The Nielsen figures make this deal read very differently than the headline did. The Roku Channel is currently pulling 3.1 percent of all TV viewing time in the US - that is all viewing, cable and broadcast included, not streaming share. Tubi sits at 2.3 percent. Pluto TV and Paramount+ together also land at 2.3 percent.
Tubi is already Fox property. Once the Roku deal closes, Fox owns both the number one and number two free ad-supported services, and the combined 5.4 percent is more than double what Paramount manages across two platforms.
What I keep chewing on is the hardware side. Roku Channel's lead did not come from having a better catalog than Tubi. It came from sitting on the home screen of tens of millions of TVs and sticks, in a row you cannot really opt out of. That placement is the whole asset. If Fox decides Tubi deserves equal billing on that same screen, the box you already own turns into a shelf for one media company's library rather than a launcher. Roku was never neutral, but there is a difference between a platform owner pushing its own free channel and a broadcaster pushing its own everything.
Picture quality probably does not move either direction. FAST channels are mostly low bitrate and that is a bandwidth cost decision, not something more ad revenue fixes.
For anyone running a Roku TV as the main set in the house - would a heavier Fox presence on the home screen actually push you to another platform, or is the remote muscle memory worth too much to give up at this point?
Tubi is already Fox property. Once the Roku deal closes, Fox owns both the number one and number two free ad-supported services, and the combined 5.4 percent is more than double what Paramount manages across two platforms.
What I keep chewing on is the hardware side. Roku Channel's lead did not come from having a better catalog than Tubi. It came from sitting on the home screen of tens of millions of TVs and sticks, in a row you cannot really opt out of. That placement is the whole asset. If Fox decides Tubi deserves equal billing on that same screen, the box you already own turns into a shelf for one media company's library rather than a launcher. Roku was never neutral, but there is a difference between a platform owner pushing its own free channel and a broadcaster pushing its own everything.
Picture quality probably does not move either direction. FAST channels are mostly low bitrate and that is a bandwidth cost decision, not something more ad revenue fixes.
For anyone running a Roku TV as the main set in the house - would a heavier Fox presence on the home screen actually push you to another platform, or is the remote muscle memory worth too much to give up at this point?
