It goes like this: If there are no numbers and it's an Apple product - you can make up any numbers you like and claim victory. If it's a product from a rival company, all claims are to be rejected out of hand, numbers are demanded with the figures written in blood on vellum, blessed by the hierarchs of the three leading religions, and then rejected by claiming shipped vs sold or some other sophistry driven sop.
no, i think you've got your troll tropes backwards. if its anybody but Apple, the numbers are never talked about by analysts or apple critics, nor met with skepticism (see Amazon, etc). but if it is an Apple product, then not showing all numbers represents DOOM -- despite Apple preemptively stating as a brand new product category they would not be releasing said numbers.
Except, that "misnomer" means "a name or term used incorrectly", and so doesn't apply to vague or misleading data.
I wrote "something of a misnomer" because the data seems intentionally misleading and provides no source (according to who, NPD?). I also called out Apple for not disclosing their own sales for Apple TV. The difference is, Apple didn't put out a press release touting sales of the Apple TV, while Amazon put out a press release touting sales of the Fire TV.
Are you disputing that you can't play Witcher and Resident Evil on Xbox360?
Seems odd that you brag that the Shield can play those games when you can play those same games on a $99 Xbox360.
Face it. The Shield has very little exclusive titles. If you are serious about games you will buy a XboxOne or PS4 that is just a few bucks more than the shield and will blow it away. If you are not so serious about games you buy an AppleTV. The Shield is a niche device that only a few hundred thousand people fits. No amount of marketing will help that.
Of course you can play games on used game systems. We weren't discussing that. You instead were claiming you couldn't get console-quality games for the Shield.
Power means nothing if you only sell a few hundred thousand units.
No developer will waste their time and money to bring out their AAA games to such a small platform.
You weren't correct. You can. Then it was it would be a lousy experience because they're streaming. It wouldn't be as shown by actual user/player comments. Read 'em for yourself.
Much as you'd like to change it you were wrong more times than right so far in your comments. On the other hand I don't see anything inaccurate nor even misleading in anything I wrote. Feel free to point it out if you disagree.
You were the one that felt he needed to jump in with inaccurate comments when I said the Shield was more powerful than anything Amazon's Fire offered.
Non-streaming Shield games are not even close to XboxOne/PS4 level. That is the console quality level I'm talking about.
Nope. Only if you have a mega fast internet connection will streaming games even be decent.
Sorry but the XboxOne/PS4 wipe the floor against the Shield. That you are debating this is pathetic. Ask any serious gamer and he will laugh in your face if you say the Shield is an equal gaming machine to the Xbox1/PS4. Laugh. In. Your. Face.
You don't need a "megafast" connection" so there's another inaccurate statement. With the combination of a Gigabit ethernet connection and wi-fi for the controller rather than bluetooth it needs no more than a Playstation 4 does for Playstation Now for a good streaming game experience.
Non-streaming Shield games are not even close to XboxOne/PS4 level. That is the console quality level I'm talking about.
Much as you you try to change what was under discussion with things that are not in dispute it makes you no more right than when you started out with mistaken comments on Shield capabilities.
"The Witcher 3, however, proved problematic. Every time I loaded the title up, I found it to be laggy and prone to screen tearing, stuttering, frame-skipping and generally running in such a way as to make it almost unplayable, especially during combat. This was particularly disappointing..."
Finally, Nvidia lists a "Shield-Ready 5-GHz Wi-Fi router" as a requirement, not just a recommendation. These routers are on the expensive end of the spectrum, ranging from $100 all the way up to $300."
Give me a break.
Actually a GOOD review of the service, but one user's bad experience with one particular game.
"The most important question is whether GeForce Now can really stream games at full-HD resolution within seconds of buying them.... The answer is a solid "yes," with only one notable exception....
I tested a wide variety of games, but spent the most time with The Witcher 3, Lego Marvel Super Heroes, Trine 3 and Devil May Cry 4. The latter three titles ran phenomenally well. Each took between 10 and 15 seconds to load, and I observed them running in full-HD resolutions at the frame rates described. Blasting through New York City as a Lego version of Iron Man was as seamless as honing my gun-fu skills against demonic attackers in Devil May Cry's outrageous, fluid spectacle fights."
There always has to be one. :smokey:
As for the 5G WiFi isn't that really common now? Heck it's even on the cheap free router Brighthouse gave me to get me to swap internet providers. In any event the conversation was about whether the Fire was the most powerful 4K capable tv box/streamer. It isn't as I accurately pointed out.
Don't get so upset or take offense. I didn't make any comparison to your Apple TV (or Playstation or xBox other than noting they also offer streaming). The discussion had to do with the 4K Fire.
And it would be even worse if Wall Street didn't pump up the stock price. Without the ridiculous bubble the stock price is, they would have to pay much more in salaries.
Its freakin disgusting.
Wall Street pumps up stock.
Amazon sells items at a loss to kill competition.
Small business get hurt and go out of business.
Hundreds of thousands lose jobs.
