How to Create Great Streaming Apps: The Make-or-Buy Dilemma
Introduction
For telecom operators and pay-TV providers, few decisions carry more long-term consequences than how to build the streaming platform their subscribers will use every day. In the early 2000s, as interactive television was just emerging, there were limited options for ready-made platforms. Only a few large vendors managed to develop viable products quickly, while others were still in the process of development.
Large operators — the primary customers for video streaming solutions — faced two options: either implement bulky, often unfinished solutions from companies like Orca or Alcatel, or develop their own platforms, as done by France Telecom or PCCW.
Many telcos opted for existing vendor solutions, while others — mainly Tier-1 operators with larger client bases — chose to heavily invest in innovative development. By developing their own solutions, they found themselves in direct competition with vendors who were also in the early stages of building their platforms.
As the market matured, vendors who had sharpened their expertise through both successful and unsuccessful implementations began to dominate. Their most valuable asset became not just the software or hardware they developed, but the vast knowledge and experience accumulated along the way. Medium and small operators increasingly adopted these vendor solutions, while large operators — while maintaining significant control over their platforms — also began integrating vendor solutions and components.
Apart from the rise of OTT platforms, on the technology front, Android replaced Linux in set-top boxes, Apple gained prominence in mobile devices, and SmartTV manufacturers developed their own operating systems. Devices became increasingly powerful and popular development tools like JavaScript replaced the more specialized alternatives previously in use. As a result, operators came to believe that anyone with JavaScript knowledge could develop an excellent UI application.
According to recent data from Market.us Scoop, 32% of viewers now begin their session by launching a Smart TV app — up from 22% in 2021. Conversely, the traditional set-top box remains a preferred starting point for 30% of viewers, down from 41% in 2021. Meanwhile, 80% of 17–25 year-olds regularly use streaming services, with providers also focusing on attracting older viewers and families in emerging markets as internet access improves.
Many operators were drawn to the idea of building their own platforms and UI applications, viewing it as a viable means to gain greater control and flexibility. Which approach — developing in-house or choosing a vendor solution — offers more advantages? Let's explore both options.
In-House Development: Benefits and Drawbacks
When operators consider developing their own solutions, they are driven by specific goals: obtaining full control over the platform, creating something unique, or even monetizing their solutions. However, this freedom comes with its own burdens.
Gaining Control Through In-House Development
A common driver for operators pursuing in-house development is the desire for complete control over their platform. This motivation often arises from negative experiences with vendors — especially when operators feel constrained by a vendor's offerings, pricing, or responsiveness. While the initial "honeymoon" phase with a vendor may go smoothly, over time issues can surface: vendors may scale back or halt product development, or demand higher fees to meet the operator's requirements.
These frustrations are often exacerbated by changes within the operator's team, where new leadership pushes for substantial adjustments that the vendor is unwilling or unable to accommodate. Additionally, during the early stages of the interactive TV business, many companies entered the sector but only a few stayed the course. Vendors such as Microsoft, Alcatel, and Ericsson exited the market entirely, while others like Nordija and 24i were absorbed through consolidation.
For operators, developing their own solution offers the promise of fully realizing their vision. They believe that an in-house team can build a platform better suited to their unique needs, avoid the financial burdens of vendor negotiations, and eliminate the need for approvals.
Pursuing a Unique Product Vision
Management and marketing teams within operators sometimes aim to create a "unique" service — one that breaks through the market and captivates subscribers. This approach made sense in the early days of the video streaming market, where innovative solutions could still surprise and engage subscribers.
However, as the market has matured, subscribers now expect a certain level of standardization in their user experience. Technical "dissimilarity" alone is no longer a guarantee of success. Instead, operators are more likely to thrive with a well-balanced combination of high-quality content, a comprehensive range of services, and superior technical performance.
Monetizing Your Own Platform
Some operators have entered the market with announcements to sell their platforms to other operators or offer them on a white-label basis. The concept is tempting — after all, they've developed a successful service, and with resources for development and maintenance, it seems logical to distribute it and generate additional revenue.
However, this approach often proves far more complex than initially expected. Selling a service to subscribers and selling video streaming platforms, while related, are fundamentally different businesses, each requiring distinct expertise. Successful examples of independent operator-to-operator platform cooperation are scarce.
Higher Costs and Motivation Decline
One of the major — and seemingly inevitable — drawbacks of in-house development is significantly higher cost. Vendors, serving multiple clients, can optimize resources, streamline processes, and focus on the most efficient solutions, eliminating anything unnecessary. Operators, by contrast, manage in-house teams that serve only one client — the operator itself — lacking the broader cost efficiencies and expertise-sharing that vendors enjoy.
Operators may request "dedicated resources" from vendors, hoping to mirror the vendor's approach. However, this isolated development model frequently proves ineffective. Dedicated teams can become disconnected from market trends and the synergies that arise from working with multiple clients, stifling innovation and driving up costs over time.
Competing Against Market Standards
In the ongoing competition between an operator's development team and the broader market, the market invariably has more resources, knowledge, and innovation. Only the largest operators have the resources to build an internal team that functions almost like a small vendor. However, this "small vendor" for a single client must compete with the entire industry.
Rather than driving innovation with a focus on best practices and content consumption trends, these in-house teams frequently end up recreating technical solutions that the market has already developed. As a result, they struggle to stay ahead of advancements made by the broader industry.
Complexity of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)
With the rise of BYOD, the make-or-buy decision has become significantly more challenging. It's no longer just about branded STBs; operators must now account for a wide range of devices including legacy and new STBs, mobile devices (iOS, Android), smart TVs (Samsung, LG, Hisense, AndroidTV, WhaleOS), and retail streaming devices (Amazon FireTV, AndroidTV STBs, Roku, and others).
As service providers embrace BYOD to avoid the costs of buying and supporting branded STBs, they surrender control over the final step of service delivery — how customers actually view the video service they're paying for, which is arguably the most critical part of the entire process.
Every customer device follows its own roadmap for software updates decided by manufacturers like LG and Samsung, without any input from service providers. When a manufacturer releases an update, an operator's application may stop functioning on that device. Operators must allocate resources to quickly test, identify, and resolve these issues to avoid a spike in customer support calls.
Vendor Solutions: Key Considerations
When operators choose vendor solutions, they are often motivated by the promise of increased efficiency, scalability, and alignment with global UI/UX standards. These solutions, shaped by the experiences of a broad customer base, offer feature-rich platforms designed to meet diverse functional requirements.
However, while vendor solutions offer many advantages, they also come with their own set of potential drawbacks. Can relying on vendors truly ensure long-term innovation and flexibility? Will the vendor prioritize the operator's success, or focus on short-term profits? And what happens if a vendor exits the market, leaving operators with a critical service that no longer has a future?
Industry-Level Solutions
User interfaces for media streaming apps have evolved into widely standardized designs, shaped by the best practices of leading streaming platforms like Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon Prime. These solutions are crafted to address broad functional requirements while aligning with global UI/UX trends, ensuring seamless integration across various devices.
By incorporating feedback from a diverse range of users and operators, these products become more intuitive, offering feature-rich, functionally complete experiences. They come with active roadmaps that adapt to market demands, ensuring they remain relevant and competitive in an ever-evolving digital landscape.
Employing Proven UI/UX Practices
Attempting to create an entirely "original" design, while ambitious, may lead to confusion rather than innovation. Operators who stray too far from established standards risk alienating users who have come to expect certain navigation patterns and design principles.
By leveraging the proven strategies of market leaders, operators can — through collaboration with vendors — ensure that their platform remains competitive while avoiding unnecessary complexity.
Leveraging the Power of Customer Engagement
One of the key advantages of vendor solutions is the ability to draw upon the combined knowledge and experience of a broad customer base. With feedback and requirements gathered from numerous operators, vendors can ensure that market needs and operational expertise are factored into every stage of product development.
