What is Roku?

[kdonnel]

If this is all too confusing, you could always switch to a Roku or Fire TV. They're essentially the same thing but they come with a physical remote.

Or get a Chromecast with Google TV device. Essentially a chromecast with a remote and a UI not terrible different than Roku.

 

[Imzadi]

Mirroring and casting are two different things. Mirroring works as you described. Your phone is connected to the internet and whatever is on your phone screen shows up on the TV. When you're mirroring, clicking off your phone screen would also turn off the mirroring.

Casting is something different. When you cast, you essentially send a link to the content you're watching from your device to the Chromecast dongle. Then the Chromecast dongle streams the content from the internet.

scratchin: Now it's making sense why most times the screen is being mirrored on TV and I can't turn off the phone screen as the TV screen also goes black. Alternately, if I answer the phone, the phone keyboard would be on screen instead of the movie. Hence why I use an old phone I no longer use as a phone to mirror movies.

Other times, like when I use the YouTube or Prime app instead of just mirroring what's on my phone's browser, I'm able to turn off the phone screen and conserve battery power. Thanks for the explanation.

If this is all too confusing, you could always switch to a Roku or Fire TV. They're essentially the same thing but they come with a physical remote.

Meh, the phone is essentially my physical "remote" right now.

 

[disykat]

I bought Roku strictly for the remote and the passageway to other steaming. I have never needed or been asked to purchase anything else. On rare occasions I watch some of the "free" Roku content, but have never paid extra for anything. Roku is my home screen and I use it to navigate to streaming services I do use.

We originally got Roku for my dad to have a few free things on tv since he didn't watch much so we didn't want to pay a monthly fee. We liked it, so when we quit cable a few years back we got Roku too. We're still happy with it.

 

[Mrs.AMC]

For Family and General Entertainment content, I agree. But Sports and News still need to be watched live, and the Live TV streaming services are often even more expensive than just buying a Cable+Internet bundle.

For non-sports fans it's a no-brainer.

Disagree
We watch more live sports than any other programming

We are streaming only. There's more sports that way than just live option. Ever heard of ESPN+?

 

[Mrs.AMC]

Is AT&T internet plus YouTube TV actually any cheaper than just paying for an AT&T internet plus TV bundle?

I used to do the same as you when YouTube TV had the much lower price, but after all of the increases it was cheaper for me to just go back to the Comcast bundle.

We use a local provider for Gig internet and Hulu+, add free
It's much cheaper than the local provider TV service+Gig internet
So, yeah, it's possible to be cheaper. Maybe shop around local options
We dropped Comcast years ago due to how high they were plus how poor their Internet was

 

[Mrs.AMC]

Isn't Roku just the same type of device as an Apple TV box, Fire stick/cube, etc? A device you use to load apps to stream to your TV? And they can also offer some original programming, like Apple TV has?

 

[bcla]

Isn't Roku just the same type of device as an Apple TV box, Fire stick/cube, etc? A device you use to load apps to stream to your TV? And they can also offer some original programming, like Apple TV has?

They're somewhat different in that they started out as a maker of streaming devices. Their own streaming content is closer to what free streaming providers like Tubi or PlutoTV has. Heck - I remember when Hulu was first out, they had a lot of free content.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

We use a local provider for Gig internet and Hulu+, add free
It's much cheaper than the local provider TV service+Gig internet
So, yeah, it's possible to be cheaper. Maybe shop around local options
We dropped Comcast years ago due to how high they were plus how poor their Internet was

Much of the country doesn't have "local options" for internet. My zip code gets Comcast and Comcast alone. I pay what they charge for internet or I don't get internet.

And Hulu + Live TV is $76. I pay less for Comcast.

AND Hulu doesn't have NESN (Red Sox and Bruins). The only way to get NESN without cable is FuboTV, which is $70 and sucks, or DirecTV Stream, which doesn't suck but is $90.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Disagree
We watch more live sports than any other programming

We are streaming only. There's more sports that way than just live option. Ever heard of ESPN+?

Hulu + Live TV is not what people mean when they say "streaming only." Yeah, mechanically you get your video content through the internet, but Hulu + Live TV is just a digital multichannel video programming distributor (DMVPD or vMVPD). It's not any different than just paying for cable.

 

[Mrs.AMC]

Much of the country doesn't have "local options" for internet. My zip code gets Comcast and Comcast alone. I pay what they charge for internet or I don't get internet.

And Hulu + Live TV is $76. I pay less for Comcast.

AND Hulu doesn't have NESN (Red Sox and Bruins). The only way to get NESN without cable is FuboTV, which is $70 and sucks, or DirecTV Stream, which doesn't suck but is $90.

Ok. But much of the country doesn't get stuck with just Comcast either
Even without our local option Comcast was not our sole provider
So, your choices may suck but that doesn't mean all do
That's the only point really

 

[Mrs.AMC]

Hulu + Live TV is not what people mean when they say "streaming only." Yeah, mechanically you get your video content through the internet, but Hulu + Live TV is just a digital multichannel video programming distributor (DMVPD or vMVPD). It's not any different than just paying for cable.

Whatever it is it's cheaper
Thought that was the topic

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Whatever it is it's cheaper

It's not. Hulu + Live TV is $70 and doesn't include a full slate of RSNs. That's not cheaper than cable. If you like it because you like it, that's fine. But you're not saving any money.

 

[Mrs.AMC]

It's not. Hulu + Live TV is $70 and doesn't include a full slate of RSNs. That's not cheaper than cable. If you like it because you like it, that's fine. But you're not saving any money.

Not saving any money? Allrighty then, glad you know my bills and what I've paid to who for service. One your wrong about is what I pay Hulu but not really any of your business anyway. Hint, there are discounts out there
Honestly, don't care what your thoughts are on what I pay
I'm trying to say that we watch all the live sports we want without cable
Hulu has nothing to do with sports watching either
We don't watch sports with Hulu

 

[BrianL]

Hulu + Live TV is not what people mean when they say "streaming only." Yeah, mechanically you get your video content through the internet, but Hulu + Live TV is just a digital multichannel video programming distributor (DMVPD or vMVPD). It's not any different than just paying for cable.

Tehcnically it's all streaming, but things with LiveTV are using Liner content. Also, I switched to DirecTV Stream and I do save a little money off my previous cable package. It's not a lot, but it's decent.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Tehcnically it's all streaming, but things with LiveTV are using Liner content. Also, I switched to DirecTV Stream and I do save a little money off my previous cable package. It's not a lot, but it's decent.

Did you get a sweet promotional rate? DirecTV stream's base price is something like $90 isn't it?

 

[BrianL]

Did you get a sweet promotional rate? DirecTV stream's base price is something like $90 isn't it?

No, it's $70 I believe without the premium stuff like STARZ, etc. What I got was like free STARZ or HBO or something for three months, but then those would kick up to full price. I never watched them and removed it from my account. My old Uverse Internet and TV package was like $180 a month, but with ATT Fiber and DirecTV Stream, I am only paying about $140, so it's not too bad of a cost savings. It is definitely much higher than the over-the-top streaming services.

 

[bcla]

I'm thinking of getting a Roku box for my dad since he's been watching the free streaming feeds (no announcers and sometimes just backboard cameras) for the NBA playoffs on his iPad Pro. He was trying to get it to display on his LG TV using AirPlay, but I guess it's locked out from doing it by the apps. I looked on his TV, and the availablility of apps on an LG TV is pretty poor. Maybe YouTube, but no ESPN. Not sure there's any way to get a TV version of the NBA app, but I'm thinking that I can probably display it on a TV with a computer.

It's only $30 for one (not the stick version) from Target, and he might want it for since it would be a lot easier to use than what he's got now since the LG has a really clunky interface for apps.

 

[BrianL]

I'm thinking of getting a Roku box for my dad since he's been watching the free streaming feeds (no announcers and sometimes just backboard cameras) for the NBA playoffs on his iPad Pro. He was trying to get it to display on his LG TV using AirPlay, but I guess it's locked out from doing it by the apps. I looked on his TV, and the availablility of apps on an LG TV is pretty poor. Maybe YouTube, but no ESPN. Not sure there's any way to get a TV version of the NBA app, but I'm thinking that I can probably display it on a TV with a computer.

It's only $30 for one (not the stick version) from Target, and he might want it for since it would be a lot easier to use than what he's got now since the LG has a really clunky interface for apps.

A Roku device will be much more versatile than a built-in "Smart TV" interface. Those often get outdated very quickly and are an afterthought to the app developers. You can get TV's with Roku built in too, like mine is, but that's just like having a Roku device. I would recommend it.

 

[bcla]

A Roku device will be much more versatile than a built-in "Smart TV" interface. Those often get outdated very quickly and are an afterthought to the app developers. You can get TV's with Roku built in too, like mine is, but that's just like having a Roku device. I would recommend it.

Samsung has been pretty good with their available smart TV apps. There are very few I can't get, although I had to wait a while for Peacock, which had an issue where only one of their system versions was supported for a time. LG has been pretty bad about it. Sounds odd because they're both large companies with extensive resources for this sort of thing. And the one I'd like to get for him right on the TV is ESPN, which is a bit odd since I believe Hulu is built-in and Disney+ is available.

 

[GreatLakes]

I have two ROKUs (one box one stick), a Fire stick, a FireTV, and a Chromcast. The Roku devices are hands down the best when it comes to UI and support of all the differnet streaming providers. I even use it more than the build in FireTV app for Amazon Prime which you'd think would be best on their own platform.

Roku also does more frequent updates which is best from a security standpoint but with any IoT device, which these all are, you should have a segregated network for them away from anything valuable. I don't let streaming traffic co-mingle with computer traffic for security purposes. I use separate routers with a common gateway but you can use VLAN tagging just as easily.

For live sports I only really care about the EPL and also don't really care if I watch it live or on replay so Peacock gets me what I need. I have never watched anything on the Roku channel but it is a nice option along with some of the other free stuff like IMDB TV (some of their stuff is free and some requires a subscription).

We decided we should watch less TV anyways so not having more and more stuff isn't all that much of a problem.