Amazon Debuts New Fire TV with 4K Video & Alexa Voice Assistant

[Keane16]

Please...Apple, Amazon, etc.

You don't know anything about gaming.

You sound like Palm and Blackberry executives did when the iPhone was rumoured/released.

Android and iOS have already hurt traditional handheld gaming (Vita/DS lines), slide 7 of this IDC and App Annie report sums up just how big they've gotten: https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.appannie.com/reports/AA-IDC+M&P+Gaming+Spotlight+4Q14.pdf

You sound like a gamer. That's fine, PS4/XB1 aren't going away.

But people like me who game casually - I'm excited to see what can be developed on the Apple TV. And as the Wii showed and iOS/Android gaming shows - there's a huge market to tap into. Those of us that don't want to spend $300+ on the console, and then $30+ for the top games.

Real Racing 3 came out over 2 years ago (for free) when the flagship iOS devices were the iPhone 5 (with an A6 Soc) and iPad 2 (A5). For it's time it looked and played decent. I'd love to see what a new Real Racing 4 could do on an A9X found in the iPad Pro:

Just look at how much more devs have to work with now compared to the iPad 2 when Real Racing 3 came out.

And then think about an Apple TV with an A10X in a couple of years that supports true 4k and hopefully by then there are decent MFi controllers (or even a good 1st party controller). This is another reason I think this generation has been capped at 1080p, video playback at 4k is one thing, developing smooth apps (particularly games) at 4k is another kettle of fish.

So in 2017/8 there's potential for a 4K Apple TV versus the PS4 and XB1 that can only do 1080p. My outlandish prediction? I think we will see new consoles from Sony and Microsoft way quicker than we have over that last few console generations.

Like I say, I'm excited to see where this goes.

 

[cardfan]

Please...Apple, Amazon, etc.

You don't know anything about gaming. Amazon, just because you bought Twitch doesn't mean ****. Apple, your adding technology that we had 10 years ago with the Wii.

Please just leave gaming to Microsoft, Sony, and Valve.

4K doesn't mean anything. $100 or $150 doesn't mean anything. People that want to game will spend $300-$400 buying a console. And that's the average consumer. You can't get lower.

Would I rather spend $100 or $150 for an Amazon or Apple TV or spend $350-$400 for a Xbox One or PS4?

That's like would you rather spent $1 on one of those crappy free Android phones that carriers advertise when you can spent $199 (carrier price) or $600+ for an iPhone 6s.

That Amazon controller looks like cheap plastic and Apple hasn't updated Game Center since like 2011 with actual improvements or features.

Two companies who want to make an impact on gaming but have no clue.

There's enough causal gamers out there for apple tv. If you're going to have an app store you can't simply ignore the games. The biggest benefit is that we the customers don't have to wait for Apple to put what they choose on it, now we can.

IMO, making the remote the gaming controller is just asking too much. Just include some cheap controller dedicated for gaming Apple. However, the fight is over the main input. That main input is the remote, not some hdmi input in the back of the tv. I'd focus on the remote having Siri, blowing the harmony away, and becoming the universal remote of choice. This is what deserves the focus and will win the battle. Not this 4k stuff that will happen eventually.

 

[poppy10]

I choose to spend my money at the company that releases complete products at the right time, rather than half-baked products.

Is that the same company that released half baked versions of Homekit, Healthkit, Carplay and Apple Maps/Apple Music long before they were ready for prime time?

 

[toke lahti]

By the time I own a 4K TV (at least a year or two off), I'm sure Apple will have a 4K version of their new Apple TV. I have no problem buying a 1080p Apple TV when it's release in October.

Don't bet on it. Average life of atv model is about 2.5 years.

So, no 4K at 60fps, and no HDR - both features of HMDI 2.0.

Most likely this does not support HDMI 2.0, and isn't "really" 4K in the sense of taking advantage of the features of a 4K tv other than only the resolution.

2.0 was released 2 years ago. Hdr and 4k blu-ray needs hdmi 2.0a.

The spec just got finalized in May. Players are now being announced.

Samsung has already showed their first 4k bd, no specs are out yet though.

I don't see any reason for these boxes now. I use my ipad as remote for netflix playbacked by sony's bd-player in fHD & 5.1-audio. All 4k bd-players will do the same in 4k...

