streaming

amazon-fire-sticks-enable-“billions-of-dollars”-worth-of-streaming-piracy

Amazon Fire Sticks enable “billions of dollars” worth of streaming piracy

Amazon Fire Sticks are enabling “billions of dollars” worth of streaming piracy, according to a report today from Enders Analysis, a media, entertainment, and telecommunications research firm. Technologies from other media conglomerates, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook, are also enabling what the report’s authors deem an “industrial scale of theft.”

The report, “Video piracy: Big tech is clearly unwilling to address the problem,” focuses on the European market but highlights the global growth of piracy of streaming services as they increasingly acquire rights to live programs, like sporting events.

Per the BBC, the report points to the availability of multiple, simultaneous illegal streams for big events that draw tens of thousands of pirate viewers.

Enders’ report places some blame on Facebook for showing advertisements for access to illegal streams, as well as Google and Microsoft for the alleged “continued depreciation” of their digital rights management (DRM) systems, Widevine and PlayReady, respectively. Ars Technica reached out to Facebook, Google, and Microsoft for comment but didn’t receive a response before publication.

The report echoes complaints shared throughout the industry, including by the world’s largest European soccer streamer, DAZN. Streaming piracy is “almost a crisis for the sports rights industry,” DAZN’s head of global rights, Tom Burrows, said at The Financial Times’ Business of Football Summit in February. At the same event, Nick Herm, COO of Comcast-owned European telecommunication firm Sky Group, estimated that piracy was costing his company “hundreds of millions of dollars” in revenue. At the time, Enders co-founder Claire Enders said that the pirating of sporting events accounts for “about 50 percent of most markets.”

Jailbroken Fire Sticks

Friday’s Enders report named Fire Sticks as a significant contributor to streaming piracy, calling the hardware a “piracy enabler.”

Enders’ report pointed to security risks that pirate viewers face, including providing credit card information and email addresses to unknown entities, which can make people vulnerable to phishing and malware. However, reports of phishing and malware stemming from streaming piracy, which occurs through various methods besides a Fire TV Stick, seem to be rather limited.

Amazon Fire Sticks enable “billions of dollars” worth of streaming piracy Read More »

amid-rising-prices,-disney+-and-hulu-offer-subscribers-some-freebies

Amid rising prices, Disney+ and Hulu offer subscribers some freebies

With streaming providers frequently raising prices, subscribers often feel like they’re paying more for the same service—or a lesser version, depending on what’s available to watch that month. In a unique move, Disney is introducing a small, potential financial benefit to Disney+ and Hulu subscribers in the form of some third-party discounts, freebies, trials, and contests.

As of today, Disney+ subscribers can log into Disney’s Disney+ Perks website with their streaming credentials to get access to a revolving selection of discounts and freebies. When I logged in today, I was met with options for several free trials, including a six-month one to DoorDash’s premium subscription offering, a three-month trial to Clear+, and a two-month trial to Duolingo’s premium subscription.

Disney+ subscribers can also get discounts, including to Adidas’ online marketplaces and “select” Disney Resorts Collection hotels (if you stay at least two nights, with most availability occurring between June 29 and July 31). There are also some free virtual rewards for Disney-owned games and the ability to enter sweepstakes, like for going to the premiere of the movie Freakier Friday.

Disney, which announced in November 2023 that it would take full control of Hulu from Comcast, said that Hulu-only subscribers will also get a perks program, starting on June 2. Those perks will differ from those of Disney+ and initially include chances to win tickets to Lollapalooza, San Diego Comic-Con, and Jimmy Kimmel Live, unspecified “perks” from Microsoft, LG, and others, and chances “to win items from and inspired by Hulu” originals, like The Handmaid’s Tale.

Amid rising prices, Disney+ and Hulu offer subscribers some freebies Read More »

netflix-will-show-generative-ai-ads-midway-through-streams-in-2026

Netflix will show generative AI ads midway through streams in 2026

Netflix is joining its streaming rivals in testing the amount and types of advertisements its subscribers are willing to endure for lower prices.

Today, at its second annual upfront to advertisers, the streaming leader announced that it has created interactive mid-roll ads and pause ads that incorporate generative AI. Subscribers can expect to start seeing the new types of ads in 2026, Media Play News reported.

“[Netflix] members pay as much attention to midroll ads as they do to the shows and movies themselves,” Amy Reinhard, president of advertising at Netflix, said, per the publication.

Netflix started testing pause ads in July 2024, per The Verge.

Netflix launched its ad subscription tier in November 2022. Today, it said that the tier has 94 million subscribers, compared to the 300 million total subscribers it claimed in January. The current number of ad subscribers represents a 34 percent increase from November. Half of new Netflix subscribers opt for the $8 per month option rather than ad-free subscriptions, which start at $18 per month, the company says.

