14 Replies Latest reply: Aug 2, 2014 7:41 AM by caldwelljt RSS

    Why is a phone required?

    dfgsdfgsdfgsdfg

      I have a Slingbox and a Roku3.

      I installed the Slingplayer channel on my Roku3 and expected to be able to view my Slingbox on the Roku3.

      Can I?.  No!.  The message on the screen says i now need to buy a Android or iPhone.  No other channels/apps on the Roku require this.

      Are Sling going to change this ridiculous requirement and get Slingplayer working with the Roku3 as you would expect?.

        • Re: Why is a phone required?
          alanrichey42 Master

          Probably not.   Having spent all that time working on that solution I doubt the Company will sepnd money on providing an alternative.  I guess they assume (probably correctly) that 95% of people with a Roku and a Slingplayer will have a mobile phone.

          • Re: Why is a phone required?
            mbial

            As an owner of a WDTV Live as well as a Roku this is an EXTREMELY frustrating and poor excuse for an "app".  It's not an app.  It's airplay/chromecast for Roku.  That's it.  I purchased my Roku SPECIFICALLY for this feature (and because it also has a Plex app - I didn't want 2 media streaming devices if the Roku could do both Plex and Slingplayer).  I implore the sling team to respond by adapting their existing connected devices apps (ie GoogleTV and WDTV Live) to the Roku so we can get the functionality we deserve without the need to incur even more costs buying a smartphone and their $15 smartphone app on top of that!  Not to mention the fact that using a touchscreen as a remote/guide completely diminishes the viewing experience.  What a sorry joke considering my expectations after using the WDTV!

             

            VERY FRUSTRATED - SLING TEAM, PLEASE DO BETTER!

             

              • Re: Why is a phone required?
                tcassady

                I couldn't agree more. I too bought Roku just to be able to stream my Slingbox on my tv. I first downloaded (and paid for) the iPad app then discovered that you can't stream from iPad app to Roku, you have to buy the IPhone app to do that. So another $15 for the iPhone app. Works pretty well but if I need to use my phone for something else, like a phone call. I can't do it while watching TV via Slingbox. Why can't Roku function with Slingplayer without the need for the iphone? At least give the iPad app the same feature as the iPhone app!

                  • Re: Why is a phone required?
                    79tata

                    I 100% AGREE !

                     

                    It is not that I would mind tossing in another $15 for the iphone version, but it is just crazy that the app allowed to stream first to the Roku was the iphone and not the ipad !

                     

                    Maybe nobody at Slingbox ever talks on the phone while watching TV !!!

                • Re: Why is a phone required?
                  dewdude Newbie

                  Ok, for starters..you should have read the fine print. It clearly says you need the mobile application running on specific devices to get the streaming ability. If you failed to do your research and make the assumption, well, there's no point in getting angry about it.

                   

                  Part of the reason you have to have the SlingPlayer app on your phone is for the remote control. Yes, you have one on the Roku; but there's no way of making it interface with the software in some universal way. Every remote/device works differently; plus the Roku probably intecepts some commands from the remote regardless of app behavior.

                   

                  Second, Slingbox pretty much requires anything outside of browser viewing as a "pemium" option. Even the Windows 8 application has a price tag; which is almost utterly silly considering any standard x86-64 windows device can load the browser plugin.

                    • Re: Why is a phone required?
                      mbial

                      I'd be happy to pay for legitimate Roku channel instead of a free, under-functioning Airplay replacement.  Look at competitor products like the WDTV Live - it has a perfectly suitable Slingplayer client and it's free.  This should be assumed functionality in any Sling "app" - not a dependency on another device that completely stops working during a simple phone call.

                       

                      Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 10:34:07 -0800

                      From: answers@slingmedia.com

                      To: mbial@hotmail.com

                      Subject: Re: - Why is a phone required?

                                                                                                      Slingbox Answers Forum

                                                               

                       

                                                          

                                                          

                                                               

                          Why is a phone required?

                       

                       

                          reply from dewdude in  SlingPlayer on Roku streamers - View the full discussion

                       

                       

                       

                      Ok, for starters..you should have read the fine print. It clearly says you need the mobile application running on specific devices to get the streaming ability. If you failed to do your research and make the assumption, well, there's no point in getting angry about it.

                      Part of the reason you have to have the SlingPlayer app on your phone is for the remote control. Yes, you have one on the Roku; but there's no way of making it interface with the software in some universal way. Every remote/device works differently; plus the Roku probably intecepts some commands from the remote regardless of app behavior.

                      Second, Slingbox pretty much requires anything outside of browser viewing as a "pemium" option. Even the Windows 8 application has a price tag; which is almost utterly silly considering any standard x86-64 windows device can load the browser plugin.

