"nlyt" wrote:
The Boxee Box is integrating a webkit based browser as well.
As far as I know, Apple TV does not have a web browser. But the new Apple TV is running iOS, allowing a browser to be added quickly if Apple dictates.
Source: http://www.slashgear.com/boxee-box-to-f ... -09101577/
A method of connecting and displaying a laptop through Roku, on the TV screen, (wirelessly or adding ports to hardwire it in) would seem more useful than an internal browser.
It seems like it would be much easier as well. Add video and audio in ports, and set up a channel to do the dirt work.
"scrager" wrote:
I think chris0071 has hit the nail on the head with why shoehorning a web browser on to the Roku is a bad idea. If this was 1995 and 99% of content on the web was simple HTML and images, then sure. But these days the web ranges from HTML to Javascript to Java to Flash to HTML5 to you name it. Roku hardware wasn't designed for that and trying to make it fit is just going to result in a browser that no one wants to use anyway.
Everyone asking for a browser has this idea that it will work just like the browser on their PC, but I think that is an unrealistic expectation for a box that is focused on streaming media and not doing everything.
Everyone comparing to Apple TV shouldn't even be in here. If you want Apple TV features, then go get Apple TV. Yes, Apple TV will play netflix also, but I can guarantee you that Apple TV won't have a developer community creating channels for everything from archives and NPR to adult content. Even if Apple TV has an SDK, you know they will have an APP store just like they do with the iphone. That means that Apple decides what is good for you and they will only make available channels that are approved. That means none of the private channel experimentation.
One bad point that chris0071 made though:
A method of connecting and displaying a laptop through Roku, on the TV screen, (wirelessly or adding ports to hardwire it in) would seem more useful than an internal browser.
It seems like it would be much easier as well. Add video and audio in ports, and set up a channel to do the dirt work.
Um, if you're going to go through the trouble of hooking an external source up, why not just hook it directly to your TV. No need for a Roku middle man.
Um, if you're going to go through the trouble of hooking an external source up, why not just hook it directly to your TV. No need for a Roku middle man.
"ryanxwalton" wrote:"scrager" wrote:
I think chris0071 has hit the nail on the head with why shoehorning a web browser on to the Roku is a bad idea. If this was 1995 and 99% of content on the web was simple HTML and images, then sure. But these days the web ranges from HTML to Javascript to Java to Flash to HTML5 to you name it. Roku hardware wasn't designed for that and trying to make it fit is just going to result in a browser that no one wants to use anyway.
Everyone asking for a browser has this idea that it will work just like the browser on their PC, but I think that is an unrealistic expectation for a box that is focused on streaming media and not doing everything.
Everyone comparing to Apple TV shouldn't even be in here. If you want Apple TV features, then go get Apple TV. Yes, Apple TV will play netflix also, but I can guarantee you that Apple TV won't have a developer community creating channels for everything from archives and NPR to adult content. Even if Apple TV has an SDK, you know they will have an APP store just like they do with the iphone. That means that Apple decides what is good for you and they will only make available channels that are approved. That means none of the private channel experimentation.
One bad point that chris0071 made though:
A method of connecting and displaying a laptop through Roku, on the TV screen, (wirelessly or adding ports to hardwire it in) would seem more useful than an internal browser.
It seems like it would be much easier as well. Add video and audio in ports, and set up a channel to do the dirt work.
Um, if you're going to go through the trouble of hooking an external source up, why not just hook it directly to your TV. No need for a Roku middle man.
One of those comments you made was a personal attack on me. Well..I was just giving an idea to the OP that if he wanted a browser on his TV, he could try the Apple TV approach, because I use it, and I like it. Now..you're probably gonna assume that I'm so kind of troll. Well, I'm not. I own two Roku's. One I bought, and the other I got from Roku for beta testing, and I love them. I've gotten to be pretty deep in the community here, and if someone wants to do something, I'm not gonna just say I don't know to protect Roku's interests, because I don't work for Roku. I know how they can do it, and I'll give them the advice they want. Next time you want to attack me, at least use my name.
"scrager" wrote:
cons:
...
sequential letter typing
"chris0071" wrote:
I have a question.
If these other platforms have a small drive space that allows for some programs to be run, then what happens if they fill up that drive space?
If they start allowing a browser, for example, in order to make it usefull and fully compliant across the wek, won't they have to allow for web apps and such to be installed? Some, like Java, are rather large installs, and are notorious for just adding on top of themselves rather than deleting old versions. I once had a 6 or 7 GB Java folder, for example, with about 10 older versions still lurking beneath the surface.
To be a fully compliant browser, stuff like Adobe Reader would need to work ... and .. well, you get my point.
This seems like one of those things where an internal browser might be more trouble that it's worth. A method of connecting and displaying a laptop through Roku, on the TV screen, (wirelessly or adding ports to hardwire it in) would seem more useful than an internal browser.
It seems like it would be much easier as well. Add video and audio in ports, and set up a channel to do the dirt work.
That's just my $0.02 worth.
"kbenson" wrote:
all you need to be able to do is correctly parse the HTML, CSS, images and content and display them correctly. A ported webkit (the underlying browser used by Apple and Google) could accomplish this.
"TheEndless" wrote:"kbenson" wrote:
all you need to be able to do is correctly parse the HTML, CSS, images and content and display them correctly. A ported webkit (the underlying browser used by Apple and Google) could accomplish this.
Is it safe to assume you're not talking about an actual BrightScript port? You mentioned in an earlier post that you had actually started working on one. I'm very curious how you would be able to do that with BrightScript. Particularly with layout of text and images (tables, text wrapping, multiple font sizes, etc), not to mention javascript support.