Slashdot Mirror
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).
Wow
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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?
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.
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!
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.
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?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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
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.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
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?
Careful What You Wish For....
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).
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.
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.
Sig this!
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.
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.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
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.
:D
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.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
The difference is that not every movie NetFlix has is available for instant watching.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
"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.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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.
Then it sounds like Netflix isn't for you. Your needs might be better served by an OnDemand service, or your local video store.
There's always the people who leave a movie sitting in their house for months until they're ready to watch it.
One guy abuses a service (one which the content producers actually get a cut of.) Therefore, restrictions on legal behavior are deserved.
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
Once we go back to pay-per-byte internet, you might as well drive up to blockbuster, it will be cheaper.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
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.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
...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.
Sounds like you need the "1 at-a-time plan" where you can rent up to two DVDs a month... for $5...
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
As a side note, is it legal to borrow three books from your local library, photocopy all the pages and then return them?
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.
Is there an advantage over just plugging one's laptop's TV-out into the TV, and plugging speakers into the laptop?
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.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
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!
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
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.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"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.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
You actually CAN copy whatever you like. It just might not be legal.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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?
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
"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.
"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.
...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.
My video compression blog
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).
"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.
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.
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!
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?
No, I will not work for your startup
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 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.
The truth shall set you free!
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.
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 Hz720p 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...
Be as you would have the world become.