(This is not a gadget blog, but occasionally a new piece of technology is interesting enough that I want to write about it.)
The Netflix Player is Roku's 5" deep by 5" wide by 2" tall set top device that allows Netflix subscribers to easily watch any "Instant Watch" content on their TV. I mentioned the Instant Watch feature before, and I have been enjoying it, watching shows and movies on my laptop or occasionally hooking my laptop up to my TV.
I was enjoying it so much that I was about to buy a wireless keyboard and mouse to make using the hooked up laptop easier when I saw that the Netflix Player had come out. For $100 that's not all that much more than a decent wireless keyboard and mouse, so I decided to give it a try.
I've only had this device for a few days, but my initial impression of it is that this is a breakthrough device, with the possibility to do what Tivo did for DVRs, but for streaming content.
The initial setup is easy; the Player has built in wireless or you can use a wired connection. The Player has most any audio/video connections you would want; I am using HDMI for the picture and regular old RCA cables for the audio.
Once you've the Player hooked up to your TV and plug it in, it boots up and asks for a 5 digit activation code that you can get from the Netflix web site. Enter the code and the device jumps right into a nice display of the contents of your Instant Watch Queue. Using the small remote I had no trouble moving through what was available and selecting what to play. I had to tweak the display output to be widescreen in the configuration menu (up arrow from the main menu), but beyond that I was up and running in under 10 minutes.
Once something has started playing, you can fast forward and rewind or skip around to different parts of what you're watching. Because it is streaming, Roku came up with an interesting "chapter" system where you can skip around in 5 second intervals, demarcated by a screenshot of the action at that point in time. TV show episodes of the same series are grouped together logically so you can easily watch through a series in sequence (tested officially via season 1 of 30 Rock.) To summarize, navigation is easy and usability is high: it passed the "non-geek user" test with flying colors as my wife needed no help from me at all when she tried it out.
2 limitations of the Player are that it only shows you content that you have placed in your Instant Queue, via the Netflix web site and it currently has no HD content, although that is on its way. The playback quality is not outstanding, but it is definitely better than regular TV and around DVD quality.
These limitations do not detract from the appeal of the Netflix Player. In fact, based on the easy setup, relatively low cost and excellent usability, the Player is in good position to do what Tivo did for DVRs, which is to not be the first to do something (in this case streaming content), but the first to do it in a way that is intuitive and easy for mass consumption. Netflix's millions of subscribers have a real winner on their hands.
I've written many times before about my trial runs of various Linux distributions and I feel like I've said most of what I have to say about the matter. However, I recently saw a post entitled, Is Ubuntu Useable Enough For My Girlfriend? and I decided to have one more go at explaining my ambivalent feelings towards Linux.
First, a brief summary of the post for the link-impaired; relatively experienced Linux user sets up his girlfriend (Windows user, not super technical) with an install of the latest version of Ubuntu, gives her a set of mundane tasks (watch a YouTube video, Google something, do some photo editing) to achieve while he takes notes and hilarity ensues.
I tend to cringe when highly technical users try to predict what a non-technical user will find easy or difficult; there is just so much background knowledge that someone who is passionate about computers takes for granted, that I think we are uniquely ill suited for the task. So, I try to rely more on colloquial evidence, such as this post.
His girlfriend is able to accomplish many of the tasks, but is stymied by a few, mostly due to poor naming or lack of clear instructions on how to install the necessary application or plug in. The conclusion is that Ubuntu is heading in the right direction, but is still not ideal for your "average" non-power user.
This line of argument has been around since Linux on the desktop became a reality, so at first glance it can seem old, stale, whiny or just plain obvious. If you get beyond that initial reaction, it is an amazing commentary on the state of Linux on the desktop. How is it possible that so many talented individuals have labored so long and yet still been unable to produce a desktop system on which these type of basic tasks are as straightforward as they are on Windows or Mac?
I'll answer that question with another question; could you see Ubuntu declaring a one year new feature freeze, refusing any new graphical bells and whistles, new processor extensions or file system upgrades and instead focusing the next release of Ubuntu entirely on making it as simple as possible for non-technical users to accomplish simple general computing tasks? Imagine the brain power of that many talented contributors all working just towards usability. I think you'd have your killer desktop in way under that one year timeline.
However, my question is flawed. What is Ubuntu? There is an organization around it for sure, but it is not a monolithic one that can give orders to the entire Linux development community. Also, while usability is a stated goal of Ubuntu, it is not necessarily a goal that is shared by many of the elite programmers in the Linux development community. Or more accurately stated, many elite Linux developers are quite comfortable in Linux and don't feel excited about spending time making it "easier".
Quite to the contrary, many technical people are attracted to Linux due to the rapid pace of technological advancement. So in essence, you'd be asking the very people who innovated so much to get Linux to where it is now to stop innovating and focus on the unglamorous task of noob babysitting. Or as the author of the post puts it, "The main issue with the desktop experience is that the geeky programmers and designers assume too much from the average user."
In fairness there are plenty of developers who buck this stereotype and pour effort into usability. Otherwise we wouldn't have distros like Ubuntu at all. Recognizing the good work that the Ubuntu (and other distros such as PCLinuxOS and Xandros) have done with usability, what's left to explain the persistent gap?
I think the often overlooked part of this discussion is that Windows and Mac (OS X) set the norms. Whether or not it is fair or just, most people are exposed first and most often to Windows or OS X and from that initial experience, their expectations are set for how interacting with a computer should take place.
This behavior can be maddening and seem foolish, but is not surprising, at least as explained as Dan Ariely describes in his book Predictably Irrational. Ariely calls this type of behavior "anchoring" and anchoring can explain such oddities as how black pearls suddenly became sought after (they were once relatively unknown and then were introduced first only in high end jewelry stores for high end prices) and how we can feel like we are getting a great deal on a car when we buy it for significantly below the MSRP, despite the MSRP being a somewhat arbitrary number.
So, to come back on topic, even if desktop Linux were easier to use based on some kind of scientific figuring, as long as it remains close enough to our anchor ideal of computer interaction without quite being the same, it will seem inferior and less desirable.
The baseline has to be that either desktop Linux does at least everything as easily as Windows/OS X does plus more or that it presents such a different and satisfying experience that a new anchor is established. A concrete example of this is the iPhone; by offering such a tightly knit and innovative take on the interface of a cell phone it was able to define a new standard for what cell phone UI's should be.
There is movement within the Linux community to develop new desktop interface experiences such as Symphony One and mainstream distros using KDE and Gnome are inching ever closer to matching the out of the box Windows/OS X experience while still offering the power and variety that make Linux fascinating. I am not sure which approach if either will ultimately win out because the final elephant in the room is that Microsoft and Apple are not just standing still, they are trying to take the best bits they see from their competitors and improve their own products.