If I were a Roku guy, I'd stick with my old Roku instead. Luckily I'm an Apple TV guy so I don't have to worry about it.
What Apple TV does need this next go-round is a browser. I thought it was dumb before, because you can simply mirror- but after being in a hotel and trying to connect my Apple TV to their wifi- what a beating. The majority of hotels I stay at you need to "log in" to their wifi- not just with a simple password, but through safari. Currently- I have to connect my MacBook to the internet via wifi/safari, and share my ethernet connection with my Apple TV. Not elegant to say the least.
I am so freakin giddy for the refresh- lets bring it already Apple- what could possibly be the hold up?
What's there to worry about? Roku is not ceasing production nor support for the 'old' Roku. This is just another option.
What's there to worry about? Roku is not ceasing production nor support for the 'old' Roku. This is just another option.
That was my point. I'd rather spend the extra $49 and stick with a Roku 3.
But I don't understand their point. Outside of looking like the Chromecast- it doesnt do what the Chromecast does. The only benefit to this vs the $49 Roku box is that it is a little more portable? Not sure that was worth the R&D/packaging costs though...
That was my point. I'd rather spend the extra $49 and stick with a Roku 3.
But I don't understand their point. Outside of looking like the Chromecast- it doesnt do what the Chromecast does. The only benefit to this vs the $49 Roku box is that it is a little more portable? Not sure that was worth the R&D/packaging costs though...
If one can cast YouTube to it from a smartphone and/or tablet then it does exactly what the Chromecast can do. Google removed the YouTube app from the Roku a few years ago. I do however see your point and I'd say that they should have added the casting functionality to their current lineup.
If one can cast YouTube to it from a smartphone and/or tablet then it does exactly what the Chromecast can do. Google removed the YouTube app from the Roku a few years ago. I do however see your point and I'd say that they should have added the casting functionality to their current lineup.
Forgive me if I have this messed up- haven't ever used a Chromecast- but doesn't chromecast allow you to "mirror" anything on the Chrome browser to your TV? Say I was watching a rerun of Survivor on CBS' webpage- I could stream that similarly to Airplay (although a more inferior version).
Forgive me if I have this messed up- haven't ever used a Chromecast- but doesn't chromecast allow you to "mirror" anything on the Chrome browser to your TV? Say I was watching a rerun of Survivor on CBS' webpage- I could stream that similarly to Airplay (although a more inferior version).
You know, I didn't think about it that way because I've only used my smartphone to cast to it, so the Roku will accept casting from a smartphone/tablet, but not from a computer. I was wrong in saying that Roku is 'exactly' like the Chromecast. It's missing some functionality while adding different ones.
Forgive me if I have this messed up- haven't ever used a Chromecast- but doesn't chromecast allow you to "mirror" anything on the Chrome browser to your TV? Say I was watching a rerun of Survivor on CBS' webpage- I could stream that similarly to Airplay (although a more inferior version).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You know, I didn't think about it that way because I've only used my smartphone to cast to it, so the Roku will accept casting from a smartphone/tablet, but not from a computer. I was wrong in saying that Roku is 'exactly' like the Chromecast. It's missing some functionality while adding different ones.
I have one. And you can, yes, cast from the Chrome Browser on PC's and Macs - but (oddly) NOT from from the Chrome browser on phones. Weird since they're both Google web deals.
However, you're not mirroring. The original device hands the URL to the Chromecast which is basically a headless Android device, and once started, it takes over streaming duties, allowing you to return to any other app or task on your computer or phone. Which is a nice feature.
And you can then go back to that URL on your device to shut off the cast or otherwise control it. This includes being able to add other castable content to a play queue.
(Note: if you quit and restart the app you started the cast from, you lose control and have to let it play out or restart a new cast, etc. or even, I suppose, physically reboot the CC....)
Casting from Play Music or YouTube from your phone (or any visiting friend's Android phone - dunno about iPhones) - will route your music through your TV's sound system, no other apps or configuration required except joining your home LAN.
You can also cast Netflix and a few others - plus YouTube. And I believe they've just released API's that other developers can use to add casting capability. The number of cast sources is really quite limited for now, though.
