Roku Tops 51 Million Accounts, Becoming the Biggest Smart TV Platform in North America

Roku's bet on smart TVs is paying off: Seven years after the company first began licensing its operating system to TV manufacturers, it has become a market leader in North America. Roku and its hardware partners sold more smart TVs in the U.S. in 2020 than competitors like Samsung, LG and Vizio, according to data from the NPD Group released by Roku on Friday. From a report: Roku TVs had a 38% market share in the U.S. and a 31% market share in Canada, according to NPD's data. Roku also announced earlier this week that it had ended 2020 with 51.2 million active accounts, adding around 14 million accounts over the past 12 months. Altogether, consumers streamed 58.7 billion hours of entertainment through their Roku devices in 2020, according to a news release. Both data points demonstrate how much of a force the company has become in North America, giving it even more power in negotiations with media companies looking to run their services on Roku streaming sticks and TVs. However, they also highlight how much Roku's business has been solely focused on the TV space, giving competitors a chance to dominate other smart device categories. After first making a name for itself with its streaming boxes, Roku began licensing its operating system to TV manufacturers in 2014, with one of its early licensing partners including China's TCL, then virtually unknown in North America. With affordable TV sets and a UI that emphasized simplicity over fancy new features, TCL and Roku managed to grow their market share year after year; at the end of 2019, every third smart TV sold in the U.S. was running Roku's operating system.

It helps when your competition is just awful.

[hey!]

Every other smart TV platform I've tried has been a mess -- terrible UIs, constantly pestering you with advertising. I had one pop up a dialog asking whether I wanted to download a software update while I was watching live TV.

LG

[JBMcB]

I've found LG's UI to be pretty decent. One switch and the reminders to update stuff get turned off. The Wiimote style pointer works great, too.

Re:

[hey!]

That's kind of been my experience with LG phones. They're not very impressive, but they don't have any horrible flaws. Samsung, on the other hand, produces TVs and phones that are impressive but deeply flawed.

Re: LG

[drinkypoo]

My Nexus 4 (LG E960, IIRC) digitizer failed and it was going to be $BIGNUM to replace it.

It is not acceptable for both of those things to be true.

Every LG product I have ever owned or used has sucked. Every LG product I have owned has failed.

Hope you continue to have better luck.

Re:

[hey!]

Well, everyone's luck varies with equipment, as I found out when I was managing devices for my development team. My only problem with the LG G6 phone was the notorious "Moisture Detected in Charging Port" problem, which I fixed with switch contact cleaner. I know a lot of people like Samsung phones, but I found their battery life to be terrible and they tend to run hot.

that's not fair . . .

[hawk]

Samsung also produces horribly flawed refrigerators and driers.

The insanely expensive four door refrigerator started having ice maker issues at a couple of years old, and completely froze over the ice maker and started leaking after a couple more.

The high-end dryer has a stainless steel drum. So when *that* went out of round, it was over $300 and several months to get shipped from Korea . . . and had to go back as it, too, was out of round . . .

And then there's their cellphone batteries . . . now, for your

Re:

[Luckyo]

Android TVs I had to fuck with in last two years definitely agree with you. The interface is pants on the head retarded, especially for the expensive units for most things. Play store for android TV is garbage. Ads are on the home screen.

And some of them have the most bizarre things missing. Like Philips TVs having bluetooth but not having system drivers for bluetooth audio. BT supports things like BT game controllers for a few horrible built in games. But audio? Nope. And no way to get such drivers, becaus

Re: It helps when your competition is just awful.

[peragrin]

A roku device works better than a pc.

Roku can install plex. Your pc can be a server in another room to keep fan noise down. Roku ultra has ethernet so you don't waste wifi for streaming.

What I like best about roku devices is you can update them without buying a new tv. My last roku device made it 8 years. I expect 10 out of my current one. (It can do 4k ). My tv though can only do 1080p. Probably replace it in a few years. Next up is a sound bar.

Re:

[Luckyo]

I can name countless things I can do on PC that I can't do on Roku. What are the things you can do on Roku that you can't do on PC?

P.S. Sound bars suck ass. Get a proper 5.1 speaker setup.

Re:

[LynnwoodRooster]

Tuck it behind the TV and power it from the TV, and use an incredibly simple to use remote. And only spend $30 for it. Can your PC do that? Now replicate that functionality - including the entire UI and channel/app configuration - across 5 TVs, for under $150.

Re:

[Luckyo]

No, but the entire idea is that you're buying an expensive smart TV, so you have a budget to burn if you're buying only a dumb screen instead.

I will fully agree that for someone who's very price conscious, there are better systems than a dedicated PC, unless you're just reusing your old one.

Re:

[tepples]

No, but the entire idea is that you're buying an expensive smart TV, so you have a budget to burn if you're buying only a dumb screen instead.

How so? TV makers price smart TVs lower than living-room-sized (32" and up) dumb screens, in part because of kickbacks from channel publishers wanting to be preloaded. See this story from 24 months ago: "Taking the Smarts Out of Smart TVs Would Make Them More Expensive" [slashdot.org]

Re:

[Luckyo]

Read the context. "Taking smarts out while keeping smart hardware" yes. Dump the SOC and keep a TV tuner and it's cheaper.

Still need some sort of SoC. Kickbacks fund it.

[tepples]

Dump the SOC and keep a TV tuner and it's cheaper.

You still need some sort of SoC to tune TV and scale it from 240p, 480i, 480p, 720i, or 1080p to whatever the panel supports. So if the sum of all kickbacks for preinstalling Internet channel apps exceeds the marginal cost for a scaler SoC that can receive Internet TV over one that cannot, the kickbacks fully make up for the increased cost of goods. And it does.

Re:

[Luckyo]

You don't need a SOC for that. You need a tuner and a scaler. That's it. costs basically nothing compared to proper system on chip that can run an actual modern OS, like those found in smart TVs.

Re:

[tepples]

You don't need a SOC for that. You need a tuner and a scaler. That's it. costs basically nothing compared to proper system on chip

Let's assume hypothetically for a moment that a tuner and a scaler did cost nothing. Even if so, so long as the kickbacks that a TV manufacturer receives for including a system on chip exceed the cost of the system on chip, the TV manufacturer will include the system on chip in all models.

Re:

[Luckyo]

I completely agree with this logical process. Now, let's not stop half way through the thought, and connect it to reality:

>And therefore, we can conclude that so far this assumption has been wrong, because cheapest models on the market are not smart TVs.

Re:

[tepples]

It's not that the cheapest TVs are smart TVs. It's that the cheapest models larger than 32 inches or so are smart TVs. If this is not the case, I'd be interested in seeing links to inexpensive TVs that have a tuner, composite in, HDMI in, and no Internet streaming.

Re:

[Luckyo]

I literally did a "cheap LCD TV" search on my nearest amazon. Took me less than a minute.

Not smart TV, 42,5 inches: 200EUR

https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Liv... [amazon.de]

Same manufacturer, smart TV, 41,5 inches: 250EUR

https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Sma... [amazon.de]

Can we stop with this silly narrative where you outline your own logic, get walked to the logical end point of your own logic, and instead of going "oh, yeah, you have a point" you instead invent a completely new hypothesis which you don't bother to spend a minute on amazon c

Re:

[LynnwoodRooster]

For me it wasn't about the "smart TV" - it was about a CONSISTENT UI across multiple displays. With a Roku-based system, I have the same UI, same remotes, regardless of which TV I am on.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

But audio? Nope. And no way to get such drivers, because as far as I looked, they don't exist. Because why would you want to have wireless audio in a TV set apparently.

Bluetooth Audio sucks for things that synchronization.

There is a visible delay of anywhere from 100-250ms when using Bluetooth A2DP, and it results in lipsync issues that are obvious and annoying.

It's fine for music - the delay isn't noticeable other than having a slight lag when starting/stopping and going around tracks. But for video its un

Re:

[Luckyo]

Actually closer to 300-350ms for SBC. I measured it on several devices and headphones. Better if you run Aptx or even aptx low latency, but it still sucks.

Now imagine my shock when I discovered that several older relatives didn't care. At all. All while I spend minutes (!) calibrating the correct amount of audio offset for playing video with audio on my phone, when I asked if they want me to do it for them, I got that "are you crazy" look and a short lecture on how this is completely acceptable and pretty m

Re: It helps when your competition is just awful.

[c_spencer100]

That's not true at all. Android TVs are the only ad free interface. In fact Roku TVs have a large ad when you're going thru the menus. Android also shows your recently watched shows from each service directly on the home screen, and you can remove all the services you don't need to keep it streamlined. This is coming from someone who owns both a Sony x950g (Android) and a TCL r635 (Roku).

Re:

[Luckyo]

First of all, dismissing the obvious BS:

https://9to5google.com/2020/08... [9to5google.com]

Second, in addition to google's ad nonsense, each manufacturer gets their own dick in on android TV. For example, here's a story about Samsung:

https://www.theregister.com/20... [theregister.com]

Re: It helps when your competition is just awful.

[c_spencer100]

I'll be dammed... those bastsrds snuck it in. I have subscriptions to Netflix Hulu Disney+ and HBO Max. When they first rolled out the ads they were only for subscriptions I had so they appeared to be suggestions. Looking now they've added a bunch of random shit. They still aren't any more intrusive than my Roku TV though.

Re:

[Luckyo]

The only thing more intrusive than ads on home screen, is ads that play with sound during watching TV.

To my knowledge, some android TV manufacturers have those. Philips is one manufacturer known for adding this, Samsung is another. It appears country dependent however, at least for now, so most people probably haven't experienced that wonderful nonsense yet.

Fire Tv/Fire sticks are a hot mess!!

[big-giant-head]

I have A Roku tv and a Fire tv. I also have a couple of tv's with fire sticks, which will be replaced with Roku Sticks when the Fire sticks die. The Fire UI is cluttered and messy and hard to navigate. The Roku, my 90 year old dad can get around in. The fire tv he stares at and says "I have no idea". Supposedly Fire tv revamped their UI, but so far I have not seen it on my existing sticks or TV. I'm sure in true amazon fashion, if you want updates, then you just have to buy new stuff. I'm done wit

Apple

[cmseagle]

I can recommend the Apple TV. The UI is straightforward and navigation is snappy. No advertising to speak of (unless you count the fact that Apple's apps are given space on the home screen). It receives pretty regular patches and the update process is unintrusive.

The $180 sticker price for the 4K variantstings, but I expect it to be using it for many years so I'm fine with it.

What is the cost of Roku?

[J-hex31337]

How much does the most basic level of Roku cost? Is there a pay version without ads?

Re:What is the cost of Roku?

[bjwest]

There is no monthly cost [radiotimes.com] to owning a Roku, they insert no advertisements into any video that I have ever seen, and the adds on the home screen are about as unobtrusive as they get.

Re:

[LostMyAccount]

I've been satisfied with Roku as a replacement for older model AppleTV.

My only worry is Roku getting to be too big for their britches and demanding cuts of content provider revenue. I was not happy with their attitude towards HBOMax and the delay in getting support.

I worry that too much ambition like this results in providers dropping support or other conflicts which basically result in me not getting the content I want. I'd much rather they be a neutral technology platform.

Re:

[phantomfive]

It's great! It's all written in BrightScript!

Re:What is the cost of Roku?

[bjwest]

Are there monthly costs for owning other smart TVs? No.

Question was specifically asking about Roku

Roku "adds" ARE obtrusive and Roku apps are ancient, unmaintained, and of incredibly low quality. Roku is the worst platform imaginable. Complete garbage.

I consider obtrusive as popping up in your face or full screen adds. Roku adds are off to the side of the home screen, not flashy or animated and can be pretty much ignored. Your claim of the apps being ancient unmaintained and low quality is utter bullshit as is your claim the Roku is complete garbage. It may be true the Roku UI looks dated, but it works wonderfully, is easy to navigate, add and remove apps and has little to no performance issues. Perhaps you want a Nvidia 3090 to run your preferred UI, but the Roku works outstandingly with the hardware it utilizes.

Re:

[cthulhu11]

I have a TCL TV with Roku built in. Can't beat it for the money. UI seems fine to me, though I wasn't having much luck with ARC to get audio out, and mostly use a Fire Stick plugged into my receiver to run Plex et al clients.

Re:

[freeze128]

If there is no monthly cost for using a Roku device, then why does the summary claim the number of "ACCOUNTS"? Do you have to sign up for a ROKU account just so you can use the youtube app?

Re:

[bjwest]

Yes you have to sign up for a Roku account, just as you do for all other set top boxes and Smart TV systems.

