Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Reportedly Working On Set-Top Box
Bloomberg is reporting that Amazon has plans to release its own television set-top box later this year. The device will stream video over the internet from Amazon's video service catalog. From the article:
"Amazon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos is pushing the company into a broadening array of hardware, including tablets, electronic readers and a planned smartphone. ... The set-top box is being developed by Amazon’s Lab126 division, based in Cupertino, California -- the city that’s also home to Apple. Lab126 has toyed with building connected television devices for several years, the people familiar with the effort said. ... Plans for pricing couldn't be determined. Amazon’s typical strategy is to sell hardware at competitive prices, sometimes at a loss, with the intent of making up for discounts through sales of content, including books and movies. Amazon could also use the set-top box to promote its online store.
Yet another Set-Top Box.
My TV is less than half an inch thick, nobody is going to 'set' something on top of that.
What I need is a Set-Bottom box so large that I can put my TV on it.
Considering 95% of the world won't be able to use the product, that's a lot of effort.
I'd be more impressed if Netflix were doing it, they at least cover closer to 10% of the world's population and seem to have an interest in getting their service to more people.
Skating to where the puck is, instead of where it's going.
I'd be more impressed if Netflix were doing it.
Not me. I thought it was pretty brilliant of Netflix to have every set top maker clamoring to include support.
Then Netflix has no hardware anywhere, and whatever device you choose Netflix wins a bit.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Amazon could also use the set-top box to promote its online store"
"could"
lol
...than their shows.
Silence is a state of mime.
'based in Cupertino, California -- the city that’s also home to Apple'
Exactly what reason is there for bringing up Apple as part of the summary of this post?
No one I know would be interested in a device dedicated to a single provider's service. Everyone I know who uses Internet-based delivery for some of their media uses more than one source, and none of them would have any desire to have multiple devices. Perhaps if this was the only way to consume Amazon's video offering... but it isn't.
There's already a number of devices (Roku, PS3, XBox, a variety of DVD/Blu-Ray players, etc.) that allow access to Amazon's Instant Video as well as Netflix and a host of other media services. I can't see how Amazon thinks it's a good idea to compete with that.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
"Latest Update to Amazon's Video Player disables Roku Players and Internet Enabled Blu-ray players from playing their content."
"An Amazon spokesman was quoted as saying, 'Unfortunately, due to piracy concerns, we are unable to continue supporting non-Amazon set-top devices. We are sympathetic to our customers who's set top devices will no longer play our content, and are offering them a $10 off coupon for KindleTV....'"
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Their remote control needs only six buttons: "Buy", "Buy", "Buy", "Buy", "Buy", and "Buy Now!".
Table-ized A.I.
If they plan on selling any of these they very well better re-invent the Roku for this to gain any traction. Of course what they will likely do is subsidize the cost for the sake of all the content they hope to sell, but how cheap can you make a set top in the face of what's already out there? My top of the line Roku (which I love) is selling for around $80 with even cheaper models available. Fact is, Amazon video is the service I use the least--but I do use it sometimes. I love amazon, couldn't go with out my paperwhite, but I don't think they have thought this through. With all that said I will be watching "Django Unchanged" later. I have a choice between Vudu and Amazon. Maybe I'll give the Amazon service another spin but I would never own a device that was limited to that alone and I don't think they are planning on making money off of the hardware.
Just my two cents...
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Even with Internet streaming A list content choices are fewer than with a cable subscription. Hopefully the box will support DTCP-IP. SiliconDust started to support DLNA earlier this year for the HDHomerun prime which means you can finally have CableCard->HDHomeRun-> IP-> TV on any DLNA supported device in the home like a Samsung smart TV and smart phone. Even premium content can be played on DTCP-IP enabled devices like the PS3 which means the windows media server monopoly for premium content has been ended. This summer SiliconDust is going to release the HDHR4-US with h264 encoding which means lower bandwith streaming and more device support. The only downside is the lack of TV guide support altough most HTPC software already has TV guide support via the Internet.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
Like in particular, breaking access for devices based on Linux. People were observing that Amazon's business isn't in controlling access -- but if they're going into doing their own boxes (like Kindle) then coming up with ways to limit competitive access is very much their business.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Much as there was room for the Kindle e-reader, and still is. That's not to say that it's a good idea for consumers to get locked in to whatever method Amazon will use to entice people to buy THEIR box to consume content from them. But don't assume they won't sell a crap ton of these - they're Amazon.
Except once you think about it, you don't actually know anyone who bought a Kindle for themself, do you? Kindles are the ultimate thoughtless "gift." Like a turd, but with less feeling.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Netflix is turning record profits and actually just beat the street's estimates on their last quarters earnings. They are NOT hurting...
Of course I'm not commenting on the material they have on Netflix... That is kind of painful..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I guess it beats working in this cubicle...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Maybe it'll be more like the ATV1, where it's a local cache of all your amazon stuff. It'll download content while you're away, and probably provide airplay-like functionality from your kindle....except you don't stream from your kindle, you stream from your amazon box with the kindle being a transparent remote.
I could see how that could be pretty handy. It's your amazon music/movie/book library in your house. As a plus, amazon could offer backup services, photo, etc too.
For the third world, amazon could offer amazon WebTV...which would actually be pretty handy.
I hear you, and the absolutely limited experience that the entire Kindle line offers (e.g. the Kindle Fire HD, which is all things Amazon to the exclusion of all things Google, even though it's running on a (severely outdated) Google OS) does not bode well for a set-top box, especially when it has to compete with totally usable, cheap, all-in-one solutions like the Roku line.
People buy Kindles because they are very good ebook readers in terms of hardware and because you can't read kindle books on other ebook readers. (No tablets and PCs don't count as ebook readers)
null
issue. So long, Amazon.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The Amazon Balkan!
Silly for Amazon to build its own hardware when they could just relogo Roku, ship it with 3 months worth of free Prime, and pre-set the Amazon Video subscription on it and be done with it.
After all, they are just trying to get Prime customers, that's the name of the game. The hardware is just a means to an end, like Kindle.
Amazon can probably sell it to some people since they can slap it on their front page, but I am certain they can't make a better box than Roku and the software stack on the Kindle has been pretty much universally panned. I am not interested in any streaming device which is not Android-based. Google TV will already play Amazon video, as well lots of other devices, so it's hard to see why someone would pay Amazon for a certainly inferior device unless they sold it at a loss, which would be... a loss, since other devices can already display their product.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I have no need to purchase a set top box. My Android smartphone with hdmi cable and bluetooth trackpad is good enough to watch pretty much any content I want from my living room couch. The one thing I wish I could do is somehow turn my Android phone into a Clear QAM tuner and use it to watch the free tv channels from my internet cable with an Android based XMBC app. I know there are usb tuner cards out there, maybe someone could make these work with an Android micro usb port.
I do realize there are a steadily shrinking minority of a few people who don't already have a recent smartphone or tablet with hdmi capability. I guess they must be the ones who are targeted by the set top box market.
Is there any standard for this type of device? Shouldn't there be one?
Like, a standard for remote control via wifi and bluetooth. A standard for streaming from other devices. A standard on the types of medias to be supported.
Is that feasible or even possible, given that this is basically a collection of standards?
Amazon knows it can't sell its own branded iOS tablet to iOS fans. It thinks it can sell a few Kindle Fire tablets to Android fans. That's the difference.
And I'd go one step further and say that it makes no sense to buy a set top box built by any content provider, period.
Every video game console is "a set top box built by any content provider". What device for playing video games on a television would you recommend instead?
No one I know would be interested in a device dedicated to a single provider's service.
Video game consoles are dedicated to the console maker's game download service. Where do you live where nobody is interested in a video game console?
Few people will buy a puck for every service
Then explain people buying both a Wii puck to play Wii games and an Xbox 360 puck to play Xbox 360 games.
A TV computer made by anyone who is also in content business or who operates a public multimedia server, is 100% guaranteed to utterly suck and be nearly useless, since that computer will almost certainly be designed fror the purpose of fucking the user and channelling the users into doing business with some prticular service.
That'd rule out TV computers made by Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony, all of which produce first-party games.
An example of a company that makes some TV computers which are basically founded on the right attitude, and therefore have unlimited positive capacity (whether you actually like the products or their build quality is a separate issue) is Western Digital.
Do WD TV and other TV computers that you recommend play video games, or do they play only noninteractive media? I can't seem to find a list of games that work on WD TV. The mention of games on the features page doesn't link to a list of all available games. Of all the services on WD TV's list of services, only PlayJam makes any mention of games. Is PlayJam really the only recommended provider for TV gaming?
A standard for streaming from other devices.
That's DLNA with DTCP-IP. There's a standard, but key parts are secret because the major video producers want to make copying harder.
Ah, so you've never bought a Sony product (audio recorder or camera). I didn't realize there were people like you out there, and it gives me hope. Keep up the good pattern, for it has given you an idealism that I, for one, find very fresh and exciting. ;-)
On to your real point...
DRM doesn't make the problem worse ; it makes the problem, as it's the main proprietary component which makes interoperability difficult (and illegal, thanks to DMCA). Without the DRM, you could replace those hundred competing devices or software components, with one which you have forced to work with all the hundred different "standards." Or you'd have filters/converters that, say, take Netflix content and converts it to something your Amazon-spec player can handle (or vice-versa). Even your narrowly-defined "digital content" definition ultimately has its problems really because of DRM and the proprietary format (the two are closely realted). It's not because it's digital or because it was a non-gratis digital download.
Please, have a look at this example: https://buy.louisck.net/purchase/live-at-the-beacon-theater. What you'll see is something that fits your definition of non-gratis digital download in every way. I'll admit you can't use it as a frisbee, but really, it doesn't threaten to increase the proliferation of players. It's not going to result in another wall-wart or yet another weird app that you have to install. Whatever player already you have, will very likely work with what he's selling. A thousand other content creators, none of them working together or united by a single store which forces a technical constraint upon them, could do that and it would all just work. Digital content is not a problem; it's a good thing and solves more problems than it creates. Just keep away from the proprietary stuff.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump