Then why call it a 'hobby'? Historically hobbies aren't purposely used for financial gain by the hobbyist.
I think they called it a hobby because of the poor sales -when compared to any of their other products- and tried to make it sound that they're interested 'in the living room' but as yet haven't released anything more than a 'streaming box'.
Then why call it a 'hobby'? Historically hobbies aren't purposely used for financial gain by the hobbyist.
I'm sure Steve and now Tim have plenty of "hobby" projects. Their true "hobbies", we never get to see. Didn't I read that Steve had some crazy iMac or TV or something they designed there?
If it wasn't making money, whether directly or indirectly, they wouldn't have it in the line up.
Negative marketing against a competitor is usually beneficial. In this case, if the same statements about not making money apply to Roku and people figure that out then it adversely affects them but not if people don't figure that out. The suggestion seems to be that Roku's biggest competitor will give up due to lack of profits and leave Roku to corner the market. If they plan to go public in order to raise capital, this could persuade investors to invest on the assumption that the company will be able to hold up and grow compared to their much larger competitors. It doesn't matter to them if it's a lie as long as they get their funding.
A different school of thought is "don't give publicity to your competitors". But in this case, if he didn't mention Apple, we wouldn't have heard about this interview.
Yeah, the guy's reasoning falls apart pretty quickly, it's hard to think of a charitable way to spin it.
I don't see any reason to believe that Roku is necessarily losing money either. An off-the-shelf ARM with good graphics built-in is pretty inexpensive these days. There are plenty of $40 MK808 type HDMI dongles that have dual core ARM chips in them, there are several hobbyist ARM circuits with graphics output in that price range too. If Roku can't make a profit at $99 then the probably screwed up.
In the weasel-word world of PR, that doesn't mean they aren't seriously considering it, or even developing one. I'd be surprised if they haven't been working on one, whether they decide to do it or not, I don't know..
...? Introduced today, so it's not an April Fool's joke.
When did they say they had no plans to offer one?
Thanks for asking the question Jeff. When I went looking for that mention I found I had misread it and that Amazon's denial was for a free streaming service. Technically that would be correct then, no free streaming. Mea culpa.
Thanks for asking the question Jeff. When I went looking for that mention I found I had misread it and that Amazon's denial was for a free streaming service. Technically that would be correct then, no free streaming. Mea culpa.
OK, not a big deal. It still accepts Prime.
I can't say I find a need or want for it though. A PS3 handles most things I need for my TV, and Amazon is offered on that.
Comments
Then why call it a 'hobby'? Historically hobbies aren't purposely used for financial gain by the hobbyist.
I think they called it a hobby because of the poor sales -when compared to any of their other products- and tried to make it sound that they're interested 'in the living room' but as yet haven't released anything more than a 'streaming box'.
Then why call it a 'hobby'? Historically hobbies aren't purposely used for financial gain by the hobbyist.
I'm sure Steve and now Tim have plenty of "hobby" projects. Their true "hobbies", we never get to see. Didn't I read that Steve had some crazy iMac or TV or something they designed there?
If it wasn't making money, whether directly or indirectly, they wouldn't have it in the line up.
A different school of thought is "don't give publicity to your competitors". But in this case, if he didn't mention Apple, we wouldn't have heard about this interview.
Yeah, the guy's reasoning falls apart pretty quickly, it's hard to think of a charitable way to spin it.
I don't see any reason to believe that Roku is necessarily losing money either. An off-the-shelf ARM with good graphics built-in is pretty inexpensive these days. There are plenty of $40 MK808 type HDMI dongles that have dual core ARM chips in them, there are several hobbyist ARM circuits with graphics output in that price range too. If Roku can't make a profit at $99 then the probably screwed up.
So this is what an Amazon denial of set-top box plans really looks like
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CX5P8FC
...? Introduced today, so it's not an April Fool's joke.
When did they say they had no plans to offer one?
Thanks for asking the question Jeff. When I went looking for that mention I found I had misread it and that Amazon's denial was for a free streaming service. Technically that would be correct then, no free streaming. Mea culpa.
OK, not a big deal. It still accepts Prime.
I can't say I find a need or want for it though. A PS3 handles most things I need for my TV, and Amazon is offered on that.
No HBO Go on the PS3 kills me.