This collective input has a significant impact on the day-to-day administration of the platform and the development of critical APIs for integration with third-party systems such as OSS (Operations Support Systems), BSS (Business Support Systems), geoblocking services, and EPG (Electronic Program Guide) metadata platforms.
Scalability and Vendor-Driven Growth
Scalability is a key advantage of vendor solutions, as vendors aim to attract new customers — particularly those with large subscriber bases. Their products are developed to scale seamlessly as an operator's customer base grows, allowing multiple operators to be supported from a single code base.
Vendors not only consider the requirements of their direct clients but also focus on the needs of the end user — providing greater options and ensuring a more satisfying experience. Operators should ensure that this scalability aligns with their specific needs, as vendor-driven growth is often motivated by the desire to serve larger clients and may not always prioritize smaller, more tailored use cases.
Vendor Prioritization of Short-Term Gains
Vendors often need to balance their business priorities, which can sometimes lead to an emphasis on short-term goals. Some vendors may face resource constraints that make it difficult to continuously evolve a platform at the desired pace. This can lead to delays in delivering updates, and in some cases additional costs for customization.
When selecting a vendor, it's crucial for operators to look beyond the initial cost. Factors such as a vendor's track record in product development, the frequency and transparency of updates, and the availability of long-term support often prove far more valuable than the upfront price.
Limited Vendor Investment in Product Development
For vendors to successfully develop and maintain their products, ongoing investment is essential. However, as the market matures and profit margins tighten, many vendors struggle to sustain this level of investment. This lack of investment often leads to stagnant product roadmaps, leaving operators with outdated solutions that don't adapt to changing market needs.
Vendor Market Exits and Shifts in Focus
As the interactive TV and OTT markets mature, vendors may be acquired, shift their focus, or exit the industry entirely. When this happens, operators are left with business-critical services that lack ongoing development, leading to technological stagnation.
In 2020, Ateme acquired 87% of Anevia to enhance its video delivery offerings. The following year, Ateme sold Anevia's hospitality and enterprise solutions to Vitec, requiring operators using Anevia's products to adjust to the new strategic direction.
When Viaccess, a subsidiary of France Telecom, acquired IPTV middleware provider Orca Interactive in 2008, the focus of the newly formed Viaccess-Orca moved away from Orca's original product lines — causing service continuity issues and challenges for existing customers whose needs no longer aligned with the new direction. This example highlights the risks involved when a vendor is acquired by a major customer, often leaving existing clients facing uncertainty as their service requirements are deprioritized.
Dependency on Vendors and Contractual Issues
In our extensive experience working with operators migrating from legacy platforms to modern systems, we frequently encounter a troubling trend: vendors create non-competitive dependencies that lock operators into their ecosystems.
A common scenario involves operators struggling to access critical software components within their own platforms — particularly the system software on set-top boxes. Over time, it becomes clear that the vendor has restricted the operator's ability to modify or update these components, often introducing additional fees for access or changes. Unfortunately, these limitations typically only become apparent when operators attempt to make updates or modifications.
This underscores the importance of carefully considering potential vendor behavior during the negotiation phase. Operators must ensure they maintain sufficient control over the hardware and software components of their platforms, with a clear understanding of the system's flexibility and its ability to migrate to new solutions in the future.
Conclusion: The Make-or-Buy Dilemma — Can You Afford to Get It Wrong?
As we've explored, both in-house development and vendor solutions come with distinct advantages and challenges. The right choice ultimately depends on the operator's specific needs, strategic goals, and development history.
In today's market, operators have the flexibility to either buy a single solution that addresses the majority of their tasks or build a custom platform by combining solutions from multiple vendors. Purchasing an off-the-shelf platform provides a faster path to market with proven, scalable solutions — particularly appealing to small and medium-sized operators who benefit from the ease of integration and vendor-driven roadmaps. However, it is essential to carefully evaluate the long-term sustainability and flexibility of the chosen vendor solution.
On the other hand, operators with unique requirements or a need for complete control over their platforms may lean toward in-house development. While this path is often more costly and complex, it offers the potential for a highly customized solution that aligns with specific business objectives.
| Approach | Best for | Key trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| Off-the-shelf vendor solution | Small and medium operators; fast time-to-market | Vendor dependency, limited customization |
| Custom in-house platform | Operators with unique requirements and deep technical teams | High cost, difficulty matching market standards |
| Hybrid (multi-vendor) | Large operators combining best-of-breed components | Integration complexity, coordination overhead |
At Smartlabs, we understand that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. We manufacture and supply a wide range of products and components to operators, while also helping some develop and support their own custom solutions. This dual expertise — being both a product company and a service company — gives us the flexibility to meet diverse operator needs.
As a product company, we offer a robust range of products and components backed by an active roadmap and dozens of successful implementations across various regions. As a service company, we provide industrial expertise accumulated over years in bespoke development, unique platform migration projects, and deep system integration.
What sets Smartlabs apart is our ability to engage in meaningful dialogue with operators, delving into their specific challenges and offering solutions tailored to their actual business landscapes. With Smartlabs as your partner, you can be confident that we'll work together to create the best possible solution, balancing efficiency, scalability, and long-term growth while adapting to the evolving needs of your business.
If you're evaluating your platform strategy, we'd be happy to discuss your specific requirements.
FAQ
What is the main difference between in-house development and vendor solutions for IPTV/OTT platforms?
In-house development gives operators full control, flexibility, and the ability to tailor every component to their specific needs — but comes with higher costs, the challenge of competing against market-wide innovation, and the need to manage BYOD device complexity across dozens of platforms and OS versions. Vendor solutions offer faster time-to-market, proven UI/UX standards, and built-in scalability, but introduce dependency on the vendor's roadmap and strategic priorities.
How do I choose between building or buying a streaming platform?
The decision depends on your subscriber scale, technical team maturity, budget, and how differentiated your product vision needs to be. Small and medium operators typically benefit most from vendor solutions with clear roadmaps. Larger operators with unique requirements and robust development teams may justify building custom components or combining multiple vendors. Smartlabs works with operators on both paths and can help evaluate the right fit for your specific situation.
What is BYOD and why does it complicate the make-or-buy decision?
BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) means subscribers use their own devices — smart TVs, mobile phones, streaming sticks, retail STBs — instead of operator-branded hardware. This dramatically expands the range of platforms and OS versions that must be supported. Device manufacturers push updates on their own schedules, which can break existing applications without warning. This creates ongoing maintenance overhead that is consistently underestimated in in-house development plans.
What are the risks of relying on a single vendor for your streaming platform?
Key risks include vendor market exits, acquisitions that shift strategic focus, stagnating product roadmaps, and contractual lock-in that restricts the operator's ability to migrate or customize their platform. Historical examples — Orca Interactive's acquisition by Viaccess, and Anevia's transfer to Vitec — show how operators can be left with unsupported platforms or misaligned service priorities. Always evaluate a vendor's long-term commitment and review contractual terms around platform portability carefully.
Can operators successfully monetize their own streaming platform by selling it to others?
In theory yes, but in practice this is far more complex than it appears. Running a video streaming service for subscribers and running a platform business for other operators require fundamentally different capabilities — sales cycles, support models, product roadmap management, and SLA commitments. Even operators with strong technical teams and existing platforms have found this transition difficult. Successful white-label ventures in this space are the exception, not the rule.
How does Smartlabs approach the make-or-buy question?
Smartlabs operates both as a product company and a services company, which means we can support operators at either end of the spectrum — and everywhere in between. We supply ready-made products with active roadmaps for operators who need a proven, scalable solution, and we provide bespoke development and deep integration services for operators with unique requirements. Our two decades of experience across platform migrations, custom builds, and multi-vendor environments means we can engage with your specific landscape rather than offer a generic recommendation.