[HN Gopher] YouTube TV removed from Roku channel store amid Goog...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube TV removed from Roku channel store amid Google contract
dispute
Author : jmsflknr
Score : 295 points
Date : 2021-04-30 12:07 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.axios.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com)
| Justsignedup wrote:
| tl;dr
|
| Google wants the AV1 codec. It requires hardware decoders for
| low-power devices. This saves google a TON of bandwidth costs.
|
| AV1 is actually royalty free available and praised by the
| industry.
|
| Roku doesn't think that decoder chip will fit with their low
| hardware costs. Therefore wants to pass the cost onto google.
| dawnerd wrote:
| I want to support Roku on this but finding it really hard to
| stand behind another shady user data collecting company.
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| Related and ongoing:
|
| _An update to our YouTube TV members on Roku_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972 - April 2021 (71
| comments)
|
| Related from earlier this week:
|
| _Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-
| competitive demands_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862 - April 2021 (396
| comments)
|
| _Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942227 - April 2021 (84
| comments)
| leephillips wrote:
| I'm sure someone here can explain this mystery to me:
|
| I have a Roku and an Amazon Prime account. The account is based
| in the US, but right now I'm living in another country. The stuff
| that's "included with Prime", that I can watch without paying an
| extra fee, is completely different through the Roku and through a
| computer. It's the same IP and the same account: I need to log in
| to Amazon through the Roku and through the computer. If I pay for
| a show on the web, I can not watch it on the Roku. I naively
| think that there should be no difference.
| delecti wrote:
| It's probably just that one of them is doing location
| verification through the account's location and the other one
| is doing location verification through your IP.
| leephillips wrote:
| It seems that something else is going on. The Amazon website
| knows where I am, because it tells me what I can watch while
| I am "travelling", or something like that. But if I actually
| buy a show through the website, I can only watch it there,
| and not through the Roku. Even though I am also logged in to
| Amazon through it Roku, it seems to be unaware of what I have
| purchased.
| untouchable wrote:
| Yes there should be no difference. I believe this is due to how
| Roku handles account region settings. When you create an
| account and register your Roku it gets region set to your
| country at that time. According to what I've read this becomes
| a permanent account setting, which you can change this by
| contacting Roku support, but they only allow you to change it
| once.
|
| A possible workaround is to create a new separate Roku account
| from your new country and add it to your Roku, however beware
| this requires factory resetting your device. Also before doing
| so make sure Amazon Prime is available in your new country.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I have some old Chromecast thing that one of my kids brought
| home. Looks something like a thumb drive and plugs into HDMI
| socket on TV. I cast from my phone, tablet, or laptop. This works
| fine. What more does anyone need?
| starik36 wrote:
| Because casting isn't great. It requires 2 "smart" devices to
| perform the task.
|
| If Chromecast had an interface (which it might on the latest
| ones), that would be better.
|
| I am liking the FireTV stick. It's small like the Chromecast,
| but has a really snappy UI and all the streaming apps that I
| need.
| gman83 wrote:
| I really disagree personally. I already have a really snappy
| interface... my phone. I use it to control YouTube, Plex,
| etc. Then I just send it to my TV via Chromecast. If I had to
| navigate using some other remote that I would inevitable
| lose, it would me more annoying to me.
| starik36 wrote:
| I've always found establishing Chromecast connection to be
| finicky. Particularly from the YouTube app on the iPhone
| (my most used scenario).
|
| Just the other day I tried to chromecast it the FireTV
| stick and built-in chromecast in the Samsung TV. Failed on
| both. Eventually had to reboot the phone and the TV to get
| it to comply.
|
| Another thing I hate while chromecasting YouTube. You can't
| change the video speed. If you start the video from TV's
| YouTube app, you can. But not if you are chromecasting.
| afavour wrote:
| This really highlights to me how important the web is, and how
| close we can be to losing it all.
|
| You simply can't pull shit like this on the web (and I'm talking
| about both Roku and Google here, as well as all the crap Amazon
| has pulled before now). It's an open platform and it's one of the
| only places you can access all streaming services (I think?). But
| the web was never able or allowed to adapt to TV set-top boxes
| (if I recall Mozilla made a TV stick but like Firefox OS it went
| nowhere). It's a real shame.
| varispeed wrote:
| It is already too late. The EU just passed TERREG yesterday
| without a vote that requires anyone running a website with user
| generated content (a blog with comments, a forum etc.) and if
| they have significant EU user base to establish legal presence
| in the EU and have an officer responsible for deleting content
| with 1 hr SLA. That's out of reach for most of people. You
| cannot even block your site for EU traffic, because EU users
| can use VPN.
|
| Have a read: https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/04/the-eus-
| terrorist-content...
| Hammershaft wrote:
| How have I not heard of this!
| drak0n1c wrote:
| US-dominated western media tends not to care for EU policy
| and procedure, and habitually avoids stories that may show
| EU governance in a negative light.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Making companies respect users' rights seems like a great use
| of legislation.
| earthboundkid wrote:
| I do not believe that the Biden administration will extradite
| me to Brussels for failing to moderate my blog comments. EU
| can make whatever rules they want. It's only enforceable if
| you do business in Europe.
| theptip wrote:
| To be clear though, if you are playing this game you can
| never visit or transit through the EU either.
| filoleg wrote:
| Is it really the case if the user isn't conducting
| business in EU with their website?
|
| Genuine question, because I thought that this was only a
| requirement if you are trying to conduct business with
| EU.
|
| But if you are only running your website for fun, for
| example, and aren't making any money off of it at all,
| would you still be in trouble for not following those EU
| guidelines (as a US resident)?
| theptip wrote:
| From the original article,
|
| > Offering services within the EU Hosting service
| providers are covered by the Regulation if they "offer
| services within the EU".
|
| > The main repercussion of this is extraterritoriality:
| that providers established outside the EU can still be in
| scope of the Regulation.
|
| And "hosting services" seems to include running a blog
| with comments, not the narrow technical definition we'd
| be familiar with.
|
| So a cursory read suggests that yes, a personal blog
| would be theoretically targetable.
|
| FWIW, it seems unlikely that they are actually going to
| go after personal blog operators, and that the intent
| here is really to get sites like FB / Reddit / Parler
| that are based outside of the EU, but that show content
| to users inside the EU. But I'm not seeing anything that
| actually prevents them from pointing this weapon at the
| little guys. (Not an expert in this area so please let me
| know if I'm thinking about this wrong).
| afavour wrote:
| What does that have to do with video streaming services on
| set top boxes? It kind of sounds like you're determined to
| make a point here no matter whether it has anything to do
| with the topic at hand.
| earthboundkid wrote:
| > This really highlights to me how important the web is, and
| how close we can be to losing it all.
|
| The web is dominated by YouTube to an absurd degree, which is
| the root of the problem.
|
| Look, I love the web. The web is awesome. But it's not a self-
| correcting mechanism. It's possible to build monopolies on the
| web, and once that happens, it screws over everyone and makes
| things move in a closed, proprietary direction. You can see
| examples of this everywhere.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Except the web experience is now being handicapped to not
| provide full resolution content.
| dannyw wrote:
| Good thing there's always sailing the high seas of piracy.
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Key point - roku is the gatekeeper here- I do think cable
| companies squeezed Netflix a bit
| mattmcknight wrote:
| They are both gatekeepers. YouTubeTV is demanding
| preferential treatment in the search results.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > It's an open platform and it's one of the only places you can
| access all streaming services (I think?).
|
| Yes and no. Yes, they all seem to be available, but not
| entirely as DRM implementations have varying support across
| browsers and platforms which currently just limits your access
| to HD content but could in theory limit you entirely.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| I got rid of my Roku when they dropped the Spectrum TV app for
| the same reason. It's basically useless to me
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| Why is Roku making determinations like this? I think of Roku as a
| hardware device, for which I get to choose what apps to install.
| I guess I'll just have to move on to a mini pc or raspberry pi or
| something... Anyone have suggestions?
| zamadatix wrote:
| As the article says YouTube made certain demands of Roku to be
| able to continue hosting the app that Roku didn't want to be
| required to follow (including about hardware). As such they
| don't really have the choice to just play "dumb hardware" and
| let you install it.
|
| Shield TV is a better device though, I'd recommend it. If you
| go Raspberry Pi/mini PC you don't have high enough DRM levels
| for a lot of services and the ones you do you'll get lower
| quality streams (again, see aforementioned requirement
| demands).
| progforlyfe wrote:
| If I'm understanding correctly, this is specifically (and only)
| the YouTube TV app, and not regular YouTube?
|
| YouTube TV is their offering for watching broadcast television
| channels over youtube.
| ru552 wrote:
| You are correct. You can still watch youtube videos on your
| roku. New subs to Youtube TV will not be able to get the
| Youtube TV app on roku going forward.
| afavour wrote:
| Not just broadcast TV, it also has a bunch of cable channels in
| there too.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Oh that's a pretty important clarification, thanks!
| tyingq wrote:
| The email sent to Roku customers: https://pastebin.com/tmeU975Q
|
| It does say existing customers can use the channel/app if it's
| there, but "don't delete the app" as it's not in the store.
| aarongolliver wrote:
| And here's the email sent by Youtube TV
|
| https://pastebin.com/GDUBi14P
| adam12 wrote:
| I saw the same message for the Spectrum app recently.
| InTheArena wrote:
| This is why I spend way too much on a AppleTV. Roku is a
| advertising company. Google is a advertising company. They are
| sparring over who gets access to what data for customers.
|
| Yes, I also realize that if I go into YouTube TV, then I also get
| my data scraped, but at least it's not shared across
| applications.
| selectout wrote:
| While the sparring happens here as they are both ads companies,
| there's nothing to say the sparring won't happen between Google
| and Apple if they wanted the same level of customer data and
| Apple doesn't provide it.
| deadmutex wrote:
| Apple has it's own issues. e.g. you couldn't change the default
| music app on iPhones until recently, etc.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Wow, so glad to be a consumer of products that depend on
| collaboration between competitors to even basically work. This
| just smacks of effective trade rules.
| minikites wrote:
| The "free market" once again producing a terrible outcome for
| everyone except shareholders.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| Give a better solution?
| rfrey wrote:
| The system that was in play in the USA up to about 30 years
| ago, where the government provided a check on the power of
| corporations?
|
| (Not ignoring the capture corporations in the pre-Reagan
| world had on US foreign policy. However there wasn't the
| current religious dogma that concentrated corporate power
| is the only true form of freedom, and companies that went
| too far in harming societal interests were indeed checked.)
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| I think you're right, but that has nothing to do with
| free markets. Quite the opposite.
| minikites wrote:
| Every newly proposed regulation or check on the power of
| corporations is met with the argument from conservatives
| that it will destroy businesses and that the free market
| would produce a better outcome than regulation.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| Beware consultants and lobbyists bearing already
| prewritten regulations. If you read many of them you will
| find they little more than a way to lock in more monopoly
| power. There is a balance but you have to look at side
| effects. I saw one set that was proposed by 'liberals'
| the 'conservatives' called it the worst thing ever (it
| was really bad). Then a year later a bit of flippy floppy
| in who was elected. Proposed by 'conservatives' the
| 'liberals' called it the worst thing ever (it still was).
| It was almost verbatim the same thing. It was written by
| a lobbyist.
|
| My point? Regulation in a company that is trying to
| establish or defend a monopoly can use it to lock others
| out more. They will use the rule of law a tool. You have
| to be careful just throwing it out there and not look at
| side effects. Regulation like any tool can be used for
| good or evil.
| [deleted]
| sumtechguy wrote:
| 'free market' is not really the wrong issue here.
|
| It was more of 'web 2.0' thing.
|
| Hook your service up to this other micro service and get a
| cool thing. It was one of the main selling points of web2.0.
|
| But turns out your service is _very_ dependent on that
| microservice.
|
| I have seen this happen over and over in many products even
| completely free ones. Service X needs service Y. The people
| who own the machines for service y say 'hey this is expensive
| can you chip in?'... crickets. So they turn themselves into a
| paid for API, or turn it off. Suddenly service X can no
| longer function even slightly correctly without that service
| Y.
|
| Had a neighbor that was mad someone was bulldozing a bunch of
| trees behind his house. He had even paid the builder of his
| house to 'live near trees'. But he however did not own them.
| The real owner decided something else was to be done with
| that land. The lesson? You dont own it, you dont control it.
| cortexio wrote:
| Although true, there isnt anything better than the free
| market. The only other alternative i've heard is always
| either dictatorship by goverment or something where the
| employees make the decisions. Both way worse than the free
| market. Any ideas how you would fix this? Personally i would
| have a free market like we have now, but laws to prevent mega
| corporations, because they are the problem.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm going to guess that the _majority_ of significant hardware
| and software products depend on some degree of collaboration
| /cooperation between companies that are also competitive to at
| least some degree. (Coopetition is the term.)
| derekp7 wrote:
| Case in point is Apple using Samsung components in their
| phones.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Yes, these are examples of commodity markets working well.
| Video service should be the same. Roku should be able to
| get uniform terms from multiple content vendors.
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| From the way Roku has worded their statement, it sounds
| like this was the case -- all the streaming channels on
| Roku got the same access to user data, but Google wanted
| better terms, and the relationship broke down for YTTV.
| stiltzkin wrote:
| This is a hard move to Roku, other streaming devices are offering
| so much better characteristics as Android TV and Apple, starting
| from Roku's limited wall garden software and the lack of game
| streaming.
| mikece wrote:
| Do Google's demands have any merit or are they merely self-
| serving? The article makes mention of wanting Roku to upgrade
| hardware... but to support what: 8K video? Smoother 4K? I can see
| a point on both sides: Roku wants to keep their hardware
| affordable and YouTube doesn't want inexpensive hardware to
| negatively affect the experience of consuming higher (video)
| quality YouTube content. Without an knowing the details of the
| disagreement I have to conclude they are both in the wrong.
| mfer wrote:
| First, this is about more than codecs and quality. The article
| notes that Google wants data on users that other channels don't
| get.
|
| Hardware may be part of it, though.
|
| Codecs also affect bandwidth. Videos in newer codecs often have
| a smaller file size which is less bandwidth to stream and
| smaller files to keep on their edge nodes. At the scale of
| Google and Netflix this is substantial and plays into their
| costs.
|
| Google, via YouTube, has a history of only wanting to support
| the latest systems. I've had older devices where the YouTube
| app has gone away. This is a bit of forced obsolescence to push
| people to buy newer stuff. Not because they need it but for
| reasons outside the end users needs.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| But at the same time YouTube still had support for the 3gp
| format dating back to the pre-iPhone smartphones ?
