Tag Archives | Internet TV

Eleven Sites for Watching and Downloading Free TV and Movies

Steve Bass's TechBiteLast week I told you about Sling’s MediaCatcher, the device that’s ideal for viewing streaming videos on your TV, as well as MediaGate’s MG-800HD, the other gizmo for watching downloaded movies on your TV. (See “Stream Movies from Your PC to Your TV.”)

This week I’ve got a score of spots where you can watch legal movies and TVs shows, some streamed, others downloaded, and a few sites with illegally pirated movies. I’ll also review MediaGate’s inexpensive, portable media device.

Next week I’ll spend a little time showing you how to capture streaming video.
Continue Reading →

4 comments

ZillionTV Gives Up on 2009

A Q4 2009 release has morphed into a second half of 2010 launch as, I assume, ZillionTV struggles to find distribution partners, perhaps feeling threatened by local broadcasters which don’t appreciate the studio-backed over-the-top video set-top box encroaching on their turf. I also assume their business plan of a free box streaming ad-supported content will be reevaluated… and then dropped.

Can’t say any of this is surprising, as it’s damn hard to launch a new “television” service. Just ask Sezmi and their “TV 2.0″ experience, which we first covered 5/08 and has yet to see the light of day. Or how about satellite-broadband hybrid XStreamHD, first revealed late 2007 and who canceled their 2009 CES press conference on Ben Drawbaugh (EngadgetHD) and I without announcing distribution plans or partners. (And most know that the current incarnation of TiVo, Inc has had a hard time retaining customers of what is arguably the premier DVR.)

That’s not to say there’s isn’t room for success in this space, as it sure looks like networked gaming consoles and Roku (having moved hundreds of thousands of units) are thriving as secondary sources of video content. But my money’s still on the existing, entrenched cable and satellite providers maintaining their lock on the primary television service market.

(This post republished from Zatz Not Funny.)

No comments

Stream Movies From Your PC to Your TV

Steve Bass's TechBiteThis is a long article. It’s technical and at times downright complicated. [I never knew I had attention deficit disorder until I started reading about media streaming devices. –Tech Edit.]

I know some of you are going to skipit. At the same time, I get e-mail kvetching that I’m not writing enough about technology. So there it is: I ain’t gonna satisfy everyone. And in a way, that’s the pleasure in doing my own stuff: I write for myself, sharing with you what gives me a kick in the pants, and take delight when some of you enjoy coming along for the ride.

Enough editorializing. Here’s my long, tedious, sometimes boring story about the new way to watch TV.
Continue Reading →

16 comments

More Apple TV for Your Money

Apple TVI can’t remember if anyone onstage at Apple’s press event last week even mentioned the words “Apple TV.” It certainly didn’t announce any major news associated with it. But the product which Apple loves to tell us is a mere hobby is now a better buy. Apple has discontinued the 40GB model (the one I own) and cut the price for the much more capacious 160GB version from $329 down to $229, the price it had been charging for 40GB.

Depending on how you use Apple TV, you might or might not find the 4X jump in capacity for your buck to be a boon–if all you do is rent the occasional movie, store a typical music collection, and stream stuff from other computers around your house, 40GB was plenty. 160GB starts to sound like enough space for a sizable movie collection (although it’s still teensy compared to the space offered by pricier media services such as HP’s MediaSmart Home Server.)

Apple TV is a fun and well-designed product, but it hasn’t turned out to be an iPod-like transcendent hit. Then again, neither has anything else involving bringing the Internet into the living room. I find myself using Roku’s $99 box more than Apple TV, mostly because its Netflix Watch Instantly integration lets it provide all-you-can-view access to a ton of content for one low price. Other than video podcasts, most of Apple TV’s content is priced per title, making it impractical to gorge on movies and TVs as you can do with Roku. I wonder if Apple has ever considered offering some sort of Netflix-like subscription plan, at least for a subset of stuff?

Time for a T-Poll:

8 comments

Roku Adds Baseball’s MLB.TV Service

Roku BaseballRoku,  the Internet video box that’s simple and fun to use, with a near-impulse price ($99.95), has a new source of content: Major League Baseball. The Roku folks have signed a deal with the MLB to put live broadcasts of all games on the player, starting with the rest of the reason. The games are available to folks who subscribe to the MLB.TV Premium service, which runs $19.95 a month or $109.95 for the year (or $34.95 for the remainder of the 2009 reason). The gamecasts join Netflix Watch Instantly and Amazon on Demand video among Roku’s offerings.

The service includes DVR-like rewind, fast-forward, and pause features and HD when available, and you can watch a week’s worth of archived shows. It’s the latest evidence that the MLB is the most progressive organization in sports when it comes to tech savvy; early instances included its release of the wonderful At Bat app for the iPhone and deal to put MLB.TV in Boxee’s media-center software.

Why start showing ballgames well past the All-Star break? Roku’s Brian Jaquet told me that the new service is in beta, and that it “opens avenues” to put other sports on the Roku player.  Roku says that an update to the player’s software that enables MLB.TV should be ready for Roku owners starting tonight; it hasn’t shown up when I check for updates on the Roku box I’m using, but  I’m looking forward to giving it a try. I don’t need access to every game, but when your favorite team is 3,000 miles away, getting to watch any game you choose sounds mighty appealing.

MLB TV on Roku

8 comments

What’s Next for Roku? Five Suggestions.

[A NOTE FROM HARRY: I’m tickled to announce that we’ll be republishing some of Dave Zatz’s posts from his blog Zatz Not Funny here on Technologizer. Dave’s a frequent commenter here, but I was a fan of his blog–which focuses on digital media–long before there was a Technologizer. Welcome, Dave!]

roku

I love my little Roku box. The Roku Digital Media Player ($99, Amazon), which began life as the Roku Netflix Player, streams Netflix content (free for subscribers) and Amazon video on demand (VOD). Standard def was decent, but both are now available in HD (720p). Sure, it’s not Blu-ray but it’s good enough for many. Perhaps, most. And the mighty quick, dead simple interface is a joy to use, providing a better experience than TiVo’s equivalent Netflix and Amazon apps. We know Roku’s got several new partner services lined up this year, including video podcasts by MediaFly and Blip.tv webisodes. Plus, it looks like YouTube may also be on tap. At $99 the Roku’s in impulse purchase territory–it’s hard to go wrong. Having said that, as an owner and a guy who follows this space, I’ve got a few suggestions for the Roku team (and their partners). Enable a few of these, and I’ll pick up a box for every room.

Continue Reading →

4 comments

Maybe Apple TV Should Be a TV

Apple TVAlas, poor Apple TV. Its manufacturer likes to treat nearly everything it makes as both a technological breakthrough and sales blockbuster, but when it discusses Apple TV at all, it usually dismisses it as a “hobby.” As New TeeVee’s Chris Albrecht points out, the little white set-top box got nary a mention during Apple’s financial conference call yesterday.

Apple TV is actually pretty good–I own one and use it with a TV that has no other means of receiving programming–but it’s a nice product in a category that may never change the world in the way that the Mac, iPod, and iPhone have. There just seem to be a limited number of folks out there who want Internet-based entertainment in the living room enough to go through the cost and hassle of installing a box. Apple TV competitors Vudu and Roku–both of which I also like–face the same issue, but as the products of much smaller companies, they presumably can be counted as successes even if sales never explode. Apple, on the other hand, is used to selling its gadgets by the tens of millions.

When you come down to it, though, Apple TV isn’t about being a box: It’s about giving you access to tons of content on your TV. The box itself is an encumbrance, especially if your entertainment center is already as crammed with stuff as mine is. Wouldn’t Apple TV be cooler if it went boxless–by being built into new TVs?

This isn’t a new idea–in fact, it’s one of those persistent Apple rumors that hasn’t come true to date, but might someday. In its usual form, it involves Apple getting into the HDTV biz itself. I’d like to see that happen, but I can think of more reasons why Apple might not want to make TVs than ones why it would. TVs are a commodity; TVs come in too many sizes; TVs wouldn’t give Apple true control over the user experience. (There’s no way the company could completely disintermediate the cable company or mask all of its bad interface decisions.)

But even if Apple doesn’t want to make TVs, it could integrate Apple TV into TVs–by offering the platform as a feature which TV companies can integrate into their sets, in a fashion similar to Yahoo’s cool Internet TV platform. You gotta think that TV manufacturers would jump at the chance to sell an iTunes-ready TV. And when I buy a new HDTV, built-in access to the music and movies I’ve already bought from Apple would be a meaningful selling point.

TV makers might not want to build a hard drive into their sets to accommodate Apple TV, but that’s okay–another unfulfilled Apple rumor involves something called iTunes Replay, which would store your entertainment on a distant server and stream it to your devices on demand. Such as…your TV!

Yes, I know that Apple has a lousy track record when it comes to putting its technology into other companies’ products. (Exhibit A: the Motorola iTunes phone.) But it surely wants to establish an outpost in our living rooms, in a way that goes beyond being a mere hobby. I’m willing to be surprised–and knowing Apple, I probably have this all wrong–but the moment, I can’t think of a more logical way for it to do that than to build the iTunes experience right into our TVs.

7 comments

On Demand Online: Reason to Stick With Comcast?

comcastonlineI keep talking about dumping Comcast, but I’m beginning to think it’s more inevitable than death or taxes. (I recently tried to cancel my Comcast phone line, and they told me that doing so would raise my monthly bill by $4. Checkmate!)

If I stick around with Comcast, I might as well enjoy it–and I’m guardedly optimistic about On Demand Online, the Web-based service which the company is cooking up. It’s signed up a respectable list of content providers: Time Warner, A&E, Starz, and others–and, most recently, CBS. They’ll provide programming for a Hulu-like site that’s supposed to start testing this month.

Unlike the free, ad-supported Hulu, Comcast’s service is apparently going to be available to paying Comcast subscribers only. I hope that means it’ll be ad-free and have access to some shows that Hulu can’t get–in other words, that it’ll be a true Web-based version of Comcast’s On Demand video-on-demand service. (Which, incidentally, I can’t get–it’s not compatible with my TiVo HD box.)

I persist in being perfectly willing to consider paying for content on the Web when opportunities arise–in part because vast amounts of content are simply going to disappear unless the people who own them figure out how to convince consumers to pay up. So even though I continue to flirt with the idea of canceling Comcast and subsisting on a diet of Hulu and iTunes, I’m actually rooting for On Demand Online to be really good. So good, in fact, that I stop talking about kissing Comcast goodbye.

3 comments

Joost Starts to Fade Away

JoostJoost was supposed to be a major part of the future of TV. Instead, the streaming video service went from hot startup to a candidate for “Whatever Happen To?” lists surprisingly quickly. On Tuesday, news broke that it’s refocusing on providing white-label video services, losing its CEO, and laying off much of its staff.

What happened? A whole bunch of things. Over at GigaOM, Om Malik has a good analysis of why Joost will be remembered mostly for having failed to live up to expectations. (The first one that came to my mind–it’s on Om’s list–is summed up in the word Hulu. In many ways, that site turned out to be pretty much what Joost was supposed to be but never quite became.)

No comments

The Simpsons Are Making Money Online

The SimpsonsNormally, I wouldn’t write here about ad rates for Web content. But as a consumer of Web-based entertainment and information, I found this kind of encouraging:  Bloomberg is saying that The Simposons is making more money on ads in its online incarnation on Hulu than it is on broadcast TV. Um, that’s revenue per thousand viewers, which is how these things are usually measured–the show still makes three times as much from Fox airings than Hulu, simply because there are so many people watching prime-time TV.

I’m happy not because I care where Rupert Murdoch’s spending money is coming from, but because the financial success of the Simps on the Web is evidence that advertisers are willing to sink real money into good stuff on the Web. Advertising, in case you hadn’t noticed, pays the bills of most sites. And in a world in which everyone from Hollywood mo guls to press barons are questioning the Web’s ability to pay for content, any sign at all of money being made is heartening. (Especially since most of the Hulu shows I watch seem to be accompanied by public-service messages–as if nobody wants to spend a nickel to advertise on them.)

Of course, the business model for big-time entertainment is still going to change a heck of a lot over the next few years. Would Bart and company exist at all if there’d been a Web but no network TV back in 1987, when Matt Groening created them? Maybe–the family started out on low-budget shorts for The Tracey Ullman Show. Ones that would perfectly at home on the Web. But it’s going to be a while before, say, a Lost or 24 can be paid for through online ads.  I think the day will come when it’s doable, and maybe sooner than we expect. But for now, the Web is still freeloading on content that’s being subsized by other media.

3 comments