Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Amazon's Fire TV Is Powerful, but Voice Search Limitations Hamper User Experience

Nunyabinez said:
Seems like they're nitpicking to me.
Click to expand...

Nah, i got mine yesterday under the assumption that voice search was universal. It sucks. You move through the UI just fine, but when Amazon lambasted the input method of the Roku as having to use the remote, the Fire does the same thing. So when I expected to be able to search Netflix, Hulu, and Plex, it gave me no results from either of those platforms.

I bought it hoping it could replace my AppleTV or Roku 3. It can't. My Roku is the most versatile of the bunch at the moment, but only because it has Plex. Oh well, here's hoping for AppleTV 4.
 
macs4nw said:
True enough, but if and when the next gen AppleTv is ready, I'm kind of hoping it'll be the rumored, combined Airport Express/AppleTv. It would be nice to kill two birds with one stone, and at the same upgrade an aging 'g' express that keeps conking out whenever someone uses the microwave. Such a combi unit would hopefully have 802.11ac.
Click to expand...

Please no! raise cost to include apple express is not something i'd want. componentizing is better so you can replace what you need at a lower cost when you need. For my home needs I have to maintain a top of the line wired/wireless network. I replace with better/newer hardware often and Apple is not very competitive (in terms of functionality) in that area.

Keep atv focused on media services.
 
jrswizzle said:
You know, Netflix isn't the only service cord-cutters purchase....hell if I could get ESPN on a per month basis, I could likely piece together a grouping of services including Netflix, Hulu and sports packages that would be cheaper than the $65/month I pay DirecTV (which will be going up, I'm sure after my first year with them is over).

Then you just go see movies in theaters, rent them for $1 at RedBox or $3-4 on Prime or iTunes, or purchase them outright and you've pretty much got everything.

I don't watch TV at its scheduled time anyways. Everything is DVR'd.
Click to expand...

Likely doesn't cut it. Streaming sports packages do not include in-market games. Netflix is the best of the bunch, but their selection of streaming movies stinks. I will go to a theater when I want to, thank you very much.
 
LordVic said:
I didnt say it was WELL done :p or even had a lot of titles.

just that it DOES exist :p

Though, I do agree that Fire TV will have a big boost over the others if they can bring in good quality Apps.

now something I dont know and haven't really checked. is the Fire TV google play compatible? or are you limitted to only the Apps that Amazon gives you in their store?
Click to expand...


I do not think it supports Google Play store yet, unfortunately. It does support side-loading, and I'm sure someone will root the thing and figure out how to get Google Play on there.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Likely doesn't cut it. Streaming sports packages do not include in-market games. Netflix is the best of the bunch, but their selection of streaming movies stinks. I will go to a theater when I want to, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Yet. Still....between Aereo, Neflix and Hulu one could pretty much get everything they need.

Spend the money you save on movie rentals/purchases. Not saying its ideal (and why I haven't yet switched) - but its not a ONE-service world. The three mentioned above can be had for $25/month and would offer local channels, major TV shows and some decent movies. Any new releases could be rented or purchased.

I figure by the time I'm out from under my DirecTV contract, there will be options that would complete my cutting of the cord.

But the reality is - even if it doesn't work for you, it obviously works for others. And not just because they like "old movies"....
 
aperry said:
I do not think it supports Google Play store yet, unfortunately. It does support side-loading, and I'm sure someone will root the thing and figure out how to get Google Play on there.
Click to expand...

Mine should be here tomorrow. If it runs the same fork of Android as the Kindles then there is no official support for Google Play. It's one of the Google rules. Fork Android, no Play Store. But as you say, someone will figure out a way around it.
 
jrswizzle said:
Yet. Still....between Aereo, Neflix and Hulu one could pretty much get everything they need.

Spend the money you save on movie rentals/purchases. Not saying its ideal (and why I haven't yet switched) - but its not a ONE-service world. The three mentioned above can be had for $25/month and would offer local channels, major TV shows and some decent movies. Any new releases could be rented or purchased.

I figure by the time I'm out from under my DirecTV contract, there will be options that would complete my cutting of the cord.

But the reality is - even if it doesn't work for you, it obviously works for others. And not just because they like "old movies"....
Click to expand...

Thats what I'm trying to do. Still haven't figured out a really legit good way of the local sports things.

Lets just say. My Monthly Digital Cable subscription for 2 TV's costs me nearly 80 / mth. This is the BASIC digital package that does not include the channels like HBO or TMN.

