4 ms·

I suppose it would take a seperate article to dig into the financial aspects—advertising and data collection as revenue for the manufacturers.

kotaKat 9mo ago
Roku’s average revenue per user is $40+ a year per their financials, so there’s definitely a lot more subsidization of the hardware than most consumers think.
- everdrive 9mo ago
  That's fairly interesting, and honestly lower than I would have thought. I really have no idea how long the average consumer holds onto a TV, but if we guess 3-5 years then we're at $120 - $200 subsidy per customer. And this is before you think about the maintenance of their advertising / tracking servers. (although maybe that is factored in?) Yes, most consumers would buy a $250 TV rather than a seemingly-equivalent $450 TV, but another $200 just to not be tracked and advertised to is really a small lift. Kind of surprising that there aren't options for this in market if the numbers are really that tight. Compare a cheap Windows laptop to a macbook -- yes, they're not really equivalent from a technical standpoint but to a lot of consumers they may effectively be equivalent as the "device my kid needs for school." But the price differences there will be much greater. Perhaps as much as $500 or more.
  - wccrawford 9mo ago
    To do that, they'd have to admit what they're doing out loud, and then they'd have public sentiment against them. It'd ruin what they have. Instead, they'll wait for the revolt, and then sell the upgrade. Then they look like heroes for doing what people are asking for, instead of villains that cause the situation in the first place. They'll spin it as offering affordable TVs to those can't afford them without the advertisements, and no-ad TVs for those who are willing to pay the extra. And most people will eat it up.
  - idiotsecant 9mo ago
    There are such options. They are wildly expensive because very few people want them.
  - lotsofpulp 9mo ago
    >I really have no idea how long the average consumer holds onto a TV, but if we guess 3-5 years 3-5 years is smartphone life. New TVs should easily last 10 years. My $600 1080p TV from 2016 is still in the living room. A subsequent $600 4K TV bought in 2020 is also fine. I don’t see what could prompt me to replace them until they break. The quality difference is negligible, especially with the garbage bitrate most streaming services provide.
    - Ancapistani 9mo ago
      Yeah - we barely watch TV in our house (relative to my experience growing up, at least), and we have two: a 50" in our bedroom and a 60" in the living room. They're 12 and 8 years old, respectively. I'm just now starting to feel like I should consider a new one for the living room, but it's far from the top of my list.
    - everdrive 9mo ago
      Agreed, and my TV is much older as well. I was just guessing about average consumers, but maybe you're correct. Maybe people don't cycle out TVs so quickly. I suppose the length of ownership has a strong bearing on cost. Part of the concern here as well is that Roku would be incentivized to err on the side of caution. ie, if not enough people keep their TVs for 10 years, they might need to practically plan for customers to keep their TVs for only 5 years.
    - Finnucane 9mo ago
      Our TV is c. 2010, and still works fine. And given the current offerings, I have no plans to replace it any time soon.
well_actulily 9mo ago
I never connect my TVs to WiFi, and I loathe the day they start slipping cell antennas into these things.
qsera 9mo ago
Yes, I always see TV as an ad/propoganda delivery device, with "sponsered programs" as a bait to get humans in front of it. The "Idiot Box" box qualification is not without reason.
- ronsor 9mo ago
  I think most people don't particularly like TV ads and try to avoid them.
monitortimes2 9mo ago
Maybe the unsubsidized cost could be determined by looking at the price difference between a similarly spec'd TV and computer monitor.
- IlikeKitties 9mo ago
  [dead]

kotaKat 9mo ago

Roku’s average revenue per user is $40+ a year per their financials, so there’s definitely a lot more subsidization of the hardware than most consumers think.

everdrive 9mo ago
That's fairly interesting, and honestly lower than I would have thought. I really have no idea how long the average consumer holds onto a TV, but if we guess 3-5 years then we're at $120 - $200 subsidy per customer. And this is before you think about the maintenance of their advertising / tracking servers. (although maybe that is factored in?) Yes, most consumers would buy a $250 TV rather than a seemingly-equivalent $450 TV, but another $200 just to not be tracked and advertised to is really a small lift. Kind of surprising that there aren't options for this in market if the numbers are really that tight. Compare a cheap Windows laptop to a macbook -- yes, they're not really equivalent from a technical standpoint but to a lot of consumers they may effectively be equivalent as the "device my kid needs for school." But the price differences there will be much greater. Perhaps as much as $500 or more.
- wccrawford 9mo ago
  To do that, they'd have to admit what they're doing out loud, and then they'd have public sentiment against them. It'd ruin what they have. Instead, they'll wait for the revolt, and then sell the upgrade. Then they look like heroes for doing what people are asking for, instead of villains that cause the situation in the first place. They'll spin it as offering affordable TVs to those can't afford them without the advertisements, and no-ad TVs for those who are willing to pay the extra. And most people will eat it up.
- idiotsecant 9mo ago
  There are such options. They are wildly expensive because very few people want them.
- lotsofpulp 9mo ago
  >I really have no idea how long the average consumer holds onto a TV, but if we guess 3-5 years 3-5 years is smartphone life. New TVs should easily last 10 years. My $600 1080p TV from 2016 is still in the living room. A subsequent $600 4K TV bought in 2020 is also fine. I don’t see what could prompt me to replace them until they break. The quality difference is negligible, especially with the garbage bitrate most streaming services provide.
  - Ancapistani 9mo ago
    Yeah - we barely watch TV in our house (relative to my experience growing up, at least), and we have two: a 50" in our bedroom and a 60" in the living room. They're 12 and 8 years old, respectively. I'm just now starting to feel like I should consider a new one for the living room, but it's far from the top of my list.
  - everdrive 9mo ago
    Agreed, and my TV is much older as well. I was just guessing about average consumers, but maybe you're correct. Maybe people don't cycle out TVs so quickly. I suppose the length of ownership has a strong bearing on cost. Part of the concern here as well is that Roku would be incentivized to err on the side of caution. ie, if not enough people keep their TVs for 10 years, they might need to practically plan for customers to keep their TVs for only 5 years.
  - Finnucane 9mo ago
    Our TV is c. 2010, and still works fine. And given the current offerings, I have no plans to replace it any time soon.

well_actulily 9mo ago

I never connect my TVs to WiFi, and I loathe the day they start slipping cell antennas into these things.

qsera 9mo ago

Yes, I always see TV as an ad/propoganda delivery device, with "sponsered programs" as a bait to get humans in front of it. The "Idiot Box" box qualification is not without reason.

ronsor 9mo ago
I think most people don't particularly like TV ads and try to avoid them.

monitortimes2 9mo ago

Maybe the unsubsidized cost could be determined by looking at the price difference between a similarly spec'd TV and computer monitor.

IlikeKitties 9mo ago
[dead]