Amazon Press Event - 02 Apr

[Xanthe]

Roku + Playon means I don't need Amazon Fire TV.

[elemenoP]

I'm surprised at the price. Amazon is typically very aggressive in their hardware pricing and price below their competitors. But this is the same price as the HIGHEST priced Roku, and a LOT more than Chromecast (yes, I am aware that one is box and one is a stick... but who cares?).

Does it include one kernel of popcorn? Maybe that's why the price is high!

eP

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

But this is the same price as the HIGHEST priced Roku, and a LOT more than Chromecast (yes, I am aware that one is box and one is a stick... but who cares?).

Well "The Stick" is cheaper because it's not a complete system. Other hardware is required (laptop, tablet, smartphone, etc...) for it to work. That hardware streams the audio/video to the Chromecast stick (and acts as the remote for it).

I don't say that to belittle Chromecast at all--it's a cool little device--but there is a really, really, big reason why it's a lot cheaper than "a box:" it's only half of the whole system.

Like all new Amazon products (whose value is always immediately questioned upon press release), I assume that content and service will once again be where the real value is (making the price a non-factor for those attracted to the Fire TV).

[rkw]

Originally Posted by jswinden

I have Time Warner Cable TV and so-called high speed internet, which is now owned by Comcast. Even with my TWC 20 Mbits internet I have trouble streaming HD video. The reason is that TWC has such a crappy infrastructure and outdated equipment. Just normal web surfing can slow down to a snail's pace. My AppleTV sits unused most of the time because Netflix and HuluPlus would be a waste of money with my crappy internet connection. The only time I use my AppleTV is to push my iPad or iPhone or Mac content onto my HDTV. I cannot imagine Comcast being an improvement.

No, TWC is not owned by Comcast just yet. Comcast made an offer that was accepted by TWC but nothing is done and won't be for a long while yet. See they have to pass FCC/FTC approval before such an anticompetitive deal can happen. Not saying the in-big-business'-pocket FCC/FTC branches of government won't rubber stamp this deal but it's not a sure thing .

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Besides, they need something to add for the FireTV 2.0.

IF there is one thing I've learned with the Kindle and Kindle Fire, never, ever, ever buy gen1 or maybe even gen2 of anything made by Amazon. Seriously, before the year is done we are going to learn of a new version of this device. Or at the least it will drop $30-$40 in price.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

I'm surprised at the price. Amazon is typically very aggressive in their hardware pricing and price below their competitors. But this is the same price as the HIGHEST priced Roku, and a LOT more than Chromecast (yes, I am aware that one is box and one is a stick... but who cares?).

eP

Its hardware alone easily makes it a better value than the equally priced Roku 3, so the price actually is rather aggressive. It's hardware that matters, too. This thing could be $120 and still be a better value, imo, but $100 makes it a no-brainer (a term that seems like it should mean the opposite of what it does).

I'm a Roku early-adopter who still runs their first-gen box and considers it the best bang/buck home entertainment purchase I've ever made. I was about ready to pick up a new one after five years of the Roku-1 going strong. I seldom do brand-loyalty, but I've gotten such great value out of the Roku that I'm willing to wait for them to respond with a competing model. If they don't, Fire TV is such a clear choice that's it's almost unfair. The only substantial thing I see keeping people holding on to Roku is HBO-Go, and I don't see that being the case for long.

[rkw]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

"Instant streaming—Exclusive new feature ASAP predicts what movies and TV episodes you’ll want to watch and buffers them for playback before you hit play"

Anyone know if the player addresses my primary disappointment with Amazon Video...the total lack of an autoplay queue or at least autoplay for a season of a given show? It bugs me no end to have to pay enough attention to a show to select the next episode in a series or to drag my browser back to my "watch later" list to find what I want to watch next.

We need a true queue we can arrange like Hulu (actually works sort of but not perfectly when I last used it) which also autoplays the list content in the order we setup.

I know they don't want us to do this because so many people really don't watch what's on actively. Also lots of people sleep with the TV on. By not enabling what should be a given feature like this, Amazon is saving huge on bandwidth requirements. Even with bandwidth being cheap, it still costs and that could add up to a lot given the scale they deal with.

[rkw]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Its hardware alone easily makes it a better value than the equally priced Roku 3, so the price actually is rather aggressive. It's hardware that matters, too. This thing could be $120 and still be a better value, imo, but $100 makes it a no-brainer (a term that seems like it should mean the opposite of what it does).

I'm a Roku early-adopter who still runs their first-gen box and considers it the best bang/buck home entertainment purchase I've ever made. I was about ready to pick up a new one after five years of the Roku-1 going strong. I seldom do brand-loyalty, but I've gotten such great value out of the Roku that I'm willing to wait for them to respond with a competing model. If they don't, Fire TV is such a clear choice that's it's almost unfair. The only substantial thing I see keeping people holding on to Roku is HBO-Go, and I don't see that being the case for long.

Was a very early aRoku adopter who's still using my Roku 1 as well. I don't need gaming stuff so never found a compelling reason to buy a new version.

I'm not as sold on the FireTV device just yet. I've been disappointed by Amazon's practices with the Kindle Fire devices so I never bought into them beyond the KF1 as it was such a big disappointment as I found it's shortcomings the more I used it.

I just have a feeling frustrations will emerge rapidly as we see the device in service.

I do suspect they will be adding Audible to the thing though. That's a cool feature I did not see in the specs yet.

[WillysJeepMan]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

It's hardware that matters, too. This thing could be $120 and still be a better value, imo, but $100 makes it a no-brainer (a term that seems like it should mean the opposite of what it does).

I'm a Roku early-adopter who still runs their first-gen box and considers it the best bang/buck home entertainment purchase I've ever made. I was about ready to pick up a new one after five years of the Roku-1 going strong. I seldom do brand-loyalty, but I've gotten such great value out of the Roku that I'm willing to wait for them to respond with a competing model. If they don't, Fire TV is such a clear choice that's it's almost unfair. The only substantial thing I see keeping people holding on to Roku is HBO-Go, and I don't see that being the case for long.

The "superior" hardware of the Fire TV is in support of games. If one is not going to play games (and who seriously wants to play Android games on their TV?) then there are no benefits to that hardware.

I have a Roku 3 and Plex.

In what way is "Fire TV such a clear choice it's almost unfair"?

[fjtorres]

Never mind Chromecast, which is a cellphone or tablet accessory, how about comparing it to the *standalone* $50 Roku stick?

http://www.cnet.com/products/roku-streaming-stick-2014/

Or instead of buying the specsheet blind, how about an actual hands on review?

http://readwrite.com/2014/04/04/amaz...oAtXqKNjOqTqTv

FireTV may grow up into its promises, some day, but the release version doesn't.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Well "The Stick" is cheaper because it's not a complete system. Other hardware is required (laptop, tablet, smartphone, etc...) for it to work. That hardware streams the audio/video to the Chromecast stick (and acts as the remote for it).

That part is not correct, the phone/tablet does not stream to the Chromecast (that's the beauty of it), it only tells the Chromecast where to get the stream from, and then the Chromecast carries on by itself.

[Jessica Lares]

The Verge just posted their review:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/4/558...fire-tv-review

[QuantumIguana]

I still have a first-generation Roku that is getting pretty clunky. It's slooooow. When I am scrolling through titles, I have to wait several seconds for the images to appear on the screen. And if I try to pause while in the Hulu Plus app, it locks up and I have to restart the device. So, I'm open to a new device. The only thing that really interests me about the Amazon device is the voice search. I think I will wait and see how Roku responds. The private channels are a big plus for the Roku, I like the openness, and I doubt Amazon would be so open.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by afv011

That part is not correct, the phone/tablet does not stream to the Chromecast (that's the beauty of it), it only tells the Chromecast where to get the stream from, and then the Chromecast carries on by itself.

Well with Netflix, Hulu & the like, yes... of course. But not for Plex (which is on Chromecast) or any other potential future applications based on local streaming. Regardless ... my point still stands that the Chromecast stick isn't the whole picture. You can't just stab it in an hdmi slot and watch Netflix. You need another piece of hardware to make it go. It's cheaper because it's only a piece of the puzzle (not there's anything wrong with that).

[elemenoP]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Its hardware alone easily makes it a better value than the equally priced Roku 3, so the price actually is rather aggressive. It's hardware that matters, too. This thing could be $120 and still be a better value, imo, but $100 makes it a no-brainer (a term that seems like it should mean the opposite of what it does).

Performance on my Roku is pretty bad but my understanding is that it's due to my DSL line, not the box. Would a better processor allow movies to START sooner and not have to re-buffer in the middle of a movie? (That's the worst part about streaming). Would a bigger hard drive allow for better buffering? On the Roku, if I rewind or fast-forward even a little bit, I have to start the buffering all over again. I have often wondered if that was a limitation of the hard drive. If it had a bigger HD, presumably it could cache more of the movie?

eP

[Fbone]

Early reviews say the voice search commands only work with Amazon's video not with Netflix or Hulu. The $40 controller is needed.