Submitted by MarvelsGrantMan136 t3_yxqdqr in television
stumpcity t1_iwql7hw wrote
Roku should have never tried to become a programmer in the first place, and it was pretty obviously never going to work out for them. And it isn't.
Roku is a brand that people recognize for no other reason than it allows them to find streaming apps and use them. Nobody is going to Roku because of "The Roku Channel," or anything on it. It's a bonus feature at best. It's not a draw. It's never going to be a draw. It was always a weird, futile idea. It'd be like watching Mr. Coffee spend billions trying to compete with Starbucks as a roaster.
At this point Roku is probably going to cut as many costs as possible before offering itself up to be eaten alive by Amazon, Apple, or Google. Which is fine because while Roku has been chasing this dumb pipedream to become a legitimate streaming service, the product anyone actually cares about - the streambox itself - is declining.
[deleted] t1_iwr3fpk wrote
[deleted]
rabidjellybean t1_iwrsruh wrote
All of this focus on growth when they should have just accepted they should be paying dividends and focusing on market share.
CorporateSympathizer t1_iwr8jrx wrote
There was a survey study conducted by Variety that listed Roku Channel as one of the most used services among the FAST channels.
https://variety.com/vip/survey-the-most-popular-fast-and-avod-services-in-the-u-s-1235365459/#
Peacock was used by 21% of people, Roku came in at 15%, and pluto came in at 14%.
Tubi and Freevee rounded out the top 5 at 11% for each.
[deleted] t1_iwr9jar wrote
[removed]
MadeByTango t1_iwrf3sp wrote
Lol, Roku is one of the most solidly positioned companies in the streaming market. They aren’t going anywhere. This downturn is because advertising sales are down. It has nothing to do with the software/streaming adoption, which is booming. They beat Wall Street expectations on account growth to reach 65 million. But a their mainline revenue is ads, and those purchases are apparently down as the economy buckles under inflationary pressure. This is an industry wide downturn, and Roku’s losses are smaller than the rest of the tech industry by comparison thanks to that continued account growth.
Only Netflix, Disney, Amazon, and Prime are “ahead” of them on accounts, without the intrinsic hardware advantages that Roku has. They’re getting some sweet ROI when you accidentally press that dedicated Netflix button on your Roku remote...
TheSmJ t1_iwrzn2z wrote
> the product anyone actually cares about - the streambox itself - is declining.
Hence why Roku is trying to shift into content production.
They never had any other possible moves aside from maybe creating their own line of smart TVs, which would be a much harder market to compete in.
stumpcity t1_iws4few wrote
>Hence why Roku is trying to shift into content production.
No, that's backwards. The product declined BECAUSE they tried to shift to content production. They mismanaged resources and took their eye off the ball.
They tried to expand and fucked their brand up. They didn't have to do this to themselves. They weren't helpless. The executives making these calls made the wrong calls. They're not infallible. They're just people. And because they're rich doesn't automatically mean they're smart.
TheSmJ t1_iwsckyw wrote
>No, that's backwards. The product declined BECAUSE they tried to shift to content production.
Based on what evidence? Smart TVs have been replacing the need for set top boxes like Roku's for the last decade. They're simply unnecessary for the vast majority of people who have a newish TV.
stumpcity t1_iwsdjy7 wrote
>Based on what evidence
The last 5-7 years.
Also, the product wasn't just stream boxes. Their product was placed in a lot of Smart TVs as well, which seemed like a great call for manufacturers precisely because Roku had gotten enough brand ubiquity in the space as to basically be "streaming" for many consumers.
And as they shifted focus towards content creation over platform domination, their grip on the market slipped and the quality of their boxes AND their Smart TV implementation declined.
They chased after content creation when they didn't have to, and they fucked that up.
TheSmJ t1_iwsfdti wrote
They were losing platform domination because their platform (the set top box) was no longer necessary. They have an app for smart TVs, but nobody needs to use their app on the smart TV to stream Netflix, because there's already an app for that on the TV.
