> Powerful performance—4x the storage and 2x the memory of Chromecast, plus a dual-core processor and 1 GB of memory.<p>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."<p>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.<p>Chromecast does one thing and it does it REALLY well (and inexpensively). More companies could learn a thing or two.<p>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.
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<p>"Powerful performance—4x the storage and 2x the memory of Chromecast, plus a dual-core processor and 1 GB of memory."<p>The above tells me nothing about how it will entertain me.
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.
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.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.geek.com/mobile/amazon-has-83-million-worth-of-fire-phones-it-cant-sell-1607718/" rel="nofollow">http://www.geek.com/mobile/amazon-has-83-million-worth-of-fi...</a>
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."
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.
I don't understand the niche for this product, especially against their own Fire TV (which FD I have and like a fair bit).<p>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.<p>Any one see or know any other differentiators that make this worth an additional SKU, support costs?
I'm still a bit puzzled by chromcast et all.<p>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.<p>What additional features would this kind of device give me?
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.
I really don't understand Amazon's strategy here at all.<p>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.<p>Amazon is really good at two things:<p>- selling you stuff<p>- oddly enough, cloud services.<p>Several years ago they, for whatever reason, embarked on a strategy of wanting to be in online content and mobile platforms.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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.<p>Disclaimer: I work for Google. These opinions are purely my own.
Interesting that as one of the main images for it, they use 'flappy birds' (<a href="http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/m-slate-04-lg._V322539675_.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/...</a>)<p>according to wikipedia, its an official version (<a href="http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/m-slate-04-lg._V322539675_.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/dp/2014/M/...</a>)
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.<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fire-HD-Display-Wi-Fi-GB/dp/B00KC6I06S/" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Fire-HD-Display-Wi-Fi-GB/dp/B00KC6I06S...</a>
Interesting that they mention Netflix before Amazon Instant Video in the description.<p>"It's an easy way to enjoy Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, Hulu Plus, YouTube.com, music, and much more"
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.<p>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.
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?<p>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.
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.
I can't wait to see how hackable these things are. Decent processor, HDMI out, WiFi, 1GB RAM… pretty decent package.<p>I know there are other cheap android sticks out there but one with a remote for $39 is pretty tempting.
FCC ID:2ABDU-0509<p>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.
I notice that in their comparison grid that they don't list Google content.<p>No thanks, I don't want a streaming stick for each online service, so I think I'll stick to my Roku.
The first thing I noticed was: an actual remote. Are you serious Amazon?<p>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.<p>I really hope this doesn't catch on.