 

[toke lahti]

I own an Amazon Fire TV and it is NOT the "future of tv." Making it 4K won't change anything either. Not saying Apple TV will rule the pack but it's already getting software support (MLB, Disney Infiinity for example) that the other set top boxes lack.
Could be because they don't offer 4K content on iTunes? Sharp just announced an 8K TV on Monday - does that mean all the 4K TVs are out of date?

It will make new 4k tv obsolete in 2021 and apple will release 8k atv in 2024...

 

[snowmoon]

My problem with the Fire is the fact that it's another ^$&*&^$ incompatible storefront. It will not ( nicely ) work with any Google Play apps that you have already purchased and it won't play any paid google content ( rented movies ).

I'm invested in iOS and Google Play already... not going to start paying for yet another platform, especially another Android based platform.

 

[monty77]

So this or new ATV? Primary use is Plex / Airplay although apps would be nice. DTS/DTS-HD + other HD audio formats would be nice too.

 

[kyjaotkb]

Before all the new ATV haters get too excited: It doesn't mention specific HDMI version support, and specifically says it's limited to "2160p up to 30fps."

So, no 4K at 60fps, and no HDR - both features of HMDI 2.0.

Most likely this does not support HDMI 2.0, and isn't "really" 4K in the sense of taking advantage of the features of a 4K tv other than only the resolution.

99% of films are shot at 24 fps, what are you talking about...

 

[mk_in_mke]

Oh stop apologizing for Apple. There is no excuse as to why they shouldn't have included 4K in what is supposed to be "the future of tv". They are stingy just like they have 16GB iPhone and have outdated iPads yet still charge full price for them.

The "Stop apologizing for Apple" is too much, don't you think? Let's look at it differently...

Ask anyone in the Business World (i.e. major corporations providing cell phones to their employees) what they think about the 16Gb phone... This is the perfect option! The phones provide all the functionalities and do not require more storage since this is for business usage... The 16Gb is aimed at this market: provide the experience, the easy deployment capabilities, the security of the paltform and the lower cost.

Including 4K? This is a new market and you know very well the Apple Way... They will wait until they have a solution they can market with 100% integrated solutions... No one is preventing you from buying Amazon and Samsung if the Apple business model or timeline of releases do not fit your techy needs. it reminds me of the people criticizing Jobs for the Flash implementation or, even better, criticising Apple for the Blue Ray integration... Who buys Blue Ray now? Apple was 100% right and 1,000% correct on their estimate of the trend (digital world and downloads.)

Apple is Stingy? when i look at the quality of the equipment they design and manufacture, Stingy is not the word I would use... When it comes to releasing devices and peripherals, I, for one, value more the experience and the integration than the Google, Samsung or Amazon approaches: launch a hi tech gizmo and no support, logistics, experience behind...

Apple TV will open a new world (Apps, content, games...) no other company will be able to match... Not the best, maybe... But certainly the best integration and customer experience..

 

[Rigby]

Yes, they will have very detailed grainy textures but the sharpness of images won't be as decent as modern films.

That depends entirely on how the movie was shot. Analog film can have a far higher resolution than even the latest digital cameras. See if you can find a 70mm screening of Lawrence, you'll see what I mean.

 

[budselectjr]

Don't bet on it. Average life of atv model is about 2.5 years.

2.0 was released 2 years ago. Hdr and 4k blu-ray needs hdmi 2.0a.

Samsung has already showed their first 4k bd, no specs are out yet though.

I don't see any reason for these boxes now. I use my ipad as remote for netflix playbacked by sony's bd-player in fHD & 5.1-audio. All 4k bd-players will do the same in 4k...

Not talking about player specs.

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...nalized-4k-support-hdr-digital-bridge-sharing

 

[npmacuser5]

Please...Apple, Amazon, etc.

You don't know anything about gaming. Amazon, just because you bought Twitch doesn't mean ****. Apple, your adding technology that we had 10 years ago with the Wii.

Please just leave gaming to Microsoft, Sony, and Valve.

4K doesn't mean anything. $100 or $150 doesn't mean anything. People that want to game will spend $300-$400 buying a console. And that's the average consumer. You can't get lower.