Their only option was content.
stumpcity t1_iwsj08q wrote
>They were losing platform domination because their platform (the set top box) was no longer necessary
They had already moved into providing a lot of the software for Smart TV's alongside providing standalone boxes by that time. You seem unsure as to how Roku actually works inside a smart tv, too.
They had other options beside "content," people - without really understanding what they're talking about - wanna keep acting like they were helpless to make this dumb call that they made.
TheSmJ t1_iwskzrf wrote
Oh then by all means please explain what those other options are, in the most condescending way you can muster for those of us who don't understand them nearly as well as you do.
stumpcity t1_iwsl7mx wrote
Dude, it's not my fault you ran into a convo trying to cape for faceless execs with no real knowledge of anything you were talking about.
Like, it hasn't occurred to you that knee-jerk assuming the execs in question (whoever they are, LOL) had to make the dumb moves they made is a bad assumption to make. But it's almost always the assumption always made, for no other reason than they're rich execs and we're not.
TheSmJ t1_iwsmvo6 wrote
No, seriously, what are their other options? If not content creation, or the dying set top box market?
I don't give a shit about the execs. Let's hear some of your ideas.
stumpcity t1_iwsndrw wrote
>No, seriously, what are their other options
not letting their software/hardware suck in comparison to competitors in that space.
Which they did.
They chose to spend time, money, and resources chasing content creation instead of shoring up the product that got them known in the first place. They didn't have to go that way, but they did. Again, they're not helpless to pursue bad biz decisions. They chose to do so.
TheSmJ t1_iwso3kr wrote
>not letting their software/hardware suck in comparison to competitors in that space. > >Which they did.
Because the market is on its last breath. There's no future there.
stumpcity t1_iwspqoj wrote
>Because the market is on its last breath
That's not why they did it
Nor is the streaming software/hardware market "on it's last breath." especially considering the fact streaming is about to be the primary means of consuming television.
TheSmJ t1_iwsszew wrote
Streaming isn't on its last breath. The market for stand-alone "streaming boxes" is. The vast majority of people use their TV for that now.
That just leaves the Roku app, and there needs to be a reason to launch the app for it to be of any value.
You want to take a stab at what that reason is?
stumpcity t1_iwsvr9m wrote
>The market for stand-alone "streaming boxes" is.
I've already addressed why it's not simply "stand-alone" streaming boxes, and why it also includes the streaming software included in many of the Smart TVs being sold, their software ALSO becoming subpar in the time they spent to pursue content creation alongside their hardware becoming undesirable.
(also the market for standalone boxes/pucks/sticks isn't "on its last breath" either)
You keep suggesting that Roku on Smart TVs works by "launching the app" when that's not how that works, too. You don't "launch the app" on a smart TV powered by Roku. You just turn the TV on. Roku is the software that makes the TV go. You seem to believe it's an app - it's the OS.
Locutus747 t1_iwqsi3z wrote
Yup band with practically every new tv now having its own streaming apps available there is less and less demand for something like roku
CptNonsense t1_iwr5dbh wrote
Ahahaha. Most of those TVs are in licensed deals with Roku, dude. Sure, Samsung and LG have their legacy platforms they've had for as long as Roku has existed, but they aren't really maintained for more than a couple years on any single tv nor are they definitely going to get new apps for any new streaming services, even the major ones.
Locutus747 t1_iwrapwk wrote
No need to laugh or downvote. I didn’t know there were licensed deals. Lots of TVs seem to have android apps as well.
ankermouse11 t1_iwr0sjq wrote
Yep I personally use a cheap Hisense I bought at Walmart and the TV apps are great, I see no reason to ever use a Roku
CptNonsense t1_iwr5qkz wrote
Ok, which smart TV implementation does your Hisense use
I'm betting it's Roku. Any Hisense you can walk out of a Walmart with is using Roku for its implementation.
stumpcity t1_iwr8ki6 wrote
It's actually way closer to 50/50 (or maybe even 60/40 by now) that the Hisense you grab at a Wal-Mart is using GoogleTV/Android TV as its OS, not Roku.
Same with TCL, I believe.
