And I think this is a terrible idea. Roku’s whole appeal is the fact that it’ll play multiple streaming services on your TV.
Well, I bought a Roku mostly because it was platform independent. (or maybe that’s the wrong word, maybe Roku is the platform. Whatever, I hope you can understand my meaning.)
There is zero indication that Netflix would remove that feature. Apple has found that it gets more revenue by allowing other streaming services on its Apple TV - I don’t see any buyer of Roku throttling it into obsolescence.
This is one Titanic passenger grabbing onto another in desperate hope of surviving a few more minutes.
Stranger
Yeah, I have an Amazon Firestick, and it plays just about every streaming service there is, not just Prime Video. The Firestick Home page even displays category rows of “Recommended by [streaming service]” selections. If Netflix does buy Roku, it would be a terrible business decision to throttle it to only Netflix. Never gonna happen.
I’m not sure I understand…are they buying the Roku network or the manufacture of the devices or both? I have the little device and I watch Netflix, Disney and Prime on it, and will probably get BritBox at some point. I don’t watch anything on the Roku network itself; I seem to remember just endless unskippable ads on it (unless I pay for a subscription?).
I’m certain Roku won’t stop playing other services.
Netflix wants to add an add supported service but there is a chicken and egg problem there. No one wants to advertise on a network with no viewers and Netflix would need a ton of time to build up a worthwhile subscriber base in light of how much competition there is for streaming services. Buying Roku gets them: a pre-existing customer base for an ad supported streaming network that it can sell to advertisers; an ad sales team and information about how to deliver and price streaming ads; and the ability to optimize distribution of its services on Roku devices. I’m not sure these things are worth $13 billion but it’s not nothing.
Netflix and Roku will be like Prime and Firestick. I don’t see how Netflix and Roku help each other except for some economy of scale. The article says that Roku is very cheap right now in terms of stock and would be able to get Netflix to very quickly start their lower cost advertisement tier.
I wonder if it will be like Amazon Prime and Freevee (formerly IMDb TV). You can watch Freevee programming on Prime, or on its own app. Either way you still have to sit through the commercials.
Every streaming box plays multiple streaming services on your TV. In fact Roku was one who got into disputes with Peacock and HBO Max causing those apps not to appear on the box for a long time after Android and Apple TV boxes got them (Amazon also got into disputes with them leading to FireTV waiting for those apps).
That’s probably exactly the reason. IIRC, Hulu has said that it’s lower cost ad supported tier makes it more money per subscriber than it’s ad free tier. And it helps that Netflix can diversify by also making money on selling hardware.
Roku definitely needs an upgrade to it’s interface. It’s a simple tile interface of your apps, similar to the apps on your phone. With Roku, you have to do something like open Netflix, find the ‘continue watching’ section, and find the show you were watching last. The other services like Google and Fire have a more TV-like interface. They present the ‘continue watching’ shows for a variety of services right on the home screen and you can jump right into them. It’s much easier to remember what you were last watching and jump right in. I think Roku itself is a great streaming player, but it’s stuck with a 90’s interface. Now that people watch streaming exclusively, the player needs to be much more tuned to that kind of experience.
Netflix and Roku have had financial ties for quite some time. Roku remotes come with about 4 app specific buttons on them, the rights to which cost millions. Pretty much every Roku remote has a Netflix button along with a mish-mash of other services. Netflix may be including the cost savings of not having to pay for that button anymore when it considers buying Roku.
Um, no.
Netflix has increased gross revenue from 11.69bn in 2017 to 29.7bn in 2021, and EBITDA from 7.17bn to 18.63bn over that span of time. Hyperbolic reactions to Netflix’s recent subscriber loss (which was a minuscule portion of their total customer base) notwithstanding, Netflix is extremely profitable and has been reliably growing its profitability for years. It is largely a producer of content, and as long as it can continue to sell that content at a profit it will remain a going concern. I could rattle off a half dozen other major studios and production companies that have essentially profited off just such a core business model for longer than anyone in this thread has been alive.
I have a year old tv which has every imaginable service available natively. I gave away my Firestick to the person that got my old tv. (The LG remote has a Netflix and a Prime button. It also has the ability to set eight presets for other services.) The interface is reasonably good, at least better than the Firestick as I recall.
Is there any reason why someone with a newer tv would have a need for a Roku, Firestick or something similar?
The article I read (different from the one linked in the OP) said that Netflix was interested in Roku because of Roku’s existing ad platform, not its user base. Netflix has recently decided they want to start showing ads, which leaves them with developing an ad platform on their own, contracting with an existing ad platform, or buying an ad platform.
The article also said that Roku originally started inside Netflix, and was spun off. I didn’t know that.
Because most of these smart TVs don’t support their apps for as long as a dedicated streaming box. Now, granted when your TV decides to stop updating the Netflix app, for instance, you can then get a streaming box.
Having used both, in general Smart TV built in applications are less robust and often work worse than those for say, Roku or other major platforms. Some of them certainly work perfectly fine, though.
I am aware of that. My previous tv was a dumb tv and I used a Blu-Ray player for streaming. Eventually the Blu-Ray was no longer supported by Prime. I was given a reasonable warning that that was about to happen and a coupon for essentially a free Firestick. This was great because by then I hadn’t played a DVD in years so I could ditch that hardware and it made my setup look cleaner.
Thanks for the answer though. You confirmed that my suspicions are correct. You only need one of those devices if you have an older tv that no longer supports a service that you need. My tv does frequent updates so I don’t expect that to happen for several years.
I’m not sure, I think streaming has become too diverse and there needs to be some consolidation. I expect to see little ones like Paramount or Peacock join forces with other streamers.
Prime is an example of Streamer and open platform in one, Netflix is probably looking to match that.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Google (Chromecast) connects with a Paramount or Peacock. Maybe the other with Apple.
Others to watch, Showtime, Acorn & Britbox.
Thing is, it was Netflix themselves who flipped out about it. They invested heavily in continued growth, and then had to make sudden, highly visible changes when they posted that loss of subscribers. They are the ones who made it seem like they were in dire straits, so it’s understandable others also think so.