Well, smarty - I posted that comment before pricing was announced. Does no one look at time stamps?
----------
Look at the timestamps, buddy. I posted that comment BEFORE pricing, and games were announced.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon Launches 'Fire TV' Media Streaming Box with Voice Search, Game Support, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, smarty - I posted that comment before pricing was announced. Does no one look at time stamps?
----------
Look at the timestamps, buddy. I posted that comment BEFORE pricing, and games were announced.
I'm with you we have completely cutoff cable/sat as well. I have our home setup with a Mac Mini as a living room work station and media center, Airport Time Machine as media hub for access on any and all devices (using VLC, etc.), and JB Apple TVs for bedrooms.
Though we have access to all the stuff we used to watch, there is something to be said about watching certain things live or at a specified time, compared to downloading or streaming. Sooner or later content providers will be able to directly offer their stuff directly to us allowing true a la carte. To me that is when this changes from a "hobby"... When my father can plug something into his TV and not have to ask me for technical support, it is no longer hobby.
At 99$ and as a prime customer I will get one. I just need a TV with 3 Hdmi ins. One for the Apple TV one for the fire tv and one for my blue ray player.
Amazon Instant Video only serves a couple of geographical regions UK and USA whereas the aTV has a far larger target audience. The real area that Amazon needs to catch up on is global licensing for content delivery as iTunes video hits a larger global audience resulting in higher aTV sales.
This comment seems slightly rancorous, my comment was made based on how the article was printed at the time, at which point Macrumors had printed that is was a child-safe service for $2.99 a month. As it turns out Macrumors didn't print a complete picture of the service, although they now have stated "... FreeTime Unlimited subscription adds unlimited access to programming from Nickelodeon, Sesame Street, PBS Kids and more."
Whilst I accept your argument that given what FreeTime Unlimited it is, it is good value, I reject your argument that to comment on an article without doing further research to verify the validity of the article I am at fault, which the tone of your comment otherwise suggests. I have an expectation that Macrumors will not print a half-story, which in this case they did, although again I can well accept that at the time they printed the additional information on FreeTime Unlimited was unavailable. It must be nice to be able to comment hours later on an article, once further information has been released, and take a intellectual high ground...
Interesting. Thanks!
----------
I'm not certain, but I assume it is using the same (or very close) resources. Mine is hardwired as well. I don't have a super fast internet speed (basic service from Comcast that typically gets me 22-24mb/s). But with everything hardwired (gigabit router and hub also), I've never had an issue.
Read my comment any way you wish. My point was, and is, I read the same article as you at pretty much the same time. Rather than making a knee-jerk presumtion and prematurely accusing a company of bad faith I did a quick search to see what the extra cost program entailed. (Program has been around and advertised for some time -- its not new I discovered). I found the information very easily. I'm guessing you could have to if you didn't rely on a single source of information (incomplete at that). That is what fair minded people try to do -- get as many facts practical before damning someone or a company. Next time do better. That is all.
BTW you have an expectation MacRumors will not print a half story? Really?
Last edited:
Seems like you'd be great on Fox News. Slant the story in your direction no matter what the facts.
Your options actually are:
1) Keep your current offering, which has everything Fire TV has except games.
2) Upgrade to the new Apple TV when it comes out. Will be better than Fire TV. Stay in your ecosystem, all your purchased music, movies are still available to you.
3) Pay $99 - go to a new ecosystem, lose everything you purchased in iTunes, lose ability to AirPlay. Need to pay $99 more for Amazon Prime to get additional features. Lose new features next Apple TV has.
----------
It's actually $4.99.
There is a discount of $2 if you're an Amazon Prime member.
You are probably right. FYI, I've got three ATVs myself, though at least one is a 2 and maybe two of them are.
Anyway, Apple could do a good job here for all the reasons you set forth. But that job is going to be harder based on the Sony and XBox consoles and now this. If Apple had launched nine months ago, the space would have literally been more open. Displacing an xBox 360 is a lot easier than displacing an xBOne. And an Amazon Box that seems done well is also going to be harder to displace than nothing.
I think you are right that the TV is a new OS. Yes based on iOS, but since the user interface is different, it will need a new OS or GUI. That is probably the biggest hold up. The hardware should be easy A7 chip, 4 GB ram, and power cord (but no meaningful size constraints) and, boom, you are done. I only slightly exaggerate when I say that the iPhone engineer team could probably bang this out in a month in their spare time.
it's just me or Everyone is doing whatever Apple rumors brings to the table? I mean
website: Apple is planning to do a watch
samsung: lets doit! hurry hurry!!!!
website: Apple is planning to do a watch
samsung: lets doit! hurry hurry!!!!
Not saying I would buy it, but I would be more inclined to consider it. I choose to be a Prime Member for the faster shipping services and watching old episodes of TV shows. Their movie selection is horrible IMO.
I stay within the Apple ecosys. But I'd be willing to venture out if much better deals are out there.
If you chose option #3 - why would you lose everything you purchased in iTunes. You're assuming that they get rid of their Apple TV? And also iTunes on their computer? That they can't access it on their iPad or iPhone?
People DO own more than one device as evident on this thread alone.
You're right. I guess I should ammend #3.
3a - use Amazon Fire TV exclusively (my comments)
3b - use both (your comments)
And I apologize if there was any "tone" read in my post. There was a bit. Because it seems (not directed at you) that some people are very polarizing when it comes to tech. You either have to have x or y but can't possibly enjoy both.
Personally - I love having both Roku and Apple TV - best of both worlds. Is it more costly than just having one device? A bit? Is there overlap? Of course. But both allow me to do exactly what I want between the two devices.
After using the Fire TV I have to say my Apple TV 3 feels very dated. And slow. Very slow. The linear menu system on the Apple TV, which every app seems to get shoehorned into, really needs to go. Pressing menu multiple times just to get to the home screen is simply a chore. Thankfully the Fire TV has a home button.
Before I get jumped on for not using my iPhone as a remote: a.) I don't use an iPhone and my iPad is not always around, b.) Other people use it, and c.) Why should I have to?
For reference I bought the ATV 2 when it first came out in 2010. It was great at the time. But that was nearly four years ago and it has not changed much. The ATV 3s I have now don't feel all that different, other than being able to handle 1080p vs 720p.
Voice search actually works better than I expected.
The remote is better than the ATV remote. It's great that Apple simplified the remote but surely there is something other than cluttered/confusing and "bare minimum." And infrared remotes need to just die already.
Michael
Before I get jumped on for not using my iPhone as a remote: a.) I don't use an iPhone and my iPad is not always around, b.) Other people use it, and c.) Why should I have to?
For reference I bought the ATV 2 when it first came out in 2010. It was great at the time. But that was nearly four years ago and it has not changed much. The ATV 3s I have now don't feel all that different, other than being able to handle 1080p vs 720p.
Voice search actually works better than I expected.
The remote is better than the ATV remote. It's great that Apple simplified the remote but surely there is something other than cluttered/confusing and "bare minimum." And infrared remotes need to just die already.
Michael
I agree.
Apple TV can do exactly what Roku with PLEX does - stream movies from a server. However, since Apple TV only allows the files to be in a certain format, people call it an 'epic fail'. Ridiculous! It doesn't fit THEIR needs, but fits many people's needs.
I have both a Roku and Apple TV. I find it more convenient to stream things through iTunes instead of PLEX. So is Roku an 'epic fail' because I find Apple TV more convenient? Of course not.
Am I sitting here calling Roku an 'epic fail' because the Roku can't Airplay? No. I'll point to that being a reason why Apple TV is used more in our household. I don't understand why so many people want to go to war over these petty things.
----------
HOLD the menu button in for about 2 seconds. The Apple TV will go right to the home menu.
I agree that the Apple TV UI doesn't look as nice as Fire TV. Fire TV looks amazing. Hopefully Apple will create a better UI soon. Right now, advantage Fire TV.
Xbox One is not a threat to Apple. And among people I know, frustration with using their Xbox 360s for media purposes is what lead many to buy Apple TVs for media and just stick with 360 for games. What many don't realize is that most people don't want all the content under the sun, they just want Netflix to work really well. Maybe Hulu too. Given that many have iPhones and AirPlay is a feature that sells Apple TVs easily once understood, it's not been hard to close people on even the current Apple TV model.
I'm excited for what's to come and I think it'll likely be great and worth the wait, but I think the current Apple TV experience is very underrated. Hardcore nerds and super techies get overly nitpicky, but I know too many people getting the current Apple TV for the first time and between the ease of use, speed and AirPlay, they're beyond thrilled with the device.
I didn't mean XBone as a threat to what Apple does but as a block to expansion. Think about last year. The consoles were 7 or so years old. Apple had hardward that they could sell for $100 that could go head to head with that old hardware. Just release a $200 ATV and the APIs and the developers would have brought the software. A year ago, Apple would have had a much easier time launching a console as the competition was much weaker. Now it will be harder.
I like what they have. But the current GUI is kind of a mess and the channels range from killer app level (Netflix and HBO Go) to obscure and nearly useless (Redbull Extreme anyone?). The hardware is outdated and underpowered. It is nice that it cost $100. But if the average person is spending 40 hours a week watching TV on a big expensive TV screen, this isn't an area where the only device has to be a bargain basement $100. Give me value and I will drop even $500 (see the console which have sold decently).
And if Apple isn't working on virtual reality and in a FRAKING big way, they are idiots. And I know Apple isn't a group of idiots. The Apple TV easily be virtual reality glasses done right. It would play very very nicely into Apple's strength of minimization, visuals, power control, and user interface.
They could be avoiding virtual reality like they avoid 3D. I enjoy 3D movies on my projector but people are always saying 3D is a passing fad and the only way I've been able to get 3D movies is by buying the BluRay or the occasional OnDemand 3D movie via Comcast. Virtual reality is also a lot like the Kinect, which I also own and rarely use because interesting content isn't being offered. Apple DID buy a kinect-type company so they MAY be looking into that but there better be content to back it up.
3D hasn't worked because the image isn't that great and it rarely helps tell the story better. But if can ever be done really well, it will eventually catch on. Virtual reality is different. It is almost immediately a better experience. It should be just obvious that Virtual Reality is just a matter of "when" not "if". If the picture is just as good, it is just a more immersive experience than looking at a static screen and its surroundings. I'm guessing that very soon hardcore gaming is going to be done through a virtual reality set up. Certainly FPS lends themselves immediately to VR setups. And shortly after that the mainstream will find uses for it.
But virtual reality still sucks for a multi-person situation because only the person with the expensive viewer rig (ala oculus rift) can enjoy it, just like 3D. You are thinking about a single person situation and most people have multiple people who want to enjoy things together.
I disagree that 3D doesn't look good or advance the story. My projector does true 1080p 3D (each eye gets 1080p). I really enjoy it and it's akin to virtual reality. 3D glasses are much cheaper than an oculus rift.
It won't be a single person experience for very long. Your friends will be logged in at the same time and you will see them and share the experience. Also the viewer is only expensive now. It is primarily just two screens that are each smaller than the screen on an iPhone and a computer chip. I don't know what is running the Oculus Rift, but I'd be surprised if that chip is more powerful than what is in my iMac. There is no reason that I see that the price for this can't be driven down fairly quickly.
As for 3D, to each their own. The stuff I see in the movie theater really doesn't look good to me. It isn't as crisp as high quality non-3D and crisp HD is more pleasing to me than 3D. That seems to be the consensus of the marketplace as evidenced by the relatively limited amount of stuff that is viewed in 3D.