Wall Street profits.
Basically hundreds of billions of dollars are being taken from lower/middle class families and given to Wall Street, using Amazon as a funnel.
Walmart was bad for small business.
Amazon is even worse since they don't even need to make a profit to survive.
Amazon did not provide a source for their retail data. In addition, the press release reads: "Amazon Fire TV is the #1 streaming media player in the US across all retailers—sales on Amazon this weekend up more than 6x year over year." These are two separate data points — the No. 1 distinction is July through October, while this weekend's sales are separate. The entire announcement was very vague.
Actually I make it more clear, Amazon if claiming the #1 spot and they have no idea what Apple sold, but most idiot will not notice this distinction. In reality they stop selling the apple product and other competing product so being #1 on Amazon own site would make sense, they had no direct competition.
The can make claims like this since they qualified the data and limits it scope they are not claiming to be #1 of all sold streaming devices since we already know that Apple sold 20M ATV in hit history and Amazon has not come close to these numbers yet.
Comments
no, i think you've got your troll tropes backwards. if its anybody but Apple, the numbers are never talked about by analysts or apple critics, nor met with skepticism (see Amazon, etc). but if it is an Apple product, then not showing all numbers represents DOOM -- despite Apple preemptively stating as a brand new product category they would not be releasing said numbers.
now -- which side of the troll fence do you lay?
Except, that "misnomer" means "a name or term used incorrectly", and so doesn't apply to vague or misleading data.
I wrote "something of a misnomer" because the data seems intentionally misleading and provides no source (according to who, NPD?). I also called out Apple for not disclosing their own sales for Apple TV. The difference is, Apple didn't put out a press release touting sales of the Apple TV, while Amazon put out a press release touting sales of the Fire TV.
The Roku is a very good streamer. It has no future though. As far as 4K goes let's see how that pans out in two years.
Much as you'd like to change it you were wrong more times than right so far in your comments. On the other hand I don't see anything inaccurate nor even misleading in anything I wrote. Feel free to point it out if you disagree.
You were the one that felt he needed to jump in with inaccurate comments when I said the Shield was more powerful than anything Amazon's Fire offered.
Did you even bother to read any actual reviews of the Shield gaming experience, even the one I looked up for you earlier?
http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/135465-nvidia-shield-android-tv-review-4k-and-gaming-meet-in-powerhouse-box
There is no secret sauce. Amazon is losing money on Prime members. Last year Amazon generated over $100 billion in revenue and still lost money.
Sure - the lose money on every transaction, but they make it up in the volume, right?
"The most important question is whether GeForce Now can really stream games at full-HD resolution within seconds of buying them.... The answer is a solid "yes," with only one notable exception....
I tested a wide variety of games, but spent the most time with The Witcher 3, Lego Marvel Super Heroes, Trine 3 and Devil May Cry 4. The latter three titles ran phenomenally well. Each took between 10 and 15 seconds to load, and I observed them running in full-HD resolutions at the frame rates described. Blasting through New York City as a Lego version of Iron Man was as seamless as honing my gun-fu skills against demonic attackers in Devil May Cry's outrageous, fluid spectacle fights."
There always has to be one. :smokey:
As for the 5G WiFi isn't that really common now? Heck it's even on the cheap free router Brighthouse gave me to get me to swap internet providers. In any event the conversation was about whether the Fire was the most powerful 4K capable tv box/streamer. It isn't as I accurately pointed out.
Don't get so upset or take offense. I didn't make any comparison to your Apple TV (or Playstation or xBox other than noting they also offer streaming). The discussion had to do with the 4K Fire.
And it would be even worse if Wall Street didn't pump up the stock price. Without the ridiculous bubble the stock price is, they would have to pay much more in salaries.
Its freakin disgusting.
Wall Street pumps up stock.
Amazon sells items at a loss to kill competition.
Small business get hurt and go out of business.
Hundreds of thousands lose jobs.
Wall Street profits.
Basically hundreds of billions of dollars are being taken from lower/middle class families and given to Wall Street, using Amazon as a funnel.
Walmart was bad for small business.
Amazon is even worse since they don't even need to make a profit to survive.
John D. Rockefeller likes this.
Amazon did not provide a source for their retail data. In addition, the press release reads: "Amazon Fire TV is the #1 streaming media player in the US across all retailers—sales on Amazon this weekend up more than 6x year over year." These are two separate data points — the No. 1 distinction is July through October, while this weekend's sales are separate. The entire announcement was very vague.
Actually I make it more clear, Amazon if claiming the #1 spot and they have no idea what Apple sold, but most idiot will not notice this distinction. In reality they stop selling the apple product and other competing product so being #1 on Amazon own site would make sense, they had no direct competition.
The can make claims like this since they qualified the data and limits it scope they are not claiming to be #1 of all sold streaming devices since we already know that Apple sold 20M ATV in hit history and Amazon has not come close to these numbers yet.
I'll settle for just one bottle of Crown Royal Reserve for $5.