CptNonsense t1_iwraya2 wrote
I just went to Walmart.com and all of the "in store" Hisenses were Rokus
stumpcity t1_iwrbnmj wrote
I just went and that's not what I'm seeing. Maybe that's a function of whatever regional differences there are in purchasing practices and stock on hand, but Roku is losing business to Google/Android as the hardware OS for smart tvs, even at Walmart.
Walmart itself is actually becoming fairly well known for their own ONN-branded androidtv box/stick
CptNonsense t1_iwrbwuj wrote
>Walmart itself is actually becoming fairly well known for their own ONN-branded androidtv box/stick
Like with other in-house smart TV platforms, I wouldn't trust the longevity or adaptability of that
stumpcity t1_iwrjwv3 wrote
Sure, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about people going into a Walmart and coming out with a TV. The idea put forth was that if you got a TV at Walmart, it had Roku on it, and it turns out that's increasingly not the case, and in fact, a number of folks are going into Walmart to come out with Walmart's own branded streambox
CptNonsense t1_iwrnqbu wrote
That's not even what we are talking about, no
stumpcity t1_iwro57b wrote
Lol, what.
The conversation is right there, above us. Its what we're talking about. Its literally how we got here.
It hasn't changed in the hour or so its existed
CptNonsense t1_iwrqntk wrote
-
That has nothing to do with what I said about Onn
-
I was explicitly talking about Hisense and what Walmart reports as in store availability, not every tv they sell
Locutus747 t1_iwravfi wrote
My hisense is using android tv
harpejjist t1_iwrpzh4 wrote
But you are using one because it’s built into the TV
JeddHampton t1_iwr1ubv wrote
The streambox market is declining. They needed to expand to survive.
stumpcity t1_iwr3d55 wrote
No, they didn't. They needed to continue being basically the short-form brand name for streaming platforms, period, and they took their eye off that ball by trying to be a programmer.
Their product declined, people don't like it compared to other offerings, and now their brand is diminished.
It was a bad call. Corporations make those all the time. It's not like executives are somehow infallible geniuses who are in the position they're in because of their unassailable intellectual acumen.
Rich people can (and do) fuck up.
Apolaustic1 t1_iwrbm3e wrote
>Their product declined, people don't like it compared to other offerings
Considering literally everyone (including in this thread) talk about how they have the best software for streaming, that's a really bold statement to make.
stumpcity t1_iwrbydc wrote
>Considering literally everyone (including in this thread) talk about how they have the best software for streaming,
That's not happening. Not here, not "literally" everywhere, either.
edit: if I only had that thing in me that causes me to root for and pledge allegiance to brands and brand concerns like it was a sports team, LOL.
"Literally everyone says its the best software" = 4 people in a reddit thread about Roku laying people off, talking to each other.
[deleted] t1_iwrkj73 wrote
[deleted]
stumpcity t1_iwrlehr wrote
>Lmao look around the rest of the comments, and then come back to ours and look at the up and downvotes.
You realize this doesn't actually mean anything right? It's not a scoreboard. You don't "win" at opinions because the doots point one way or the other. Because the doots don't mean anything. Having a bunch means exactly the same as having negative amounts. Because four people on a subreddit hit the downarrow doesn't have any intrinsic meaning. It's four people. Online. In a thread about Roku laying off 200 people. in the middle of a workday.
>considering we're arguing about the popularity of a service I think this small sample size does great job representing the overall picture.
You're arguing that based on the actions of four people in a reddit subthread the completely bullshit "stat" you threw out regarding "literally everyone" saying they're the best at streaming is, in fact, now proven true.
This is not how that works, LOL.
[deleted] t1_iwte51j wrote
[deleted]
epictetusdouglas t1_iwsibcj wrote
I suspect they don't make much on the boxes/sticks. They are selling the 4k stick for $25 right now. Ads are/were where the money is and the Roku Channel has some decent shows if you like older content and the ads aren't obnoxious.
PestyNomad t1_iwtk1ml wrote
Swing and a miss
SaintofCirc t1_iy63x09 wrote
Gosh, the Roku Channel is my new go to, surprisingly. Fast and quicker ads than most others.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments