Actually, that's a serious question. I'm looking for a box to recommend to a friend who's going to cut the cord. I think the Nvidia Shield will be better for them due to being real android tv, and because I have one and know the Android TV ecosystem better...
It looks like FireTV still doesn't have an easy way to install Kodi from the appstore, but requires that it be side-loaded.
And it looks like the Youtube app in the amazon app store is written by Amazon. The icon makes it look not not legit..
Even as a technical person I've found it much easier to cut the cord with a few different devices. I've yet to find a single device that does it all well.
Kodi is great at file playback but the bring-your-own-hardware approach is a great way to spend movie night trying to fix a broken computer (a separate mysql backend is needed for multi kodi device sync... seriously?) I replaced my kodi boxes with rokus and plex and haven't looked back.
Roku has a nice app selection and the remote makes a huge difference in usability for non tech folks. Then again roku lacks a good built-in "airplay" feature so I have an apple tv to do that.
I'd recommend to your friend two devices. A Roku, and a device that they can "cast" from the mobile platform they use.
I had a fire stick, and did the same thing. But side-loading was a pain, especially for updates. On my Shield, I get all the updates via the Play store.
I moved from raspberry pi's to amazon fire sticks and sideloading kodi is now down to a minute or so installation - including copying my advanced.xml over from a unc path so it uses the shared db. Life has been so much easier since.
The unofficial looking Youtube app on the Fire TV and Fire TV sticks that I own works OK. I don't know how it compares to Youtube on other set top boxes such as the Shield TV though. For live streams, it doesn't show the chat section that you see when looking in a web browser. It also makes it hard to see the video comments/notes (which I usually don't care about anyway).
I have a samsung, and I generally think that the smart tv aspect sucks. The only decently performing app is Netflix. You get a much slower, more static interface, can't load apps like kodi (meaning running a mythtv setup would be murder). AFAIK, there is no "live channels" or "HD Homerun" DVR app for Samsung smart tvs (in order to avoid the MythTV complexity)
> I have a samsung, and I generally think that the smart tv aspect sucks
It certainly does, and the remote is awful. I'm very happy that there's a setting to completely turn that feature off (which I did in a fit of rage when the TV I had just purchased for $2000 showed me an advertisement without being connected to a cable box or antenna).
I used to use an apple TV and an HTPC hooked up via HDMI. But my new Samsung TV really nailed it with their built in apps. It does Plex, Hulu, Amazon Video and Youtube. Plus I only have to use the 1 remote (which is also nice, about 10 buttons total).
"But the Apple TV starts at $179, which is more than twice as expensive as this latest generation of Amazon’s Fire TV. That makes for a rough comparison if you’re Apple.
Amazon has chosen to support HDR10 but not Dolby Vision for HDR playback. On the audio side, the device offers Dolby Atmos integration. That’s an odd switch-around from Apple’s approach with the Apple TV 4K, which outputs both Dolby Vision and HDR10 but not the Atmos audio format."
AppleTV Atmos support is coming.
And I don't think the comparison is rough. Apple is trying to make the best TV box not the cheapest. They should never cut the price, instead they should fix their rough edges, including the remote. I have no problem paying an extra $100 for a TV box I'm going to use every night if it's UI is the best, and it's content offerings are among the best.
I see this sort of thing a lot with comparisons between Amazon's products and their competitors. If all you're looking at is features and price, then Amazon looks like the winner most of the time. But having used both of these products, I'd go with an Apple TV over this without hesitation. The latest Apple TV is the only smart TV device I've used without having relatively serious bugs pop up on a fairly regular basis. The Nexus Player I had was so bad about this I really would have preferred having a DVD player and a Blockbuster to streaming...
I wish they sold a version with a bundled controller: not because I had any trouble buying a MiFi controller separately, but because the fact that I had to do that means that there are far too few games that are built expecting me to have a controller. If there was a bundle, I imagine it would booster developer support as well. Also I think it would help justify its comparable-to-console pricing to many people.
HDR is High Dynamic Range. Dynamic range is unitless, which allows comparisons different systems with different signal levels.
The dynamic range compares the highest signal level to the lowest level. Higher dynamic range implies higher resolution because if you hold the maximum output as a constant, one can resolve smaller signals with a better DR spec.
I think (though I may be wrong) this misses a difference between range and resolution. Yes, you can get lower absolute levels of the high end is constant, but HDR doesn't imply you can represent smaller differences in illumination level within the representable range of levels.
>HDR doesn't imply you can represent smaller differences in illumination level within the representable range of levels.
