“kbenson” wrote:
A ported webkit (as a component or standalone channel) would get a fully compliant browser.
My personal happy place? WebKit and related libraries wrapped into components, usable from any channel. And a working sample channel in the SDK showing how to tie them together (at least minimally).
I will note that browser security is HARD, and it may be that Roku does not have the programming resources necessary to support an “official” browser channel and keep it fully patched up to be secure on the wild wild web. But being able to consume HTML/CSS from our own channels, much like the embedded browsers in many online game clients, would just rock.
“kbenson” wrote:
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.
And in doing so we may end up creating a good argument for a BrightScript JIT.
Or hey, all of the major JavaScript JITs have ARM ports, so maybe just offer that as a new programming environment?
As a developer I really need the opposite, I need to see the roku screen on my computer, it is a pain having to toggle back and forth between roku and my computer every few minutes, not to mention having to share the roku with my girlfriend… I guess that is the only benefit of not having the postseason on roku/MLB
Wish there was some kind of vnc app in the roku that would echo out…
“jbrave” wrote:
As a developer I really need the opposite, I need to see the roku screen on my computer, it is a pain having to toggle back and forth between roku and my computer every few minutes, not to mention having to share the roku with my girlfriend… I guess that is the only benefit of not having the postseason on roku/MLB
Wish there was some kind of vnc app in the roku that would echo out…
Well, you can pay $60 for unit to do dev on, so it’s not TOO bad. That’s pretty cheap, as long as you have a TV to hook it up to, and it’s not like there’s no use to when not doing development.
“jbrave” wrote:
As a developer I really need the opposite, I need to see the roku screen on my computer, it is a pain having to toggle back and forth between roku and my computer every few minutes, not to mention having to share the roku with my girlfriend… I guess that is the only benefit of not having the postseason on roku/MLB
Wish there was some kind of vnc app in the roku that would echo out…
Well, you can pay $60 for unit to do dev on, so it’s not TOO bad. That’s pretty cheap, as long as you have a TV to hook it up to, and it’s not like there’s no use to when not doing development.
we’re getting off topic now, but even with a dev unit, you have to switch from computer keyboard input to roku remote input and it is a pain. a proper ide (of which roku doesn’t even supply an impropper ide) would allow you to view and test within the ide itself, including debugging code without putting in print statements all over the place.
Well, you can pay $60 for unit to do dev on, so it’s not TOO bad. That’s pretty cheap, as long as you have a TV to hook it up to, and it’s not like there’s no use to when not doing development.
we’re getting off topic now, but even with a dev unit, you have to switch from computer keyboard input to roku remote input and it is a pain. a proper ide (of which roku doesn’t even supply an impropper ide) would allow you to view and test within the ide itself, including debugging code without putting in print statements all over the place.
Yeah, but there are specific, obvious reasons for that. To truly emulate the unit would mean that Roku couldn’t provide assurances to content providers that their content was safe, would allow people easier access to the firmware running, and wouldn’t necessarily match the actual performance metrics of the device. This wasn’t an oversight by Roku, it was a conscious decision.
I could actually make an argument that requiring development to be done on a live unit using the actual control mechanisms may result in better code, as developers are actively prevented from assuming something that works in their emulated version will work in the wild, which isn’t always the case.
I agree with kbenson. I’d much rather develop on the real thing than in an emulator/simulator. If the box was $1,000, I might think differently. I’m working on something for the Samsung Internet@TV now (what an absolute nightmare compared to the Roku, by the way) and it works in the emulator, but not on the real device. It’s so easy to d/l and run something on the Roku that I don’t think I’d use an emulator if I had one. The Samsung on the other hand, well don’t get me started… :evil:
Here’s what I do to get full web on my tv… I have a av switch ($40). To that, I connected roku, dvd, and a computer. For the computer, I bought a vga-to-video adapter ($40). The computer is an older one I had lying around, so I installed linux on it. I have a wireless mouse & keyboard… I have plans of making an IR receiver for my computer, so that I can use my universal remote for it.
What I would like to see is some sort of remote desktop in roku. I envision the computer streaming it’s desktop & audio out to a standard video stream. Then roku could easily work with it. Use the arrow keys to control a virtual “mouse”, and feed that back to the computer… which would then update the real mouse position, and reflect that in the video feed. And if roku gets a keyboard, we could also feed that back to the computer. That way roku only needs to do what it does best.
If that could be done for windows/linux/apple, then we would have a universal remote desktop protocol…
there is nothing wrong with the idea of simple browser for the roku. at least for the home brew crowd.
I would like to be able to access the vlc web interface with my roku. since I can stream from vlc it would be nice to hit the web interface from the roku, but honestly the android vlc remote app is pretty cool, and since I use the android roku remote( so I can hide the roku in cabinet) its not bad. but it would be kinda cool to just use the roku remote and and not the vlc remote.
Personally all I want a browser on my Roku box is so I can stop having to hook up my laptop to my HD TV with HDMI to surf to local channels like CBS,FOX, USA to catch weekly episodes of TV shows that I like. If this could be done then I would feel like Internet has arrived, and I know HULU plus is offered as a channel already but I can’t stand HULU and why do I need a middleman to watch what I want for free with my laptop!!
“nlyt” wrote:
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?
No, not unless you want a web browser on your TV. Then you just might as well hook a computer up to your TV so you aren’t limited by something like the slow processor speeds of the revue. I have both a Roku and a computer up to the TV in my living room. The Roku is easier and quicker to use, and I use the computer for stuff I can’t yet get on the Roku and for playing Rift.
you dont get, you can use a web brower for doing thing besides browsing the web.
for instance viewing the web interface for vlc or the web interface for your router.
“manoflinux” wrote:
you dont get, you can use a web brower for doing thing besides browsing the web.
for instance viewing the web interface for vlc or the web interface for your router.Well, yes. But both of those examples are a little bit silly to ‘need’ to do, when put in the context of using the Roku to do them. VLC is a streaming media player. Roku is a streaming media player. VLC has lots of other great functionality, including its transcoding capabilities, but operating all of that through a web browser ported to the Roku, with its basic remote control system just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Better to build a native Roku app, that can make calls to VLC, but will present content and options to the user in a more natural Roku-style. See 10-ft user interfaces. And in general, that’s why many popular websites would perform poorly, given the processing power and control options available in a Roku. They just weren’t designed with such an interface in mind.
For a router, either it needs to be configured to work with the Roku, or it already is working, and some other change needs to be made for some other device. If it’s the former, then the Roku would be useless for the task. If it’s the latter, then the Roku (if it had a browser) might be of some limited use(it’s not like it’s ever going to be able to upload firmware or download logs). But users who purchase a Roku are expected to already have a home network in place, which means there’s probably another device with a proper browser available that was used to set up the network in the first place and would be more appropriate for the job of managing the router.
The Roku isn’t a general purpose device and just won’t ever be one. We technical folk can shoehorn in all kinds of functionality that it wasn’t really intended to do, but doing that in a way that makes the resulting feature broadly compelling to a majority of potential users is another thing altogether.
regardless if you think my use for a web browser is silly doesn’t change my need for it.
a very simple web browser would be very handy. I am sorry you cant see that.
What the roku needs is a native HTML parser. This would extend the ability of channel developers to grab information from a web page, and, if anyone wanted to create a simple browser, they could. Also needs a native JSON parser, but that is for another thread.
I think it would be nice because I have developed a digital signage application that runs on a web browser. I would love to be able to set up a channel to just choose my digital signage content and have it play. I can hook a computer up to the tv, which is what I have been doing, but with the $60 roku player it would be much cheaper. Just a thought.
“jbrave” wrote:
What the roku needs is a native HTML parser. This would extend the ability of channel developers to grab information from a web page, and, if anyone wanted to create a simple browser, they could. Also needs a native JSON parser, but that is for another thread.
it parses XML already so JSON should be really easy. I agree, this is the first step.
“manoflinux” wrote:
you dont get, you can use a web brower for doing thing besides browsing the web.
for instance viewing the web interface for vlc or the web interface for your router.
“manoflinux” wrote:
regardless if you think my use for a web browser is silly doesn’t change my need for it.
a very simple web browser would be very handy. I am sorry you cant see that.
So hook a computer up to your TV if you NEED a web browser on your TV - I have one, and find I still rarely use it, The Simpsons and Southpark are about all I watch on it. If Roku can manage to get a web browser that actually functions and doesn’t mess anything else up -like its intended purpose of watching internet media- then fine. That would be great. But I didn’t pay several hundred dollars for the Roku and knew what I bought before I bought it. It is a good cheap device to watch internet media. Other options out there are essentially slow netbooks when it comes to web browsing. You would be better served if you wanted to shell out the cash for a revue to get a Roku and a Netbook and hook them both to your TV. They sell decent wireless keyboards and remotes that work with PC’s. Everything on the Roku is on the Internet somewhere.
Outside of that, look at what the Roku costs and what else you can get for the money you paid for the Roku. From what I have heard from others and from my own playing around is that the Roku plays media better than the others at half to a third of the cost (or less if you buy the lower end Roku). Yes the other devices have more options, I would hope so for the price they are charging. As far as I am concerned if my Rokus were to fry today and not work anymore, I would buy two more, because they have already paid for themselves several times over that I could buy 2 every six months and still save money over watching cable TV. I would get a little irritated by it if they were to do that to me every six months but my point is there are other options out there. Don’t like what the Roku has then look at those other options.
