All the Streaming Boxes Suck Now (theverge.com) 207
Streaming boxes had so much potential. They were going to reinvent the cable box for the internet age and make it easier for users to find and organize and watch everything available in this era of infinite content. They were going to turn our TVs, the hub of our homes, into smart gadgets through which we could do almost anything. They were going to be game consoles. Streaming boxes were the next big thing. Instead, well, streaming boxes suck. From a report: You can't find a single product on the market that comes even remotely close to satisfying this vision. Instead of a thriving hardware and software category, streaming boxes have turned into ever-cheaper commodity items. At the Walgreens down the street from my house, crammed in between AA batteries and bizarrely unbranded wired headphones, sits a Roku Express HD for $30. And it's as good a buy as anything else. Streaming boxes are bad, and they're getting worse instead of better.
You could almost argue that in their current form, streaming boxes don't need to exist at all. By most measures, a majority of consumers in the US already own a smart TV -- and if you're in the market for a new set, you can barely find one that doesn't have some operating system built in. Of course, most of those smart TVs are slow, riddled with ads, and try to track your every move. That's why a good streaming box is such a good idea, at least in theory. The rest of tech's evolution has made good TV hardware and software even more important -- cloud gaming is improving all the time, our homes are getting smarter, we're even using our TVs to video chat. Streaming boxes let you upgrade without throwing out your big screen and add new features that might not come baked into the set itself. Plus, a good box could mitigate some of the worst ills of the smart TV world. To borrow an old-TV analogy: the built-in smart TV stuff is like the rabbit ears of old, and we need the cable box.
You could almost argue that in their current form, streaming boxes don't need to exist at all. By most measures, a majority of consumers in the US already own a smart TV -- and if you're in the market for a new set, you can barely find one that doesn't have some operating system built in. Of course, most of those smart TVs are slow, riddled with ads, and try to track your every move. That's why a good streaming box is such a good idea, at least in theory. The rest of tech's evolution has made good TV hardware and software even more important -- cloud gaming is improving all the time, our homes are getting smarter, we're even using our TVs to video chat. Streaming boxes let you upgrade without throwing out your big screen and add new features that might not come baked into the set itself. Plus, a good box could mitigate some of the worst ills of the smart TV world. To borrow an old-TV analogy: the built-in smart TV stuff is like the rabbit ears of old, and we need the cable box.
Kodi? (Score:3)
I'd be keen on suggestions for something better.
Re:Kodi? (Score:4, Informative)
There's nothing wrong with Kodi and just about anything can run it fine. A lot of LibreElec boxes are pretty shit, but if you're using it on compact desktop or something, it's probably pretty decent. Kodi typically supports weird new formats before other things. The biggest problem I have with it is that you have to have an external setup somewhere to track watched content if you're concerned about sequencing between devices.
Plex and Emby both have clients for everything under the sun, basically have the same playback capabilities as Kodi, and might be a better approach for locally stored content, but if you're watching everything through questionably legal streaming sites, that's not a good fit either.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with Kodi and just about anything can run it fine. A lot of LibreElec boxes are pretty shit, but if you're using it on compact desktop or something, it's probably pretty decent. Kodi typically supports weird new formats before other things. The biggest problem I have with it is that you have to have an external setup somewhere to track watched content if you're concerned about sequencing between devices.
True. Personally I've had great success running the fork CoreElec on cheap Amlogic "Android" boxes. Even have my non-tech family using them because they're cheap, easy learning curve, and come with a remote.
Plex and Emby both have clients for everything under the sun, basically have the same playback capabilities as Kodi, and might be a better approach for locally stored content, but if you're watching everything through questionably legal streaming sites, that's not a good fit either.
Neither is FOSS, neither have Kodi's playback abilities, and Plex at least is pissing off its user-base left and right. Jellyfin is an Emby fork that has exceeded its parent, and its Kodi plugin works fine for me and mine, including syncing watched status.
Re: (Score:2)
Plex is indeed pissing off its user base, but like I said, it has a client for everything under the sun. I have an LG STB that's old enough to have analog outputs on it that will still talk to a remote Plex Server.