Re:

[whoever57]

You do have to create an account to initialize a Roku device.

You can also add payment information to the account for some apps to charge. However, this isn't required.

How many people actually consume the Roku features

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

I've had a Roku device in my home for a few years and use it exclusively as a front end for my own media (using the Plex app and my own plex server running on a Raspberry Pi). It has worked great, but I don't think I'd ever actually use it to stream online content.

Best,

Re: How many people actually consume the Roku feat

[peragrin]

All the time. I use netflix disney cbs,abc, Youtubs (used to use hbo)

After a while I stop subscriptions of stuff we aren't watching.

Re:How many people actually consume the Roku featu

[thegarbz]

I've had a Roku device in my home for a few years and use it exclusively as a front end for my own media (using the Plex app and my own plex server running on a Raspberry Pi). It has worked great, but I don't think I'd ever actually use it to stream online content.

Best,

Many. Having your own content to stream from puts you in the minority. There are 10 million more Netflix subscribers in North America than Roku accounts. The same applies to Disney+. There is an almost certainty that the venn diagram of people who buy Roku streamers and households who have streaming subscriptions overlap.

It's Roku's killer feature that it actually has a decent Netflix app, and Amazon Prime+ app, and Disney+ app. Hell we only added Plex to it 2 months ago.

Re:

[Ayanami_R]

Agree, ALL the apps on it work very well, and are very intuitive. My 70 something mom in law can operate the device fine. The ads are only on the home screen and aren't a bother, at all. I'm not one of these "no ads anywhere and I want free" people. The hardware itself is pretty great too, we have one in a "weak" wifi area and it works fine, better than our phones do.

Price is the likely reason

[Presence Eternal]

I suspect TCL offering dirt cheap roku sets with panels the size of the average solar system helps.

Re:

[Junta]

I also know a lot of people that buy 'whatever' TV set and just ignore smart TV features because it's cheap to just move or buy a familiar Roku and plug it in, even if the TV could do it all without an add-on device.

While it is changing now, Roku's goal of selling a device rather than a service really helps its popularity. Rather than picking a competitor from Apple, Google, or Amazon that really wants to chuck you into that respective companies online services, pick a streaming provider neutral device.

"dumb TV" with usb

[GodWasAnAlien]

Whatever the TV comes with will likely be obsolete in a few years.

I would rather have a dumb TV with enough USB and HDMI to account for future use.

Then you plug in Chromecast AppleTV, Roku, Kodi, RetroPie, or whatever.

Re:

[Entrope]

What does USB do for a dumb TV? Just provide a power supply for dongles?

"Enough HDMI" is a real challenge for a lot of techies. My main TV has four HDMI inputs. These go to a PS4, Switch, UHD Blu-ray player, and a sound bar. The sound bar has another three downstream HDMI ports that go to a PS3, Turbografx 16 Mini, and a Raspberry Pi. If I ever want to plug my laptop in, I have to unplug something else. Fortunately I don't use a set-top box on that TV -- but I've never seen a TV with 8 HDMI inputs.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

What does USB do for a dumb TV? Just provide a power supply for dongles?

Yes, you hope. Unfortunately my dumb TV only has USB1 (it's old) and it doesn't actually put out enough power to run even the least of Fire TV sticks, for example.

I'm not sure it really matters, but it would be nice to only need one outlet for the TV and the dongle. However, since TV speakers all suck, it's not like I'm only going to need the one plug for entertainment.

Re:

[hurricanej]

You might want to look into HDMI switches. I like mine so much that I purchased another at $35 to keep as a spare. Put your game consoles on the same switch; the first one in the chain takes priority and we usually don't need to run multiple video games simultaneously on the same TV. That leaves the other HDMI ports for other devices.

Re:

[Entrope]

I am aware of HDMI switches, but just about the last thing I want for my TV cabinet is another box with another external power brick, another HDMI cable, and potentially another remote.

Also, many of the cheap HDMI switches only support 4K at 30 Hz, which is fine for non-video-game use, or for lower-end consoles, but not for the PS4 Pro or latest-generation consoles.

Re: "dumb TV" with usb

[aRTeeNLCH]

The video game device is one of the things that gets a direct connection to the TV, for video playback devices and such you use the switch. At least, that's how I understood the parent, I have no TV...

Re:

[ncc74656]

the last thing I want for my TV cabinet is another box with another external power brick

They make HDMI switches that get their power from the devices that are plugged in. I have a little 2-port job at work that's like that.

Re:

[Necron69]

Modern smart TVs are actually subsidized to put the 'smart' part in, hoping you'll subscribe to something.

My latest 55" TCL Roku TV was only $399 (a year ago), and when the internal Roku stops working, I can easily attach another separate Roku (or whatever) to it.

It's really a win-win situation at this point.

- Necron69

Re:

[thegarbz]

USB Powers most of the gadgets designed for USB, including the Roku, Chromecast, my little Bluetooth audio transmitter, etc.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[smithcl8]

Amen to this. That's why I'll never have a "Smart" refrigerator, thermostat, or possibly even a Tesla. I see no reason to make any of my appliances or car obsolete if it isn't necessary.

Re:

[antdude]

Aren't good huge dumb TVs hard to find these days?

bought mine recently

[dltaylor]

I have too many "smart" bits around to want a "smart" TV. HDMI streaming device, game consoles (which also stream), and Pi allow me to only upgrade/replace whatever bit needs it and they all feed through the amplifier so better sound than any TV or sound bar. None of my media is on any of those; I use a NAS for that.

I know that on TCL/Roku, at least, the TV can play media from a USB stick/disk, but so can the Pi, so I'm not sure that is as useful as it first appears. It also brings in the annoyance of re

IoShit

[sinij]

Manufacturers of smart appliances like Smart TVs should be treated as polluters, because we know that connected, vulnerable and unsupported Smart TVs are and will remain a problem in foreseeable future. Bot mega networks of unpatched IoT appliances is already a thing, it will only get worse as these become more numerous and age. Having something connected to the Internet should come with some minimal obligation and responsibility to try to secure it.

Re:

[thegarbz]

What problem? My Smart TV was identified as ones that had a vulnerability back 5 years ago. It also has been unsupported for about 7 years now. It isn't polluting anything in my living room playing streaming content from the Roku without being connected to the internet.

You worry too much.

Re:

[sinij]

Sure, you might know better than let it connect. How many people would just connect it to home WiFi and leave it there forever?

Re:

[thegarbz]

Indeed, but how many care. For all the security threats these pose the reality is if you consider yourself a target you make informed decisions, and if you don't you have almost nothing to fear due to the complete lack of wild exploits on TVs as a platform in general.

It's a bit like Android security exploits. For all the severity of them which would in theory allow the creation of wormable malware, practically 100% of actual malware comes through getting the user to download shady shit from shady sites.

In

Re:

[sinij]

Have you heard about Mirai botnet? What I describe actually happened in the past.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Indeed. A botnet that had nothing to do with TVs. What happened in the past on different devices, specifically devices that were setup as a network point of entry has little to nothing to do with Smartnet TVs and the vulnerabilities they exposed.

Which is my point: The exploit matters. The use of the exploit matters. Ultimately no one cares about the Smart TV because no one is affected by the Smart TV. It's almost impossible to get people to give a shit about important things, so imagine trying to get people

Re:

[sinij]

I really disagree with you that Smart TVs are not important. Individually, they are not, but there are millions of them and there aren't that many different brands and models. There are out there in sufficient numbers that once the exploit is found you could get DDoS botenet that can take down Google or Amazon. A DDoS WMD.

so..

[buddyglass]

I really like the Roku interface. That said, some sets that use it are so underpowered that it is noticeably laggy. The ESPN app is also garbage on my RokuTV, but fine on my kid's Xbox (using the same internet connection). I think it's a combination of the ESPN app being poorly written (for instance, Netflix and Hulu don't have the same problem while running on the same Roku device) and my (cheap) TV being sorely underpowered, which causes the app to drop frames.

Re:

[dfghjk]

Every app on Roku is garbage. The greatest upgrade to a Roku smart TV is another TV.

I recently purchased two similar Roku-based TVs, neither turned out to be capable of running ANY application for two days without crashing. Not impressive when you consider there are background apps intended to run continuously. Worst software garbage I've seen in many years. The App Store on Roku looks like a Mad Max movie, everything is amateur and/or abandoned software.

