# Tech input request --ROKU HD vs. Chromecast



## theo (Aug 9, 2013)

I am always a bit reluctant to openly reveal my virtually *boundless* technological ignorance, but this seems to be a somewhat forgiving, knowledgeable and helpful crowd, so here goes... 

1. My goals are modest; I basically just want to be able to stream the occasional Netflix movie to / on my large and decent quality flat screen TV. I have neither the time nor interest to be doing much more than that anyhow. I don't care about YouTube downloads, Pandora, Hulu Plus, etc. Good, strong and operational dual band WiFi router is already within 12- max 15 feet of the TV (although they are on two different floors).  

2. The Chromecast "dongle" requires an available HDMI port and also, if one wants to get adequate power for the "dongle" without actually plugging it in separately to a.c. outlet, it apparently needs an available USB port on the TV as well. Yes, I do have both ports available for use and currently vacant on the TV, located within a *very* few inches of one another. I like the idea of minimizing additional cable clutter, already nearing operational max with cable box, DVD player, etc. 

3. ROKU HD (...currently) offers considerably more features --- I certainly get that. I don't much care about the +/- $15 price difference of the ROKU HD above the $35 Chromecast. However, having never seen one in use, it is entirely unclear to me just how the ROKU unit's ""puck" is powered. Same option as the Chromecast dongle (HDMI and USB ports) or does the ROKU of necessity need to plug directly into a.c. outlet for power?

Any thoughts, observations or suggestions from current ROKU (or Chromecast) users would be welcomed and much appreciated.


----------



## slum808 (Aug 9, 2013)

I've had my Chromecast for a little over a week now. Play with it a little in Google play, youtube, and netflix. All seem to work well. I streamed a disney movie from netflix and it looked great, no hickups. I've previously tried to stream netflix from my bluray player and had frequent buffering or drops to SD. Chromecast had none of these. I select what to watch on the Chromecast from either my laptop or Motorola Xoom Android tablet. Once the selection starts, I put the tablet back into standby. I've previously used an mini HDMI cable from the tablet and it had to stay on the whole time. 

So, if all you want is netflix, I think the Chromecast is a good solution.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 9, 2013)

The ROKU HD is 1080P and as I understand the current iteration of Chromecast is 720P. The Chromecast requires you use Google Chrome browser as a 'remote control', ROKU includes one that has pause, rewind etc. Both have a power block to plug in to your A/C receptacle, so no difference there. ROKU has a multitude of hookup options including HDMI, optical, RCI cables, whatever you have, it'll accommodate. 

Not saying that next week, Chromecast won't address all the differences. That's the way of technology. It's just that THIS week, there is no reason to change.

I may have misunderstood whether you already have ROKU, but if you do, I don't see a burning need to replace it. Mine works perfectly, and streams (very smoothly and at 1080P) waaaay more video sources than I have either eyes or time to look at.

Jim


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 9, 2013)

theo said:


> I am always a bit reluctant to openly reveal my virtually *boundless* technological ignorance, but this seems to be a somewhat forgiving, knowledgeable and helpful crowd, so here goes...



Optimist!



> 1. My goals are modest; I basically just want to be able to stream the occasional Netflix movie to / on my large and decent quality flat screen TV. I have neither the time nor interest to be doing much more than that anyhow. I don't care about YouTube downloads, Pandora, Hulu Plus, etc. Good, strong and operational dual band WiFi router is already within 12- max 15 feet of the TV (although they are on two different floors).
> 
> 2. The Chromecast "dongle" requires an available HDMI port and also, if one wants to get adequate power for the "dongle" without actually plugging it in separately to a.c. outlet, it apparently needs an available USB port on the TV as well. Yes, I do have both ports available for use and currently vacant on the TV, located within a *very* few inches of one another. I like the idea of minimizing additional cable clutter, already nearing operational max with cable box, DVD player, etc.



I suspect the Chromecast may be an ideal solution for you.



> 3. ROKU HD (...currently) offers considerably more features --- I certainly get that. I don't much care about the +/- $15 price difference of the ROKU HD above the $35 Chromecast. However, having never seen one in use, it is entirely unclear to me just how the ROKU unit's ""puck" is powered. Same option as the Chromecast dongle (HDMI and USB ports) or does the ROKU of necessity need to plug directly into a.c. outlet for power?



Actually, the Roku 2 XD is $79, and supports 1080p. The Roku HD only supports 720p. 



> Any thoughts, observations or suggestions from current ROKU (or Chromecast) users would be welcomed and much appreciated.



All devices except the Chromecast include a standard power cable for a wall outlet. Specifically, all Roku and Apple TV products.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 9, 2013)

My additional thoughts here.
Chromecast is version 1, Roku is Version 3.  Roku has a strong following and an incredibly robust Netflix streamer.  I can stream netflix from my BD player, my PC and my Tivo and my Roku.  Roku wins hands down for quality and reliability of HD streaming.  I don't own chromecast but if what you want is a Netflix streamer, today, I would go with Roku.

It needs an HDMI on the TV and a spare power socket for the wall wart transformer.

Roku comes with a remote rather than requiring you fire up your smart phone/PC/whatever to go to netflix and throw it to the chromecast.  For the technologically challenged that could be a great benefit.  The remote is easy to use.

The latest Roku also has a bluetooth remote and the ability to plug headphones into the remote for late night headphone listening.  This may be a good thing, or may not interest you but is worth noting.

Roku probably gets 50% of the viewing hours in our living room.

720 vs 1080.  Depending on the size of the TV you probably won't notice.  1080 is necessary above 42in.  Below that at viewing distance you are hard pressed to tell the difference.

