While I cannot really put my finger on the main problem there seems to be something wrong with that article.

The story shows a Now TV box which is UK only but it just could be a convenient image that was available or it could be that Roku is planing on releasing this new box outside the US first or at the same time as the US release. That would be a first but it is not outside the realm of possibility so that is probably not the red flag I am feeling.

I've never heard of ThechnoBuffalo but there are lots of reporting avenues that I have never heard of so that is not the issue either.

But I guess my misgivings are unfounded as the story includes a link to what appears to be a legitimate Roku announcement: http://www.rokuki.com/roku-announces-hy ... -partners/

While it is interesting it would seem that it has no impending value for me as what it adds is not something that I either want or need.

I do wonder what else is behind the purple curtain that is Roku.

Hello:

Interesting article. But if this is a re-branded or modified Roku 4 that uses the same design as the current Roku 4, I fear this will be a disastrous mistake on Roku's part. The forum is flooded with reported issues on the retail Roku 4 and Roku wants to use this as "Now TV" cable boxes? The "Roku apocalypse" is near, unless they somehow redesigned and fixed all known hardware and software issues of that box. Interesting to see how all this will develop and unfolds. I really hope that they don't "rush" this and applies proper QA testing processes before officially releasing this to the public.

Elijah_Baley wrote:

But I guess my misgivings are unfounded as the story includes a link to what appears to be a legitimate Roku announcement: http://www.rokuki.com/roku-announces-hy ... -partners/

If you scroll to the bottom of that page, and look closely, you'll see:

Rokuki, Roku news, reviews and opinions is not endorsed or associated with Roku Inc.

That article seems to be full of inaccuracies.
The Current Now TV box is a re-working of the current Roku 3 with a custom Sky firmware, with a restricted channel store - no access to anything like Amazon, or netflix or anything else that is in competition with Sky it does however have the main UK catch up services such as BBC Iplayer, Itv player, $ on demand, and demand 5, its main purpose is to push Sky content. A full Roku 3 costs around £99 a Now TV box costs ( roughly ) £25

This new Now TV box looks like a Roku4, however that article mentions a hybrid cable box, From other sources this would most probably be closer to a Roku box with an antenna input which can receive Free to air broadcasts from an antenna, unless their is some on board storage having an incoming antenna feed wouldnt be worth the effort.

Having a Guess this is what it could be:

A Crippled Roku box running Skys custom firmware, with no access to competing products (amazon/netflix etc)
4K HD on selected premium pay Sky more money channels
Live Recording/time shifting of Terrestrial UK Digital free to view TV (Freeview)
Possibly offering the ability to record programs via an app/remotely from anywhere with an internet connection
Possibly even offering the ability to stream content from the box, either recorded material, live TV, or something from an on-line stream to a remote device connected to the internet ( similar to a Sling TV box )

Cable Tv in the UK is restricted to mostly urban areas, and its not everywhere, if you have it you have to have a Cable TV box supplied by the cable TV company.
Sky also operate a DSL service/VDSl service to most parts of the UK, however unlike other ISPS you have to use their router/modem, if you want a better modem/router your out of luck - its either Skys own DSL/VDSL modem, or a two box solution
Likewise for Sky Tv ( satelite) you must have a Sky TV supplied box
You can buy other satelite set top boxes ( such as freesat) , however you wont be able to subscribe to Sky Tv with them.
Freeview is the name of what replaced free to air analogue TV and there are a multitude of Set top boxes ( digiboxes) Converter boxes, and of course TVs with it built in, plug in an antenna and your good to go.
If you use any equipment that is capable of receiving live broadcasts you are required by law to have a Tv licence, usually one per premises/house etc which covers multiple devices https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence this funds the BBC and you have to have one even if you dont watch any BBC channels, even if you subscribe to Sky (satellite) or Cable you need a TV licence as well on top.

Roku really needs to add OTA support to a box. One box, one seamless interface, combining OTA and OTT. Why they don't is really beyond me.

gkl wrote:

Roku really needs to add OTA support to a box. One box, one seamless interface, combining OTA and OTT. Why they don't is really beyond me.

TiVo.

gkl wrote:

Roku really needs to add OTA support to a box. One box, one seamless interface, combining OTA and OTT. Why they don't is really beyond me.

Because 99% of us already have a tuner on our televisions that's integrated and works better than anything third-party could, especially if that third-party device has to re-encode the OTA data.

Basil wrote:

gkl wrote:

Roku really needs to add OTA support to a box. One box, one seamless interface, combining OTA and OTT. Why they don't is really beyond me.

TiVo.

Hello:

TiVo is not the only solution. This Android TV box sports Kodi, TV Tuner, DVR, Free EPG, Browser, Remote with "Airmouse" pointer and QWERTY keyboard. For totally FREE media. The only downside is that it is single-tuner but heck for the price $150 and no other fees, I think it is worth it. Check out the link for further information:

http://www.auramedia.tv/

Two other things to consider:

1. Also supports analog RCA A/V connections so you can connect it to an older TV set that is not equipped with digital ATSC/QAM tuner.
2. HDMI cable IS included in the box. Most mainstream boxes (Roku, Fire TV, Nexus, etc.) don't include an HDMI cable so having it included in the box is a plus.

Hope this information is helpful.

mikebdoss wrote:

gkl wrote:

Roku really needs to add OTA support to a box. One box, one seamless interface, combining OTA and OTT. Why they don't is really beyond me.

Because 99% of us already have a tuner on our televisions that's integrated and works better than anything third-party could, especially if that third-party device has to re-encode the OTA data.

And, before anyone chimes in that TV tuners need antennas, an OTT box that streamed OTA content without an antenna would need to get support from local affliates, something they would be VERY unlikely to do.

How hard is it to push a button on your remote and change the input on your display? It certainly isn't any harder than using an OTT remote to change the "channel". If it really is a "problem", it is a first world one.

gkl wrote:

Roku really needs to add OTA support to a box. One box, one seamless interface, combining OTA and OTT. Why they don't is really beyond me.

Rumor has it Channel Master approached Roku about putting their OS on the DVR+ and that Roku rebuffed them.

Voldemort wrote:

gkl wrote:

Roku really needs to add OTA support to a box. One box, one seamless interface, combining OTA and OTT. Why they don't is really beyond me.

Rumor has it Channel Master approached Roku about putting their OS on the DVR+ and that Roku rebuffed them.

Too bad for both products. The TiVO Roamio and Aura Live DVR are already there, with Channel Master struggling to add more streaming content. Others will enter. Roku will miss a huge opportunity if they keep dragging their feet on this. I'm waiting for more reviews, but I'm seriously considering buying the Aura product. I've yet to figure out why Channel Master hasn't simply created an Android layer so that it can allow users to add any streaming services available in the Google Play store.