Did anybody really think that Amazon's TV entry would have been groundbreaking and awe-inspiring? Nope.
I'm waiting for what Apple has coming up in the next few months. I rather wait for something game-changing than to settle for an also-ran. Basically this is an AppleTV for Android that runs games that are half-baked. I don't see the point.
First off, this isn't a review. Secondly, nowhere in the article does it say the controller is a failure. It is a so-so product compared to console counterparts and detracts from the gaming experience, but it works. You may not be in the market, but those who are may care about setup and design.
The entire thing, completely half baked from start to finish....like all Amazon hardware & services.
Meant only for those who don't know any better. Hence Gary Busey as the spokesman.
Yeah sure chief. Easy to say when
A) the company that you are a fan of doesn't offer comparable services.
your preferred company does not presently have competing hardware.
Apple is the best at its very limited range of products precisely because those are the only products that they choose to focus on and market, and they market it at a very high price point. Knocking the offerings of companies who choose to offer a broader range of products and services and do so at price points that other people can afford is ignorant. If it weren't for the products and services that other companies offer, your own company wouldn't survive. That is what makes the knocking of other companies so foolish. Your company can't even manufacture its own I-Pads and I-Phones without Samsung's parts. And your company can't even offer its online streaming and storage services without Microsoft and Amazon's cloud.
So wait until your own company is able to deliver its own products and services without help from the competition first, OK? Without Samsung and other hardware suppliers, there would be no Apple. Without Microsoft's software, Apple would have never gotten off the ground in the 1970s. Without Amazon and other online infrastructure companies, no I-Cloud and no I-Tunes. Meanwhile, Samsung, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and all of Apple's competitors would still exist without Apple. Why? Because they offer products and services that Apple doesn't and can't. Apple can't even run their own business without being one of the biggest customers of their competitors, which makes your own company "someone who doesn't know any better". Or more accurately, someone who can't do any better.
It is funny ... the companies that Apple keeps suing over allegedly stealing their stuff need to just simply stop supplying Apple. It isn't as if they need Apple's business to stay in business. And without their suppliers providing products and services that Apple's narrow focus can't supply on their own or even upscale quickly or well enough to become competitive if they tried, in short order there would be no Apple. But they won't, because they make more money giving Apple what Apple needs to remain in business than they will ever pay out in any lawsuit judgment. Funny how that works isn't it?
For goodness sakes. I bought an Apple TV. I returned it when I saw that it A) didn't support Amazon and it didn't mirror my last generation I-Pod Touch. Yes, it works with I-Tunes, but I have bought much more stuff through Amazon than through I-Tunes (I had an Amazon account before I-Tunes even existed) so that didn't wasn't really a value to me. So basically, for me Apple TV was worthless, or at the very least worth LESS than my Roku and less than a Chromecast, which costs 1/3 as much. At this point, there are set top boxes that are better for everyone BUT those who have other Apple devices, and Fire TV is one of them. Right now, compared to the latest set top boxes, the Apple TV is half-baked for everyone but I-Pad and I-Phone owners. If that wasn't the case I wouldn't have returned the one that I bought.
And even when the new Apple TV comes and blows everyone away, big deal: Amazon, Samsung and the other companies that you will bash as inferior will still make money off it because Apple will need those companies to actually manufacture the thing and deliver content to it. That is the world that Apple exists in right now. Everyone knows it, which is why Apple doesn't get the glowing media attention or inflated media attention that is going to the companies that Apple needs to be able to do their business instead.
C'mon folks. AI is just trying to be as fair as possible with the review. But being a first gen system, the fire TV and its game controller will suffer its fair share of growth pains. As one poster noted, the device is not yet fully integrated with the Amazon ecosystem. They wanted out of the gate quick enough for some reason, even when the supporting products aren't all there yet,(Possibly an attempt to get ahead of the new AppleTV). Any other feature not currently in the selling product will be 'enhancements' via software or offered in a next gen hardware. Some folks will like this product and will buy into the Amazon family. I like Amazon. I buy from their store. I don't like the Kindle. My mother-in-law has one and by default I have to support that PoS device. Once in a while it fails to connect to my WiFi. A year and a half later, it's dead. But the in-law went ahead and bought the new model. I have 6 year old iPods that are still working. And my 2 first gen iPads are still entertaining my kids. Better products last and remain relevant for a very long time. I'm just hoping the next AppleTV offers just as much features as the Roku or FireTV, if not better.
