9 ms·

Amazon Fire TV Stick

87 points by kshatrea 12y ago

SSilver2k2 12y ago
My coworker thinks it should've been called the Fire Torch
eli 12y ago
Can I stream my desktop to the TV? Doesn't seem like it.
- baggachipz 12y ago
  Right, which makes it seem odd that they're comparing it to the Chromecast. More of a competitor to the Roku stick.
  - bryanlarsen 12y ago
    I suspect that the chromecast has sold at least an order of magnitude more devices than roku has.
- teamonkey 12y ago
  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." http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/27/amazon-fire-tv-stick/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/27/amazon-fire-tv-stick/
  - eli 12y ago
    Interesting. A quick google suggests Windows 8 supports Miracast, so maybe it's possible. It's certainly not a feature they are touting though.
untog 12y ago
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.
- Osmium 12y ago
  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.
  - TarpitCarnivore 12y ago
    My one and only real complaint with Roku is the interface on some channels. Netflix compared to HBO Go is so glaringly bad.
  - k_roy 12y ago
    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.
- bentcorner 12y ago
  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.
hatred 12y ago
Any info on HBO Go support ?
- pgrote 12y ago
  On the chart Amazon provided it is blank. I found it interesting they would show that.
  - madoublet 12y ago
    At least it is honest. But, the main reason I keep buying Roku is that they seem to support everything.
madoublet 12y ago
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.
- twoodfin 12y ago
  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".
  - zimpenfish 12y ago
    That sounds a lot like Aereo[1]'s ultimately failed defence. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
- johne20 12y ago
  No. I had similar thoughts when Fire tv was introduced. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7516646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7516646
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  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.
  - 12y ago
twoodfin 12y ago
For $20, this was a no-brainer purchase, even if my primary use ends up being streaming to hotel TVs.
- publicfig 12y ago
  I must be confused, but where are you seeing this for $20? EDIT: I figured out that it is $19 for Prime members. Leaving this up for anyone else that may be confused.
  - aroch 12y ago
    Prime members get a discount: http://idzr.org/y27y http://idzr.org/y27y
  - darkstar999 12y ago
    I have prime and I'm not seeing that price, even in my cart. Is it expired?
    - publicfig 12y ago
      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.
    - mmcclellan 12y ago
      The banner says "Discount at checkout." It stays $39 in cart but when you Proceed to Checkout, it shows Prime Savings of $20.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- taude 12y ago
  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.
hammock 12y ago
I dont understand why these things can't browse the internet
- unwind 12y ago
  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.
- guyzero 12y ago
  Mostly because no one actually wants to browse the web on their TV.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    And without a keyboard, mouse or touch screen.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > 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".
icefox 12y ago
It seems odd that just like the Fire TV they have tech as the number one item to try to sell you on the product "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.
- gdulli 12y ago
  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.
- saurik 12y ago
  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 :/.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    It is worth noting that while a Chromecast doesn't store stuff (aside from maybe cache), the Amazon stick will need to (e.g. games). 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.
    - saurik 12y ago
      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".
- 12y ago
SnaKeZ 12y ago
What's OS? Android?
- Twirrim 12y ago
  I imagine that like most of their devices, it's running on the FireOS (Amazon's fork of Android)
mrbill 12y ago
For $20 each (for Prime members), sure, I'll buy two - I'll find a use for them somewhere even if it's giving them to friends as gifts.
SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
I'm still a bit puzzled by chromcast et all. 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?
- oflordal 12y ago
  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.
- xeroxmalf 12y ago
  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.
- doughj3 12y ago
  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.
- zapt02 12y ago
  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.
- petilon 12y ago
  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.
saurik 12y ago
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. [1] http://www.geek.com/mobile/amazon-has-83-million-worth-of-fire-phones-it-cant-sell-1607718/ http://www.geek.com/mobile/amazon-has-83-million-worth-of-fi...
- davidw 12y ago
  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.
adricnet 12y ago
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?
- Pxtl 12y ago
  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.
  - bengali3 12y ago
    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.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    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.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Cost seems like the biggest reason to me.
cletus 12y ago
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.
- vidarh 12y ago
  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.
jimktrains2 12y ago
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.
feld 12y ago
I need to replace the Roku 2 in my bedroom as it is getting long in the tooth, but this won't work for me until they support NHL Gamecenter Live.
stonesam92 12y ago
Interesting that they mention Netflix before Amazon Instant Video in the description. "It's an easy way to enjoy Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, Hulu Plus, YouTube.com, music, and much more"
- 72deluxe 12y ago
  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.
fpgeek 12y ago
Is it sad my first thought was: There goes any chance for Amazon Instant Video on Chromecast and/or Android TV for the foreseeable future?
- pbreit 12y ago
  Yes, but mostly because it's probably untrue.
  - doughj3 12y ago
