Submitted by MarvelsGrantMan136 t3_yxqdqr in television
TheSmJ t1_iwrzn2z wrote
Reply to comment by stumpcity in Roku to Lay Off 200 Employees, Cutting Headcount by 7% by MarvelsGrantMan136
> 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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments