# Amazon Fire TV



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

So, I guess amazon streaming on TiVo is now totally out of the picture.

Amazon wants you to buy a FireTV box from them (why it is a giant box and not an HDMI dongle, I don't know).


----------



## jjd416 (Nov 24, 2009)

Amazon's offering is a good one, but they are a little late to the table. I doubt they will abandon current platforms and would still benefit by adding additional platforms. My fingers are still crossed for an updated TiVo interface, but I realize it isn't likely.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

tomhorsley said:


> why it is a giant box and not an HDMI dongle, I don't know.


I'd hardly call it a "giant box", but it's probably so it can have more memory and a more powerful processor to support things like gaming, and so it can be used without a smartphone or tablet for those of us who still prefer using a remote. They can always come out with a dongle version later, the way Roku has.


----------



## TrooperOrange (Apr 23, 2012)

tomhorsley said:


> So, I guess amazon streaming on TiVo is now totally out of the picture.
> 
> Amazon wants you to buy a FireTV box from them (why it is a giant box and not an HDMI dongle, I don't know).


Its actually pretty small. Also houses a quad core CPU and 2GB of Ram, and a bunch of ports on the back. So yeah.


----------



## Fist of Death (Jan 4, 2002)

I can't see any compelling reason to ditch my TiVo + Roku 3 combo...


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Fist of Death said:


> I can't see any compelling reason to ditch my TiVo + Roku 3 combo...


There isn't really. I have a Roku 3 and it is great. But if I didn't yet have a Roku and was in the market for a streaming media player, I would give serious consideration to this new device. You can see a comparison chart between FireTV, Roku3, Apple TV, and Chromecast on the Amazon FireTV page.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

tarheelblue32 said:


> There isn't really. I have a Roku 3 and it is great. But if I didn't yet have a Roku and was in the market for a streaming media player, I would give serious consideration to this new device. You can see a comparison chart between FireTV, Roku3, Apple TV, and Chromecast on the Amazon FireTV page.


The only benefit I see is that the Fire TV has voice search and has better game support than the Roku 3. Roku has more channels though. I'm not sure either is way ahead of the other at this point but it seems the Fire TV is more of a competitor to Roku than any other box.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

rainwater said:


> The only benefit I see is that the Fire TV has voice search and has better game support than the Roku 3. Roku has more channels though. I'm not sure either is way ahead of the other at this point but it seems the Fire TV is more of a competitor to Roku than any other box.


Apple better get off their butts and do something. Both Roku and Amazon now have a better product than Apple TV. Hell, even my Samsung Smart TV is better than Apple TV now.


----------



## TrooperOrange (Apr 23, 2012)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Apple better get off their butts and do something. Both Roku and Amazon now have a better product than Apple TV. Hell, even my Samsung Smart TV is better than Apple TV now.


You aren't kidding about that. The only thing I can see that Fire TV is missing is HBOGo, which I imagine would come down the pipe at some point.

Apple is woefully behind, perhaps all the competition will spur them into some innovation. Of course they have always viewed Apple TV as a pet project right?


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Apple better get off their butts and do something. Both Roku and Amazon now have a better product than Apple TV. Hell, even my Samsung Smart TV is better than Apple TV now.


Apple TV has Airplay. That's probably all they really need to be successful and it's the one reason I'll always have one. Occasionally I watch a Movie with my ATV, but I find the controls to be too limited for the sake of being simple. I'd far rather watch stuff on my TiVo with 30 second skip, instant replay, etc.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Apple better get off their butts and do something. Both Roku and Amazon now have a better product than Apple TV. Hell, even my Samsung Smart TV is better than Apple TV now.





TrooperOrange said:


> You aren't kidding about that. The only thing I can see that Fire TV is missing is HBOGo ...


HBO GO is literally the only reason I own an Apple TV. I much prefer my Roku 3, but Comcast won't allow me to access HBO and Showtime through it.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I just looked at the Fire TV page. Those are some damn impressive specs. I'm a little concerned that there doesn't appear to be a way to control it with a 3rd party IR remote. That would be a deal breaker for me, as I like to control my entire A/V system from one remote. It does have a USB port, though, so I assume that could potentially be used for an RF receiver.


----------



## TrooperOrange (Apr 23, 2012)

gweempose said:


> I just looked at the Fire TV page. Those are some damn impressive specs. I'm a little concerned that there doesn't appear to be a way to control it with a 3rd party IR remote. That would be a deal breaker for me, as I like to control my entire A/V system from one remote. It does have a USB port, though, so I assume that could potentially be used for an RF receiver.


Logitech makes a bluetooth remote thingy, the Fire TV is bluetooth, wonder if that would work?


----------



## TrooperOrange (Apr 23, 2012)

gweempose said:


> HBO GO is literally the only reason I own an Apple TV. I much prefer my Roku 3, but Comcast won't allow me to access HBO and Showtime through it.


That is one of my huge pet peeves, when an app exists, the comcast isn't on the list of supported providers. Major WTF, happened with HBOGo on the PS 3 as well.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

TrooperOrange said:


> You aren't kidding about that. The only thing I can see that Fire TV is missing is HBOGo, which I imagine would come down the pipe at some point.
> 
> Apple is woefully behind, perhaps all the competition will spur them into some innovation. Of course they have always viewed Apple TV as a pet project right?


 Apple clone. Optical out? Apple clone. This is trying to be a Roku killer if anything but my guess is Amazon has something with pricing plans for content up their sleeve. A $99.00 box at this point doesn't add up.
Apple TV has home sharing, behind I think not.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> This is trying to be a Roku killer if anything, but my guess is Amazon has something with pricing plans for content up their sleeve. A $99.00 box at this point doesn't add up.


I agree. The price point seems off. I suspect Amazon will start giving these away free with new Prime memberships. They are probably going after Netflix more than they are going after Roku.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tenthplanet said:


> A $99.00 box at this point doesn't add up.


Lets see Apple TV $99, Roku 3 $99, Amazon Fire TV $99. Amazon is selling significantly better hardware with more abilities at the same price as Roku or Apple. Sounds like it adds up to me.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Lets see Apple TV $99, Roku 3 $99, Amazon Fire TV $99. Amazon is selling significantly better hardware with more abilities at the same price as Roku or Apple. Sounds like it adds up to me.


$99 still seems like a pretty high price point for most people. Roku's entry level players are only $49. The Chromecast is only $35.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

The hardware specs are pretty impressive for a streamer box but,,, with all that muscle they are very short on codec support and does not play local files at all. It could have easily run circles around the WDTV boxes but falls very short in the software area.

Tivo may still get better Amazon support. They want their content in front of customers. Hopeful anyway.

At this point, its ehh, not something I need or even want to play with.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

First off, I'm glad they put an Ethernet port on the thing. The Chromecast is a useless piece of plastic if your 2.4ghz channels are all jammed up, as there's no way to hard wire it. Roku and Apple TV both have Ethernet, so Chromecast is the odd man out there.

It looks mostly redundant to Roku, although the gaming could be interesting, and they have some serious hardware under the hood. I might get one of these things next time I move (and rebuilt my HT setup, third time should be a charm), although that and a Chromecast would be my 9th and 10th HDMI devices, in addition to analog, so it might put me over the edge HDMI switch wise...

I don't really see it competing with Apple TV, unless you're looking at it from an ecosystem perspective. Apple TV is really an accessory for the iPad, Chromcast for an Android phone or tablet, while this is more like a standalone device like Roku, although it can act as an accessory for the Kindle Fire line.

I like RF remotes, although Roku has one too. But I'm still a little doubtful that I really need 3 or 4 devices with Amazon Prime, and 10 or 11 (??) devices that support Netflix... I'll probably get one anyways just to play with it...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

gweempose said:


> $99 still seems like a pretty high price point for most people. Roku's entry level players are only $49. The Chromecast is only $35.


You are correct if this was an entry level product, which it clearly isn't. It appears to me that Amazon has decided to go with a high end streaming device that can also be a gaming device on par with smart phones and tablets but designed for TVs. Given how popular gaming on smart phones & tablets has become there appears to be some logic in that. Given the specs of this device I am almost 100% certain Amazon has more features coming.


----------



## monkeydust (Dec 12, 2004)

We've had Amazon Prime for years but rarely watch any instant shows though it due to the requirement for us to switch the video to another device to watch it (PS3 or Samsung Smart TV) and switch the AV to match.

My family uses the crappy Netflix app on our Elite just because of convenience of not having to get out other remotes to switch to the PS3.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Lets see Apple TV $99, Roku 3 $99, Amazon Fire TV $99. Amazon is selling significantly better hardware with more abilities at the same price as Roku or Apple. Sounds like it adds up to me.


 Hardware doesn't equal a better picture, the horsepower seems to used for a search for the lazy and games. As always with streaming connection quality and speed make the difference something the industry loves to dance around.
Since most is of this tech is being built into TV's I wonder where the market is. Most people who are interested in streaming have a device(s) already, and for many of the rest this stuff will never be simple enough for them.


----------



## siratfus (Oct 3, 2008)

bareyb said:


> Apple TV has Airplay. That's probably all they really need to be successful and it's the one reason I'll always have one. Occasionally I watch a Movie with my ATV, but I find the controls to be too limited for the sake of being simple. I'd far rather watch stuff on my TiVo with 30 second skip, instant replay, etc.


Depending on one's need, you can kill a few birds with one stone going with an Android box or stick and do a lot more. We have an Android box that caters to Chinese content. I installed an Airplay/DLNA receiver app in it. My Ipad Air can see it and we can airplay to it and it works very well. Our android tablets can see it as well via the DLNA side.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tenthplanet said:


> Hardware doesn't equal a better picture, the horsepower seems to used for a search for the lazy and games. As always with streaming connection quality and speed make the difference something the industry loves to dance around.
> Since most is of this tech is being built into TV's I wonder where the market is. Most people who are interested in streaming have a device(s) already, and for many of the rest this stuff will never be simple enough for them.


No disagreement with the internet connection being central for any streaming device. However I have had multiple Rokus and streaming devices from Netgear, Western digital, & Logitech and I can tell you hardware matters.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

tenthplanet said:


> Hardware doesn't equal a better picture, the horsepower seems to used for a search for the lazy


It's not just a 'search for the lazy'. Watch the Amazon Gary Busey video for the Fire (pretty funny IMO) and you'll see who they're pitching voice search to.

Pretty compelling feature for some, IMO.

Agree that without DLNA or local video support it is limited, but this is before anyone has started hacking on it. With the hardware specs for the price alone it's a compelling target.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

monkeydust said:


> We've had Amazon Prime for years but rarely watch any instant shows though it due to the requirement for us to switch the video to another device to watch it (PS3 or Samsung Smart TV) and switch the AV to match.
> 
> My family uses the crappy Netflix app on our Elite just because of convenience of not having to get out other remotes to switch to the PS3.


Your family would probably benefit greatly from a universal remote running macros. I have a ton of devices hooked up to my home theater, but they can all be accessed via a single button press on my remote. For example, if my son wants to watch TV, he just presses "TiVo". If my daughter wants to play a video game, she just presses "Wii U". All of the powering on of the devices and input switching is done automatically, and requires absolutely no expertise from the user.

Sorry to veer off topic, but you touched on a subject that I'm very passionate about.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Amazon should have made it capable of outputting 4k content rather than just the standard 1080p. It would have made it first to market with a 4k streaming media player. I know, I know, there isn't much 4k streaming content available and most people don't have 4k TVs yet, but it would have been a "future proofing" selling feature that would have made a lot of people more willing to buy yet another streaming media device.

Anyone want to guess on when Amazon will come out with an Amazon Fire Smartphone?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Amazon should have made it capable of outputting 4k content rather than just the standard 1080p. It would have made it first to market with a 4k streaming media player. I know, I know, there isn't much 4k streaming content available and most people don't have 4k TVs yet, but it would have been a "future proofing" selling feature that would have made a lot of people more willing to buy yet another streaming media device. Anyone want to guess on when Amazon will come out with an Amazon Fire Smartphone?


Sony already has a 4K streamer.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

gweempose said:


> Your family would probably benefit greatly from a universal remote running macros.


Jesus, Americans are getting lazy. It's not that hard to pick up the video scaler/AVR remote, select another input, and then pick up the device remote.

4k would be way too expensive hardware wise.

Remember when the first streaming devices were $300 and everyone was looking toward the $99 streamer, and that price point would be amazing. Now everyone is whining about $99. It's funny.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Jesus, Americans are getting lazy. It's not that hard to pick up the video scaler/AVR remote, select another input, and then pick up the device remote.
> 
> 4k would be way too expensive hardware wise.
> 
> Remember when the first streaming devices were $300 and everyone was looking toward the $99 streamer, and that price point would be amazing. Now everyone is whining about $99. It's funny.


Thank you Mr. Bigg, you stated what I was just about to post. Gee, am I the only one who remember when you had to get off your ass and walk over to the TV to change the channel.  That would kill some person on this trend. 

Regarding the Fire TV, I am going to wait and see what and how Apple update their Apple TV. We do know that it will receive the A7 processor . Also Apple is talking with the cable companies regarding the Apple TV.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Good thread on this at the AVS forums:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1524543/a...oks-like-a-new-media-streamer-running-android
Including users who already have it running.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

I'll disagree. Automation does not equal laziness.

One comment so happen to use the word 'expertise' and I think that's accurate. Family members who 'just want to ____' do not know nor should they have to know how to flip video and audio switchers.

As time goes on, we're getting more devices, they'll get more complicated, and we might turn them off-and-on more often because of green-ness. In some houses this is a more complicated procedure than yours.


----------



## GumboChief (Aug 27, 2004)

FYI: Showtime and other networks which require cable company authentication, do not work with Comcast. Sending my unit back.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

GumboChief said:


> FYI: Showtime and other networks which require cable company authentication, do not work with Comcast. Sending my unit back.


I guess Amazon hasn't paid off Comcast yet.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Wish they would've given one for free or dirt cheap to Prime customers.. I just want a better way of watching Prime Video than my PS3. (Yeah, if the Tivo did it, that would be great if the UI were at least as good as the PS3 UI.. I'm not holding my breath for ANY version of it though.)


----------



## GumboChief (Aug 27, 2004)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I guess Amazon hasn't paid off Comcast yet.


I knew it was a risk, but Showtime support is the only reason I selected this over Roku


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

GumboChief said:


> I knew it was a risk, but Showtime support is the only reason I selected this over Roku


Roku has a ShowtimeAnytime app too, Comcast just won't allow its use either.


----------



## GumboChief (Aug 27, 2004)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Roku has a ShowtimeAnytime app too, Comcast just won't allow its use either.


I was aware. That is why I bought the Fire TV. Will swap it for a Roku 3, now.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Hopefully, Amazon will quickly convince Comcast to play ball when it comes to the authentication stuff. Amazon certainly has a lot more muscle behind them than RoKu.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Jesus, Americans are getting lazy. It's not that hard to pick up the video scaler/AVR remote, select another input, and then pick up the device remote.


and then it's made worse when they share the laziness with the world in some sort of indignant attempt to brag about how pushing a couple of buttons is beneath them.


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Jesus, Americans are getting lazy. It's not that hard to pick up the video scaler/AVR remote, select another input, and then pick up the device remote.
> 
> 4k would be way too expensive hardware wise.
> 
> Remember when the first streaming devices were $300 and everyone was looking toward the $99 streamer, and that price point would be amazing. Now everyone is whining about $99. It's funny.


It's a little unfair to assume it's due to laziness. There might be a lot of reasons why it's difficult to switch inputs, including the individual's connection/setup and other equipment connected which might need to be disconnected, not to mention possible handicaps or disabilities.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Johncv said:


> Thank you Mr. Bigg, you stated what I was just about to post. Gee, am I the only one who remember when you had to get off your ass and walk over to the TV to change the channel.  That would kill some person on this trend.
> 
> Regarding the Fire TV, I am going to wait and see what and how Apple update their Apple TV. We do know that it will receive the A7 processor . Also Apple is talking with the cable companies regarding the Apple TV.


Well, to be fair, you only had 3 channels back then!  That's WAY before my time, but my dad told me about how when he was a kid, they had to decide which one channel they wanted before an ice storm, as the rotor would freeze over, and the antenna would be stuck...



telemark said:


> I'll disagree. Automation does not equal laziness.
> 
> One comment so happen to use the word 'expertise' and I think that's accurate. Family members who 'just want to ____' do not know nor should they have to know how to flip video and audio switchers.
> 
> As time goes on, we're getting more devices, they'll get more complicated, and we might turn them off-and-on more often because of green-ness. In some houses this is a more complicated procedure than yours.


I'm guessing I'm in the top 1 or 2% of complicated setups. All of my HDMI sources plus my Wii (component) are routed through my DVDO EDGE Green, which sends audio to my AVR, and video to my TV. I have an HDMI switch connected to one of the EDGE Green inputs, as it only has 5. One of those inputs is connected to a 240p-capable composite converter that has a composite switch feeding it. A 1/8" minijack and a bluetooth audio adapter are directly connected to the AVR, and the TV's audio output for Smart TV functionality is also connected to the AVR. Eventually, when I add a Wii U, Chromecast and FireTV to my TiVo, Roku, ATV, BD, HTPC, XBOX 360, Wii, N64, GCN, VCR, and laptop hookup, I will probably need another HDMI switch to handle everything...

It's not rocket science to operate it. It's all documented on one schematic.



javabird said:


> It's a little unfair to assume it's due to laziness. There might be a lot of reasons why it's difficult to switch inputs, including the individual's connection/setup and other equipment connected which might need to be disconnected, not to mention possible handicaps or disabilities.


It's not rocket science to change inputs on a video scaler/AVR and an HDMI switch or something like that. If you make a schematic of your setup, it is easy to just trace up to the AVR/TV from the source that you want. That's what I did for mine, and it actually helped setting it up a lot, and now my roommates know how to get to any given source.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

mattack said:


> Wish they would've given one for free or dirt cheap to Prime customers.. I just want a better way of watching Prime Video than my PS3. (Yeah, if the Tivo did it, that would be great if the UI were at least as good as the PS3 UI.. I'm not holding my breath for ANY version of it though.)


What wrong with the Playstation 3? I use Amazon Prime Video on my Playstation, the only problem I found it that the last update of Prime Video seem to have distorted the sound, have not check it lately to see if it was fix.


----------



## siratfus (Oct 3, 2008)

Johncv said:


> What wrong with the Playstation 3? I use Amazon Prime Video on my Playstation, the only problem I found it that the last update of Prime Video seem to have distorted the sound, have not check it lately to see if it was fix.


I caved in and got a Roku 3. I watch more prime now. The PS3 is a hassle. You want a one stop shop as much as possible, instead of firing up different machines for different apps. The PS3 with the controller pad is simply a hassle. I still like the Chromecast for it's unique 3rd party apps. In a world of options and redundancy, you are inclined to ignore things that are less convenient. Why should I power up the PS3, go grab the controller pad, when netflix is right there in the Tivo user interface? Yet I hate the fact that I pay for Prime but never bother to use it, so I caved in and got a roku 3. When not watching Tivo, Roku is the one stop shop for everything else. No need to power it up, just switch input. It feels more immersive than the PS3. Not to mention the PS3 is a gaming system that has to be in the living room. The Roku is in my bedroom. I will not go to the living room just to watch prime. Everybody's situation is different. Everybody's convenience requirement is different. Honestly, more power to the people who have no issues with using the PS3 for Amazon, Netflix, etc. But once you go to one of these streaming boxes, you'll never go back to your PS3, that's a certainty.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

gweempose said:


> Your family would probably benefit greatly from a universal remote running macros.





Bigg said:


> Jesus, Americans are getting lazy. It's not that hard to pick up the video scaler/AVR remote, select another input, and then pick up the device remote.


I don't know why you felt the need to get all judgmental about it. I wasn't judging you. I merely made a suggestion that I thought could potentially enhance your family's experience with your A/V setup. To call me "lazy" when I was simply trying to be helpful was completely unjustified.

Regardless, I guess I just don't understand the resistance people have to universal remotes. Other than the cost factor, and the time it takes to program one, I can't think of any valid argument against them. Let's take my home theater, for example. Here's a list of the devices I have hooked up:

TV
AV receiver
TiVo
Blu-ray player
Roku
Apple TV
Squeezebox
Darbee
Wii U

That's nine devices and eight individual IR remotes to deal with. My universal remote allows me to put away all those remotes and just use one single remote to control everything. This isn't laziness. It's convenience. Plus, if someone new comes over, they can easily operate the entire system. I don't have to hand the babysitter a complex schematic. If they want to watch TV, all they have to do is press "TiVo", and the remote does the rest. When they are done, they just hit "Off", and everything shuts off. Again, this has nothing to do with laziness. It's all about making it as easy as possible for people to use the equipment. Could I operate my system with all of the individual remotes? Sure, but why would I want to?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

gweempose said:


> I don't know why you felt the need to get all judgmental about it. I wasn't judging you. I merely made a suggestion that I thought could potentially enhance your family's experience with your A/V setup. To call me "lazy" when I was simply trying to be helpful was completely unjustified.
> 
> Regardless, I guess I just don't understand the resistance people have to universal remotes. Other than the cost factor, and the time it takes to program one, I can't think of any valid argument against them. Let's take my home theater, for example. Here's a list of the devices I have hooked up:
> 
> ...


Why do I not want a Universal remote:

1. The remotes I have now work just fine.
2. Universal remote costs money.
3. Universal remote has to be re-programmed if I get a new component.
4. My TiVo remote already turns my TV and AVR on anyways.
5. *A universal remote can never fully replicate the OEM remote.*

In some cases, like my BD player, this would probably be a good thing. However, in most cases, like Roku or TiVo, this would be a bad thing, as those remotes are better than anything else out there, and in the case of my AVR or TV, even though the remotes aren't well designed, I want 100% of the original functionality, labeled as the OEM intended.

Anyone who is halfway intelligent can figure out my schematic in about 30 seconds. If they can't I don't really want them touching my system in the first place.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Bigg said:


> 5. *A universal remote can never fully replicate the OEM remote.*


Not true. Tell me what the Tivo remote can do that my Harmony remote can not do.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Bigg said:


> 5. *A universal remote can never fully replicate the OEM remote.*





steve614 said:


> Not true. Tell me what the Tivo remote can do that my Harmony remote can not do.


It can be set to use a different code set on the fly in about ten seconds.


----------



## monkeydust (Dec 12, 2004)

Used mine a bit more today. The amazon streaming app is good but the Netflix and Hulu apps are old and inferior to what is on my tivo mini/plus.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

steve614 said:


> Not true. Tell me what the Tivo remote can do that my Harmony remote can not do.


The Harmony remote will never have the same button layout and button labeling as EACH individual remote for the device will have. The TiVo peanut is simply unparalleled, and I wouldn't give it up for any universal remote, no matter how fancy.

Plus, Roku and TiVo remotes are RF (I have the Slide Pro), and the Harmony remotes still have to go to IR at some point in the process. It's much more reliable to have a direct RF link to the box...


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The Harmony remote will never have the same button layout and button labeling as EACH individual remote for the device will have. The TiVo peanut is simply unparalleled, and I wouldn't give it up for any universal remote, no matter how fancy.
> 
> Plus, Roku and TiVo remotes are RF (I have the Slide Pro), and the Harmony remotes still have to go to IR at some point in the process. It's much more reliable to have a direct RF link to the box...


I just wish the Tivo slide had ONE more programmable button. As it is now, it cannot reliably turn on my home theater, drop the screen and start the projector. Yes I programmed all three to the power button but it only gets all 3 to start about 50% of the time. Having a button for each would work so much better.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Well, to be fair, you only had 3 channels back then!  That's WAY before my time, but my dad told me about how when he was a kid, they had to decide which one channel they wanted before an ice storm, as the rotor would freeze over, and the antenna would be stuck...
> 
> I'm guessing I'm in the top 1 or 2% of complicated setups. All of my HDMI sources plus my Wii (component) are routed through my DVDO EDGE Green, which sends audio to my AVR, and video to my TV. I have an HDMI switch connected to one of the EDGE Green inputs, as it only has 5. One of those inputs is connected to a 240p-capable composite converter that has a composite switch feeding it. A 1/8" minijack and a bluetooth audio adapter are directly connected to the AVR, and the TV's audio output for Smart TV functionality is also connected to the AVR. Eventually, when I add a Wii U, Chromecast and FireTV to my TiVo, Roku, ATV, BD, HTPC, XBOX 360, Wii, N64, GCN, VCR, and laptop hookup, I will probably need another HDMI switch to handle everything...
> 
> ...


I have a similar setup but with a DUO. Even though it has eight HDMI inputs I still use several HDMI switches with several of the inputs. I like using the auto switching two way switches for that when possible. The only issue is you can't have all the Devices with always on HDMI. I was going to use my Roku 3 and the FireTV on an auto two way switch, but both devices always have an active HDMI port. So Im using the FireTV on an auto switch with my PS4. Since the PS4 hdmi output goes off when in standby. Plus I rarely use my PS4 anyway.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

scandia101 said:


> It can be set to use a different code set on the fly in about ten seconds.


Okay, you got me there. The only thing the Harmony can't do is reset the remote code. Like I'm going to be futzing with that on a daily basis. 



Bigg said:


> The Harmony remote will never have the same button layout and button labeling as EACH individual remote for the device will have.


I didn't think you'd give a direct answer...you should be a politician. 
So your answer falls to button layout and button labeling ... physical aspects. 
Sorry, I care more about functionality than physical aspects. Speak up again when you think of a functional aspect the Tivo remote can do that the Harmony can not do (setting the remote code does not count). I don't think you'll be able to come up with one. Prove me wrong.


----------



## poppagene (Dec 29, 2001)

steve614 said:


> Okay, you got me there. The only thing the Harmony can't do is reset the remote code. Like I'm going to be futzing with that on a daily basis.
> 
> I didn't think you'd give a direct answer...you should be a politician.
> So your answer falls to button layout and button labeling ... physical aspects.
> Sorry, I care more about functionality than physical aspects. Speak up again when you think of a functional aspect the Tivo remote can do that the Harmony can not do (setting the remote code does not count). I don't think you'll be able to come up with one. Prove me wrong.


I thought this was a discussion thread about the Fire TV?


----------



## siratfus (Oct 3, 2008)

steve614 said:


> Not true. Tell me what the Tivo remote can do that my Harmony remote can not do.


My Harmony 900 collects a lot of dust these days. When you like to tinker with gadgets, switch inputs around, you sometimes don't bother to go to your PC and do all the necessary updates. Another issue is your memory. When you don't use an "activity" for awhile you forget how you programmed the buttons for a particular device. I find myself grabbing the OEM remotes because I know how to use it. LOL! Now, even if I keep everything updated and everything is running as it should, it still sometimes doesn't run as it should. How many here have had to hit the "HELP" button because the initial command didn't register? Be honest, raise your hands. I use this "HELP" button too often.

It is a loner remote. Only the master will use it. Everyone else in the family, particularly parents, will shy away from it. Going to get rid of it on eBay soon.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 13, 2009)

poppagene said:


> I thought this was a discussion thread about the Fire TV?


Agree.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

So discuss it. No one's stopping you, and y'all have been around enough to know that threads get derailed all the time.


----------



## HenryFarpolo (Dec 1, 2008)

monkeydust said:


> Used mine a bit more today. The amazon streaming app is good but the Netflix and Hulu apps are old and inferior to what is on my tivo mini/plus.


+1


----------



## JSY (Nov 6, 2002)

I really like my Roku3 and one of the things I do think that is an advantage over FireTV is that Roku is not a content provider. Even though Amazon does say that they would be open (and I have no reason to not believe them) I think they do have their own interests and it's already prevalent it seems in the search results feature which would be the feature that I think would stand out. We'll see - the launch products of any device eventually compare in comparison with their newer firmware models in the future. Remember when Roku had just a few channels?

The other box I have is a WDTV Live because I haven't found anything that would play just about every format I have on my network - including ISOs, MKVs, TP/TS files. I read good things about Plex, but it seems like you need to have a computer running - is that true? Or can it access a NAT? (Sorry, I got lazy googling it at the moment.) Anyway, that's the only reason I have a WDTV Live.

FireTV looks interesting - would like to see more of it but for now, Roku is the winner for me. It has the DramaFever app which will keep me on Roku.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

> Bigg said:
> 
> 
> > 5. *A universal remote can never fully replicate the OEM remote.*
> ...





steve614 said:


> Okay, you got me there. The only thing the Harmony can't do is reset the remote code. Like I'm going to be futzing with that on a daily basis.



The question at hand is about a universal remote *fully* replicating an oem remote. It is not about replicating enough of the oem remote to be practical. The ability to reset the code quickly on the fly is a feature that a universal remote does not have. Whether you use it regularly or not all is NOT relevant.
If there is just one thing a universal remote can not do, it does not fully replicate the oem remote which makes you wrong and there is no reason to  at me when you are proven wrong.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jcthorne said:


> I just wish the Tivo slide had ONE more programmable button. As it is now, it cannot reliably turn on my home theater, drop the screen and start the projector. Yes I programmed all three to the power button but it only gets all 3 to start about 50% of the time. Having a button for each would work so much better.


True. I have mine set for my TV and AVR and often the AVR doesn't come on, so I have to grab it's remote. Not the biggest deal, but slightly annoying. I've never been able to get the Slide remote to control the AVR. Go figure. I use the OEM remote to start the whole thing up, and then grab the Slide Pro. Now that warmer weather is rolling around, I might switch back to the OEM remote.



steve614 said:


> I didn't think you'd give a direct answer...you should be a politician.
> So your answer falls to button layout and button labeling ... physical aspects.
> Sorry, I care more about functionality than physical aspects. Speak up again when you think of a functional aspect the Tivo remote can do that the Harmony can not do (setting the remote code does not count). I don't think you'll be able to come up with one. Prove me wrong.


That's a perfectly direct answer. Part of the functionality of a remote is being able to figure out what the *$(% the buttons actually do, and what buttons are available, not digging through some menu to find buttons that I don't even know exist off the top of my head.

Plus, in the case of the Peanut, the Peanut is the best remote made in the history of remotes, hands down. I wouldn't want to use an inferior remote with my TiVo.



siratfus said:


> My Harmony 900 collects a lot of dust these days. When you like to tinker with gadgets, switch inputs around, you sometimes don't bother to go to your PC and do all the necessary updates. Another issue is your memory. When you don't use an "activity" for awhile you forget how you programmed the buttons for a particular device. I find myself grabbing the OEM remotes because I know how to use it. LOL! Now, even if I keep everything updated and everything is running as it should, it still sometimes doesn't run as it should. How many here have had to hit the "HELP" button because the initial command didn't register? Be honest, raise your hands. I use this "HELP" button too often.
> 
> It is a loner remote. Only the master will use it. Everyone else in the family, particularly parents, will shy away from it. Going to get rid of it on eBay soon.


^^^This. I would never get around to updating a universal remote...


----------



## ort (Jan 5, 2004)

People are getting awful touchy about remotes.

I love my universal remote. It makes my entire home theater experience way way better. No one is saying that not using one bad, just that there are some benefits.

Don't like them? Fine, don't use one. Whatever. But calling people who like universal remotes "lazy" is just insulting.

I mean, we live in an era of unbelievable convenience... name any modern device and you can come up with a reason to call people lazy for using one.

What, a blender? I chop up my vegetables by hand you lazy ass, what? A door bell? Too lazy to knock? What, a CAR? Are you kidding me? Walk you lazy good for nothing... A TV? Please, go see a play...


----------



## ort (Jan 5, 2004)

As for the Amazon Fire TV... eh, whatever. I don't see a super compelling reason why most people would want one over any currently available device.

It's a fine device and all, but to me it just doesn't offer enough added value to make someone switch over to it, and I'm not sure if it's compelling enough to new customers to be picked over a Roku, Apple TV or Chromecast...

And when I say that, I mean that, sure, there may be some people who are deep into Amazons services for whom it makes great sense to purchase, but for most people, I don't think it differentiates enough to be super interesting...


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Check this out.....

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10067736#post10067736


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ort said:


> People are getting awful touchy about remotes.
> 
> I love my universal remote. It makes my entire home theater experience way way better. No one is saying that not using one bad, just that there are some benefits.
> 
> ...


Uh oh, here's all the ridiculous failed analogies. Those things are totally different than Universal remotes. There are a lot of things that make our lives better, but there is a point where it's just ridiculous.


----------

