Roku Developer Program

[peej]

I realized I don't even have a ballpark idea of these figures and I'm hoping there is an official answer (that I missed somewhere) or some people (ex: supersecretusername) will share their real world experience: number of people that will see a channel in the channel store, that might see a private channel posted on this forum, percent that might actually pay for content (this is the tricky one), etc.

Basically I am trying to figure out how difficult it would be to recoup cost for licensed content, and I'm sure I can't be the only one who doesn't know. 😄

[KennyJ]

I believe back in December they said there were 500,000 units sold. Not sure how much that number has changed since then. I don't know if Roku publishes number on how many people add public channels. I think they once published the number of people who added Pandora and it was something like 50% of the owners.

[bbefilms]

"peej" wrote:
Basically I am trying to figure out how difficult it would be to recoup cost for licensed content, and I'm sure I can't be the only one who doesn't know. 😄

I think this a valid question, and there are a number of (as yet unknown) factors involved. From this news item it looks like Roku plans to take a cut of any online sales in an (as yet) undetermined manner (30%?).

My take on this is that most people seriously interested in setting up a channel will be those who have masses of niche content and a known audience; it will just be one more outlet. As I've said before, I really hope this works out for Roku as a reward for a great idea and great execution (pricewise, announced similar devices are close to twice the cost although they do have local streaming capability), but with Google getting into the mix, it's going to be an aggressive market.

[serialjoepsycho]

It really about what licensed material you are offering. There are 500,000 right? That's who your sales are to. Is your licensed material what a large group of people may like?

[campbellwang]

I agree with peej and bbefilms. Getting licensed content is no joke. Someone has to pay.

It's all good and fun that individuals are releasing private beta channels and collecting donations but they could never release those channels to the general public because they have not got the license to do so. Until they get permission or get a license, these channels will always stay private and in beta. I know this because we have looked into this extensively.

I will explain: Lets’ say I am a music artist. I produce a set of songs and put it on my website for people to download for free. Now lets’ say someone downloads my song re-packages it and sells it. I as the content owner or creator can do whatever I like. But you as the consumer have no rights to re-sell my work unless you ask me or I give express permission to do so.

Banksy the urban artist used to allow anyone to make money from his online street artwork. Now he says his work is for personal use only: http://www.banksy.co.uk/shop/index.html

The only reason why one or two of these private beta channels has made it into the main stream channels is because they are showing public domain film content that does not require a license. See License here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/.

I really commend that channel creator for doing this. They were thinking on their feet and did what was necessary to get their channel legitimate and legal.

When you are putting money down to license content you want to know you can make money or at least make your money back if it all goes horribly wrong.

[serialjoepsycho]

My whole point being if you release crappy licensed products don't expect to earn much. Who are you writing for? Right now you are writing for 500,000 people from various demographics. What ever content you get that is licensed make sure a vast majority of people liked it.