PS: YouTube casting really pisses me off: Lots of vids that will play on your computer and phone are prohibited from being cast. Which basically makes your playlists pretty useless. I don't see what the DRM obsessed content owners find more egregious about putting music on a big screen than on other devices (with screens of any size) they allow it to play on....
hmm.. interesting. Honestly never felt Bluetooth was a need for myself personally. Not sure what it would give me that I can't already do with IR and/or Wifi. It might be interesting to have it, but since I don't know why I need it, I honestly can't see how I am in desperately need of it.
Not needing line of sight is such a pleasure. Never one having to point my PS3 remote at the Playstation; a pleasure. We've an ornamental table in the centre of our living room which never cause signal issue to the TV and PS3, but does the Apple TV.
To me the biggest problem with the Apple IR remote is that it is so small it is easily lost. On the positive side, the AppleTV "learn 3rd party IR remote" allows you to use other remotes. For line of site, problems Wifi works for me. However, I can see a point where you want to use bundled remote instead of expensive iDevice as remote. To be fair, AppleTV does support Bluetooth input devices. You may use Bluetooth Keyboard for example if you like. Given the choice of losing the AppleTV IR remote and being able to use any 3rd party remote, vs losing an AppleTV Bluetooth remote and having to replace it with a 3rd party Bluetooth remote, I'll take the IR path. YMMV.
Roku consoles are still the market leader here. Many brands have adopted the Roku interface in their smart TVs. Apple TV is good only when you buy a lot of media from iTunes. But then Android share is way higher than that of IOS.
Roku announced April 2013 that they have sold 5 million units since launch in 2008 with Apple having sold 13 million. Your chart isn't close to correct as it's based off a study of 10,000 US households.
I really don't understand what your angle is- you're pretty anti-apple. Did you even read the article where you got that chart- it clearly says apple is the largest share. Here. Read again.
The company can’t keep up with Apple (AAPL), which sold 13 million Apple TVs worldwide by the end of May, with 6.5 million of those sales coming in the previous 12 months. Roku announced earlier in 2013 that it had sold 5 million of its devices in the U.S. over the past five years; the company says comparing its sales to Apple’s doesn’t make sense because of Apple’s global reach, but wouldn’t provide its own global numbers.
Roku announced April 2013 that they have sold 5 million units since launch in 2008 with Apple having sold 13 million. Your chart isn't close to correct as it's based off a study of 10,000 US households.
Actually I'm not anti-Apple. Apple sales are worldwide whereas the Roku is sold only in the US. I was just showing the stats of where they compete head to head. You gotta admit that out of all of Apple's competitors Roku is the strongest. It had an agreement with TWC months before Apple did.
Whatever, I got a roku and an apple tV. Took the roku back a few days later. Clunky- NOT APPLE at all. ?TV was by far a better experience. Roku was so cheap ass clunky, I would have been embarrassed to show anyone.
BTW, I know 6 houses with ?TV in my neighborhood- none with roku. If there is one here, they are too embarrassed to admit it. Cant blame them, its human nature to feel that way when you buy/use inferior things.
Actually I'm not anti-Apple. Apple sales are worldwide whereas the Roku is sold only in the US. I was just showing the stats of where they compete head to head. You gotta admit that out of all of Apple's competitors Roku is the strongest. It had an agreement with TWC months before Apple did.
Of course it's the strongest- as shown in my chart above. I also like the idea of a lot if their things- such as their headphones in remote.
I'm just trying to keep the facts straight- and not skewed. 13 mil is bigger than 5 mil (I'm sure there is an even larger disparity now).
So again- for anyone out there curious- apple is the leader in both sales of hardware and media by a very, very healthy margin.
Of course it's the strongest- as shown in my chart above. I also like the idea of a lot if their things- such as their headphones in remote.
I'm just trying to keep the facts straight- and not skewed. 13 mil is bigger than 5 mil (I'm sure there is an even larger disparity now).
So again- for anyone out there curious- apple is the leader in both sales of hardware and media by a very, very healthy margin.
Yes 13 million is more than 5 mil but you're doing what androiders are criticized of doing, and that's comparing unequal markets. The ATV is available to a far greater number of people. Don't just look at the numbers at face value, I'm quite impressed that Roku has sold that many since they're virtually unknown, don't make other devices, and barely advertise. One doesn't have to be anti-Apple to see that this goldfish of a company has done quite well against a whale of a company like Apple.
I have one. And you can, yes, cast from the Chrome Browser on PC's and Macs - but (oddly) NOT from from the Chrome browser on phones. Weird since they're both Google web deals.
Yes 13 million is more than 5 mil but you're doing what androiders are criticized of doing, and that's comparing unequal markets. The ATV is available to a far greater number of people. Don't just look at the numbers at face value, I'm quite impressed that Roku has sold that many since they're virtually unknown, don't make other devices, and barely advertise. One doesn't have to be anti-Apple to see that this goldfish of a company has done quite well against a whale of a company like Apple.
you are wrong about the comparison. Apple peeps disagree with comparing the sales of a lone Apple product - an iPhone - against all the hardware firms that use android.
The comparison of Apple TV sales in the US against that of the Roku is fine. As is the comparison of iPhones to Samsung smartphones. One product against another.
But remember, as Andysol pointed out a few posts up , Apple is by far the leader in sales of ?TV hardware and media.
Comments
What's there to worry about? Roku is not ceasing production nor support for the 'old' Roku. This is just another option.
What's there to worry about? Roku is not ceasing production nor support for the 'old' Roku. This is just another option.
That was my point. I'd rather spend the extra $49 and stick with a Roku 3.
But I don't understand their point. Outside of looking like the Chromecast- it doesnt do what the Chromecast does. The only benefit to this vs the $49 Roku box is that it is a little more portable? Not sure that was worth the R&D/packaging costs though...
If one can cast YouTube to it from a smartphone and/or tablet then it does exactly what the Chromecast can do. Google removed the YouTube app from the Roku a few years ago. I do however see your point and I'd say that they should have added the casting functionality to their current lineup.
If one can cast YouTube to it from a smartphone and/or tablet then it does exactly what the Chromecast can do. Google removed the YouTube app from the Roku a few years ago. I do however see your point and I'd say that they should have added the casting functionality to their current lineup.
Forgive me if I have this messed up- haven't ever used a Chromecast- but doesn't chromecast allow you to "mirror" anything on the Chrome browser to your TV? Say I was watching a rerun of Survivor on CBS' webpage- I could stream that similarly to Airplay (although a more inferior version).
You know, I didn't think about it that way because I've only used my smartphone to cast to it, so the Roku will accept casting from a smartphone/tablet, but not from a computer. I was wrong in saying that Roku is 'exactly' like the Chromecast. It's missing some functionality while adding different ones.
What's with the silly obsession of a device having to kill another one in order to do well?
Drama queens everywhere.
Forgive me if I have this messed up- haven't ever used a Chromecast- but doesn't chromecast allow you to "mirror" anything on the Chrome browser to your TV? Say I was watching a rerun of Survivor on CBS' webpage- I could stream that similarly to Airplay (although a more inferior version).
Quote:
You know, I didn't think about it that way because I've only used my smartphone to cast to it, so the Roku will accept casting from a smartphone/tablet, but not from a computer. I was wrong in saying that Roku is 'exactly' like the Chromecast. It's missing some functionality while adding different ones.
I have one. And you can, yes, cast from the Chrome Browser on PC's and Macs - but (oddly) NOT from from the Chrome browser on phones. Weird since they're both Google web deals.
However, you're not mirroring. The original device hands the URL to the Chromecast which is basically a headless Android device, and once started, it takes over streaming duties, allowing you to return to any other app or task on your computer or phone. Which is a nice feature.
And you can then go back to that URL on your device to shut off the cast or otherwise control it. This includes being able to add other castable content to a play queue.
(Note: if you quit and restart the app you started the cast from, you lose control and have to let it play out or restart a new cast, etc. or even, I suppose, physically reboot the CC....)
Casting from Play Music or YouTube from your phone (or any visiting friend's Android phone - dunno about iPhones) - will route your music through your TV's sound system, no other apps or configuration required except joining your home LAN.
You can also cast Netflix and a few others - plus YouTube. And I believe they've just released API's that other developers can use to add casting capability. The number of cast sources is really quite limited for now, though.
PS: YouTube casting really pisses me off: Lots of vids that will play on your computer and phone are prohibited from being cast. Which basically makes your playlists pretty useless. I don't see what the DRM obsessed content owners find more egregious about putting music on a big screen than on other devices (with screens of any size) they allow it to play on....
hmm.. interesting. Honestly never felt Bluetooth was a need for myself personally. Not sure what it would give me that I can't already do with IR and/or Wifi. It might be interesting to have it, but since I don't know why I need it, I honestly can't see how I am in desperately need of it.
Not needing line of sight is such a pleasure. Never one having to point my PS3 remote at the Playstation; a pleasure. We've an ornamental table in the centre of our living room which never cause signal issue to the TV and PS3, but does the Apple TV.
To me the biggest problem with the Apple IR remote is that it is so small it is easily lost. On the positive side, the AppleTV "learn 3rd party IR remote" allows you to use other remotes. For line of site, problems Wifi works for me. However, I can see a point where you want to use bundled remote instead of expensive iDevice as remote. To be fair, AppleTV does support Bluetooth input devices. You may use Bluetooth Keyboard for example if you like. Given the choice of losing the AppleTV IR remote and being able to use any 3rd party remote, vs losing an AppleTV Bluetooth remote and having to replace it with a 3rd party Bluetooth remote, I'll take the IR path. YMMV.
If they get the price down to about $5 the Android users might jump on this for their home TVs, oh wait ... do they have internet at home?
is $5 with or without the batteries for the remote?
Roku consoles are still the market leader here. Many brands have adopted the Roku interface in their smart TVs. Apple TV is good only when you buy a lot of media from iTunes. But then Android share is way higher than that of IOS.
In what way? Because if it's sales of units or sales of media on the unit- Apple TV is the clear cut winner- by a healthy margin.
Roku announced April 2013 that they have sold 5 million units since launch in 2008 with Apple having sold 13 million. Your chart isn't close to correct as it's based off a study of 10,000 US households.
http://gigaom.com/2013/04/10/roku-five-million-players-sold/
I really don't understand what your angle is- you're pretty anti-apple. Did you even read the article where you got that chart- it clearly says apple is the largest share. Here. Read again. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-25/rokus-survival-takes-more-than-beating-apple-tv
Please stop spreading mistruths.
Actually I'm not anti-Apple. Apple sales are worldwide whereas the Roku is sold only in the US. I was just showing the stats of where they compete head to head. You gotta admit that out of all of Apple's competitors Roku is the strongest. It had an agreement with TWC months before Apple did.
Whatever, I got a roku and an apple tV. Took the roku back a few days later. Clunky- NOT APPLE at all. ?TV was by far a better experience. Roku was so cheap ass clunky, I would have been embarrassed to show anyone.
BTW, I know 6 houses with ?TV in my neighborhood- none with roku. If there is one here, they are too embarrassed to admit it. Cant blame them, its human nature to feel that way when you buy/use inferior things.
Of course it's the strongest- as shown in my chart above. I also like the idea of a lot if their things- such as their headphones in remote.
I'm just trying to keep the facts straight- and not skewed. 13 mil is bigger than 5 mil (I'm sure there is an even larger disparity now).
So again- for anyone out there curious- apple is the leader in both sales of hardware and media by a very, very healthy margin.
Yes 13 million is more than 5 mil but you're doing what androiders are criticized of doing, and that's comparing unequal markets. The ATV is available to a far greater number of people. Don't just look at the numbers at face value, I'm quite impressed that Roku has sold that many since they're virtually unknown, don't make other devices, and barely advertise. One doesn't have to be anti-Apple to see that this goldfish of a company has done quite well against a whale of a company like Apple.
It seems like you can now.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/05/chrome-34-beta-android/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget&ncid=rss_semi
Yes 13 million is more than 5 mil but you're doing what androiders are criticized of doing, and that's comparing unequal markets. The ATV is available to a far greater number of people. Don't just look at the numbers at face value, I'm quite impressed that Roku has sold that many since they're virtually unknown, don't make other devices, and barely advertise. One doesn't have to be anti-Apple to see that this goldfish of a company has done quite well against a whale of a company like Apple.
you are wrong about the comparison. Apple peeps disagree with comparing the sales of a lone Apple product - an iPhone - against all the hardware firms that use android.
The comparison of Apple TV sales in the US against that of the Roku is fine. As is the comparison of iPhones to Samsung smartphones. One product against another.
But remember, as Andysol pointed out a few posts up , Apple is by far the leader in sales of ?TV hardware and media.