Wow thats more than I thought I would add.

and more.  Minimizing cable clutter, you can hang the Roku off the back of the TV with this.
http://www.amazon.com/TotalMount-RO...TF8&qid=1376086110&sr=8-1&keywords=roku+mount


----------



## theo (Aug 9, 2013)

*Thanks!*

All of the above input is sincerely appreciated. Based upon same, I'm going with the remote equipped, 1080p capable ROKU. In regard to the Chromecast, I don't really want to have to dig out and involve my laptop just to watch an occasional Netflix movie --- and I don't yet even own a smart phone to use as a "controller".

The after-market decluttering device suggestion for the ROKU "puck" is also very much appreciated. 

I just hope there is still a "vacancy" left for still another device "occupant" on that very busy power strip currently in place for the TV, DVD player, cable box, lamp, etc. I'd better check... 

Thanks again, folks!


----------



## SmithOp (Aug 9, 2013)

The one thing you didn't provide is the speed of the Internet connection to your wifi router, what internet service are you using and speed level?  Since the router is so close to the TV the slowest link will be your ISP, regardless of which device you choose.  

I am lucky to have a 30mb fiber connection, we frequently have several streams running at full resolution with no buffering. I've had friends staying over that have DSL and were amazed using my connection, theirs were lower res and buffered a lot.


----------



## Mosca (Aug 9, 2013)

I know you've already made your decision. I'll just add that I started with one Roku, and now I have three. And I've given a fourth as a (well received) gift. My 85yo dad uses the Roku.

That isn't saying anything bad about Chromecast, a device I know nothing about. For $35, I'm sure I'll have one eventually, if not soon.


----------



## rfc0001 (Aug 9, 2013)

Just to add -- I couldn't resist since I'm a long time Roku user, and when I saw Chromecast, and everyone's panties in a collective bind, I was basically looking at what Roku had 6 years ago but slightly smaller and more portable. Then I realized it still requires a AC adapter, so there goes the more portable argument. So, the only thing Chromecast has going for it is you can use an Android device to start watching YouTube or Netflix then transfer it to your Chromecast seamlessly -- cool, but considering I can watch Netflix, Hulu Plus, or Amazon Prime on *any* device (phone, tablet, PC, DVD, Roku) and stop playback and resume it on any other device (including Roku), this isn't really much different. Meanwhile, Roku is hardly much bigger nowadays than a Chromecast dongle (which still needs an AC adapter), also has built in WiFi, and depending on the model has 1080p. Also, it has Hulu Plus, Netflix, *and* Amazon Prime (plus can buy/rent movies on Amazon) plus movies on Crackle, popcorn flix, epix, and vudu channels (many of which are free). You also get HBO Go, which allows you to watch any HBO show *ever* (going way back) and all current HBO shows and movies on demand. Plus if that weren't enough there is Pandora, Facebook, TuneIn Radio, and some 400+ other channels (http://www.roku.com/channels#!browse/movies-and-tv/by-popular), plus Angry Birds  Bottom line, Chromecast is too little to late and will go the same way as Google TV. Roku has been around for 5+ years and has tons of content.


----------



## theo (Aug 10, 2013)

*Thanks!*



SmithOp said:


> The one thing you didn't provide is the speed of the Internet connection to your wifi router, what internet service are you using and speed level?  Since the router is so close to the TV the slowest link will be your ISP, regardless of which device you choose.
> 
> I am lucky to have a 30mb fiber connection, we frequently have several streams running at full resolution with no buffering. I've had friends staying over that have DSL and were amazed using my connection, theirs were lower res and buffered a lot.



*Excellent* point and one I completely overlooked.  

I have DSL (high speed, through Verizon, but still only the inherent max available speed of DSL nonetheless). I had previously considered getting FIOS, but after seeing the driveway damage and truly shoddy post-installation "repair" work the Verizon sub-contractors left behind when my next door neighbors got FIOS fiber optic cable run to their house, I decided to pass on FIOS (all utilities are underground on my street, and the location of the boxes for numerous houses, including mine, require "trenching" across paved driveways --- they can't "fish" cable under them). The aftermath next door still looks shabby and I'm not going that route.

So as you point out, my ISP speed will indeed be the limiting factor for any option I employ, so I still lean very heavily toward the remote-equipped Roku at this point.


----------



## theo (Aug 10, 2013)

*I think that one of your observations is somewhat incorrect...*



rfc0001 said:


> <snip>Chromecast .... Then I realized it still requires a AC adapter, so there goes the more portable argument. <snip>



My understanding is that the Chromecast "dongle" can actually be powered by a (supplied) short cable, connecting from the Chromecast "dongle" into an available USB port on the TV, thereby eliminating any need for the use of a AC adapter and / or AC outlet. My current TV does have an available and vacant USB port (as well as a vacant HDMI port for the actual "dongle" insertion).

If my (admittedly limited) understanding is correct, then the Chromecast can indeed be completely portable --- *but* --- with the noteworthy caveat that a USB port must be available and open on any other TV used,
in addition to an available HDMI port into which the Chromecast "dongle" itself connects to the TV. 
I'd be willing to bet that many TV's encountered while "on the road" *don't* fulfill *both* of those requirements, in which case you're defaulted back to needing a AC adaptor / outlet in order to be able to use the device at all (i.e., then having the very same powering requirement as does Roku).

You make many good and valid points about Roku content, although personally I'd likely see or use *very* few of them beyond just streaming occasional Netflix movies onto the big TV screen.

...And being a guy, what's not to like about having still *another* remote to "control" in the household?


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 10, 2013)

Since both choices are inexpensive, you're not going to make a bad decision either way.  Roku has the content edge today, so if you want that, go for Roku.  Chromecast has the edge on pricing.  I'm willing to make the bet that within a year or two, Chromecast will have the edge on content also.

However, Chromecast is the future.  And that future is watching your shows on your TV, phone, tablet, or computer... whenever and wherever you'd like.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 10, 2013)

And yet another point of comparison I've read (again no personal experience here). Chromecast has been reported to be difficult to set up as it has to be 'mated' to the wi-fi or router on which it runs. Unlike ROKU that, once set up with it's individual code online can theoretically be moved from one wi-fi system to another.


----------



## artringwald (Aug 10, 2013)

SmithOp said:


> The one thing you didn't provide is the speed of the Internet connection to your wifi router, what internet service are you using and speed level?  Since the router is so close to the TV the slowest link will be your ISP, regardless of which device you choose.



We stream movies through our Xbox 360. When we had 10 Mbs DSL, it would often start at the highest quality, get interruptions, and have to go to a lower quality. Once we switched to 20 Mbs Comcast cable, it always went at the highest quality.


----------



## rfc0001 (Aug 10, 2013)

artringwald said:


> We stream movies through our Xbox 360. When we had 10 Mbs DSL, it would often start at the highest quality, get interruptions, and have to go to a lower quality. Once we switched to 20 Mbs Comcast cable, it always went at the highest quality.


Use use my Roku with 1.5Mb/s DSL all the time. Shows start up in about 1-2 seconds without subsequent buffering. As long as your throughput is constant (e.g. you aren't using it for other devices at the same time), even on a low bandwidth connection it won't re-buffer. Obviously it isn't HD quality, but it's decent. My DSL is "dedicated" since I have a dual WAN setup and can control traffic to one WAN or another (20 Mb/s capped satellite or 1.5Mb/s DSL). I route everything to satellite except my TV devices (Dish, Rokus, Xbox) simply because they will blow my cap in a heartbeat -- after midnight Satellite is uncapped, so I get the full 20Mb/s for watching HD -- which is HD quality, so better, but I must say Roku does a really good job handling low bandwidth connections.


----------



## rfc0001 (Aug 10, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> Since both choices are inexpensive, you're not going to make a bad decision either way.


Exactly, the cost of the device is negligible, so no reason to buy Chromecast simply because it's $15 cheaper (Roku LT, which is identical to Roku HD is $50). You aren't going to buy a $35 smartphone vs. a $50 smartphone simply because of the $15 price difference, when they have completely different apps, etc.



> I'm willing to make the bet that within a year or two, Chromecast will have the edge on content also.
> 
> However, Chromecast is the future.


That's a pretty bold assumption based on very little concrete evidence. Remember, Google has already tried and failed with Google TV. Meanwhile, Roku is the undisputed leader despite successful efforts from Apple (Apple TV) and Microsoft (Xbox). Google is a distant 4th right now, and as such content providers have very little incentive to partner with Google. As such, I think they are all taking a wait and see approach, which is why Chromecast only has Netflix and Pandora as partners.



> And that future is watching your shows on your TV, phone, tablet, or computer... whenever and wherever you'd like.


You can already do all of that today! I can watch Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime, HBO GO, Pandora, etc *on every device I own* -- PCs, phones tablets, TVs, you name it. I don't need a separate device to do that. What's more, I can stop a show on any of these devices, and start the show in the same spot on any other devices, which is just subtly different that what Chromecast can do.

I'm not going to discount Google' perseverance to make this work. After all, they are the world's largest advertising company, so they have to figure out a way to inject themselves into every second of our lives (e.g. Gmail, music/video streaming, Google Glasses, etc..) so they can know everything about you and serve up relevant ads 24x7. So, yes, they will eventually figure this out. However, based on this second attempt, it's completely underwhelming and is too little too late IMO. The only thing it has going for it is 1) price and 2) tie in to Android which is the most popular mobile OS and outsells Apple 4:1. I think these two factors will still make Chromecast a relative success in terms of sales, but they still have a long long way to go in terms of share of content streaming.


----------



## JudyH (Aug 10, 2013)

I am right up there with you Theo, and want the exact same info.

Thanks.


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 10, 2013)

theo said:


> *Excellent* point and one I completely overlooked.
> 
> I have DSL (high speed, through Verizon, but still only the inherent max available speed of DSL nonetheless). I had previously considered getting FIOS, but after seeing the driveway damage and truly shoddy post-installation "repair" work the Verizon sub-contractors left behind when my next door neighbors got FIOS fiber optic cable run to their house, I decided to pass on FIOS (all utilities are underground on my street, and the location of the boxes for numerous houses, including mine, require "trenching" across paved driveways --- they can't "fish" cable under them). The aftermath next door still looks shabby and I'm not going that route.
> 
> So as you point out, my ISP speed will indeed be the limiting factor for any option I employ, so I still lean very heavily toward the remote-equipped Roku at this point.




Can they fish between yours and your neighbors house instead of dig the drive?  Depends how friendly your neighbor is. 

You might also consider a first gen Apple tv from eBay or a TiVo premier. Both are more expensive but have built in hard disk so you download and stream paid for movie rental. This does not improve Amazon Prime streaming or Netflix streaming though. 

Your DSL Line means you will get 720hd at best. 

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rfc0001 (Aug 10, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> Your DSL Line means you will get 720hd at best.


Depends on the bandwidth. Just because it's DSL doesn't mean it can't do 1080p. You need 2-4 Mb/s for 720p depending on the provider/device and compression being used and what not. You need 4-9 Mb/s for 1080p content, again depending on the same factors. That said, devices like Roku *upscale* everything to 1080p, and very rarely is content actually in 1080p, so most times you see "HD" moniker on Roku you are actually watching 720p regardless. Per http://support.roku.com/entries/268376-can-i-play-1080p-video-content-on-my-roku-player: "1080p video provided by a channel that supports 1080p playback. To date, there is very little 1080p content available for streaming playback on the Roku player. Major partners, like Netflix, Amazon and MLB, do not stream in 1080p." This is a little dated, as Netflix now *does* support 1080p AFAIK -- but only for select titles.  See https://support.netflix.com/en/node/510 (requires 5Mb/s).  Also, Netflix now supports what they call "SuperHD" -- a higer fidelity 1080p (remember content is compressed, so 1080p is not 1080p is not 1080p), which requires 5Mb/s (7Mb/s recommended) *and* a compatible ISP (which are just Cablevision and Google Fiber right now in the US https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect).


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 10, 2013)

That's a lot of words to agree with my generalization that DSL will lead to a 720 signal. 

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2


----------



## isisdave (Aug 10, 2013)

We have FiOS, Roku 2 HD, Tivo. We get Netflix on Roku or Tivo, and also verious Playstations or whatnot the kids have.  All of it is great.

The Roku can connect wirelessly, which seems fine, or via Ethernet cable.  It does have a power cable, which is good, because every 6 weeks or so it locks up and I have to cycle its power to restart it.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 10, 2013)

rfc0001 said:


> That's a pretty bold assumption based on very little concrete evidence. Remember, Google has already tried and failed with Google TV. Meanwhile, Roku is the undisputed leader despite successful efforts from Apple (Apple TV) and Microsoft (Xbox). Google is a distant 4th right now, and as such content providers have very little incentive to partner with Google. As such, I think they are all taking a wait and see approach, which is why Chromecast only has Netflix and Pandora as partners.



The concrete evidence that you're looking for is the open developer API's.  If you don't understand the advantage that provides Google over Roku, or even if you don't know what an API is, then you really need to do some research. We can come back in about 6 months and see who's right.

Any content provider that isn't working on making their services available on Chromecast would be very foolish at this point.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 10, 2013)

rfc0001 said:


> Exactly, the cost of the device is negligible, so no reason to buy Chromecast simply because it's $15 cheaper (Roku LT, which is identical to Roku HD is $50).



Roku LT's resolution is 720p and Chromecast's resolution is 1080p.  I'd pay less for the Chromecast and take the higher resolution myself, between those two choices.  Also, the OP stated that they mostly just want the Netflix capability, which both devices have.

Also the Roku LT is now selling for $40 (not $50) on Amazon.  Besides those facts, everything else you say above is accurate.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 10, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> You might also consider a first gen Apple tv from eBay or a TiVo premier. Both are more expensive but have built in hard disk so you download and stream paid for movie rental. This does not improve Amazon Prime streaming or Netflix streaming though.



I have a first gen Apple TV (along with two 2nd gen) and a TiVo Premier.

The first gen Apple TV is also limited to 720p. I've had fun hacking it to experiment with other systems, and I keep it around for that purpose (but unpowered since I rarely use it...) but it's quite slow, too...which leads me to say:

TiVo Premier is great, in general, but very very slow for Netflix or other apps. I've been told to install additional third party RAM for it to be more responsive, but it - like my blu ray and TV, provide Netflix and other apps but are mind numbing slow in terms of performance. My first gen Roku (in a box somewhere) and my newer Apple TVs are much faster to use for Netflix. I'd assume that Chromecast is similarly speedy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 10, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> Since both choices are inexpensive, you're not going to make a bad decision either way.  Roku has the content edge today, so if you want that, go for Roku.  Chromecast has the edge on pricing.  I'm willing to make the bet that within a year or two, Chromecast will have the edge on content also.
> 
> However, Chromecast is the future.  And that future is watching your shows on your TV, phone, tablet, or computer... whenever and wherever you'd like.



Yes, but...I'd prefer anything to a first gen product if all else is equal. I'm likely to buy a Chromecast at some point though I suspect I'll wait until the next version (or the one after that) barring other advances and product releases from other manufacturers. Besides, by then we may have other products available that perform similar functions which we aren't even considering today. Streaming video solutions will doubtless show continued advances over the next few years, as it has over the last few years, and there's no reason for any of us to commit ourselves to any one solution, especially when we're discussing a <$100 device.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 10, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> Yes, but...I'd prefer anything to a first gen product if all else is equal.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Generally I agree Ken.  And I've learned a lot from your posts on the other thread about the Roku.  However, if anyone on TUG would have purchased the Chromecast within two days of my other thread, they would have got it for $11 - with the Netflix promotion.  There were some on that thread making the same argument then about waiting (over basically an $11 item).  For $35 I can afford the upgrade to the next Chromecast version when it comes out.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 10, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> Generally I agree Ken.  And I've learned a lot from your posts on the other thread about the Roku.  However, if anyone on TUG would have purchased the Chromecast within two days of my other thread, they would have got it for $11 - with the Netflix promotion.  There were some on that thread making the same argument then about waiting (over basically an $11 item).  For $35 I can afford the upgrade to the next Chromecast version when it comes out.



Thanks.

