Hacker News Reader

Comment by jobu | Hacker News Reader

"In addition, HBO GO will become available on Fire TV, targeting a launch by year-end."

Looks like this deal also adds the last missing checkmark to the Fire TV comparison chart: http://www.amazon.com/Fire-TV-streaming-media-player/dp/B00C...

View on HN

It's weird that they include Chromecast to that comparison chart. Sure, they offer some of the same features, mainly streaming video to the TV, but that's where the similarities end. Chromecast is not a set-top box, it's a second screen device. It's up to the apps and other services to extend functionality to this second screen. In the comparison chart, for example, it says Chromecast doesn't have voice search, well, you can voice search youtube and have it play on Chromecast so that single point is incorrect.

I sat through 20 minutes of a co-worker directly comparing these two items the other day. As different as they are, people look to both company's offerings like they're competing neck and neck.

Huh, interesting. Any idea why they would even include HBO in the chart if they weren't offering it?

Because they are comparing their product against other products that do offer that feature and wish to give their customers an honest comparison?

Right, because “number of cores” is an honest way to compare processors (and why does the customer even care about the processor?).

It is called marketing. Cores do not matter, until they do for marketing reasons. See recent Apple keynotes.

The comparison is far from honest. It leaves out iTunes and Airplay, it discusses CPU cores and memory without explaining to the consumer how that will affect their streaming experience, etc.

Amazon is at least being consistent about leaving out proprietary/locked services. For instance, they don't list Google Play, Xbox Video, or Playstation Video.

There are definitely others, MLB.tv for example. Of course they pick the list to look good for their device.

Live sports (baseball and basketball, specifically) may be one of the last remaining things keeping many Americans from "cutting the cable". I think the first streaming service to be able to offer a significant amount of these will have a clear competitive advantage.

You're spot on. Sports are the single thing that there really is no easy way to watch without traditional cable/satellite.

Once they finally come around, it will be much easier to convince people to cut the cord.

MLB, NBA, and NHL all have streaming service for live games. They are still subject to blackouts though, which is crazy.

But the NFL, the big kahuna, does not. It really stinks; I'm going to have to figure something out come fall as I cut the cord a few months back.

All your local team's games are going to be on free channels. Get a $8 rabbit ears antenna, or if you have a cable modem that provides internet only, get a splitter and plug the other end into TV (that you would normally plug into the cable box). The local free channels (NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, etc) are going to be available, and that's enough for NFL. You're not going to be ESPN or NFL Network, but if it's your local team, the game will be on a local channel anyway.

This may have been the case at one time, but now the local channels are not available like that from Comcast. You need a cable box to get anything at all.

And many people live in areas that don't get over the air reception, at least not with any commonly available antenna.

Tell that to the mountain on my left.

NFL is one of the easier ones to go watch at a bar or restaurant because the games are weekly. Other sports with games on almost nightly are a lot harder to go out and watch.

I happen to have cable again because it was a very nominal increase over cable modem only and because I don't get a very good OTA signal from our apartment.

Prior to this move though, I'd done without cable for ~5 years. I got MLB and NHL direct from the league offerings, and as noted as long as you can get an antenna singal and are willing to go to a bar or a friends house for Monday or Thursday night games the NFL is relatively cordcutter friendly. I would _love_ to give the NFL money directly for something similar to MLB.tv, but don't see it happening anytime soon.

Yeah, the blackout situation on MLB.tv is ludicrous. Living in the home television market of my chosen team, why would I pay to be blacked out on half the games?

On the other hand, the cable carriers' indifference to the demands of serious sports fans has pushed the sports streaming environment to the point where it's often significantly better than what's available on cable.

I care about sports. I'm willing to pay to watch them. I'm willing to pay extra to watch them in high quality. And in particular, I'm willing to pay extra to watch my favorite teams.

In terms of cable choices, I have a glut of options: AT&T, Comcast, and Astound all serve my apartment (though I can't use a satellite dish). I picked the company with the best sports options. And even so, and even when I pay extra for the NHL package or the MLB package, most games are only available in low-def. There is no amount of money I can pay any cable company that will ensure I can watch the Red Sox in HD (on those rare occasions that they're still playing when I get home from work.) So instead of paying the cable company, I pay for the online streaming service, which is almost, but not quite, HD quality.

The funny thing is, I never seriously considered cutting the cord before, but now that my TV setup is streaming-centric (with both a Chromecast and a PS3, since not all of the services I want are available on either device), it's much easier to imagine getting all of my content over the internet.

Indeed. Lack of MLB.tv makes this a non-starter for me. We don't have cable TV, but I love to watch baseball. MLB.tv lets me watch just about anything I want all year.

Our Roku is basically an MLB.tv machine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com