    Why do you say that? There still isn't an Amazon Instant Video for Android; it's only available on FireOS devices.
    - nirvdrum 12y ago
      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.
      - myko 12y ago
        AFAIK that doesn't work on the tablet (lol, yes - Amazon makes a separate Android app for tablet and phone), and it doesn't work with Chromecast. Whenever I want to watch Amazon content I have to switch over to my gaming console. It's really silly.
        commandar 12y ago
        Can confirm - the Amazon tablet app still says my Nexus 7 is incompatible with Amazon Instant Video.
        derobert 12y ago
        Odd — just tried Amazon Instant Video (from the Amazon app) on my Nexus 10 and it works.
taude 12y ago
I notice that in their comparison grid that they don't list Google content. No thanks, I don't want a streaming stick for each online service, so I think I'll stick to my Roku.
chrisBob 12y ago
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.
amykhar 12y ago
I wish companies would quit making hardware and just make apps for the existing hardware. I am so tired of having to have multiple boxes.
- josho 12y ago
  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.
coob 12y ago
I can't wait to see how hackable these things are. Decent processor, HDMI out, WiFi, 1GB RAM… pretty decent package. I know there are other cheap android sticks out there but one with a remote for $39 is pretty tempting.
- colinbartlett 12y ago
  $19 if you have Prime. What could you do with it, though?
bsimpson 12y ago
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."
- seanflyon 12y ago
  That would be in the customer's best interest.
- russellbeattie 12y ago
  Fire TV and Fire TV Stick both support DIAL already. If you're a developer, here's the technical details: https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/devices/fire-tv/docs/dial-integration https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/devices/fire-t...
Someone1234 12y ago
> 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.
- numbsafari 12y ago
  I feel the same way about most Android to iOS comparisons.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    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. Just look at their main iPhone page: https://www.apple.com/iphone-6/ 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.
    - janardanyri 12y ago
      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.
undrwatr 12y ago
FCC ID:2ABDU-0509 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.
AndrewDucker 12y ago
Will let you play personal videos - but only from the cloud, so far as I can see. I'll stick to the Matchstick, which is promising DLNA access.
drivingmenuts 12y ago
Theoretically, my TV already does this (mine in particular is not a smart TV, but apparently all the rest are), so why do I need this? To me, this looks like Amazon is marketing to an audience that is slowly dying off anyway. Which doesn't seem like a good way forward.
- darkstar999 12y ago
  I bet your TV doesn't integrate with your phone/tablet.
  - drivingmenuts 12y ago
    I'm not even sure that I would need that. One reason is that I don't watch much TV to begin with, other than Netflix and Amazon. So, admittedly, I'm not their use case. The other is that TV doesn't do anything. It's for consumption. Sure, a modern television unit does other things but they aren't TV, exactly. They're info services or game apps, but most are more easily consumed elsewhere, such as on a device that almost never leaves my side. I get that this is, in some way, part of the Internet of Things, which sounds great and all, but do we really need that?
absolutesynd 12y ago
This market is getting awful crowed: AppleTv, Roku, ChromeCast, and not to mention offering from manufacturers that are built into the tv.
hagope 12y ago
$19 for prime members!
digital-rubber 12y ago
If only they could re-use the hardware of the not sold fire phones.. :-)
ElijahLynn 12y ago
Hooray for competition!!
pm90 12y ago
The first thing I noticed was: an actual remote. Are you serious Amazon? I think Google got it absolutely right with chromecast. I love the convenience of using my cellphone as the orchestrator of all my digital entertainment. Think about it: single device that is my interface to digital entertainment; maybe AI in the future would replace even the little effort I do have to make. And Amazon comes up with....a remote? No, no no. I really hope this doesn't catch on.
- publicfig 12y ago
  I, on the other hand, love the fact that I can use this device without having to pair my device and dealing with inconsistent app interfaces and (I fully admit this may be a local problem) missing casting icons and necessary device restarts to pair them. Having a remote as an option is great, and this device still has a phone-based remote for other circumstances as well.
  - pm90 12y ago
    The solution to that problem is not to add another device, rather, it is to improve the app interfaces themselves. Cellular phones used to be the size and weight of bricks not too long ago.
    - publicfig 12y ago
      That is your solution to the problem. I like physical remotes, and the fact that they also allow for a phone based remote as well seems like it's a decent solution from my perspective, and shouldn't really affect those that don't want to use a remote.
arb99 12y ago
Interesting that as one of the main images for it, they use 'flappy birds' (http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/m-slate-04-lg._V322539675_.jpg http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/...) according to wikipedia, its an official version (http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/m-slate-04-lg._V322539675_.jpg http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/...)
Rudism 12y ago
Does anyone know if Amazon or Google are somehow obfuscating or DRMing their casting protocols to these devices? If anyone ever made an unofficial 3rd party stick that supported both Amazon Prime plus all of the services already supported on Chromecast I'd buy one for every TV in a heartbeat. Until then I'll probably stick to Rokus.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
stevenhubertron 12y ago
An interesting combination that would only cost you $118 is the Fire Stick and the Fire HD 6. For the price of basically an Apple TV you can have everything the stick does, plus one hella cool remote to control everything you beam to the TV. Sure my iPhone can do it as well, but there is something cool about just leaving the Fire as a dedicated remote. That might just be be though. http://www.amazon.com/Fire-HD-Display-Wi-Fi-GB/dp/B00KC6I06S/ http://www.amazon.com/Fire-HD-Display-Wi-Fi-GB/dp/B00KC6I06S...

