[HN Gopher] Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google ma...
___________________________________________________________________
Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-
competitive demands
Author : 1cvmask
Score : 350 points
Date : 2021-04-26 14:29 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.axios.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com)
| CivBase wrote:
| Stuff like this is why "general computing" devices should (and
| will hopefully) never die. I just plug my laptop into my TV via
| HDMI and I can stream video, browse the web, play games, and do
| whatever. That solution has served me well for a decade now and I
| have zero interest in smart TV software, Roku, Chromecast, Fire
| Stick, Apple TV, or any of that crap.
| f430 wrote:
| "Don't be Evil" - Larry Page
| jsnell wrote:
| Previous discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942227
|
| (But this article seems to have a lot more details)
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Google calls the accusation baseless. But I'd bet there would be
| documentation if it were true ..
| caturopath wrote:
| I've never used Roku voice commands. Is it unambiguous that a
| command is for music? Or "Stevie Wonder interview" and "Stevie
| Wonder Superstition" be interchangeable, with the first going to
| a Youtube vid and the second playing in Pandora?
| calderwoodra wrote:
| Either the journalist has interpreted Roku's claims incorrectly,
| or Roku is spreading falsehoods.
|
| It's a very common practice for streaming services to make crazy
| demands about the devices they're on.
|
| Roku[1], Google TV[2] and Firesticks[3] all have Netflix buttons
| on the remote not because they wanted them there, but because
| Netflix forces them to with the threat that they will blacklist
| their device.
|
| And inevitably, all devices comply because they know they won't
| be able to sell the product without Netflix support.
|
| [1]
| https://cigars.roku.com/v1/http%3A%2F%2Fimage.roku.com%2Fw%2...
|
| [2] https://external-
| preview.redd.it/9itjeCYci2NPP7Vxr9onH_DFv7E...
|
| [3]
| https://i.gadgets360cdn.com/large/amazon_fire_tv_stick_alexa...
| stale2002 wrote:
| > And inevitably, all devices comply because they know they
| won't be able to sell the product without Netflix support.
|
| That sounds pretty anti-competitive to me. So that would not be
| a "falsehood". Just because lots of companies are making anti-
| competitive demands, does not invalidate the point.
| rOOb85 wrote:
| My latest gen firetv stick 4k has no Netflix button(or any app
| buttons)
|
| https://static.slickdealscdn.com/attachment/2/5/1/6/8/8/6/78...
| inetknght wrote:
| > _It 's a very common practice for streaming services to make
| crazy demands about the devices they're on_
|
| That doesn't make it any less anti-competitive
| Spivak wrote:
| If it was "you must have a Netflix button and no others" I
| could see the argument but the demand for a particular user
| experience isn't anticompetitive automatically.
|
| Company with leverage others might not have using that
| leverage isn't something we vilify in general.
| bogwog wrote:
| If you're willfully ignorant of the situation, then sure.
| Otherwise, using leverage to favor your own product over
| competitors despite user preference is textbook anti-
| competitive behavior, almost comically so: Not only does it
| unfairly disadvantage competitors, but it also robs
| consumers of choice (by ignoring their preferences).
|
| I would love to see one of the meetings that lead to
| absurdly unethical and borderline/outright illegal
| decisions like this; did anyone bother to bring it up? Did
| the person that brought it up get the silent treatment?
| Were they no longer invited to lunch? Does everyone just
| understand that those topics are off limits? Or do these
| people seriously not care because they know they can get
| away with it?
| minhazm wrote:
| It's like Microsoft sponsoring the NFL and so they have
| to use Surface tablets. That means they don't have Apple,
| Samsung, Lenovo, and other competitors tablets. Is that
| anti-competitive? If so, then every business out there
| must be anti-competitive. Buying ads to get yourself on a
| higher position in search results, buying ads on TV
| during primetime slots, and any behavior that makes you
| look better than your competitors would also be anti-
| competitive.
| rocqua wrote:
| Demanding a button on the remote is different from paying
| for advertising.
| minhazm wrote:
| How so? It is the same thing as advertising. Roku is
| benefiting greatly from Netflix being on their platform
| as well. Netflix could ditch Roku and say they only
| support X other devices. But they both need each other
| and so they agree to something that makes sense for both
| parties.
|
| Anyway it is pointless, because Roku actually charges
| companies to put a button on their remote[1]. They
| supposedly charge $1 for the button per customer.
|
| https://mashable.com/article/roku-button-home-screen-
| adverti...
| Spivak wrote:
| No, it really isn't. Look, I agree with you -- a company
| throwing their weight around feels super shitty. But
| leveraging your advantages is basically just business.
|
| Netflix paying Roku to add their button on remotes
| wouldn't be anti-competitive in the same way that buying
| exclusive ad space isn't. And therefore Netflix realizing
| that they bring so much value to the Roku ecosystem that
| they can get their button without actually having to pay
| is good business. Like I hate it. But it's true.
| [deleted]
| wmf wrote:
| I agree that everybody involved is evil but we're still allowed
| to have opinions about that. Roku's evil and Google's evil
| don't necessarily cancel out.
| hamstergene wrote:
| Proving that others are bad too does not mean one is OK and no
| change is needed. It just means all are bad, all need to be
| changed.
| adamsvystun wrote:
| I think the difference here is that Netflix does not make the
| devices themselves, so they are an equal outside force on the
| market of smart tv devices. Google on the other hand is using
| it's YouTube product to influence things on the device side,
| where they have Chromecast as direct competitor.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Thing is Google are so internally disfuntional it seems
| unlikely that that's the actual aim here.
|
| Thi is the same Google that still can't get their own gaming
| streaming service working on their own TV OS. And you think
| YouTube are trying to attack other manufacturers to boost
| sales of a $50 dongle with no margin?
|
| Tbh I think it's more likely that nobody on the Chromecast
| team has ever met anyone from the YouTube team. Many things
| at Google would work better if they did.
| tyre wrote:
| Might the difference here be that Netflix doesn't have a
| competing product?
|
| Google could be incentivized to put onerous requirements on
| Roku which result in a worse user experience, price increases,
| or additional development time. That would benefit Chromecast.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| The requirements for Netflix on a set-top box are...
| significant. Extremely.
| deelowe wrote:
| I thought roku gets paid for those buttons to be on the remote.
| cosmotic wrote:
| One thing is clear: Google either doesn't understand users at all
| or they are lying when they say this is for the user.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Next they will ask to be automatically loaded during startup.
|
| Get rid of the youtube app. It's low quality videos with ads when
| I use roku I use it for a better experience.
| etempleton wrote:
| HBO Max was delayed in appearing on Roku because of negotiation
| breakdowns. In the case HBO it was Roku that seemed to have the
| demands. They are looking at revenue anywhere they can, but if
| their position weakens look for Google, ATT, and others to simply
| forgo working with them.
|
| I think Roku is in a perilous position in general. They generated
| a lot of buzz on Wallstreet with their high user counts. They
| also purchased a DSP to get more into the advertising game.
| However they are at risk of being disrupted. They do not offer
| much that is unique and have largely gained and held market
| position by being the cheapest and easiest to use.
|
| Cheap Android TV devices are starting to compete with them on
| price and tv manufacturers have mostly chosen to create and
| maintain their own ecosystems.
|
| Unless they make some big strategic maneuvers I see them slowly
| being squeezed out like Tivo.
| discardable_dan wrote:
| Why is it that my only ad-free TV option is a Raspberry Pi?
| rocqua wrote:
| I have never seen adds on my LG tv, or atleast never noticed
| them. I am at LGs mercy for updates though, so it still isn't
| ideal. And yet, with PLEX and a backup hdmi cable, it works
| pretty dang well
| cdiddy2 wrote:
| I use roku simply because its not connected to a big tech
| company. Same reason I use spotify. I wonder how many others
| there are like me
| etempleton wrote:
| It is the small advertising companies that deploy the truly
| terrifying advertising tracking.
| jedimastert wrote:
| > Same reason I use spotify
|
| I think it's pretty safe to call Spotify a big tech company
| at this point
| panopticon wrote:
| It's a weird world where a company that does billions in
| annual revenue isn't considered big.
| hnra wrote:
| I think a lot of people use the phrase "big tech" to
| refer to the giants whom use lobbying, monopoly power,
| etc. to stay disproportionately big.
| rocqua wrote:
| Spotify is starting to do this with podcasts.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| It makes sense when you are comparing them to companies
| that do hundreds of billions in annual revenue. Big and
| small are relative.
| asadlionpk wrote:
| I am the opposite. Big tech is under scrutiny and are watched
| closely for the data they collect. These small companies are
| in lawless territory and heavily collect questionable data.
| techrat wrote:
| The big problem with Spotify is that they're primarily
| controlled by the labels with their licensing agreements. All
| of the majors also own portions of shares within the service.
|
| People also don't realise that I heart Radio is Clearchannel
| rebranded. The closest thing to an actual independent
| streaming service I'd say we have right now is Beatport or
| Bandcamp.
|
| The situation that Spotify finds itself in, along with Roku,
| is that they are still at the mercy of who supplies them
| their content. Until they diversify and provide exclusive
| content of their own that keeps people subscribed (ala
| Netflix), they're doomed once labels and studios want to me-
| too and spin off their own services. Disney used to primarily
| have deals with Netflix, now they've split that off into
| Disney+. Netflix is able to maintain because of their
| content. I doubt Spotify will. Nor will Roku.
|
| So even if you have the impression that they're not
| 'connected to' a big tech company, they're definitely at the
| mercy of if not already somehow owned by.
| NationalPark wrote:
| And the HBO Smart TV app is still not available natively on LG
| televisions, which obviously isn't a big deal to people who
| already have a media system set up but is annoying none the
| less. All this streaming stuff sure is starting to feel like
| the cable television plans I grew up with.
| rocqua wrote:
| Radarr, sonarr, and plex are a nice escape hatch for
| availability. Similarly, an HDMI cable connected to a PC with
| a browser is a working fall-back to most missing apps on any
| platform.
| awa wrote:
| Roku has tie up with TV manufacturers like TCL too. That's
| where a lot of their growth is coming in.
|
| Personally, I have switched to Fire-Stick and Chromecast with
| Google TV from Roku because the Roku interface hasn't evolved
| in the past few years and they are also pushing ads and their
| own channels now.
| rurp wrote:
| I have both a Roku and a Chromecast and the Roku works _much_
| better. The Chromecast used to be fine, but a few years ago
| they refactored it in the Home app and now it constantly needs
| to be reconnected to the wifi. That would be annoying enough
| but the setup process also fails regularly. No other device in
| my house has this problem.
| latortuga wrote:
| I have used:
|
| - a Roku - the newest "Chromecast with Google TV" - old style
| chromecasts - an "smart TV" with Android TV - A "smart TV"
| from visio
|
| The worst by far are the smart TVs. The old chromecast is
| next because there's no UI outside my phone, but I always
| have my phone so it's not that bad. Next is the Roku and
| finally, top marks for the CCGTV. It's super fast and
| responsive and I love it.
| Severian wrote:
| Same with my old school Chromecast audio, it needs to be
| rebooted constantly as it too somehow stops connecting to
| wifi. I used to use it with a toslink cable and got really
| good sound out of it using a DLNA server from my storage.
|
| Now I just use my TV (as a monitor) optical out since it is
| connected via ethernet. I can still use DLNA on it as well to
| play my music.
| joncp wrote:
| > They also purchased a DSP to get more into the advertising
| game
|
| They needed to buy a digital signal processor to do
| advertising? That sounds odd. Can you elaborate?
| tyoh wrote:
| DSP in this case is a demand side platform, it's an ad tech
| term.
| dyingkneepad wrote:
| Well, there are also Roku TVs now.
| Cd00d wrote:
| I recently bought a TCL TV with a Roku OS.
|
| I think it's great. It was cheap. I'm a fan of Roku (been
| with them since 2008 or so).
|
| I'm disappointed to see these tiffs with content companies.
| Remember the time when every video you wanted to play on your
| computer required a different software player? Are these
| companies planning on re-doing all that with _hardware_?
|
| "Oh, I have a Roku for most things, then plug in Apple TV for
| Apple+, I use the Fire stick for Prime Video, and the
| Chromecast allows me to watch YouTube TV! I just needed a TV
| with 17 HDMI ports!"
| sircastor wrote:
| The reason I picked and stay with Roku is that they aren't
| married to a single Big Tech co. I already suffer the lack of a
| proper YouTube app on my Echo Show because Amazon and Google
| are having a tiff. I don't want to pick an ecosystem and live
| exclusively inside of it.
|
| As it is, I'm already in a mixed household (Me with iOS and my
| wife with Android) and it's a pain to deal with the lack of
| cross-platform playing together.
| npsimons wrote:
| > The reason I picked and stay with Roku is that they aren't
| married to a single Big Tech co.
|
| Same. I'm so sick of being locked into one system or another,
| having my eyeballs monetized, or getting the shitty version
| of an app because it isn't the vendor's platform. I got a
| Roku because they're as neutral as one can get, and so far
| I'm happy paying for YouTube Premium, Amazon Prime and
| Netflix. You tell me I can't run those on my Roku, well fuck
| you and your service.
| eitally wrote:
| I use Roku [for my outdoor projector] simply because it was 1.
| cheap, and 2. has the fullest support for various VOD
| providers. The delayed launch of HBO Max was a bit irritating,
| but they did have Disney+, which at the time was missing from
| Samsung's native app store.
|
| I don't care about YTTV at all, though, becasue I don't want
| any live tv, period.
| taylodl wrote:
| I currently have YouTube TV I access via my Apple TV. The nice
| thing about internet cable is how quickly you can switch
| providers. If Google or Apple get into a tiff or whatever then I
| can switch to Fubo and not miss a beat. Many people have
| mentioned Fubo as an alternative and frankly it looks pretty
| good. The biggest reason I watch TV is for sports. Fubo and
| YouTube TV seem similarly matched in that regard. As consumers we
| should all be glad we have choices.
| crazypython wrote:
| Maybe they could use a FOSS YouTube client like Nvidious. Or even
| install a freedom-respecting and open source decentralized
| solution such as Odysee (LBRY) or PeerTube, and ask people to
| post there.
| honksillet wrote:
| I guess this is a good a place as any to say that the video
| quality on youtubeTV is atrocious. I was shocked when I watch a
| live NFL game on the Roku amazon prime app. Also ytTV has just
| about double in price in less than 3 years.
|
| Roku has some issues too. Namely, it autodownloads a new random
| app about once a week so Im constant deleting apps from my home
| page.
|
| Lastly, this sounds a lot like, "Comcast Cale users might lose
| the ESPN Chanel ...". I'm pretty sick of all these xorporations.
| intergalplan wrote:
| > Roku has some issues too. Namely, it autodownloads a new
| random app about once a week so Im constant deleting apps from
| my home page.
|
| WTF? New random apps about once a week? I've never seen this.
| Have multiple Roku boxes and a couple TVs with integrated Roku.
| Using them for years. Maybe there's some kind of "suggest new
| channels to me" checkbox you've got checked in account
| preferences?
| marrone12 wrote:
| The quality is really bad. Terrible compression with blocky
| artifacts and poor black levels. My pirate IPTV service has
| significantly better image quality.
| rajivjain wrote:
| This is why we as users should choose our platforms carefully.
| This spat between Roku and Google is ultimately all about $$$
| generated with 'monetizing' our habits and data. Ad infested
| platforms like Roku will continually try and push for larger
| share of the pie. Whereas, Google will continue pushing for more
| data. They both will win. Win at our expense. Not thanks, I would
| rather stay with my Apple TV and have a modicum of control over
| my privacy, even though it's more expensive piece of hardware to
| buy.
| Cd00d wrote:
| Can you use Prime Video?
| rootsudo wrote:
| Nothing of value loss, the youtube app on Roku is very glitchy
| and the entire ecosystem of Roku is very ad supported and user
| hostile. I would expect voice commands within the youtube app to
| stay within youtube.
|
| I am 50/50 on youtube music/youtube, but youtube app includes
| music so it's a general hard to decipher request but genereally
| if I want to voice search while I'm in youtube, I want it to stay
| in youtube.
|
| I don't understand why people flock to it/use it.
| jahlove wrote:
| This is about the "Youtube TV" app, not the "Youtube" app.
| NeuNeurosis wrote:
| I am in no way on Google's side on this but I am taking this with
| a grain of salt since I am sure that Roku is quite aware of the
| leverage this allegation could bring against Google with the on
| going anti-trust suite that is being brought against them.
| s3r3nity wrote:
| > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music results
| from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the YouTube app
| is open, even if the user's music preference is set to default to
| another music app, like Pandora.
|
| > Roku says Google has threatened to require Roku to use certain
| chip sets or memory cards that would force Roku to increase the
| price of its hardware product, which competes directly with
| Google's Chromecast.
|
| That's just straight evil - overriding user preferences to favor
| your own products... Some growth PM and/or business head is
| trying way too hard to hit their OKRs. I'd be surprised if Google
| could defend this in court.
| suifbwish wrote:
| I read that as "Google has threatened to acquire Roku"
| izacus wrote:
| Last I checked YouTube requires VP9 support for HDR. Why is
| requesting that new devices support the format to avoid
| fragmentation a problem?
|
| Apple also demands certain format support for their video
| streams to work (not to mention a browser).
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| The keyword is "threaten"
| izacus wrote:
| Can you explain more? How is "We'll be streaming channels
| in VP9 and your client needs to support it to continue
| working?" a "threat"?
|
| Is Apple dropping support for older iMacs / MacBooks /
| iPhones also a threat to all the companies using them?
| brightball wrote:
| The more streaming services appear, the more I like my bundled
| cable plan + Tivo.
|
| Seems like you get a lot of additional headaches after the
| initial joy of cord cutting wears off.
| rOOb85 wrote:
| This is _exactly_ what the cable co 's want. F em. I'll
| either pay for the services or pirate the content. I will
| _never_ let the cable co 's "win". They are terrible,
| horrible, corrupt, money grubbing soulless corporations who
| have screwed over the masses for long enough.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music
| results from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the
| YouTube app is open, even if the user's music preference is set
| to default to another music app, like Pandora.
|
| That's the behavior I would expect from a full screen app. ie,
| if I issue a command in a full screen app for the command to be
| interpreted in the context of that app.
| djanogo wrote:
| That's not at all how voice assists are meant to work. Voice
| icon in cars/remotes are all meant to provide answers or take
| commands irrespective of what's happening on that device or
| other devices they control.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| Quite the opposite, context is a critical aspect voice
| assistants currently lack.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| In a car sure. On a living room TV?
| vineyardmike wrote:
| I don't think you can make such a blanket statement.
|
| I think this behavior is what I would expect (search within
| open app first) and when it's not present, it's
| frustrating.
| egberts1 wrote:
| yeah, what's worse about the YouTube crippling of its full-
| screen is that it actually DISABLED any captioning.
|
| Talk about corporate-imposed audism.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I find FireTV stick (from Amazon) to be applying in this
| respect, it doesn't appear to know command that direct them
| input to a specific app. When I have Google open and ask it
| to search for $search-string it will do it in the Amazon
| store context, ie offer to sell me a program rather than find
| the string on Google.
|
| Annoying. It relates to the lack of discoverability in voice
| interfaces, there may be an incantation to get the behaviouyr
| I want but there's no way within the interface that such
| methods is revealed.
| gsich wrote:
| Make it configurable and everyone is happy.
| resizeitplz wrote:
| It _is_ configurable. Google is asking Roku to override the
| user 's chosen configuration.
| pythonaut_16 wrote:
| He's clearly suggesting making context aware search an
| option.
|
| "When searching within an app, favor results from that
| app" vs "When searching within an app always favor my
| default"
| Nadya wrote:
| >"When searching within an app, favor results from that
| app"
|
| vs
|
| >"When searching within an app, favor results from a
| related app"
|
| There is a big difference between these two things.
| "Youtube" is not the same as "Youtube Music" in the same
| way that "Xbox" is not the same as "Xbox Live".
|
| As p49k explained it - if you were trying to send an
| email from YouTube would you expect Gmail to come up or
| your preferred email app? What if Gmail was renamed to
| "Youtube Mail"? Would that change your expected behavior?
| pythonaut_16 wrote:
| Sending an email is a different interaction than doing
| voice search.
|
| Sending an email is an explicit intent - open whatever
| app I use to send emails.
|
| Searching is an open query - find the most relevant
| results. What results are most relevant is subjective,
| hence why you would give the user a choice for what
| results to favor.
|
| The separation between Youtube and Youtube Music is a
| technical minutia, they're both Youtube just different
| apps. If you want a technical solution, Roku should
| probably implement a search API such that doing a voice
| search would let the Roku query whatever app is currently
| running for results. Then any app can provide more
| relevant, context aware results.
| Nadya wrote:
| >Sending an email is a different interaction than doing
| voice search.
|
| Going from watching videos to playing music is a
| different interaction than doing voice search.
|
| >Sending an email is an explicit intent - open whatever
| app I use to send emails.
|
| Using a global voice _commands_ (not search) has explicit
| behavior - use whatever app I have set to default for the
| functionality I am requesting. "Play Stairway to Heaven"
| should use my default music app. Note that "voice
| commands" is different from "voice search" in this
| context and is the alleged problem.
|
| >Searching is an open query - find the most relevant
| results.
|
| If I use Spotify as my default music app it is because I
| trust their music search more than YouTube Music.
| Otherwise YouTube Music would be my default music app.
|
| There is also a massive contextual difference between a
| global Voice Search (using the Voice search icon on the
| Roku remote: it searches Roku) and using the Speech to
| Text option that may appear when already searching within
| a search field (which uses the search field of the app
| itself, in this case: Youtube)
|
| >The separation between Youtube and Youtube Music is a
| technical minutia, they're both Youtube just different
| apps.
|
| Google deciding there is a difference between the two
| means that there is a difference between the two for both
| a marketing perspective and whatever minor technical
| differences there are. If there were no differences there
| would not be a YouTube Music app and to pretend otherwise
| is disingenuous.
| pythonaut_16 wrote:
| You're basically making the argument for why this should
| be a user preference.
|
| Do I want the current app I'm using to influence the
| result of a voice command or not.
|
| Unfortunately the line between voice commands and voice
| search is often fuzzy. Lines like this: > Roku alleges
| Google has asked it to favor YouTube music results from
| voice commands made on the Roku remote while the YouTube
| app is open make it unclear if it's talking about a
| search or a command.
|
| Ideally Roku would implement a more fine grained API
| where a user can set permissions/preferences on an app by
| app basis, similar to Android and iOS permissions APIs
| and especially how notifications are handled.
|
| Either way if Roku's allegations definitely don't paint
| Google in a good light here. It just seems like there
| could be more to this story.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Maybe, maybe not? If I'm in Google Maps, should Siri offer me
| Google^TM-themed recommendations?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| If I'm actively using Google Maps, I'd _love_ for Siri to
| respond to "get directions to McDonalds" within the Google
| Maps context instead of opening Apple's.
| [deleted]
| p49k wrote:
| Sure, but that's not what Google is asking of Roku.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| It is.
|
| If their app is open and full screen, search within the
| app first.
| p49k wrote:
| No it isn't. If you have Google maps open and suddenly
| decide you want to go to McDonald's, then sure, that
| voice command should go to Google Maps. But if you make a
| voice command to send an email to someone, it shouldn't
| open Gmail instead of your default mail app just because
| Google maps is open.
|
| Similarly, if you're watching a video on YouTube and want
| to search for a cat video, sure, the voice command should
| search in YouTube. But if you want to listen to music and
| have Spotify set as your default music app, it shouldn't
| send the request to YouTube Music just because YouTube is
| open.
| DashAnimal wrote:
| But YouTube is a music streaming platform. The most
| popular, in fact (no, not YouTube music). I constantly
| listen to music across both Spotify and YouTube. YouTube
| serves video and doesn't present music in the way we
| usually think of it, albums sorted by artist,
| chronologically presented... But that isn't really how
| the younger gen listens to music. It is a music app and a
| common way a lot of people consume their music.
| minsc__and__boo wrote:
| Google isn't asking Roku to open a separate app, they're
| asking the search to be performed in the open app first.
|
| What the person above you originally said.
| 8note wrote:
| The distinction is that YouTube and YouTube music are
| different apps
| izacus wrote:
| They're not on TVs. YTM is a section inside YT app on the
| TV.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I'm using a Chromecast with Google TV, and YouTube and
| YouTube Music are separate apps.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| On Roku there is only 1 app.
| wiseleo wrote:
| "Hey Siri, navigate to ___ using google maps" is how I do
| it. :)
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Siri can't even give me driving directions unless I have
| Apple Maps installed...
| xuki wrote:
| You can say "Hey Siri drive to xyz using Google Maps".
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Is that new? I swear I googled this so many times and the
| consensus was "You have to use Apple Maps with Siri."
|
| Thank you so much!
| fra wrote:
| I'm not quite ready to take out the pitchforks...
|
| > Roku says Google has threatened to require Roku to use
| certain chip sets or memory cards that would force Roku to
| increase the price of its hardware product, which competes
| directly with Google's Chromecast.
|
| This could simply mean Google is requiring chips with hardware
| VP9 support
|
| > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music
| results from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the
| YouTube app is open, even if the user's music preference is set
| to default to another music app, like Pandora.
|
| This is both what many users would expect (if I have an app
| open, voice search works within that app), and a pretty
| reasonable ask for any business (don't show competitor's
| offering when searching within my app).
| [deleted]
| arghwhat wrote:
| > This is both what many users would expect (if I have an app
| open, voice search works within that app), and a pretty
| reasonable ask for any business (don't show competitor's
| offering when searching within my app).
|
| Only if I search using the in-app search feature do I expect
| it to be restricted to only that app.
|
| If I'm watching a YouTube video and ask _my device_ to play
| music, I expect Spotify to open as that 's what I use and pay
| for.
|
| The platform should prioritize the user, _not_ the app
| developers.
| ab_testing wrote:
| Agreed. If I am within the YouTube app, I am expecting search
| results from YouTube. Showing search results from Pandora is
| just tainting those result.
|
| If I want or search across all apps, I should be able to go
| to the Roku home screen and search there .
| 015a wrote:
| > if I have an app open, voice search works within that app
|
| This is not how Siri or the Google Assistant works on iOS,
| Android, or Apple TV.
| khc wrote:
| This is how Google Assistant works on Android TV
| izacus wrote:
| Google Assistant on my Pixel 4 will search in foreground
| app if I ask a query so you might not be correct in that
| respect.
| raisedbyninjas wrote:
| Roku does not support multitasking. I would not expect a
| voice search to close the app I'm using. If I want to
| switch apps to listen to music, I could hit the home
| button, then voice search and let music preferences launch
| the appropriate app.
| agilob wrote:
| >This is both what many users would expect
|
| So if your default search engine in firefox is duckduckgo,
| but you're currently on google.com/maps reading reviews of a
| car service, firefox should use google for your next search
| request?
| SR2Z wrote:
| This is a bad comparison. There's only ever one voice
| search button on the remote, but there are multiple easy-
| to-click search bars when you're viewing maps.
|
| IMO, even if I had Spotify on a Roku, I would be fine with
| this change. It's not difficult at all to press the home
| button and then the search button to signal you want to
| search outside of YouTube. A big chunk of YouTube's utility
| is that it has music videos.
| dcow wrote:
| Shouldn't it be up to Roku, not Google, to decide how
| their product experience works?
|
| LGs TVs have a prominent omni search button. If you're in
| the YT app and use the omnisearch it searches across all
| content services you have connected. It's an amazingly
| useful feature and makes the TV experience actually feel
| integrated. First time I've been happy with a "smart" TV
| experience.
|
| I'd say it's a fair comparison.
| SR2Z wrote:
| It would be up to Roku if Roku were willing to support
| Google with resources for developing their YT/YT TV apps.
|
| They literally have no power beyond acting as a
| gatekeeper for their users. Their omnisearch (which was
| awful, at least the last time I used it) is a major part
| of their strategy to try and guide users towards content
| they profit from.
|
| Given that it's Google's job to guard the UX of their
| Roku apps, I think it's 100% reasonable for them to tell
| Roku to add HW support for new features and not gimp
| search inside the YT app.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| > not gimp search inside the YT app.
|
| I could see this argument if a search for music would
| lead to a search for (say) a music video. But the idea,
| as I understand it, is that a request for music to be
| played would instead be routed through YouTube Music.
| Even if I'm in the YouTube app, I'm not going to want my
| music search to go through YouTube Music -- I'm not a
| subscriber.
| SR2Z wrote:
| I'm not sure exactly what qualifies a music search as a
| music search and not a search for a music video. The
| entire point of YT Music on a smart TV is that it's
| virtually indistinguishable from the default YT app.
| [deleted]
| paxys wrote:
| I doubt users expect that. Voice assistant search on every
| device/platform today is always global.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| Agree on the second one, but why tf should Google force them
| to support vp9? If they want to save some money there to stay
| competitive it's none of Google's business.
| cma wrote:
| Doesn't it cost Google more in either bandwidth or patent
| fees if they don't support VP9?
| edoceo wrote:
| maybe. and that's Gs problem that they are trying to make
| Rs problem.
| cma wrote:
| Not illegal unless it is monopoly abuse somehow.
| fuzzer37 wrote:
| Well it is monopoly abuse.
| falcolas wrote:
| > This is both what many users would expect
|
| Not when it's not the current behavior, nor behavior present
| in any other application.
| judge2020 wrote:
| If they're talking YouTube TV specifically (the terminology
| doesn't make much distinction between YouTube and YTTV,
| although the headline makes it seem like 'YouTube' always
| means YTTV in this case) they also might be requiring a new
| DRM chip for level 1 widevine.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Not if I have the notion that search from a button on the
| remote is universal and I want to be taken directly to that
| content elsewhere. That'd be like suggesting Siri should only
| fetch content from the active app. It's a signal for ranking,
| but not an absolute one.
| fra wrote:
| That's what they are asking! Take it into account while
| ranking, not remove all other results:
|
| "[...] favor YouTube music results from voice commands made
| on the Roku remote while the YouTube app is open"
|
| Key word is "favor"
| jellicle wrote:
| Voice commands aren't going to give you an exhaustive
| list of possibilities, they're going to play the top
| result.
|
| Q. "Play Diamonds by Rihanna"
|
| A1. "Playing Diamonds by Rihanna from Youtube Music"
|
| A2. "Playing Diamonds by Rihanna from Spotify"
|
| Either A1 or A2 will happen, but not both. There can be
| only one.
| azinman2 wrote:
| You don't always need to have a verb. The way I use my
| Apple TV is usually to just say the name of the content
| because I want to pick where it comes from.
|
| But even if you say play, it could still ask you where
| from and/or confirm it got the right thing. Roku !=
| Amazon Echo.
| 8note wrote:
| If I'm asking it to play music, favouring YouTube music
| means playing it from there
| kelnos wrote:
| Even if it is what most users would expect (I don't agree it
| is), that is a product decision that should be entirely under
| Roku's control. Google's threat to pull YouTube from their
| device is an anti-competitive move.
|
| If customers do want either behavior, they should be
| advocating to Roku for it. Google has no place setting a
| requirement here.
| reaperducer wrote:
| I understand your position on this. But what I don't
| understand is what makes Google think it has the right to
| demand anything from another company.
| impalallama wrote:
| > favor Youtube music results
|
| > user preference set to another music app.
|
| Entirely irrelevant.
|
| Youtube Music is not Youtube. Its a rebranded music streaming
| service build to compete with Spotify and apple after the
| failure of google play.
|
| Also is the Roku's device search. Which mean it can
| functionally search anywhere which is the entire point.
| 8note wrote:
| YouTube music is a different product from YouTube itself.
|
| If I said "search wikipedia for thing"
|
| I'd expect to get wikipedia results back, not YouTube videos
| about wikipedia and thing
| cptskippy wrote:
| > YouTube music is a different product from YouTube itself.
|
| Sorta not really. On Roku, Google is deprecating all of the
| other means of playing content (e.g. Google Play Video) and
| funneling everyone to the Youtube App now for everything.
| smt88 wrote:
| > _This is both what many users would expect (if I have an
| app open, voice search works within that app)_
|
| No, it's not. Most YouTube users have a different primary
| music app.
|
| Google is trying to artificially force a marriage of YouTube
| and YouTube Music because they have utterly failed to do it
| in the product experience and user base themselves.
|
| If I'm watching a random YouTube video and then want to
| switch to music, I expect my music app to come up, not
| YouTube Music.
| qwertox wrote:
| So it boils down to the fact that `YouTube Music !=
| YouTube`. In that case you could be right about the user's
| expectation.
|
| I for one don't use YT Music, but to use YT. Then again I
| don't use Pandora or Spotify as well, but do listen to
| music on YouTube (non-music). In my case, I'd expect the
| search to be executed in the context of YT, but that's what
| the defaults are there for. I'd choose YT (non-music) as
| default, if that's possible, or YT Music if i'd care.
|
| Yes, somehow it does make sense that it selects the app
| which is set as a default, even if I would expect it to
| perform the query in the opened app.
|
| Can it act upon "Open Song/Performer in Pandora/Spotify"?
| What's so hard about it? It all doesn't make sense to me.
|
| I'd expect it not to query in YT Music but in the app which
| is currently open, which is simple YouTube. No, it feels
| like Google shouldn't have the right to expect YT Music to
| get launched if it is not set as the default app.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Clearly, users differ on this matter, so vendors should be
| able to choose their approach and let users vote with their
| wallets, not have everyone's hand forced by Google.
| throwaway292893 wrote:
| That's where the user preference setting comes in.
|
| Users voted with their wallet and bought a Roku, then
| explicitly defined their preference in the settings.
|
| Google then says fuck you, no.
| FalconSensei wrote:
| > No, it's not. Most YouTube users have a different primary
| music app.
|
| Exactly. If I setup my music profile to be Spotify, and I
| have a Spotify premium account, I expect my device to play
| music on Spotify. Why should it play on Youtube?
| mandis wrote:
| >If I'm watching a random YouTube video and then want to
| switch to music, I expect my music app to come up, not
| YouTube Music.
|
| Umm what? Why is it google's responsibility to ensure their
| youtube music video is linked to spotify's audio song
| listing?
| [deleted]
| cptskippy wrote:
| As a Roku user who thinks Google takes a pretty hostile
| approach to anyone using their App on Roku, I disagree. If
| I'm in an App and search, I expect my search to be
| localized to that App.
|
| That being said, f*k Roku and their voice remote. They've
| been pushing that crap hard. Showing prompts on screen for
| upwards of 30 seconds to push the Mic button. I don't want
| my remote to have a microphone or be able to listen to me.
|
| I replaced my Roku remote last month because the one I had
| started having connectivity issues and missing clicks all
| of the sudden. The first thing I did with the new remote
| was pop it open and rip the microphone off the PCB with a
| pair of pliers.
|
| I really don't want an Android TV or Fire TV, and I'm not
| really keen on Apple TV either but Roku is making it really
| difficult to stick with them.
| Cd00d wrote:
| I am genuinely surprised by this.
|
| I _love_ voice search on Roku. Typing things in with a
| d-pad and on-screen keyboard is horrendous. I think it 's
| very fast, and I like that it shows me all the ways what
| I'm searching for is available.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >pop it open and rip the microphone off the PCB
|
| In some not too distant Black Mirror future, that would
| cause the remote to no longer function.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Yeah companies are all pushing their voice control. I'm
| never going to talk to a computer until it has full
| sentience.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I just don't get it. All these big companies pouring
| oceans of money and research into voice control. What
| makes this the holy grail of computing? What customer has
| a burning desire to sit there talking to a computer?
|
| And after all this research, voice control is still
| primitive and limited, and its capabilities are
| impossible for a user to discover. If I want to search my
| E-mail for a message from a colleague about Project Abc,
| can I do this through voice control, or do I need to type
| into a search box? I could try voice control, and when it
| fails because it doesn't know what I want it to do (or it
| punts me to a generic web search), now I just wasted my
| time and feel silly for talking to a computer that
| doesn't understand me.
| qwertox wrote:
| I'd enjoy a voice control which isn't tied to a device,
| but more like an Alexa+Siri+Google Now "in a stick with a
| button to initiate listening and a hardware switch to
| physically turn the mic off".
|
| One that understands "Google, set a timer for 5 minutes"
| as well as "Siri, remind me to call X tomorrow" and
| "Alexa, start Y on the TV in the living room"
| ryandrake wrote:
| > That being said, f*k Roku and their voice remote.
| They've been pushing that crap hard. Showing prompts on
| screen for upwards of 30 seconds to push the Mic button.
| I don't want my remote to have a microphone or be able to
| listen to me.
|
| This is kind of thread drift, but I really agree with
| this. I wish products would stop trying to get me to use
| some particular feature. First, they cram it onto every
| screen in the application. Then, they make it easy to
| accidentally invoke when you didn't want to. Then, they
| spam you with notifications saying "PLEASE DON'T YOU WANT
| THIS FEATURE?" Then, they silently enable it and make it
| opt-out. Product Managers, please just stop this madness.
| I don't want your feature. I don't care that your bonus
| is tied to its use. I already bought your product, so you
| already have my money. But if you keep trying to cram
| your feature down my throat, I'm not going to buy your
| company's next product. Give it a rest!
| MereInterest wrote:
| Or whenever you open an application. If I want to check
| my email, then I want to check my email. I have something
| in mind, and I am trying to figure out what somebody said
| to me. That is exactly the wrong time to pop up and ask
| if I want to learn about a new feature that was just
| added, because of course I don't. That's something for
| downtime, not when I'm actively working toward a goal.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I mean, sure, but how is the app to know your intent when
| you have yet to connect your brain interface device?
|
| Does this happen to you after the first launch of the app
| after an update? I find it terribly annoying as well. I
| would rather see a "New Feature Tips" or something
| similar as an icon notification that I can choose to
| review or not. The forced balloons stealing focus
| absolutely needs to die in a fire.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > If I'm in an App and search, I expect my search to be
| localized to that App.
|
| If you're using a fullscreen app on macOS and activate
| spotlight, do you expect it to only search that app, or
| do you expect it to behave like Spotlight _always_
| behaves and search the entire system?
|
| Put another way, this depends entirely on how the OS and
| UI is set up.
| cptskippy wrote:
| On Roku if you search in an App it is localized. If you
| search on the home screen it is not. I expect voice
| search to behave similarly.
| bisby wrote:
| On Roku, voice search (using the voice search button on
| the remote) is always global. Google wants an exception
| for youtube. No one else gets this exception.
|
| Regardless of what you think is a better user experience,
| Roku has made a design decision and are sticking to it
| and aren't giving Google special treatment, so Google is
| threatening to take their ball and leave if they don't
| get what they want.
| tobr wrote:
| > If you're using a fullscreen app on macOS and activate
| spotlight, do you expect it to only search that app, or
| do you expect it to behave like Spotlight always behaves
| and search the entire system?
|
| To make another analogy: Maybe Roku should ask Google to
| make the Chrome address/search bar only show Roku.com
| results if you're already on their site.
| spockz wrote:
| Joking aside, it might actually be a nice feature if you
| could use the search bar of your browser to search into
| the single site specifically, just like you can have
| different search engines already.
| r00t4ccess wrote:
| You can do that
| mulmen wrote:
| I purchased a Roku when my previous streaming device
| died. I specifically chose the Roku model because it did
| _not_ have a voice remote. I have no brand loyalty but I
| prefer to buy from a company that does not create their
| own content and at this point non-features are as
| important as features.
| saltedonion wrote:
| It doesn't matter what the consumer prefers. This battle
| is about the _ability_ to implement a feature, and that
| power should reside with the application developer.
|
| Monopolists can often have batter products as well as
| charging monopolistic pricing.
| elliekelly wrote:
| > This battle is about the _ability_ to implement a
| feature, and that power should reside with the
| application developer.
|
| Which begs the question: who, is _the_ developer? I think
| the argument can be convincingly made that both Roku
| _and_ Google are "the" developer. It seems to be the
| fundamental disagreement underlying every modern
| accusation of antitrust.
|
| Trying to think of analogies for this "dual developer"
| framework from the analog world and it's difficult to
| come up with one that isn't in a heavily regulated
| industry. Airplane & engine manufacturers maybe?
| Certainly no one would say Rolls Royce is the
| "manufacturer" of a plane but I would expect they still
| exercise some degree of control over what plane
| manufacturers can change and do to the engine. If planes
| with Rolls Royce engines started falling out of the sky
| it would be bad for business regardless of whether it was
| Boeing or Airbus's doing. But the same can also be said
| for Boeing and Airbus. Probably more so.
|
| Regardless, I worry the most recent claims of antitrust
| violation aren't about consumer protection (as antitrust
| was intended) so much as they're about consumer control.
| kelnos wrote:
| When it comes to the device's global search feature, Roku
| is the developer, period. Google is only pushing this
| because they know they have market/end-user leverage, not
| because it's inherently better for the user. And even if
| it is, that's for Roku's product managers to decide.
|
| Your airplane engine analogy doesn't really work; Roku
| doesn't want to modify the YouTube app; this is purely
| Roku's own global search feature. Yes, it will aggregate
| results from the YT app, but Roku doesn't want to modify
| that data source. Further, the Rolls->Boeing/Airbus
| relationship is more like a vendor->purchaser
| arrangement, which is nothing like the Roku->Google
| relationship here.
| mulmen wrote:
| My preference with these devices is that instead of
| "apps" we have "plugins" which add content catalogs. Then
| playing music or video on the Roku (or any device) is a
| consistent experience.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > and that power should reside with the application
| developer.
|
| I guess the question is, who is the developer in this
| case? The Youtube App is running on the Roku Platform
| accessing the Google Platform. Both Roku and Google are
| acting in both roles.
|
| The Roku Voice Search is weird, it's surfaced via a
| button alongside local media controls which are
| contextual but Roku appears to want their Search to be
| analogous to Siri, Alexa or Google Assistant as a
| platform level tool. The volume, and mute keys are the
| only other buttons that behave at a platform level. The
| Roku Home button is contextual.
|
| As a user of a STB, if I search (voice or otherwise) I
| expect it to be contextualized. If I'm in an App then the
| search should be localized, if I'm at the home screen
| then I expect it to be global.
| verelo wrote:
| Just make it a setting? This seems stupid to debate,
| let's allow users to choose.
| shaneofalltrad wrote:
| I agree, it is a simple solution, at least when
| considering the best user experience- I remember when
| that was an important thing.
| qwertox wrote:
| Doesn't the setting exist? Isn't the setting the one to
| use whatever app has been set as the default music app?
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| The behaviour I expect is that the voice search is global
| except when I specifically go to the search screen of the
| app. That's how it works on Apple TV and that's what is
| intuitive to me.
| coding123 wrote:
| Same here - I had to reread the parent comment because I
| have a Roku too and that's the behavior so that's what I
| expect...?
| cptskippy wrote:
| That's a reasonable expectation, not having ever used
| Apple TV though that isn't mine. Having only ever been on
| the Roku platform, my perception is that it's localized.
| d1str0 wrote:
| As an apple tv user, it has been trained into me that
| voice commands are Global unless specifically in the
| search field (not just the search screen). I fuck this up
| all the time.
|
| What is naturally intuitive to me is to go to an app and
| anywhere in that app have a voice search specific for
| that app, as Google is requesting of Roku.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| myko wrote:
| It sounds like Roku is upset that YouTube is asking them
| to prioritize YouTube results in exactly this case.
| malandrew wrote:
| Voice search is basically like Apple Spotlight. It's
| system wide.
|
| I only expect it to be localized within the app I'm in
| when I'm in the search box for that app, in which case
| I'm not using voice search, I'm using voice recognition
| to fill in the contents of the search bar.
|
| Outside the context of voice recognition for an input, to
| me clicking the voice button on my apple TV is opening
| Siri, just like "Ok Google" or "Hey Alexa"
| r00t4ccess wrote:
| Thats interesting, when i got my first roku with voice
| control, the remote had the voice control button where
| the play button used to be so i cut it off the remote
| with a knife because it was annoying the shit out of me.
| dangus wrote:
| Hot take: the Apple TV is easily the best device of its
| kind on the market and I'm continually confused at why it
| doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the most popular
| option.
|
| Every other steaming device I've ever tried is riddled
| with ads, dark patterns, and slow slow SLOW performance.
|
| I can understand the aversion to a $200 device just to
| watch some Internet TV but then I watch people making six
| figures pretend like a $50 Fire/Roku Stick is the best
| way to watch movies on their $2,000 LG OLED.
|
| If I were buying a steaming device today I'd probably be
| evaluating the Apple TV against the Nvidia Shield.
| tyingq wrote:
| Last I used one, the Apple tv remote control sucks in
| comparison to Roku. No tactile directional buttons, I
| couldn't get used to the trackpad thing. No mute button.
| No "lost remote" button on the console to make the remote
| beep.
|
| Also, I know many will disagree, but...no headphone jack.
| I don't like bluetooth earphones.
| dangus wrote:
| I'm not sure if you're aware, but Apple just last week
| updated the remote to address those criticisms. The new
| remote is compatible with old Apple TV hardware.
|
| There are directional buttons, trackpad swipes, and a
| classic iPod-like fast forward and rewind touch gesture.
| Mute button and TV power buttons now included.
| novok wrote:
| The new chromecast is pretty good and $50, and until very
| recently the ATV was pretty out of date and overpriced.
| The chromecast stutters sometimes in the main screen, but
| actually playing videos is just fine.
|
| You can also side load unofficial youtube apps, which are
| much better than the actual youtube app on the
| chromecast.
|
| The LG OLED tv os was missing some services, like HBO,
| but it stutters less.
|
| The only thing missing from all of these devices is a
| backlit remote. I don't know why they're against the
| concept.
| [deleted]
| slenk wrote:
| Unless you are fully in the Apple ecosystem already, it's
| not very welcoming.
|
| Price being one thing but with how Apple recently
| demonstrated they can just take away all your movies with
| no recourse, I will pass
| dangus wrote:
| 1. I assume by "not welcoming" you mean "unable to
| buy/rent movies from Vudu/Amazon Prime on the box" and
| that's a fair criticism. Someone wanting to buy/rent
| through third party services will find opening a separate
| browser to be annoying, but that leads me to...
|
| 2. iTunes is part of Movies Anywhere just like all its
| competitors. Being "required" to purchase/rent movies
| through iTunes isn't really ecosystem lock-in.
|
| 3. "Taking away your movies with no recourse" is not
| unique to Apple's iTunes Movies service. This is a
| standard movie industry practice that can affect you
| regardless of provider. Using an iTunes competitor does
| not remove this flaw.
|
| Apple offers a way to back up purchases. They never
| promised perpetual re-download ability. From their
| support site: "The only way to back up your purchased
| media is to download your purchases to your computer."
|
| I would guess that no other content store can promise
| anything better than that. Apple didn't make the rules
| here, WB/Disney/Universal/Sony did.
| tzs wrote:
| Does anyone here happen to know what happens if I get a
| movie from store X (Apple, Amazon Prime Video, etc) that
| works with Movies Anywhere, and so that movie shows up in
| my library at all other Movies Anywhere supported stores
| that I have accounts on, and then I do something that
| gets my account with store X banned?
|
| I know I lose access on X, but how about on the other
| stores?
|
| Also, how the heck does Movies Anywhere actually work?
| Say I buy a movie on iTunes, but then via Movies Anywhere
| watch it using the Fandango app on my TV.
|
| Who pays for the bandwidth for that stream? Does Fandango
| just eat it, or behind the scenes does each company keep
| track of how much of their bandwidth was used for movies
| bought at each other company, and they periodically
| settle up for any imbalances?
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > 2. iTunes is part of Movies Anywhere just like all its
| competitors. Being "required" to purchase/rent movies
| through iTunes isn't really ecosystem lock-in.
|
| Movies Anywhere doesn't exist outside of the US fwiw.
|
| Personally I flat out don't trust Apple on content
| censorship, as I think the Apple TV UI is not very good.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Unless you are fully in the Apple ecosystem already,
| it 's not very welcoming._
|
| This is an answer to the question I was about to ask.
| Except for a MacBook Air that I used to run Linux on (but
| is now gathering dust) and a Mac Mini that I currently
| run Linux on, I own no Apple devices. I hear great things
| about the Apple TV, but don't really care to buy into
| that overall ecosystem to the degree that I assume is
| necessary to get full use out of the ATV. It's bad enough
| that Google has its fingerprints on so much of what I
| have, and I'm actively trying to reduce that, not replace
| it with another corporate overlord.
| matwood wrote:
| > That being said, f*k Roku and their voice remote.
| They've been pushing that crap hard. Showing prompts on
| screen for upwards of 30 seconds to push the Mic button.
| I don't want my remote to have a microphone or be able to
| listen to me.
|
| It sounds like they have been pushing too hard, but
| discovery of voice commands is hard. Pushing them is
| probably useful for some set of customers.
|
| For example, I have an ATV. While watching something you
| can click the voice button and say something like 'what
| did he just say' and it will go back 30 seconds or so,
| turn on captions, replay the bit you missed, then turn
| captions back off. As a user how would one discover this
| amazingly useful feature? I didn't even know it existed
| until I happened to hear about it on a podcast.
| dylan604 wrote:
| A user's manual comes to mind. A website with all of the
| hidden UX tips/tricks released by the vendor seems only
| natural. It reminds me of "that" burger joint with its
| famous unprinted menu. You have to "hear" about it from
| someone else rather than "we took the time to develop
| this feature, so here's the details on how to use it" vs
| "we did this super cool thing for our friends, but you
| have to be cool to know about it".
| kbenson wrote:
| On the one hand, like you I don't really care for voice
| commands in a remote. In the other, I _really_ liked (and
| miss now that I have an Amazon firestick device) the
| built in CEC control of TV volume, and also the headphone
| jack. I also liked that it had a bit more weight to it.
| It was easier to find in the covers /sheets of my bed
| when I would occasionally lose track of it.
| Aissen wrote:
| It's good to see such optimism. But it's not necessarily
| true, see for example the Apple MFi program that requires
| custom chips provided only by Apple as way to tax & lock
| devices. In the TV/broadcast business Roku is in, it is
| unfortunately pretty common for content providers to mandate
| DRM X or Y, which is embedded deep into the main SoC, so
| you'd have only one or two possible sources.
| SirFatty wrote:
| I agree, it does seem to make sense... and this isn't just
| with YT, it also affects YT TV. On my Smart TV, with a Roku
| remote, I don't want to switch out of the current app (YTTV
| in my case).
| malka wrote:
| > This is both what many users would expect
|
| If I'm watching a video on youtube and ask to play music, no
| I do NOT want at all youtube to handle that.
|
| Youtube music is crap. Google has proven many times that they
| are totally unable to manage music. They should stop to try,
| because it is utterly embarrassing.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| > Youtube music is crap
|
| It's good enough for a lot of people. I pay for YouTube
| Premium, so I get YouTube music (formerly Google Play
| Music) included, and it works well enough that I'm not
| going to pay for a separate music app.
| ummonk wrote:
| Then you can make YouTube music your preferred music app
| in your settings.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Which is fine, _And what user preferences are for_.
| cardiffspaceman wrote:
| Youtube music was better until several months ago, when
| they made some changes that ruined it for me. I haven't
| used Youtube for an extended session of watching music
| videos since those changes happened. Overall I have
| watched many fewer music videos since the change. This is
| on Youtube as implemented on Android TV.
|
| I definitely prefer music videos over plain audio
| streams.
| sircastor wrote:
| YouTube Premium is the only reason I stick with YouTube
| Music. I was a Google Play Music user, and that was fine.
| Getting both was a boon. I would say though that YouTube
| Music has been an overall downgrade.
| jwalton wrote:
| Google: Look, you can buy a device with less storage, and
| store all your MP3s in the cloud!
|
| Me: This sounds terrible... but ok, let's give it a go.
|
| Google: Now that you have all your music in the cloud,
| wouldn't it be nice if you paid us monthly for access to
| a lot more music?
|
| Me: No.
|
| Google: I see you switched to another app while watching
| a YouTube video. If you paid us extra, you could keep
| playing that in the background!
|
| Me: First, why would I ever want that? It's bad enough
| YouTube now keeps playing videos in a little thumbnail
| when I try to exit them. Second, why are you charging a
| monthly fee for a feature that ought to just come with
| your app?
|
| Google: Hey, how about a free trial of our subscription
| service?
|
| Me: No.
|
| Google: Hey, how about we ask you every day if you want a
| free trial to our subscription service?
|
| Me: Still no.
|
| Google: Ok, I tell you what. How about we shut down
| Google Play Music, literally the only built in MP3
| player, and then if you want to keep listening to music
| on your phone, you pay us monthly?
|
| Me: Buys an iPhone.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > Me: First, why would I ever want that? It's bad enough
| YouTube now keeps playing videos in a little thumbnail
| when I try to exit them. Second, why are you charging a
| monthly fee for a feature that ought to just come with
| your app?
|
| It makes sense - Google can't run YouTube without ads. Ad
| buyers, which have ads in video form, don't want to run
| ads when the user isn't looking at the content nor able
| to easily click on their link to convert them to a paying
| customer (plus google never gets paid as the user
| probably won't switch to the app just to click the ad).
| They either do this or ask advertisers to make ads
| specifically for audio-only streams (which still makes it
| hard to drive conversions), but then they'd have to
| charge advertisers for impressions which Google has very
| rarely done.
| dhimes wrote:
| I don't understand why Google, who is apparently competing
| with Roku with Chromecast, would try to "help" Roku fix a
| worse user experience? My Spidey sense tells me there's more
| to it than just trying to fix the Roku UX.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| > a pretty reasonable ask for any business
|
| seems abusive coming from someone with an extremely dominant
| market position in one area.
| charwalker wrote:
| No. If I'm in YouTube I want Tidal to play music, not their
| janky YTM setup that can't give me quality audio even if I
| pick the video myself. At least make it a toggle for users to
| manage themselves vs hard coding it into the app.
| LightG wrote:
| I'll take your pitchfork and brandish it at least ...
|
| >>This could simply mean Google is requiring chips with
| hardware VP9 support
|
| Shouldn't we expect reasonable backward-compatibility?
|
| Your second point seems valid.
|
| To be honest though ... youtube is the weak link in most of
| my set ups. Can't access ad-based youtube via Sonos (and no,
| I won't pay for premium because of how I feel about Google
| right now), scrapes here with Roku, etc.
|
| Google is slowly becoming obsolete in my house.
|
| n=1
| thehnguy wrote:
| Not a good look Google; especially when you've got a great, big
| target on your back from the antitrust/anticompetitive hawks.
| smolder wrote:
| Hawks have great eyesight, and are effective predators. It's
| not a good metaphor for the people who punish anticompetitive
| behavior. Maybe anti-trust sloths?
| myko wrote:
| > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music
| results from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the
| YouTube app is open, even if the user's music preference is set
| to default to another music app, like Pandora.
|
| This seems reasonable to me - it would be super frustrating if
| I'm in YouTube, hit search, and Pandora pops up. Like what's
| the point of that?
| galkk wrote:
| > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music
| results from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the
| YouTube app is open, even if the user's music preference is set
| to default to another music app, like Pandora
|
| This is what my Amazon Echo Show is doing when Youtube is open
| on it, and I find it rather logical and convenient. That lets
| me search on youtube with my voice.
|
| disc: Google employee
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _disc: Google employee_
|
| It's probably not the best idea to be commenting on antitrust
| allegations against your employer unless you want your
| comment to be read out loud in a deposition.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| IMO Roku should make a rokutube site and wait until Google
| decides to abandon ChromeCast and comes crawling back.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| Two advertising companies fighting over peanuts. I don't support
| either party here. Roku is becoming more useless over time and
| that has nothing to do with Google.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| It'd be nice if you mentioned why when you downvote. This
| really is 2 advertisers fighting over which one gets your
| search and where it goes - and both claim they are right and
| doing it for their users. Roku has made it pretty clear that
| they want to advertise to you but they could care less to make
| something that works and does more than spy on you and deliver
| ads. My next device won't be from Roku or Google.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| I got rid of my Roku when they pulled the Spectrum TV app.
| the_lonely_road wrote:
| This kind of tactic works. I have 3 rokus in a box collecting
| dust and two brand new Fire sticks that replaced them. I didn't
| want to do this but 85% of my streaming time is spent on
| Twitch.tv and I wasn't able to use my Roku's to stream it
| anymore.
| echelon wrote:
| Out of curiosity, who do you watch on Twitch? How do you find
| interesting content?
| the_lonely_road wrote:
| GrandVice8 is 95% of my stream consumption but my followed
| list online right now is:
|
| TimTheTatman DrLupo dogdog DQA_TFT Becca Break TidesofTime
| ibiza Kaymind smaceTRON Myles_Away Cheesewiz DeliciousMilkGG
|
| It depends on how you define interesting content of course.
| For me that is "Tactical or strategic games with a
| significant enough RNG component to be classified as
| 'Controlling the Chaos' (think Poker, not Chess) and which
| have a lively leaderboard. I enjoy watching the competition
| for Rank #1 and I enjoy competing to see how high I can get.
| My current favorite game is Team Fight Tactics (Riot Games
| the maker of league of legends auto battler). You can find
| the leaderboards here:
| https://lolchess.gg/leaderboards?hl=en-US And my all time
| highest rank achieved was #540/1,250,000 in North America
| (not bad at all for an executive and father of a toddler).
| Pretty much all of the guys competing for rank #1 will also
| be streamers so finding content is as easy as googling their
| name from the leaderboard + twitch.
|
| If thats not your cup of tea, probably the best way would be
| to choose twitch's browse option and just watch the most
| popular streamers in each game for a few minutes to see if
| you are into their content. Some are informative, some are
| looking to appeal to 13 year olds, some are chasing some
| goal, etc.
| colordrops wrote:
| Why is Twitch not on Roku?
| driverdan wrote:
| Because Amazon is equally anti-competitive and wants people
| to use Fire devices.
| daemonhunter wrote:
| So this is for the YoutubeTV and not the Youtube app right?
| kschwab wrote:
| Yes, that's correct. Also, separately, Google is sunsetting the
| "Google Play Movies & TV app" and folding that into the YouTube
| (not YouTubeTV) app.
| stephengoodwin wrote:
| Welp, I specifically bought a Roku device a few months ago just
| to use YouTube.
|
| I ran into major issues using Fire TV's YouTube app. The app
| would fail to get past the initial loading screen and hang
| forever. It would typically require 2-3 device restarts to work
| again, and even then it would only work temporarily. I tried
| completely resetting my Fire TV, relogging in, etc but never
| managed to get it to work properly). YouTube is the only app I've
| had issues with on Fire TV.
|
| Google also discontinued YouTube's great web browser experience,
| which was almost identical to the app, that you could load in
| Fire TV's web browser.
| myko wrote:
| Nvidia Shield and AppleTV are both quite good and the YouTube
| app works great on them
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| I did the same thing, youtube recently dropped support for the
| older AppleTV and I had no interest in shelling out extra money
| for 4k or the option to play games i'm never going to play.
|
| This TV set-top box arms race is so stupid. The smart TV apps
| stopped working so I got an AppleTV. That stopped working so I
| got a Roku. When that stops working I guess i'll just go the
| full PC route with a NUC and a nice interface like Kodi.
| morganvachon wrote:
| > _Welp, I specifically bought a Roku device a few months ago
| just to use YouTube._
|
| We have Rokus (a 4K Ultra in the living room and a TCL Roku TV
| in the bedroom), as well as a 4K Chromecast, and until we got
| the Roku Ultra we had a Nvidia Shield TV. We keep more than one
| type of device specifically because it is inevitable that a
| provider (Roku, Amazon, Google) will drop a service we enjoy.
| This actually happened with the Shield which is why we replaced
| it with a Roku; it was no longer working with Emby at all, and
| it was flaking out on certain other services. It could have
| been just a case of bad hardware but it was flawless for two
| years straight until one by one services stopped working on it.
|
| This is also why I have a Mac, a couple of Windows PCs, a Linux
| workstation, and a BSD laptop. When one of the above can't do
| something, one of the others can.
| aklemm wrote:
| I'm just about sick of YouTube and YouTube TV not playing well
| with whatever device I've decided on. First it was YouTube and
| the Firestick, now it's YouTube TV and Roku.
|
| Frankly, how did Google end up with a good TV service? I'd rather
| not be relying on Google for TV streaming.
| jeffbee wrote:
| > Frankly, how did Google end up with a good TV service?
|
| Just peeling off this part of your comment. It seems like it
| would have been the natural course of events after they had to
| develop IPTV services for Google Fiber customers.
| sniperjzp wrote:
| First, you can play YouTube without any problem on Firestick,
| they made the change 2 years ago. Second, you should give the
| new Chromecast device a try, it's far much better than Roku.
| Third, Google is asking Roku to support VP9, which is a much
| superior video coding format, I don't see any issue with this
| ask.
| young_unixer wrote:
| Do they sell chromecasts with dedicated remote controllers?
| azurezyq wrote:
| https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv?hl
| =...
| aklemm wrote:
| Moving from device to device IS the problem.
| efdee wrote:
| Either YouTube requires VP9 and then everybody has to
| implement it, or it allows other codecs and leaves Roku
| alone.
|
| What's the point of singling them out?
| SR2Z wrote:
| Because VP9 is much, much cheaper for:
|
| - Google, who doesn't have to pay royalties
|
| - Google and consumers, who can enjoy better compression
| and lower bandwidth
|
| - Consumers, who can enjoy a much more mainstream video
| encoding format in not just YT but pretty much every app.
|
| Google doesn't want to write off 45% of the set-top market
| right away, but at the same time it's 100% in the right to
| demand Roku support modern royalty-free codecs going
| forward.
|
| Roku fights pretty much everybody nowadays and as someone
| who's been dealing with full-screen ads and missing apps on
| my $1000 TV, I have no sympathy for Roku whining about
| needing to support a modern codec.
| rOOb85 wrote:
| None of that is Roku's problem. It's googles problem.
| Google is trying to make it rokus problem.
| larntz wrote:
| Also if the answer is try using another Google
| product(chromecast) to get a good experience that kind of
| validates Roku's complaint.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| No thanks. I'll stick with a computer running a web browser
| connected to the TV and a wireless keyboard because I'm sick
| of having to give a shit which devices are supported by which
| services.
| johncena33 wrote:
| > First it was YouTube and the Firestick
|
| The whole spat started because Amazon removed Chromecast
| devices from their retail platform.
| throwaway9_3 wrote:
| This wouldn't be the first time Google uses their market power to
| gain an unfair advantage in the TV space.
|
| On the TV Device Maker side they don't allow manufacturers to use
| alternatives to Android TV (such as FireTV) or they threaten to
| kick them out of Android Mobile. See
| https://www.protocol.com/google-android-amazon-fire-tv
| ericra wrote:
| I have always used a Roku for TV streaming, but things like this
| are making it more difficult.
|
| Something similar happened with Amazon and the Twitch app for
| Roku. Amazon obviously wants you to use a Fire product to access
| Twitch, and they completely removed support for the Twitch app
| for Roku. Even the unofficial Twitch app shut down shortly after
| this, leaving no reasonable way to access Twitch content from a
| Roku.
|
| If the Youtube app and available alternatives get removed as
| well, I'll basically be forced into another device since Twitch
| and Youtube offer a large percentage of the content I watch.
|
| I can only hope that some future legislation or anti-trust
| lawsuit makes it more difficult for these companies to force you
| into buying their specific hardware to access these services, but
| I am not hopeful.
| mey wrote:
| I replaced my roku with an nvidia shield over the twitch issue.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Twitch on Roku is really frustrating. The unofficial app worked
| perfectly for me and then the dev faced legal action from
| Amazon. One thing I have found is that using the "Roku Stream
| Tester" dev tool you can push a twitch stream to your TV to
| play it.
|
| You can use this site to get the .m3u8 URL for the stream at
| whatever res you want: https://pwn.sh/tools/getstream.html
|
| Then use this tool with your Roku in dev mode:
| http://devtools.web.roku.com/stream_tester/html/
|
| This is a giant pain in the ass obviously but it does work if
| you just want to use it occasionally. The Stream Tester works
| through a REST API so theoretically someone could write a
| browser plugin or app to automate all of this.
|
| edit: a fun side affect of this is that the stream plays better
| than it ever did in the official twitch app or even on my
| Non-4k fire TV. 60fps is really smooth whereas on the FireTV or
| the Twitch app for Roku it would hitch and stutter occasionally
| beastman82 wrote:
| I can't recommend the nvidia shield highly enough as an
| alternative to Roku
| bobsmooth wrote:
| And it's powerful enough to be an emulation machine.
| awb wrote:
| Surprising with so many live TV competitors in a similar price
| range to YouTubeTV like Hulu and Fubo that are also on Roku.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > such as being asked to favor Google products in Roku search
| results.
|
| Anyone else find it alarming that _google_ has no problem with
| strong-arming partners into prefering their search results?
|
| Kinda makes you wonder about what determines Google's own search
| results, right?
|
| Does Google really want us wondering that?
| StevePerkins wrote:
| Ehh... I would wager on Roku being more dug-in here. For them,
| control over their hardware is an existential concern. For
| Google, streaming television is one of their many dalliances that
| may or not still be active 5 years from now.
|
| Every television that I've bought over the past 5-10 years has
| Roku built into it. I know that some people prefer to plug in
| Amazon devices instead, and that's perfectly fine (not that
| Amazon is any "less evil" of a company than Google or Roku). But
| I use Roku's platform because it's usually the hardware default,
| and I like the UI well enough.
|
| I'm already pissed that Google has raised their prices to the
| point where I no longer save any money compared to what I used to
| pay for cable+internet. And then dropped sports coverage for my
| local baseball team anyway. If YouTube TV disappears from Roku's
| platform, then I'll just sign up for Hulu or whatever 5 minutes
| later. Or fuck it, I might just go back to cable. These over-the-
| top, "skinny bundles" have been a bait and switch in practice.
| ta9999 wrote:
| Who the hell would pay google for youtube? Anything worth
| watching is on patreon so you can just watch it there if you want
| to pay for something without dealing with all of Google's crap.
| wmf wrote:
| Roku is similarly evil towards smaller apps, like demanding a cut
| of app revenue after the app gets a large user base.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Would love to read more information on this.
|
| Private tv channels are constantly under attack.
| jlund-molfese wrote:
| What percentage does Roku take? I wasn't aware that they were
| in the same rent-seeking game as the other app stores. They do
| talk about their "Platform Revenue," but it seems that's mostly
| generated from ads.
| wmf wrote:
| AFAIK they're trying to take 30% of revenue from every app,
| even from ads that are internal to the app.
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-18/nbc-
| threa... https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/rokus-recent-fight-
| with-fox-...
| dubcanada wrote:
| I'm surprised this is the first time someone tried to push their
| weight and try and get what they want.
|
| But it does seem to be a baseless claim, we have no idea actually
| what was asked. I think it's a little too early to jump onboard
| any side.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Roku is not a completely innocent content portal. Roku notably
| sells buttons on its remotes tied to services you may not even
| use. A consumer friendly remote would have configurable
| buttons, so they're not against favoriting certain apps over
| others. Within Roku itself you'll get sidebar ads for certain
| video services. Roku is happy to prioritize your app but only
| if you pay for it.
| intergalplan wrote:
| Interestingly, there are 3rd-party remotes that contain
| _different_ "suggested" channels. I've got one with six of
| those buttons, which is actually kinda nice because 5/6 are
| channels I use.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if there exist programmable remotes
| that allow custom launchers, at least for the set of all
| channels Roku has ever had on their own buttons (they must be
| giving each app they put on there a unique, or at least
| rarely-recycled, code, since remotes with different promoted
| channels on them _do_ work as expected on Rokus other than
| the one they came with). Though, yes, it would be nice if
| Roku let the user program those buttons on stock remotes.
| criddell wrote:
| It's not the first time. It took a while for HBO Max to show up
| on Roku because both sides were playing hardball.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| This isn't that big of a deal to me because I could still use the
| YouTube TV app from my iPhone and then just "cast" it to the Roku
| which is acting as a "cast client".
|
| And even then, that's only at my friend's house where their TV is
| too old to have built in "smart TV / cast to me" functionality.
|
| Roku is dope but this might not be as big of a deal as it seems.
| taurath wrote:
| Roku makes insane demands of its video providers. So does every
| large platform company. Google is awful too, but this is like the
| pot calling the kettle black.
| adrr wrote:
| They make all their money as being a service provider. That's
| why they require content providers to use their platform and to
| rev share subscription and purchases made on the Roku platform.
| They aren't a hardware company.
| jpollock wrote:
| Roku wants to be an app store, and it wants a cut of both the
| subscription fee and the ad inventory:
|
| "Roku's standard terms for partner channels include 20% of
| subscription fees and 30% of ad inventory"
|
| For services that bundle other people's content that's likely to
| be a problem (see Spotify and Apple).
|
| https://popculture.com/streaming/news/roku-founder-reveals-w...
| post_break wrote:
| If this is true, could you imagine if Google tried to pull this
| on Apple? Making YouTube music show up when using the siri
| remote. These allegations are serious, and if Roku isn't lying
| it's straight up crazy.
| deckard1 wrote:
| Apple and Google already have a symbiotic anti-competitive
| relationship on the iPhone worth billions of dollars.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/technology/apple-google-s...
|
| Only reason Google can't bully Apple is because Apple is too
| big.
| coldacid wrote:
| Apple would laugh and tell Google to fuck off, right before
| removing every app for iOS that even contacts any Google
| service. They're about the only company out there with the
| clout and cash to give Google the finger without having to go
| to the courts (legal and/or public opinion) to do it.
| izacus wrote:
| Apple does no such thing in case of search in Safari, so why
| are you making this stuff up?
|
| Not too mention Apple puts the same kind of requirements on
| developers and apps on their own tvOS platform - including UX
| behaviours and format support.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Apple didn't become big by behaving like a child, nor by
| being a pushover. Typically they create a reasonable plan and
| go through with it.
|
| They know Google needs Apple as much as Apple needs Google,
| and of course the opposite statement is the same.
|
| Apple showed their teeth when Google tried these tricks with
| their Maps app. Google isn't really in a position to make
| tough demands.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| They could never pull this on Apple. Apple has too much user
| base support leverage and is too willing to expunge apps that
| don't play along.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| Serious they may be, but it's just a business deal. They can
| take it or leave it.
| cirenehc wrote:
| > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music results
| from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the YouTube app
| is open, even if the user's music preference is set to default to
| another music app, like Pandora.
|
| How else do you use voice search for a music video on Youtube? If
| I open youtube and do a voice search. I'm expecting the search to
| be constrained to the app.
| pkulak wrote:
| It sounds to me like they want the YouTube Music app to open
| when you search for a song on the YouTube app. Those are two
| entirely different apps, with different content, experiences,
| etc. It just so happens that Google named them the same,
| probably so they could more easily force integrations like
| this.
| p_j_w wrote:
| At least on my Nvidia shield, this is not the case. YouTube
| Music is part of the YouTube app.
| djrogers wrote:
| This sounds like the user is in Youtube, then says 'Play some
| Beyonce'. In this scenario, I'd expect some Lemonade from my
| default music app, not Youtube...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-26 23:01 UTC)