Discussions

[Visitor45763]

---

@Harvini wrote:

As someone who has managed software development projects since the early 1970's, I can see the oily fingerprints of "Coders" all over the system now running in my TV set.  "Coders" are folks who write code and think they are brilliant. 

---

I agree completely. I've wanted to say the same thing. I almost said (once) that it's like a bunch of pirates tookover my tv. It's like a lack of maturity in Roku's development process. Like there's no process. Either super-brilliant (maverick) coders thnking they can't do anything wrong (thus no need for testing). Or, coders operating from a script, doing literally what they're told (without the spark of personal ingenuity). You see that often when a mature organization offshores their coding.

I posted elsewhere the books "Crossing the Chasm," "The Innovator's Dilemma" & "Inside the Tornado" describe this kind of challenge to a new company. Great things start with a genius who shuns the shackles of convention (processes, corporate standards). They tend to feel like they don't care if nobody sees their vision. They know their vision is right. They'll appeal to the left side of a bell curve (of consumers). The "early adopters" who similarly don't care if the product becomes ubiquitous. They're just happy that someone has the vision, and they have a tool to tinker with and meet their needs.

The chasm is for that situation to reach the mainstream (the great unwashed consumer base). The bulk of the bell curve (and maybe even the luddites on the right side of that curve). That's where things break down. For example: We probably wouldn't have Apple if Jobs didn't come in and bring pragmatism to Wozniak's genius. 

I think that's what we're seeing with Roku. They can't mature to be the tv for the masses.  Early adopters might be ok with destablizing updates, and having to replace their tv every year. But, for the average person... I don't think they'll be happy. And, Roku doesn't seem to be cognizant of this dissonance. "If we just keep doing our enlightened vision, people will see it." Those books document how easy it is for a really good idea/vision to fall by the way side because it couldn't cross that chasm. Brilliance alone won't work by itself. Brilliance has to be *sold*. 

I think MagicJack was a perfect example of this. Everyone's forgotten it. But, there was a period of 2-4 years where they could have taken the market, and been *the* voip product. They could not take it any further. They couldn't even sell themselves to Facebook or Yahoo. It became worthless. It couldn't transform into mass appeal. 

I think we're seeing the same thing with Roku. I'm seriously going to invesgitate how to short Roku's stock. I've never bought a put option in my life. I have no idea how it works. But, I'd like to place a bet that the stock will be substantially lower in a year or two. There's NO way a company can be successful doing what Roku is doing. I'm seeing the same thing I saw with MagicJack. Momentum traders are driving the price up, without consideration for fundamental factors. It's like, if everyone just agrees were all going to make a fortune, then everyone piles in. Reality becomes offensive. They don't want to hear it. Then Zachs (or Cramer) pulls the plug on it, and nobody ever remembers why anyone was enthusiastic in the first place. ROKU has this written all over it. I wouldn't let investor enthusiasm invalidate what we're seeing. The problem isn't our lack of enthusiasm. It's that investors aren't seeing it yet. Give it time. (There's no way this kind of business practice can exist without damage being done.).

It might have sounded good back when Android wasn't in the market. Android is not terribly friendly either. But, at least with Android you get the more bazaar-style of freedom of choice (and the instability/headache that can come with that). Why would anyone want that downside with a platform that doesn't offer choice -- that forces you into the more Apple-like cathedral of top-down forced updates, one way of doing things? What's the upside of having your tv broken by people who don't care what you think. Get an Android tv and do your own thinking (with all the headaches). I don't see what need Roku TV is filling at this point. In fact, I'm seeing total denial. Like, somehow they're just going to be carried by their name. It's reached that kind of cult status now. I don't think that will last long.

If ROKU wants, I or someone like me should becalled in to review what the heck their "coders" have done to an otherwise successful OS  in this past "upgrade", and then correct their misdeeds.

That's exactly what Roku needs to do. It's a delicate balance between the original vision/ingenuity vs the stodgy, impeding "suits." That's what those books talk about. It's a very difficult balance to reach. But, the first step is the innovator realizing there's more to reality/success than just having a good idea. The suits aren't entirely wrong. It's the chasm is crossed. A balance that enables innovation, and projects it as something the average person can understand and feel it helps their daily life. I have multiple quotes where the CEO says Roku's different because they come to work with only one objective: how to make tv better. What we're seeing is that they're talking about "better" from their perspective. They've lost touch with the big center wedge of the bell curve. What to *average* people want/need? Roku needs a Steve Jobs to lead it more toward that direction (without throwing cold water on the mavericks and their vision). Someone who can validate the hot-shots while bringing stability and mass appeal.

[Harvini]

After considering this discussion, I came to the conclusion that someone, somewhere needed to attempt to communicate the facts of life to Roku management.  So, here goes.

ROKU moderator.  Please communicate the following facts to someone in your management chain outside of just customer support:

1) People buy TVs to watch TV.  I and many others bought the ROKU TV as a convenience.  It allowed me to continue to watch the OTA programming I was getting, plus eliminate the ROKU box from the top of my furniture.

2) The changes that you have made have introduced a serious source of annoyance and inconvenience in watching TV.  I can no longer just flip through channels to get to my desired programs. 

3) I do not intend to be an ongoing source of "monthlies" to you or anyone else for the privilege of watching OTA TV, and shoving your paid channels forcibly in my face neither imopresses nor intimidates me.

4) If thie current flawed software is not corrected in a fairly reasonable time frame, I will replace the set with a non-ROKU model which I and my elderly housemates can watch without the confusion and irritations you have introduced.  We have spent decades watching TV our way.  We will  not tolerate being forced to watch it your way, with no choice in the matter.

5) As someone now in his 6th decade of working with computers and programs, I can tell you without question your current software release is flawed and unstable.  It has progressed in the direction of failure since it was downloaded into my set.  I can reproduce the instabilities at will, so they are real, and they will cause your system to eventually fail.

6) When (not if) Your software fails and leaves me without a watchable set,I will immediately purchase a replacement.  It will not contain a ROKU operating system.  Not then, not ever.

Please deliver this message clearly and unmistakeably.  You have very angry customers out here.  It is you who need to fix this, not us who need to get used to your ham-fisted attempts to create a revenue stream from our TV sets.

[Visitor45763]

---

@Harvini wrote:

I will replace the set with a non-ROKU model which I and my elderly housemates can watch without the confusion and irritations you have introduced. 

---

You may have seen this mentioned already, but there are inexpensive ($20-$40 USD) digital tuner boxes with HDMI output. Last week I ordered/received three of them to compare (Mediasonic HW-150, iView 3500 & ViewTV AT-300). 

The idea being that you could use a standalone tuner with features Roku has constantly disregarded (numeric-remote, ability to add channels manually without a destructive rescan. Favorites & holding the button down for continuous channel changing.). It would be an HDMI device.

I haven't had time to look at these (if I stopped posting I could.). I've been hopeful that these would be pleasant to use because both of my old DTV (voucher-era) converter boxes were very nice/easy to use compared to Roku. It was like someone wrote the interface who planned to use it themself (eat their own dog food). These new boxes are the same thing, but with an HDMI digital output. The question is whether they're programmed as nicely. One forum member bought the HW-130 (a scaled down version of the 150). They didn't like it. (AntennaMan has a review of the HW-130 on youtube. You can get an idea how it looks. Hopefully I can get to trying the three I bought.).

I'm increasingly thinking a modular approach will be the best solution. An external tuner box. An external streaming box. A dumb tv (without putting all my eggs in one basket). I like the idea. But, maybe it won't look as good in practice. (All I know is that I really liked my old DTV converters' interfaces. One was Zenith. One was Digital Stream. The only shortcoming I was expecting is that the guide info is broadcast, not from an online guide. But, I always look at an online guide using my phone or laptop. I rarely look at Roku's on-screen guide. So, it wouldn't bother me.).

Managing multiple remotes might be a downside too. SofaBaton U1 might be a good "learning" remote to use with all the devices. (I think "learning" capability would be necessary. I doubt there are predefined codes for these DTV boxes. They're kind of obscure devices.).

It's ironic. People cut the "bundled" cord the past decade. Roku was the cord-cutters "go to." Now they're as bad/faceless/shameless as the cord people everyone was trying to get away from. It's like "cut the cord 2.0." Unbundling again, looking for plug-and-play parts to use (without doing your thinking for you; getting in the way).

[atc98092]

Everyone is screaming about the IPTV channels being listed in the OTA channel guide. First, I completely agree that the favorites function should be returned, along with the ability for the use to set a channel as favorite, not some algorithm that makes a guess.

But for the IPTV channels, this is something that many TV manufacturers are now doing, and they don't offer a way to remove them from the grid. Last year I bought a Samsung NU7100, and it had hundreds of IPTV channels in the grid after the OTA stations. I hated that TV and gave it to my daughter, and now have an LG NANO85. It too have hundreds of IPTV channels in the grid. Now, both of these TVs have a remote that allows direct channel entry, so it's not as bad as having to scroll through the list. But they're still in the channel guide, and not removable. 

Many people consider the addition of the IPTV channels as an added benefit. My family is one of them, although we only view a handful of them. And again, we can punch in the channel number, assuming we can remember what it is 🙂 But on the one Roku TV we have that has these available we hide them all, and use the Pluto TV channel to access the ones we care for. Pluto doesn't have a favorite channel display, and it too has a huge grid. But at least it will always start on the channel that was last viewed.

IPTV channels are the way most TV manufacturers are likely heading. The fact that Roku allows them to be hidden is a good improvement over the other brands. It would be ideal if we could choose specific channels to be displayed and hide the rest. Hopefully Roku developers have seen the complaints about that and will find a way to make it happen. 

And in case anyone is unaware, you can page through the channel guide using the << and >> buttons. You don't have to scroll one line at a time. 

[Visitor45763]

---

@atc98092 wrote:

Everyone is screaming about the IPTV channels being listed in the OTA channel guide.

---

I don't know about everyone (nor screaming). What stood out to me is that 1000 channels were added at the SAME TIME (screaming) favorites (a reasonable way to reduce channel navigation tedium in the absence of YEARS-LONG requests for recognizing numeric-remote buttons). And, at the SAME TIME continuous channel changing (holding the up/down button) was disabled. 

What kind of company has that kind of vision/timing? When you look at things like this (and how they occur over so long a period of time), it's like there's no in-between explanation. Complete bumbling. Or, maniacal sociopathy (complete disregard for others). You get the impression nobody is running the store. It's an AI/bot. Roku is like one of those voice-menu systems. "I'm sorry, I didn't understand your response. Press 1 for...."). It is so profound that it's not attributable to mere coincidence, or "oops." They're not stupid people. So, the alternative looks even worse. Callous disregard for customers.

If Roku's "signalling" to customers isn't clear enough, consider the home-screen theme Roku changed to yesterday. A broken antenna tv. Like they're PROUD OF (screaming)  their antipathy and disruption of customers' experience.

This stuff can't possibly be coincidental. Nobody could be this out of touch. That only leads to open hostility toward customers (or, at least the ones who won't fit into Roku's vision of "simplicity" for itself). 

[dobber]

I don't find an option for hiding some but not all streaming channels.  I'd like to have Reuters for news, and a few others, but not so many.  Can it be done?

[Visitor45763]

---

@dobber wrote: hiding some but not all streaming channels.  ... Can it be done?

---

No, you can't hide some. It's been suggested that these are Pluto channels. I don't think you can hide any of those either. So, basically you can remove these from your Antenna TV experience, and still have them in the Pluto app. You're neither losing nor gaining anything. 

I agree with you that it could be nice to have a dozen or so of those channels easily available from the Antenna TV list. Someone suggested Pluto's terms of carriage may not allow hiding any channels.

If that's the case, it seems bizarre Roku would think people would like 1000+ channels. Especially at the same time Favorites is removed. (That was a mildly plausible way to reduce the burden of navigating all those channels.). At the same time when holding the remote button for continuous channel changing was removed. (Now we have to press the button once for each channel change. 1000+ times.). And, after YEARS of ignoring vast customer requests for a numeric key remote.

You'd think the average person would tell Pluto, "sorry, no can do. Either work with us to change your contractual requirements, or your not getting merged into Antenna TV." The fact that nobody at Roku thought this was a problem (and just went along with it because "it's not our fault") -- and made navigation even harder than it was before, with less than 1/10th the channels. It doesn't inspire confidence about the future of Roku (IMO).

[dobber]

Thanks, that's what I was afraid of.  Foolish!

[Visitor45763]

---

@Visitor45763 wrote:

---

@dobber wrote: hiding some but not all streaming channels.  ... Can it be done?

---

It's been suggested that these are Pluto channels [&] Pluto's terms of carriage may not allow hiding any channels.

---

FYI: I'm playing with my Amazon Firestick Lite today. Added Pluto to it. It allows for favorites and hiding Pluto channels. 

That's not the same as having them merged in with antenna tv (which could be easier to use than having it in a separate app). But, apparently (looking at Firestick), there was no reason Roku couldn't have made the channels individually hidden (assuming they are Pluto too, as someone suggested they are.).

From my perspective, this just looks like another example of Roku's uninspired vision, lazy/sloppy development. (A $22 streaming stick has favorites and hiding streaming channels. But, a $300 tv doesn't.). I don't think there's any excuses other than failed leadership. 

[Harvini]

The use of the term "failed" denotes that there was a time during which it functioned properly.