Top positive review
10 people found this helpful
Already replaced the Chromecast for me.
By Sokudo Ningyou on Reviewed in the United States on April 4, 2014
I have a Chromecast, which was a gift, and now I've purchased and received the streaming stick. I have an LG blu-ray player that also plays some of the same apps that the Roku does, and the Chromecast can 'cast. So, with that in mind, my review takes into account my usage of all three. The LG is a few years old by this point, and the three apps I tend to use on it are Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix. It's been my go-to for watching movies and series, but of course, the biggest problem was A: I had to turn it on, wait for everything to load (at least two menus worth before even loading an app), and then slowly work my way through said apps. Chromecast, on the other hand, was a bit of a slow load at the beginning, but for the apps it worked with, they loaded fairly fast. But the Roku is somewhere in-between. And that's not bad. There are other reviews that complain about how long it takes to load some things, but really, these are First World Problems in a nutshell: once everything gets going, there's no real loading problems unless your internet or router is having a fit. If your TV doesn't turn off the power to the dongle, or you plug directly into an outlet, the Roku doesn't take the time to load everytime you switch to it to watch something; if you do use the USB and it turns off, your loading time is perhaps 40 seconds at most, at least in my experience. So what? I'm in no rush. And again, if the loading time bugs you, you can plug it into the wall, and it won't turn off. Once the Roku is on, it's like a slimmer, faster version of my LG. I can use the remote or my phone to navigate; it's not like the Chromecast which requires you to be on the same wireless network to 'cast the app you want to play. If you didn't have a smartphone or a tablet, the Roku still works, whereas the Chromecast is basically useless. (Yes, you can pull out a computer, but since that's buggy and requires the Chrome browser as well, what's the point?) Some apps do load slowly, most notably Netflix, but again, I'm in no hurry to go anywhere, and I've been long used to a different player taking even longer to load. But again, once it's loaded, they're ready to go. Really, the only reason the Chromecast can load faster is that the dongle itself is basically just a mini-router; there's really nothing loaded on it before you send the signal from your phone/tablet/computer. Unlike the Chromecast and the LG, the Roku is also customizable: visually, and content-wise. Channels can be removed or added. The background can be changed. That's actually pretty nice, considering the Chromecast won't (yet) let you even change the start screen. And the apps that work with it, while growing, do not include everything the Roku can play (most obviously Amazon). Because the Roku has all three apps I was using on the LG, that makes it vastly more useful for me. And there's also the fact--however minor to some--that the Netflix and Hulu smartphone apps do not seem to work with the "play next episode automatically" feature when using the Chromecast, which is insanely annoying. When using my tablet, I was constantly needing to lean over and press play after every episode. Guess what? The Roku has no problem with that feature. That makes me extremely happy, even if Netflix insists on asking me every couple of episodes if I'm still watching. Overall, for an extra $15 over the Chromecast, the Roku is much more useful for me. Maybe I'll spend the extra $50 later on for a Roku 3 and the faster processor, but for right now, this is working brilliantly. It's plugged in right below a router, so my signal is excellent, even though I do prefer ethernet. Really, the only complaint I have is of my own make; I can't get 5.1 audio because I have no more ports open on my Pioneer receiver, and I have to plug it in to my TV straight. For me, this is definitely the better choice of streaming dongles. EDIT APRIL 9: So I've been using it pretty much daily since receiving it, and I have a few more things to add about my experience with the stick. First off, the remote does suck. I mean, it really, really does suck. Whoever designed it clearly has never seen another remote made in the last decade or so, because otherwise, they wouldn't have placed the OK button below the crossbar button. Nor would they have forgotten to include A STOP BUTTON. If you have the Roku plugged into the wall, using "pause" is the only way to basically stop whatever you're watching, or pressing the Home button to leave the app and go back to the main menu, before you turn off your TV. If the Roku is plugged into the USB port, the stick itself turns off, and this is not such a big deal, but otherwise, you're basically constantly pausing things and letting them sit for hours (days?) paused until you decide to watch again. That's a bit stupid considering.... ...this thing can get really warm. It does seem to cool off when you're not actively watching anything, even if it's eternally paused, but it's definitely a hot body. That worries me just a tad. Also, it sucks I can't replace the remote with my Harmony, but since that would require both IR and line of sight, the latter of which basically defeats the purpose of the dongle, I can see why it won't work. The phone app is a decent substitute (and the keyboard makes it vastly easier to sign in [except Hulu for some reason, it refused to recognize the keyboard] and to search, instead of tapping each letter one by one), but I still wish I could use my universal remote. The stock remote is basically nine buttons and four dedicated advertising slots, wasting what could have been actual useful space for MGo, Amazon, Netflix, and Blockbuster (seriously!?) logos. Programmable buttons would have been better. Supposedly the Roku 3's remote can be paired and used instead, but I haven't looked into it yet. Youtube's app has a nice feature where you can basically 'cast videos from your computer to watch, instead of having to use the app's search function. Once you link it up, you can just go to Youtube on your computer, and send the video to your TV to watch. Don't even need to keep the tab or window open on your computer once it starts playing, either. It also doesn't require a specific browser like the Chromecast does. I'm currently watching MSTK3's "Manos: The Hands of Fate" and considering the quality of Youtube in general, it actually looks and plays great. Really, the biggest problem I see with this stick is the remote. It definitely needs to go back to the drawing board. Otherwise, this is still (for me) the superior TV dongle, and is far more worth the money to me than the Chromecast would be.
Top critical review
3 people found this helpful
3500R is a Beta Product with known bugs and defects. ROKU's own words. Also, NOT FAMILY FRIENDLY!
By Safari Man on Reviewed in the United States on May 27, 2014
This review is for the Roku 3500R HDMI Streaming Stick. When I received the device it would not work with none of my TVs when plugged into the HDMI ports. When I contacted Roku support about they immediately said that they would send me an HDMI extender that would fix the problem. I asked them why they were so sure a simple extension cord would fix the problem and they said that there was a known defect with the HDMI connection on the 3500R being too short and not making contact with most TVs. It took a few days for the part to get to me and it did fix the problem, but just barely. You have to hold your tongue just right for the 3500R to make a connection, even with the extender, and if it gets moved even the slightest, it loses connection. Once I got it to work, I thought my problems were over. I thought wrong. The device gets extremely hot and freezes up and has to be unplugged to unfreeze it. After a long troubleshooting session and Roku support, it was finally revealed that the Roku 3500R is an HD content ONLY device that requires a minimum of a 3.5 Mbps internet connection to work. Roku recommends at least a 5 Mbps connection for best performance. Of course this is stated nowhere in the documentation or on the Amazon.com ad page. The bottom line is that people who have a basic cable or DSL internet connection cannot use the 3500R. I have a good solid 3 Mbps connection and I cannot use the 3500R with my connection according Roku tech support. Roku support emphatically stated that the 3500R will only stream HD content. I was very surprised to find out about this limitation. Most other internet streaming devices I have used had smart bandwidth sensing technology and would adjust the quality of the video stream according to the speed of the bandwidth connection. Roku support suggested that the solution to the problem I was having with their device was for me to spend another $30 a month to increase my bandwidth to make it compatible with their device. I AM NOT KIDDING! I asked them if Roku thought it wise to make an internet streaming device that would only be usable by a small fraction of internet users. They had no comment. I asked them why this LIMITATION was not mentioned anywhere in the documentation or in the advertised specs? Their response was that; "The 3500R is a beta product and they were still working all the bugs out." These are Roku's words, not mine. THE ROKU 3500R IS A BETA PRODUCT WITH BUGS! Wow! Glad to know that Roku has no problem selling a product that is buggy and has known defects and crippling limitation. Not to mention using all of us as unpaid beta testers. Aside from the hardware defects and software limitations and bugs, the 3500R would be a nice streaming device, but there are some features I immediately found lacking in the interface as well. Here are the features found lacking. 1. No Free Content filter option: The main reason I got the Roku is to watch free content. I have never and never will pay for cable or satellite TV. I am satisfied with watching commercials to pay for my TV habit. The problem is that most of the channels that Roku promotes are paid channels or subscription channels that require you to have a cable or satellite subscription. Now I understand that this may be good for some people, but why not offer an option to list only free content for people like me. I mean, if you are like me and are looking for free content only, you will spend hours wading through Roku's endless menus to find something to watch. It takes 3 to 4 steps on each channel to find out of there is any free content available, and each time you have to go back to the beginning and start all over again. This takes several minutes each time you try a new show or channel because the 3500R is very slow to load. It would be great if Roku would add an option to the menu that would allow you to list only free content. It would save users hours of time wading through hundreds of paid and subscription only channels and content. 2. No Parental Controls or mature content filtering. As a parent that likes to filter what my child watches (especially what they can access when I am not around) I found it to be a huge oversight that Roku does not offer any kind of parental controls or content filtering options. Just like with trying to find free content, you have to go through multiple steps to see what the ratings of shows are. If you are a parent, let me warn you right now, the Roku can access almost ANY kind of video on the internet and there are even channels that are dedicated to adult content that your kids can access without any restrictions. It would be great if Roku would add an option to filter all content by a rating system and/or require a password or pin to watch anything over a certain rating. I find it appalling that in a world where our children are being targeted by perverts, that a responsible company would not make filtering adult content for the protection of our children a priority. 3. No Access to Network TV channels like ABC, NBC, and CBS. There are a few shows that I like to watch that are on network TV. I have an HTPC contacted to my TV as well and I use it to go directly to these channels via a browser and watch these shows. I was very surprised that the Roku has none of these channels and only offers these shows (which you get see for free in a bowser) as a "Pay per Episode" option. The Bottom Line! If you have a Nintendo, X-Box 360, Smart TV, HTPC or any other device that allows internet streaming, you have no need for a Roku of any kind, especially if you do not have some type of cable or satellite TV subscription service. A Roku device offers no advantage over a standard internet browser and is actually a lot more limited. You can access everything a Roku can right on your computer, actually you can access a lot more from your computer. You can access HULU free from your computer, not from Roku (Paid Hulu Plus only). You can access Network TV shows (CBS, NBC, ABC etc.) from their home site for free on a computer; not from a Roku. You can install parental controls on you computer, not on a Roku. You can connect any desktop or laptop and most tablets to your TV to use it as and HTPC and get all the content on the internet you want right on your TV. If you already have a cable or satellite subscription it might be worth it to get a Roku, but aside from that, I can't really see any advantage to the Roku. Actually, all I see is disadvantages, and that is not even considering the hardware and software defects and limitations of the 3500R.
Sort by:
Filter by:
Sorry, no reviews match your current selections.
Try clearing or changing some filters.Show all reviews
Show more reviews