Netflix will show generative AI ads midway through streams in 2026 Read More »

roku-tech,-patents-prove-its-potential-for-delivering-“interruptive”-ads

Roku tech, patents prove its potential for delivering “interruptive” ads

Roku, owner of one of the most popular connected TV operating systems in the country, walks a fine line when it comes to advertising. Roku’s OS lives on low-priced smart TVs, streaming sticks, and projectors. To make up the losses from cheaply priced hardware, Roku is dependent on selling advertisements throughout its OS, including screensavers and its home screen.

That business model has pushed Roku to experiment with new ways of showing ads that test users’ tolerance. The company claims that it doesn’t want ads on its platform to be considered intrusive, but there are reasons to be skeptical about Roku’s pledge.

Non-“interruptive” ads

In an interview with The Verge this week, Jordan Rost, Roku’s head of ad marketing, emphasized that Roku tries to only deliver ads that don’t interrupt viewers.

“Advertisers want to be part of a good experience. They don’t want to be interruptive,” he told The Verge.

Rost noted that Roku is always testing new ad formats. Those tests include doing “all of our own A/B testing on the platform” and listening to customer feedback, he added.

“We’re constantly tweaking and trying to figure out what’s going to be helpful for the user experience,” Rost said.

For many streamers, however, ads and a better user experience are contradictory. In fact, for many, the simplest way to improve streaming is fewer ads and a more streamlined access to content. That’s why Apple TV boxes, which doesn’t have integrated ads and is good at combining content from multiple streaming subscriptions, is popular among Ars Technica staff and readers. An aversion to ads is also why millions pay extra for ad-free streaming subscriptions.

Roku tech, patents prove its potential for delivering “interruptive” ads Read More »

man-buys-racetrack,-ends-up-launching-the-netflix-of-grassroots-motorsports

Man buys racetrack, ends up launching the Netflix of grassroots motorsports


FRDM+ is profitable, has its own smart TV apps. Subscriptions start at $20/month.

In 2019, Garrett Mitchell was already an Internet success. His YouTube channel, Cleetus McFarland, had over a million followers. If you perused the channel at that time, you would’ve found a range of grassroots motorsports videos with the type of vehicular shenanigans that earn truckloads of views. Some of those older videos include “BLEW BY A COP AT 120+mph! OOPS!,” “THERE’S A T-REX ON THE TRACK!,” and “Manual Transmission With Paddle Shifters!?!.”

Those videos made Mitchell, aka Cleetus McFarland, a known personality among automotive enthusiasts. But the YouTuber wanted more financial independence beyond the Google platform and firms willing to sponsor his channel.

“… after my YouTube was growing and some of my antics [were] getting videos de-monetized, I realized I needed a playground,” Mitchell told Ars Technica in an email.

Mitchell found a road toward new monetization opportunities through the DeSoto Super Speedway. The Bradenton, Florida, track had changed ownership multiple times since opening in the 1970s. The oval-shaped racetrack is three-eighths of a mile long with 12-degree banking angles.

BRADENTON, FL — Mid-1980s: Late Model racing action at DeSoto Speedway in the mid-1980s. Both the All-Pro Series and NASCAR All-American Challenge Series ran races at the track in 1985 and 1986.

BRADENTON, FL — Mid-1980s: Late Model racing action at DeSoto Speedway in the mid-1980s. Both the All-Pro Series and NASCAR All-American Challenge Series ran races at the track in 1985 and 1986. Credit: ISC Images & Archives via Getty Images

By 2018, the track had closed its doors and was going unused. DeSoto happened to be next to Mitchell’s favorite drag strip, giving the YouTuber the idea of turning it into a stadium where people could watch burnouts and other “massive, rowdy” ticketed events. Mitchell added:

So I sold everything I could, borrowed some money from my business manager, and went all in for [$]2.2 million.

But like the rest of the world, Mitchell hit the brakes on his 2020 plans during COVID-19 lockdowns. Soon after his purchase, Mitchell couldn’t use the track, renamed Freedom Factory, for large gatherings, forcing him to reconsider his plans.

“We had no other option but to entertain the people somehow. And with no other racing goin’ on anywhere, we bet big on making something happen. And it worked,” Mitchell said.

That “something” was a pay-per-view (PPV) event hosted from the Freedom Factory in April 2020. The event led to others and, eventually, Mitchell running his own subscription video on demand (SVOD) service, FRDM+, which originally launched as Cleetervision in 2022.

Today, a FRDM+ subscription costs $20 per month or $120 per year. A subscription provides access to an impressive library of automotive videos. Some are archived from Mitchell’s YouTube channel. Other, exclusive videos feature content such as interviews with motorsports influencers and members of Mitchell’s staff and crew, and outrageous motorsports stunts. You can watch videos from other influencers on FRDM+, and the business can also white-label its platform into other influencers’ websites, too.

“A race against time”

Before Mitchell could host his first PPV event, he had to prepare the speedway. Explaining the ordeal to Ars, he wrote:

We cleaned that place up best we could, but let’s be real, it was rough. Lights were out, weeds poppin’ up through the asphalt, the whole deal.

Pulling off the first PPV event at the Freedom Factory speedway was a “race against time,” Jonny Mill, who built FRDM+’s tech stack and serves as company president, told Ars.

“Florida implemented a statewide shutdown on the very day of our event,” he said.

Mitchell also struggled to get the right workers and equipment needed for the PPV. Flights weren’t available due to the pandemic, forcing Mill to produce the event from California using a cell phone group chat and “last-minute local crew,” per Mitchell. The ENG camera person was much shorter than Mitchell “and had to climb on whatever she could just to keep me in frame,” he recalled.

Mitchell said Freedom Factory’s first PPV event had 75,000 concurrent viewers, which caused his website and those of the event sponsors to crash.

“Our initial bandwidth provider laughed at our viewership projections, and, of course, we surpassed them in the first week of pre-sales,” Mill said. “They did apologize before asking for a much larger check.”

Other early obstacles included determining how to embed the livestream platform into Mitchell’s e-commerce site. The biggest challenge there was “juggling two separate logins, one for merch shopping and another for livestream PPV, all within the same site,” Mill explained.

“Now, our focus is on seamlessly guiding the YouTube audience over to FRDM+ for premium live events,” he added.

Live events are still the heart of FRDM+. The service had 21 livestreamed events scheduled throughout 2025, and more are expected to come.

Peeking under the hood

Today, bandwidth isn’t a problem for FRDM+, and navigating the streaming service doesn’t feel much different from something like Netflix. There are different “channels” (grouped together by related content or ongoing series) on top and new releases and upcoming content highlighted below. There are horizontal scrolling rows, and many titles have content summaries and/or trailers. The platform also has a support section with instructions for canceling subscriptions.

A screenshot of FRDM+

Browsing FRDM+.

Browsing FRDM+. Credit: FRDM+

Like with other SVOD services, subscribers can watch FRDM+ via a web browser or through a smart TV app. FRDM+ currently has apps for Apple TV, Fire OS, and Roku OS. Mitchell said the team’s constantly working on more connected TV apps, as well as adding features, “more interactivity,” and customers.

To keep the wheels spinning, FRDM+ leverages a diverse range of technologies, Mill explained:

At the core of our infrastructure, AWS bandwidth servers handle the heavy lifting, while Accedo powers the connected TV apps, bridging the gap between our tech stack and the audience. Brightcove serves as our primary video player partner, with additional backup systems in place to maintain reliability.

For a service like this, with live events, redundancy is critical, Mill said.

“At the Freedom Factory, we even beam air fiber from a house five miles away to ensure a reliable second Internet. We also have a hidden page on [the Cleetus McFarland website] to launch a backup stream if the primary one fails,” he said.

Today, FRDM+’s biggest challenge isn’t a technical one. Instead, it’s around managing the business’s different parts using a small team. FRDM+ has 35 full-time employees across its Shop, Race Track, Events, and Merch divisions and is “entirely self-funded,” per Mill. The company also relies on contractors for productions, but its core livestream team has six full-time employees.

Mitchell told Ars that FRDM+ is profitable, but he couldn’t get into specifics. He said the service has “strong year-over-year growth and a solid financial foundation that allows us to continue reinvesting in our team and services,” like a “robust technology stack, larger events, venue rentals, and even giving away helicopters and Lamborghinis as the prizes for our races.”

“Having been at Discovery during the launch of MotorTrend OnDemand, I’ve witnessed the power of substantial budgets firsthand,” Mill said. “Yet, [FRDM+ has] achieved greater success organically than [Discovery] did with their eight-figure marketing investment. This autonomy and efficiency are a testament to the strength of our approach.”

Any profitability for a 3-year-old streaming service is commendable. Due to wildly differing audiences, markets, costs, and scales, comparing FRDM+’s financials to the likes of Netflix and other mainstream streaming services is like comparing apples to oranges. But it’s interesting to consider that FRDM+ has achieved profitability faster than some of those services, like Peacock, which also launched in 2020, and Apple TV+, which debuted in 2019.

FRDM+ doesn’t share subscription numbers publicly, but Mitchell told Ars that the subscription service has a 93 percent retention. Mill attributed that number to a loyal, engaged community driven by direct communication with Mitchell.

Mill also suggested to Ars that FRDM+ has successfully converted over 5 percent of Mitchell’s YouTube audience. Five percent of Cleetus McFarland’s current YouTube base would be 212,500 people.

Photo of Scharon Harding

Scharon is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer gadgets and services. She’s been reporting on technology for over 10 years, with bylines at Tom’s Hardware, Channelnomics, and CRN UK.

Man buys racetrack, ends up launching the Netflix of grassroots motorsports Read More »

netflix-plans-to-bring-streaming-into-the-$1-trillion-club-by-2030

Netflix plans to bring streaming into the $1 trillion club by 2030

Netflix doesn’t plan to disclose subscriber counts anymore, but one of WSJ’s anonymous sources said that the streaming leader wants to have 410 million subscribers by 2030. That would require Netflix to add 108.4 million more subscribers than it reported at the end of 2024, or about 21.7 million per year, and expand its global reach. In 2024, Netflix added 41.36 million subscribers, including a record number of new subscribers in Q4 2024.

Netflix plans to release its Q1 2025 earnings report on April 17.

$1 trillion club hopeful

Should Netflix achieve its reported goals, it would be the first to join the $1 trillion club solely through streaming-related business. The club is currently populated mostly by tech brands, including two companies that own Netflix rivals: Apple and Amazon.

Netflix is, by far, the most likely streaming candidate to potentially enter the lucrative club. It’s currently beating all other video-streaming providers, including Amazon Prime Video and Disney+, in terms of revenue and profits. Some streaming businesses, including Apple TV+ and Peacock, still aren’t profitable yet.

Netflix’s reported striving for a $1 trillion market cap exemplifies the meteoric rise of streaming since Netflix launched its streaming service in 2007. As linear TV keeps shrinking, and streaming companies continue learning how to mimic the ads, live TV, and content strategies of their predecessors, the door is open for streaming firms to evolve into some of the world’s most highly valued media entities.

The potential for Netflix to have a trillion-dollar market cap also has notable implications for rivals Apple and Amazon, which both earned membership into the $1 trillion club without their streaming services.

Whether Netflix will reach the goals reported by WSJ is not guaranteed, but it will be interesting to watch how Netflix’s strategy for reaching that lofty goal affects subscribers. Further, with streaming set to be more central to the viewing of TV shows, movies, and live events by 2030, efforts around things like ads, pricing, and content libraries could impact media consumption as we head toward 2030.

Netflix plans to bring streaming into the $1 trillion club by 2030 Read More »

turbulent-global-economy-could-drive-up-prices-for-netflix-and-rivals

Turbulent global economy could drive up prices for Netflix and rivals


“… our members are going to be punished.”

A scene from BBC’s Doctor Who. Credit: BBC/Disney+

Debate around how much taxes US-based streaming services should pay internationally, among other factors, could result in people paying more for subscriptions to services like Netflix and Disney+.

On April 10, the United Kingdom’s Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Committee reignited calls for a streaming tax on subscription revenue acquired through UK residents. The recommendation came alongside the committee’s 120-page report [PDF] that makes numerous recommendations for how to support and grow Britain’s film and high-end television (HETV) industry.

For the US, the recommendation garnering the most attention is one calling for a 5 percent levy on UK subscriber revenue from streaming video on demand services, such as Netflix. That’s because if streaming services face higher taxes in the UK, costs could be passed onto consumers, resulting in more streaming price hikes. The CMS committee wants money from the levy to support HETV production in the UK and wrote in its report:

The industry should establish this fund on a voluntary basis; however, if it does not do so within 12 months, or if there is not full compliance, the Government should introduce a statutory levy.

Calls for a streaming tax in the UK come after 2024’s 25 percent decrease in spending for UK-produced high-end TV productions and 27 percent decline in productions overall, per the report. Companies like the BBC have said that they lack funds to keep making premium dramas.

In a statement, the CMS committee called for streamers, “such as Netflix, Amazon, Apple TV+, and Disney+, which benefit from the creativity of British producers, to put their money where their mouth is by committing to pay 5 percent of their UK subscriber revenue into a cultural fund to help finance drama with a specific interest to British audiences.” The committee’s report argues that public service broadcasters and independent movie producers are “at risk,” due to how the industry currently works. More investment into such programming would also benefit streaming companies by providing “a healthier supply of [public service broadcaster]-made shows that they can license for their platforms,” the report says.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has said that it will respond to the CMS Committee’s report.

Streaming companies warn of higher prices

In response to the report, a Netflix spokesperson said in a statement shared by the BBC yesterday that the “UK is Netflix’s biggest production hub outside of North America—and we want it to stay that way.” Netflix reportedly claims to have spent billions of pounds in the UK via work with over 200 producers and 30,000 cast and crew members since 2020, per The Hollywood Reporter. In May 2024, Benjamin King, Netflix’s senior director of UK and Ireland public policy, told the CMS committee that the streaming service spends “about $1.5 billion” annually on UK-made content.

