4 ms·

I can't say this for everyone, but a tech consumer has to know that just over $100 does not cover the cost of the hardware. It's got to come from somewhere else

by pkulak 5y ago

I can't say this for everyone, but a tech consumer has to know that just over $100 does not cover the cost of the hardware. It's got to come from somewhere else. I'm usually not much of an Apple fan, but I just switched to the Apple TV and am really liking it. It certainly seems like charging 2x the price for the hardware removes a lot of the incentive to do all the scammy stuff Ruku is involved in; though I guess I can't know for sure, or know the future.

pier25 5y ago
I also bought an ATV recently and I'm very happy with it. I still use an Nvidia Shield for Plex though. The ATV is great for streaming platforms, but lacks HDMI audio passthrough which is essential for watching hi quality BluRay rips on a home theater.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I do not know if this is what you mean, but the new Apple TV 4K has HDMI ARC/eARC: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207117 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207117
  - pier25 5y ago
    It's not that. ARC/eARC is about the TV sending audio from HDMI devices to another HDMI port where your receiver/soundbar is connected. HDMI audio passthrough is a feature that allows apps to send any raw encoded audio signal "as is" via the HDMI port (eg: Dolby, DTS, etc) to your receiver that will do the decoding. The ATV does not support DTS or TrueHD, hence to output audio with those codecs, it needs to be decoded and converted on the fly to a supported format like PCM. Unfortunately this produces all sort of issues (sync, volume, etc).
bgorman 5y ago
100 dollars certainly covers the cost of the hardware. These streaming devices use commodity chips and run Linux. This isn’t a crazy R&D project. The only real value-add from Roku is the software.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Yeah, embedded hardware is really cheap at scale, even with 4K video decoding.
inetknght 5y ago
> a tech consumer has to know that just over $100 does not cover the cost of the hardware. Nonsense. A raspberry pi costs far less and is, arguably, just as capable.
- supernovae 5y ago
  If it was just as capable, then people would buy Raspberry Pi's. The problem isn't hardware capability, it's the ecosystem on top of it. Pi doesn't have a robust tv platform and app market system that is built around a remote control. Sure, you can run plex on it but even plex has long abandoned its streaming app platform and decided to roll its own TV service instead... Part of me wishes that Plex would have stuck with it but i guess they realized the Streaming TV problem isn't a software or hardware problem to begin with...
  - inetknght 5y ago
    > The problem isn't hardware capability, it's the ecosystem on top of it. The parent comment stated that the $100 doesn't cover the cost of the hardware. I disagree. I do think it is perhaps a more reasonable statement to say $100 doesn't cover the cost of the hardware and the software platform on top of it. I don't think it's right to shove ads down customer's throat on a product that they've paid money for. Whether that's money to buy the hardware and the software platform or whether that's money paid to the subscriptions; in both cases advertisements are the wrong solution to revenue. If software costs money then make that cost up front. Sell the software. Sell updates to the software. Sell a subscription for the software. But don't put ads on it!
    - supernovae 5y ago
      I have to chuckle because Google's entire existance has been based on advertising revenue so if you don't like ad supported "Fremium" or "discounted" services, this really is a moot discussion.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      I think the comment you're referring to is incorrect in that regard - of course $100 pays (or at least paid pre-chip-shortage) for the bulk-purchased chips and boards in the products, but people buy it because of the streaming services on the box, not because it has a Cortex-A55 in it (although that plays into choosing it over the 1080p model).
mbesto 5y ago
> It certainly seems like charging 2x the price for the hardware removes a lot of the incentive to do all the scammy stuff Ruku is involved in; though I guess I can't know for sure, or know the future. Software services (i.e. updating iOS/Roku's OS) require on-going maintenance. Apple makes this by charging developers who in turn typically charge the consumers. Roku doesn't do this and hence why it can be hostile to the consumer. It's model is generally to use an ad model instead. Now people know why there is a (arguably high) tax on subscriptions derived from iOS.
- alephnan 5y ago
  > charging developers who in turn typically charge the consumers. It’s like Visa, restaurants will charge all customers including cash paying ones more too. So the Visa card holder, isn’t incentivized not to use it.
random314 5y ago
Roku was profitable while selling 50$ devices with no ads.
salamandersauce 5y ago
Apple used to sell Apple TV's for $99. It's absolutely possible to make money selling a basic 4K box with a remote for $100 or even $50 these days. You can buy random Chinese emulation consoles and streaming devices for that much where they can only be making money off the hardware.