Did anybody really think that Amazon's TV entry would have been groundbreaking and awe-inspiring? Nope.
I'm waiting for what Apple has coming up in the next few months. I rather wait for something game-changing than to settle for an also-ran. Basically this is an AppleTV for Android that runs games that are half-baked. I don't see the point.
0. Basically this is AppleTV for Android? Wrong. It is AppleTV for Kindle. Which is better because Kindle has a superior ecosystem to Android.
1. Even if it was groundbreaking and awe-inspiring, you would not admit it.
2. What makes you think that the Apple TV games are going to be any better? It is going to run the games from its app store just like Fire TV does. If anything, by starting their own game studio to create games specifically for the device, that gives Fire TV the potential to have the best games of any device of its type. Apple would have to follow suit, because game developers are not going to have a financial incentive to make superior games for Apple TV that no one is going to pay more than $5 for.
3. Apple is going to need to incorporate things that are already in Fire TV (or that they knew would be in Fire TV), Roku 3 and Chromecast to be "groundbreaking and awe-inspiring." Which, of course, would make it less groundbreaking and awe-inspiring. Not that you would admit it. But the reality is that there is only so much that you can do with a set top box without making it A) too big or too expensive. They can do Fire TV with better software, or they can make a full-fledged competitor to the X-Box or Playstation (bigger and more expensive). Even merely adding the Comcast/Time Warner cable box functionality would drive up the price well past $99. Which, of course, will result in you guys calling everything else a cheap piece of junk.
2. No, I probably would. I have Google Glass, and that's groundbreaking, although I don't use it much in practice.
3. The reason I think Apple games are going to do better is this... they are going to announce AppleTV at WWDC and probably already have a number of games work with it. In addition, they will prepare developers to build apps specifically for the device. It will also have an A7 chip at least which has really great capability and already drives Retina displays so shouldn't have an issue driving a 1080p display, especially since they can increase the clock speed without worrying about battery life or thermal design as much. I also believe that developers can make great games that command more revenue, although it's hard to compete with free.
4. I think there is much more that Apple can do in the new AppleTV that the other companies have not done. But making a controller, or opening the SDK to developers isn't really all that innovative. I think Apple is looking to build out better frameworks, tools and ecosystem to allow for better interaction with end-users. Again, only time will tell.
So yes, if this was truly groundbreaking or awe-inspiring, I would say something. It's just not all that.
Haha!! "The only difference is..." that it is a completely different controller layout. Only the YXBA button labels are consistent. Pattern recognition: fail.
You do realize that "Xbox-esque" is not the same as an outright copy, right?
Most gaming controllers are similar. The Fire TV controller is far more than just "similar".
I'm well aware of that, and I'm not surprised that Amazon took that route. I am however surprised at Apple's guidelines. Surely there's another way to design a controller. I would expect more from Apple than just a slightly altered 'me too' design.
I'm well aware of that, and I'm not surprised that Amazon took that route. I am however surprised at Apple's guidelines. Surely there's another way to design a controller. I would expect more from Apple than just a slightly altered 'me too' design.
In other words, you were "well aware" of a fact that completely undermined your post, but decided to post it anyway.
Haha!! "The only difference is..." that it is a completely different controller layout. Only the YXBA button labels are consistent. Pattern recognition: fail.
See the thing is would you be saying that if MS had made the Xbox controller after Apple had issued it's guidelines? The headline on AI read 'MS bases Xbox controller on Apple's design', and most here would pick out the similarities not the differences. That's called hypocrisy in my book. Surely the mighty Apple can reimagine the lowly gaming controller instead of following the lead of Sony and MS.
The entire thread of "copying the controller" is silly.
The controllers for the Xbox, Playstation, iOS (guidelines) and Fire TV are all somewhat similar. The kind of have to be. There are only so many ways you can design a controller. More so, they're designing the controller based on what buttons the ported games are going to require. The layouts aren't patented, and this is a good thing because it enables people to go from one platform to another without too much confusion.
The Fire TV remote has this similar layout in the sense of "let's not re-invent everything just for the sake of being different" while actually being a specific design for the device for what they needed. Note that other controls on the device for video and other features.
All in all, I find it to work very well, and I was able to jump into game play quite easily thanks to the familiarity of the controls.
The entire thread of "copying the controller" is silly.
The controllers for the Xbox, Playstation, iOS (guidelines) and Fire TV are all somewhat similar. The kind of have to be. There are only so many ways you can design a controller. More so, they're designing the controller based on what buttons the ported games are going to require. The layouts aren't patented, and this is a good thing because it enables people to go from one platform to another without too much confusion.
The Fire TV remote has this similar layout in the sense of "let's not re-invent everything just for the sake of being different" while actually being a specific design for the device for what they needed. Note that other controls on the device for video and other features.
All in all, I find it to work very well, and I was able to jump into game play quite easily thanks to the familiarity of the controls.
It's funny how many people have been attacked, and vilified on here by saying the same thing about touch screen phones. Apple didn't take into consideration for gaming controls when it designed the iPhone/iPod Touch. Devs adjusted their game play. There are now more games than have ever existed for all gaming consoles combined.
This was Apple's chance to redesign the gaming controller. Instead they went with a 20 yr old design, and left the building of it to 3rd parties.
Leaving the UX to another company is indicative that Apple is uncomfortable that it's devices are used so much for gaming. I'm sure SJ wasn't too happy that the breakthrough device that they worked so hard to develop has become for many a gaming device.
Yet people pay a lot more than that to play a few iOS games.
I think that most people also do a lot of other things with their iOS devices. I know that gaming is only a small percentage of what I do on my iOS devices.
iOS is also a stronger gaming platform than Android, since it has better games, more exclusive games, and more games that are actually made for a tablet and not a phone, and iOS is what developers usually want to focus on first.
1. Lots of people are bashing the controller as mediocre but comparing it to console controllers is unfair...
It COSTS MORE than either the XBox 360 controller OR PS3 controller. It is built to play games that are run on a TV-connected box. Amazon has had YEARS to study and copy those controllers. Yes, comparing it to less-expensive console controllers is absolutely fair and completely to be expected. Not sure if you're just trolling on this one.
2. Amazon will have hundreds of games available in May...
May is 2 weeks away. They better get busy. Why didn't they just wait a couple of weeks and release the Fire TV with all of those games?
3. Fire TV is not a mature platform or product yet. It was redesigned several times because the execs did not like early versions and then released too early to get ahead of other product launches...
Uh-huh, and a well-placed source inside notoriously secretive Amazon told you this, right? You have no idea if this is true or not. Please don't present speculation as fact.
Which makes it completely different, both in usability and in form.
It makes it very much PlayStation-like... but after using both Xbox and PS controllers, I disagree with usability argument. I never had a problem moving from one to the other. Difference is in ergonomics, not in usability.
End of the day, controller shape is dictated by our hands anatomy. Beside some artificial changes, space for originality is quite limited.
Comments
Did anybody really think that Amazon's TV entry would have been groundbreaking and awe-inspiring? Nope.
I'm waiting for what Apple has coming up in the next few months. I rather wait for something game-changing than to settle for an also-ran. Basically this is an AppleTV for Android that runs games that are half-baked. I don't see the point.
First off, this isn't a review. Secondly, nowhere in the article does it say the controller is a failure. It is a so-so product compared to console counterparts and detracts from the gaming experience, but it works. You may not be in the market, but those who are may care about setup and design.
Mikey, Miss the point much?
The entire thing, completely half baked from start to finish....like all Amazon hardware & services.
Meant only for those who don't know any better. Hence Gary Busey as the spokesman.
Yeah sure chief. Easy to say when
A) the company that you are a fan of doesn't offer comparable services.
Apple is the best at its very limited range of products precisely because those are the only products that they choose to focus on and market, and they market it at a very high price point. Knocking the offerings of companies who choose to offer a broader range of products and services and do so at price points that other people can afford is ignorant. If it weren't for the products and services that other companies offer, your own company wouldn't survive. That is what makes the knocking of other companies so foolish. Your company can't even manufacture its own I-Pads and I-Phones without Samsung's parts. And your company can't even offer its online streaming and storage services without Microsoft and Amazon's cloud.
So wait until your own company is able to deliver its own products and services without help from the competition first, OK? Without Samsung and other hardware suppliers, there would be no Apple. Without Microsoft's software, Apple would have never gotten off the ground in the 1970s. Without Amazon and other online infrastructure companies, no I-Cloud and no I-Tunes. Meanwhile, Samsung, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and all of Apple's competitors would still exist without Apple. Why? Because they offer products and services that Apple doesn't and can't. Apple can't even run their own business without being one of the biggest customers of their competitors, which makes your own company "someone who doesn't know any better". Or more accurately, someone who can't do any better.