Would I rather spend $100 or $150 for an Amazon or Apple TV or spend $350-$400 for a Xbox One or PS4?

That's like would you rather spent $1 on one of those crappy free Android phones that carriers advertise when you can spent $199 (carrier price) or $600+ for an iPhone 6s.

That Amazon controller looks like cheap plastic and Apple hasn't updated Game Center since like 2011 with actual improvements or features.

Two companies who want to make an impact on gaming but have no clue.

Define Gaming?
Define any activity, like biking. Some it is a major sport, others a ride with the kids is great. According to you, bike companies should only make high performance bikes. Then there are the future major sport riders who start out as a ride with their parents. Apple and Amazon are filling a nice gap and at present will not replace serious game consoles. They provide a good entry into gaming, that will be enjoyed by many and who knows one of those streaming gamers just may kick your backside someday. Does the millions of game apps downloaded on the iPad and iPhone help you out a bit? I am not sure why you are ranting.

 

[hkenneth]

Really? Because when the AppleTV was announced there was no end of bitching about 4k@60Hz support, Gigabit ethernet, and TOSLink audio all missing. They are all missing here too.

The price is indeed nicer, but from a tech perspective all this adds over the AppleTV is low-framerate* 4k support.

* I'm a bit hesitant to label 30 frmes per second low-framerate, but that is what the "cool kids" are terming it these days. Apparently the higher the resolution the paradoxically higher the framerate needs to be to support it. IMHO, I'm more concerned about the bit depth Amazon is going to support, which they are completely mum about, but given the bit depth or lack thereof of a lot of their streaming content I'm really not excited.

New Apple TV supports 802.11ac which is gigabit.

That depends entirely on how the movie was shot. Analog film can have a far higher resolution than even the latest digital cameras. See if you can find a 70mm screening of Lawrence, you'll see what I mean.

The image quality of that movie is truly remarkable even in today's standard.

 

[Vulkan]

I just wanted to say that people arguing about the ATV not having 4K support clearly don't have 4K TV's on their homes. Anyone who owns a 4K TV knows, that most of what you watch will probably be lower-resolution content upscaled to UHD, which will look different from native 4k and 1080p.

The benefit of 4k over 1080p seems obvious on paper – 4k has four times as many pixels as 1080p, which means it should have a clearer picture – but there are a couple of things you should know 4K TV's:

• 4k TVs are only really an upgrade with 4k content, not upscaled low-res media.
• The distance at which you sit from the TV affects whether you’ll notice 4k’s increased resolution.

To present lower-resolution material on a 4k TV, the TV has to perform a process called upscaling. This process increases the pixel count of a lower-resolution image, allowing a picture meant for a screen with fewer pixels to fit a screen with many more. It’s important to remember that since the amount of information in the signal doesn’t change, there won’t be more detail present.

Most 4K Native Content is still pretty rare. Just because Amazon and Netflix have SOME of their TV programs in Native 4K it doesn't mean it's a thing.

I bought a 4K TV from Samsung (UN65JS8500F). The first day we watched content on it, was not 4K Native content. It was a movie on my regular black puck Apple TV, I think it was the Seventh Son... The opening scene alone (The red dragon eye), made my wife and I look at each other and nod that we had made the right decision. But that content was really upscaled 1080p content.

I have seen some content from YouTube that is Native 4K content (

come to mind) and they look out of this world (specially the Dubai one, it will send your food the other way out)...

When the new Apple TV Rolls out I will buy it, because my entire ecosystem is made of Apple stuff, and because I think the improvements a 1.0 device has are only going to get better over time.

I don't think the new ATV is the best device out there, but for me, where I own iOS devices for me, my wife and my kids, and half my computers are Mac OS X based its a good deal...

All these devices have their pro's and cons. Amazon's Fire is cool, and if they support native 4K to support only a couple of their movies, then that is great too. The only problem the Amazon Fire has, is the problem Google has with Android Fragmentation, which its the problem Android has compared to iOS.

But the truth is that we live in a free country and thankfully we can all go buy whatever we want that we can afford. Be happy with it and enjoy your life. =)

K.

 

[JackANSI]

And of course when its launched in the next Apple TV it will be hailed as a game changer by Apple and lauded by the Apple disciples as the next best thing.