Netflix’s statement this week, responding to the CMS Committee’s levy, added:

… in an increasingly competitive global market, it’s key to create a business environment that incentivises rather than penalises investment, risk taking, and success. Levies diminish competitiveness and penalise audiences who ultimately bear the increased costs.

Adam Minns, executive director for the UK’s Association for Commercial Broadcasters and On-Demand Services (COBA), highlighted how a UK streaming tax could impact streaming providers’ content budgets.

“Especially in this economic climate, a levy risks impacting existing content budgets for UK shows, jobs, and growth, along with raising costs for businesses,” he said, per the BBC.

An anonymous source that The Hollywood Reporter described as “close to the matter” said that “Netflix members have already paid the BBC license fee. A levy would be a double tax on them and us. It’s unfair. This is a tariff on success. And our members are going to be punished.”

The anonymous source added: “Ministers have already rejected the idea of a streaming levy. The creation of a Cultural Fund raises more questions than it answers. It also begs the question: Why should audiences who choose to pay for a service be then compelled to subsidize another service for which they have already paid through the license fee. Furthermore, what determines the criteria for ‘Britishness,’ which organizations would qualify for funding … ?”

In May, Mitchel Simmons, Paramount’s VP of EMEA public policy and government affairs, also questioned the benefits of a UK streaming tax when speaking to the CMS committee.

“Where we have seen levies in other jurisdictions on services, we then see inflation in the market. Local broadcasters, particularly in places such as Italy, have found that the prices have gone up because there has been a forced increase in spend and others have suffered as a consequence,” he said at the time.

Tax threat looms largely on streaming companies

Interest in the UK putting a levy on streaming services follows other countries recently pushing similar fees onto streaming providers.

Music streaming providers, like Spotify, for example, pay a 1.2 percent tax on streaming revenue made in France. Spotify blamed the tax for a 1.2 percent price hike in the country issued in May. France’s streaming taxes are supposed to go toward the Centre National de la Musique.

Last year, Canada issued a 5 percent tax on Canadian streaming revenue that’s been halted as companies including Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Disney, and Spotify battle it in court.

Lawrence Zhang, head of policy of the Centre for Canadian Innovation and Competitiveness at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation think tank, has estimated that a 5 percent streaming tax would result in the average Canadian family paying an extra CA$40 annually.

A streaming provider group called the Digital Media Association has argued that the Canadian tax “could lead to higher prices for Canadians and fewer content choices.”

“As a result, you may end up paying more for your favourite streaming services and have less control over what you can watch or listen to,” the Digital Media Association’s website says.

Streaming companies hold their breath

Uncertainty around US tariffs and their implications on the global economy have also resulted in streaming companies moving slower than expected regarding new entrants, technologies, mergers and acquisitions, and even business failures, Alan Wolk, co-founder and lead analyst at TVRev, pointed out today. “The rapid-fire nature of the executive orders coming from the White House” has a massive impact on the media industry, he said.

“Uncertainty means that deals don’t get considered, let alone completed,” Wolk mused, noting that the growing stability of the streaming industry overall also contributes to slowing market activity.

For consumers, higher prices for other goods and/or services could result in smaller budgets for spending on streaming subscriptions. Establishing and growing advertising businesses is already a priority for many US streaming providers. However, the realities of stingier customers who are less willing to buy multiple streaming subscriptions or opt for premium tiers or buy on-demand titles are poised to put more pressure on streaming firms’ advertising plans. Simultaneously, advertisers are facing pressures from tariffs, which could result in less money being allocated to streaming ads.

“With streaming platform operators increasingly turning to ad-supported tiers to bolster profitability—rather than just rolling out price increases—this strategy could be put at risk,” Matthew Bailey, senior principal analyst of advertising at Omdia, recently told Wired. He added:

Against this backdrop, I wouldn’t be surprised if we do see some price increases for some streaming services over the coming months.

Streaming service providers are likely to tighten their purse strings, too. As we’ve seen, this can result in price hikes and smaller or less daring content selection.   

Streaming customers may soon be forced to reduce their subscriptions. The good news is that most streaming viewers are already accustomed to growing prices and have figured out which streaming services align with their needs around affordability, ease of use, content, and reliability. Customers may set higher standards, though, as streaming companies grapple with the industry and global changes.

Photo of Scharon Harding

Scharon is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer gadgets and services. She’s been reporting on technology for over 10 years, with bylines at Tom’s Hardware, Channelnomics, and CRN UK.

Turbulent global economy could drive up prices for Netflix and rivals Read More »

napster-to-become-a-music-marketing-metaverse-firm-after-being-sold-for-$207m

Napster to become a music-marketing metaverse firm after being sold for $207M

Infinite Reality, a media, ecommerce, and marketing company focused on 3D and AI-powered experiences, has entered an agreement to acquired Napster. That means that the brand originally launched in 1999 as a peer-to-peer (P2P) music file-sharing service is set to be reborn again. This time, new owners are reshaping the brand into one focused on marketing musicians in the metaverse.

Infinite announced today a definitive agreement to buy Napster for $207 million. The Norwalk, Connecticut-based company plans to turn Napster into a “social music platform that prioritizes active fan engagement over passive listening, allowing artists to connect with, own, and monetize the relationship with their fans.” Jon Vlassopulos, who became Napster CEO in 2022, will continue with his role at the brand.

Since 2016, Napster has been operating as a (legal) streaming service. It claims to have over 110 million high-fidelity tracks, with some supporting lossless audio. Napster subscribers can also listen offline and watch music videos. The service currently starts at $11 per month.

Since 2022, Napster has been owned by Web3 and blockchain firms Hivemind and Algorand. Infinite also develops Web3 tech, and CEO John Acunto told CNBC that Algorand’s blockchain background was appealing, as was Napster’s licenses for streaming millions of songs.

To market musicians, Infinite has numerous ideas for helping Napster users interact more with the platform than they do with the current music streaming service. The company shared goals of using Napster to offer “branded 3D virtual spaces where fans can enjoy virtual concerts, social listening parties, and other immersive and community-based experiences” and more “gamification.” Infinite also wants musicians to use Napster as a platform where fans can purchase tickets for performances, physical and virtual merchandise, and “exclusive digital content.” The 6-year-old firm also plans to offer artists abilities to use “AI-powered customer service, sales, and community management agents” and “enhanced analytics dashboards to better understand fan behavior” with Napster.

Napster to become a music-marketing metaverse firm after being sold for $207M Read More »

apple-loses-$1b-a-year-on-prestigious,-minimally-viewed-apple-tv+:-report

Apple loses $1B a year on prestigious, minimally viewed Apple TV+: report

The Apple TV+ streaming service “is losing more than $1 billion annually,” according to The Information today.

The report also claimed that Apple TV+’s subscriber count reached “around 45 million” in 2024, citing the two anonymous sources.

Ars reached out to Apple for comment on the accuracy of The Information’s report and will update you if we hear back.

Per one of the sources, Apple TV+ has typically spent over $5 billion annually on content since 2019, when Apple TV+ debuted. Last year, though, Apple CEO Tim Cook reportedly cut the budget by about $500 million. The reported numbers are similar to a July report from Bloomberg that claimed that Apple had spent over $20 billion on Apple TV+’s library. For comparison, Netflix has 301.63 million subscribers and expects to spend $18 billion on content in 2025.

In the year preceding Apple TV+’s debut, Apple services chief Eddy Cue reportedly pushed back on executive requests to be stingier with content spending, “a person with direct knowledge of the matter” told The Information.

But Cook started paying closer attention to Apple TV+’s spending after the 2022 Oscars, where the Apple TV+ original CODA won Best Picture. The award signaled the significance of Apple TV+ as a business.

Per The Information, spending related to Apple TV+ previously included lavish perks for actors and producers. Apple paid “hundreds of thousands of dollars per flight” to transport Apple TV+ actors and producers to promotional events, The Information said, noting that such spending “is common in Hollywood” but “more unusual at Apple.” Apple’s finance department reportedly pushed Apple TV+ executives to find better flight deals sometime around 2023.

In 2024, Cook questioned big-budget Apple TV+ films, like the $200 million Argylle, which he said failed to generate impressive subscriber boosts or viewership, per an anonymous “former Apple TV+ employee.” Cook reportedly cut about $500 million from the Apple TV+ content budget in 2024.

Apple loses $1B a year on prestigious, minimally viewed Apple TV+: report Read More »

“awful”:-roku-tests-autoplaying-ads-loading-before-the-home-screen

“Awful”: Roku tests autoplaying ads loading before the home screen

Owners of smart TVs and streaming sticks running Roku OS are already subject to video advertisements on the home screen. Now, Roku is testing what it might look like if it took things a step further and forced people to watch a video ad play before getting to the Roku OS home screen.

Reports of Roku customers seeing video ads automatically play before they could view the OS’ home screen started appearing online this week. A Reddit user, for example, posted yesterday: “I just turned on my Roku and got an … ad for a movie, before I got to the regular Roku home screen.” Multiple apparent users reported seeing an ad for the movie Moana 2. The ads have a close option, but some users appear to have not seen it.

When reached for comment, a Roku spokesperson shared a company statement that confirms that the autoplaying ads are expected behavior but not a permanent part of Roku OS currently. Instead, Roku claimed, it was just trying the ad capability out.