It is funny ... the companies that Apple keeps suing over allegedly stealing their stuff need to just simply stop supplying Apple. It isn't as if they need Apple's business to stay in business. And without their suppliers providing products and services that Apple's narrow focus can't supply on their own or even upscale quickly or well enough to become competitive if they tried, in short order there would be no Apple. But they won't, because they make more money giving Apple what Apple needs to remain in business than they will ever pay out in any lawsuit judgment. Funny how that works isn't it?
For goodness sakes. I bought an Apple TV. I returned it when I saw that it A) didn't support Amazon and
it didn't mirror my last generation I-Pod Touch. Yes, it works with I-Tunes, but I have bought much more stuff through Amazon than through I-Tunes (I had an Amazon account before I-Tunes even existed) so that didn't wasn't really a value to me. So basically, for me Apple TV was worthless, or at the very least worth LESS than my Roku and less than a Chromecast, which costs 1/3 as much. At this point, there are set top boxes that are better for everyone BUT those who have other Apple devices, and Fire TV is one of them. Right now, compared to the latest set top boxes, the Apple TV is half-baked for everyone but I-Pad and I-Phone owners. If that wasn't the case I wouldn't have returned the one that I bought.
And even when the new Apple TV comes and blows everyone away, big deal: Amazon, Samsung and the other companies that you will bash as inferior will still make money off it because Apple will need those companies to actually manufacture the thing and deliver content to it. That is the world that Apple exists in right now. Everyone knows it, which is why Apple doesn't get the glowing media attention or inflated media attention that is going to the companies that Apple needs to be able to do their business instead.
Did anybody really think that Amazon's TV entry would have been groundbreaking and awe-inspiring? Nope.
I'm waiting for what Apple has coming up in the next few months. I rather wait for something game-changing than to settle for an also-ran. Basically this is an AppleTV for Android that runs games that are half-baked. I don't see the point.
0. Basically this is AppleTV for Android? Wrong. It is AppleTV for Kindle. Which is better because Kindle has a superior ecosystem to Android.
1. Even if it was groundbreaking and awe-inspiring, you would not admit it.
2. What makes you think that the Apple TV games are going to be any better? It is going to run the games from its app store just like Fire TV does. If anything, by starting their own game studio to create games specifically for the device, that gives Fire TV the potential to have the best games of any device of its type. Apple would have to follow suit, because game developers are not going to have a financial incentive to make superior games for Apple TV that no one is going to pay more than $5 for.
3. Apple is going to need to incorporate things that are already in Fire TV (or that they knew would be in Fire TV), Roku 3 and Chromecast to be "groundbreaking and awe-inspiring." Which, of course, would make it less groundbreaking and awe-inspiring. Not that you would admit it. But the reality is that there is only so much that you can do with a set top box without making it A) too big or
too expensive. They can do Fire TV with better software, or they can make a full-fledged competitor to the X-Box or Playstation (bigger and more expensive). Even merely adding the Comcast/Time Warner cable box functionality would drive up the price well past $99. Which, of course, will result in you guys calling everything else a cheap piece of junk.
You do realize that Apple's guidelines for a controller are very Xbox-esque
You do realize that "Xbox-esque" is not the same as an outright copy, right?
Most gaming controllers are similar. The Fire TV controller is far more than just "similar".
0. Great use of zero-baed indexes.
1. Yes, Kindle is DEFINITELY better than Android.
2. No, I probably would. I have Google Glass, and that's groundbreaking, although I don't use it much in practice.
3. The reason I think Apple games are going to do better is this... they are going to announce AppleTV at WWDC and probably already have a number of games work with it. In addition, they will prepare developers to build apps specifically for the device. It will also have an A7 chip at least which has really great capability and already drives Retina displays so shouldn't have an issue driving a 1080p display, especially since they can increase the clock speed without worrying about battery life or thermal design as much. I also believe that developers can make great games that command more revenue, although it's hard to compete with free.
4. I think there is much more that Apple can do in the new AppleTV that the other companies have not done. But making a controller, or opening the SDK to developers isn't really all that innovative. I think Apple is looking to build out better frameworks, tools and ecosystem to allow for better interaction with end-users. Again, only time will tell.
So yes, if this was truly groundbreaking or awe-inspiring, I would say something. It's just not all that.
The only difference is the left side joystick/D pad configuration and the L2/R2 buttons aren't triggers.
Take into account that the drawing is just a guideline. The actual controllers being made look a lot like the Xbox controller.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161477/signal-announces-rp-one-full-size-bluetooth-game-controller-for-apples-ios-devices
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161638/review-steelseries-stratus-portable-wireless-gaming-controller-for-iphone-ipad
Haha!! "The only difference is..." that it is a completely different controller layout. Only the YXBA button labels are consistent. Pattern recognition: fail.
I'm well aware of that, and I'm not surprised that Amazon took that route. I am however surprised at Apple's guidelines. Surely there's another way to design a controller. I would expect more from Apple than just a slightly altered 'me too' design.
I'm well aware of that, and I'm not surprised that Amazon took that route. I am however surprised at Apple's guidelines. Surely there's another way to design a controller. I would expect more from Apple than just a slightly altered 'me too' design.
In other words, you were "well aware" of a fact that completely undermined your post, but decided to post it anyway.
Got it.
See the thing is would you be saying that if MS had made the Xbox controller after Apple had issued it's guidelines? The headline on AI read 'MS bases Xbox controller on Apple's design', and most here would pick out the similarities not the differences. That's called hypocrisy in my book. Surely the mighty Apple can reimagine the lowly gaming controller instead of following the lead of Sony and MS.
The entire thread of "copying the controller" is silly.
The controllers for the Xbox, Playstation, iOS (guidelines) and Fire TV are all somewhat similar. The kind of have to be. There are only so many ways you can design a controller. More so, they're designing the controller based on what buttons the ported games are going to require. The layouts aren't patented, and this is a good thing because it enables people to go from one platform to another without too much confusion.
The Fire TV remote has this similar layout in the sense of "let's not re-invent everything just for the sake of being different" while actually being a specific design for the device for what they needed. Note that other controls on the device for video and other features.
All in all, I find it to work very well, and I was able to jump into game play quite easily thanks to the familiarity of the controls.
It's funny how many people have been attacked, and vilified on here by saying the same thing about touch screen phones. Apple didn't take into consideration for gaming controls when it designed the iPhone/iPod Touch. Devs adjusted their game play. There are now more games than have ever existed for all gaming consoles combined.
This was Apple's chance to redesign the gaming controller. Instead they went with a 20 yr old design, and left the building of it to 3rd parties.
Leaving the UX to another company is indicative that Apple is uncomfortable that it's devices are used so much for gaming. I'm sure SJ wasn't too happy that the breakthrough device that they worked so hard to develop has become for many a gaming device.
Why would I want to pay $140, just to play a few Android games?
If I was in the market for a standalone game system, I'd just pick up an Xbox or a Playstation.
Yet people pay a lot more than that to play a few iOS games.
Yet people pay a lot more than that to play a few iOS games.
I think that most people also do a lot of other things with their iOS devices. I know that gaming is only a small percentage of what I do on my iOS devices.
iOS is also a stronger gaming platform than Android, since it has better games, more exclusive games, and more games that are actually made for a tablet and not a phone, and iOS is what developers usually want to focus on first.
Some counterpoints.
1. Lots of people are bashing the controller as mediocre but comparing it to console controllers is unfair...
It COSTS MORE than either the XBox 360 controller OR PS3 controller. It is built to play games that are run on a TV-connected box. Amazon has had YEARS to study and copy those controllers. Yes, comparing it to less-expensive console controllers is absolutely fair and completely to be expected. Not sure if you're just trolling on this one.
May is 2 weeks away. They better get busy. Why didn't they just wait a couple of weeks and release the Fire TV with all of those games?
Uh-huh, and a well-placed source inside notoriously secretive Amazon told you this, right? You have no idea if this is true or not. Please don't present speculation as fact.
It makes it very much PlayStation-like... but after using both Xbox and PS controllers, I disagree with usability argument. I never had a problem moving from one to the other. Difference is in ergonomics, not in usability.
End of the day, controller shape is dictated by our hands anatomy. Beside some artificial changes, space for originality is quite limited.
End of the day, controller shape is dictated by our hands anatomy.
Yep. And our hands default to thumbs up, not in, which is why the Sony design is inherently worse.