It doesn't? Dynamic range and resolution are directly related. Dynamic range isn't "range." This is why an HDR image has greater bit depth (more bits). Greater bit depth implies more resolution.
All things being equal, a system with higher dynamic range can convey smaller signals. More accurate information is able to be conveyed, which requires greater bit depth. There are even formulas for calculating the theoretical dynamic range of a digital system given its bit depth.
In the application under discussion, it's the ratio between the highest and lowest representable illumination level. This is, I think, very clearly “range” in the usual sense.
> Greater bit depth implies more resolution.
But it doesn't, in the same way that frame rate (temporal resolution) differs from run time (temporal range). Now, the difference is in the what the output device does with the data (since data intended to support one use could be interpreted and used for the other, with a 120fps stream played at 24fps with 5 times the runtime, or vice versa), not the representation format, but the whole point of HDR is representing wider differences in illumination, not resolving smaller differences between the same minimum and maximum.
I did a double take after seeing the device. That droopy built in cord seems like a really poor design choice. Aside from it being ugly there's potential for the cord to fail considering the device hangs from it and it can't be replaced. They even seem to be hiding it behind the remote in the amazon stock photos.
Ugly is kind of irrelevant when it's plugged into the back of the TV. The back of most TVs are ugly anyway!
I don't think the device will fail from hanging, as it's static, but it will almost certainly put strain on some varieties of HDMI connector, depending on orientation, and may be prone to falling out. One solution might have been an adhesive velcro pad to attach the device to the TV.
In any case, it's pretty impressive to offer 4K in a device a fraction of the size of the new Apple TV, and powered only from the HDMI port. Now all they need is more than a couple of dozen titles in 4K!
Looking at the marketing material, it’s clear Amazon is trying to make people think this and hope they’re not disappointed when they find out that, yes, they still have to plug it into the wall.
There’s only one tiny image on the product page [1] that shows the power cord coming out. Every other image is very careful to show it from an angle that makes it seem like the HDMI cable is the only cable.
There is text that mentions the power cable, but you have to scroll down pretty far (about 60% of the way down) before you’ll see it.
No ethernet, no optical out, no usb, dang this really limits my options from how I am using my gen 1 fire tv. Wifi isn't great inside my gear cabinet so hardwired makes sure I can push 1080p reliably, and the optical out I use for wireless headphones.
It looks like they're now selling an ethernet dongle compatible with the new fire tv box...that has itself become a dongle. I think I may have been dongle Incepted.
"Alexa play bloodline on netflix on fire tv"
instead of just "play bloodline".
UI fails are not limited to guis.
Yes it IS technicaly feasible to figure out that you are alone in your room and that you want to play movies on your default app + device.
No strong AI needed for that yet.
Yes it is good, however you need at least a 5.1.2 surround sound system to take advantage. And the 2 height speakers ideally need to be installed in your ceiling. Although they do have Atmos add on speakers that bounce the sound off the ceiling. To take full advantage you need 4 ceiling speakers.
I've noticed a difference in rewatching movies in different theaters in my city (one with Atmos support, the other without), but not enough of a difference I've felt a need to buy new home theater hardware for it.
I'm worried that 'Dolby Atmos' is a catch-all for a bunch of unrelated audio tech, but the positional audio in Overwatch (game) is noticeably better than most games have.
Well, I meant the "360 sound" part, where it goes above/below(?) your head instead of just around you.
I'm starting to see Atmos in far more products and content now where it's going beyond early adopter territory, so I'm curious if it's a noticeable improvement, ala 4k.
Ok, so this has the potential to age horrifically, but where do we go after 4K + HDR? I don't think VR is going to be the thing, and 3D has similar problems. 8K might be a thing, but even if that catches on, then I'll heavily doubt 16K will be.
I agree 8K will be a thing... eventually. 16k less likely.
there is already HDR10+, which is an improvement on HDR10 so I imagine better HDR formats and displays will be coming.
35mm films can't really scan much higher than 5k/6k, so we might be reaching the limit on new formats fairly soon. Many digital films today are shot in 2k or 4k, or have effects mastered at 2k. I imagine that won't translate very well to an 8k screen vs just a 4k.
Actually, that's a serious question. I'm looking for a box to recommend to a friend who's going to cut the cord. I think the Nvidia Shield will be better for them due to being real android tv, and because I have one and know the Android TV ecosystem better...
It looks like FireTV still doesn't have an easy way to install Kodi from the appstore, but requires that it be side-loaded.
And it looks like the Youtube app in the amazon app store is written by Amazon. The icon makes it look not not legit..