Anyone who advocates for Roku is either a moron o

Re:

[buddyglass]

Eh, I'm not a moron. Compared to other SmartTV interfaces I've seen, I prefer Roku. ESPN's is the only app I've had problems with, except for Disney+ in the early days right after they released it. Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu all work fine. My only complaints are the lagginess and the poor ESPN performance, both of which I suspect are a factor of my device and not the Roku platform specifically. (i.e. if I were running the ESPN app on a dedicated Roku device as opposed to a SmartTV I suspect it would be

Re:

[whoever57]

YMMV.

I have 3 Roku devices connected to a TV. The Roku boxes themselves almost never crash.

I did find that an older Roku device used to experience crashes in one of the apps, but I think that was simply that the Roku was underpowered for the app. A newer Roku solved the issue and I rarely see crashes.

Roku got the remote right

[t0qer]

What Roku did right was the remote.

* RF wireless instead of IR. You don't have to point at the TV.
* Simple, just a direction pad and 6 buttons + volume on the side (Not counting the instant access buttons)

There really isn't much more to say than that. When your input device is simple, the UI has to follow. Other features recently added to the Ultra's like voice search and remote finder are just icing on the cake. I have 3 Roku's in my house, just bought one for the in-laws and they love it. Xfinity has a Roku app now, so you can ditch your cable boxes which is nice, with the added bonus of not having to run coax through the house. Also Plex, for anything I can't get on streaming services or Xfinity.

I just hope Roku keeps it simple despite their success. Would hate to see a "ROKU 9000 KAMAHAMEHA" with 30 buttons.

Re:

[mackil]

I think you're absolutely right here.

Roku has stayed alive with a good yet simple remote, combined with a cheap price, and being one of the first to have such a device on the market. They also were one of the few that had both the Youtube and Amazon Prime combo, which until the last year or two wasn't available on Chromecast/Fire TV. Apple TV is expensive, FireTV is younger in the market (and is Amazon), and Chromecast didn't have a remote until recently.

Staying alive against such competition is pretty

Re:

[DDumitru]

The Roku remote that supports headphones is even better. Not because the headphones are great (the audio is actually quite poor), but because AA batteries last a lot longer than the AAA cells in the standard remote. Remote battery life is the only shortcoming of the Roku remote, and the use of RF over IR is probably the reason why. ... plus the high end Roku has a remote-finder ;)

Re:

[thegarbz]

That works well for a simple device. For a complex device having a lot of "shortcuts" on the plastic stick is far preferable to burying your way through menus and using alpha numeric on screen keyboards to navigate.

It's the simple feature set that drives the device, a Roku isn't trying to be an entire TV.

Re:

[t0qer]

That feature makes my wife so happy at times because she doesn't have to hear what I'm watching. She's an early sleeper.

Re: Roku got the remote right

[c_spencer100]

Samsung's remote is pretty good as well. I have the TU8000 and it's Bluetooth so you can point anywhere too. It even auto programmed itself when it identified my cable box which was awesome. Not bad for a TV that was on sale for $379 for the 50" model.

Re:

[antdude]

What I don't like about TCL HDTVs' Roku's RC is that it doesn't have numerical key inputs for OTA (over the air; antenna) and cable TV. Scrolling is a pain. No thanks to voice inputs too, I tried iOS apps, but they don't have that too. Also, it wants to phone home according to AdGuard Pro. No thanks again!

Roku + PiHole

[Jaegs]

You'll want to use PiHole/AdGuard Home if you use a Roku, though, as it likes to phone home A LOT. When I last checked, PiHole had blocked 5000+ hits to Roku domains (giga.logs.roku.com and scribe.logs.roku.com). At the time, I had one Roku and three Fire TVs, the latter of which constituted fewer than a tenth of the hits the single Roku had.

Re:

[buddyglass]

Why should I care?

It's display agnostic

[LynnwoodRooster]

I have Samsung, TCL and Vizio TVs inside, and a cheap TCL outside. All would have a mishmash of UIs and remotes normally - but all have a Roku. So no matter where you sit down to watch - you have the same UI, and same control (same remote).

I like my Roku

[dskoll]

I have a Samsung smart TV, but I generally don't use any of the Smart TV features... I have a Roku connected via HDMI and use it for all my streaming. Roku is just dead-simple to use and generally works without a fuss. Plus, this TV is my third TV but still the same Roku.