5 ms·
"suck more ongoing revenue out of it" I think there is also an ongoing cost to keep the software up to date, so there needs to be some ongoing revenue. It would
by mattmcknight 7y ago
"suck more ongoing revenue out of it"
I think there is also an ongoing cost to keep the software up to date, so there needs to be some ongoing revenue. It would be better if they just got referral fees for channel signups, or gave you a way to pay for no ads.
Maybe the best bit is being able to quickly search for an item of content across the various services and compare prices. There should be also be referral fees in that bit, enough to keep them from having to be an advertising platform.
- andrewla 7y agoThere is ongoing cost, sure -- that's why they don't stop selling new devices to interested customers, and making new versions of the devices to convince customers to upgrade. If they need to justify the ongoing cost, they should charge an amount that they can amortize over the lifetime of the device -- if they expect to get $0.50 in ad revenue per year from each customer (which seems ridiculously high) then that means the device has to cost ~$20 more to support that, which I'm totally okay with. Maybe not everyone would be, but at some point you have to rely on the fact that you're not selling a commodity device; you're selling something that is better than your competitors, or else why bother?
- scarface74 7y agoSo if they keep selling to new customers, what happens when all of the customers who want one have one? Once you have a box that can stream 4K, why upgrade? Besides there are no more dumb TVs. All TVs are smart and are “good enough” for most people. True Roku is embedded in most lowend TVs but the licensing fee is minimal because of the thin profit margins of most TVs. Roku is a commodity device. Everything with an internet connection can stream Netflix and the other services that people care about.