1. wikoogle's Avatar
    Hell throw in some full size USB 3.0 ports and a sd card slot and I would gladly pay $199 for the device.

    I don't understand why Google didn't unveil two versions of the Nexus Player, one with more storage for $50 more. They have always released a more expensive bigger capacity version of all their Nexus devices, phones and tablets in the past.

    Here is why I say that. I am very impressed by the processing power. The CPU and GPU leapfrog every other set top box on the market. But for me, Google really needs to invest more of its developers into fixing the software situation. That's the only way I will believe they aren't planning to abandon it like they have so many other ventures.

    Gaming matters, but not in the way most people think IMO. No one will ever opt for this over a PS4. Trying to compete with dedicated consoles is a fools errand. Abandon that pipe dream and instead work on making this device the perfect companion device to our gaming consoles. Aim to make it so that anything you can do with a htpc, you can do with the nexus player. Let us install emulators and xbmc on it. Let us get our PS4 or Ouya controllers working flawlessly on it. Let us stream games from our desktops steam library on it. Work with sony to get playstation tv and ps4 remote play on it.

    Google, offer to code these apps and support for third party controllers (ps4 controller, xbox 360 controller, wii u pro controller and Ouya controller) yourself if that’s what it takes to get these controllers working flawlessly on the Nexus Player. We all have ps4, 360, wii u pro or Ouya controllers lying around. Don't make us buy more controllers, make drivers yourself if need be to let us use any of our existing Bluetooth controllers on the nexus player flawlessly.

    Do those and you will turn me into active developer for your device.
    10-19-2014 05:55 PM
  2. tdizzel's Avatar
    I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more Android TV devices released from several manufacturers. I think we'll be seeing more devices with more options soon.
    10-19-2014 06:07 PM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    Seems like it'd cost much more than $149 or $199 for that - also seems to be representing a device with a totally different purpose than Android TV. From what I've read so far, other than installing apps, I'm not sure this thing can download anything... at least not in the way of content. It seems like you can install games (8GB isn't a lot for games) and otherwise it does streaming.
    10-19-2014 06:08 PM
  4. P_Devil's Avatar
    I agree, that would be a device that doesn't represent Android TV but rather a full blown PC running Android. There are plenty of set-top-boxes running Android on the market but that's not what Android TV is about. Android TV is Google's competitor to Roku, the Apple TV, and various other streaming products. It's Google's access to Netflix, Hulu, and various other streaming services. Are people asking that Roku come out with a box that has a quad-core x86 CPU with 2GB of RAM running the Roku OS? They aren't, that's because something like that would defeat the purpose of having a simplified streaming box and turn it into a full blown PC.

    As for your gaming ambitions, I don't want to sound mean but they are just a pipe dream at this point. I highly doubt EA, Valve, Sony, or any other company is going to open up their proprietary service to an outside company aside from Steam letting companies install the Steam OS (that whole gaming streaming service is more like vaporware now anyway). That would also defeat the purpose of the Android TV platform. Again, you are describing a dedicated HTPC and there are already hundreds of those on the market running Android, various flavors of Linux, and even Windows 7/8.1.
    10-20-2014 06:23 AM
  5. someguy01234's Avatar
    It would need to have the same feature as the Roku 3, which is headphone jack on the remote control. Or at least analog audio jack output. Then I may consider paying more, but $150 is a high price for a typical TV box.
    10-20-2014 01:18 PM
  6. Greg C's Avatar
    I believe that before Google offers another device with better specs... they will want to make sure the original sells. Why put out another device with better specs if the market isn't there? The only one to put out several different types is Roku with their Roku 1, 2 and 3. Roku can do this because they have had market domination.
    10-30-2014 06:30 AM
  7. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I would have ordered one already for 150$. No questions asked.

    With only 8gb of storage, this is just a glorified streamer that you can play a couple of games on. It really does not improve very much on what my chromecast already does very well.

    I am hoping that other manufacturers step in and provide some better options. Now that I get all my TV entertainment of the Web, I would really enjoy a fully functional box with lots of hardware options. I am also willing to pay a premium for it if need be.

    Sent from my XT1096
    tonyr6 likes this.
    10-30-2014 09:04 AM
  8. P_Devil's Avatar
    With only 8gb of storage, this is just a glorified streamer that you can play a couple of games on. It really does not improve very much on what my chromecast already does very well.
    The Nexus Player is just that, a Roku/Apple TV competitor meant to give online functionality (Hulu, Netflix, access to the Google Play Store, etc.) to non-smart TVs. It isn't meant to be an HTPC or anything else like that. It is a direct Roku competitor. I guess I can understand why some people want more than 8GB of storage as that really isn't a lot for games but apps can always be swapped out. Plus it might be able to store content on a USB drive.

    As of now, the Nexus Player is pretty much a Chromecast with its own interface. You don't have to use your smartphone or tablet to feed it content, you can simply use the device as-is. It's really convenient especially when you are actually using your phone for other stuff but want to watch something on Netflix. Plus you can't really play games using a Chromecast, not without some delay making games unplayable.