by pkulak 5y ago

pier25 5y ago

I also bought an ATV recently and I'm very happy with it. I still use an Nvidia Shield for Plex though. The ATV is great for streaming platforms, but lacks HDMI audio passthrough which is essential for watching hi quality BluRay rips on a home theater.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
I do not know if this is what you mean, but the new Apple TV 4K has HDMI ARC/eARC: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207117 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207117
- pier25 5y ago
  It's not that. ARC/eARC is about the TV sending audio from HDMI devices to another HDMI port where your receiver/soundbar is connected. HDMI audio passthrough is a feature that allows apps to send any raw encoded audio signal "as is" via the HDMI port (eg: Dolby, DTS, etc) to your receiver that will do the decoding. The ATV does not support DTS or TrueHD, hence to output audio with those codecs, it needs to be decoded and converted on the fly to a supported format like PCM. Unfortunately this produces all sort of issues (sync, volume, etc).

bgorman 5y ago

100 dollars certainly covers the cost of the hardware. These streaming devices use commodity chips and run Linux. This isn’t a crazy R&D project. The only real value-add from Roku is the software.

nitrogen 5y ago
Yeah, embedded hardware is really cheap at scale, even with 4K video decoding.

inetknght 5y ago

> a tech consumer has to know that just over $100 does not cover the cost of the hardware. Nonsense. A raspberry pi costs far less and is, arguably, just as capable.

supernovae 5y ago
If it was just as capable, then people would buy Raspberry Pi's. The problem isn't hardware capability, it's the ecosystem on top of it. Pi doesn't have a robust tv platform and app market system that is built around a remote control. Sure, you can run plex on it but even plex has long abandoned its streaming app platform and decided to roll its own TV service instead... Part of me wishes that Plex would have stuck with it but i guess they realized the Streaming TV problem isn't a software or hardware problem to begin with...
- inetknght 5y ago
  > The problem isn't hardware capability, it's the ecosystem on top of it. The parent comment stated that the $100 doesn't cover the cost of the hardware. I disagree. I do think it is perhaps a more reasonable statement to say $100 doesn't cover the cost of the hardware and the software platform on top of it. I don't think it's right to shove ads down customer's throat on a product that they've paid money for. Whether that's money to buy the hardware and the software platform or whether that's money paid to the subscriptions; in both cases advertisements are the wrong solution to revenue. If software costs money then make that cost up front. Sell the software. Sell updates to the software. Sell a subscription for the software. But don't put ads on it!
  - supernovae 5y ago
    I have to chuckle because Google's entire existance has been based on advertising revenue so if you don't like ad supported "Fremium" or "discounted" services, this really is a moot discussion.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    I think the comment you're referring to is incorrect in that regard - of course $100 pays (or at least paid pre-chip-shortage) for the bulk-purchased chips and boards in the products, but people buy it because of the streaming services on the box, not because it has a Cortex-A55 in it (although that plays into choosing it over the 1080p model).

mbesto 5y ago

> It certainly seems like charging 2x the price for the hardware removes a lot of the incentive to do all the scammy stuff Ruku is involved in; though I guess I can't know for sure, or know the future. Software services (i.e. updating iOS/Roku's OS) require on-going maintenance. Apple makes this by charging developers who in turn typically charge the consumers. Roku doesn't do this and hence why it can be hostile to the consumer. It's model is generally to use an ad model instead. Now people know why there is a (arguably high) tax on subscriptions derived from iOS.

alephnan 5y ago
> charging developers who in turn typically charge the consumers. It’s like Visa, restaurants will charge all customers including cash paying ones more too. So the Visa card holder, isn’t incentivized not to use it.

random314 5y ago

Roku was profitable while selling 50$ devices with no ads.

salamandersauce 5y ago

Apple used to sell Apple TV's for $99. It's absolutely possible to make money selling a basic 4K box with a remote for $100 or even $50 these days. You can buy random Chinese emulation consoles and streaming devices for that much where they can only be making money off the hardware.