jcsaturn wrote:

However they are missing out on a market for the uber geek who likes to manage their network.

You can get one of these boxes for under 50 bucks. They've sold 3 million of these things so far marketing a simple, cheap device to the masses. Ubergeeks are probably going to need to look elsewhere.

kc8pql wrote:

jcsaturn wrote:

However they are missing out on a market for the uber geek who likes to manage their network.

You can get one of these boxes for under 50 bucks. They've sold 3 million of these things so far marketing a simple, cheap device to the masses. Ubergeeks are probably going to need to look elsewhere.

And any "Ubergeek" who can't manage a dynamic device on their otherwise static system probably needs to send in his geek card.

StellarRat wrote:

It should allow you to assign it an address if you want to. I never have understood why Roku didn't allow that option.

The device is based on people who want to watch movies and internet TV and just relax on the couch all afternoon. Not some hardcore gamers who made their network from the ground up and play Skyrim until 4 in the morning.
If you made your network from the ground up, then there should be no issue with adding some stairs. Just saying.

It never ceases to amaze how fast these conversations break down.

You can't really justify that they do not allow static IPs to make it user friendly because all you would have to do is bury it under an advanced menu. It also doesn't matter why a person may want it or not the fact remains that like some have mentioned my rokus are the only devices on my network that do not allow for a static IP whether I would use that function or not. It is an unexpected omission.

About 2 years ago I wanted to move my roku boxes outside of the normal DHCP lease and give them a permanent lease assignment. Even though I was able to successfully move everything but the rokus it caused a problem with my router and the rokus and nothing short of a factory reset on my router fixed it. While I grant you it is not Roku's responsibility to make sure that their equipment works with every router in every scenario had I been allowed to assign static IPs I would not have been forced to factory reset my router and restore a backup that (again, my fault) was seriously out of date. It took hours to put things back right.

In any event if it hurt every mfg of network devices to include the static IP option then why do they all do it?

Why double up on feature sets? If you need or want to assign a static IP to your Roku box do it through your router's software.

I run the Tomato OS on my LInksys E3000 router and I have assigned a static IP to both my Roku and my SlingBox. All I had to do was type in the MAC address for the Roku and the IP I want assigned. It is probably better to do it through your router as you are not as likely to assign an IP that isn't in your network's range.

Flash DD-WRT or Tomato to your router and the problem (if it is a problem ) solved. The only reason I gave my Roku a static IP is that I have a complicated network with three APs.

mikebdoss wrote:

And any "Ubergeek" who can't manage a dynamic device on their otherwise static system probably needs to send in his geek card.

+1

I have a fairly complex home network with multiple ISPs and separate subnets for VoIP, WiFi, etc. and I want everything to have specific addresses so that I can have an internal DNS server properly match up names with device IP addresses. But I avoid static IP addresses at all costs! Much easier to keep the DHCP server and DNS server (two items) in sync than to configure and manage IP addresses on all the individual devices.

It might be a little harder to setup each device initially, but not much. My typical procedure is to plug in the new device configured for DHCP and look on my DCHP server to see what MAC address showed up and then make a reserved IP address entry for that device. After that, a power cycle or reboot of the new device will put it on its (semi-)permanent IP address.

It has been a while since I've used a low end commercial firewall/router, but all the ones I used a few years ago had the capability to in their DHCP configuration reserve IP addresses for devices based on MAC address.

most people who go out and buy a Roku because they heard about Netflix and think the Angry Bird on the box is cute. They have no idea what a static ip is, what DHCP is, or do they care to even learn. They just want to plug it in and have it play movies. I have no idea why or why not Rokus don't have the the ability for static ips but I'm pretty sure that their target demographic doesn't care. That's just how Rokus work so if it is a hard requirement for someone to have that functionality, it just may not be the droid you are looking for.

JimDandySTX wrote:

Why double up on feature sets? If you need or want to assign a static IP to your Roku box do it through your router's software.

Because it is the industry standard. It really is as simple as that. There is no reason *NOT* to offer it. It is a minor thing and certainly not a deal breaker for most people but it is very odd.

It is also very very very okay to say it is odd and for some people to consider it a weak point. Roku is not the epitome of technological perfection. They have decided to omit the ability, they have never changed their minds so they must be content with the decision, but it is not the norm.

robertm wrote:

JimDandySTX wrote:

Why double up on feature sets? If you need or want to assign a static IP to your Roku box do it through your router's software.

Because it is the industry standard. It really is as simple as that. There is no reason *NOT* to offer it. It is a minor thing and certainly not a deal breaker for most people but it is very odd.

It is also very very very okay to say it is odd and for some people to consider it a weak point. Roku is not the epitome of technological perfection. They have decided to omit the ability, they have never changed their minds so they must be content with the decision, but it is not the norm.

On this I agree, sort of. It's not a major issue to me nor do I see people in general needing it. However one should never be lazy when programing. The Roku lacks advanced features of other STB's and it does bite Roku in the bottom sometimes (hence the never ending video issues that could have easily been solved with two software switches hidden in an advanced menu). Roku typically doesn't do what they don't have to. That's rarely the right answer however. Those who exceed expectations usually win.

That said however I wonder how many people need to give a static IP on the device level much less would.

mkiker2089 wrote:

That said however I wonder how many people need to give a static IP on the device level much less would.

Probably very few. It would have saved me a few hours of my life but things happen.

We do seem to be heading for an odd juxtaposition though where the mean experience with technology is rising but technology is dumbing itself down. This doesn't refer just to the missing static IP address or even to just Roku but it does seem to be an ongoing trend to make things so user friendly that it makes it hard for advanced users to do what they want. I really do not like the idea that the things I pay for are trying to protect me from myself. Again, all they have to do is bury advanced features under an advanced menu.

robertm wrote:

mkiker2089 wrote:

That said however I wonder how many people need to give a static IP on the device level much less would.

Probably very few. It would have saved me a few hours of my life but things happen.

We do seem to be heading for an odd juxtaposition though where the mean experience with technology is rising but technology is dumbing itself down.

I think the real problem is that most consumers are just not technically savvy. That's not a criticism but just a reality. Every teenager and college student can tell you how to send a text message or go on to Google to find a Wikipedia article, but very few of them could tell you what kind of network their cell carrier uses or what a computer motherboard is. Just like the major argument of Android lovers in how user customizable it is over Apple iOS. Many "geeks" out there love it for that, but the majority of phone owners just want it to work and don't know or care to change anything. In order to make tech accessible to the masses it has to stripped down as to not be so intimidating that it won't sell.

stratcat96 wrote:

robertm wrote:

mkiker2089 wrote:

That said however I wonder how many people need to give a static IP on the device level much less would.

Probably very few. It would have saved me a few hours of my life but things happen.

We do seem to be heading for an odd juxtaposition though where the mean experience with technology is rising but technology is dumbing itself down.

I think the real problem is that most consumers are just not technically savvy. That's not a criticism but just a reality. Every teenager and college student can tell you how to send a text message or go on to Google to find a Wikipedia article, but very few of them could tell you what kind of network their cell carrier uses or what a computer motherboard is. Just like the major argument of Android lovers in how user customizable it is over Apple iOS. Many "geeks" out there love it for that, but the majority of phone owners just want it to work and don't know or care to change anything. In order to make tech accessible to the masses it has to stripped down as to not be so intimidating that it won't sell.

They are more savvy now than they have ever been and will increasingly become more savvy as time marches on. Which is my point. Consumers are finally getting smarter while technology is increasingly treating them as dumber. We are quickly approaching the point where most middle aged people will have grown up around computers and not user-friendly computers either.

I still don't buy that having an advanced screen with the ability to add a static IP makes the box better equipped to deal with the technologically challenged. If that were the case you'd see more companies doing it because everyone wants to save on support costs. Most people are used to wizards now and those that do no have an advanced skillset know not to leave the wizard.

robertm wrote:

They are more savvy now than they have ever been and will increasingly become more savvy as time marches on. Which is my point. Consumers are finally getting smarter while technology is increasingly treating them as dumber. We are quickly approaching the point where most middle aged people will have grown up around computers and not user-friendly computers either.

I still don't buy that having an advanced screen with the ability to add a static IP makes the box better equipped to deal with the technologically challenged. If that were the case you'd see more companies doing it because everyone wants to save on support costs. Most people are used to wizards now and those that do no have an advanced skillset know not to leave the wizard.

well we'll just have to agree to disagree on the savvy-ness of the general populous. Anyone who has dealt with the public can attest to it not being the case. Consumers are not really getting smarter as a whole either, despite the availability of research tools and information like never before. Walk out in the street and grab random people and ask them what "LED" stands for to see. Chances are they use them everyday, from the backlighting of their cell phone or television screen to the flashlight on their key ring. They use tech but don't understand or care to understand what it is they are using. More people are willing to "dip their toes" so to speak in the basic advances of technology but that's about it. That's partly because the "older" alternatives have disappeared. How many people out there that buy music from iTunes everyday know what an mp3 really is, besides "a song"? The availability of information has just helped those who kept abreast with past current tech inform themselves on newer tech more easily. Look at this forum for evidence of this. There are users on this board that are older that have done a remarkable job diving in to new technology, but those are people that were that way 30 years ago with tech at that time too. On the other hand, If consumers were truly more savvy then ever before with tech, you wouldn't see posts of problems every other day that are resolved by color-matching plugs with the right inputs. Again that's not a criticism of them not knowing that, just examples that show the basics are what most people can handle.

With the static ip thing, only Roku knows why they designed their device the way they did, and I wouldn't mind at all them adding advanced configuration features. I will still climb out on the limb and say most people who buy a Roku would never delve into such a menu.

Gotta disagree with you.. The general populous IS getting smarter, at least when it comes to the "how stuff works" kinda stuff.. Computers and complex electronics, while still not "mastered" by the average Joe, are a lot less "scary" to people.

Ask someone not in IT what an IP Address was 10 years ago.. 1 in 10 might know what you're talking about.

At my job, I ask people all the time to give me the IP address of their computer, so I can remotely access. These are people who are users, not IT tech support or even low-end help desk users. I'd say I've "trained" 75% of them to be able to find the IP address. These are people that 5 years ago would be extremely intimidated.

No, people aren't geniuses, but they have evolved to accept that they need to learn certain things in order to get their high-tech toys to work.

jeffrok wrote:

Gotta disagree with you.. The general populous IS getting smarter, at least when it comes to the "how stuff works" kinda stuff.. Computers and complex electronics, while still not "mastered" by the average Joe, are a lot less "scary" to people.

Ask someone not in IT what an IP Address was 10 years ago.. 1 in 10 might know what you're talking about.

At my job, I ask people all the time to give me the IP address of their computer, so I can remotely access. These are people who are users, not IT tech support or even low-end help desk users. I'd say I've "trained" 75% of them to be able to find the IP address. These are people that 5 years ago would be extremely intimidated.

No, people aren't geniuses, but they have evolved to accept that they need to learn certain things in order to get their high-tech toys to work.

with all due respect Jeffrok, 10% of a sample knowing what an ip address is doesn't really attest to smarter people. Saying that people are less intimidated by tech than 5 years ago speaks to my point. People are more willing to try new tech partly because they have no other option and must adapt to function, the benefits of its use are attractive to them, and the consumer electronic industry strives to make products as accessible as possible by making it as simple as can be. The most successful tech products are those that are the simplest to use. That's Apple's success in a nutshell. If it wasn't made to perform its basic functionality simple enough, it just wouldn't sell. People are also forced into gaining exposure in some form to using a computer or other tech because you can't really get by without having one anymore since so much relies on their use. You can't even apply for a job without being able to go online and submit an application these days. Those people are not trying to rebuild their computers, they are just trying to learn the basics so they can function. Just like if you are over 16 you most likely know how to drive a car, but very few comparatively know how to change the oil or what to do if the car won't start.

But yes, back to topic it wouldn't hurt anybody to have more flexibility in the Roku