Definitely keep tabs on this thread and see who does a swift about face as soon as Apple goes 4K.

Apple talks a big 4K game on the RiMac, 6S, and kinda on the nMP, but the majority of their products and services say a completely different thing to people who are paying attention (Apple really doesn't care about 4K or the customers that use it).

 

[jettredmont]

2160p resolution is one part of UHD. That is what you call 4k. 4K is part of UHD. UHD is bigger than just 4k. When people go into a best buy and say "I want a 4k tv" they don't care about the exact pixel numbers, other than knowing the buzzword "4k", they care about adherence to the standard. Adherence to standards is important to people so they can be confident that their new BR discs will be compatible, and their new consoles will be compatible, etc.

Adherence to the resolution alone is stupid at best, and deceitful at worst. Pardon the pun, resolution alone isn't the whole picture.

I know that frame-rate is dependent on source. I'm not saying everything HAS TO play at that higher frame rate, but it must be supported. Plus there is plenty of source material that has higher frame-rates that 24fps. Some new blockbusters are higher than 24fps, games, sports.

I'm saying, to be "UHD compliant", which is what the FireTV claims to be, it must support up to 120fps. Again, I'm not saying it HAS TO show everything in 120fps (which seems to be how you're reading it), but it has to support it.

I am with you right to the last bit.

This might clarify HDMI on Fire TV (Amazon published specs):

"TV must support minimum HDCP requirements for protected content playback. Learn more. Compatible with (1) 4K ultra high-definition TVs with HDMI capable of 2160p at 24/25/30/50/60 Hz and HDCP 2.2, including popular models from LG, Samsung, Sony, Sharp, Toshiba, Vizio, and others or (2) high-definition TVs with HDMI capable of 1080p or 720p at 50/60 Hz, including popular HDCP-compatible models from Hitachi, JVC, LG, Mitsubishi, NEC, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, Vizio, Westinghouse, and others."

Yes, I found it odd that they specified 50 and 60fps support on compatible TVs yet claim to only support up to 30fps playback.

I think the HDCP 2.2 is the key that tells us it is HDMI 2.0. I am not sure you can have HDMI 1.4 that supports HDCP 2.2, (although I might be wrong about that)

Yes and no.

Yes, to enable HDCP 2.2 support you need an HDMI 2.0 license and an HDCP 2.2 chipset. But no, the presence of HDCP 2.2 does NOT mean "full UHD" compliant HDMI 2.0 bandwidth. There are a number of products out there that support HDCP 2.2 but only support the bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 because they are using older HDMI controller chips. That seems to be the case with the Fire TV since they claim to only support 30fps 2160p content (given their push for games, you would expect them to support higher framerates if they could).

That said, we'll have to see when it comes out.

 

[jettredmont]

That depends entirely on how the movie was shot. Analog film can have a far higher resolution than even the latest digital cameras. See if you can find a 70mm screening of Lawrence, you'll see what I mean.

Yes, it depends entirely on the sensitivity and grain size of the film used. IMAX 70mm film is said to be able to resolve 18k lines of horizontal resolution (meaning, 4.5x "4k" in both directions). However, if you are shooting in lower light or with slow-motion, etc, the grain size will go up to capture meaningful data (well, obviously not automatically, but your camera operator will load higher-gain film to compensate for the lower-light conditions). There are a lot of older film-shot movies where the grain at higher resolutions becomes rather distracting. But, at the end of the day, if you are seeing the film with the intended arc-second angle, and without being able to discern the pixels, and with the original dynamic range, you are seeing it as the filmmaker intended, which is usually (but not always) the best way to enjoy a film.

 

[toke lahti]

But the Fire TV supports UHD resolution at "up to" 30fps. Presumably they can manage, as everyone else can, a 24fps refresh cycle natively.

About year ago I tried to check if atv+netflix or chromecast+netflix would output movies in 24Hz. Neither did, google blaimed netflix and netflix blamed box makers. So the problem was that everything was outputted in 60Hz. Which means that 24fps movie is first pull-downed to 60fps and then, if tv can do it, brought back to 24fps. Two rows of unnecessary convertings that lowers the quality. I'm not sure if WD's box can really output 24Hz with netflix, but it was too expensive at the time. If this new fire box can really output 24Hz from netflix, that is of course a good thing, but can it out put 25Hz? More content is shot in 25fps in Europe than in 30fps in US. You might be able to imagine how 25fps content looks like when outputted in 60Hz.