Roku’s representative said that Roku’s business “has and will always require continuous testing and innovation across design, navigation, content, and our first-rate advertising products,” adding:

Our recent test is just the latest example, as we explore new ways to showcase brands and programming while still providing a delightful and simple user experience.

Roku didn’t respond to requests for comment on whether it has plans to make autoplaying ads permanent on Roku OS, which devices are affected, why Roku decided to use autoplaying ads, or customer backlash.

“Awful”: Roku tests autoplaying ads loading before the home screen Read More »

sonos’-streaming-box-is-reportedly-canceled-good-riddance.

Sonos’ streaming box is reportedly canceled. Good riddance.


Opinion: The long-rumored Sonos streaming box wasn’t a good idea anyway.

Sonos has canceled plans to release a streaming box, The Verge reported today. The audio company never publicly confirmed that it was making a streaming set-top box, but rumors of its impending release have been floating around since November 2023. With everything that both Sonos and streaming users have going on right now, though, a Sonos-branded rival to the Apple TV 4K wasn’t a good idea anyway.

Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman was the first to report on Sonos’ purported streaming ambitions. He reported that Sonos’ device would be a black box that cost $150 to $200.

At first glance, it seemed like a reasonable idea. Sonos was facing increased competition for wireless speakers from big names like Apple and Bose. Meanwhile, Sonos speaker sales growth had slowed down, making portfolio diversification seem like a prudent way to protect business.

By 2025, however, the reported plans for Sonos’ streaming box sounded less reasonable and appealing, while the market for streaming devices had become significantly more competitive.

A saturated market

In February, The Verge, citing anonymous sources, reported that Sonos was now planning a streaming player that would “cost between $200 and $400.” That’s a lot to charge in a market where most people have already found their preferred platform. Those who want something cheap and don’t mind ads settle for something like Roku. People who hate ads opt for an Apple TV box. There are people who swear by their Fire Sticks and plenty who are happy with whatever operating system (OS) their smart TV arrives with. Sonos would have struggled to convince people who have successfully used some of those streaming devices for years that they suddenly need a new one that’s costlier than alternatives, including some smart TVs. In the US especially, the TV OS market is considered heavily saturated, presenting an uphill battle for newcomers.

Without Sonos ever confirming its streaming device, it’s hard to judge what the company would’ve offered to lure people to a new streaming platform. Perhaps the Sonos box could have worked better with Sonos devices than non-Sonos streaming devices. But vendor lock-in isn’t the best way to try to win new customers. That approach would also force Sonos to test if it’s accrued the type of customer loyalty as a company like Apple. Much of the goodwill needed for such customer loyalty was blatantly obliterated, though, during Sonos’ botched app update last year.

According to The Verge, Sonos’ box didn’t even have a standout appearance. The publication said that by February 2025, the box was “deep into development,” and “about as nondescript as streaming hardware gets.”

“Viewed from the top, the device is a flattened black square and slightly thicker than a deck of trading cards,” The Verge reported at the time, citing images it reviewed.

Among the most appealing planned features was unified content from various streaming apps, like Netflix and Max, with “universal search across streaming accounts.” With the growing number of streaming services required to watch all your favorite content, this would be a good way to attract streamers but not necessarily a unique one. The ability to offer a more unified streaming experience is already being tackled by various smart TV OSes, including Samsung Tizen and Amazon Fire OS, as well as the Apple TV app and sister streaming services, like Disney+ and Hulu.

A potentially ad-riddled OS

There’s reason to suspect that the software that Sonos’ streaming box would have come out with would’ve been ad-coddling, user-tracking garbage.

In January, Janko Roettgers reported that ad giant The Trade Desk was supplying Sonos with its “core smart TV OS and facilitating deals with app publishers,” while Sonos worked on the streaming box’s hardware and user interface. The Trade Desk makes one of the world’s biggest demand-side platforms and hasn’t made streaming software or hardware before.

Sonos opting for The Trade Desk’s OS would have represented a boastful commitment to advertisers. Among the features that The Trade Desk markets its TV OS as having are a “cleaner supply chain for streaming TV advertising” and “cross-platform content discovery,” something that Sonos was reportedly targeting for its streaming hardware.

When reached for comment, a Sonos spokesperson confirmed that Sonos was working with The Trade Desk, saying: “We don’t comment on our roadmap, but as has been previously announced we have a long-standing relationship with The Trade Desk and that relationship continues.”

Sonos should take a moment to regroup

It’s also arguable that Sonos has much more important things to do than try to convince people that they need expensive, iterative improvements to their streaming software and hardware. Sonos’ bigger focus should be on convincing customers that it can still handle its bread and butter, which is audio devices.

