Amazon says Fire TV was top streaming device at US retailers, but only before new Apple TV launched

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 52
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    jbdragon wrote: »
    Except people care even less about the nVidia Shield then anything else!!!  I have a bunch of different streaming boxes to play around with and even I just don't care about that one.
    The gaming is reported to be very good, much better than any of the other streamers. The included 4K, HDMI 2.x, expandable storage, USB3.0 ports for accessories, general "future proofing" as it were, KODI and Sling apps, and compatibility with both iOS and Android are a bonus.

    But in any event the OP was commenting on the Amazon Fire being the most powerful streamer. It isn't. Between the Fire and the Shield I'd opt for nVidia's product. Apple TV is the obvious choice for many here.
  • Reply 22 of 52
    b9botb9bot Posts: 238member

    Yea they better get there bragging over with now because there about to drop through the floor with there top device as the new Apple TV shows how its done.

  • Reply 23 of 52
    davendaven Posts: 696member
    I dropped cable tv over the summer and put up an antenna. I was a lot more productive as I wasn't distracted by watching bad cable tv shows while waiting for something worthwhile. Now that winter is arriving and the days are getting shorter, I watch more tv but it consists of old tv series on over the air tv and Netflix and the occasional new movie from iTunes. I looked at Amazon's selection of movies and they are priced the same as they are on iTunes so why bother?
  • Reply 24 of 52
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,056member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

     

    I think Amazon made a big mistake by pushing their own Fire TV for Black Friday and the holiday season.  Penny wise and pound foolish because the money for Amazon is in the Prime service and not the device.

     

    They are competing head on with the new Apple TV and they will lose.  Target alone sold a ton of the new Apple TV last week and those will likely replace a lot of Fire TVs instead of co-existing.  Now that Netflix, Hulu and HBO Now rule on the Apple TV, it will be an uphill battle for Amazon to compete.

     

    A better strategy for Amazon would have been to offer the Apple TV at a deep discount like Target and attach a Prime subscription to the deal.  Its good that they are planning to offer an App for the Apple TV in a few weeks but a free trial to Prime may not be good enough to gain a lot of Apple TV customers globally.  Amazon actually needs to do this quickly just to keep their current customers from defecting.


    Amazon's lead suit is clearly prime. I am really trying to figure out their whole business model. Surely they have worked some significant discount from the shippers to make it work. The number don't seem to add up. For example, I just bought a 35 pound bag of dog food, prime shipped, for a tad less than the local retail store. Free ship? Somewhere there is a razor thin margin on this stuff that comes from a bulk discount on massive delivery, warehousing, and delivery. Yes, a tad off topic, but local retail walk in stores are a thing of the past. Your grandchildren will look at these (with notable niche exceptions) as quaint vestiges of the ice age. Who the hell would go "shopping?"

  • Reply 25 of 52
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by schlack View Post



    Amazon Fire TV is the most powerful device out there...pushing 4K. With all the 4K TVs being sold this season, I'm not surprised people are grabbing Fire TVs to push content to them. Surprising that the AppleTV doesn't support 4K. Possibly a nod to the gaming angle it's trying to capture...4K gaming is totally different than 4K video.



    Roku 4 does 4K

  • Reply 26 of 52
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Prime Shipping is a mirage.

    Once they get enough members you will see the cost of Prime shipping explode. Enjoy it while it lasts.  It isn't sustainable.
    A mirage I've enjoyed the benefits of for several years now. ;)
  • Reply 27 of 52
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    sog35 wrote: »
    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.
    Have you ever looked? Doubtful.
    http://shield.nvidia.com/games/geforce-now

    There's also a GForce Now subscription which seems fairly priced.
    http://shield.nvidia.com/games/geforce-now

    ...or you could stream your PC games.
    http://shield.nvidia.com/blog/play-pc-games-on-tv
  • Reply 28 of 52
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,056member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Prime Shipping is a mirage.

     

    Once they get enough members you will see the cost of Prime shipping explode. Enjoy it while it lasts.  It isn't sustainable.


    Normally I would agree. I can't see how this works. I *can* see how Apple makes an ecosystem of devices that all work together, but there seems to not be anything similar at Amazon.

     

    AT&T just upped the unlimited data plan by $5. I ditched mine a few months ago because I simply didn't need it, and the tether option was more useful. I really can't imagine AT&T having that many unlimited customers remaining, and it really can't cost them that much. But Prime Shipping seems to be a *huge* loss on each click. Clearly we don't know all the inside numbers, which have to be the secret sauce.

     

    Guess this is what they teach at business school. 

