the phone business and competing with someone, do you really want to be beholden to the platform that company produces (ie Android)? Sure they can fork it (and have) but you know they'll be taking updates too.
I really have to wonder if Bezos has gone all Howard Hughes lately. He seems to feel this strategy is deeply important yet, as best as I can tell, these products are mediocre at best and no one has really articulated why this is important to the future of Amazon.
Disclaimer: I work for Google. These opinions are purely my own.
Prime Instant Video has enough of a selection - split between a decent-but-not-comprehensive selection of the most recent releases, and a huge back-catalog of older movies (I spend half an hour or so just marvelling at the selection of 70's Kung Fu movies and 50's through 70's sci fi B-movies).
BUT, when you fire up the Fire TV, you are "assaulted" by a home screen that, while they are not at all shy about pushing the Prime Instant Videos at prime spots in the interface, is full of movies, games and apps you have to pay for, all nicely intermingled with free content. It took my son about 5 minutes to talk me into spending 5 pounds on the first game.
It also provides instant access to any music in my Amazon account, giving me one more reason to consider putting my music there.
In other words: This is a sales channel with massive potential. I'm expecting it'll become possible to buy music directly soon enough too - it'd be silly not to (though Amazons MP3 app is curiously not yet compatible with the Fire TV). And why not the full shopping app?
It's also a sales channel they need to address, because Amazon is a size where letting someone else win that market would be a substantial risk to their own sales: Streaming will eventually eat their DVD sales, and continue to eat their music sales and others.
Online content and mobile platforms is not at all so strange for Amazon when you consider that what they are really good at is selling lots of cheap things at minimal margins while shaving logistics costs to the bone. Selling bits of data is the ultimate target for that, and mobile platforms (and the Fire TV) is to Amazon as it is to Google: A way of increasing the amount of time users spends engaging with their products and services.
> these products are mediocre at best
I've not used the Fire tablet or phone, but the Fire TV is fantastic, and the box itself looks and feels amazing. The only thing preventing the Fire TV from being "Apple level" design quality is that they've crowded the interface too much (it's great to use, but too busy for Apple's design sensibilities). Frankly, I'd have expected a light, cheap plastic-y box.
I wonder if this will have compatibility problems. The TV reported as meeting the requirements and my computer finds and configures it as a 720p monitor.
"It's an easy way to enjoy Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, Hulu Plus, YouTube.com, music, and much more"
The Android Lovefilm app (even for just choosing discs on a rental service) is hopeless. Despite being a massive company, they managed to employ what appears to be buffoons to write the software - it seems to embed a browser for showing film data and slow data parsing at that; there is no obvious navigation within it (guess where back goes - who knows if you follow down more than one tree node?!); it may crash if you press "BACK"; it doesn't cache images within the list (there's an article on Android Developer reference they could probably copy); it crashes frequently and has the largest licence list ever which makes me believe it was badly managed or written by an inexperienced developer. Surely it just needs to return JSON about the film and an image URL? I can't comment on the streaming app as it isn't supported on my Android tablet, but it had been a long long long long time coming. Oddly, YouTube works on my tablet as does Netflix so the tablet can't be incapable of decoding video (it's a Motorola Xoom)....
The app on the LG TV was discontinued (it was an under-performing LG TV) so they sent me a Sony Bluray with the Amazon Instant app on it (and an ethernet port for network connectivity, not wifi) - thanks Amazon! Not only was the Amazon app slow in loading, it was slow to do anything. Starting to stream takes a while as it has to spend 30 seconds (?) working out what Internet speeds you have, and don't even attempt rewinding - it may or may not crash the Bluray player! (I have fibre Internet so it's not a bandwidth problem). Searching for films within it was an exercise in frustration.
The iOS app was far superior but didn't like me plugging it into a TV, limiting its use - unlike others, I don't want to sit around a tiny coffee table watching a film in mono out of the one tiny speaker on the back of the iPad.
Contrast this with Netflix - it started quickly on the Bluray, started films quickly, didn't take forever to use the menu system and actually coped with rewinding and fast-forwarding. And on Android and iOS too!
Additionally, Amazon streaming appears to want you to BUY all of the films you'd actually want to see, as they are not included in the subscription cost, making the subscription pointless. The only films they offer are horror films, from what I can see; if you want mindless violence and people hurting each other as entertainment (why would anyone want that???), it might be good. You get better films for selection if you go with their £2 disc option and get Blurays in the post - far better value and selection.
I would heartily NOT recommend Amazon streaming, but do think that the Lovefilm disc system is a good deal! If I were Amazon, I would even think twice about using Amazon Streaming as a selling point - it really is quite bad.
Whenever I want to watch Amazon content I have to switch over to my gaming console. It's really silly.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that Android phones didn't get AIV until it was clear the Fire Phone flopped. And unless you mess around with sideloading, it still isn't supported on Android tablets (non-cellular ones, at least). And, from what I've heard, Android TV (or at least ADT-1) doesn't support the Google TV app even though it probably works (or, at worst, can be trivially made to).
No thanks, I don't want a streaming stick for each online service, so I think I'll stick to my Roku.
If the cable providers weren't so stupid they could have been that platform since everyone already has their set top box.
I know there are other cheap android sticks out there but one with a remote for $39 is pretty tempting.
https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/devices/fire-t...
This one line shows that they really don't "get" the appeal of a Chromecast. Even as a techie I really don't care what specs a Chromecast has, I just want it to "just work" and it does "just work."
If Amazon's one "just works" then that is good. But the fact they're trying to shove too much into it (games, remote, tons of apps, etc) suggests to me that they're over-thinking it and it will require more prodding.
Chromecast does one thing and it does it REALLY well (and inexpensively). More companies could learn a thing or two.
PS - Amazon locking Amazon Digital into their own devices is pathetic. All it does is decrease the value of their own services, it doesn't increase the value of their hardware.
Back when the iPhone first got released it was all about the UX and they were very careful to avoid specs. This was a Jobs inspired strategy that was very effective at conveying the product's feel over its power.
However, and for a while now, Apple has become just as specs obsessed as Android and are letting the product's feel/UX fall by the wayside.
Just look at their main iPhone page: https://www.apple.com/iphone-6/
It is primarily about specs (screen, processor, etc). Heck the entire iPhone 6 product is about power/performance/bigger-is-better.
With the iPhone 6's marketing, the question implicitly being asked and answered is "how is the iPhone 6 better than my current iPhone?"
At this point, there aren't that many potential iPhone 6 customers in the US who still don't know what iOS feels like.
They're trying to make it a Fire exclusive service, they're just doing the slow-lobster-pot approach of slowing cutting more and more devices out, and adding more Fire hardware to their lineup.
Most info is still under short term confidentiality but they are supposed to release that once marketing and sales begin. So complain to the FCC if you want so we can see the internal photos.