Roku's Netflix Player To Add Hulu or YouTube Content?

John P. Falcone on Crave likes the Netflix Player, and now he wants a Hulu box.

The Roku Netflix Player debuted last week to largely positive accolades. And why not? The $100 Netflix box delivers on-demand video to your TV for a flat monthly fee that's as low as $9 a month--the same price that would rent you just two to three movies on Apple TV or Vudu. But if the Roku box (and subsequent Netflix-compatible players) has an Achilles heel, it's the dearth of content: only about 10 percent of Netflix's 100,000-plus DVD library is available for streaming, thanks to Hollywood's byzantine licensing systems. The Roku box could stand to have another content source--and I think Hulu would be a perfect candidate.

He just might get his wish: In the Hot Hardware interview, Tim Twerdahl, the VP of Consumer Products for Roku, said that the deal with Netflix "...allows Roku to seek out other content providers to put their content on the Roku box." Twerdahl also says that "We're talking to all big web video providers right now. Of course, I can't go into specifics -- but we are looking into a number of ideas."

It would make the Netflix Player even more interesting if it added Hulu and YouTube content. What would you like to see in addition to Watch Instantly on the Netflix Player?

Comments

[stesmo]

If they announced Hulu.com access via the Roku player, I'd immediately order one. YouTube wouldn't be enough, but Netflix + Hulu.com would be what pushed me to buy one (which would probably result in me buying another for the second TV not long later).

[leonardodicrapio]

If they announced Hulu.com access via the Roku player, I'd probably re-activate my Netflix account sooner rather than later. I cancelled in February and will probably reactivate next month to at least maintain my family's Queues (I believe the Queues are deleted after six months). I probably should have just put a 180-day hold on the account (then I would have had access to the Queues -- to add and/or delete movies -- while I wasn't paying Netflix, too).

[treycranson]

Hulu would win my vote. I'd buy two boxes if Hulu were included.

[Timmothy]

Hulu would be a great addition! I would love to see some Revision3 and CNet content as well.

[arthur]

Add playback capabilities for local network content (i.e. personal media files) and I'd buy today. Otherwise this box becomes immediately worthless when the remote services are no longer available... not a risk I'm willing to take.

[David]

arthur:

That's an interesting point, although I suspect that Netflix will be around for a while. Let's say three years of usage at $90, before the streaming sources disappear for whatever reason. I've spent more on technology that's become outmoded in less time, or I've upgraded to something better. I think the price point still makes it worthwhile even if the remote sources might --unlikely -- go away after a few years. Now, if this thing were $400+, even $200+, your argument might be stronger.

[David]

Correction: "three years of usage at $100"

[Brian]

At $99, this thing is tempting. How does the playback compare to the vmc player on the 360? That thing is buggy and choppy.

If the ROKU plays as well as on my computer, I'm in for one, regardless of other content.

Hulu and YouTube would be nice additions. Nevermind the dearth of other video providers out there (Southparkstudios.com, CNN.com, etc.). In the end, I think the company that puts out a $99 box with the most bang for the buck will win the VOD war.

[carbonado]

Well, I've had my Netflix box for a week and playback has been flawless. I'm using the wireless two floors down from my router and everything is fine. No pauses, no drops, no "buffering" messages during films.

The only times it buffers is when I first load a film and if I either pause or ff/rewind. I can live with that.

Took me 5 mins to set up with wireless. Simple.

How big is the average file of each 'Watch Instantly' movie?

TimeWarner is testing (and all other ISPs watching) 5GB of transfer a month with $1/GB thereafter.

This could put a bit of a scare into developers/investors/adopters of these types of devices.

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/03/027219

"[T]iers will range from $29.95 a month for... 768 kilobits per second and a 5-gigabyte monthly cap to $54.90 per month for... 15 megabits per second and a 40-gigabyte cap. Those prices cover the Internet portion of subscription bundles that include video or phone services. Both downloads and uploads will count toward the monthly cap."

My current bill would put me at the top tier price wise. I'm not getting 15 megabits per second, more like just under 6. But would then be capped at 40GB per month.

* I agree with the others. A box like the Roku needs to be able to stream local content.

[leonardodicrapio]

come on, doesn't everybody understand this is a $100 box and has its limitations. if you want everything to work (i.e. bittorrent, youtube, hulu, netflix, etc.) to work you should probably get a zeevee zvbox from amazon for $500. wait a minute -- what does the zeevee box do that a xbox360 (for about $300) can't do (if you have microsoft operating system on your computer)? or you could get a ps3 for $400 from wal-mart (which comes with a $100 gift card making the net price about $300) and get blu-ray playback, too.

[Stinky Patterson]

Sounds good. I'd also like the option of viewing the trailer for each title like the website does.

[Pusta]

So let me get this straight, all of a sudden convenience is a bad thing? The movie experience diminishes because it only took 5 minutes to obtain rather than 1-3 business days? Wow, I guess you really cannot please everyone....

[Jason The Saj]

Really, Watch It Now! plus regular TV content (even with commercials) would be cool.

I'd love to watch Heroes, BSG, Stargate, etc.

[xYz]

I already pay like $31 or $35 a month to get dvds from Netflix. And I got a bunch of movie channels I never watch. That $9/month and $100 for a player would be money wasted for something I'd never use.

It's not $9 extra for the Roku box. There is no extra monthly charge. FAIL!

I reduced my DirecTV to the very basics when I started Netflix. Who's forcing you to keep and pay for movie channels you don't watch? FAIL!

The cool thing about dvd's is the waiting period. I don't like movies at the tip of my hands as it really diminishes it's value in my mind.

Do you have any idea how fraking broken that sounds? It makes no sense. A movie's value is based on how long it took you to get it? FAIL!

DVD's make you still think about how hard some of these flicks used to be to obtain and like you're still part of an underground culture.

WTF?! FAIL!

[QuantumIguana]

Intriguing. This could be the wave of the future, cutting out the cable middleman. If you can add Hulu content, why not a live stream from the SciFi channel, for example. Of course, the cable companies would not like that one bit. But their ability to fight this is dependent on their being little or no options in internet providers. The more choices we have, the less the cable companies can act to throttle this.

I'm willing to pay for speed, but I won't agree to a cap. I guess I'm fortunate in that if I dump the cable modem, I have the option of DSL or municipal wireless.

[William R. Cousert]

It looks like most, if not all ISP's will implement some kind of capping in the near future.

I think I have a solution.

Would it be possible to create a community network using a series of linked 802.11x routers, or some other inexpensive wireless device?

Entire cities could be connected together without using an ISP.

It might not be perfect, but if enough people were to do this it could be enough to put a stop to capping.

wrcousert AT yahoo DOT com

[jared]

oh man- if i had hulu access from the roku i'd buy one instantly. and probably at least 2 more as gifts - christmas is coming up and i'm already considering a roku + 3months netflix as a gift to my brother and his wife.

the thing is -- roku is so much MORE interesting to me as a hulu player than a netflix player. if i had the choice between hulu OR netflix, and hulu cost more (ignoringthe $10/month) i'd still pick the hulu device. add joost to that and i'd be hooked.

youtube? sure, a few things would be nice, like Channel Frederator for example. but youtube just never did anything for me. maybe i'm just too old... (i'm only 30, but that's stone aged for some web demographics).

[Mike Schinkel]

I've had my Roku a few days now and love it!

Playback is excellent, no skips, with only rare pauses to retrieve data into its buffer. The only complaint thus far is the that fast forward and rewind and skip forward and backward make for a very lengthy delay while waiting for it to rebuffer making you want to avoid ever using features.

That said, I would LOVE if it supported other ABC (Lost), NBC (Heroes), and FOX (Fringe).