"squirreltown" wrote:
I don't think it's a fair statement. But that doesn't explain why Roku has two brand new boxes already being sold on the market and I seemingly am not allowed to know what the specs of those boxes are.
Let me speculate a little, as an independent* persona i can do that. Imagine for a moment, if you will, that the announced this week refresh did not bring anything new to the platform, as far as channel development/SDK is concerned. Given this, now ponder over these two questions:
- Knowing that any channel working on a 2013 Roku3 will work identically well on the refresh models, would you think it's worth mentioning them?
- Considering the birds of ill omen flying around, would you dare admit you haven't added at least a quad-core CPU, 4x the RAM and 32x the flash?
Some discussion on (2): there are these people with "size matters" obsession. You'll see them constantly comparing each other's specs. Like whose phone has more megapixels or cores or memory (while unable explaining the difference between MB and GB). To them, if Amazon has released a box with X amount of storage and Y amount of MHz - you better match and raise one that or else "doom and gloom". To me though, Roku has been known for "doing more, with less". Google TV comes to mind: they had 2x the memory, 16x the storage and 33% "more MHz" than the future Roku3. That was in 2012 and by end of 2013 the GTV initiative was pretty much a walking dead. This said, marketeers wouldn't like promoting "less is more"
(*) i.e. someone that nothing depends on