  • Reply 29 of 52
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post



    Ok.. yeah, except for 1 detail.. Amazon doesn't sell Apple TV or Roku anymore.. sooooooo, yeah.. duh.. of course it's the #1 on Amazon, heh..

    Data manipulation is second nature to Amazon. The only ones to do it better are the politicians. As they say: Figures lie and liars figure. Ain't it the truth.  :mad:

  • Reply 30 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by schlack View Post



    Amazon Fire TV is the most powerful device out there...pushing 4K. With all the 4K TVs being sold this season, I'm not surprised people are grabbing Fire TVs to push content to them. Surprising that the AppleTV doesn't support 4K. Possibly a nod to the gaming angle it's trying to capture...4K gaming is totally different than 4K video.



    True 4K video does not make sense for internet streaming devices today because:

     

    1.  Your TV would need to be about 8ft diagonal and you would need to seat about 5ft from the screen to see the difference.

    2.  The streaming bitrate of true 4K video is 4 times as huge as Full HD and most devices and internet connections have issues with Full HD today.

    Most fast internet connections in the US range from 150 Mbs to 300 Mbs.  Few areas get Gigabit speed from Google Fiber.  

     

    Imagine streaming video on 2 or 3 TV sets at the same time on your internet connection.

    Below are the bit rates for Full HD vs true 4K.  

    Source:  http://toolstud.io/video/filesize.php?imagewidth=4096&imageheight=2160&framerate=25&timeduration=60&timeunit=seconds

     

    Video bitrate Full HD


    • for 1920 x 1080 @ 25 fps

    • BluRay H.264 : 7 MB/s = 56 Mbps

    • MPEG2 High : 10 MB/s = 80 Mbps

    • JPEG2000 : 15.3 MB/s = 122 Mbps

    • Prores422 : 27.5 MB/s = 220 Mbps

    • Monochrome 8-bit : 51.8 MB/s = 415 Mbps

    • RAW RGB 3x8 bit : 156 MB/s = 1.24 Gbps

    • RAW RGB 3x16 bit : 311 MB/s = 2.49 Gbps

     

    Video bitrate 4K


    • for 4096 x 2160 @ 25 fps

    • BluRay H.264 : 29.9 MB/s = 239 Mbps

    • MPEG2 High : 42.7 MB/s = 341 Mbps

    • JPEG2000 : 65.1 MB/s = 521 Mbps

    • Prores422 : 117 MB/s = 939 Mbps

    • Monochrome 8-bit : 221 MB/s = 1.77 Gbps

    • RAW RGB 3x8 bit : 664 MB/s = 5.31 Gbps

    • RAW RGB 3x16 bit : 1.33 GB/s = 10.6 Gbps

     

    For local content maybe but for internet streaming content?  4K will not be viable for a very long time.

  • Reply 31 of 52
    I just bought the second gen. Fire TV to watch video content exclusive to Amazon. I will use my Apple TV for everything else. I'll keep this arrangement even if Amazon puts an app on the new Apple TV, since I like the previous Apple TV better.
  • Reply 32 of 52
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    True 4K video does not make sense for internet streaming devices today because:

    1.  Your TV would need to be about 8ft diagonal and you would need to seat about 5ft from the screen to see the difference.
    I keep seeing that comment, but I personally think it's much like the "retina display" comments.

    Tho resolutions on smartphones (and even computer monitors) have supposedly gone beyond what the typical eye can perceive there's little doubt from those that use them that the images appear smoother and nicer with those better-than-retina displays. I think 4K displays are probably the same. They look nicer even tho you supposedly can't appreciate them in all their glory yet. Still better than the comparable 1080P set, particularly with some of the up-scaling software they've used.
  • Reply 33 of 52
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    No numbers = fail, right? Oh that only applies to Apple Watch...silly me.



    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.

  • Reply 34 of 52
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Those are all streamed games.  I can't imagine playing fast paced games no a streaming platform.  Even minute lag would be death.
    I don't think moving goalposts to avoid "wide left" works. As you obviously discovered there's console-quality games such as The Witcher, Shadow of Mordor, Resident Evil and many others on the Shield.

    As for gameplay why guess at the experience? It's not that difficult to find gamer's opinions of it. Streaming games isn't unusual at all, with both Microsoft and Sony using it on their xBox and Playstation consoles too. What do you think Playstation Now is?

    EDIT: Pocket-Lint has a very recent article up where gameplay gets a good look.
    http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/135465-nvidia-shield-android-tv-review-4k-and-gaming-meet-in-powerhouse-box
  • Reply 35 of 52
    jbdragon wrote: »
    Except people care even less about the nVidia Shield then anything else!!!  I have a bunch of different streaming boxes to play around with and even I just don't care about that one.

