HBO Max was delayed in appearing on Roku because of negotiation breakdowns. In the case HBO it was Roku that seemed to have the demands. They are looking at revenue anywhere they can, but if their position weakens look for Google, ATT, and others to simply forgo working with them.
I think Roku is in a perilous position in general. They generated a lot of buzz on Wallstreet with their high user counts. They also purchased a DSP to get more into the advertising game. However they are at risk of being disrupted. They do not offer much that is unique and have largely gained and held market position by being the cheapest and easiest to use.
Cheap Android TV devices are starting to compete with them on price and tv manufacturers have mostly chosen to create and maintain their own ecosystems.
Unless they make some big strategic maneuvers I see them slowly being squeezed out like Tivo.
The reason I picked and stay with Roku is that they aren't married to a single Big Tech co. I already suffer the lack of a proper YouTube app on my Echo Show because Amazon and Google are having a tiff. I don't want to pick an ecosystem and live exclusively inside of it.
As it is, I'm already in a mixed household (Me with iOS and my wife with Android) and it's a pain to deal with the lack of cross-platform playing together.
> The reason I picked and stay with Roku is that they aren't married to a single Big Tech co.
Same. I'm so sick of being locked into one system or another, having my eyeballs monetized, or getting the shitty version of an app because it isn't the vendor's platform. I got a Roku because they're as neutral as one can get, and so far I'm happy paying for YouTube Premium, Amazon Prime and Netflix. You tell me I can't run those on my Roku, well fuck you and your service.
> You tell me I can't run those on my Roku, well fuck you and your service.
The thing is that Google shouldn't be forced to make their apps for the 30 different streaming box app stores if they don't want to. If there's no money to be made and they inherently lose money by tasking a team to keep the Roku app (or LG app or Samsung app, etc) up-to-date then they shouldn't have to.
The Google Cast protocol is actually pretty open in this regard - the apps are just a combination of html, js, websocket, and a protobuf server with no need to publish anything - all the TV makers would have to do is embed Chrome (they would also have to use a not-e-waste chip to do so, though, as supporting 4k hardware vp9 and drm is intense and expensive). There also really isn't an app store that needs moderation or business deals to happen for your casting to work - the only registration is really so Google has a paper trail of accountability in order to prevent malware and perform some API calls (https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/registration).
They shouldn't be forced to... But their is money to be made. YouTube TV is a paid service. If I owned a Roku and YouTube TV want available for it I may cancel my subscription.
Personally I use Roku because it's the snappiest experience with the fewest crashes. I started with a Chromecast but its integration with Android was a little too deep: leaving wifi while casting YouTube would cause the YouTube app to hard lock into a "connecting to chromecast" error that persisted even after force-stopping the YouTube app. The second time I had to restart my phone because of that I chucked the Chromecast in the trash.
Fire Stick is a joke. The wifi reception is terrible, the entire UI is laggier than my old cable box, and the apps crash on launch more often than not.
Roku just works, and it works like something that was designed by professional adults and not blood-sucking marketeers eager to screw over their users to make an extra ten cents.
I have an older Roku 3 and a (2nd gen?) Amazon FireTV box (the flat box thing not the stick), and the sound from the FireTV box is far far superior than that of the Roku 3 (did a test using the same soundbar). Not sure if Roku has improved on its sound output since then or not (the Roku 3 I have is of course pretty old).
This whole thing where you have to sacrifice everything to big corps and buy new devices every year makes me not want to bother consuming any media at all to be honest. When I see people wrestle with all kinds of devices, services, and subscriptions I just get sad and start thinking if the juice is actually worth the squeeze and coming to the conclusion it really isn't.
Sadly, you and I are exceptions - caring about it only enough to voice our disregard for it. Usually, by the time a person is old enough to not need the churn of mass culture to be relevant to their peers, they're usually hooked on some brand or other of high-quality spam. Unlike street drugs, mass media rots your brain with full societal approval.
This is nothing new of course - many writers, musicians, and filmmakers of the 20th century have expounded on the soul-crushing effects of commercialized culture. As expected, they have ended up being more obscure to the general public than the ones who embraced it. It was weird seeing for the first time a mainstream artist or work that risked to be slightly more original than the industry average (in order to reach a previously uncaptured audience segment) being lauded as some sort of genius, while its subject matter was the same old "hey you, yes you, buy a bigger TV!"
Allocating resources and incentives (economy) and collectively deciding what's valuable and worth incentivizing (culture) are two separate layers of the social "stack". Advertising couples them in the worst possible way, effecting a positive feedback loop of wastage. The possibility that the emergent adtech hivemind's ultimate purpose is to measure and hone the efficiency of this mass pacification strategy is Orwellian par excellence.
My answer to this? Just enough economic productivity to afford unabashed dirtbaggery on the cultural plane. Anyone who does not share this perspective is watching a different movie.
>This whole thing where you have to sacrifice everything to big corps and buy new devices every year makes me not want to bother consuming any media at all to be honest.
People said something similar 10 -15 years ago about pirating with bit-torrent. There was certain rage with them I couldn't understand. Now I finally feel the same. I think the age of Napster and BT will be back.
Roku is actually more heavy handed than Apple. Apple allows any streaming provider to be on the AppleTV without making any kind of deal or negotiation.
No, streaming providers do not have to give Apple a cut. They can force you to pay on their website. You can not pay for Hulu Live, Youtube Live TV, Netflix or many others through the App Store.
> Apple allows any streaming provider to be on the AppleTV without making any kind of deal or negotiation.
Content providers do have to make deals to get on AppleTV. You just don't hear about it.
Here's an example:
"WarnerMedia has firmed up a distribution deal with Apple for distribution of its forthcoming streaming service HBO Max.... Under the deal, HBO Max will be available on Apple devices and integrated with the Apple TV app on iPhone, iPad, iPod touch and Apple TV."
And there are few details around the HBO and CBS deal to get on Apple TV here:
In a second sign of frayed relations between the two companies, Netflix has decided to opt out of the Apple bundle, which will upsell subscriptions to HBO and CBS in addition to its original programming
Maybe I’m confused, but aren’t these two different things? As the OP stated, any streaming provider can have an app on Apple TV (ESPN, Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Amazon, Peacock, etc…) while some providers may also negotiate deals to be more prominently integrated in to the Apple TV ecosystem and/or distributed/upsold through the Apple TV+ bundle. I think they are mutually occurring circumstances… or maybe I am totally misunderstanding the arrangements Apple has with streaming services.
You're right that anyone can make an app and that's separate from integration with system-wide search and the TV app, but when you make an app Apple has a bunch of restrictions over signup, the language you use around signup, and Apple gets a cut.
Over the years there has been drama between Netflix and Apple over it (and Spotify and Amazon Prime Video). I think it's mostly been resolved, but Apple wants apps to integrate more deeply but it sounds like it needs to convince these companies to do it one at a time.
Apple only gets a cut if you go through them for in app purchases. Content providers do not have to offer in app purchases and many don’t. There has always been an exception for apps that only allow you to view content.
Right, restrictions over signup. It's also a weird, ill-defined line for "viewing apps," too. As we saw with Hey last year, you can't tell them to go to the website to sign up and you can't just have an app that does nothing if you don't signup, either.
Amazon chose to avoid this fight with Kindle years ago and everyone I talk to is confused why they can't buy books from their iPhone/iPad. Mostly because Amazon can't tell them.
The point is these are all oddball, Apple-imposed hoops that affect these companies from running their business. Even though they're spelled out and relatively consistent, it's relevant if you're claiming Roku is more heavy-handed than Apple.
In the context of streaming apps, there is no inconsistency. Are people really confused by having to go to a website to sign up?
There is a huge difference between having to follow one rule and submitting your app to the store and being required to make a revenue and ad sharing deal.
The proof is in the pudding. Every streaming service has always supported iOS from day one. Then you hear “we are still waiting to make a deal with Roku”.
You are right. The TV app is a centralized place that keeps tracks of all of the shows you watched across providers. It’s an application on the AppleTV and other iOS devices. Those are the “deals” that the original poster linked to.
The main point was that you can not just download the Roku SDK, make sure you follow their rules and submit it for approval. Roku wants revenue sharing deals - even for advertising - and sometimes asks for ad inventory.
The comment you quoted was specifically for people who I knew would reply about Apple “forcing” content providers to use in app purchasing.
TV manufacturers have mostly chosen to create and maintain their own ecosystems.
This is actually a declining trend. LG and Samsung do but Moore's law has gotten it to a point where Android TV and, in fact Roku's platform are becoming much more prevalent on TVs, particularly some of the newer lower end devices. There's a large cost to maintaining your own HTML based platform (which is what most 3rd parties are) and the HTML platforms pretty radically under-perform these days.
Android TV could win but much like the US cable operators the large CE providers aren't too excited about getting so closely tied to Google. Roku's continued independence is cool in a space where there is so much consolidation, and attractive to some CE manufacturers.
My TV has Roku built-in and it’s extremely frustrating. It’s super slow, it uses some surround sound virtualization (or something) for the stereo speakers with no option to turn it off despite being terrible (you can barely hear speech, but music and effects are extremely loud), the remote has shortcut buttons for things I don’t even use (google play and sling), there’s advertisements every time I turn on my tv and on the screensaver, the TV options are inaccessible in half the apps I use, etc.
Despite how much I dislike Google, I’ve resorted to using a Chromecast because it’s quicker, less of a hassle, and gives me the option of forcing stereo audio instead of the faux surround sound. I can also use JustWatch on my phone, tap the service that a movie/show is on, and directly open the corresponding app to cast from. It’s also nice being able to type directly on my phone instead of using the Roku remote, especially since many of the available Roku apps don’t support keyboard input from the mobile Roku remote app. Finally, I like that I can cast directly from my computer as well.
I also have an Apple TV, but its touchpad remote is annoying and it provides less value for me since I’ve moved away from Macs.
I've had TVs with Android, LG's OS, Samsung's OS, etc... They all suck.
I currently have a really nice Sony with Android TV, but I had so many problems with the built-in Android that I plugged an nVidia Shield box into it instead and all those problems went away.
The other OS's all had their own issues, but the worst part of them was, like your Roku, the slowness. Everything is massively underpowered. Nobody wants to wait for the TV to slowly load apps when they want to be watching something.
In addition, other than Android, all of them tend to lag behind on updates after the initial launch of the each app.
So now I ignore whatever is on the TV and use an external box. I've considered FireTV and Roku again, but every time I look into them, I read about problems that I don't want to have (like this article) and so I stick with nVidia Shield boxes.
I plugged an nVidia Shield box into it instead and all those problems went away.
Can confirm. I tried a bunch of different things (even the OUYA), went to support smaller companies (Wetek) but it was all one big mess and impossible to have a couple of days pass by without a crash of either the viewer programs or just the complete OS getting stucked. I feel sorry for them, but really this thing should be like a plain analog TV which worked (in my area) fine every single day for decades. The Shield does this for me. Think I had one crash of the local TV streaming app in the past months, for the rest it has been working flawlessly for years and didn't even have to replace the remote's batteries yet. That is how such dedicated hardware should just work.
The last two AirBNBs had new TV with Roku built into the TV. I have to say they worked fairly well.. a little slow, but not bad at all.
I have a Roku at home, but also an nVidia Shield. The Shield is fast, but it has a lot of problems. First is that you must install an app to disable the Netflix button. If you enter Netflix, it does not easily let you leave the app and the button makes it far to easy to accidentally enter it. Second, the YouTube app on the shield has a weird problem where it goes into some kind of stagger mode where it updates the screen only every few seconds (maybe it gets into this mode if the bandwidth is temporarily too low). You need to rewind the video to get it to play again properly. Finally the triangular remote is terrible- it's falling apart.
Roku has none of these problems. I should say I have the older RF Roku remote, not the newer cheap LED one.
Chromecast video quality is atrocious though. I have a Chromecast Ultra on my Roku TV (TCL 6-series QLED) considered to be a mid-range panel and has decent color accuracy, but on Chromecast all of it is out the window, the same video on the YouTube TV (native app) on Roku is so much better looking and accurate.
That's interesting because what I forgot to mention is that while I have a 4K TV, it seems that the Roku apps refuse to play anything at a 4K resolution. The Chromecast Ultra seems to output 4K just fine.
I haven't noticed any differences in color though, so I can't speak to that. Maybe the HDMI input has different picture settings set than the base Roku? I'm sure you've tried that though, so I don't know.
Huh, that... just doesn't jive with my experience at all, though I have a newer LG OLED TV. My Chromecast is able to play 4K UHD/HDR content perfectly.
That being said, when I first use a new input on my TV, I sometimes forget that each input has its own profile on my TV, and have to shut off the stupid smooth motion modes and adjust colors, etc. Are you sure this isn't the case on your TV?
Getting devices and tvs to play nice can be a pain for any given set - I don’t have a roku but comparing builtin YouTube/Netflix on a 4K hdr Sony oled with chrome cast and Apple TV they were all about the same with built in performing the best (optimized for the tv I presume) - apple tv with infuse using Emby as a library was best
Chrome cast is also greatly affected by what your casting with, VLC, Videostream, chrome can all produce very different results depending on the content
Hard to tell (probably both), but it's worth noting for most of these OSes (at least Roku or Android TV) the playback is generally being handed to the hardware native decoder rather than having anything to do with the OS.
Indeed, one of the nice things about Android TV is that from a content protection point of view you don't really need to trust the OS at all as it's all abstracted down to the hardware.
It's probably not Roku that's at fault for the slowness, but rather the TV manufacturer cutting corners at the CPU/RAM. (Yet another case why there should be a modular standard for "smart TV" brains)
AppleTV, AndroidTV, FireTV, Roku, WebOS, Tizen, Comcast X1, ATT TV, Xbox, PlayStation, etc—the space is incredibly fractured.
Outside of the TVs with Roku built in I wonder how many people will buy Roku devices in the future. It will be hard for Roku to continue to compete if they have say, 10-20 percent market share.
I use a Roku now, but I don’t think I will in the future. My tv is older, so no built in apps. Roku was a cheap way to add that functionality without a big box. With that said, I am regularly disappointed with the performance of Roku especially with Plex. I am considering an Apple TV because I know IOS devices work well with Plex and there is a more robust app ecosystem available.
Not to even mention that Brightscript, the proprietary language running the device, can be a nightmare at times. I've encountered so many quirks/issues that just don't exist/happen on other platforms like AndroidTV/tvOS.
The entire smart-tv space is definitely fractured, and trying to develop for so many platforms all at once can be frustrating, especially when you're doing so in your spare time. Thankfully, at least in my case, I've had someone more experienced step in recently to help with a side-project on AndroidTV, but I digress.
Honestly, if I had a dongle for my Chromecast that supported ethernet, and I weren't too lazy to order one, I wouldn't really use the Roku anymore. With the removal of the Twitch channel, Spectrum channel, and others, I'm becoming more and more disenchanted with the platform.
Chromecast Ultra has an Ethernet port. But the color accuracy is off and the video quality (atleast on Chromecast YouTube) seems poorer (overblown highlights, inaccurate colors, etc) vs Native YouTube app on Roku.
Roku is also going to have problems with their marketshare being so North America focused when platforms increasingly need their stack to either work internationally or at least be trivially repurposed for international. Globally Roku's marketshare is nowhere near 10 - 20%.
The Roku's inability to display non-latin characters is what soured my enthusiasm for them. If it turns out that it's a trivial problem that is easily addressed once it's time to target international growth I will become bitter.
It’s too bad Android Tv application quality is atrocious. Applications like Hulu have huge swaths of the library that simply won’t play and it crashes. Couple this with a lack of application support and it is quite disappointing. The pled support was the last straw which led me to attach a roku to the television.
In my experience, poor/incomplete applications are something you have to keep an eye out for regardless of what platform you're dealing with.
I've seen audio stutter on a smart TV running the Netflix streaming app, and similar stutter on a network-enabled Blu-Ray player running the Amazon Video streaming app. I've seen 4K playback cause occasional stuttering in the Amazon Video app on a smart TV. Disney+ group playback is currently unsupported on PS4, but is supported on Xbox One. A few years ago, the PS3 Netflix app supported 1080p, whereas the Xbox 360 Netflix app only supported 720p. I've also seen the Xbox One YouTube app insist on playing a video at 720p or lower, despite that Roku will play it at 1080p (perhaps an issue with only a certain codec being available at that quality?). I've seen a paid video service with an iPhone app with completely broken Chromecast support (they fixed it a few weeks after I filed a bug report).
> There's a large cost to maintaining your own HTML based platform (which is what most 3rd parties are) and the HTML platforms pretty radically under-perform these days.
I'm struggling to understand the claim made by this statement. Maybe I missed something? What does HTML have to do with serving video over the wire? Underperforming on which metrics? What's the time value of "these days"?
Most smart TV platforms that aren't Android TV or Tizen explicitly are HTML5 based, in that their UI is HTML5 based. But smart TV platforms are never write once run anywhere - remote control button patterns, OS weirdness and shoestring amounts of RAM mean you've got to do whole suites of testing and bespoke code for at best every manufacturer, and in practice every set.
LG is the only one that could be said to have sufficient marketshare to justify that investment for any but the largest VOD providers now. The revenue generated from those platforms once rights holders are paid is a fraction of what it costs to maintain them simply through testing overhead. Android TV and Tizen's marketshare has increased rapidly over the last few (read three-ish) years, and when you often need to account for international rollout or repurposing in your cost analysis it's even stronger (Roku has zero marketshare outside of the US, many large cable companies outside of the US have Android TV based set-top boxes with multiple million installations).
This generally also applies to browser based streaming, with the added bonus that is where a bunch of piracy comes from.
I have both a Roku and a Chromecast and the Roku works _much_ better. The Chromecast used to be fine, but a few years ago they refactored it in the Home app and now it constantly needs to be reconnected to the wifi. That would be annoying enough but the setup process also fails regularly. No other device in my house has this problem.
- a Roku
- the newest "Chromecast with Google TV"
- old style chromecasts
- an "smart TV" with Android TV
- A "smart TV" from visio
The worst by far are the smart TVs. The old chromecast is next because there's no UI outside my phone, but I always have my phone so it's not that bad. Next is the Roku and finally, top marks for the CCGTV. It's super fast and responsive and I love it.
My experience with the Chromecast with Google TV is that many apps that are available on other platforms are missing on Google TV / Android TV - one example would be NHK World (the English language service from the Japanese NHK TV) and another example is Flo Sports (a sports streaming app). For this reason I'm thinking of getting a Fire TV or an Apple TV where those missing apps are available.
When I purchased the Google TV device I was under the impression that Android TV was one of the major platform on the market, but later I found out that in terms of apps choice, it's not the best.
Also, it's puzzling that some apps are available for Amazon's Fire TV but not for Google TV / Android TV - both are based on Android so I thought it would be very easy to make an app available to both platforms - maybe there are some technical aspects that I'm missing.
CCGTV is so, so buggy. I have to restart it constantly because:
- Sound won't play
- Subtitles stop working
- Some app specific issue (there's no way to kill an app that I know of)
That's strange because we have two Chromecasts in our house that have been working no differently for the last 4 years. No need to reconnect it to the WiFi constantly.
Same with my old school Chromecast audio, it needs to be rebooted constantly as it too somehow stops connecting to wifi. I used to use it with a toslink cable and got really good sound out of it using a DLNA server from my storage.
Now I just use my TV (as a monitor) optical out since it is connected via ethernet. I can still use DLNA on it as well to play my music.
Though their UI really needs some work in my opinion for it to be worth it. I subscribed specifically to listen to their exclusive podcasts, but bounced off and cancelled a month later due to it being a honestly not great experience.
It's possible that my expectations don't match the wider worlds though: my girlfriend loves Spotify and uses it for podcasts as well as music.
