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.

9 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. "Plug Every Hole" Indeed by Kunedog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:Surprising by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I own four, but use only one right now..

    Roku is basically in the "it works" category for nearly all the service providers I know of and care to use. I've only had one fail, but it took a lighting hit that took the rest of my AV equipment to make it happen. That is why I believe they are top of the heap.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. Oh little Roku how I love thee, and also my sister by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I love my little Roku 3. I wish it were legal to marry it, or my sister. Either one.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  4. Re:AirPlay alternative for Roku? by neovoxx · · Score: 3, Informative

    While I'm not familiar with airplay, Plex makes for a great and free media server/streamer that has apps on just about every ecosystem including Roku.

    --
    0x68ADA2CC
  5. Re:They should repeat this study by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually Roku has made decent progress there too - my "smart TV" in my bedroom is a Roku TV, as are a decent number of the ones I've seen in stores. The interface actually isn't bad. It's just the regular Roku setup and the other inputs are just selections like the apps. All the TV settings are just integrated into the Roku settings screens.

    Also, FWIW, my downstairs TV is a standard "dumb" TV, and I'm using a Roku stick there too. I used an Amazon Fire TV for quite a while but I had to keep restoring the firmware to default and after a while it wouldn't even work correctly then. The Roku has been much less problematic for me.

    Never used a Chromecast and the last Apple TV I owned was the first gen one so I don't really have opinions on them.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  6. Re: They should repeat this study by TuballoyThunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:They should repeat this study by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't the nearly ubiquitous Smart TVs pretty much kill the need for Roku for many users? Assuming that it's for Netflix and then Amazon Prime Video a distant second... (Amazon couldn't be sad if their firestick dies either since it's just a means to an end).

    No, it doesn't. I own a Smart TV which isn't as smart as it claims to be. I love its large display capabilities, but the "smart" in it, it ain't that smart (same goes to most, if not all smart TVs.)

    It has an interface that sucks, but you don't want to update its firmware, for it bricks from time to time. That's when I got me a Roku streaming stick (and later a Roku 2 with an Ethernet adapter.)

    Both are convenient and when are on travel, we can take the streaming stick with us to plug it on a TV at a hotel (though good hotel now offer Netflix and Hulu as well.)

    Even if Smart tv manufacturers were to get their shit together and truly deliver smart software in them, I'd rather decouple them. There is a point where embedding makes no sense, with integration being the more advantageous alternative for the consumer.

    If a Smart TV firmware bricks or its wireless adapter go toast, what do you do? Buy a new one? In the meantime a portable streaming device that you can hook to the TV's hdmi port (and preferably with an Ethernet adapter) that costs you a double-figure? That sounds like a more reasonable alternative.

    I'm not buying TVs for their smartness anymore, just its display capabilities.

    I'm not sure what has happened with the latest family of Roku products, but I cannot complain with what I have right now.

  8. Re:They should repeat this study by Quirkz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:They should repeat this study by ilsaloving · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.