Promotions are great, and I assume this particular one was only valid if you don't have an existing Netflix account, but really...do you think the larger issue we're discussing is influenced by the price of the item if its only $11? That's an impulse buy. As is, in my opinion, $35. For myself, I'm not making my choice based on saving a few dollars, the savings of which are often less than the cost of a meal out (can't get much for $24 these days) which is how I often base purchases on. Anyone who needs a solution isn't going to not buy if the price is $35 vs $11, or even $40 for a Roku...but $80 and $100 for the better Roku and Apple solutions may cause people to pause slightly.

The real question is not how little you can pay for this, but rather will it do what you want as easily as it should and with as much compatibility as can be reasonably expected for a consumer product, today? We all know they're making improvements, and we all know Roku is ahead of the game (at least for the moment) and has a proven platform that has existed for years. For these reasons and more, Roku (or Apple) should be the choice for all except those who like being on the bleeding edge, don't mind dealing with new products (and eventual technical hurdles that may crop up, firmware updates, bugs, etc), and know it is likely only going to last a year or so before a second gen product is released that offers a lot more (at least, that's what I expect to occur). 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 10, 2013)

Ken555 I agree with all of this. 

What is your internet connection though. 
As the op said they are DSL constrained so having the files download locally can get 'buffering' free HD watching. That's where I highlighted TiVo and Apple. Though as you point out, not for Netflix. 

I have TiVo premiere 2 and Roku xd at home and a boyray that does Netflix etc but everything streaming, Netflix, Amazon crackle etc and local streaming with Plex All run through Roku. 

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2


----------



## theo (Aug 13, 2013)

*Thanks again...*



SMHarman said:


> Can they fish between yours and your neighbors house instead of dig the drive?  Depends how friendly your neighbor is.



We're great friends actually, but that won't help. Our respective paved driveways are directly parallel to one another and to get to my cable entry point, my driveway would need to be cut, whether the cable originated from the ground post (located out at the street, between our two driveways) or from my neighbor's house. 



> You might also consider a first gen Apple tv from eBay or a TiVo premier. Both are more expensive but have built in hard disk so you download and stream paid for movie rental. This does not improve Amazon Prime streaming or Netflix streaming though.
> 
> Your DSL Line means you will get 720hd at best.



Not to start any side issue discussions, but Apple products are not an option I want to consider at all. 
When I buy a smartphone soon, it will be Android based (...have already decided on Motorola Razr Max HD --- just waiting for the newer version coming out in a very few weeks to see if its' imminent new features are even worth bothering with compared to the current iteration). Seeking some device platform consistency...

I am actually now looking at the Tivo Premiere option too, although as noted it wouldn't help for Netflix. Although I don't much care about the small monthly Tivo fee, I'm not sure that I need or want either its' space-eating hardware and / or its' other capabilities. A bit more homework is still in order, I guess...


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 13, 2013)

theo said:


> Not to start any side issue discussions, but Apple products are not an option I want to consider at all.
> When I buy a smartphone soon, it will be Android based (...have already decided on Motorola Razr Max HD --- just waiting for the newer version coming out in a very few weeks to see if its' imminent new features are even worth bothering with compared to the current iteration). Seeking some device platform consistency...



Apple doesn't provide "device platform consistency"? Oh, I forgot. You want the luxury of stating an aversion to all things Apple but don't want to discuss why.



> I am actually now looking at the Tivo Premiere option too, although as noted it wouldn't help for Netflix. Although I don't much care about the small monthly Tivo fee, I'm not sure that I need or want either its' space-eating hardware and / or its' other capabilities. A bit more homework is still in order, I guess...



I bought the lifetime subscription with my TiVo Premiere, along with an extended warranty (as the subscription is tied to the specific device). I believe it pays for itself in ~3 years so I thought it worthwhile rather than pay monthly.

As for its "space-eating hardware" the TiVo is substantially smaller (thinner) than the DVR it replaced for me. YMMV, of course.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 13, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> Apple doesn't provide "device platform consistency"? Oh, I forgot. You want the luxury of stating an aversion to all things Apple but don't want to discuss why.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't forget that your TiVo Premier with lifetime subscription has a worthwhile second hand value if or when you decide to upgrade it.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/TiVo-Premie...DVRs_Hard_Drive_Recorders&hash=item3a83ae5414
http://www.ebay.com/itm/TiVo-Premie...DVRs_Hard_Drive_Recorders&hash=item19e06c1a32
http://www.ebay.com/itm/TiVo-Premie...DVRs_Hard_Drive_Recorders&hash=item1e7e35cae9
Yes, the TiVo is smaller and with the 'stream' and the 'mini' makes quite a handy dandy way to get multi room with only one cable bill.


----------



## theo (Aug 13, 2013)

*Clarification....*



Ken555 said:


> Apple doesn't provide "device platform consistency"? Oh, I forgot. You want the luxury of stating an aversion to all things Apple but don't want to discuss why.



Perhaps not very well stated, I actually meant to express that I just don't want a "mixture" of Apple and Android based devices as I stumble forward into what is (...for me, anyhow) uncharted and unfamiliar waters. 

I certainly have no "aversion to all things Apple", nor any knowledge base on which to consider or adopt any such viewpoint. On some level, I guess I just like the notion of the (...seemingly) more open, less proprietary Android approach more than the secret handshake / inner sanctum Apple approach. Moreover, I find much more "Guide for Idiots" print info available for Android based items, with which to try to educate myself. Probably not the best (...maybe not even particularly good) reasons to choose one path over the other, but it's what I've done and it's all I've got... 



> I bought the lifetime subscription with my TiVo Premiere, along with an extended warranty (as the subscription is tied to the specific device). I believe it pays for itself in ~3 years so I thought it worthwhile rather than pay monthly.



Sounds smart and worthy of consideration. Thanks!


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 13, 2013)

theo said:


> Perhaps not very well stated, I actually meant to express that I just don't want a "mixture" of Apple and Android based devices as I stumble forward into what is (...for me, anyhow) uncharted and unfamiliar waters.
> 
> I certainly have no "aversion to all things Apple", nor any knowledge base on which to consider or adopt any such viewpoint. On some level, I guess I just like the notion of the (...seemingly) more open, less proprietary Android approach more than the secret handshake / inner sanctum Apple approach. Moreover, I find much more "Guide for Idiots" print info available for Android based items, with which to try to educate myself. Probably not the best (...maybe not even particularly good) reasons to choose one path over the other, but it's what I've done and it's all I've got...



I like Apple products, but they can be better. One reason you will not find as many guides for their products is due to the extremely simplistic and well thought out user interface that they include with their devices. You simply don't need a manual unless you want to learn more. For most people, they will never read a single page of instruction on their Apple products. 

It is wise to become familiar with one platform without trying to confuse yourself with learning two at once. I absolutely agree with you here. And, I always tell people to go with what they know, so if you have previous experience with Android and are happy with it then stick to it. Otherwise, don't discount Apple out of hand due to the lack of openness they offer compared to Android...do yourself the favor and at least go to a store and test the items yourself before determining which is best for you. You may end up with Android, but I'd suggest having an open mind about it...you may find you like it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 14, 2013)

If you want simplicity the choice is easy to stream TV.  ROKU  Connect it to you TV and use it.  With Chromecast you must set up correctly THEN use ANOTHER device to stream to the chromecast.  ADDITIONALLY, Google, does no evil but it will likely track everything you do on your TV and use it to sell your profile.  Google equals next to no privacy whatsoever.  That is their philosophy regarding the use of gmail in a current court case - they are free to read all your emails at any time. They say when you send a letter the recipients assistants may read the letter and not the recipient.    Here is a quote about gmail from the article in GIZmodo.

"Google's brief uses a wrong-headed analogy; sending an email is like giving a letter to the Post Office. I expect the Post Office to deliver the letter based on the address written on the envelope. I don't expect the mail carrier to open my letter and read it. Similarly when I send an email, I expect it to be delivered to the intended recipient with a Gmail account based on the email address; why would I expect its content will be intercepted by Google and read?  

And with all this coming out just days after the news of two secure, subscription email services shutting down after alluding to vague "outside pressures," the matter of a user's right to privacy is becoming at the same time all the more important and increasingly hazy."


Google makes their money by selling you like a commodity.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 14, 2013)

And Here's today's Tech.Woot: A ROKU XD with an extra gaming remote. Under $45. http://tech.woot.com/


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 14, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> And Here's today's Tech.Woot: A ROKU XD with an extra gaming remote. Under $45. http://tech.woot.com/



Thanks for posting the deal.  I saw it earlier this morning and thought I might go back.  Your post reminded me.

Now, I'm going for Roku on the upstairs TV and Chromecast on the downstairs.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 14, 2013)

Oh, Good. Glad a TUGger will get some use from it. I also got an email overnight that ROKU is including a free month of Redbox Instant and FOXNOW for your favorite Fox TV shows. So just sign on to that when selecting the networks you want to access too.

Jim


----------



## theo (Aug 14, 2013)

*Interesting...*



pgnewarkboy said:


> If you want simplicity the choice is easy to stream TV.  ROKU  Connect it to you TV and use it.  With Chromecast you must set up correctly THEN use ANOTHER device to stream to the chromecast.  ADDITIONALLY, Google, does no evil but it will likely track everything you do on your TV and use it to sell your profile.  Google equals next to no privacy whatsoever.  That is their philosophy regarding the use of gmail in a current court case - they are free to read all your emails at any time. They say when you send a letter the recipients assistants may read the letter and not the recipient.    Here is a quote about gmail from the article in GIZmodo.
> 
> "Google's brief uses a wrong-headed analogy; sending an email is like giving a letter to the Post Office. I expect the Post Office to deliver the letter based on the address written on the envelope. I don't expect the mail carrier to open my letter and read it. Similarly when I send an email, I expect it to be delivered to the intended recipient with a Gmail account based on the email address; why would I expect its content will be intercepted by Google and read?
> 
> ...



Thanks for that info and perspective on the issue of privacy. Very interesting.

Ken555 has previously offered some (welcomed and appreciated) input and a suggestion to "keep an open mind" on the different platforms and products. That advice should be relatively easy (...for me, anyhow) to implement, having only very limited mind-space to have to keep open to begin with. 

Having no particular knowledge, predispositions or allegiances, perhaps I need to look more closely and objectively at iOS vs. Android issues. Apple's secretive nature may well be a "downside" matched (or exceeded) by a Google lack of respect for personal privacy.

One ongoing difficulty in being a bit of a techno-idiot is that each and every new thing I learn seems to reveal a dozen new things I didn't even know that I didn't know...


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 14, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> Oh, Good. Glad a TUGger will get some use from it. I also got an email overnight that ROKU is including a free month of Redbox Instant and FOXNOW for your favorite Fox TV shows. So just sign on to that when selecting the networks you want to access too.
> 
> Jim



I had to check on the resolution on the Roku XD to ensure it was 1080p (it was).  In case anyone else is lost in the different Roku versions, here's a link:

http://www.roku.com/roku-products

The Woot deal (refurbished) is a $20 savings vs. the new model.  The Chromecast competition is driving down the Roku pricing.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 14, 2013)

And Roku's answer to Chromecast is available for $99. 

http://www.roku.com/streamingstick


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 14, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> "Google's brief uses a wrong-headed analogy; sending an email is like giving a letter to the Post Office. I expect the Post Office to deliver the letter based on the address written on the envelope. I don't expect the mail carrier to open my letter and read it. Similarly when I send an email, I expect it to be delivered to the intended recipient with a Gmail account based on the email address; why would I expect its content will be intercepted by Google and read?


Google does not (at least openly stated) parse your email as it travels to your inbox.  Google parse that email when you open it in your browser and the text is streamed to your browser page, just as they do when you click on ad links etc.
To say Google is like the post office but it opens the letters is not quite true.  A better analogy is that it is like the post man that hands you the letter and reads it over your shoulder when you open it.


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 14, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> I had to check on the resolution on the Roku XD to ensure it was 1080p (it was).  In case anyone else is lost in the different Roku versions, here's a link:
> 
> http://www.roku.com/roku-products
> 
> The Woot deal (refurbished) is a $20 savings vs. the new model.  The Chromecast competition is driving down the Roku pricing.


Though as pointed out earlier in this thread all Roku output (with a couple of limited exceptions) is 720 data stream upscaled.  So buying a 720 Roku and letting your TV/AV Reciever upscale it to 1080 has the same effect, you are just doing the upscaling on a different device.


ace2000 said:


> And Roku's answer to Chromecast is available for $99.
> 
> http://www.roku.com/streamingstick


Which also elegantly uses the extra 4 pins to get power to the device rather than requiring a USB power line.  It also uses a Roku or TV remote so truly is plug and play.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 14, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> Though as pointed out earlier in this thread all Roku output (with a couple of limited exceptions) is 720 data stream upscaled.  So buying a 720 Roku and letting your TV/AV Reciever upscale it to 1080 has the same effect, you are just doing the upscaling on a different device.



All TVs (and other devices) do not upscale to the same quality.  They're selling 4K resolution on TVs now, I think I'll stick with the Roku device that handles 1080p as opposed to 720p.

Everyone can make up their own mind on that topic.


----------



## rfc0001 (Aug 14, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> And Roku's answer to Chromecast is available for $99.
> 
> http://www.roku.com/streamingstick


Not really...Roku Streaming Stick requires a MHL port, which Hitachi is the only major manufacturer that has one. Even counting the off brands that support MHL, there are only 15 unique TV models on the planet that support MHL. There is a 99.999% chance that the HDTV you own is not one of them, and an even lower chance that a hotel you are staying at has one (why else would you want a portable device). Chromecast uses standard HDMI, so works on any HDTV.

IMO, Roku missed an opportunity here, since they easily could have made the streaming stick HDMI compatible with an external power source, but opted for the MHL port, which is basically a powered-HDMI port, so it can be self-powered. I think they miscalculated how fast (or if) MHL will be adopted, meanwhile Chromecast beat them to the punch.

That said, I'm not sure it matters. Like standard Roku devices, Chromecast isn't self-powered either, and is only slightly smaller (Roku devices fit in the palm of your hand and weigh next to nothing). You can easily pack one in a laptop bag for use at a hotel, etc. Size doesn't matter after a point. What matters, is content and functionality. Like I say, Google has a slight innovation on functionality with "casting" content from a (Android-powered) mobile device, but other than that its underwhelming compared to much more mature Xbox, Apple TV, and Roku offerings. Aside from the casting feature/gimmick the only advantage is price, which is negligible compared to a $50 720p Roku device.


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 14, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> All TVs (and other devices) do not upscale to the same quality.  They're selling 4K resolution on TVs now, I think I'll stick with the Roku device that handles 1080p as opposed to 720p.
> 
> Everyone can make up their own mind on that topic.


So you assume the upscaler in the Roku is better than the one in your TV.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 14, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> Which also elegantly uses the extra 4 pins to get power to the device rather than requiring a USB power line.  It also uses a Roku or TV remote so truly is plug and play.



Yup, it appears that the Roku stick is much more elegantly designed than the Chromecast. But, it suffers from the obvious - most TVs don't support it. Unless that changes quickly, this product may suffer a quick demise.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 14, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> So you assume the upscaler in the Roku is better than the one in your TV.



No, I'm assuming that more content will be available at 1080p from the source.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 14, 2013)

rfc0001 said:


> Not really...Roku Streaming Stick requires a MHL port, which Hitachi is the only major manufacturer that has one. Even counting the off brands that support MHL, there are only 15 unique TV models on the planet that support MHL.



Listing of display devices that support MHL... (more than 15 models).  However, it is something to consider.

http://www.mhlconsortium.org/productlist/display-devices/


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 14, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> No, I'm assuming that more content will be available at 1080p from the source.


Ah OK I just reread this


rfc0001 said:


> Depends on the bandwidth. Just because it's DSL doesn't mean it can't do 1080p. You need 2-4 Mb/s for 720p depending on the provider/device and compression being used and what not. You need 4-9 Mb/s for 1080p content, again depending on the same factors. That said, devices like Roku *upscale* everything to 1080p, and very rarely is content actually in 1080p, so most times you see "HD" moniker on Roku you are actually watching 720p regardless. Per http://support.roku.com/entries/268376-can-i-play-1080p-video-content-on-my-roku-player: "1080p video provided by a channel that supports 1080p playback. To date, there is very little 1080p content available for streaming playback on the Roku player. Major partners, like Netflix, Amazon and MLB, do not stream in 1080p." This is a little dated, as Netflix now *does* support 1080p AFAIK -- but only for select titles.  See https://support.netflix.com/en/node/510 (requires 5Mb/s).  Also, Netflix now supports what they call "SuperHD" -- a higer fidelity 1080p (remember content is compressed, so 1080p is not 1080p is not 1080p), which requires 5Mb/s (7Mb/s recommended) *and* a compatible ISP (which are just Cablevision and Google Fiber right now in the US https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect).


and see they do stream some content at 1080.

With my new 7.1 decoder it looks like the Roku XD|S model 2100 is due an upgrade to send a better audio signal.  One new piece of hardware starts a cascade starts a tidlewave!


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 15, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> Google does not (at least openly stated) parse your email as it travels to your inbox.  Google parse that email when you open it in your browser and the text is streamed to your browser page, just as they do when you click on ad links etc.
> To say Google is like the post office but it opens the letters is not quite true.  A better analogy is that it is like the post man that hands you the letter and reads it over your shoulder when you open it.



Its scary to me. And scarier that the public is not more aware of this. Google claims in court to have the right to read your e-mail at any point.  There may be some technology limits but that is all that restrains them. 

I will no longer be  using Google Docs because of privacy concerns with Google.  I will be dumping Google Mail, Chrome Browser, and Android (as soon as I can).  Perhaps some don't care about their privacy.  I care about mine.


----------



## rfc0001 (Aug 15, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> Listing of display devices that support MHL... (more than 15 models). However, it is something to consider.
> 
> http://www.mhlconsortium.org/productlist/display-devices/


I should have said HDTVs with MHL *that are compatible with* the Streaming stick *according to the manufacturer*:
http://www.roku.com/streamingstick#roku-ready

And its 17, not 15


----------



## rfc0001 (Aug 15, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Its scary to me. And scarier that the public is not more aware of this. Google claims in court to have the right to read your e-mail at any point. There may be some technology limits but that is all that restrains them.
> 
> I will no longer be using Google Docs because of privacy concerns with Google. I will be dumping Google Mail, Chrome Browser, and Android (as soon as I can). Perhaps some don't care about their privacy. I care about mine.


Not to get too off topic, but I'm always baffled how much wool Google has pulled over most people's eyes. I constantly remind people that Google is the #1 advertising company in the world (true) and they make *over* 95% of their revenue from advertising (also true). This is why Google wants to be in your email inbox, your TV, in your GPS-enabled phone, and on a headset you wear everywhere you go. They want information about you, what you like, where you like to visit, what you like to eat, etc. Even when you aren't using Google products, Google ads are embedded in almost every web page you visit, so guess what, they know your entire browsing history whether you choose to share it with them or not (since ads know what page they were loaded from and share tracking cookies across multiple sites; it's then trivial to relate that anonymous information back to you since you're also signed into Google on the same machine). If you use Google Checkout or Google Local Deals, they also know your address, phone number, and credit card number, and with that information can access all sorts of public records, including where you work, how much your house costs, your salary, even portions of your credit history. To the extent you use Gmail they also monitor every thing you talk about in email (and chat, and Google Groups, etc). Chromecast just adds another information stream about you -- what you like to watch, so they can further target ads (and provides another channel to display ads). Make no doubt about it, Google's core business is amassing personal information about consumers, then selling this to advertisers. Personally, I don't want "free" software no matter how good it is in exchange for lack of privacy. I never sign into my Google account and I clear all cookies when I close my browser so I at least have a reasonable chance of privacy. However, I'm not about to fork over even more personal information just to save a few bucks. Obviously, most people are, but I just find it dumbfounding how now one considers Google an advertising company -- they think of them as a hip tech startup that can do no evil (it's right in their motto, so how could they?). True, Google was a hippie dippie startup back at the dawn of the internet -- one that had no ads, and was a stellar product, but once they went public, they sold their soul. They are now an advertising company that makes software to deliver their ads, plain and simple, and regularly gets sued and fined for breaking privacy laws--not exactly doing no evil.


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 15, 2013)

rfc0001 said:


> Make no doubt about it, Google's core business is amassing personal information about consumers, then selling this to advertisers. Personally, I don't want "free" software no matter how good it is in exchange for lack of privacy. I never sign into my Google account and I clear all cookies when I close my browser so I at least have a reasonable chance of privacy. However, I'm not about to fork over even more personal information just to save a few bucks. Obviously, most people are, but I just find it dumbfounding how now one considers Google an advertising company -- they think of them as a hip tech startup that can do no evil (it's right in their motto, so how could they?). True, Google was a hippie dippie startup back at the dawn of the internet -- one that had no ads, and was a stellar product, but once they went public, they sold their soul. They are now an advertising company that makes software to deliver their ads, plain and simple, and regularly gets sued and fined for breaking privacy laws--not exactly doing no evil.


And Apple accounts also have a huge amount of data on you from your location to your browsing to your phone book, photos, and credit card details so you can buy from the store.


----------



## billyelliott (Dec 5, 2013)

If you are interested in watching Hulu in Australia or Canada then choosing the Streaming VPN can be one of the best options for you. It is backed with good customer support and is available at lower prices.

watching hulu in Australia or Canada


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 5, 2013)

rfc0001 said:


> I should have said HDTVs with MHL *that are compatible with* the Streaming stick *according to the manufacturer*:
> http://www.roku.com/streamingstick#roku-ready
> 
> And its 17, not 15


 
Just between me and you, I counted about 50 of them.


----------

