ku-sux wrote: However, the thing that seems to be different when comparing Roku to Apple's design and ease of use is that Roku is releasing new products at a much faster rate and may they may therefore be suffering from a lack of testing.
This may be semantics, but I think it's more than that. Roku isn't releasing new products, it's other companies whom Roku licensed its software too (giddy about a fast track into consumer homes). It appears licensing was given no more thought than Pinky & The Brain's "tonight we conquer the world." No concern for how to ensure the software works on an ever-increasing set of hardware. It's like Roku wants it both ways. They want that advantage of reaching the consumer (on someone else's product), but not the support responsibility arising from all those products. They want the freedom of bazaar-style distribution (like Microsoft's software for all the "clone" computers). But, at the same time, expect it to work like the cathedral part of Roku's business (Roku's external streaming devices which Roku has sole control over).
I don't believe this will turn out well for Roku. It's one thing to suffer growing pains. It's another to be overtly irresponsible and dismissive toward customer pain (just because you thought it was the easy way to get into homes).
Roku set the measure for itself too. All it's sanctimonious pouring fuel on the "cord cutters's" fire, as if Roku was here to help the poor, downtrodden to find freedom! Roku's just as bad (worse due to their self-aggrandizing savior image) as Comcast (the poster child of cord cutting). Reminds me of The Who's song "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" (Won't Get Fooled Again).
Three years ago, CEO Wood proclaimed:
“My philosophy is that our goal is to build the operating system for TV, that is the long term goal, it is like Android or Windows, we want all TVs in the world to run our platform. If we do that, the stock will be worth a lot of money.” (MarketWatch, Nov. 14, 2017).
That must have sounded nice & goosebumply back then. Today, Android is on TVs. Even Roku's first partner (TCL) is making an Android TV.
Why be "like" something when you can be something. Especially when Wood talked smack about Google:
“In the tech business, superior technology often wins and tech companies basically compete on how smart their employees are and the quality of their products... We’re much more focused. All we do is we come to work every day and we think about how to make TV better. Those companies, yes they’re great companies, but they come to work thinking about 'how can I sell a bunch of shoes, how can I be better at search, how can I sell more phones?' TV is on their list but it’s at the bottom of their list.” (Roku CEO, Anthony Wood. Vox, Sep 13, 2018)
Now that Android is on tv, and manufacturers are going that direction, and Wood squandered his opportunity (believing his savior sanctimony), I think Roku looks more like MagicJack than Apple.
MagicJack's inventor (Borislow) was quite self-promoting (Barnum talking). His infomercials made VoIP a common term in every home. There was a 2-3 year period he owned consumer VoIP. If you asked the average person about VoIP, they would say "yeah! Magicjack. I've seen that! Been thinking about getting one." Roku's bought that kind of popular mindshare. But, just like MJ, "now what?"
Like the title of the book about startup challenges (disruptive technology), Borisolw couldn't "cross the chasm." It was all looked undeniably great for awhile. And, he really did create something ingenious. And, had an ingenious way of capturing consumer mindshare. But, he couldn't take it to the next level (beyond toy or novelty stauts). Customers were taken for granted. Eventually, he focused more on patents. A decade later, nobody even thinks about MagicJack today.
Roku's got more going for it. It's accomplished more than MJ did. But, I still see the signs of obscurity on the horizon.
If TCL's Android tvs don't have all the flaky problems Rokus do, then Roku's coy dismissal (of recurring problems) as TCL's fault will be shown to be nothing more than self-serving fraud. (I think it's obvious already. If you were being tarred by a bad partner, wouldn't you professionally document the source of your shared customer's woes? Formal bug tracking, leading to a natural, honest, neutral? (Not the murky, never-concluded problems we see here? The very distant and unengaging, uncaring, pre-recorded support?).
Google is bringing a mature software development infrastructure to tv. (Not the Mad Hatter environment which Roku is famous for.). Change control, testing, bug tracking. My 7-year-old Nexus 4 still runs fine with some old version of Android I was left with. I'm not forced to disconnect my phone from cellular and wifi just to use it as a camera and MP3 player. Nobody at Android thinks it would be cool to break everyone's phones that way. My phone's still as functional as the day I bought it.
How exactly is Roku going to compete with that?
My guess is that the one very (very) big thing Android will bring to their tv makers (as partners) is putting them in charge of pushing updates out (and choosing when to freeze a model from future updates). Putting tv makers in charge of contributing to patching updates; creating hardware with a mind toward futureproofing for updates. Not the weasily environment Roku has, where nobody knows what's not happening, or who's not doing it. Android will put the consumer more in the driver's seat with opting out of updates, and making it more apparent that a tv maker didn't test an update before pushing it to *their* customers.
I think that's precisely where Roku's business model has broken down. There's some kind of loosey-goosey relationship where TV makers "weren't supposed to make that tv that way" (and tv makers believed "Roku would test on everything it shipped on."). I bet nobody talked about this.
Now it's hitting the fan, and they're in denial about it. That's why this forum looks like a canned bot ("I've passed your information along to the appropriate team [waste basket]. Have a nice day! If you'd like more help, please press 9 to repeat these options." Nobody's addressing the real problem. Maybe within Roku the environment is like Hans Christian Anderson "The Emperor's Clothes." (Maybe nobody can talk about the elephant in the room without retribution.).
When I first came to this forum, I thought it was just the underdog having growing pains. But, it looks much more malignant than that. More calculated. Deliberately harmful to customers. Uncaring. Like they're just looking for a buy-out deal now. Maybe they see what a trainwreck this is, and the days of being "Android on the TV" are over.
I don't see how Roku will compete going forward. They already have severe problems (they're acting like don't exist). Now the OS [they said they wanted to be] is on TVs. An OS with much more maturity and proof of execution/leadership. Roku's response seems to be "no, this isn't happening. Please talk to your tv manufacturer."
That's what looks a lot like MJ's final 3-4 years. There was an obvious denial. There were fan boyz with ego-investment as "insiders" (early-adopter relationship). There were momo investors using the market valuation as proof everything was fine (oblivious to fundamentals like I'm describing). It worked well until the very moment it didn't. It fell apart fast (when it finally happened).
ku-sux wrote: [Steve Jobs]. I've always admired the guy's tenacity and his ability to understand design combined with ease of use.
If I recall, the book I mentioned (Crossing the Chasm) uses Apple as an example too. Jobs by himself could have never created Apple. It was Wozniak's vision of something nobody else could imagine. (The great inventor having food slid under the door to him.). He didn't care much about widespread adoption. He was pleased with his creation. If nobody else got it, that didn't matter (typical mentality of a genius).
Jobs saw the implication of Woz's vision. Jobs had the larger (20,000 foot) view Woz didn't care about. Jobs saw the a chasm to cross (from early-adopter, hobbiest, geeky niche to the broad market.). The bell curve of most consumers.
I think that's where Roku is struggling. Being a genius alone (which Wood depicts himself being, and could be true. I don't know) isn't enough. Likewise, just being a double-talking marketer isn't enough either. Anyone can put lipstick on a pig. (Just like anyone can invent something nobody needs.). Crossing the chasm involves a rare combination of ingenuity in both areas. Marketing a pig is where we're at right now. Treating customers like expendable corpses (unthinking consumers forced fed & dumped out of tubs in the Matrix) isn't something that can be glossed over, as if doubling down on the happy-talk will win the day.
It might have worked before Android came to TV. I think Roku is facing an existential threat now. A few weeks ago I opined about how I should investigate shorting ROKU (symbol). I'm just a buy-and-hold kind of investor. I'm not aggressive at all. But, Roku looks so startlingly like MJ that I'm willing to put a little money at risk. I need to investigate how to buy a short position about 2 years out. I don't think it's a gamble. (I wouldn't mortgage my house. But, I wouldn't mind losing $500 with the potential of making $5000. The odds look very favorable to me.).
Roku may look like it has a leadership position. But, MJ looked that way too. Until the big guys -- who already had a large marketshare -- bought their own VoIP solutions (like FB and Whatsapp; Google bought Grand Central).
Roku has all the same markings. It won't be long until you can get your phone calls on your Android TV (while watching). A software platform without all the mickey-mouse untested, forced updates (you'll be able to opt out of updates entirely, if you wish). How's Roku going to compete with that?
I'm not in love with Google/Android. I'm not looking forward to phone calls on my tv. I wish Roku could be a competitor. But, everything I'm seeing shows very bad stuff (like sociopathy, predation, disregard for customers. The new Comcast of streaming. Not just a ship tossed in a storm.). There doesn't seem to be that spark of sincerity and good faith. Whenever politicians talk about breaking up Google's monopoly, I'm going to be sharing Roku's story. It's not hard to have a monopoly when your competition is as bad as Roku. It wasn't Roku's fault Comcast drove good people to Roku. It's not Google's fault Roku's doing the same thing. (Borislow's another example of why Google had an advantage with voice. In many ways he handed it to them.).