Re: (Score:2)
Second Jellyfin.
I've been looking for an Amlogic but apparently the chip shortage hit them hard - all out of stock right now except for the exceedingly expensive models.
I was ready to buy a Lineage-compatible stick for each room and be done with FireTV forever.
Re: Kodi? (Score:3)
Re: Kodi? (Score:4, Insightful)
My biggest knocks on AppleTV are:
1. The hardware is expensive for literally no reason. If I'm spending north of $100, it needs to do more than a goddamned Roku.
2. No direct support for local media. I don't think it's unreasonable for any streaming box to have an SD card slot or USB port and the concept of a local file, if one because this is how the technologically inept think of these things. I don't really want to have to explain the concept of Airplay or Chromecast to Aunt Judy for the 25th time. I also have this complaint about Roku.
3. Walled Garden. Wanna run Kodi? Hope you love workarounds.
4. Apple is deeply intransigent about almost everything. Apple currently has a bad habit of not talking to other media providers and dropping support for things, and it's more or less impossible to use the decent-ish hardware in an AppleTV for anything other than whatever Apple sets before its users.
5. Apple again. I just don't like giving those pigfuckers money for their overpriced hardware and shitty, bad-attitude-having support.
I point people toward nVidia TV boxes, which could stand to have a hardware refresh to fully support HDR, but are a fantastic alternative to using an SFF PC in terms of both horsepower and power consumption. For the money, they're also a solid alternative to a game console and they can be used for lightweight server duties if you feel like messing with one enough. Yes, they cost $150, but unlike the AppleTV devices, they represent and absolutely great value for the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was using Jellyfin running on a raspberry pi 3+ and firesticks for the TVs. Worked like a charm for all my local media. You could also use a raspberry pi in place of the firestick and use VLC to connect to the Jellyfin stream.
Re: (Score:2)
I like my Shield. Works fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had been doing the top of the line FireTV boxes....then found a good deal (Prime day?) on the
I'm just waiting for an updated Shield (Score:3)
See subject.
My Shield STB is a pretty goddamned solid box. It doesn't do some of the current HDR codecs my TV and AVR support, but I also bought it in 2015 and that's basically the only complaint I have about it. Even an eight year old SoC like the Tegra K1 has crap-tons of horsepower and it can handle enormous BluRay rips and pass 8 channel-whatever audio off to my receiver, and it's fast enough that it can emulate an N64 or play any AAA Android game (e.g. X-Com 2).
The only other "bad" thing about it is that there isn't great support for Apple's streaming-whatever on AndroidTV, but that's only a problem for someone who uses that stuff. My quasi-SO get annoyed she has to airplay to my receiver instead of the TV box but that's Apple's fault for not playing nice and not a problem with the Shield itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I like my shield pro too, with caveats:
- Intermittent Lip sync issues affecting: Netflix, Disney, Plex
Play/pause, skipping forward, skipping credits seems to be the tigger. just going back to the app menu and resuming playback resolves it almost everytime, but goddamn is it annoying. Wish i could find a proper fix.
- Netflix app won't let you 'back' to the shield menu,
This isn't a shield issue, per se, its a netflix one, but it bugs me.
For netflix i have to select 'exit netflix' to get back to the shield men
There are other reasons Smart TVs suck (Score:4, Interesting)
"By most measures, a majority of consumers in the US already own a smart TV -- and if you're in the market for a new set, you can barely find one that doesn't have some operating system built in. Of course, most of those smart TVs are slow, riddled with ads, and try to track your every move. That's why a good streaming box is such a good idea, at least in theory."
The vast majority of people don't replace their television every 2-3 years; but the apps that come with a typical smart TV are only supported about that long. And, at least in my experience, even brand new - those apps (and the TV's interface in front of those apps) work significantly worse than their streaming box equivalents.
Side note: The Apple TV is reasonably good... but most people would argue it's not reasonably priced. You can get a Roku box, launch the Apple TV app, and get pretty much the same experience - it even handles AirPlay 2.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good grief. It's hard to imagine one's hardware not supporting IPv6 in this day and age.
Re: (Score:3)
Here we are 25 years later, and still nobody really gives a shit about IPv6. But I'm sure the IPv4 addresses will all run out any day now, any day...
Re: (Score:2)
but the apps that come with a typical smart TV are only supported about that long
Hogwash. Our 12 year old Samsung TV still plays Netflix just as fine as the shiny new one. What you may find is a lack of *new* apps. Disney+ never released an app for our old TV but it did for a new one.
If you have an app there's no reason it will stop working in 2-3 years.
And, at least in my experience, even brand new - those apps (and the TV's interface in front of those apps)
The problem there is in what you bought. Many TV interfaces aren't TV interfaces, they are first party apps from the Streaming companies themselves. It's why when I fire up Disney+ on the TV it looks and works 100% identically to the Dis
Re: (Score:2)
Our 12 year old Samsung TV still plays Netflix just as fine as the shiny new one. What you may find is a lack of *new* apps. Disney+ never released an app for our old TV but it did for a new one.
And that's kind of a big deal. I had a DVD player which could load apps and it never kept up to date. Roku is the first system I've used which seems to have their act together: every service has an app, search works well, and it's cheap. 12 years ago, Spotify was just appearing, none of the "-Plus" services existed, and the killer app would have been connecting to iTunes on your deskside computer, not shuffling TikToks. Times change too rapidly to depend on something which can't handle rapid evolution.
(Not
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations! Your experience is the exact opposite of mine. Netflix on my 12-year old Samsung TV sucks, and is nowhere near as good as on any other streaming device.
You sure about that? Samsung deprecated about 20 different apps on my model, including all of the 3D apps it breathless promoted when it was trying to foist 3D TV upon the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Our 12 year old Samsung TV still plays Netflix just as fine as the shiny new one. What you may find is a lack of *new* apps. Disney+ never released an app for our old TV but it did for a new one.
We have a Sony TV we bought in late 2012. It's true that Netflix still works, but that's about it. YouTube doesn't, and "Crackle" went dark a few years ago. (Remember Crackle?)
Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, CBC Gem... There is no way to get them on the TV at all.
However the Firestick works well for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for Xmas, Walmart had the Apple TV HD versions for only like $50 each.
The person I bought them for, one for ever TV in the house, only has HD television and they work GREAT.
So, if you don't need the 4K version....don't buy the 4K versions.
Do they suck? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the "sucks" part. The main complaint in the article is that the boxes don't index and search across all channels for you. Which isn't great but it's not terrible either. The problem is not necessarily the makers of the boxes but that there's no standard for how to search content - each channel or app is its own entity with its own way of doing things.
So the set top boxes are already much better than the smart TVs, that's already a positive. The complaint though is more about the balka
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the "sucks" part. The main complaint in the article is that the boxes don't index and search across all channels for you.
I don't get the complaint either. My $30 Roku stick searches across all the services just fine. The UI is pretty easy to use and it's got a surprisingly complete catalog of apps (I'd love to know how they pulled that off). And I search by pushing a microphone button on the remote and saying the title I'm looking for. Did he even honestly give this a try?
TFA is also complaining that we're getting nickled-and-dimed for feature upgrades. And this is different from every other product in existence how, exactly?
You get what you pay for, or 'Cheap Stuff Sucks' (Score:4, Informative)
A few AppleTVs an Amazon firestick. I still am using the free AppleTV that I received when I signed up for ATT/DIRECTTV/whatever they call it now way back in 2017. I bought two more ($100-$150 if I recall) that I use, and I have no complaints about them, although the remote could still use a little work.
A few years ago I bought the low-end Firestick ($30). It was always a little slow and wonky, but worked OK for the first year. By the end of the 2nd year, it was nearly unusable due to no more software updates available, and I just threw it out.
Re: (Score:3)
The only reasons that the author says they suck, is because when you turn them on you have to select your app rather than content. I.e., you have to select Disney+, Prime Video, Hulu, etc... It doesn't let you select content from these services. The other complaint is that they don't all allow you to play games via streaming.
Those are the only reasons for the complaint outlined in the article. Basically 5 pages that say nothing of value at all.
