Why Roku matters more than ever

[Chiefcrowe]

http://gizmodo.com/why-roku-matters-more-than-ever-1558433873

Interesting article about choices when amazon comes out with a new device.. definitely made me think about what I would consider buying.

 

[MrSquished]

great article. keeping my roku 3, don't like anything about this Amazon approach now. thought of getting it but not if all that is true.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Great article. I'm a fan of Roku and own 3 of them. I have often wondered exactly how they make their money as it can't just be from the hardware. I assumed they got a bit of kickback from all the streaming services which w/o would make Roku kind of useless. (not including Plex, which is a must have).

Watching all the new entries into this market I have stood by Roku simply for the fact that they aren't a company marketing their own product and infrastructure (ie - Apple, Google, Amazon) and well...cheap.

It will be interesting to see where the market goes from here with all these big names getting in it. I do think Amazon limiting their searches to their own video service is a bit underhanded.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

I agree with the article. I like my Kindle but it is tethered to Amazon for everything.

 

[Kaido]

Great article. I'm a fan of Roku and own 3 of them. I have often wondered exactly how they make their money as it can't just be from the hardware. I assumed they got a bit of kickback from all the streaming services which w/o would make Roku kind of useless. (not including Plex, which is a must have).

Same. I have 3 & love 'em. Family-friendly, runs Netflix/Pandora/Plex/Youtube, RF (no-aim) remote w/ headphone jack. My only wish is that they had a way to game on them...we really like older NES & Sega type of games, but I've hesitated going with a full HTPC on every TV in the house.

 

[Childs]

meh, all these streaming boxes compromise in one way or another. I bought a FireTV more out of curiosity, since I'm still looking for a box that just does things...better. Have the AppleTV 2, Roku 3, WD Live...even that stinky Logitech Revue, and they can all be improved.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

I just watch TV. Resistant to change, I guess.

 

[lxskllr]

I agree with the article. I like my Kindle but it is tethered to Amazon for everything.

When I got my daughter a Nook, I chose it specifically because it supported Epub. I'd never get a device of any kind that locked me into a single service.

 

[HeXen]

I rarely watch TV, we have Netflix and Comcast on demand and I never watch those at all. Have too little free time so it's a choice between that, internet on laptop or play video games...usually the laptop wins. I guess I find it easier and quicker to just pick up the laptop and start reading stuff. Don't even Youtube much but that's ok, reading is healthier?

 

[mcurphy]

Completely happy with my 2 Roku's and looking to purchase another for my daughter. It does everything I want, so why would I ever consider another brand?

 

[Markbnj]

Ok, yeah Roku does matter for those reasons. My wife and I have one and we love it. But it seems a little odd to go through that whole line of reasoning without mentioning that it means Netflix matters just as much, if not more. Perhaps he just doesn't feel Netflix is in any danger, and that's probably true, but it still seems a little off not to have put them into the same category.

 

[techs]

The ideal device would mirror your computer so you can run your progams on your tv, plus anything you can access using the browser of your choice. You could also play any videos you have on your hard drive. The "channels" on a Roku mostly mimic what you can do from a computer anyway. In addition it would have still have "channels" that could do things your computer couldn't, or do them better.

Ideally it would have a bundled version that had a wireless keyboard and mouse for those who just wanted everything they might need at once.

No matter how good the set top boxes are they are just a pale comparison to a home p.c. in power. I can do just about everything a Roku or other set top box can do from my p.c., plus I am not wedded to Amazons or Roku's or Googles sandbox.

If someone sold such a device for 99 dollars without the wireless keyboard and mouse, I would get one in a heartbeat.

 

[ultimatebob]

I guess that Roku is kinda important now that Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Google, and Amazon all have their own variation of a TV set top box now.

Frankly, I'm now amazed that Dell and HP don't have one yet.

 

[zerocool84]

I bought a Roku 2, I loved it and bought one for my mom, but if I was buying a streaming box today, I'd buy the Fire TV because it does so much more for the same money. I don't use my Roku any more though as I have my PS4 and Chromecast and all I ever stream is Netflix.

