
Amazon Fire TV Stick - kshatrea
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GDQ0RMG/ref=br_imp_ara-3?_encoding=UTF8&nav_sdd=aps&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=gateway-center-column&pf_rd_r=18WJ2GABY3NS9XEMMZ2E&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1958529062&pf_rd_i=507846
======
Someone1234
> 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.

~~~
nikhizzle
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.

~~~
Someone1234
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.

------
icefox
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.

~~~
saurik
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
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
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".

------
untog
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
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.

~~~
k_roy
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.

------
fpgeek
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
Yes, but mostly because it's probably untrue.

~~~
fpgeek
Why do you say that?

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).

~~~
pbreit
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.

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

~~~
davidw
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.

------
bsimpson
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."

~~~
russellbeattie
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-t...](https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/devices/fire-
tv/docs/dial-integration)

------
madoublet
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.

~~~
bryanlarsen
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.

~~~
synthos
If home internet speeds weren't so asymmetrical, you could save/stream the
broadcast to the cloud to be streamed back later.

------
adricnet
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
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
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.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
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?

~~~
wlesieutre
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.

~~~
k_roy
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)

------
Rudism
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.

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

~~~
publicfig
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.

~~~
darkstar999
I have prime and I'm not seeing that price, even in my cart. Is it expired?

~~~
publicfig
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.

------
cletus
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
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.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
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.

------
arb99
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/...](http://g-ecx.images-
amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/m-slate-04-lg._V322539675_.jpg))

according to wikipedia, its an official version ([http://g-ecx.images-
amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/...](http://g-ecx.images-
amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/m-slate-04-lg._V322539675_.jpg))

------
stevenhubertron
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/)

------
stonesam92
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
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.

------
SSilver2k2
My coworker thinks it should've been called the Fire Torch

------
mrbill
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.

------
amykhar
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
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.

------
jimktrains2
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.

------
drivingmenuts
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
I bet your TV doesn't integrate with your phone/tablet.

~~~
drivingmenuts
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?

------
chrisBob
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.

------
coob
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
$19 if you have Prime. What could you do with it, though?

------
undrwatr
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.

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

~~~
guyzero
Mostly because no one actually wants to browse the web on their TV.

~~~
seanflyon
And without a keyboard, mouse or touch screen.

------
taude
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.

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

~~~
teamonkey
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
Interesting. A quick google suggests Windows 8 supports Miracast, so maybe
it's possible. It's certainly not a feature they are touting though.

------
feld
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.

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

------
AndrewDucker
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.

------
pm90
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
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
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
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.

------
hatred
Any info on HBO Go support ?

~~~
pgrote
On the chart Amazon provided it is blank. I found it interesting they would
show that.

~~~
madoublet
At least it is honest. But, the main reason I keep buying Roku is that they
seem to support everything.

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

------
ElijahLynn
Hooray for competition!!

------
SnaKeZ
What's OS? Android?

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

------
hagope
$19 for prime members!

