Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkempe | Hacker News Reader

They're studying the mistakes of others, and paying attention to user reviews of competing products, so they can solve real pain points:

> During its presentation, Amazon said that it has been paying close attention to the complaints of customers who have been using the other companies' devices through Amazon—namely that search is difficult, performance is laggy, and the ecosystems are closed—in order to build its own streaming device." [1]

For instance, what they're doing with the child-oriented mode is what I wish Apple had done with the iPad and iPhone, a long time ago.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/04/amazon-reveals-video-...

View on HN

That's pretty funny, as a long-time Roku user. The search couldn't be easier, whether you're inside a specific app, or using the cross platform search feature. Performance is snappier than these services on a desktop browser, and the ecosystem is as open as anyone could want.

As a long-time Roku user I curse ours almost every day. Performance is slower than every other device we own (except the Chromecast). They constantly "reset" themselves while trying to navigate through the Netflix and Amazon listings. Videos will just sporadically stop playing or run into constant buffering issues. There are no parental controls. They didn't support DLNA until a few months ago.

"long-time Roku user."

How old is your box? I'm still happy with mine, despite it being a couple of years old. I was thinking of getting a new one, but if the new ones are of poorer quality...

We own a Roku 2 XD and a Roku LT, both about 2.5 years old. Both worked great for ~ 6 months and then... something changed and they haven't worked well since.

I used to have one of the originals, it was great.

I did notice that the UI gets slower and less responsive, but I blame myself for being a cheapo and expecting a $70 box to last years.

I'm waiting a bit to see if the next RokuBox or AmazonBox ends up supporting iTunes videos (which is a nice to have, but not a must have.)

Seriously? There is a lag moving between characters. Typing is painful. The UI is horrible.

I am getting ready to dump a good $500 on a brand new setup just to replace my Roku because it is so bloody painful to use.

Yet Chromecast solves those issues too. Searching for content is done on website or on existing app, so its only difficult or slow as website or app is.

Yes and no. Chromecast requires you having another device to use with it. Grabbing my phone, opening the Netflix app, choosing to Chromecast, searching for a show, hitting play then waiting ~30 seconds for the Chromecast to actually play is not a good user experience. I use my Roku almost exclusively now.

I actually find it much easier to search or browse for content using my tablet or phone, then choose to throw it up on the TV via Chromecast, as opposed to searching for content using a remote like on a Roku or my Xbox.

It just seems easier for me to do this in my hand than ten feet away, especially when I have to try to enter text into a TV interface.

I found Chromecast OK when I was using it by myself, but sharing it is a problem. It's difficult to have two or more people crowded around a smartphone screen deciding what to watch. The big screen interface works much, much better.

Even that aside, my girlfriend doesn't want to use my phone to navigate, so she has to install Netflix on her phone too. And set up the user account there. Multiply that by every service we have (and Amazon Instant isn't on Android)... it's just clunky. Fine, but clunky. Having it all centralised on one box works better, as far as I'm concerned.

This thread is perfect. I'm compiling a first-world-problems encyclopedia and needed material.

It's a thread discussing an on-demand video streaming box that costs a hundred dollars and is designed to solve a first world problem.

What exactly were you expecting to read in here?

heh.. humorlessness is a treatable condition. Chill pills are often effective against it ;)

I agree... I really like the Chromecast most of the time. Browsing for content on the phone or tablet is much easier than via a remote sometimes.

But there are other times when I wish there were another option available as well.

> Chromecast requires you having another device to use with it.

So does the Fire TV. The remote control is still a device you have to have in hand. And, personally, I'd take using my phone or tablet instead anyday.

It's gotten to the point that I think any device that uses its own proprietary remote control with physical buttons is a failure in UI design.

The remote is shared, though. It sits on the table. If my smartphone is the remote then no-one can use it when I'm not at home. So instead you have to set up every smartphone as a remote. And what about children? Do you want them to use your smartphone?

A cheap, disposable remote is no bad thing.

If my smartphone is the remote then no-one can use it when I'm not at home. So instead you have to set up every smartphone as a remote

That's not how it works. Anyone connected to your Wifi, is "set up" to use the Chromecast and can stream from any number of apps like YouTube, Netflix, Google Play Music and Movies, Pandora, and now even Rdio and Vudu.

I know, I have a Chromecast.

They still need to set up those apps on their phone. They need to log in to Netflix, Amazon Instant, etc. etc. even if they never watch content on their phone.

You log into those apps once when you install them on your device. How difficult is it to install an app one time?

Amazon Instant doesn't have an app that works with Chromecast that I'm aware of.

Do you want a child with unrestricted Internet access on a mobile device?

Something along the lines of a shared iPod Touch that sites on the table solves this problem. Perhaps it's not cheap and disposable, but I would view that as the price of a better solution to a remote control (that can also be more than a remote control).

You do realize that a remote control is always going to be faster than pulling out your phone, unlocking it, and finding the app whose content you want to view, waiting for the app to launch?

I've done countless usability studies and in-home studies where we looked at the behavior of people who have access to a remote control and apps on their phone or tablet that can launch content or control their set-top box. People loved the idea of this, but guess what the majority of users end up doing? Picking up the physical remote control.

And tasks that you may think are easy and intuitive are not always for the average user. We saw many people struggle to play content via AirPlay.

Remember, part of good UI design is embracing 40 years of ingrained behavior.

Not if the remote control is e.g. a Roku remote control. By the time I've done all the things you list in your first paragraph on my phone or tablet with my Chromecast, you'll have typed about three or four letters into the onscreen keyboard that Roku uses.

You would think that but a remote is handy because it's on the couch, and my phone is either in my pocket or charging.

The bummer with this remote (and the roku remote) is that if you have an AV system hooked to the TV you need a separate remote for volume. I wish there was a tiny bit of learning on these sort of remotes.

Your Chromecast takes 30 seconds to load content? In our house someone pretty much always has either their phone, tablet, or laptop nearby and with the HDMI-CEC, you don't even have to find the TV remote to switch inputs, you just queue up want you to want to watch and it plays. And then people can take turns with their respective devices (if you're watching YouTube videos or playing music, etc.)

We also have a Roku and used that before the Chromecast, but the Chromecast is more popular with everyone (kids) in the house for the aforementioned reason of communal use. It's like the Nexus Q was supposed to be, but for video.

Has anyone confirmed if Fire TV has HDMI-CEC?

This is the thing I want to know the most. So I bought one and will probably return it if it doesn't.

So I got my Fire TV. It has some CEC support because it shows up as a source to my TV and the TV and receiver correctly switch to it. My TV remote, however, does not control the Fire TV. Given that the HDMI hardware supports CEC, I think this was their choice and one that they hopefully will change with a software update.

But I already have a smartphone in my pocket. Its not like I'm gonna run out and buy one just so I can use with Chromecast. I don't find the delay to play any worse than my "smart" blu-ray player. And the navigating is so much quicker. Netflix saves my position in show or series so resume watching Sesame Street or House of Cards is a click away.

As to your other point, I see lack of shared remote as a good thing. I get to control what they kids watch. And when they are old enough to stay at home they will most likely have their own device.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com