 

[ImpulsE69]

The ideal device would mirror your computer so you can run your progams on your tv, plus anything you can access using the browser of your choice. You could also play any videos you have on your hard drive. The "channels" on a Roku mostly mimic what you can do from a computer anyway. In addition it would have still have "channels" that could do things your computer couldn't, or do them better.

Ideally it would have a bundled version that had a wireless keyboard and mouse for those who just wanted everything they might need at once.

No matter how good the set top boxes are they are just a pale comparison to a home p.c. in power. I can do just about everything a Roku or other set top box can do from my p.c., plus I am not wedded to Amazons or Roku's or Googles sandbox.

If someone sold such a device for 99 dollars without the wireless keyboard and mouse, I would get one in a heartbeat.

Agreed. They all are missing one thing or another. However, given the demographic they are intended for, I'm not sure they will ever go that far unless someone 3rd party makes an alternative firmware and software to go with it. Who knows though, maybe one of them will surprise us.

 

[RossMAN]

Happy with our Roku 3.

 

[Triumph]

i don't get the big deal. i have a wii, i use it for netflix. friend has a playstation, uses it for netflix, amazon prime, red box instant, hulu plus, vudu... everyone has tablets or phones or laptops that can stream. basically i'm not sure why we need streaming specific boxes. seems to me like old technology - in the old days you bought one item to do one thing. you had a dvd player to play dvds, a cd player to play cds, a tape deck to play tapes, a vcr to play vhs....so why do i need an amazon box to play amazon prime? i don't.

 

[HeXen]

i don't get the big deal. i have a wii, i use it for netflix. friend has a playstation, uses it for netflix, amazon prime, red box instant, hulu plus, vudu... everyone has tablets or phones or laptops that can stream. basically i'm not sure why we need streaming specific boxes. seems to me like old technology - in the old days you bought one item to do one thing. you had a dvd player to play dvds, a cd player to play cds, a tape deck to play tapes, a vcr to play vhs....so why do i need an amazon box to play amazon prime? i don't.

Speed, efficiency, less buttons on remote or UI. Playstation and it's remote is a horrible UI to select Netflix and the remote has way too many damn buttons plus you're more limited to the amount of streaming apps out there. but also why buy it if you don't want to play games on it? If all you want is streaming then it would be more efficient to use something like Roku plus it may have streaming options other devices don't have.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

i don't get the big deal. i have a wii, i use it for netflix. friend has a playstation, uses it for netflix, amazon prime, red box instant, hulu plus, vudu... everyone has tablets or phones or laptops that can stream. basically i'm not sure why we need streaming specific boxes. seems to me like old technology - in the old days you bought one item to do one thing. you had a dvd player to play dvds, a cd player to play cds, a tape deck to play tapes, a vcr to play vhs....so why do i need an amazon box to play amazon prime? i don't.

The streaming boxes consume less power and not everyone has consoles or other players like Chromecast. If you have a tablet and want to watch the videos on a TV, you need a streaming device of some sort or you need a cable.

If you're like me, you have a huge media server on the backend and Roku devices at every TV to stream the content. It would be foolish to put consoles at every TV and up until recently at least, the built-in TV apps have generally been crappy though I understand that is changing. I'd still prefer to go with a cheap external box that I can upgrade when a newer and better model comes out rather than be stuck with a TV that can only have its streaming player updated to a point. When it reaches that point, you'd probably buy an external box anyway since that's cheaper than a new TV.

I own 3 Rokus, a Chromecast, 2 Xbox 360s, a PS3, and a Wii. The Rokus are the ones that are used for streaming.

 

[Triumph]

eventually it will be all on the phone, you stream from your phone to the TV via some high bandwidth bluetooth link or whatever. that was my point.

 

[JM Aggie08]

eventually it will be all on the phone, you stream from your phone to the TV via some high bandwidth bluetooth link or whatever. that was my point.

Chromecast :thumbsup:

 

[CPA]

Oh, my, companies promoting self-interest, what shall we do?

 

[techs]

The elephant in the room is torrents. I have a computer repair business and the number of people I see who are torrenting movies and tv shows is staggering. For those people Chromecast is best because it allows the streaming of stored mp4's played in the Chrome browser.

I'm not getting into the morality, just pointing out for a large number of people the Chromecast might be the best device.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

eventually it will be all on the phone, you stream from your phone to the TV via some high bandwidth bluetooth link or whatever. that was my point.

That might very well happen, but for my own usage, no thanks. I'd rather have a streaming box with a nice interface rather than mess around with a little 5 inch screen to get things playing on the TV. When I'm at home, I don't carry my cell phone around with me and in fact, rarely even use it inside the house. I might have a tablet with me, but that brings up the second issue with what I see above -- why would I want to stream data from my tablet directly to the TV? That can eat up battery life and I wouldn't want to have to make sure I have my tablet with me to watch TV. I thought (and please correct me if I am wrong) that Chromecast generally didn't stream data from a tablet or phone; you found the content with the tablet or phone and "chromecasted" it, meaning the Chromecast would get the address and pull it from the internet or a local network device. Is that not correct?

What I'd like to see is for everything to move to Wi-Fi for remote control purposes and then maybe tablets would become the remote control for everything in the house. Yes, you can do that now but it generally requires third-party IP to IR converters. I could then see possibly dedicating an older tablet to full-time use as a remote control or even limited streaming source.

Chromecast :thumbsup:

I confess -- I just don't "get" Chromecast as a media streamer. Sure, I bought one, but I bought one not for streaming purposes but for the potential that third party apps could unlock. I was mainly hoping for a good way to wirelessly display my PC's desktop on a TV and so far (again, correct me if I am wrong), I don't believe that is yet possible outside of casting tabs from the Chrome browser.

For me personally, my Rokus are far superior. I can see the possible advantage of leveraging a Chromecast with Plex and using Plex's superior tablet interface to select movies to stream from the backend server, but again, the Roku Plex interface is "good enough" and is easy to navigate with my Harmony remote.

 

[techs]

That might very well happen, but for my own usage, no thanks. I'd rather have a streaming box with a nice interface rather than mess around with a little 5 inch screen to get things playing on the TV. When I'm at home, I don't carry my cell phone around with me and in fact, rarely even use it inside the house. I might have a tablet with me, but that brings up the second issue with what I see above -- why would I want to stream data from my tablet directly to the TV? That can eat up battery life and I wouldn't want to have to make sure I have my tablet with me to watch TV. I thought (and please correct me if I am wrong) that Chromecast generally didn't stream data from a tablet or phone; you found the content with the tablet or phone and "chromecasted" it, meaning the Chromecast would get the address and pull it from the internet or a local network device. Is that not correct?

What I'd like to see is for everything to move to Wi-Fi for remote control purposes and then maybe tablets would become the remote control for everything in the house. Yes, you can do that now but it generally requires third-party IP to IR converters.



I confess -- I just don't "get" Chromecast as a media streamer. Sure, I bought one, but I bought one not for streaming purposes but for the potential that third party apps could unlock. I was mainly hoping for a good way to wireless display my PC's desktop on a TV and so far (again, correct me if I am wrong), I don't believe that is yet possible outside of casting tabs from the Chrome browser.

For me personally, my Rokus are far superior. I can see the possible advantage of leveraging a Chromecast with Plex and using Plex's superior tablet interface to select movies to stream from the backend server, but again, the Roku Plex interface is "good enough" and is easy to navigate with my Harmony remote.

To answer some of your questions:
Yes, you can stream from your tablet to Chromecast but the big advantage of Chromecast is having it stream from your computer but control it via a tablet or phone.

No, Chromecast can't mirror your desktop, a feature that I would definitely welcome. However, its a little known fact that you can play your mp4 format stored movies via the Chrome browser in a full screen that looks just like a media player like VLC, though without the added features of a VLC type player.

Chromecasts huge advantage is that its a full feature browser and you can use it to choose what service you want. If you want Netflix or Pandora, or virtually any online service you can play it in Chromecast. Most cable companies let you stream virtually all content you have available from your cable plan via the web anyway nowadays. And you can purchase movies not just from your cable company but from Prime if you like, I believe.

Outside of some customized app you might have on a set top box you can do everything thru Chrome you can from the box.