Meanwhile, for what I watch? Almost all of it is on Netflix. the additional things I want to watch, I just wait and buy online instead of waiting everyday. (I hate watching live TV anyways).

I just can't cut the cord because there's no way around the live sports thing. And I watch a LOT of local sports (Leafs and Blue Jays!)

but I calculated it. If i cut my Cable and used purely online digital, even buying all the TV shows I want to watch,m I would save HUNDREDS a year
 
mclld said:
If this thing can get xbmc and the video add ons I use(1channel, Icefilms, Project Free Tv etc) I will sell my jailbroke Apple TV 2
Click to expand...

I don't get it either. I use a Rasp Pi with XBMC with the 1Channel, IceFilms, Mashup, and USTVNOW plugins and get 100X more content than all these boxes put together for free.....
 
jrswizzle said:
Yet. Still....between Aereo, Neflix and Hulu one could pretty much get everything they need.

Spend the money you save on movie rentals/purchases. Not saying its ideal (and why I haven't yet switched) - but its not a ONE-service world. The three mentioned above can be had for $25/month and would offer local channels, major TV shows and some decent movies. Any new releases could be rented or purchased.

I figure by the time I'm out from under my DirecTV contract, there will be options that would complete my cutting of the cord.

But the reality is - even if it doesn't work for you, it obviously works for others. And not just because they like "old movies"....
Click to expand...

And yet, not. You literally highlighted my reference to in-market sports, but you did not provide any solution to the problem, I assume because there is no solution. What I am saying here is "pretty much" is far from enough. I don't want to subscribe to smorgasbord of services (many of which overlap) and probably have to own and learn to use a number of TV boxes, just to get close to the amount of programming I want, for maybe, but not necessarily, a little less cost. Very simply, this is not the solution most people are seeking. The holy grail is one, unified method of getting whatever programming you want, when you want it, and making it easy and natural to use. Nobody has come close so far, not Apple, not Amazon, not nobody. If anyone can, though, I suspect it will be Apple.

BTW, when I say old movies, I'm talking about the crummy but not-very-old movies in the Netflix streaming library. Their library of streamable old movies (classics) is almost totally absent.
 
LordVic said:
Thats what I'm trying to do. Still haven't figured out a really legit good way of the local sports things.

Lets just say. My Monthly Digital Cable subscription for 2 TV's costs me nearly 80 / mth. This is the BASIC digital package that does not include the channels like HBO or TMN.

Meanwhile, for what I watch? Almost all of it is on Netflix. the additional things I want to watch, I just wait and buy online instead of waiting everyday. (I hate watching live TV anyways).

I just can't cut the cord because there's no way around the live sports thing. And I watch a LOT of local sports (Leafs and Blue Jays!)

but I calculated it. If i cut my Cable and used purely online digital, even buying all the TV shows I want to watch,m I would save HUNDREDS a year
Click to expand...

Ya - Aereo would work for some Rangers and Cowboys games for me in Dallas, but no Fox Sports Southwest means I would miss Mavericks, Stars and most Rangers' games.

Also wouldn't have ESPN (though I could always keep using my brother's/parent's logins for WatchESPN like I do now.....).

----------
IJ Reilly said:
And yet, not. You literally highlighted my reference to in-market sports, but you did not provide any solution to the problem, I assume because there is no solution. What I am saying here is "pretty much" is far from enough. I don't want to subscribe to smorgasbord of services (many of which overlap) and probably have to own and learn to use a number of TV boxes, just to get close to the amount of programming I want, for maybe, but not necessarily, a little less cost. Very simply, this is not the solution most people are seeking. The holy grail is one, unified method of getting whatever programming you want, when you want it, and making it easy and natural to use. Nobody has come close so far, not Apple, not Amazon, not nobody. If anyone can, though, I suspect it will be Apple.
Click to expand...

You're over dramatizing the situation....but I agree with the premise. It isn't as all-encompassing yet....but I suspect it won't be that long.

You may not want to subscribe to various services, but as long as I can access them in one place, I would much prefer it over the alternative - which is paying more than I want for more than I use.

Eventually, the goal is ala carte channels. At least that's what I'm hoping for. But again - doesn't mean other people haven't figured out a way to make it work for their needs. I was simply pointing out there are other services that could create a decently full media experience - countering your point that all they must like is old movies/tv shows.

That's all.
 
Bibbler said:
I don't get it either. I use a Rasp Pi with XBMC with the 1Channel, IceFilms, Mashup, and USTVNOW plugins and get 100X more content than all these boxes put together for free.....
Click to expand...

I have a raspi as well. To clarify, the Fire TV runs XBMC and it's much more powerful compared to the Pi. And it has better support for legit sources like Netflix. Not everyone is interested in illegal (and often unreliable) content sources.
 
Dave.UK said:
Negative reviews? Its scored higher then the Apple TV in reviews.

Why do you think this is purely aimed at Apple TV owners? You do realise how huge Amazon and their customer database is dont you?
Click to expand...

Check his post history. :)
 
aperry said:
I have a raspi as well. To clarify, the Fire TV runs XBMC and it's much more powerful compared to the Pi. And it has better support for legit sources like Netflix. Not everyone is interested in illegal (and often unreliable) content sources.
Click to expand...

Yes, the great thing about XBMC is that it runs on so many platforms. I have it installed on a Mac, and a PC as well.....

A far as the Rasp Pi goes, I have 4 of them dedicated to different things (XBMC, General Computing, experiments, and programming. While it may not have the raw processing power other small devices have, it is by far one of the most versatile and provides a lot of bang for the buck.

There is nothing illegal or unreliable about USTVNOW... As far as the other video plugins go, every person can make up their own mind what they want (different strokes for different folks).
 
Last edited:
jrswizzle said:
You're over dramatizing the situation....but I agree with the premise. It isn't as all-encompassing yet....but I suspect it won't be that long.

You may not want to subscribe to various services, but as long as I can access them in one place, I would much prefer it over the alternative - which is paying more than I want for more than I use.

Eventually, the goal is ala carte channels. At least that's what I'm hoping for. But again - doesn't mean other people haven't figured out a way to make it work for their needs. I was simply pointing out there are other services that could create a decently full media experience - countering your point that all they must like is old movies/tv shows.

That's all.
Click to expand...

My point is these solutions are far from all-encompassing and they need to be stitched together like a Frankenstein monster to get anywhere close. It's also not overly dramatic to report that in-market sports programming would still be entirely absent, because that is exactly the case. The solution to that problem isn't even being discussed. It might just be impossible, given the complexity of the sports franchise media deals.

Also, responding by saying that we can pay individually to rent, or buy to own, a whole lot of programming that is currently available on cable (let alone, going totally back to the future and use Redbox vending machines), is not actually a solution to any problem I know about. If I rented movies to stream even twice a week I'd be running up charges close to my cable bill every month. Then add in the monthly costs of the services. Not looking like such a bargain now, is it?

The reason I suspect a lot of cable-cutters can brag about how much they are saving is because they are satisfied watching whatever programming services like Netflix and Hulu offer for free. We know what that is. And they definitely are not watching any in-market sports.

A la carte programming is another holy grail, but I would not hold my breath waiting for it. It would probably require Congressional legislation to make it happen. I am sticking by my prediction that Apple will try to steer around that entire hairball and give us a better way to watch the programming we are already paying for in our cable bills. That might not thrill the cord-cutters, but it would be huge for everyone else.
 
dumastudetto said:
As I said days ago, there's a reason why Apple hasn't launched App Store on Apple TV: they still haven't figured out how to deliver the rich experience we demand. Fire TV is just a rush first to market type product that will fail epic style.
Click to expand...

Your replies really are laughably predictable. :rolleyes:
 
IJ Reilly said:
My point is these solutions are far from all-encompassing and they need to be stitched together like a Frankenstein monster to get anywhere close. It's also not overly dramatic to report that in-market sports programming would still be entirely absent, because that is exactly the case. The solution to that problem isn't even being discussed. It might just be impossible, given the complexity of the sports franchise media deals.

Also, responding by saying that we can pay individually to rent, or buy to own, a whole lot of programming that is currently available on cable (let alone, going totally back to the future and use Redbox vending machines), is not actually a solution to any problem I know about. If I rented movies to stream even twice a week I'd be running up charges close to my cable bill every month. Then add in the monthly costs of the services. Not looking like such a bargain now, is it?

The reason I suspect a lot of cable-cutters can brag about how much they are saving is because they are satisfied watching whatever programming services like Netflix and Hulu offer for free. We know what that is. And they definitely are not watching any in-market sports.

A la carte programming is another holy grail, but I would not hold my breath waiting for it. It would probably require Congressional legislation to make it happen. I am sticking by my prediction that Apple will try to steer around that entire hairball and give us a better way to watch the programming we are already paying for in our cable bills. That might not thrill the cord-cutter, but it would be huge for everyone else.
Click to expand...

It's not entirely absent everywhere. Aereo offers streaming live TV for $8/month. Local channels, but that would get me some Rangers, Mavs and Cowboys games.

I understand what you're saying. I've already said I agree. I just don't agree that cord-cutters are only happy watching crappy movies. They may have "lesser" desires than you or I, but there are ways to piece together a decent experience for some.

I don't know why we're still arguing about this....all I know is that as soon as I can get my local sports, I'm out. That is the only thing stopping me from ditching cable. I pay $65/month for "basic service" which includes more than 200 channels....I watch roughly 6-7 of them on a weekly basis. Give me a way to pay for only those 6 -7 (either in one service, or in many services through one box) and I'm in.

I also never said you should buy or rent PROGRAMMING....simply movies - I know my on-demand selection isn't all that robust via DirecTV. PROGRAMMING can be had on Hulu for $8/month or via Aereo for the same $8/month.
 
IJ Reilly said:
It's also not overly dramatic to report that in-market sports programming would still be entirely absent, because that is exactly the case. The solution to that problem isn't even being discussed. It might just be impossible, given the complexity of the sports franchise media deals.
Click to expand...

Some people could care less about sport.

Even so, where I live we have maybe 20 free-to-air channels and major sporting events are almost always shown on these (main excepts being major boxing matches which are pay-per-view on cable). Combine this with Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon on my Roku, plus a large personal collection of movies and TV on a NAS and I really dont miss anything I care about. I'm spending about $25/mo instead of $100/mo for the equivalent cable (basic + new release movies and TV).

----------
AppleScruff1 said:
If a user constantly made similar comments only anti-Apple, I bet it wouldn't be tolerated.
Click to expand...

Of course they wouldn't!
 
jrswizzle said:
It's not entirely absent everywhere. Aereo offers streaming live TV for $8/month. Local channels, but that would get me some Rangers, Mavs and Cowboys games.

I understand what you're saying. I've already said I agree. I just don't agree that cord-cutters are only happy watching crappy movies. They may have "lesser" desires than you or I, but there are ways to piece together a decent experience for some.

I don't know why we're still arguing about this....all I know is that as soon as I can get my local sports, I'm out. That is the only thing stopping me from ditching cable. I pay $65/month for "basic service" which includes more than 200 channels....I watch roughly 6-7 of them on a weekly basis. Give me a way to pay for only those 6 -7 (either in one service, or in many services through one box) and I'm in.

I also never said you should buy or rent PROGRAMMING....simply movies - I know my on-demand selection isn't all that robust via DirecTV. PROGRAMMING can be had on Hulu for $8/month or via Aereo for the same $8/month.
Click to expand...

Not to argue just for the sake of it, but you aren't getting in-market sports. Not now, and probably not for a long time to come. Okay, maybe once in awhile, if you happen to have Aereo in your market, and the game is on broadcast TV. But the former is growing, even as the latter shrinks, so good luck with that. Random isn't a solution.

I include movies in my definition of programming, maybe because I watch a lot of TCM. If I rented half as many movies monthly at $4-6 a pop as I watch on TCM alone, I'd quickly exceed my cable bill.

----------
SlCKB0Y said:
Some people could care less about sport.

Even so, where I live we have maybe 20 free-to-air channels and major sporting events are almost always shown on these (main excepts being major boxing matches which are pay-per-view on cable). Combine this with Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon on my Roku, plus a large personal collection of movies and TV on a NAS and I really dont miss anything I care about. I'm spending about $25/mo instead of $100/mo for the equivalent cable (basic + new release movies and TV).
Click to expand...

And some people couldn't care less about sports.

I take it the situation is different in Australia, but here in the U.S. the amount of on-air broadcast sports is shrinking. It's moving rapidly and steadily to cable.
 
benamin said:
Please no! raise cost to include apple express is not something i'd want. componentizing is better so you can replace what you need at a lower cost when you need. For my home needs I have to maintain a top of the line wired/wireless network. I replace with better/newer hardware often and Apple is not very competitive (in terms of functionality) in that area.

Keep atv focused on media services.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, and the price of such a rumored combi unit would be key here. With certain manufacturing economies, and no unnecessary duplication of some components, I doubt it would be double the cost, cause in that case I wouldn't be interested in it either. So for now, the MSRP of such a possible product, is the question mark.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back