    I think the main issue is that some people were anticipating an HTPC running Android. That's not going to happen in a $100 device with an interface built around streaming content from other providers/services.
    Aquila likes this.
    10-31-2014 09:54 AM
  9. NoYankees44's Avatar
    The Nexus Player is just that, a Roku/Apple TV competitor meant to give online functionality (Hulu, Netflix, access to the Google Play Store, etc.) to non-smart TVs. It isn't meant to be an HTPC or anything else like that. It is a direct Roku competitor. I guess I can understand why some people want more than 8GB of storage as that really isn't a lot for games but apps can always be swapped out. Plus it might be able to store content on a USB drive.

    As of now, the Nexus Player is pretty much a Chromecast with its own interface. You don't have to use your smartphone or tablet to feed it content, you can simply use the device as-is. It's really convenient especially when you are actually using your phone for other stuff but want to watch something on Netflix. Plus you can't really play games using a Chromecast, not without some delay making games unplayable.

    I think the main issue is that some people were anticipating an HTPC running Android. That's not going to happen in a $100 device with an interface built around streaming content from other providers/services.
    Actually, I would argue that for streaming, having a remote is an inconvenience.

    I am not sure you understand how a chromecast works. The phone/tablet does not have to stay in the app providing content at all. After the stream is started, you can cut the phone off the phone if you want. There is no dependence on the original device. While you are using your phone is the time when a chromecast is most convenient. You just start the stream and then do whatever else you need on the phone. All the controls are in the notification pull down, so just swipe down to pause, skip, volume, whatever. No need to keep up with a separate remote.

    These boxes need to do more than stream. They need to be able to have local content, game, and interface with home networks better than the chromecast can. If they cannot do all that and more, then there is little reason so spend 3x the price of a chromecast on one. They just don't do that much more.

    Sent from my XT1096
    10-31-2014 12:49 PM
  10. drhere's Avatar
    Google just announced the Google Play Store for the Roku. I have a Roku3 and a Chromecast, I think at this point I may cancel my Nexus Player order. I was going to use it for gaming, but I wonder what kind of games can I really play this this. I may wait until I see what is coming down the line.

    Does anyone know what kind of games I really can play with this, (high, low end?) thanks.
    10-31-2014 01:23 PM
  11. Wilberries's Avatar
    For my use case it does more than chromecast alone can provide. I will install XBMC on it and attach a mouse and remote app to navigate. The micro USB will be connected to an old USB hub the connects external storage and USB keys. One of the major differences is the WiFi AC support which blows away the chromecast performance. The wife will finally accept my tech toys because she can use the remote to navigate Google Play for movies and shows.

    You can do a lot of this with Chromecast I know, but you need to constantly use a phone to control which my wife will not do. And in my case the wifi signal needs to be AC because of where my family room is vs my modem. And controlling XBMC by phone would drive me crazy, and blind.
    10-31-2014 01:25 PM
  12. P_Devil's Avatar
    Actually, I would argue that for streaming, having a remote is an inconvenience.

    I am not sure you understand how a chromecast works.
    I do understand how a Chromecast works, I have two right now. I understand that the device does not need to stay in the app or even have its screen on the whole time. The original device (whatever it is) just has to cue the Chromecast to look up the source to start streaming. That's my main issue. At night, when my phone is sitting upside down on my nightstand charging, I am done with it. I don't want to look at my phone, I don't want to look at a tablet, I'm done looking at small displays. I just want to relax and watch a show on Netflix/Hulu. I can do that with a device that has a dedicated remote. I can't do that with a Chromecast. Having a dedicated remote means I am no longer reliant on a "source" device to cue the Chromecast. It's all in a nice, small package that is self-sufficient. It also means that I don't have to look at my phone for anything, I can just use a device to control it, access content, etc.

    These boxes need to do more than stream. They need to be able to have local content, game, and interface with home networks better than the chromecast can.
    Many companies (Sony, Western Digital, Google, Microsoft, Philips, etc.) have tried to come out with all-in-one boxes that not only access Netflix but also play local media content and have many more features. They have all pretty much failed. Roku succeeded as it offers tons of streaming content. They are just now starting to offer screen mirroring capabilities. We've had devices that tried to do everything before but they were too expensive and flopped. These sub-$100 streaming devices have carved out a niche for themselves and are relatively successful, successful enough that Amazon got into the game and for Google to try again.

    I'm not necessarily arguing against more functionality but we've already had expensive set-top devices that tried to do everything and they were vastly less successful than a $100 Roku streaming device.
    11-03-2014 11:25 AM
  13. rkirmeier's Avatar
    Add HDMI passthrough and I'd pay $199!
    11-03-2014 03:25 PM
  14. Aquila's Avatar
    Canceled my order. Reading some reviews an this I'd google TV made prettier, not android on a big screen. Buggy software, unreliable Bluetooth and only 70 apps.... Chromecast is sufficient and I have two of those. The platform may make more sense down the road, but right now IMO it isn't ready.

    via SHIELD Tablet. AndroidCentral Moderator.
    tonyr6 likes this.
    11-03-2014 09:06 PM

Similar Threads

  1. Nexus 9 or Xperia Z3 Tablet Compact?
    By ruhban in forum Google Nexus 9
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-24-2015, 10:45 PM
  2. Am I the only one worried about the Nexus 6 thickness?
    By Ivan Calderon Vaca in forum Google Nexus 6
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 10-22-2014, 05:56 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-19-2014, 10:24 PM
  4. Is there a good parking app out there that sets the location by the NFC?
    By squirrelproductions in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-19-2014, 05:44 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD