An Early Review of Roku's Netflix-Streaming Appliance

Robert Green writes "Following and complementing the Netflix instant streaming video service for the PC, Roku has produced a Set-Top Box offering instant streaming of Netflix video to your home television set. Set to compete with Apple TV (major announcement pending), it began shipping last week and here is one of the first reviews." As has been discussed before, the device is fairly limited, but inexpensive (around $100).

Comments

How About No?

[morari]

For $15 a month, I can just rent regularly from NetFlix, pirating about thirty films per month. The trick is to send all three films back the very day they arrive, that way you can get two batches a week. ;)

Re:How About No?

[wdhowellsr]

Because of idiots like you I can't view recent movies on my Roku. The days of hacking and pirating are over and as soon as we can convince the entertainment industry that you are in the minority and most people just want to watch any movie or tv show ever made at their convenience we will have our cake and eat it to. The setup for the unit was brain-dead simple and the quality of the video was better than most dvd players. I had immediate access to my queue and found the interface and remote very easy to use. Considering that they do not charge anything additional for total access to their instant view library, I find it hard to believe that one could complain. Netflix has nailed the distribution model. Now we need to get the a*(holes in the entertainment industry on board.

Re:How About No?

[SpinyNorman]

I don't see the point.

You're basically turning Netflix's 3-a-time plan into a N-a-time plan, but the only advantage of having them all to hand at the same time is if you want to watch them a second time. Either you've got a huge appetite for re-runs, or you are wasting your time ripping and filling drives with movies that you'll only ever rewatch a tiny fraction of.

Re:How About No?

[maxume]

To what end?

You say you are acquiring ~1.5 * 30 = 45 hours of video a month (on the low end). If you aren't consuming it now (which you don't give any information either way), when the heck are you going to consume it in the future? How many times do you need to watch each of the 360 movies that you claim to be acquiring per year? Once? Twice? Ten times?

Re:How About No?

[Hijacked Public]

The point is, based on my conversations with people who do what the GP described, is that when someone mentions a movie title they can say "I have that movie".

I think that actual watching the movie part is completely secondary. Just the having of all of them is enough.

Re:How About No?

[Anonymous Coward]

For $15 a month, I can just rent regularly from NetFlix, pirating about thirty films per month.

I thought people didn't pirate here. Oh wait, that was a lie...

And people wonder why content producers want DRM...

Re:How About No?

[TheGratefulNet]

and the quality of the video was better than most dvd players

impossible. absolutely impossible. especially with upsampling players (or almost any HTPC that rescales dvd data to higher res.)

I belong to netflix and I rent heavily. I rip to my home NAS to queue things up which I'll watch later (at MY convenience). when I'm done, the movie may get kept or deleted, it depends on how I feel and how much spare storage I have.

with a streaming 'DRM' player I'll not be able to schedule things on my terms. therefore this player is worthless to me.

upsampled DVD's can be quite good; so good that I have decided not to buy into the HD opto formats and just record OTA HDTV or rip dvd's to my home NAS/HTPC system.

you also go on to rant:

The days of hacking and pirating are over and as soon as we can convince the entertainment industry

convince? there's no dealing with the devil; you will always lose. we know that now and we are DONE trying to 'work' with the EI. bargaining time is over and we already have what we want. too bad for them, too; but they had a chance to play nice with us and they blew it. game over. we decide on OUR TERMS what the EI relationship will be with us. OUR TERMS.

they hate that. but the horse has already left the barn.

Re:How About No?

[Dare nMc]

but the only advantage of having them all to hand at the same time is if you want to watch them a second time.

Several others:
        1) TV shows on DVD don't like to watch a whole season in the same week.
        2) still takes some time from request to door, don't feal like a chick flick when it shows, you got the back list.
        3) traveling, my eee pc can't play dvd's, too risky to lose them to carry with, besides uses 3* more power spinning the dvd on battery vs SSD (10gb = 5 movies)...
        4) why make NF re-ship if I want to watch again in a couple years.
        5) convenience, DVD's are a relative pain, with linktheater etc I got a list to click from, they start playing, no previews, no fiddling with settings (dr divx cuts off the bars, upscaled just right everytime.)

Re:How About No?

[Kopiok]

I belong to netflix and I rent heavily. I rip to my home NAS to queue things up which I'll watch later (at MY convenience). when I'm done, the movie may get kept or deleted, it depends on how I feel and how much spare storage I have.

The whole point of renting from NetFlix is that it is at your convenience. No late fees, so no pressure to watch the movie, and you queue your movies so you always get what you want. Want Undrworld before Harry Potter? Queue it first. Don't have time to watch Underworld? Just wait a few days, doesn't matter.

with a streaming 'DRM' player I'll not be able to schedule things on my terms. therefore this player is worthless to me.

Do you know how NetFlix streaming works? You pick what movie you want to watch, and it starts playing. You can start it again any time and also start from anywhere in the movie. This is scheduling on your terms. It's comparable to the free movies from OnDemand, but they never get taken off the catalog.

Re:How About No?

[Dare nMc]

whats the difference between saving a ripped movie for streaming later, and watching the stream live from netflix? (hint shipping or availability.) Netflix doesn't seam to care about rippers (I mean they seam to like them as customers) As long as the subscription is up kept, isn't that pretty much the same as if me and a few (hundred) neighbors have a large collection of dvd's and share with each other? Start making money from that library, then the story changes.
Except for the shipping time/charges any movie in my ripped library, netflix would have that one at my home tomorrow to watch. so ripping for personal use seams to only hurt the post office.

Re:How About No?

[negRo_slim]

The whole point of renting from NetFlix is that it is at your convenience. If by convenience you mean waiting 3 days for the mail to arrive, then I guess we don't agree on the definition of that word.

And don't even mention streaming, I demand a certain amount of quality from my media not to mention my computer has better things to do then function as a television.

Re:How About No?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

They throttled me. I have a 3-at-a-time plan, rip all 3, and send them back the next day. Instead of sending all 3 of mine out, they send out two, wait a day, and send out the 3rd. It's not AWFUL, but it's not really that cool.

If I could stream ANY movie that they had (not just their terrible selection of B and C grade movies and some TV shows), I wouldn't do this, since I usually watch the movies I ripped while I wait for my next 3 to come in.

I guess that's what BitTorrent is for. :D

Re:How About No?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The difference is that not every movie NetFlix has is available for instant watching.

Re:How About No?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"but they never get taken off the catalog." Actually, they ARE. I had some movies in my instant queue that, when I went to watch them, were no longer available for instant watching. I don't recall the titles, but I was pretty pissed.

Re:How About No?

[DMalic]

You honestly think if people like him didn't exist you'd have more content on your Roku? The media industry does not and has not ever made any concession they didn't have to. Not to encourage law-breaking, but piracy has forced their hand in offering better solutions to compete with it.

Re:How About No?

[Kopiok]

Then it sounds like Netflix isn't for you. Your needs might be better served by an OnDemand service, or your local video store.

Re:How About No?

[DMalic]

There's always the people who leave a movie sitting in their house for months until they're ready to watch it.

Re:How About No?

[DMalic]

One guy abuses a service (one which the content producers actually get a cut of.) Therefore, restrictions on legal behavior are deserved.

Re:How About No?

[zippthorne]

Indeed. I've got some friends like that. I call them "Collectors."

It makes a certain amount of sense at first, but after you think about it, you realize that with Netflix as your movie library, you don't have to worry about refreshing your media when it gets obsolete, and you can watch anything you want, within a couple days of when you think about it. Or right away, depending on what you want.

If your media costs fifty cents per burn, you could conceivably be paying two or three times your netflix subscription just to be able to rewatch stuff later. That money would be much better spent on an annuity: after six or seven years, you'd have accumulated enough to pay for your netflix account on interest in perpetuity. That gives you access to all the films you've already watched, AND the films that haven't even been pressed yet.

Re:How About No?

[Fail-deadly]

Do you really believe that piracy is the reason that recent movies are not available? The reason is simple: money. If recent movies were available for watching on the Roku box, then hard copies are going to sell less in stores. Companies make more off selling DVDs then they do letting Netflix "rent" them out with Watch Instantly.

Re:How About No?

[slazzy]

If you remember to create a wish list ahead of time, and have the movies you want to see sitting there waiting for you ahead of time then it is convenient. For me, it's too expensive, I rent maybe 1 movie a month, and don't want to pay $15 for that 1 movie.

Re:How About No?

[Milican]

Sounds like you need the "1 at-a-time plan" where you can rent up to two DVDs a month... for $5...

JOhn

Re:How About No?

[HockeyPuck]

I have a 3-at-a-time plan, rip all 3, and send them back the next day and people wonder why companies are trying to implement draconian DRM....

As a side note, is it legal to borrow three books from your local library, photocopy all the pages and then return them?

Re:How About No?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay for rampant stupidity

Re:How About No?

[mweather]

As a side note, is it legal to borrow three books from your local library, photocopy all the pages and then return them? Yep. You can copy whatever you like.

Re:How About No?

[TheGratefulNet]

its still not on my terms.

I can order discs out of order, save them to disk and when I get all the parts, THEN I can view them.

many of the things I want (most, really) are not on the instant-view plan. maybe later but right now pickin' is pretty slim.

one tip is to force entries out of order. add a series as discs 2 1 3 instead of 1 2 3. that way the system 'knows' that you are ok with breaking up a series and it will send you next-avail instead of doing a 'blocking' move on you, stalling you unnecessarily.

and while I'm on the subject, the other thing to look out for is when they send you a disc via the 'long route'. instead of your local usual distro center, they might send a disc from across the country. you can't avoid the first hop but you CAN avoid the return trip; simply insert the disc and sleeve in an envelope that IS addressed to your local hub and mail 2 at once to get it back into the system faster. and yes, you can mail 2 in 1 - not a problem. in fact, you should do that so that you can have a few extra return envelopes for the local distro center.

I am quite ok with the 1 day mailing from my local center to my home. and if the mail comes early that day, I can have the discs back at the PO that same day. in such cases, I -do- see my new movies mailed the very next day.

dvd quality will always be better than streaming. well, all except for when you do get a bad dvd (and that's one benefit of ripping; is that you KNOW right then and there that you have a read error). so for times when you get a bad dvd, that's a loss of a day.

finally, my net bandwidth can be used for other things. I can keep the mail 'busy' and my dsl wire busy at the same time, so I'll never want to stop the snail mail discs. and I'm not convinced that streaming via DRM is something I want to encourage by paying for it. any time you pay for DRM you are voting for it, and I'm not really happy about supporting DRM data delivery.

Re:How About No?

[laddiebuck]

I don't pirate, and I'm probably a minority (hell, all but 2 films in my collection are British, so yeah I'm a minority), but I love to rewatch good scenes from old movies once in a while. I'll go through 2 hours' worth of classic scenes from 5-10 movies instead of one new one.

Re:How About No?

[HadouKen24]

Um... no, you can't. That's why it's called copyright law.

It is not legal to copy an entire book. There are some occasions when it might be admissible to copy an entire article or essay--that happens in academia all the time--but copying entire works like that simply isn't allowed under copyright law.

Unless you have permission, of course

Re:How About No?

[blackest_k]

That is probably why netflix doesn't seem bothered by people who rip the movies, all you finish up with is a bunch of ripped dvd's that sit and gather dust for the next few years.

As a netflix customer you are already a good customer of the entertainment industry. Many people do not buy or rent movies on any kind of regular basis, $180 a year from you is probably way above the average spend on movies by joe public.

I wouldn't be surprised that you go out for a movie once in a while, after all watching movies is one of your interests.

It probably wouldn't be a bad thing if ISP's bundled in a movie on demand or music on demand service in to a broadband package.

$15 a month seems a small price to pay to ensure you don't get in trouble, especially if you have kids that are likely to download movies.

I am not so sure if the music industry could get its collective head round this kind of model, but a regular income from what would be probably the majority of households isn't a bad alternative to the current situation.

Re:How About No?

[TheRaven64]

There are a couple of reasons for ripping rented movies.

A service like NetFlix doesn't give you very fine-grained control over the order you get the disks in. Sometimes you might not feel in the mood to watch the film they do send you at the time. In this case, it would be tempting to send it back, get another one, and watch the one you had in a week or so when you do feel like it. This goes away with online streaming, since the movies are no longer a scarce resource for the provider, as DVDs are, and so you can watch the one you want.

The other reason is wanting to play it on a mobile device. I can watch a movie ripped to my laptop hard drive before the battery goes flat, while I can't do the same when playing it from the DVD drive, which uses a lot more power (and generates more heat than I'm happy with when the laptop is on my lap). People commuting on busses or trains might like to rip movies and watch them on a mobile device. This reason goes away with a DRM-free download service, since you can just copy the file and transcode it if you need to.

Of course, there are also the people who just want to hoard films. If you give these people a DRM-free download service then they will fill up hard drives with as many films as they can get. On the other hand, if you sell them a 30-a-month download service then they will download a new film every day, and keep their ISP (who can sell them a very expensive plan) and hard drive / NAS manufacturers (who can keep selling them more storage until they run out of money) very happy.

Re:How About No?

[TheRaven64]

I wouldn't be surprised that you go out for a movie once in a while, after all watching movies is one of your interests. I subscribe to a service like NetFlix in the UK, and I haven't been to the Cinema for years. I bought a cheap projector and now I can get a similar experience in my living room (with better sound, since the local cinema only has stereo and sets the levels very badly). I can have friends over, pause whenever I want, and eat nice food while watching films instead of overpriced popcorn. The price of two people going to see a film at the local cinema is about the same as a month's subscription to this service (not including popcorn). If I have half a dozen friends over to watch a film twice in a year then we've collectively spent less than if we had all gone to the cinema. Of course, I end up paying this cost myself, but they bring food and wine, so it evens out.

I am not so sure if the music industry could get its collective head round this kind of model, but a regular income from what would be probably the majority of households isn't a bad alternative to the current situation. I'm not sure I'd be as interested in a similar service for music. If I like a piece of music, I will listen to it tens or hundreds of times. If I like a film, I might watch it two or three times. Renting makes more sense for films, because the value of a film (to me) decreases a lot every time I watch it. Buying music makes sense, since the same track can bring me enjoyment a large number of times.

Re:How About No?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"If I could stream ANY movie that they had (not just their terrible selection of B and C grade movies and some TV shows), I wouldn't do this, since I usually watch the movies I ripped while I wait for my next 3 to come in."

If you had read my entire post, maybe you wouldn't have made a silly comment.

And I do delete the movies when I've watched them once, so it's kinda like that old Divx thing with the expiring DVDs.

Re:How About No?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

You actually CAN copy whatever you like. It just might not be legal.

Re:How About No?

[Lumpy]

The days of hacking and pirating are over and as soon as we can convince the entertainment industry that you are in the minority and most people just want to watch any movie or tv show ever made at their convenience we will have our cake and eat it to. The setup for the unit was brain-dead simple and the quality of the video was better than most dvd players.

I have had "movies on demand" in my home for 5 years now. I have over 1000 of MY movies ripped and ready on my Media center.

Also, what kind of drugs are you on saying " video was better than most dvd players" I have one of these things and the video is NOT by any stretch as good as a DVD. as good as highly compressed Cablt TV Turner movie classics? yes. DVD? not a chance in hell.

Granted I have a high end 50" and 37" tv's so this roku box might be designed for those with smaller 4:3 older tv's instead and not for someone with high end tv sets.

Stop talking it up like it's the best thing ever. It's not by any stretch. When you load it up with over 100 titles to go through the selection system slows down a LOT. Honestly the AppleTV kicks it's butt hard because I can get HD movies and dont have to pay a monthly fee for it, just a per rental. I had high hopes for the RoKU box, and at $100.00 it's dirt cheap. but it certainly is not "awesome" for my family.

Also on demand old movies is not that "neat" give me new releases or not yet released and TV shows. Otherwise I'll simply buy the DVD and drop it in my auto-ripper. (handbrake CLI rocks!)

P.S: "The days of hacking and pirating are over" you are utterly insane for even thinking that. Crackers and Pirates will be ahead of the corporations forever. No corporation on this planet has the resources to stop it and they never will.

Re:How About No?

[Anonymous Coward]

When those days come innovation will cease and capitalisms days will be numbered.

Re:How About No?

[Jinjuku]

So you have a set of extremely strict terms. Terms that are easily not reached so you can justify the convenience of your actions? I think this is how most thieves and crooks think.

Re:How About No?

[Jinjuku]

Actually movies do get taken off of the NetFlix Watch Now catalog:

Three easy examples:

The Italian Job
North by Northwest
Flight of the Phoenix

Re:How About No?

[blackest_k]

Buying music obviously does make sense for the tracks that you know you enjoy, but then we only know a small fraction of what music is out there and being able to just click on a track and play it, would be convenient.

obviously if you really enjoy a particular track or album you can buy it at any time. in fact there is no reason you couldn't buy via the music service as a cd or mp3 download.

The real difference is you would be able to listen to anything any number of times without infringing copyright and and the music industry gets a revenue stream. It's also quite trivial to ensure Artists are rewarded according to the popularity of the music they produce.

It is not so much a service for individuals but for family's, it's really an insurance so that the RIAA and such like do not sue you for your childrens downloads. For this alone it could be worth having.

obviously both the public and the music industry require some convincing, what other way forward is there? The law suits do very little to reduce piracy, when they do impact individuals they are devastating.

Music and film on demand seem to be a good compromise. Both the film and music industry need to make money to continue and piracy will always be around, by meeting the demand the entertainment industry gets a new stream of revenue and piracy becomes less of a problem.

If something is available for "free" (that is, already covered in the cost of your broadband package) why seek an illegal alternative?

If your not subscribing to the service, your fair game, to the current tactics being used. However it is reasonable to believe that a good proportion of home broadband users would prefer to be certain they would not be the target of an industry lawsuit.

Do you see the advantages now to this kind of a system?

Re:How About No?

[kz45]

"One guy abuses a service (one which the content producers actually get a cut of.) Therefore, restrictions on legal behavior are deserved."

Do you honestly think it's only ONE person here that is ripping netflix movies? You sound a little naive.

also, the only reason DRM exists is because of the the popularity of pirate sites..not the other way around.

Re:How About No?

[kz45]

"if you had read my entire post, maybe you wouldn't have made a silly comment."

yeah, I read it. Because you can't get your way, you decide to break copyright law.

Excuses like this will not go away until companies give out all of their movies and content for free with no restrictions.

I remember when Napster first came out and the people that tried to legitimize it were saying that albums were too expensive and if they could purchase a CD on a per/track basis, there would be no need to download it for free. Well, I-Tunes and other services are out now..and piracy is worse than ever before.

Even look at netflix. You can get 2 movies at the same time for $10/month (which is VERY cheap compared to buying them from the store) and people STILL have to pirate them.

People that pirate and give excuses for legitimizing it are just lazy fucks that don't want to spend any money.

Companies shouldn't have to make the thieves and terrorists happy.

Re:How About No?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the point that you don't need to collect it? If you can stream it from Netflix, let them store it until you're ready.

Re:How About No?

[benwaggoner]

...a model which NetFlix perfectly supports!

There's no reason you can't have one of our four or whatever DVDs for months on end, without late fees. That's one of the main points of NetFlix I thought.

Re:How About No?

[DMalic]

Agreed. I was intending to establish very rational reasons for the "hoarding" behavior SpinyNorman mentioned (though quite illegal, and expensive to Netflix through mailing fees).

Re:How About No?

[DMalic]

"One guy abuses a service (one which the content producers actually get a cut of.) Therefore, restrictions on legal behavior are deserved." Do you honestly think it's only ONE person here that is ripping netflix movies? You sound a little naive. also, the only reason DRM exists is because of the the popularity of pirate sites..not the other way around. Netflix is very popular. A few of their customers are abusive, which means they don't bring in significant income after mailing costs. Few people have the hard drive space (and will) to reach even this level. You're using an insignificant group to justify insane policy. I have to wonder what your proposed response to massive, proven damage from copyright infringement is: an example would be commercial violation of the GPL. Death? re: your second point: Not at all. Given a song, I can think up many uses (any and all devices, turn it into a ringtone, etcetera). The media studios were rather ravenously awaiting their new "digital age" of unending small fees. Combine the insane level of control possible with digital technology, a law saying you can't break that control, and a copyright not intended to function alongside either - you get quite a mess.

Re:How About No?

[kz45]

"I have to wonder what your proposed response to massive, proven damage from copyright infringement is: an example would be commercial violation of the GPL. Death?"

So protection of copyright is equal to death? The problem is that there really is no solution to fixing the copyright problem at the moment..beyond a better lock.

The only way to get companies to change their practices is to stop buying their products, which most people just aren't willing to do.

Pirate sites are almost a type of competition, but without any of the innovation, so it doesn't give the original company creating the content a reason to innovate or make things better for the consumer...only better security measures.

This is why bittorrent will never put the music or movie companies out of business. To be successful, there needs to be a change in the artists..where they start selling songs without signing with a label.

Re:How About No?

[DMalic]

Agreed. Emusic, Magnatune, NIN are great. Radiohead's publicity stunt, not so much useful. My "death" remark could be better worded thus: If a few % of users causing minimal actual damage by abusing a service is license for widespread restriction and limitation backed by the hefty penalties (inc. jail) carried by the DMCA - where do you go from there when the offense is much weightier? It seems to be "your head for a loaf of bread" territory. Rereading, though, I catch that your original remark played it more as an example of bad behavior then sole justification. I'm fine with companies trying to sell me whatever locked-up products they wish. But not if they'll jail me when I try to break said lock.

Re:How About No?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Welcome to Slashdot. If something is digitally based and easily pirated, then you have a right to it. Period. No moral or ethical gray area is allowed here. If your intellectual property is easily lifted then it's your problem, not ours. You can ask for money all you want, but it's not our responsibility to give it to you. Sure, we won't bother, y'know, doing without or just not having a copy of your work that we don't value enough to pay for, but that's because you're an evil, money-grubbing corporate overlord, man! FIGHT THE POWER!

Re:How About No?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh... and then what? Anarchy? If so, warlords aren't going to be afraid of geeks.

Re:How About No?

[GWBasic]

I don't see the point

Netflix is dipping their toe into the water of internet-based video-on-demand. From a business sense, it makes sense to start with a simple system and apply the "lessons learned" when moving to high-bandwidth, and then HD systems. Things like multiple languages, surround sound, optional subtitles add complexity to an implementation and thus leave the possibility for bugs.

Furthermore, when does the system become "good enough" that most customers will use it more then 50% of the time? Most of the content that my DVR records is about as good quality as Netflix's appliance; how many people who's DVRs are full of reruns will opt for this device?

Re:How About No?

[Technician]

And people wonder why content producers want DRM...


The producers are anal on protecting their content while ignoring what attracts customers. (Statute of limitations is run out) My biggest music buying days were while I was in the Military. I bought stuff, shared stuff, discovered new stuff not played on the radio. If you eliminated the shared stuff, so I didn't discover new stuff, I would have bought far less. We are seeing that now as they are getting pretty anal on sharing stuff. Personally as a result, I stopped buying music. From their sales figures, this is not uncommon.

Recently I had been listening to MIDI files and discovering new artists and such. One of the Labels pulled a "Artist Formally known as Prince" thing and sent C & D letters to sites carying a user MIDI file of the artists song. Since the Label pulled that stunt and the only place I heard of the artist or his song (Not the original), I simply noted the only advertising for the artist was by free online MIDI files. I have since decided to not bother looking for any of this French artists products or the label. Without the free MIDI files, I would have never even have heard of the artist or the French label. As far as I can tell from the MIDI file I have heard, the artist was a one trick pony with only 1 good song. I have no idea if he released anything else and I'm not going to look.

Back in my Military days, it was common for me to become a fan of an artist and buy every record (Yes LP days) of theirs that I could find. This included Pink Floyd, Styx, Areosmith, Queen, etc. Those days are over.

Re:How About No?

[mgblst]

There is some sort of collection delusion that people start to fall under. It can be for anything, but I have met a few people who do this for movies. Because ripping movies if quite easy, though time consuming, they see it as a bonus. I have met people with 1000s of movies, more than they could ever watch, and even loads of really shit movies. These people have lost it.

I now I used to do it for games, in the age of secret FTP sites (alt-255). I was just getting so many crap games, I would never play, just because it was easy. Then I realised, what a stupid waste of time.

w00t!

[aikodude]

first first post, evah!

Re:w00t!

[aikodude]

or not. :D

RTFA ??? Huh

[zappepcs]

I tried to, read the review. Something struck me as curiously odd:

The big drawback right now is video selection. While there are over ten thousand titles available, it's possible to get through everything you may really enjoy in just a couple of months. I really think they (netflix) need to step up the licensing and video transfer to make this service great. I have to imagine that it will happen sometime in the near future as the instant video on PC has always felt like somewhat of a beta test program to me. Bold highlights added by me. Is this supposed to be the answer for marathon movie watching couch potatoes? I realize that I watch much less tv than do many people, but really, do people rent 2 and 3 movies a night? for months on end?

Wow

Re:RTFA ??? Huh

[lazy_nihilist]

The problem is, I like to watch the videos I like at a stretch. It's very tempting to finish a whole series of Arrested Development or Curb your enthusiasm. It is very difficult to stop after watching a single episode. And people tend to develop a certain taste and will only watch movies/tv that cater to that niche, everything else would pass by without getting noticed much (May be software based suggestions like, "you might like these titles" helps here). So it makes perfect sense that everything you enjoy finishes in a couple of months, or even sooner.

Re:RTFA ??? Huh

[raving griff]

While there are tens of thousands of titles available in netflix's streaming service, only a handful of them are popular films. Personally, only 4 of the DVD's in my 72 movie queue are available to instantly stream. In my case, I could be done with all four movies in a week or two and be out of things to stream until I happen to come across another movie that I think I'd enjoy. The problem is that there is not a great selection of movies available for instant play, and of this limited selection, far fewer are popular titles.

Re:RTFA ??? Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

The key phrase is "...you may really enjoy."

Ten thousand titles means a thousand children's movies, a thousand Rob Schneider comedies, a thousand 60's sitcom compilations, and at least 2,500 horrible thrillers starring Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman.

So of the ten thousand there may be a hundred you really want to see... And at even 3 a week you'll get through them pretty fast.

Re:RTFA ??? Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

The big drawback right now is video selection. While there are over ten thousand titles available, it's possible to get through everything you may really enjoy in just a couple of months. I really think they (netflix) need to step up the licensing and video transfer to make this service great. I have to imagine that it will happen sometime in the near future as the instant video on PC has always felt like somewhat of a beta test program to me.

Bold highlight added by me. Most of the titles are crap, but I presume very cheap to license. What's not crap is various enough that it is a rare person who will like all of it. I was only able to find about 15 titles that I hadn't seen and looked like they would be worth my time. In contrast, my DVD queue rarely has less than 50 movies on it, and I watch more movies than most people.

The real problem here is in the summary. $100 for what is essentially a dumbed down PC is not 'inexpensive'. The only thing that makes it within reason is that even though far superior hardware is available for about the same price, without Windows, you can't watch this stuff without a Roku.

Re:RTFA ??? Huh

[Jeff321]

The quality of what's available for instant viewing is not very good yet. I browsed the instant library on Netflix for a while and only came up with about 20 movies I wouldn't mind seeing. That said, I may still get this device since I already have a Netflix subscription and the $100 price seems reasonable.

Re:RTFA ??? Huh

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

While there are over ten thousand titles available, it's possible to get through everything you may really enjoy in just a couple of months. Bold highlights added by me. Is this supposed to be the answer for marathon movie watching couch potatoes?

The implication is not that you can watch 10,000 movies in a couple of months, but that there are very few you're interested in watching. There are 260 movies on my Netflix queue. 25 of those are available from this new device to watch instantly. Of those, I need to remove about 15, which are old TV shows available on Hulu.com for free. The remaining 10 are mostly really old, bad movies that are on there for bad movie nights. Seriously, the selection is awful.

Re:RTFA ??? Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Please point me to far superior hardware for $100. (I'm serious! I'd love to setup a media PC if it was only that price.)

Re:RTFA ??? Huh

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

But this device isn't a media pc. It does only one thing. It cannot play movies/tv shows/music you have on your computer.

Re:RTFA ??? Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

To watch instantly on your computer, you'll need a PC meeting the following minimum requirements:

        * Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or higher, or Windows Vista
        * Internet Explorer version 6 or higher
        * Windows Media Player version 11 (DRM version 5145) or later
        * An active broadband connection to the Internet
        * 1.0 GHz processor
        * 512 MB RAM
        * 3 GB free hard disk drive space

For the best experience, we recommend:

        * An active broadband Internet connection of at least 1.5 Mbps
        * 1.5 GHz processor
        * 1 GB RAM

With the exception of Windows, you can easily get all that stuff for ~$150 - and you will have a fully functioning PC, not just a streaming media player.

Re:RTFA ??? Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

You are definitely spot on (especially with Curb your enthusiasm), on the whole idea of watching as much as you can in one sitting.

Re:RTFA ??? Huh

[Spackler]

I am going to agree, and disagree.

When I ordered this thing, there were about 7 movies in my queue that were "Watch it now". Right now I have more than 50 in there. Now I will grant you, these are things I probably would never have put in my regular queue. Old TV like "Adam 12" and Emergency!. Lots of documentaries as well. I am just amazed with the thing. I went from paying over $130 for cable from Comcast to now paying $15 for basic cable and $17 for netflix. It will pay for switching over in a little bit more than two months. Why two months? Because I ordered a second one for the bedroom. When you compare this to HBO and showtime and all the other channels I had before, this just kicks butt. No, it will not replace getting the DVDs of the current stuff, but that is the best part of this whole thing. You still get DVDs in the mail, and other content you get on your TV. Even the quality is good on my 46" LCD (I hardwired the ethernet for the best quality). The only time I have disliked the quality is with "widescreen" regular def content. The zoom on the TV makes that look a bit too fuzzy. Still watchable, but not great.

I never thought I would be a fanboy for anything, but I am now. I like it.

-Spack

So what is the rez on this?

[the eric conspiracy]

Nice puff piece. It doesn't mention what the resolution is or the surround formats it supports (or not). Who is going to want to watch crummy resolution on a 42" screen?

Re:So what is the rez on this?

[daemonburrito]

It's not about "resolution" as you're probably thinking about it. For right now, it is 480p, but that's not what is important.

The amount of compression is varied depending on the speed of the connection. Netflix says it's pretty good at 1.5mbit, and perfect at 4mbit.

Re:So what is the rez on this?

[bsharitt]

Yeah, I was hoping for a bit more content. Right now I'm kind of torn between this and the AppleTV. Sure the AppleTV might theoretically cost more to rent, but I don't watch that many movies and I can stream the media from my PC, which would be a huge thing for me. Right now I'm leaning toward the AppleTV since buying this box would mean I'd still have to come up with something to stream the music and video from my PC.

Re:So what is the rez on this?

[maxume]

How close are they sitting to the screen?

Re:So what is the rez on this?

[the eric conspiracy]

That is what is important to me since I have a 30mbit connection.

I am a little concerned about the selection. It sounds like a bunch of low quality old source material that wouldn't look that great on a HDTV even if they were run through a good video processor.

At the price though it might be worth experimenting with.

Re:So what is the rez on this?

[rthille]

That's one thing the NetFlix box is missing. Actually, the NetFlix box might have the ability, but the PC software certainly hasn't been announced. But there's nothing to stop the hardware from talking to a local 'queue' running on some PC or Mac in the house, serving up whatever video formats the hardware can play. It might involve transcoding your library, either on the fly or in advance, but it seems like that would be a strong selling point to be able to stream your 'legal' home videos or whatever in addition to accessing the Netflix queue.

I had an AppleTV (from Costco for ease of return), and it didn't pass the wife test due to the DVD player, the Tivo, the Receiver, the VHS, etc. That and the fact that Apple crippled the hardware so it wouldn't do composite out without hacking (I'll buy a new TV when my old one dies, thanks), it wasn't worth the hassle at this point. I'd love a software update for our Direct-Tivo (since that's where we get the majority of our content, I don't want to get rid of that box) that would let me stream content from a server in the house, and get NetFlix content as well. I just don't see that happening... Unfortunately, I think the only solution will be a general purpose PC and 'stealing content'.

Re:So what is the rez on this?

[smoker2]

If it can run well in a 4 mbps setting then it could be sent using DVB-T. Be just like satellite but cheaper.

Re:So what is the rez on this?

[tgibbs]

I'd be willing to pay the price for the Apple box, but I don't like per-movie pricing, and restrictions that tell you how long you can wait before watching and that potentially cause you to lose your money if something comes up and you can't finish watching on time are simply unacceptable.

This is a must if you subscribe to Netflix!

[SkipFreethrow]

I ordered one of these the first week they started shipping, and I'm not disappointed. The video quality is as good as your internet connection, unfortunately. If you subscribe to Netflix and enjoy "Watch Now" titles this is a must!

HDMI close to useless for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using one for the last week and my first and biggest problem is no ability to choose between RGB and YUV video off the HDMI port.

That means I now have to manually set the color decode everytime i want to use the device. Now this isn't all Roku's fault as the other offending device is an XBox 360 (It supposedly automatically detects YUV or RGB but it ain't working here). The Apple TV on the otherhand lets me choose between YUV, RGB High, RGB Low and Auto.

Subtitles?

[imag0]

I think that having subtitles in regular movies would be the deal breaker for me. While the review showed a foreign film with subtitles, does anyone know if "normal" films have subtitles as well?

Misspent youth playing in speed metal bands before turning into a hardcore geek has unfortunately robbed me of a nice chunk of my hearing. So, subtitles are a necessity.

Cheers,

imag0

Re:Subtitles?

[Kopiok]

If it's anything like the normal Netflix streaming, there would be no subs.

Re:Subtitles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Misspent youth playing in speed metal bands before turning into a hardcore geek has unfortunately robbed me of a nice chunk of my hearing. So, subtitles are a necessity. So, were you aware that there are these devices called "earplugs" that help prevent hearing loss?

Personally, I like to use a in-ear monitor with Shure E2's. If I turn off the receiver I can hardly hear anything around me so I can keep the monitor volume stays at a safe level.

Re:Subtitles?

[zippthorne]

Clearly, He just didn't care for a while. And then it was too late.

I'm not sure if I would buy *those* plugs though. They look a little wonky.

This breakthrough product is the only one of its kind to deliver flat attenuation of sound for musicians. Flat attenuation enables the wearer to hear the music just as it was intended, with a decrease of up to 20 decibels of potentially damaging noise.

So.. is it flat? or is it up to 20 decibels? What's the frequency range over which it's "flat attenuateion"?

What you want to get is something like E*A*R's superfit 36 (sorry I think that's a store. It was the best link after googling) The important bit is it's "up to" 36 decibels of protection, and the band that gives you a visual indicator of when they're inserted properly.

Re:Subtitles?

[kklein]

Yeah, that's the dealbreaker for me as well, but my industrial band days have only left me incapable of having conversations with background noise (bars, etc.). For me its my wife, who is Japanese. Her English is decent, but I have to hit "pause" to catch her up a lot less if she has both auditory and visual linguistic input.

Here in Japan, talk shows and reality shows tend to subtitle all the funny/important comments for effect, and I, too, find that that often makes the difference between "Huh?" and "Ha-ha."

Advantages over computer - HDTV?

[Izabael_DaJinn]

What I don't understand: is there any advantage to this box over just having my computer output directly to my HDTV (in my case with HDMI) and using full screen with the streaming player on the Netflix website?

The review says we need to use a computer anyway to add things to the queue.

Are people just too dumb to buy a cable for their computer to output to their HDTV? I assume there are some hidden advantages I'm missing? I didn't see anything that says the resolution is higher with the box. Is it?

Re:Advantages over computer - HDTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

This box is $100, requires no OS, mouse or keyboard. My computer is in the office, my TV in then den, and they are on opposite ends of the house. I really don't have the desire not the inclination to build yet another power-hungry computer to put in the den.

Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Re:Advantages over computer - HDTV?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What I don't understand: is there any advantage to this box over just having my computer output directly to my HDTV (in my case with HDMI) and using full screen with the streaming player on the Netflix website?

You don't have to have your computer in the same room as your TV. You can use a remote control to select movies, play them, pause, etc.

Are people just too dumb to buy a cable for their computer to output to their HDTV?

Not everyone has or wants to have a computer in their living room, or an extra computer sucking down electricity. It's fine for us geeks, but not necessarily for other people. It's not a matter of being "dumb" just priorities.

Re:Advantages over computer - HDTV?

[Kopiok]

Not everybody has a PC handy right by their movie-watching TV.

Re:Advantages over computer - HDTV?

[BoogeyOfTheMan]

Yes, sadly, people ARE that stupid. I work in retail electronics and most customers are unaware that you can hook up an HDTV to most modern pc's easily. I even have customers that know you can hook up an HDTV to a pc, but assume it has to have a monitor port on the back of the tv, so they disregard every other tv for ones that "can be used as a monitor". I'd be lucky to find 3 customers in a month that even knew what a dvi port was, much less if thier pc has one.

But honestly, the big advantage to this box is that most people dont keep thier pc anywhere near thier main viewing tv. Unlike most /. readers who would probably build a second (or 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) pc to play media on thier tv.

Re:Advantages over computer - HDTV?

[Robert1]

In the real world - i.e. not in your room in your parent's house - people don't have their computer sitting in the living room by the TV.

I've noticed a certain lack of critical though on Slashdot lately. I mean really, you could have answered your own comment if you had thought about it for just a moment. Really thought about it, like ran through your head situations where people have different living situations/setups than you. You would have had your answer.

This is a comment in line with people who bitch at people bitching about high gas prices cause they ride their bike 8 miles a day to work. "Why would anyone possibly need a car," and "everyone should just bike to work." Its like, people think that everyone must be exactly like them - no family, non-professional job, snow-less southeastern US, and young. They have no capacity to think critically and put themselves in someone else's shoes or see the situation from a perspective that isn't theirs.

Just think for a fucking second and realize the rest of the world isn't you.

Re:Advantages over computer - HDTV?

[daemonburrito]

Netflix is forced to use drm. I try to keep a drm-free box. Also, IIRC, it is Windows-only.

So, to answer your questions: 1. No, unless you don't have/want a windows box with drm crap down to the metal. 2. See (1).

Re:Advantages over computer - HDTV?

[Izabael_DaJinn]

Really thought about it, like ran through your head situations where people have different living situations/setups than you. You would have had your answer.

Oh sure that sounds innocuous enough, but that can only lead to reading my posts before I hit submit, which is the gateway into spell checking, and before you know it, I'm actually RTFA before I post. It's a downward spiral.

Re:Advantages over computer - HDTV?

[Helmholtz Coil]

Yep, that's why I'm seriously thinking about picking it up for my wife-no Instant Viewing on Macs, Linux, or anything Not Windows. So in reference to a comment above-it doesn't matter how technically savvy she or I or the neighbors are if we don't have Windows machines.

I suppose it'd be different if I had a virtual Windows machine somewhere, but as I don't it seems to me that the startup costs for us to use Instant Viewing favor Roku.

Re:Advantages over computer - HDTV?

[Dark_Gravity]

In the real world - i.e. not in your room in your parent's house - people don't have their computer sitting in the living room by the TV.

Somebody better alert Microsoft so they can recall their Media Center edition. While you are at it, you might as well inform HP customers that their Media Center PCs were not intended to be hooked up to TVs despite the TV I/O jacks and the wireless remote control.

Why can't

[Jinjuku]

Why can't Netflix come out with a killer MS Media Center plug in? They went through all this effort to get a $99 box to market, but can't get a sanctioned plug-in for MCE out in the market place? For now I am using MyNetFlix. It does a good job, but could be perfect with a little help from MS/Netflix.

Re:Why can't

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The MyNetFlix guy got a job offer from NetFlix because of the plugin, and they're allowing him to work on it in his free time. Not 'official' support, but there are people behind the scenes at NetFlix who want to see that plugin working.

A GUI That Actually Works?

[mrpacmanjel]

Judging by the review they seem to have discovered the 'Zen of GUI' - keep the interface as simple as you can - only include what is necessary to use the device.

Apple seem to understand this as well.

I think that software developers and GUI designers can learn some lessons here (me included).

What's the point

[actionbastard]

With broadband service providers like Comcast and Time-Warner preparing to impose usurious tiered pricing on users, 'All-you-can-eat' services like Netflix look like a bargain compared to something like this.

My review of the Roku...

[jafo]

I've had my box since Tuesday. Overall I'm very happy with it. It's inexpensive, and on my cable modem the quality is reasonable, though it will step down if I'm doing a big download.

The box works up to my expectations, with one exception... It's tied to the remote servers. In most cases, where you're watching a movie, this isn't really an issue.

However, I've had the box 5 days, and last night late the Netflix servers that hand out the video were down. We'll see how frequently that happens.

The other place it comes up is when you're seeking. It has a nice interface where you see stills go by as you are seeking forward or back, but once you select it you then have to wait for it to re-spool the data. Even if you seek forward 30 seconds (the buffer seems to hold several minutes) it will still take a while after seeking to start playing.

It's a great box, but as soon as they have one that I can stick an 8GB memory card in, or a hard drive, or the software for the PS-3, I'll be ready to switch.

By my calculations it's around 600 to 900MB/hour. So even a 2 or 4GB SD card should be able to do pretty nicely. Grab a full movie or two at full resolution, instead of having to stream it it could suck it down at a slower speed, seek more responsively, and hopefully not be so dependent on the Netflix server if it's down for a bit.

So, in short: I really like it, but I'm looking forward to the next rev.

Sean

Re:My review of the Roku...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

From what I've read, it only has 32MB of storage, so if there's a hiccup in your connection, you're buffering.

Re:My review of the Roku...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like the best answer is software to capture the video being streamed by NetFlix service for later playback. Then you do not even need a Roku. Just use VLC and playback the video on any of your devices on your home network. Should be trivial to add a server to playback wherever you are outside your home network as well.

Enjoy it while you can

[nurb432]

Once we go back to pay-per-byte internet, you might as well drive up to blockbuster, it will be cheaper.

Re:Enjoy it while you can

[freedom_india]

Yup.
The product is too good: But AT&T, verizon and COmcast will kill it.
Netflix has been the one company which has fiercely focussed on customers instead of quarterly profits and pleasing the wallstreet flip-crowd.
I was a customer for 2 long years, and once am back in US, i plan to resume it.
I was looking forward to Roku, but...now i guess Netflix is going to hit because the blood-sucking vampires at Comcast/Verizon/AT&T think that reducing service is better than providing better service at higher cost.

Killed by Comcast

[Nom du Keyboard]

Comcast is all set to kill Roku.

1: Claim to only "delay" Bittorrent traffic while actually killing it with reset packages.

2: When called on the carpet by the FCC, claim that you were only taking "reasonable network management" approaches.

3: Pretend to appease the FCC by claiming in the future that you will "slow all net traffic equally" when managing your network.

4: Heavy users (i.e. those streaming videos to RoKu) find this 8Mbs promised and paid for bandwidth reduced to <800Kbs rendering RoKu unable to stream. And with no onboard storage, no preloading of content ahead of viewing.

5: When Comcast video services are never slowed no matter how contested the network becomes, poo poo critics as oversensitive wusses.

6: PROFIT!

Re:Killed by Comcast

[Technician]

Comcast is all set to kill Roku.

The good news is Qwest is all set to kill Comcast. If you don't subscribe to the Comcast triple play package (TV, Telephone, Internet) and just get the Internet, they soak you about $60/month. Qwest is running DSL fiber in our area with prices close to $35, Comcast is toast as soon as Qwest can hook me up.

XBMC anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this likely to be hacked to run XBMC? It would be a great box to use as a player for *local* (LAN) content as it is cheap, but seems to have enough grunt. Would it be able to do 1080 from H.264?

Closed system

[Anonymous Coward]

Roku previously sold "hackable" set-top boxes and supported outside developers, but they're keeping this one closed. They cite the usual suspects: DRM, MAFFIA, etc. Hopefully somebody will figure out how to reflash the firmware and open it up.

One has to understand...

[Quiet_Desperation]

...that this is a work in progress. I love mine, and for now it will let me catch up on shows I missed (I'm a SF fan who has yet to watch the new Dr. Who, and there is it available for streaming!) and there's a pile of classic old SF films available. I may watch Soylent Green next week. Love that film. For recent stuff I have my 2 DVDs out at a time. Getting this box doesn't stop your ability to get DVDs.

Netflix is working licensing issues, and the Roku team is free to allow other sources to stream to their little box- hulu would be a good next step. It can only get better.

No subtitles; No menu features

[ahbi]

OK, first off I love Netflix Video On Demand feature. It was in fact one of the main reasons I setup my Media Center.
I suggest either Anthony Perkin's (IIRC) MyNetflix plugin or the better vmcNetflix plugin (both for Vista)

But here is the deal:
What you get is essentially VHS. Both in terms of features & resolution.
No subsitiles option (forgien you have them; English you don't)
No menus and therefore no special features.

Selection:
This is an odd mix.
You don't have the full Netflix selection.
New releases are hit and miss. It really depends on what the studios let Netflix put on there.
The selection compaired to other VoD systems is very good. Especially the TV shows (which aren't in HD anyhow).
Also I al amazed by how quickly they are adding titles to the VoD service

So, Netflix VoD is not a replacement for TV.
Or cable VoD services (for new releases)
However, with your normal Netflix subscription (~$15) it is free. And that makes a huge difference.
Now I have a massive selection of shows I can watch anytime I want. I have access to TV shows that really aren't rerun anymore.

Re:No subtitles; No menu features

[Anonymous Coward]

What you get is essentially VHS. Both in terms of features & resolution.

I strongly disagree. I'm feeding my Roku Netflix box into a 720p TV, and it looks a hell of a lot better than the VCR next to it.

The theoretical max is similar, true, but the fact of the matter is that most VHS tapes are way below their theoretical best.

advantage over plugging laptop into TV?

[pruss]

Is there an advantage over just plugging one's laptop's TV-out into the TV, and plugging speakers into the laptop?

Re:advantage over plugging laptop into TV?

[Jeremy Erwin]

You mean besides ergonomics and convenience?

I used to use my laptop as a dvd player. Somehow the act of plugging everything in, turning off the screensaver, rooting around for the proper cables, making sure that the remote control's software was actually working etc really took the spontaneity out of watching a movie.

Re:advantage over plugging laptop into TV?

[PhotoGuy]

Is there an advantage over just plugging one's laptop's TV-out into the TV, and plugging speakers into the laptop?

Yes, you don't have to plug your laptop's TV-out into the TV, nor do you have to plug speakers into your laptop!

Re:advantage over plugging laptop into TV?

[Renraku]

You can still use your laptop. The movie might be in 5.1 but most likely its going to come out as 2.1 or 2 from your laptop.

Also, if you're going to do that, just get something like a PS3 and stream the movie from a wireless-capable PC or fileserver type of setup..that way you can have your 5.1 cake, your laptop, and don't have to deal with cords.

How about: needs a regular Netflix account anyway

[triplej]

So, I have a Roku, and after the hardware cost, it doesn't cost me anything over and above my regular subscription. Roku means I can clear my queue for all the older movies they offer on instant view.

This has the capability of cutting my queue down by about a third. Only 100 or so movies to go!

Was what that supposed to be?

[Casandro]

What was that supposed to be?
First of all, there are no real $20 HDMI cables. If you see one for that price rest asured that the shop bought it for less than $5 and the company which sold it from the shop got it from China for far less than $1 a piece.

Then second, what did we learn? Barely nothing! We only learned that that device exists and works. He didn't even open it.

And what about AppleTV?

[owndao]

I'm sorry if I missed something but what about AppleTV: (most of this is straight off of their site) stand-alone unit works with widescreen, enhanced-definition, or high-definition TVs capable of:

1080p/i 60/50 Hz
720p 60/50Hz
576p 50Hz (PAL format)
480p 60Hzt;
connects to internet via wired or wireless network 802.11n draft; iTunes video library including YouTube, TV shows, music (no commercials); hookup HDMI to HDMI cable or
HDMI to DVI cable and analog stereo or optical digital audio or
Component video cable and analog stereo or optical digital audio;
40 GB - $229, 160 GB - $329; access to an iTunes account (is that thru the AppleTV? seems so). What is the major problem with this setup? Sincerely. I seek some enlightenment...