87 points by kshatrea 12y ago

SSilver2k2 12y ago

My coworker thinks it should've been called the Fire Torch

eli 12y ago

Can I stream my desktop to the TV? Doesn't seem like it.

baggachipz 12y ago
Right, which makes it seem odd that they're comparing it to the Chromecast. More of a competitor to the Roku stick.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  I suspect that the chromecast has sold at least an order of magnitude more devices than roku has.
teamonkey 12y ago
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." http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/27/amazon-fire-tv-stick/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/27/amazon-fire-tv-stick/
- eli 12y ago
  Interesting. A quick google suggests Windows 8 supports Miracast, so maybe it's possible. It's certainly not a feature they are touting though.

untog 12y ago

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.

Osmium 12y ago
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.
- TarpitCarnivore 12y ago
  My one and only real complaint with Roku is the interface on some channels. Netflix compared to HBO Go is so glaringly bad.
- k_roy 12y ago
  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.
bentcorner 12y ago
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.

hatred 12y ago

Any info on HBO Go support ?

pgrote 12y ago
On the chart Amazon provided it is blank. I found it interesting they would show that.
- madoublet 12y ago
  At least it is honest. But, the main reason I keep buying Roku is that they seem to support everything.

madoublet 12y ago

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.

twoodfin 12y ago
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".
- zimpenfish 12y ago
  That sounds a lot like Aereo[1]'s ultimately failed defence. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
johne20 12y ago
No. I had similar thoughts when Fire tv was introduced. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7516646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7516646
bryanlarsen 12y ago
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.
- 12y ago

twoodfin 12y ago

For $20, this was a no-brainer purchase, even if my primary use ends up being streaming to hotel TVs.

publicfig 12y ago
I must be confused, but where are you seeing this for $20? EDIT: I figured out that it is $19 for Prime members. Leaving this up for anyone else that may be confused.
- aroch 12y ago
  Prime members get a discount: http://idzr.org/y27y http://idzr.org/y27y
- darkstar999 12y ago
  I have prime and I'm not seeing that price, even in my cart. Is it expired?
  - publicfig 12y ago
    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.
  - mmcclellan 12y ago
    The banner says "Discount at checkout." It stays $39 in cart but when you Proceed to Checkout, it shows Prime Savings of $20.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
taude 12y ago
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.

hammock 12y ago

I dont understand why these things can't browse the internet

unwind 12y ago
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.
guyzero 12y ago
Mostly because no one actually wants to browse the web on their TV.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  And without a keyboard, mouse or touch screen.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> 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".

icefox 12y ago

It seems odd that just like the Fire TV they have tech as the number one item to try to sell you on the product "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.

gdulli 12y ago
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.
saurik 12y ago
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 :/.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  It is worth noting that while a Chromecast doesn't store stuff (aside from maybe cache), the Amazon stick will need to (e.g. games). 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.
  - saurik 12y ago
    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".
12y ago

SnaKeZ 12y ago

What's OS? Android?

Twirrim 12y ago
I imagine that like most of their devices, it's running on the FireOS (Amazon's fork of Android)

mrbill 12y ago

For $20 each (for Prime members), sure, I'll buy two - I'll find a use for them somewhere even if it's giving them to friends as gifts.

SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago

I'm still a bit puzzled by chromcast et all. 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?

oflordal 12y ago
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.
xeroxmalf 12y ago
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.
doughj3 12y ago
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.
zapt02 12y ago
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.
petilon 12y ago
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.

saurik 12y ago

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. [1] http://www.geek.com/mobile/amazon-has-83-million-worth-of-fire-phones-it-cant-sell-1607718/ http://www.geek.com/mobile/amazon-has-83-million-worth-of-fi...

davidw 12y ago
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.

adricnet 12y ago

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?

Pxtl 12y ago
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.
- bengali3 12y ago
  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.
- vidarh 12y ago
  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.
seanflyon 12y ago
Cost seems like the biggest reason to me.

cletus 12y ago

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.

vidarh 12y ago
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.

jimktrains2 12y ago

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.

feld 12y ago

I need to replace the Roku 2 in my bedroom as it is getting long in the tooth, but this won't work for me until they support NHL Gamecenter Live.

stonesam92 12y ago

Interesting that they mention Netflix before Amazon Instant Video in the description. "It's an easy way to enjoy Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, Hulu Plus, YouTube.com, music, and much more"

72deluxe 12y ago
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.

fpgeek 12y ago

Is it sad my first thought was: There goes any chance for Amazon Instant Video on Chromecast and/or Android TV for the foreseeable future?

pbreit 12y ago
Yes, but mostly because it's probably untrue.
- doughj3 12y ago
  Why do you say that? There still isn't an Amazon Instant Video for Android; it's only available on FireOS devices.
  - nirvdrum 12y ago
    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.
    - myko 12y ago
      AFAIK that doesn't work on the tablet (lol, yes - Amazon makes a separate Android app for tablet and phone), and it doesn't work with Chromecast. Whenever I want to watch Amazon content I have to switch over to my gaming console. It's really silly.
      - commandar 12y ago
        Can confirm - the Amazon tablet app still says my Nexus 7 is incompatible with Amazon Instant Video.
        derobert 12y ago
        Odd — just tried Amazon Instant Video (from the Amazon app) on my Nexus 10 and it works.

taude 12y ago

I notice that in their comparison grid that they don't list Google content. No thanks, I don't want a streaming stick for each online service, so I think I'll stick to my Roku.

chrisBob 12y ago

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.

amykhar 12y ago

I wish companies would quit making hardware and just make apps for the existing hardware. I am so tired of having to have multiple boxes.

josho 12y ago
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.

coob 12y ago

I can't wait to see how hackable these things are. Decent processor, HDMI out, WiFi, 1GB RAM… pretty decent package. I know there are other cheap android sticks out there but one with a remote for $39 is pretty tempting.

colinbartlett 12y ago
$19 if you have Prime. What could you do with it, though?

bsimpson 12y ago

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."

seanflyon 12y ago
That would be in the customer's best interest.
russellbeattie 12y ago
Fire TV and Fire TV Stick both support DIAL already. If you're a developer, here's the technical details: https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/devices/fire-tv/docs/dial-integration https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/devices/fire-t...

Someone1234 12y ago

> 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.

numbsafari 12y ago
I feel the same way about most Android to iOS comparisons.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  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. Just look at their main iPhone page: https://www.apple.com/iphone-6/ 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.
  - janardanyri 12y ago
    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.

undrwatr 12y ago

FCC ID:2ABDU-0509 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.

AndrewDucker 12y ago

Will let you play personal videos - but only from the cloud, so far as I can see. I'll stick to the Matchstick, which is promising DLNA access.

drivingmenuts 12y ago

Theoretically, my TV already does this (mine in particular is not a smart TV, but apparently all the rest are), so why do I need this? To me, this looks like Amazon is marketing to an audience that is slowly dying off anyway. Which doesn't seem like a good way forward.

darkstar999 12y ago
I bet your TV doesn't integrate with your phone/tablet.
- drivingmenuts 12y ago
  I'm not even sure that I would need that. One reason is that I don't watch much TV to begin with, other than Netflix and Amazon. So, admittedly, I'm not their use case. The other is that TV doesn't do anything. It's for consumption. Sure, a modern television unit does other things but they aren't TV, exactly. They're info services or game apps, but most are more easily consumed elsewhere, such as on a device that almost never leaves my side. I get that this is, in some way, part of the Internet of Things, which sounds great and all, but do we really need that?

absolutesynd 12y ago

This market is getting awful crowed: AppleTv, Roku, ChromeCast, and not to mention offering from manufacturers that are built into the tv.

hagope 12y ago

$19 for prime members!

digital-rubber 12y ago

If only they could re-use the hardware of the not sold fire phones.. :-)

ElijahLynn 12y ago

Hooray for competition!!

pm90 12y ago

The first thing I noticed was: an actual remote. Are you serious Amazon? I think Google got it absolutely right with chromecast. I love the convenience of using my cellphone as the orchestrator of all my digital entertainment. Think about it: single device that is my interface to digital entertainment; maybe AI in the future would replace even the little effort I do have to make. And Amazon comes up with....a remote? No, no no. I really hope this doesn't catch on.

publicfig 12y ago
I, on the other hand, love the fact that I can use this device without having to pair my device and dealing with inconsistent app interfaces and (I fully admit this may be a local problem) missing casting icons and necessary device restarts to pair them. Having a remote as an option is great, and this device still has a phone-based remote for other circumstances as well.
- pm90 12y ago
  The solution to that problem is not to add another device, rather, it is to improve the app interfaces themselves. Cellular phones used to be the size and weight of bricks not too long ago.
  - publicfig 12y ago
    That is your solution to the problem. I like physical remotes, and the fact that they also allow for a phone based remote as well seems like it's a decent solution from my perspective, and shouldn't really affect those that don't want to use a remote.

arb99 12y ago

Interesting that as one of the main images for it, they use 'flappy birds' (http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/m-slate-04-lg._V322539675_.jpg http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/...) according to wikipedia, its an official version (http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/m-slate-04-lg._V322539675_.jpg http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/...)

Rudism 12y ago

Does anyone know if Amazon or Google are somehow obfuscating or DRMing their casting protocols to these devices? If anyone ever made an unofficial 3rd party stick that supported both Amazon Prime plus all of the services already supported on Chromecast I'd buy one for every TV in a heartbeat. Until then I'll probably stick to Rokus.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

stevenhubertron 12y ago

An interesting combination that would only cost you $118 is the Fire Stick and the Fire HD 6. For the price of basically an Apple TV you can have everything the stick does, plus one hella cool remote to control everything you beam to the TV. Sure my iPhone can do it as well, but there is something cool about just leaving the Fire as a dedicated remote. That might just be be though. http://www.amazon.com/Fire-HD-Display-Wi-Fi-GB/dp/B00KC6I06S/ http://www.amazon.com/Fire-HD-Display-Wi-Fi-GB/dp/B00KC6I06S...