http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/29/roku ... -exposure/

that didn't last long

Disappointing, but I don't really have a hefty enough pc at home to handle Playon well.

I imagine they want the best possible relationship with Hulu. I think that the future of Roku rests on the strength of its content relationships more than a pusher of generic hardware, so this makes sense to me from a strategic sense.

On the other hand, Toshiba doesn't tell me what I can and can't run on my laptop, and from that perspective a walled garden is frustrating. But even what Roku calls Private Channels are distributed through the channel store and I suppose that gives Roku liability.

I wonder if we will see more channels distributed elsewhere on the web and loaded via developer mode. Not a huge need at this point, since this is only the second banned channel I have heard about (one was a DMA takedown).

I don't really care myself.. I've got PlayON but I don't care for it much.. it's buggy.. I just wanted an easy way to playback my local content on my Roku and PlayON has the local media streaming ability now (still in beta though) so far, there is no easy way for me to do it because I'm not going to re-encode over 1000 movies and setup a web server for it.. in the meantime I'll continue to use xbmc for my local media.

Once two devs showed up for two separate channels. It got pretty ugly in my mind. Kind of messy. Can't say I'm surprised......

Playon needed to keep things more low profile, and they didn't.....

No, the private channels are not distributed through the channel store. You do have to add them through the Roku web page, but they are not distributed through the channel store. Buying a device and then being told you can't run this or that software is like buying a car and being forbidden from driving to certain destinations.

QuantumIguana wrote:

No, the private channels are not distributed through the channel store. You do have to add them through the Roku web page, but they are not distributed through the channel store. Buying a device and then being told you can't run this or that software is like buying a car and being forbidden from driving to certain destinations.

You are incorrect. Private channels are distributed through the channel store, they're just not visible without explicitly adding them to your account.
And Roku is not telling you what you can or can't run on your Roku, they are telling you that you can't get it through their distribution channel. If you get the source code, or want to write your own, you're more than welcome to sideload the channel yourself. Furthermore, they're not removing it from any devices it's already installed on, they're just no longer allowing it to be hosted and installed by their service.

Saqqara wrote:

I imagine they want the best possible relationship with Hulu. I think that the future of Roku rests on the strength of its content relationships more than a pusher of generic hardware, so this makes sense to me from a strategic sense.

Agreed. I think two things are abundantly clear. First, Roku is making every effort (wisely I believe) to foster good relationships with the content providers/owners. Second, like it or not, Hulu has every intention of restricting the hulu.com access to computers and limiting Hulu Plus content to partnered devices. I think those that believe they are going to get hulu.com content via an STB (e.g. Boxee box, Popbox, etc.) are going to be sorely disappointed.

TheEndless.. you seem to be the most knowledgeable out there with regards to Roku and your work is greatly appreciated...

Have you tried to create your own dlna support channel for the Roku?

Honestly, I can't see anyone missing this too much. PlayOn never worked well. At least not well enough to be a "pay for" program. If I didn't know better, I would have never thought PlayOn was even out of its Alpha stage or early Beta at best. Though, im sure those of you who already ponied up for a year of service are pretty mad.

rrambo wrote:

TheEndless.. you seem to be the most knowledgeable out there with regards to Roku and your work is greatly appreciated...

Have you tried to create your own dlna support channel for the Roku?

Unfortunately, it's just not possible with the current SDK. I have toyed with making channels for known servers (TVersity, Orb, even PlayOn), but those are specific to the server, require a rather intimate knowledge of how the servers expose content, and require the end user to be a little more tech savvy than is desirable.

.

jcmolet wrote:

Saqqara wrote:

I imagine they want the best possible relationship with Hulu. I think that the future of Roku rests on the strength of its content relationships more than a pusher of generic hardware, so this makes sense to me from a strategic sense.

Agreed. I think two things are abundantly clear. First, Roku is making every effort (wisely I believe) to foster good relationships with the content providers/owners. Second, like it or not, Hulu has every intention of restricting the hulu.com access to computers and limiting Hulu Plus content to partnered devices. I think those that believe they are going to get hulu.com content via an STB (e.g. Boxee box, Popbox, etc.) are going to be sorely disappointed.

Hulu has already tried restricting access from boxee, with boxee just finding ways around every time. Hulu will continue to work on Boxee since the core of its browser/player is firefox, so hulu sees boxee as just another PC browser. I have a roku xd in my bedroom but I plan on getting a Boxee box for the living room. It gives you a lot more content in a VERY nice UI.

Wow this really sucks. I was just about to put my ROKU on ebay when i saw the support for Playon with ESPN3.com I almost bought a Playon sub but I am still in my 2 week trial period just for ESPN3.com access threw the ROKU. I could care less about HULU, I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Are we going to see a stand alone app for ESPN3 now???

jcmolet wrote:

Saqqara wrote:

I imagine they want the best possible relationship with Hulu. I think that the future of Roku rests on the strength of its content relationships more than a pusher of generic hardware, so this makes sense to me from a strategic sense.

Agreed. I think two things are abundantly clear. First, Roku is making every effort (wisely I believe) to foster good relationships with the content providers/owners. Second, like it or not, Hulu has every intention of restricting the hulu.com access to computers and limiting Hulu Plus content to partnered devices. I think those that believe they are going to get hulu.com content via an STB (e.g. Boxee box, Popbox, etc.) are going to be sorely disappointed.

Completely agree, I do think Hulu bumbled the marketing of Hulu+. Even so it is well worth the 10.00 a month IMO. The funny thing is while it is marketed one way if you bother to read what the product description is they clearly state the content and product are different than Hulu.

TheEndless wrote:

QuantumIguana wrote:

No, the private channels are not distributed through the channel store. You do have to add them through the Roku web page, but they are not distributed through the channel store. Buying a device and then being told you can't run this or that software is like buying a car and being forbidden from driving to certain destinations.

You are incorrect. Private channels are distributed through the channel store, they're just not visible without explicitly adding them to your account.
And Roku is not telling you what you can or can't run on your Roku, they are telling you that you can't get it through their distribution channel. If you get the source code, or want to write your own, you're more than welcome to sideload the channel yourself. Furthermore, they're not removing it from any devices it's already installed on, they're just no longer allowing it to be hosted and installed by their service.

Is that true? Could someone post a PlayOn source code and it be used by Roku users? If Roku wouldn't put a stop to this, then why hasn't anyone done this?