In November 2023, when word first dropped about Sonos’ reported streaming plans, there was no doubt that Sonos understood how to make quality speakers. But last year, Sonos tarnished its reputation by rushing an app update to coincide with its first wireless headphones, the Sonos Ace. The app’s launch will go down as one of the biggest app failures in history. Sonos employees would go on to say that Sonos rushed the update with insufficient testing, resulting in Sonos device owners suddenly losing key features, like accessibility capabilities and the abilities to edit song queues and playlists and access local music libraries. Owners of older Sonos devices, aka long-time Sonos customers, were the most affected. Amid the fallout, hundreds of people were laid off, Sonos’ market value dropped by $600 million, and the company pegged initial remediation costs at $20 million to $30 million.

At this point, Sonos’ best hope at recovering losses is restoring the customer trust and brand reputation that it took years to build and months to deplete.

Sonos could also use time to recover and distill lessons from its most recent attempt at entering a new device category. Likely due to the app controversy associated with the cans, the Ace hasn’t been meeting sales expectations, per a February report from The Verge citing anonymous sources. If Sonos should learn anything from the Ace, it’s that breaking into a new field requires time, patience, and incredible attention to detail, including how long-time and incoming customers want to use their gear.

Of course, financial blowback from the app debacle could be more directly behind why Sonos isn’t releasing a streaming box. Additionally, Sonos saw numerous executive changes following the app fiasco, including the departure of the CEO who greenlit the streaming box, Patrick Spence. New executive leaders, including a new chief product officer and chief marketing officer, could have different views on the value of Sonos to enter the streaming market too.

Sonos’ spokesperson didn’t answer Ars’ questions about Sonos’ reported plans to cancel the streaming box and whether the decision is related to the company’s app woes.

Sonos may have dodged a bullet

Ultimately, it didn’t sound like Sonos’ streaming box had the greatest potential to disrupt other TV streaming platforms already settled into people’s homes. It’s possible Sonos had other products that weren’t leaked. But the company would have had to come up with a unique and helpful feature in order to command a high price and compete with the likes of Apple’s TV 4K set-top box.

Even if Sonos came up with some killer feature or app for its streaming box, people are a lot less likely to gamble on a new product from the company now than they were before 2024’s app catastrophe. Sonos should prove that it can handle the basics before attempting to upcharge technologists for new streaming hardware.

Sonos’ streaming ambitions may only be off the table “for now,” new CEO Tom Conrad reportedly told employees today, per The Verge. But it’s probably best that Sonos focus its attention elsewhere for a while.

Photo of Scharon Harding

Scharon is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer gadgets and services. She’s been reporting on technology for over 10 years, with bylines at Tom’s Hardware, Channelnomics, and CRN UK.

Sonos’ streaming box is reportedly canceled. Good riddance. Read More »

commercials-are-still-too-loud,-say-“thousands”-of-recent-fcc-complaints

Commercials are still too loud, say “thousands” of recent FCC complaints

Streaming ads could get muzzled, too

As you may have noticed—either through the text of this article or your own ears—The Calm Act doesn’t apply to streaming services. And because The Calm Act doesn’t affect commercials viewed on the Internet, online services providing access to broadcast channels, like YouTube TV and Sling, don’t have to follow the rules. This is despite such services distributing the same content as linear TV providers.

For years, this made sense. The majority of TV viewing occurred through broadcast, cable, or satellite access. Further, services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video used to be considered safe havens from constant advertisements. But today, streaming services are more popular than ever and have grown to love ads, which have become critical to most platforms’ business models. Further, many streaming services are airing more live events. These events, like sports games, show commercials to all subscribers, even those with a so-called “ad-free” subscription.

Separate from the Calm Act violation complaints, the FCC noted this month that other recent complaints it has seen illustrate “growing concern with the loudness of commercials on streaming services and other online platforms.” If the FCC decides to apply Calm Act rules to the web, it would need to create new methods for ensuring compliance, it said.

TV viewing trends by platform bar graph by Nielsen.

Nielsen’s most recent data on how people watch TV. Credit: Nielsen

The FCC didn’t specify what’s behind the spike in consumers’ commercial complaints. Perhaps with declining audiences, traditional TV providers thought it would be less likely for anyone to notice and formally complain about Ozempic ads shouting at them. Twelve years have passed since the rules took effect, so it’s also possible that organizations are getting lackadaisical about ensuring compliance or have dwindling resources.

With Americans spending similar amounts of time—if not longer—watching TV online versus via broadcast, cable, and satellite, The Calm Act would have to take on the web in order to maximize effectiveness. The streaming industry is young, though, and operates differently than linear TV distribution, presenting new regulation challenges.

Commercials are still too loud, say “thousands” of recent FCC complaints Read More »