Not smart... (Score:5, Insightful)
a majority of consumers in the US already own a smart TV
I avoid smart tvs. I know that whatever chip/software they put in will be the lowest quality/cheapest thing they can get away with, and will just barely work until it is obsolete within 2-3 years, then I would have to buy a streaming box anyways. I've been over at people's houses that have them, and they are the least responsive software I've ever seen.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I avoid smart tvs.
You do realize you can simply just not use the smart features? I've got two Roku TVs which were Black Friday deals and don't bother at all with the Roku crap. I've been using Walmart Onn Android TV streaming devices with them, which cost somewhere around $20. It's a shame they've probably been discontinued, because they basically run stock Android TV and are very fast.
Re: (Score:3)
"You do realize you can simply just not use the smart features?"
Then why pay the premium for built-in smartness? So far, "dumb" TVs have far outlasted the life of a streaming device. I still have a smart TV I got about 10 years ago. Waste of money for that premium. Nothing works on it any more. Other than the TV itself. Which would have been cheaper had I not picked one that had built-in netflix et. al.
I stand with the "I avoid smart tvs" guy you replied to. Waste of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Psst!
Don't pay a premium for built in smartness. It is literally always an afterthought on every single TV. Buy an STB you like and use it until it's obsolete.
Re:Not smart... (Score:5, Informative)
p>Then why pay the premium for built-in smartness? So far, "dumb" TVs have far outlasted the life of a streaming device. I still have a smart TV I got about 10 years ago. Waste of money for that premium. Nothing works on it any more. Other than the TV itself. Which would have been cheaper had I not picked one that had built-in netflix et. al.
I stand with the "I avoid smart tvs" guy you replied to. Waste of money.
There is no premium as literally every tv is smart. You can buy a "dumb" tv that is actually a panel meant for studios and you better sit down because it's about 5x the price of your smart tv.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no premium as literally every tv is smart
Best Buy's website literally has a filter option for 'non-smart' TVs
You can buy a "dumb" tv ....
Um, you just told me they don't exist...
...that is actually a panel meant for studios and you better sit down because it's about 5x the price of your smart tv.
43" Insigina non-smart TV - $150
42" Insigina smart-TV - $180
It's almost as if you have no idea what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
43" Insigina non-smart TV - $150
They probably assumed, clearly incorrectly, you were bright enough to figure out they were not referring to three-year-old, new-old-stock models from junk manufacturers. I can get one even cheaper if I just look on Craigslist, but that's not really the point, now is it?
Re:Not smart... (Score:4, Insightful)
"You've cherry-picked two models to make your case."
Um, no. He pointed out examples that disprove the "absolute" statements that (A) they don't exist and (B) they are 5x the cost.
That's not "cherry picking". That's showing that each statement was false. And he totally "made (his) case".
Re: (Score:3)
Then why pay the premium for built-in smartness?
Are you sure that you are paying a premium? The various streaming services are paying the TV manufacturers and these payments may make a "Smart TV" cheaper than a dumb TV.
Re: (Score:2)
The various streaming services are paying the TV manufacturers
They are? Where did you hear this?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit that I don't ave a citation for it, but why else would the manufacturers put these apps on their TVs?
Roku charges app publishers. Charging app publishers is simply the norm in the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Given that the apps are free to download,
So are many Android and IOS apps. Apple and Google get their cut when you make any payments through the app.
You can't download apps from a random website. The apps must be in the manufacturer's store. There were issues before about how much publishers were prepared to pay Roku -- why should it be any different for TVs?
For example:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that whatever chip/software they put in will be the lowest quality/cheapest thing they can get away with, and will just barely work until it is obsolete within 2-3 years
Funny, this reminds me of the integrated to component stereo transition back when I was a lad. If you remember, you used to buy hi-fi gear packaged as furniture and it had that "replace the whole thing when one bit went out" nature. When I started looking for a stereo, the new hotness was to buy a separate turntable, pre-amp, amp, receiver, tape deck, and speakers. Yay interoperable audio gear standards! Anyway, that let you mix, match, and upgrade component at a time.
Now it seems very few people bother wit
Re: (Score:2)
1. It'll just barely work with Minimum Viable Features for a few years whilst the newer TVs get the functionality you're waiting for.
2. One day the app will randomly disappear from your TV because the manufacturer is no longer supporting it.
As streaming boxes go, I quite like my Roku. Any issues are usually down the streaming service/app that it hosts, not the box itself.
I just I could get automatic commercial skip on cable-streams or my cable DVR. Nothing has ever come close to early 2000s ReplayTV for D
The solution (Score:3)
> streaming boxes don't need to exist at all. By most measures, a majority of consumers in the US already own a smart TV
Non-modular smart TVs were a terrible idea from the start. Display panels have a much longer use life than SBCs. SmartTV functions should be limited to controlling the TV features and leave streaming/games/apps to a 3rd party module that can be upgraded as times change.
If you want subsidized hardware and a walled garden get a firestick and google cast. If you want a full SBC then purchase that. The TV should have a location to affix a smart module with HDMI connection and a DC power source (USB type-C) you can program to turn on/off with the display or stay on.
Re:The solution (Score:5, Funny)
Non-modular smart TVs were a terrible idea from the start.
Not from the manufacturer's viewpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
True. That's why we need to start voting with our wallets.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay. What non-smart TV can I buy in 2023?
Re: (Score:2)
Can You Still Buy a Non-Smart TV?
https://www.dealnews.com/featu... [dealnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A projector! Unless those products have now been infiltrated and indoctrinated by all this dumb-smart nonsense since I last looked into them.
Having to buy a smart TV is not a big issue for me as long as I can completely ignore the so-called smart features, and disable the wifi to prevent "ET TV phone home", and disable or neutralize the camera and mic.
Re: (Score:2)
> streaming boxes don't need to exist at all. By most measures, a majority of consumers in the US already own a smart TV
Non-modular smart TVs were a terrible idea from the start. Display panels have a much longer use life than SBCs. SmartTV functions should be limited to controlling the TV features and leave streaming/games/apps to a 3rd party module that can be upgraded as times change.
If you want subsidized hardware and a walled garden get a firestick and google cast. If you want a full SBC then purchase that. The TV should have a location to affix a smart module with HDMI connection and a DC power source (USB type-C) you can program to turn on/off with the display or stay on.
Not entirely. If the additional cost of the smart TV functionality is negligible then it's an extra convenience when you buy the TV.
And once the "smart" aspect gets long in the tooth you can plug in the smart module and there you go.
It looks like you can already use a roku remote to turn on/off the TV [howtogeek.com] so it's as integrated as you need to be.
Personally, the one big shortcoming I find with the smart devices is load time. With old-school TVs you can change channels in a fraction of a second. With smart devices
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, my Roku is pretty fast. There are some snags but if it took a minute to change apps I'd upgrade it quickly.
It's because you are the product (Score:2)
If the price is free, then YOU are the product.
These streaming devices / smart TVs manufacturers are not incentivized to make the best possible streaming experience for you. They are incentivized to gather as much information as possible about you so that they can sell it.
Re: (Score:2)
The price isn't free, the boxes cost money, the services cost money, and the experience is generally good.
In summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Streaming boxes suck because the various shows are all hidden behind different apps.
Yeah, that's an issue of IP rights and has nothing to do with the hardware.
Apple's box is the bestest, because... Apple.
Honestly, how much time do you truly spend mucking about in the UI? You select the app you want to use and launch it; the process is basically identical on all platforms. I guess if it makes you feel better that you spent more than you needed to achieve exactly the same end result, more power to you. Personally, I'm not a fan of any platform that doesn't let you install Kodi, but I know some folks don't have their own local media libraries these days.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an enormous Samsung 4k TV that has Tizen on it. Samsung hasn't updated the software on it since ~2018. My other TV has WebOS. Both of those are completely obnoxious to operate, and I've come away thinking that the best option for everyone is to standardize on whichever standard UI is available from a TV box, especially for trying to help family members with their TV related issues. Kids and the elderly, say.
Samsung is probably the worst offender here, since it's entirely possible to get either Androi
Re: (Score:2)
The article mostly addressed the situation as it pertains to standalone streaming boxes. Smart TVs certainly can and do have some truly awful implementations, and personally I don't even use the smart features of the TVs I own.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:2)
people are dumb... (Score:2)
The sad thing is people (en masse) have proven time and time again that they don't care about privacy if they can save a buck or thing they are getting something for free. They willingly bury their heads in the sand about the dangers, and then cry and moan when bad things happen that they'd been warned about before.
"If you eat all that candy you're going to get a stomach ache." 2 hours later, "I've got a stomach ache after I ate all the candy, how dare you let me eat all that candy!"
Re: (Score:2)
It's because the "bad thing" was never clearly enunciated, because it doesn't actually exist. People use scary phrases like "you ARE the product!!" and nothing ever happens to live up to the FUD.
Roku doesn't suck - mostly (Score:5, Informative)
I have two rokus - one in my rec room and one in my bedroom. They work great for letting me watch Youtube and other streaming services with a consistent interface and no ads
I tried Amazon Fire TV but took it back because the interface felt like it was always trying to push me to / sell me on stuff it wanted to promote
I also have an AppleTV because my wife is big into the Apple ecosystem and that interface isn't too bad
I seriously dislike the UIs / "smart" features on the tvs - they're slow, underpowered and .. just feel clunky at best
If Roku stopped doing its thing tomorrow I'd probably look into a media server and throw it on a raspberry PI or low power SOC etc...
but unless/until Roku and AppleTV stop meeting my needs there's no reason.
Not sure what people thought these devices were gonna do ... shine their shoes?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah... I have a Roku 2 and am reasonably happy with it. It does what it's supposed to and doesn't get in the way.
Roku Great for Vacation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I love my Roku TV interface. It does have ads on the main screen, but I blocked that (which was tricky, having to run my own DNS server and block access to other DNS servers from the TV, but I run a Linux firewall and DNS already, so that wasn't a big deal). The ads weren't horrible.
I *really* like the Roku interface for people who don't want a smart TV, as it works exactly the way I want a dumb TV to work for selecting inputs if you never configure the Internet.
I do get frustrated that it occasionally gl
What on god's green earth ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall anything so grandiose coming from smart TVs. I have heard a lot of claptrap about cloud gaming, VR platforms and similar undertakings. Of those only cloud gaming has really come close to hitting the mark.
Methinks the article's author might not realize that modern televisions are essentially just large computer monitors. Connect a suitably powerful PC and you can actually do any of that future-y stuff the article claims never materialized. Most people don't use their living room televisions for those purposes (aside from gaming), because even though technology has changed, the majority of people prefer their TV to provide passive entertainment.
Root cause: Advertisement and whiners (Score:2)
The people who are willing to pay the content creators are the advertisement hawkers. They monetize the eyeball time and give an abysmal deal to the content creators and become increasingly annoying to the viewers. But lots and lots of people value their time very low. They are willing to watch any crap and be willing to put up with any crap from the ad hawkers. Their numbers are so high, this ad supported model dominates the conten
Re: (Score:2)
Content creators have to be paid. Either in cash or in time. eyeball time
Noo!! I'm entitled to whatever entertainment I want, for FREE!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm afraid of is that it doesn't take a critical mass of paying subscribers to ditch the ad networks; it takes a principled stance against maximizing profits. There is always the temptation of double dippi
Meh, DRM victim problems (Score:5, Funny)
My pirated material server works great with any device that has network share access and VLC :D
didn't buy into streaming; still getting bit by it (Score:4, Interesting)
I never stopped buying physical media and with the rise of streaming services, used media—especially CDs—has been super affordable. I typically pay less than 50 per CD, and less than $4 for DVD/Blu-Ray. Throw them on my Emby server and I have my own Netflix. And unless it's something I really want, Black Friday is a big buy day for me.
That said, for newer shows—as noted in the Slate article—a number of streaming services such as Amazon Prime, AppleTV, Disney+, etc., are refusing to release shows on physical media, now. For example, I'd really like to get The Expanse on 4K/UHD and even though I can watch it in that format on Prime, it's not the same quality, yet I have no other recourse.
So, I for one welcome the impending implosion and I hope it forces those remaining to continue to release physical media. I suspect that's a losing battling, though, because it is much easier to control the product through streams than via physical media.
Re: (Score:3)
So, I for one welcome the impending implosion and I hope it forces those remaining to continue to release physical media.
There is no impending implosion. This is a just an "old man yells at cloud" story, written by someone who expected streaming TV to mean that Netflix would somehow obtain the rights to all content from every major movie and TV studio. If that had come to pass, a Netflix subscription would probably cost as much a a fully loaded cable TV package.
Re: (Score:2)
I typically pay less than 50 per CD, and less than $4 for DVD/Blu-Ray
That sounds absolutely horrible. At 0.50/CD meaning an average of 4cents per track you would need to spend about $5,000,000 to match the music library of a typical streaming service. For that money you could get Spotify for you and your entire family for 26,000 years.
Same applies to your Blueray. $4 / movie? What's that, 3 movies per month to match what is available compared to the 2000-3500 titles available from a streaming service? You could get a Netflix subscription for 60 years and still be better off
Re: (Score:3)
The point you missed is that 90% of the content of streaming services is crap, at least as far as I'm concerned. I have zero interest in hip hip. On the other hand I have a large Tanya Tucker collection.
Since my interests are limited, and I want to listen to Vivaldi's the Four Seasons more than once, the giant library of a streaming service is of limited utility.
Your mileage obviously differs.
Better off with a NUC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we're better off attaching NUCs to our TVs and have a wireless keyboard/trackpad remote
The problem with a HTPC for streaming is that you'll basically be watching the major paid streaming services through a web browser interface.
Firestick + Kodi = sorted (Score:2)
What you want is TiVo... (Score:2)
... except that TiVo's streaming clients are buggy.
And TiVo wedges ads in front of shows it has DVRed (at least the SKIP button works on them).
And TiVo has a pricey monthly subscription, or you can buy a pricey all-in subscription (which turned out to be a great deal when I bought it back at the dawn of time, and have been able to transfer it to new hardware, twice).
Re: (Score:2)
And TiVo wedges ads in front of shows it has DVRed (at least the SKIP button works on them).
Only if you bought a Tivo with TE4, or allowed your Tivo to update itself to that version
Apple TV (Score:3)
What we wanted - and got - was an iPhone-like experience with easy access to Netflix, NatGeo, and PBS Kids, plus a few simple games on Apple Arcade. It's perfect for our grade school age children. We only use two services as adults (Netflix, Hulu) so its great for us too.
If you have a dozen streaming services, I don't know if it would work, but for our needs its pretty great. Bonus with kids: Our phones are the remotes, so we never have to worry about a lost remote.
Re: (Score:2)
I use multiple streaming services on my AppleTV and I have to say that I enjoy that experience over other streaming boxes...
My only complaint (and it is probably there but I don't know about it), I'd like to be able to sort all of the "apps" in my own order so frequently used ones are at the top and rarest at the bottom. Right now they're basically in order of when they were added so I have to scroll and find the one I want.
The biggest problem. (Score:3)
The biggest problem is that the content producers, streaming services, and device makers mix and match in frustrating ways. Content goes away one place, pops up in another place, and a few months later may pop up on yet another service. Meanwhile, each service insists on having their own 'app', totally controlling the experience and also providing inconsistent UI from each other. Some streaming boxes provide limited ability to index the services, but only if their apps support it (half don't at all), even when supported it's half-assed, and even as it works, once you start playing a video you are now in that app instead of just that video. All this combines to effectively have to keep track of which services have which content and contending with whiplash from jumping from one UI to another.
This can carry over in the extreme, like when Google took Youtube away from Roku. So by virtue of the device you bought falling out of favor with Google, suddenly you lost a major part of internet video because Google wanted to flex over Roku and probably try to steer business toward Chromecast.
What is worse, Smart TVs!!!! (Score:3)
Buy your panel, attach your favorite streaming device to it. Fixed. Well, fixed "better" than using a Smart TV.
Don't brick your expensive functional panel with a brain dead OS or with a deprecated streaming experience.
Nvidia Shield is great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Shield is awesome.
My kids were playing Stadia on it regularly for a while. I'm now working on replacing that with Moonlight. We've also used it as a Steam Link.
It does Kodi from my Linux system just fine, sadly it only supports SMB, not NFS or SFTP, but that's fine, it works anyways. I suppose I probably could hook up a big-ass USB drive for Kodi, but that's more of a pain to manage.
The remote is incredibly intuitive and easy to use, and it has a locator, which gets used often with the kids around.
It
Re: (Score:3)
The Shield's weak point is no VP9.2 or AV1 decoding in hardware so it stutters like crazy. Even my TV supports YouTube 4K HDR 60fps videos, but it only has 100Mbit ethernet so I can't play certain 4K remuxes on the TV, those only play well on the Shield.
Agreed (Score:2)
They're all fucking terrible. From the $20 no name Android boxes to the very capable oDroid devices that do 4k60 video in hardware with no cpu overhead. Kodi and Liberelec suck. I don't need or want a media manager. A file browser and VLC suits my needs just fine. For that reason I use a small form factor pc. Streaming from free or paid services is done with a browser. It's much easier to manage with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse than a shitty remote control. My tv is a 4k Hisense black friday deal. Just d
There's nothing to watch, anyway! (Score:2)
Not intuitive (Score:2)
Sony TV vs Fire Stick vs Old Mac (Score:2)
I have a Sony Android TV. It runs Kodi, which is nice, but for all other streaming I prefer my Fire Stick (except that it seems to make the TV reboot once per day when I used it regularly). That said, neither has seen much use since I adopted a 2014 Mac Mini I got off eBay for streaming and media purposes. It doesn't do 4K, but that's about its only shortcoming.
I just use my 10 year old desktop output to HDMI (Score:2)
I have a 10 year old desktop with an 8 core processor, a low end of the high end video card, and 32 GB of ram.
Off of it I run...
A 10 year old 1080P 42 inch HD TV.
A 24 inch monitor in a swivel arm beside it, surplus from work.
A Rift S I picked up used.
A 65$ 1080P projector firing at a 6 foot film projection screen I scored out of the trash.
The 3 audio jacks on the back go into a 15 year old 5.1 surround sound capable 800 watt stereo that has a powered bass bin / multichannel extender and an old Peavy amp ca
Just give me a screen (Score:2)
and maybe speakers, for my TV.
A 4k screen is going to last you until you feel it is obsolete and want to replace it with an 8k model. I had my 1080p screens for about 10 years before replacing them with 4k screens.
Any smart stuff is going to become obsolete a long time before that, so it is far better to get a $30 box, and replace that with a new one in a couple of years time.
They always looked sucky and with low potential (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know what this author is smoking, because no "streaming box" ever looked any good at all. Every single one of them looked like a total piece of shit, proprietary and locked down so that it could never be used for good. And they had to suck, because sucking is a requirement in order to be allowed to implement the DRM of proprietary services.
It was not the streaming box, but the HTPC, which reinvented the cable box. It did that by un-inventing the cable box and the streaming box, due to those box's fa
The Verge, hyperbolic trash since day 1 (Score:2)
Ummm no... (Score:2)
This might be true of random POS no name android boxes running Kodi and the low rate Roku's are notorious but the Nvidia Shield TV boxes still crush anything loaded on a 'smart tv' by a large measure.
Also while I'd bought the device with half an eye toward a game or two that largely fizzled out... but I rediscovered this lately. Paired with the GeForce Now service you can get unlimited cloud-based play time rendered by 4080's on the backend with 4k HDR graphics that make the PS5 look like shadowless second
Ummm, Amazon Firestick (Score:2)
Before I switched over to just connecting my computer to my receiver, using an amazon firestick was a really great way to access pretty much any streaming service available. This was especially helpful for my slightly older HD tv that didn't have smart features and even more helpful for an off brand smart tv that never got updates.
Maybe I'm just not understanding the problem, but Firestick was definitely an easy, cheap solution for letting a TV access a streaming service with just a couple clicks.
Re: (Score:2)