For me, music requires album-focused UI, and I honestly prefer having Podcasts broken out into it's own app or interface. Mixing the two just didn't feel right.
It's big but it's tied to a single service as opposed to being some huge conglomerate like microsoft or google that has it's hands into dozens of markets.
I am the opposite.
Big tech is under scrutiny and are watched closely for the data they collect. These small companies are in lawless territory and heavily collect questionable data.
Every company is only a few bad quarters away from selling data about its users, and since smaller companies are less resilient, I would say your data is far more secure in a FAANG.
The big problem with Spotify is that they're primarily controlled by the labels with their licensing agreements. All of the majors also own portions of shares within the service.
People also don't realise that I heart Radio is Clearchannel rebranded. The closest thing to an actual independent streaming service I'd say we have right now is Beatport or Bandcamp.
The situation that Spotify finds itself in, along with Roku, is that they are still at the mercy of who supplies them their content. Until they diversify and provide exclusive content of their own that keeps people subscribed (ala Netflix), they're doomed once labels and studios want to me-too and spin off their own services. Disney used to primarily have deals with Netflix, now they've split that off into Disney+. Netflix is able to maintain because of their content. I doubt Spotify will. Nor will Roku.
So even if you have the impression that they're not 'connected to' a big tech company, they're definitely at the mercy of if not already somehow owned by.
Also how are the small advertising companies doing the truly terrifying advertising tracking?
Are they tracking me across the web when i go to seemingly completely unrelated sites like google, fb, etc?
Roku strong arms content providers all the time. Apple ID much more neutral when it comes to content providers. No, Apple does not force content providers to pay through the App Store.
I have a Chromecast, and various consoles. Roku is still the best overall (despite shortcomings). Everyone I know who bought a Roku prefers it to all the other options. Can anyone tell me what other streaming devices have over Roku?
What I need:
- A real remote. Not going to use my phone to control things.
- Good search. When I search, I want results from most of the apps - so I can find out which ones have the show/movie I'm looking for (with an indication of price).
- Good support from all the major services: Youtube, PBS, Plex, Netflix, all the major TV channels (HGTV, ABC, CBS, etc).
- Easy to install my own app without militant control from the manufacturer.
- Affordable ($25-35), and not integrated into my TV.
- Can use in hotels/motels - this is critical (Roku generally wins big here - Chromecast totally fails).
That's no use for people who don't have it (i.e. everyone I know). Those that do have smart TVs use Rokus, but that may be because their TVs are older (likely not Android).
And in any case, it doesn't check all the boxes - particularly the one about "use in motels/hotels when I travel"
My TV actually has Android, but due to multiple problems that resulted in me having to reset my TV to factory and set everything up again, I went back to my older nVidia Shield.
We now have the Shield on both TVs in the house, and they both work great.
With all the Android phones out there, nobody is going to skip Android as a device when launching their service. (Unlike Roku, which is a decision they have to make.) They also tend to update their apps a lot more often, so you always end up with the latest bugfixes and improvements. And the number of users guarantees that bugs get reported and fixed.
It doesn't fit your "affordable" point, though. We're talking $200, not $30. I've had mine quite a few years, though, and it's been well worth it.
The new Chromecast with Google TV, despite being stupidly named, ticks basically every single box here, except that it's $50, instead of $25-$35, but it's _fantastic_.
The remote is great, and includes a Google Assistant voice search button that's super useful, and the search is federated in the way you describe, and very good. It has support from every service, but it integrates really well with YouTubeTV, obviously, which is nice because there's a great Live tab with a guide. You can run the app store and install whatever Android TV app you want: I've installed NordVPN on mine to get around NHL.TV blackout bullshit.
AND it will get around a captive portal because it has a remote/browser, so you can use it in a hotel. Honestly, it's a delightful little device.
What is (mostly) unique about Roku, and one of the main reasons I went with a Roku is that it isn't made by the same company as one of the big streaming services, and is therefore less likely to privlege that service. If they start giving special privileges to youtube, then Roku just becomes a third party Android TV device.
Apple has iTunes. And I don't have a single apple device in my house, so interoperability would be problem. Not to mention that Apple TV is significantly more expensive.
They have 38% market share on new TV’s sold, and that’s not including the standalone players.
Also, they just announced a YoY doubling of advertising revenue.
Their low end device is $30, and provides a best of class (but HD) experience. I don’t really see how they can realistically be undercut on price, unless competitors started paying people to use their devices. Do you want to deal with a janky streaming device for the next 5 years, or just shell out the cost of a pizza and six pack?
If anything, they’ll be attacked from the high end. Are you willing to pay an extra $100-200 for a non-ad-subsidized streaming device?
And the HBO Smart TV app is still not available natively on LG televisions, which obviously isn't a big deal to people who already have a media system set up but is annoying none the less. All this streaming stuff sure is starting to feel like the cable television plans I grew up with.
Radarr, sonarr, and plex are a nice escape hatch for availability. Similarly, an HDMI cable connected to a PC with a browser is a working fall-back to most missing apps on any platform.
After all this time Roku still does not sell units in my country and I suspect they barely have a presence outside North America. Not really a surprise that companies who refuse to sell products to diverse markets fail to keep their revenue safe.
This is a big short coming for Roku, they not only have three or four European language options only, but developers have to actually spend time coding UTF8 support.
So far the only apps that I use that don't show Japanese as squares or worse blanks is the Apple airplay app (which shipped initially without support) and the YouTube app. It's a frustrating experience using Plex with properly named shows, but atleast burning in subtitles gives support while watching.
What does Roku require of app developers to support UTF8? Honestly wondering because it seems so bizarre that they would make it more difficult than any other app platform.
> HBO Max was delayed in appearing on Roku because of negotiation breakdowns. In the case HBO it was Roku that seemed to have the demands. They are looking at revenue anywhere they can, but if their position weakens look for Google, ATT, and others to simply forgo working with them.
That's when I ditched Roku. Android devices are cheap enough and arguably a little better.
Roku really has no lock-in - their entire value proposition is "you can stream the services you want on this cheap device." Nobody buys Roku because of the "Roku ecosystem" or "network effects" or anything else - they just buy it because it's cheap and (supposedly) works.
When it stops working - and it doesn't matter why - it's easily replaced.
I use Roku [for my outdoor projector] simply because it was 1. cheap, and 2. has the fullest support for various VOD providers. The delayed launch of HBO Max was a bit irritating, but they did have Disney+, which at the time was missing from Samsung's native app store.
I don't care about YTTV at all, though, becasue I don't want any live tv, period.
Roku has tie up with TV manufacturers like TCL too. That's where a lot of their growth is coming in.
Personally, I have switched to Fire-Stick and Chromecast with Google TV from Roku because the Roku interface hasn't evolved in the past few years and they are also pushing ads and their own channels now.
I recently managed to get my hands on a non-smart TV and bought a roku stand alone device for it. Mostly because the interface is simple and has been the same for years.
I prefer the moving fast and breaking things to stay away from our limited TV time.
I think it's great. It was cheap. I'm a fan of Roku (been with them since 2008 or so).
I'm disappointed to see these tiffs with content companies. Remember the time when every video you wanted to play on your computer required a different software player? Are these companies planning on re-doing all that with hardware?
"Oh, I have a Roku for most things, then plug in Apple TV for Apple+, I use the Fire stick for Prime Video, and the Chromecast allows me to watch YouTube TV! I just needed a TV with 17 HDMI ports!"
I have never seen adds on my LG tv, or atleast never noticed them.
I am at LGs mercy for updates though, so it still isn't ideal. And yet, with PLEX and a backup hdmi cable, it works pretty dang well
I think Roku is in a perilous position in general. They generated a lot of buzz on Wallstreet with their high user counts. They also purchased a DSP to get more into the advertising game. However they are at risk of being disrupted. They do not offer much that is unique and have largely gained and held market position by being the cheapest and easiest to use.
Cheap Android TV devices are starting to compete with them on price and tv manufacturers have mostly chosen to create and maintain their own ecosystems.
Unless they make some big strategic maneuvers I see them slowly being squeezed out like Tivo.