[HN Gopher] Roku buys Quibi content for less than $100M
___________________________________________________________________
Roku buys Quibi content for less than $100M
Author : mimixco
Score : 65 points
Date : 2021-01-09 15:02 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (deadline.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (deadline.com)
| OnlyMortal wrote:
| What a waste of money.
| 0goel0 wrote:
| $1 is "less than" $100M
| mdoms wrote:
| Never heard of either of these companies.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| That's exactly what you call pennies on the dollar
| hobofan wrote:
| Doing some ballpark math based on the content that is listed on
| the wiki page[0], there is around ~165 hours of original Quibi
| content.
|
| As comparison $100M would get you one year of streaming rights to
| Friends or Seinfeld (~100 hours of watchime each).
|
| [0]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Quibi_original_program...
| [deleted]
| sjg007 wrote:
| This is also Roku's foray into original content. They own the
| display which gives them a big vertical advantage. It's nice that
| you can use roku out of the box with minimal setup... I know a
| lot of people that have trouble setting up apple tv or even a dvd
| player for example.
| tengbretson wrote:
| This is a lot of money to pay for something that brings less
| value to the platform than having a functioning youtube app.
| hollerith wrote:
| Is it certain that having a functioning youtube app is under
| Roku's control? For all I know, Youtube doesn't want Roku
| devices to have a functioning youtube app.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| I'd be happy with an HBOMax app that doesn't consistently crash
| whenever I open it.
| t3rabytes wrote:
| I've yet to find a platform where the HBO Max app isn't a
| total piece of garbage, iOS included.
| hsod wrote:
| Works great on Apple TV
| tomdell wrote:
| That's a high price for one season of Reno 911.
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Definitely overpaid it by at least 100 million.
| demifiend wrote:
| Yeah, it looks like somebody at Roku didn't think this through
| to me, too. Don't they have enough better-quality content that
| they don't particularly need Quibi's library? If Quibi
| themselves couldn't profit from these 10-minute episodes after
| spending $2 billion to make them, why do the people at Roku
| think they'll recoup their $100 million? Is there a tax angle
| we're not seeing?
| AznHisoka wrote:
| It's the same reason Cobrai Kai failed until Netflix bought
| it. Roku has the solution to the distribution problem. Quibi
| didn't.
| shampto3 wrote:
| The content wasn't the problem, IMO. The platform was the main
| issue. Some of the content on there like "Most Dangerous Game"
| were things I was interested in watching, just not in ten
| minute chunks on my phone.
| sjg007 wrote:
| The mistake Quibi made was charging for content. The idea
| otherwise is solid.
| Jochim wrote:
| It seems like a pretty terrible idea. They tried to cram
| traditional formats into 10 minute blocks, there are two
| major problems that seem immediately obvious with this:
|
| 1. The content they produced is way too long to for the
| time period they're trying to occupy. You might spend 10
| minutes ordering a coffee but that 10 minutes will be split
| into at least three segments whose length is arbitrary each
| time. This wouldn't matter so much if point two didn't
| exist
|
| 2. They created the type of content that needs to be paid
| attention to from start to end. They typically tried to
| take long form video content and squeeze it into a 10
| minute format. This makes it entirely unsuitable when
| compared to the types of content people actually consume
| during the periods targetted.
|
| If you look at what people do during these time periods at
| the moment, you'll see that they're all very resilient to
| interruption by being unaffected by a lack of constant
| attention (scrolling twitter/facebook), having each piece
| of content be short enough that you'll likely be
| starting/finishing one when interrupted (tiktok), or by
| being a background task that doesn't demand constant
| attention (music/podcasts).
|
| The core idea behind Quibi seems to fail on all these
| levels, the ineptitude displayed by attempting to charge
| for an idea no one wanted, while also locking down the
| platform/content so hard people that couldn't
| clip/screengrab it is just a cherry on top. That it got to
| the stage that it did just seems to be an indictment of
| where we're at with the economy and society.
| [deleted]
| sjg007 wrote:
| You are correct, it's one of those terribly bad ideas
| that could be a billion dollar company if executed
| properly.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| The huge bet they made on "commuters will obsess over this"
| seemed so disconnected from reality. As if their entire
| executive board hadn't commuted in decades.
|
| For one thing, in most metros its dangerous to engross
| yourself in a video for so long (not that people aren't
| oblivious). For another their are a billion other places to
| get short-form content be it youtube, tiktok, instagram,
| snapchat, etc. Just foolishness all the way down.
| marcinzm wrote:
| >As if their entire executive board hadn't commuted in
| decades.
|
| They probably all have personal chauffeurs or used uber
| black cars so for them that was a typical commute.
| puranjay wrote:
| I, for one, get terrible nausea and motion sickness if I
| look at screens while sitting in a cab.
|
| I suspect this is a fairly big issue among commuters who
| aren't taking the subway (which, in America, is practically
| no one outside of NYC).
| Hamuko wrote:
| It's less than $100 million. I'm now left wondering if it's
| actually something like $96 million or is it more like $3
| million.
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Yep, that's the punchline.
| sndean wrote:
| Yeah, here a source says "significantly less" than $100
| million, but people's definitions of significant can be very
| different. At least I'd think that rules out $96 million.
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/roku-acquires-rights-to-
| quibi-s...
| fullshark wrote:
| Keep in mind they don't even get the IP, just the
| (exclusive) rights to broadcast it for 7 years. I can't
| imagine that's worth anything close to 100 million.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-09 23:02 UTC)