Surprised to read this. I'm sure there were people who never thought Roku would enter into partnerships with television manufacturers to showcase their technology and services. Since they did - and before other "big players" - why in the world would a DVR option w/OTA (or agreements with cable ops) be out of the realm of possibility? I'm not getting this. They've already demonstrated they're not going to just offer incremental box updates. Given that, why would you think they wouldn't want to explore or foresee other means of offering their services? That, honestly, seems directly contradicted by what they've already done. I guess you think they're just going to rest on their proverbial laurels now. I'd tend to give them more credit than that.
You missed the word hardware. I think they want to sell a service not hardware. AW has said this.
Exactly. Roku CEO Anthony Wood is credited for inventing the DVR. Prior to Roku he ran a company called ReplayTV. In interviews Anthony Wood has said he always viewed DVRs as stepping stones until online TV was available. If he wanted the Roku to have DVR capabilities, it would have them already. The Roku lacks MPEG2 decoding and is fundamentally unsuited as a standalone OTA or cable DVR or playback device. The licensing cost is minimal; Raspberry Pi owners can get a MPEG2 decode license for about $4. Roku could offer a Roku with MPEG2 support and sell optional licenses, but they don't and lack of MPEG2 decoding is a consensus choice, not an afterthought or accidental omission. Omitting MPEG2 saves hardware/software and licensing cost, and reduces headaches for Roku tech support. The lack of hardware/licensing options shows that Roku as a company has no interest in being a DVR, period.
Yes, I'm aware of his feelings about DVRs in general, but would you agree that he's smart enough to see that (if) the marketplace isn't transitioning to totally on-demand streaming, he might have to be a bit transitional, himself?
(I don't see any inherent problems with a Roku "DVR". Why wouldn't the processing for both "parts" be modularized? The DVR would just handle tuning/recording/playback of OTA TV, while the Roku channels would be available in their own interface, not unlike the way one switches to an HDTV's "smart" functionality vs its tuner or other inputs.)
I don't know whether he rules with an iron-fist (a la Steve Jobs) or if he actually listens to those he's hired around him, but if he's able to ascertain where trends are actually going - to say, for example, a place where people are more or at least as interested in OTA than just plain OTT, are you saying he'd just go down with a sinking ship rather than adapt to the market? Why? Is he too proud or something? Would people lambaste him if he had a change of heart?
I think it's safe to say he's first and foremost a business person. Irrespective of his public comments, I don't think it would be too tough to have some things going on in the lab that aren't spoken of publicly. Hey, I don't know the guy, and maybe he is totally set in his ways and would never opt for anything that's not what he initially envisioned for the video entertainment market. But then again, maybe his vision is actually...right. Seems to be doing fine so far. Time will tell.