4 ms·

I'm not sure I understand the value proposition over using the Chromecast. What's the main difference? It looks like the specs are better, it supports Amazon's

by Kaedon 12y ago

I'm not sure I understand the value proposition over using the Chromecast. What's the main difference? It looks like the specs are better, it supports Amazon's streaming service and does not support HBO Go, and it has the potential for games. To me, none of those are convincing enough to choose this over the Chromecast that I already have, even at the discounted price. Am I missing something?

NoNotTheDuo 12y ago
For Prime members I think it makes sense. I have a Chromecast, and use it regularly - mainly youtube and MLS games. I don't think I've ever bought a movie from the Play Store and casted it. I would like to cast 'The Wire' and with the new Fire Stick, I can do that.
benologist 12y ago
The remote control's a pretty nice addition for families with more people than smartphones/tablets.
gopher2 12y ago
Most people don't have a Chromecast already so they aren't evaluating on "Is this different enough for me to switch" just which should they get.
SifJar 12y ago
If you already have and use Prime, and want to be able to watch Prime (and non-Prime, rented/purchased media) on your TV, it's a relatively cheap way to do so (especially at the discounted $19). Plus it offers a bunch of other services into the bundle (Netflix, Hulu etc.). If you already have and use a Chromecast, not much use really except for Amazon content, which doesn't work with Chromecast (presently, at least; no idea if they plan to make it work or not, they may wish to restrict their services to their own hardware). If you currently have neither, Fire Stick might be a bit cheaper (with the Prime deal; non-Prime users can apparently take out a free trial and get the reduced price too), has a remote instead of relying on another device (phone/tablet/PC) like Chromecast does, supports different services (most notably Amazon's own service for Fire, HBO Go for Chromecast), has an actual interface and on-device apps, rather than again relying on external devices for these. Of course, if you have a Chromecast on your TV(s) already, none of these are probably enticing reasons.

by Kaedon 12y ago

NoNotTheDuo 12y ago

For Prime members I think it makes sense. I have a Chromecast, and use it regularly - mainly youtube and MLS games. I don't think I've ever bought a movie from the Play Store and casted it. I would like to cast 'The Wire' and with the new Fire Stick, I can do that.

benologist 12y ago

The remote control's a pretty nice addition for families with more people than smartphones/tablets.

gopher2 12y ago

Most people don't have a Chromecast already so they aren't evaluating on "Is this different enough for me to switch" just which should they get.

SifJar 12y ago

If you already have and use Prime, and want to be able to watch Prime (and non-Prime, rented/purchased media) on your TV, it's a relatively cheap way to do so (especially at the discounted $19). Plus it offers a bunch of other services into the bundle (Netflix, Hulu etc.). If you already have and use a Chromecast, not much use really except for Amazon content, which doesn't work with Chromecast (presently, at least; no idea if they plan to make it work or not, they may wish to restrict their services to their own hardware). If you currently have neither, Fire Stick might be a bit cheaper (with the Prime deal; non-Prime users can apparently take out a free trial and get the reduced price too), has a remote instead of relying on another device (phone/tablet/PC) like Chromecast does, supports different services (most notably Amazon's own service for Fire, HBO Go for Chromecast), has an actual interface and on-device apps, rather than again relying on external devices for these. Of course, if you have a Chromecast on your TV(s) already, none of these are probably enticing reasons.