Getting rid of cable...

Sorry to be contrary, but Roku isn't an online service. It's a set-top box. The services streamed via Roku could be streamed by any internet enabled device with the smarts to do it.

So the question is: which set-top box or smart TV do you get? A specific high-end TV costing $700 plus, or a box costing $70*? Then, which set top box? What makes Roku unique is it's an open platform. Anyone can develop a channel for it. What makes it compelling is you can get a $50 Roku that will drive your SD TVs left over from the last century with the same channel lineup as on your big screen HD TV's Roku.

*edit: I see from tuckerfan's link Roku is licensing their software to certain TV makers. That's fine, but I'd still rather have a separate box that can be replaced/upgraded.

edit edit: I see from a link from tuckerfan's link Roku has a google play channel now. Didn't know that. more.

https://www.roku.com/roku-tv

Roku TV is, supposedly, their streaming service trying to ape Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and a bunch of others. Sony, Samsung, Sharp and god knows who else are all planning to launch competing services while the two biggest Chinese tv makers, who are both no name brands who just really make tvs for other companies to slap their brand names on, are also doing this but are adopting Roku's software and hardware rather than developing their own.

Roku did start out as a set top box but now they want to sell you conte t and they want tv makers to prestall their hardware in the tv. The big Asian tv makers (atleast outside of China) would much prefer your tv can only access their proprietary system. They all can see the hwrdware business is a loser's game and they want to get those monthly service fees to cushion themselves.

Where the hell are you getting that from what's on that site? The Roku TVs offer nothing which isn't already available on a Roku box. They have no streaming service in the sense that Netflix, Amazon, or any of a number of services offer.

Sony, Sharp, Samsung, and most others already do this. And the reviews of them say the same thing: The software they're using is crap. You're better off buying a set top box, because Google, Apple, Amazon, and Roku have all done a much better job by far.

Where are you getting that Roku wants to sell you content? It says nothing on Roku's site about them selling you content. You can use a Roku to stream content from subscription services such as Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, and others, but nowhere does it say that Roku wants to sell you content.

Yes, because they make money from selling ads on the Roku home screen, so the more devices which use their software, the more money they can potentially make. Not terribly different than Google's business model in many ways.

Sucks to be them, because after the Chinese get done doing to the Koreans what the Koreans did to the Japanese, the Indians will do to the Chinese what they've done to the Koreans. Assuming, of course, we don't get home 3D printers that can spit out TVs on command before then.

Speaking of Roku, I managed to get the stick I bought on black Friday working when I took it to my family in Northern California with the not-shitty router. Everything was easy to use right outta the box. I could see this replacing cable for myself, honestly.

The cable companies know this as well, which is why Cocks on base offer a "deal" that gives cable, internet and phone service for 90 bucks, versus just Internet that goes for 80. I wouldn't have bitten, especially since it took over a week for cable to get fixed when it last shat out. Also, digital phone service? Everyone that can receive that in the area can afford good cell phone plans and AT&T. How is that a selling point to anyone under 75?

I know right now Roku gets a slice of anything you buy through the Roku store including subscriptions to third party services like Netflix or Hulu Plus, etc... They would also like to create pay channels which they own (I.E. their own content).

http://forums.roku.com/viewtopic.php?p=171649&sid=8d76471d0332ac5fb9e4c83c40342ca3

I am trying to fi d a Bloomberg article fromyesterday about their top predictions for CES 2015 and they were talking about how every tv maker wants to have their own smart tv software which locks people in because it is so hard, and getting ever harder, to make money on hardware. It acknowledged that their efforts to date weren't that good but that all of them are green with envy when they see the fees companies like Apple and Google can charge for their software platforms so they all want to develop their own and hope it takes off. They only ones bucking the trend are the low end Chinese makers who have no hope of developing their own nor making it a success even if they could so they're trying to license Roku's system for their own tvs.

Frankly, I wonder how long Roku is even going to survive. Everyone is dog piling on the hardware side and even the me too devices like Apple TV are outselling ROKU 2 or 3 to 1. Roku has to expand its business model just to stay in business thus the licensing agreements and push for more content. They already charge a listing fee to companies who want to sell their service via Roku's store plus Roku gets a slice of any subscription sales so they need to get more services signed up on their store and more devices out there if they want to stay alive. Long term anyway.

I suppose Roku might get a commission if you pay using the Roku store, but so far I haven't. I pay Netflix a subscription which includes streaming via various devices and browsers. Roku is simply one such device, whether it's their set-top box or their software embedded on a smart TV. Ditto for Amazon Digital.

I think you have your information wrong: cnet Dec 2014 article. While it's become a more competitive market with Chromecast and Amazon Fire entering the market, Roku is still dominant.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-25/rokus-survival-takes-more-than-beating-apple-tv

That acticle is a year old but talks about the numbers of comparative sales.

uh ok. but where does it say "devices like Apple TV are outselling ROKU 2 or 3 to 1."

Roku is outselling all competitors by a comfortable margin. Whether they can continue to compete against chromecast remains to be seen. Google has the advantage of a parallel platform, hosting, media rights, and hugeness but the fact they created a GooglePlay channel for Roku indicates they think Roku is a platform they want to be on. (I downloaded the GooglePlay channel on my Rokus last night. I didn't see anything very interesting, I think Netflix and Amazon have them beat for content).

At this point in time I wouldn't consider anything but another Roku simply because the channel lineup is propagated to all the Rokus I own in an easy to use interface. Even if I had no other devices, the Roku is the currently the best device in terms of what it can stream, and how it does it.

This will be the real game-changer:

The only downside I see is that the service can only be connected to one device at a time. So I can't watch a basketball game in the living room while my wife watches the same thing in the bedroom.

This is the kind of thing that will make people like me switch over.

And then there's this.


Verizon Eyes Launch of Internet TV Service with 20-30 Channels This Year

*Ahem*

Verizon is also in talks to buy AOL, which is just fucking bizarre, IMHO.

You should use a larger font.

That's a pretty good spread of channels, but $20 a month is still too high a price for me to be interested, and ESPN is probably getting the lion's share of it . . . which is why I'm categorically not interested in any cable or satellite TV that doesn't offer a la carte. Live sports would be the main draw for me, but if I have to pay (as I've seen online) over $10/month for ESPN, well, I don't want that channel, and I'm not going to get any package that includes it. There is no channel worth spending >$100/year for, especially not ESPN, which insists on having some awful programming.

AOL is like a soap opera villain that one thinks is dead, then reappears when everyone has forgotten about the guy.


....seriously, what DOES AOL offer anyone anymore?

I haven't had a chance to try this yet, so I don't know how well it works, but apparently, if you rent a video on Google Play and pause during a scene, it'll pop up information on who the actors are in that scene.

Oooh, that reminds me.....the Roku stick still has problems with connecting in my apartment; fortunately, the screen mirroring feature on my phone will work even with the stick being connected online, so I can still watch stuff online on TV from the phone.

And, apparently, the various streaming services took home more awards during the Golden Globes than did the broadcast networks. So, either broadcast TV ups its game, or you can stick a fork in it.

I realize many people dislike him, but Spike Lee is a pretty big Hollywood type, and you can get his latest movie on Vimeo before it hits theaters. Kevin Smith's already done something similar, so the countdown to someone like Spielberg, Cameron, or Nolan doing it has started, IMHO.

And this going to force everyone making set-top boxes to up their game: Intel to launch thumb drive sized, full featured PCs that hook up to any TV with an hdmi port. http://ces.gizmodo.com/intels-150-hdmi-stick-turns-any-tv-into-a-windows-desk-1678550370

That doesn't really surprise me since those awards are given by the HFPA. Due to FCC content restrictions, broadcast shows are nowhere near as "edgy" as what runs on cable and streams over the interweb and it stands to reason that a bunch of foreign reporters wouldn't reward them.

A couple of years ago I tried to watch that show about old time Las Vegas with Dennis Quaid and Michael Chiklis. I gave up after about four episodes because compared to stuff like Breaking Bad and The Wire, that Vegas show felt like watching something on The Disney Channel. Just...lame.

But a well done show doesn't need to have things like nudity or graphic violence to be "edgy." Have you seen "Better Off Ted"? It was on ABC and was brutally scathing satire of the corporate world. (Its on Netflix, and well-worth the watch.)

^
Indeed, a show today might be considered edgy for NOT trying to shock people and outcurse the U.S. Navy.

And now that I think about it, Homicide: Life on the Streets was an ahead of its time police drama. I can remember one episode where they interrogated a convicted pedophile about the murder of a 12 year old girl. By the end, you not only had no idea if he was guilty or not, but neither did the cops and they had to let him go, even though he was their only suspect.

I'm moving this into the Technical Reference subforum on the theory that it'll make it easier to find. Feel free to keep adding to it.

And, Roku just added a Cuba travel channel!

Netflix streaming just added "M*A*S*H", as in the TV series!

Just an FYI, there's apparently a design flaw which affects some TVs that have a Chromecast or Fire TV hooked up to them. If you have an over-the-air antenna hooked up to the TV while the Chromecast or Fire TV is connected, the TV won't be able to pick up broadcast signals until you unhook the Chromecast or Fire TV. Nobody's sure why it is, or which models are impacted, but if you're having problems with reception on your TV, that might be why.

And if you've got one of Samsung's "smart TVs" you might want to keep your mouth shut around it.

AMC has decided to join the party, so now all you Walking Dead Fans can cut the cord.

In addition to spying on you, it turns out that Samsung smart TVs will interrupt what you're watching to inflict commercials on you. http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/11/8017771/samsung-smart-tvs-inserting-unwanted-ads