                       

                       

                       

                           Reply to this message by replying to this email -or- go to the message on Slingbox Answers Forum

                           Start a new discussion in  SlingPlayer on Roku streamers at Slingbox Answers Forum

                    • Re: Why is a phone required?
                      heyandy1st

                      Yes, I agree that Slingbox is putting a nail in their own coffin with many of their decissions, this one included (i.e. requiring a mobile device, and of course more money) to use the remote player on Roku when on my WD Live I do not need the phone.

                       

                      Here is yet an even more BAD decission on thier part.  I have Slingplayer for my iPad (note, an even more EXPENSIVE app than for the iPhone), and they say the iPad is not supported.  As an iPhone/iPad developer, they won't sell any technical reasons, which means this is a marketing choice, and have put the final nail in thier coffin on my part.

                       

                      Anyone looking to buy a used Roku 350?  I'm done.

                        • Re: Why is a phone required?
                          dewdude Newbie

                          heyandy1st wrote:

                           

                          Yes, I agree that Slingbox is putting a nail in their own coffin with many of their decissions, this one included (i.e. requiring a mobile device, and of course more money) to use the remote player on Roku when on my WD Live I do not need the phone.

                           

                          Here is yet an even more BAD decission on thier part.  I have Slingplayer for my iPad (note, an even more EXPENSIVE app than for the iPhone), and they say the iPad is not supported.  As an iPhone/iPad developer, they won't sell any technical reasons, which means this is a marketing choice, and have put the final nail in thier coffin on my part.

                           

                          Anyone looking to buy a used Roku 350?  I'm done.

                           

                          First of all, have you used the WD Live app? I tried running it on my PC and found it to be vastly inferior. It's the only way I can watch Slingbox on Linux; and it's not very good. I don't have anything to justify needing the app for the Roku. Maybe it's a ploy to get more money since the majority of people might by a Slingbox once and never give them another dime. They still have to maintain the locator database and servers; as well as all the other infrastructure to make sure your player can even find your Slingbox to begin with. You should also know they maintain and run relay servers, for those cases where you just can't get a direct connection to your Slingbox. Maybe they had issues getting the device to work on the app so it's screencasting to the Roku. The Chromecast is going to do the same thing I believe.

                           

                          Taking all that in to consideration; I feel it's perfectly fine for them to have this kind of structure. What would you rather have? A structure that while seemingly unfair; makes sure they have a revenue stream to keep services running; or make everything free and pay them a monthly maintance fee?

                           

                          As far as your iDevice problem; you said you have it on your iPad and iPad isn't supported? I can only assume you mean the iPad version won't work on the iPhone. As a developer of nothing; maybe it's an Apple restriction? As an Android user, I know the phone version will work on the tablet but not vise-versa; largely due to the fact the tablet version pulls a much higher quality stream, at a higher resolution, than the phone version.

                            • Re: Why is a phone required?
                              heyandy1st

                              For the first part, obviously the deal that Slingbox made with WD to put their player on their hardware was more money than Roku gave to Slingbox for their player to be on Roku, and hence the need for Slingbox desire to force another cost.  But I do not believe they are clear on the requirement differences on their page as to the additonal cost until you actually click into the instructions for Roku.

                               

                              As to the iDevice, you misunderstood.  Slingbox has two seperate verson of their applicatons (instead of a universal app that runs on both iPhone and iPad), which at the time I purchased the iPad version it was $29.99 versus the $14,99 for iPhone (which obviously I was good with the price difference as I wanted to view my content on my 10" screen vs. the 4" screen and paying the premium to do so) (I also see they price for iPad is down to $14.99, but that is life of changing prices).  So back to the original point that there is no technical reason why the iPad version will not work exactly the same as the iPhone version.  Which still leaves my original point valid, this is a marketing move that makes no sense.  If it was simply the fact that they needed more time to update the iPad version, then simply say "feature coming shortly", and I would have accepted that risk of "shortly".  But the "phone" device must be used is simply a marketing ploy.

                              • Re: Why is a phone required?
                                caldwelljt

                                Honestly, I don't buy this argument. They are perfectly capable of building a way for streams to "make sure they make it" without maintaining anything expensive. I could go into it, but in short, skype, splashtop, and other companies have already tackled this problem, and there are tons of free services that can be leveraged to assist if needed (google to name one).

                                 

                                In short, they should be able to sell a device and maintain the software at their expense. Every other hardware vendor out there manages to do it and release updates as needed. If a lifecycle runs long, then they can charge for a later update and we can decide then if we want to buy it, or buy their later hardware. Requiring the purchase of a software for a different device to keep the first device operational is like charging for spoons that come with free forks at a steakhouse.

                                 

                                Honestly, I think their development team works for a competing company, because they always seem dedicated to finding a way to frustrate the users and make them wish they had either chosen another option or just never tried to do this in the first place.

                                 

                                Message was edited for spelling by: caldwelljt