That depends entirely on how the movie was shot. Analog film can have a far higher resolution than even the latest digital cameras. See if you can find a 70mm screening of Lawrence, you'll see what I mean.

"Far higher" might be overstatement. Although we do know that film has more resolution than one frame has, since each frame has grains in different locations, but the thing is not about how much there's resolution in original camera negative. It's about how much jitter your projector has, in what kind of condition the screening copy is, how many copy generations were made. Those rare 70mm "premium" copies are 4th gen from camera neg. Usually you see 6th gen copy. Every gen kills about Kell factor's amount from resolution and projector and worn out sprocket holes one more.
So absolutely best resolution comes from 4k scan from camera neg. From slow sensitive camera neg with imax frame size you can take 16k and from 65mm or vistaVision 8k...

4k TVs are only really an upgrade with 4k content, not upscaled low-res media.

Really?
How about taking 2k 4:4:4 rgb (DCI) and converting it to 4k 4:2:0 YCbCr?
Much more color information than just in regular fHD 4:2:0...

 

[npmacuser5]

One wonders why we even bother with standard specifications if no follows them anyway!

 

[Ted Witcher]

I usually hate when people post their own individual use-cases, but here goes. First time for everything.

I can't seem to find a reason at this point for Atv or Fire or Roku. I have a TiVo, and not even a new TiVo, and I get cable/DVR functionality plus Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, Hulu, blah blah all the streaming services (minus iTunes, of course). It even has (gasp) component video outs, which is useful because the one HDMI port on my TV is occupied by my Blu-ray player. If you don't game, what is the advantage here? The TV landscape would have to be vastly different for me to change up, and even some a la carte Utopia doesn't sound as appealing when you think about it, because I wind up watching as much interesting stuff, stuff that I hadn't even thought about, just scanning channels as I do when I set out to find a particular thing. I was kind of hoping Apple would make the one box to rule them all -- a DVR/streaming box/PS4-type device -- but that's not what they're doing, obviously. I'll be curious to see what their exclusive content deals look like when they arrive.

 

[Scarpad]

I saw a ton of kodi boxes being sold at a local fair, yes you get lots of streaming content from off shore sources, the Atv seems much more legit

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Before all the new ATV haters get too excited: It doesn't mention specific HDMI version support, and specifically says it's limited to "2160p up to 30fps."

So, no 4K at 60fps, and no HDR - both features of HMDI 2.0.

Most likely this does not support HDMI 2.0, and isn't "really" 4K in the sense of taking advantage of the features of a 4K tv other than only the resolution.

ONLY the resolution actually matters (sorry but high fps video looks FAKE like a soap opera; just watch The Hobbit in 48fps to see what I mean). At least this device supports a real controller (i.e. doesn't require you to play a game with no joystick and two buttons and a rocker switch).

Apple just got pwned!

 

[ActionableMango]

I was an early adopter for HDTV, and I see a lot of parallels with 4K:

• Somewhat limited services and equipment that support 4K.
• Very limited selection of true 4K content--I remember watching stuff that I normally wouldn't be interested in, just because it was HD. I suspect the same is happening now for 4K.
• Extremely limited means for recording.
• People debating about whether upscaling sucks or is fantastic. (Real answer--it depends on a lot of factors).
• Early "HD-Ready" and "4K-Ready" devices not supporting future encryption requirements (HDCP for HD, HDCP 2.2 for 4K).
• Half-measures like 720P (HD) and 30Hz (4K) in order to hit lower price points or deal with realities like storage space and bandwidth.

It definitely feels like we are still in the early adoption phase. I think I'll pass for now and let others pave the trail.

 

[kyjaotkb]

The whole "it only displays 4k at 30Hz" argument is ridiculous, apart from the Hobbit which was shot at 48fps, all films are 24 fps. I mean, synschronized 24p playback is even part of the Blu-ray spec and it was sold as a feature on HD TVs and projectors.