Slashdot Mirror
Roku Is the Top Streaming Device In the US and Still Growing, Report Finds (techcrunch.com)
Roku is the top streaming media player device in the U.S., and its growth is only increasing. According to the latest industry report from market intelligence firm Parks Associates, 37 percent of streaming devices in U.S. households are Roku devices, as of the first quarter of this year. That's up from 30 percent in the same quarter last year, the report notes. TechCrunch reports: The growth is coming at the expense of Roku's top competitors, like Apple and Google, with only Amazon's Fire TV able to increase its install base during the same timeframe. Fire TV devices are in 24 percent of U.S. households, as of Q1 2017, up from 16 percent last year. That climb allowed Amazon to snag the second position from Google's Chromecast, which has an 18 percent share. Lagging behind, Apple TV's market share fell to 15 percent -- a drop that Parks Associates Senior Analyst Glenn Hower attributes to Apple TV's price point. Roku last fall overhauled its line of streaming players with the intention of plugging every hole in the market. That strategy is seemingly paying off. There's now a Roku device to meet any consumer's needs -- whether that's an entry-level, portable and affordable "stick," to rival the Fire TV Stick or the Chromecast dongle, or a high-end player with 4K and HDR support, lots of ports, voice search remote, and other premium bells and whistles.
Roku doesn't have a competitive content business themselves (even though they want to), which means that (so far) it's in their best interest to work hard to make sure their platform works with everyone.
Roku + Plex is about as good as it gets. I haven't tried Apple TV but I have some Chromecasts that lie around unused.
Roku is much better than any of the smart tvs that I have come across. I did not even setup the smart functions on the tv I bought--I use a roku instead. I find the UI much easier to use on the roku and I trust Roku more than any of the tv manufacturers.
I see Smart TVs as being about the same as the combination printer/scanner/fax systems. It's wedging three separate technologies into one device, and in the process cheapening all of them. Also, when one goes down, they all go down, and then you get absurdities like not being able to fax because you're out of toner.
My typical streaming device lasts 3-6 years, and the technology is changing rapidly. My typical TV lasts a decade or more, and for the most part I'd rather not try to keep up with expensive features there, and just want a nice screen at a reasonable price. I've avoided smart TVs simply because I figure the streaming part is likely to fail or become obsolete long before the screen does, and I'd like to be able to replace that component independently. If non-smart TVs ever go extinct, I'd still be inclined to leave the TV disconnected, and continue using the streaming device of my choice.
Besides, most of my dumb TVs can't even do their own tuning and display interfaces right. I've got an RCA that insists on turning itself on every single day, via a timer feature that cannot be disabled. If they're that terrible about simple features, do you really want them putting their hands on proprietary streaming interfaces? I'd rather leave that to the experts.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
That's because "Smart" TVs are crap. The landscape of video services is changing constantly, so if you buy a TV now, there's an excellent chance that one or more of the features will no longer function several years from now because the manufacturer can't arsed to put out updates once they got your money.
And that's ignores the several instances of TV manufacturers pulling shady stunts like sending audio or other personal data back to the manufacturer on a regular basis.
No... A TV should be nothing more than a device that displays pretty pictures and makes noises. Everything else belongs in an inexpensive and easily replaceable/updatable unit.