Is anyone working on a web browser for the Roku? GoogleTV will leap frog the Roku for this fact alone.
Here is a list of features that would make for an impressive web browser.
Bookmarking pages as a channel
Flash, JavaScript, HTML5 support
Anyone else have feature ideas?
“nlyt” wrote:
GoogleTV will leap frog the Roku for this fact alone.
Wouldn’t bet on it. $200 vs. $59. for a start.
And no keyboard for another… the thought of entering URLs via the onscreen keyboard scares the crap out of me 
Eh, give Roku another 3 months. We’ll have yet another hardware refresh, a remote with a keyboard, and new high end model with a faster chipset for $99 and the low end model for $50. These people are nuts for new features and cheaper models. 
See what happens when you set the bar so high? 
With current hardware it would be difficult to escape an on screen keyboard. But if bookmarking was possible, and you had sites like youtube and ustream already saved, keyboard entry would be minimal.
If sometime a keyboard is released or a mobile device emulated a keyboard, the browser would move to support it immediately.
The Roku XD|S supports usb. Would that support a keyboard??
Would anyone like a web browser on their roku?
This has been discussed to death. If you want a browser on your tv, buy a laptop and hook it up. The roku is a digital media player. It has an interface designed to access supplied media and play that media when selected.
If you want a browser, then get out there and code it yourself. I don’t think you are going to find any current Roku developer that is working on or planning a web browser.
+1 with Scrager.. People really don’t want to browse the web any more than casually on TV.. it’s been proven by several failed devices that have come and gone.
“scrager” wrote:
If you want a browser, then get out there and code it yourself. I don’t think you are going to find any current Roku developer that is working on or planning a web browser.
Must … resist … reply … of Death …
“jeffrok” wrote:
+1 with Scrager.. People really don’t want to browse the web any more than casually on TV.. it’s been proven by several failed devices that have come and gone.
One could make an argument that this may not hold true in the current climate for any number of reasons: The web is more ubiquitous, more essential services are handles through the web, more media is consolidated on the web, TV’s are more capable of displaying content in an appealing manner (HD resolution), etc.
I’m not saying I want to make any such arguments, or really get into this, but let’s not kid ourselves that it’s cut and dry and already decided. I think is WILL be decided shortly, when Google TV comes out, but until then we’ll see.
I was interested in doing a (very) rudimentary browser for the Roku for a while, until Geoff pointed out that if Roku IS planning on porting webkit or something, it would be a whole lot of work for nothing. I’ve even got some of the groundwork done…
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/
“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/
Installing ATVFlash to the Apple TV adds a web browser, and you can also install Firefox on it too.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
I do think that there could be a way to do this wirelessly through the Roku. I don’t know what it is … because frankly my ideas far outstrip the technical knowledge necessary to bring them about, (and that should give you an idea of my technical knowhow on this thing) 
but man, that would be quite a coup.
Imagine being able to maybe download a small program … bring your laptop in front of your TV … start that small program, tune your Roku to the appropriate channel, and pow, there is your laptop screen displayed on your TV.
“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.
I didn’t use your name because I wasn’t attacking you. I was attacking the appleTV comparison. My point is that every complaint about the roku compares it to some other box while ignoring the benefits that the roku has over that same box.
Apple TV:
pros:
browser
smaller size
‘prettier’ interface but less usable
cons:
no apps
no sdk
less content
rent content only
sequential letter typing
720p only
have to use with itunes
Roku:
pros:
sdk
open channel development for any content in the right format
more commercial content
up to 1080p playback possible
no need for itunes or anything on your local network if you don’t want it
cons:
no browser
Check this article for a head to head comparison on roku vs apple tv from a form apple employee where he chooses roku for many of the reasons stated above: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2010/10/apple-tv-and-roku-go-head-to-head-heres-the-winner.html. I especially like the comment about typing with the apple remote. Sure you may be able to sync up an ipod touch to get a better keyboard, but you can’t say that appleTV for $99 has an easy to use keyboard if it requires a $229+ device to act as that keyboard. I could make the same argument for roku as there is an ipod touch app for the roku to allow you to type without having to navigate over the roku keyboard.
“scrager” wrote:
cons:
…
sequential letter typing
Not that it really matters, but I saw this in an article that was posted yesterday, and I just want to point out that the sequential letter typing is only in the configuration screens (wireless key, netflix username/password, etc). The standard search interface has a keyboard not much unlike the Roku’s. The sequential keyboard screen is definitely annoying, but much less so if you have a lot of special characters or mixed letters and numbers.
“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.
This only holds if you believe that the iphone’s built in browser isn’t useful. Compliance for a web browser has nothing to do with PDF display, Java or any other plugin. Specifically because those are plugins, and not part of the core HTML specification. With HTML5, you get audio and video playback, but besides that, 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.
The real technological questions are how to make the interface usable with a remote like the Roku’s, and whether there’s enough storage space on the unit to shoehorn webkit and it’s required libraries without taking away all the space available for channel installs. I figure if they did implement a browser it would probably be on a later hardware version, unless these new units have more flash disk space than the old ones…
“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.
“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.
Well, there’s two things I’m talking about. A ported webkit (as a component or standalone channel) would get a fully compliant browser. I was just referring to a very rudimentary browser, something reminiscent to the blackberry browser prior to their new apple-esque version. Something like lynx/links + images. While not exactly the best browsing experience, it could make certain types of browsing worthwhile.