    Tangents are his specialty. ;)
  • Reply 36 of 52
    damonfdamonf Posts: 229member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post



    Ok.. yeah, except for 1 detail.. Amazon doesn't sell Apple TV or Roku anymore.. sooooooo, yeah.. duh.. of course it's the #1 on Amazon, heh..

     

    Yep, now we know why Amazon dumped Apple TV and Chromecast just a couple of months ago.  So they could have the whole holiday shopping season to themselves on their site, no competition.  This allows them to brag about their 6-fold increase in Fire TV sales compared to same time last year. They were also selling them at $25 instead of the regular $40 price.  I think they did that last year as well, but it was still very new then and as I recall they quickly went to "backordered" status.

  • Reply 37 of 52
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    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.  




    Well according to a couple articles I have read, Amazon only appears to be losing money due to their very high level of re-investment.

  • Reply 38 of 52

    True 4K video does not make sense for internet streaming devices today because:

    1.  Your TV would need to be about 8ft diagonal and you would need to seat about 5ft from the screen to see the difference.
    2.  The streaming bitrate of true 4K video is 4 times as huge as Full HD and most devices and internet connections have issues with Full HD today.
    Most fast internet connections in the US range from 150 Mbs to 300 Mbs.  Few areas get Gigabit speed from Google Fiber.  

    Imagine streaming video on 2 or 3 TV sets at the same time on your internet connection.
    Below are the bit rates for Full HD vs true 4K.  
    Source:  http://toolstud.io/video/filesize.php?imagewidth=4096&imageheight=2160&framerate=25&timeduration=60&timeunit=seconds

    Video bitrate Full HD
    [*] for 1920 x 1080 @ 25 fps
    [*] BluRay H.264 : 7 MB/s = 56 Mbps
    [*] MPEG2 High : 10 MB/s = 80 Mbps
    [*] JPEG2000 : 15.3 MB/s = 122 Mbps
    [*] Prores422 : 27.5 MB/s = 220 Mbps
    [*] Monochrome 8-bit : 51.8 MB/s = 415 Mbps
    [*] RAW RGB 3x8 bit : 156 MB/s = 1.24 Gbps
    [*] RAW RGB 3x16 bit : 311 MB/s = 2.49 Gbps


    Video bitrate 4K
    [*] for 4096 x 2160 @ 25 fps
    [*] BluRay H.264 : 29.9 MB/s = 239 Mbps
    [*] MPEG2 High : 42.7 MB/s = 341 Mbps
    [*] JPEG2000 : 65.1 MB/s = 521 Mbps
    [*] Prores422 : 117 MB/s = 939 Mbps
    [*] Monochrome 8-bit : 221 MB/s = 1.77 Gbps
    [*] RAW RGB 3x8 bit : 664 MB/s = 5.31 Gbps
    [*] RAW RGB 3x16 bit : 1.33 GB/s = 10.6 Gbps


    For local content maybe but for internet streaming content?  4K will not be viable for a very long time.

    Your point is well taken, but the problem with talking about "true 4K" and then listing a bunch of compression rates is twofold: (1) what does "true 4K" mean and (2) does it make sense to use bit rates to describe or define it? After all, H.265 is supposed to do a better job of compressing 4K streams without sacrificing quality, so you'd have to rework your 4K "measuring stick."

    It's obviously not practical to define 4K as 3840x2160 60p at 4:4:4 for consumer products and web-based services. There will always be lossy compression. The question is: how much?

    The consumer's buying decision comes down to value and personal, subjective perception about picture quality, and I would argue that the threshold is pretty damn low--far lower than "true 4K" bit rates you listed. Some people (including some in this thread) think that "upscaling" HD to 4K produces wonderful results.

    I think unless they're obsessed with specs or are a film archivist, most consumers will happily accept the consumer grade 4K as "4K." I argue that they already do. So I conclude that 4K is viable, right now.
  • Reply 39 of 52
    anomeanome Posts: 1,533member
    How can data be a misnomer? Reach for the dictionary before using clever words.
    nhughes wrote: »

    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.
    Except, that "misnomer" means "a name or term used incorrectly", and so doesn't apply to vague or misleading data.
  • Reply 40 of 52
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    sog35 wrote: »
    give me a break.  You can play Witcher, Resident Evil, ect on a $99 device like an Xbox360 or PS3.

    I've read reviews about streaming games.  They suck and are inconsistent unless your internet connection is super fast.

    But it does not matter.  People vote with their wallets and the Shield has been a massive failure in that regard.
    And I completely agree with your third point. Sales have likely been very mediocre. Marketing would certainly help.
Sign In or Register to comment.