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| At the same time, that 'data on users' could be as simple as
| being able to manage their YouTube TV subscription. Roku
| right now forces you to go through Roku's payment to sign up
| for stuff IIRC. That's exactly what happened with Roku and
| HBO Max:
|
| https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/roku-stops-selling-
| hbo...
| tehbeard wrote:
| > YouTube doesn't want inexpensive hardware to negatively
| affect the experience of consuming higher (video) quality
| YouTube content.
|
| Someone should inform their apps team then, as that recent
| "quality menu" change has all my devices bumping down to
| 240/480... On a network and devices that up until that point
| had flawlessly delivered 720/1080 without a hitch.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| This works if you use Chrome:
|
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/auto-quality-
| for-y...
| londons_explore wrote:
| As the codebase gets bigger and more complex, performance on
| identical hardware will necessarily get worse.
|
| There is only a certain amount of RAM, and when it's all used
| up by thousands of coders writing new UI toolkits, there
| isn't enough RAM left and you're forced to have smaller video
| buffers and lower resolutions to prevent the app running out
| of RAM.
| tehbeard wrote:
| This is the most drek response I've ever seen.
|
| If I switch it back to 720/1080, There. Is. No. Issue.
|
| No app crashes, no stalling out buffering, it works fine,
| just like last month, just like last year, and the year
| before that.
|
| But now video starts in "potato quality" and nessecitates
| button mashing to get back to being watchable.
| londons_explore wrote:
| There are parts of this system you can't see...
|
| Imagine the connection from your ISP to youtube is 1
| Gbit.
|
| Thats 200 HD AV1 streams, or 100 MP4 streams, or 1000 Low
| quality streams.
|
| If your device only supports MP4, then by you selecting
| HD, 5 other people have to watch in SD.
|
| Youtube autoselects the quality to maximize overall
| enjoyment, but lets individuals override it. But by
| overriding it, you probably hurt other viewers experience
| (they will get auto-defaulted to lower quality).
| Jabbles wrote:
| Are you in Europe?
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/20/21187930/youtube-
| reduces-...
| tehbeard wrote:
| Yes but as that article points out, BT and other ISPs
| aren't anywhere near their network capacity.
|
| Honestly with how the UI of the menu is designed it reeks
| of one of the Googlers wanting to "be bold" to get a
| promotion/side transfer. changes for changes sake and nice
| padding on their CV.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Probably AV1 codec support
| https://9to5google.com/2021/01/27/youtube-av1-netflix-requir...
| londons_explore wrote:
| Youtube is demanding AV1 support, which will reduce bandwidth
| required to give you video.
|
| That in turn means that more people in your neighbourhood (or a
| shared cable link) can watch video at the same time without
| lowering quality or buffering.
| adam12 wrote:
| Everyone wants a piece of the pie. I guess that's why these
| streaming services have been getting more and more expensive.
| ineedasername wrote:
| Google: _Unfortunately, Roku often engages in these types of
| tactics in their negotiations_
|
| Yes sure, Google, always the victim in these situations.
| eecs_sal wrote:
| For parents with Roku devices and are tech challenged, having no
| YouTube on TVs is a ++
| josefresco wrote:
| YouTubeTV not YouTube.
| jsnell wrote:
| > What's next: YouTube says it remains committed to reaching a
| good-faith agreement with Google.
|
| Seems like those parties should be able to come to an agreement!
| ludamad wrote:
| It's a curious phrase. What does this mean in practice?
| dsr_ wrote:
| Good faith means that they want to find an answer
| satisfactory to both parties, rather than pretending to
| negotiate while looking around for a weapon.
| nkozyra wrote:
| I'm guessing it's a typo ... and was supposed to be roku and
| Google.
| pkage wrote:
| This has been corrected to say:
|
| > What's next: Roku says it remains committed to reaching a
| good-faith agreement with Google
|
| which makes a lot more sense in context.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I can't help but feel this will hurt Roku a _lot_ more than
| google. the average consumer just wants youtube. They have zero
| interest in being caught in the middle of a turf war. If i had a
| Roku tv, i would just be angry at Roku, Google not so much, since
| nothing 's wrong with Youtube itself. Obviously, google knows
| that and that's why they can act like bullies.
|
| Also,if had a Roku tv, i would try and jailbreak my roku, or
| otherwise download an unofficial youtube app.
| LightG wrote:
| Beg to differ. Roku offers a lot more than just Youtube. It's a
| nicety. Our entire setup (for better or worse) is built around
| a consistent Roku set up. I'm not going to change that for a
| while, so that means, "bye Youtube". It's expendable.
|
| I'm not happy about it, but there we go. "bye Youtube".
| myko wrote:
| YouTube TV (streaming cable) is not YouTube
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I forgot that. but still, my wider point remains true, i
| think.
| TingPing wrote:
| For context Youtube TV has maybe 3 million subscribers.
| Youtube has over 2 billion active users.
| ghaff wrote:
| The thing with the streaming TV services generally is
| that they're not _that_ much cheaper than cable for the
| same level of service. So if you really want the cable
| bundle, for many people it makes more sense just to keep
| their cable TV especially if that 's already how they get
| their broadband.
| mattmcknight wrote:
| It is insane that YouTubeTV blundered into the same
| bundled approach as cable. How much of the cost is ESPN?
| josefresco wrote:
| Counter-point: Switching hardware costs $ but switching
| streaming providers costs nothing.
| glonq wrote:
| Some people want to use a specific platform to watch "whatever"
| content. Some people want to use "whatever" platform to watch
| specific content.
|
| Roku+YT was a great marriage: great platform, great content.
|
| But if they get divorced, I gotta follow the content. Goodbye
| Roku.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| This kind of thing is why I gave up on specialized TV devices and
| just hooked up a Windows 10 [0] thin client with wireless M+K
| device, Kodi, and Chrome. I want one device to watch all the
| things, why is that so fucking hard for the appliance
| manufactures and media companies to provide? I only miss the
| ability to cast youtube videos.
|
| [0] I tried things like LibreElec and other Linux-based solutions
| including just straight ubuntu and they _always_ had sound issues
| when switching between Kodi and the browser. Yes, I did try both
| Pulse and ALSA. How is this still a problem in 2021?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _I tried things like LibreElec and other Linux-based
| solutions including just straight ubuntu and they always had
| sound issues when switching between Kodi and the browser. Yes,
| I did try both Pulse and ALSA. How is this still a problem in
| 2021?_
|
| It might be your hardware. I have a similar setup with an
| Ubuntu box hooked up to my TV, and I haven't had issues with
| sound when switching between Kodi and the browser. The last
| time I had issues with audio on Linux was over a decade ago.
|
| There are USB sound cards that you can pick up for a few bucks,
| and it might be worth trying one out.
| justinsaccount wrote:
| > I only miss the ability to cast youtube videos.
|
| I think if you spoof your user agent on your windows box you
| can use youtube.com/tv
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| How does that allow me to cast to my Kodi box running Chrome
| though?
| justinsaccount wrote:
| You used to be able to use the tv view for chrome and then
| control it via other devices. Looks like they killed it.
|
| https://9to5google.com/2019/09/16/youtube-leanback-tv-
| interf...
| alphaomegacode wrote:
| The technical aspects many of us would like are all there and
| work fine - it's the business aspects that seem to be
| problematic.
|
| As the hardware or service providers get greedy, they keep
| trying to extract more money from the consumer.
|
| Not saying Roku got greedy, merely saying it could happen with
| the hardware or the streaming services themselves.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| > I want one device to watch all the things, why is that so
| fucking hard for the appliance manufactures and media companies
| to provide?
|
| As far as I can tell from the outside, it's because every
| company involved thinks that it owns the audience and thereby
| is in a position to sell it to any given counterparty.
| mbesto wrote:
| It's simple really. Lock someone into a device and you've
| created a moat.
|
| Consumer friendliness and investor returns are at odds with
| each other on this one.
| pydry wrote:
| Probably because those that don't act that way and take no
| money for pushing distribution get undercut by those that do.
|
| I can well see Roku starting out with best intentions and
| then realizing that they're gonna have to play the game too
| if they don't wanna be priced out.
|
| You can't really rely upon the average person shopping for a
| TV media player understanding the economics of content
| distribution. They'll get the device that looks cheap and
| good.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| I've done this as well, but quickly ran into a limitation that
| most of the major services like Netflix limit the video they
| send to Chrome to 720p. Defeats the point of using this for
| viewing videos on my big screen HD monitor, to my mind.
|
| I don't have a great solution.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I haven't tried it, but you might be able to use Chrome via
| WINE to get the Widevine support Netflix requires.
|
| Back in the day, I was able to use Android Flash plugins on
| x86 Linux browsers by loading them with binfmt_misc. You
| might be able to use binfmt_misc in a similar manner with
| WINE.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| Sorry, to be clear, I tried this on a full fledged Windows
| box with all the things that Windows wants to enable TPM
| support and just generally make Widevine happy.
|
| Another poster suggested Edge, I'll try that, though
| honestly the entire process has just taught me how little I
| value the streaming services anymore, so I'm not super
| motivated.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Oh, wow, I didn't realize that streaming via the browser
| was so hindered even on Windows.
|
| But, yeah, the market has diverged so far from the
| Netflix streaming heyday that I just download the things
| I want to watch these days.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Doesn't Edge have a fancy pants DRM, which combined with a
| (potentially backdoored) Intel and Ryzen CPU can allow better
| than HD Netflix ?
| _coveredInBees wrote:
| Yes, but still no 4K, HDR or 5.1 audio IIRC. Streaming on
| PCs is just inferior and at this point clearly
| intentionally so. I was waiting forever for "native" apps
| for all the streaming providers on the Windows store so I
| could just use my HTPC as a streaming box without
| sacrificing on video and audio quality, but the streaming
| services just don't care as they'd rather have more control
| over things.
| mindslight wrote:
| The solution is to stop fiddling with proprietary streaming
| whose entire purpose is to create these headaches, and just
| torrent the content instead.
| pkulak wrote:
| You didn't even try Pipewire!?
|
| :D
| jeroenhd wrote:
| > [0] It's weird, sound is one of the few hardware things that
| always work on Linux (until I mess with it, but that's on me).
| Graphics, sleep, fingerprint readers, overclocking, I've ran
| into all of them, but sound just always works for me for some
| reason.
|
| I'm using Kodi (running on plain Debian, no specialized distro)
| on my HTPC/server, with Kore on my phone and a Firefox
| extension to send Youtube to my TV. It's more complicated than
| it needs to be, but with neither Google nor Apple opening up
| their ecosystem enough to have an alternative, it Works For Me
| (TM) as best as I can make it.
|
| I still blame hardware manufacturers for any shitty Linux
| support because they're the ones with the ability to fine-tune
| their Linux support, or at least provide an audio interface.
| The fact that some people are running into trouble but others
| aren't implies that the hardware level support is once again
| the reason things are broken for some users.
| LightG wrote:
| Youtube don't seem to want me as a customer.
|
| My setup is all running through Roku's.
|
| I run my Plex server, Dolby Atmos through an Ultra, and a tonne
| of other channels through 3 Roku's.
|
| Youtube is the expendable link here.
|
| They can up their negotiation game and strategy ... or become
| obsolete in our house.
|
| It's the same with Sonos. I can't run or cast ad-based Youtube
| through Sonos either. Oh well. Am I going to give up Sonos? Nope.
|
| Bye Youtube (?) ... Obviously their business doesn't depend on
| me, but weird to see a once favourite website so relegated ...
| sologoub wrote:
| Guessing your beloved sonos setup hasn't run into the S1/S2
| nightmare yet. Nothing like spending thousands on several of
| company's products just to have the said company force
| obsolescence.
|
| Personally, sticking with real speakers from real audio
| companies that won't force me into either fragmenting my setup
| or throwing stuff away.
| LightG wrote:
| You're guessing wrong. Sonos is not beloved. I've heard all
| about the S1/S2 nightmare and I don't have a solution to it.
|
| I detested Sonos for that and tried to avoid them because of
| it, but no one has stepped up. Other multiroom audio
| solutions have sucked in my experience, so far. Maybe
| Bluesound stepped up, but that's it.
|
| And, kind of agreeing with you, I do stick with real speakers
| from real audio companies ... I just get the amps and
| multiroom app from Sonos.
|
| And, back on point, to not be able to do a simple cast of
| youtube to Sonos and, I'm guessing, potentially Roku, is just
| silly and I jetison Youtube because of it, not Roku or Sonos.
| Doesn't matter who is right or wrong, that's the impact.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| One one hand, I see why selfishly you would not want to move
| off your well-established Roku network. However, do you not see
| that tomorrow Roku could do the same thing to your other
| "favorite channels" and squeeze them (which based on how they
| take a cut of subscription fees running through their
| hardware... not sure why Roku needs those fees.. it all seems
| like a squeeze) leaving you with a largely useless device that
| is pay-to-play for companies to run their channels through it?
| LightG wrote:
| I'll be honest. It's not clear to me who's doing the
| squeezing here.
|
| All I understand clearly is the end result as a customer.
|
| And I'll switch away from Youtube far quicker than I switch
| away from Roku.
|
| To be honest though, it doesn't feel that much of a loss.
| Youtube TV was always a "handy to have". Youtube feels made
| for mobile or PC. Again, weird to recognise that relegation
| in my mind, and just clarifies their weakness on actual TV's.
|
| As for your final point. Accepted. If that starts happening,
| then over the medium term I'll transition to a different
| solution. But that's then, this is now.
| danShumway wrote:
| Insert Cory Doctorow rant about Youtube TV's DRM being more about
| controlling this kind of content access and app usage than it is
| about protecting against privacy.
|
| Neither Youtube nor Roku should have the final say in whether or
| not I connect to my own Youtube TV account from a Roku device. In
| a worst-case scenario, a 3rd-party client could be created and
| distributed by either Roku or by Roku's users (see projects like
| NewPipe on Android). But with Youtube TV, building that app would
| require breaking DRM, which would kill the project if it ever got
| any bigger than being someone's side-hobby.
| timmg wrote:
| I originally bought Roku because their business (used to be)
| "selling hardware." I figured I'd pay them money, they'd provide
| a good product.
|
| Now their business is "collecting money from your subscriptions"
| -- which is not really in my best interest. I got screwed on the
| HBO Max thing. Now this.
|
| Personally, I'm done with Roku. But there isn't really an option
| that is "unaffiliated" anymore :(
| ru552 wrote:
| Read the article. This specifically has nothing to do with
| financials and all to do with, what some consider to be, a
| large over reach by google.
| adrr wrote:
| As a consumer and on a metered cable modem internet. I want a
| more efficient codec. I can't stream 4K without blowing past
| my quota.
| mfer wrote:
| I've often wondered if some metered cable internet
| companies see 4k bandwidth increases coming and are
| planning on the overages.
|
| I used to have one metered internet provider whose network
| crumbled when kids would be out of school and use would go
| up. I wonder if they mismanaged their finances or something
| to get into this state.
|
| Sadly, more efficient codecs aren't going to decrease
| bandwidth enough.
|
| I noticed that Xfinity, when you use a rented modem from
| them, will remove the cap for a small extra fee.
| adrr wrote:
| Cox will remove the cap $50/m. You end paying $150/m with
| all the fees for 200mb/s uncapped or $200/m for 1gb/s.
|
| Av1 codec the content providers are pushing is 25% more
| efficient than VP9 in terms of bandwidth. Most people
| could stream 4K for and stay under the caps with the
| codec change.
| mjcl wrote:
| Yes, I was extremely annoyed when Netflix gave me a month
| of "free upgrade" to 4k with no way to remove it or force
| HD streaming short of cancelling the account.
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| The "large overreach" is likely support for an open source
| codec av1 - thank goodness google is pushing back on this and
| the patent mafias. This codec also will save google a ton on
| streaming costs - be good to get more details
| mfer wrote:
| The article says that Google is asking for data on
| customers that's not available to other channels.
|
| This appears to be about more than av1.
| deelowe wrote:
| I've read a variety of theories, none confirmed. The two
| I've seen repeated the most are 1) they wanted a change to
| how the built in search functionality worked and 2) they
| wanted to collect more user data than roku was willing to
| provide.
| meragrin_ wrote:
| Roku pretty much said that. From an email Roku sent me:
|
| "we cannot accept Google's unfair and anticompetitive
| requirements to manipulate your search results, impact
| the usage of your data and ultimately cost you more."
|
| The "ultimately cost you more" sounds like spin for
| requiring AV1 hardware support.
| sangnoir wrote:
| "manipulate your search results" is spin for "Roku wanted
| to inject results from other sources when you perform a
| search within the Youtube TV app, Google didn't like
| that"
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Hah.
|
| The Search service is and has always been global.
|
| And _Google_ wanted to inject results from another source
| (YouTube Music) when you searched (globally) with YouTube
| TV as the active app (which is not the same as YouTube
| search, which Google controls and can manipulate however
| they like), and filter other things out.
|
| Your interpretation is quite misleading.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Your interpretation is quite misleading.
|
| That's really hard to say: in its dueling email to its
| customers, Youtube TV says it was offering to continue
| the service under the old terms but Roku declined. These
| "carrier" disagreements generate more smoke and heat than
| light - with both sides blaming the other with carefully
| crafted PR messages that are _technically_ true when you
| squint really hard: I don 't doubt both statements by
| both Roku and Youtube TV are misleading in one way or the
| other (or have glaring omissions) - remember neither of
| them is under oath, they are just trying to sway public
| opinion. Don't put too much stock on what's basically
| corporate trash-talk on the side-lines of negotiations.
| deelowe wrote:
| I don't know. I mean search on roku is kind of it's own
| thing. It would be odd to expect the built in roku search
| to limit itself to just the app. To those who aren't
| familiar, there are two types of search on roku, the in
| app version that already does what one would expect and
| the device level search which searches across all
| available apps.
|
| Roku is clearly doing paid placements for the device
| level search. It pretty obviously shows you "hey this is
| available here for $xx.xx" There's no confusion around
| when you're doing one versus the other. The device level
| search kicks you out of whatever app you're in and does
| the search from the dashboard.
|
| As another point, I would never expect a search within
| YouTube to show results on YTM or YTTV. The roku just
| doesn't work that way.
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Yeah - searching for TV and some other generic searches
| might be more complicated with YouTube tv - live sports?
| Not saying right but u could imagine them wanting more
| terms ? The codec is the thing I'm pushing for - we
| really need google pushing these open standards
| contravariant wrote:
| You can't have unaffiliated solutions with DRM, just multi-
| affiliated.
| robbiemitchell wrote:
| Roku is still fundamentally a pipe. Each network decides how to
| make its apps available (or not) and what to charge for them.
| Getting mad at Roku for this is like getting mad at Spotify
| when a certain album isn't available -- it's all up to the
| content owner to decide where to distribute it.
| pja wrote:
| Roku is not just a pipe. They charge 20% of your income to
| have your streaming channel on Roku devices.
|
| Big hitters like Netflix presumably negotiate custom
| contracts, but 20% is the standard rate.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| It's like getting mad at Spotify when an album isn't
| available when they don't pay the artist/record label OR if
| the label is making unreasonable demands.
|
| It might be up to the content owner to decide where to
| distribute it, but the content owners may feel like some
| platforms are especially burdensome to distribute on.
| andrewla wrote:
| Roku is increasingly _not_ just a pipe. This whole debacle
| (and the HBO one before) is indicative of that. They could
| just let you install whatever HBO or Google offered -- that's
| what they did for a long time. But they want to ensure that
| things are "integrated", that they can show ads, and that
| their own content (on the "Roku Channel") doesn't get
| downprioritized.
| timmg wrote:
| I would argue that, in this case, getting mad at Roku would
| be like getting mad at my ISP if they blocked Netflix because
| Netflix didn't pay them extra money. That's a world I hope we
| never come to (but the ISPs would love it.)
| charrondev wrote:
| Don't they already do that with peering agreements?
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Yeah, specifically Free used to have poor bandwidth with
| YouTube and then Netflix. AFAIK they have found an
| arrangement since then.
| timmg wrote:
| I'm not smart enough to know how that works. But I do
| know that my ISP has not (yet) blocked Youtube or Netflix
| or whatever.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| >it's all up to the content owner to decide where to
| distribute it. //
|
| Maybe this is wrong.
|
| Perhaps we, the _demos_ should be demanding a sort of "least
| favoured nation" [do I mean 'most'?] deal where content
| owners have to make works available to all streamers at the
| same rate. Disney sell to Disney Streaming Channel? They also
| have to sell to $streamingChannel at the same rate, then
| people can watch copyright content without channels
| manipulating the market by restricting access.
|
| Then, if they don't want to follow that rule we should say
| 'fine, no copyright for you'.
|
| Seems fair to me. I'm already so over every streaming channel
| monopolising content.
|
| _This is entirely my personal opinion._
| Hammershaft wrote:
| While there are a lot of problems with this growth in
| digital walled gardens, one flipside is that it heavily
| incentivizes the development of killer content, much like
| how Console makers have extensive lineups of first party
| games that are often better funded and given more support
| then 3rd party titles.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| I threw my Roku in the garbage when they couldn't get the HBO
| Max contract done before launch and bought an Apple TV. Apple
| doesn't sell user data and nobody wants to be left out of the
| Apple money machine so all the services I want are available.
| It was completely worth it, in my opinion.
| [deleted]
| dahfizz wrote:
| I am also considering ditching Roku for an Apple TV. Do you
| have an idea of how well it would work if the Apple TV was
| the only Apple product I owned? I don't want to drop $200
| only to find out I need an iPhone for the setup process or
| something.
| srj wrote:
| I have an Apple TV and was able to get it setup using just
| an apple account.
|
| It has all worked well except two things:
|
| -The remote is inferior to the one that ships with roku.
| The touchpad you can get used to, but there are so few
| buttons and one of them is dedicated to just opening the
| apple tv app (even though we mostly use netflix / amazon).
|
| -I signed up for paramount+ from apple tv's app, and then
| later needed to change my credit card number. They want me
| to open iTunes to do this. I can update my card number on
| the website, but seemingly to get that associated with my
| streaming subscription I need to use iTunes. Why a
| proprietary app on a closed platform is needed for
| something everyone else let's you use a website for is
| beyond me.
|
| I'll say Apple is famous for their UX design, but something
| feels unintuitive with the remote and some of the UI
| choices. However, overall we've gotten used to it and it
| works well.
| threeseed wrote:
| You do know they just updated the AppleTV and the remote
| has more buttons.
|
| Also there is a preference so that button goes to Home
| screen instead of AppleTV app.
| srj wrote:
| No I didn't know that. I actually find it frustrating
| that I paid full price for the one we have a couple of
| months ago and now it's apparently out of date.
| pimlottc wrote:
| That's frustrating but happens with every company. Apple
| does have a good track record of supporting their
| hardware for a long time, so I wouldn't be too worried
| about it.
|
| You also have the option to buy the new remote separately
| and use it with your existing Apple TV:
|
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/am
| p/2...
| oivey wrote:
| I think this is confusing, but the Apple TV app is
| different than the streaming service Apple TV+. The app
| is meant to be a centralized location for access to all
| TVs and movies across all services. It also keeps track
| of your progress on watching things and tells you when
| new episodes release.
| __david__ wrote:
| > one of them is dedicated to just opening the apple tv
| app (even though we mostly use netflix / amazon).
|
| That button is configurable in the settings. I have it
| set to go to the home screen, which makes way more sense
| to me (and it's what it used to do before the Apple TV
| app existed).
| srj wrote:
| Thanks! I didn't realize that - definitely an
| improvement!
| [deleted]
| petre wrote:
| Our earlier edition Apple TV also works with the TV
| remote (dumb Philips TV) until it starts to act up. I
| don't have an iPhone. My partner does but one doesn't
| don't have to use it, as the Apple TV works fine on its
| own until it doesn't and I have to power cycle it. Apple
| made this quite annoying as it doesn't have a power
| button and I have to unplug the power cord every time.
| Also if you have content on a NAS the VLC app is crap and
| keeps buffering after a while if the content is mkv,
| something which Kodi never did.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| If you don't have an Apple phone, it's not quite as useful
| since you can enter text on your phone and use it as a
| remote. AFAIK you'll need to create an Apple ID to download
| apps on an Apple TV, and that's about it. It does come with
| a remote, the touch remote is one of apple's few bad
| products, if you get an Apple TV, wait for the new remote
| that re-adds buttons.
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| You might consider the thing that I have, an Nvidia Shield.
| It appears to work fine and is a lot snappier to use than
| the Rokus or Fire TVs I've used (also $200ish).
|
| After owning quite a few internet appliances through the
| years (Roku,Fire,Shield,internet radios,Kindles,etc.) I've
| noticed that they one thing you can always count on working
| is a desktop/laptop PC.
|
| edit: I notice that people above have also mentioned the
| Shield. Sorry for the repeat.
|
| I keep wondering how long youtube will be standable. You
| can see the ads sneaking in bit by bit over the last few
| months (5 seconds with cancel, 2 x 5 seconds with cancel, 2
| x 6 seconds with cancel, 2 x 6 seconds without cancel on
| one thing I watch. The worst has been firing up somebody's
| music list and getting a 5-10 minute(!) ad between each
| song).
|
| I really should be getting to work on a hoard of videos
| stored locally. The days of 'free' entertainment are coming
| to an end.
| jessaustin wrote:
| _You can see the ads sneaking in bit by bit over the last
| few months..._
|
| Every time I see a comment like this, I get a jarring
| reminder that some people _don 't_ have uBlock Origin
| installed. Probably unavoidable on a "device", but like
| you say the PC is eternal.
| arsome wrote:
| Personally I love having a desktop plugged in as I mainly
| watch YouTube, Plex and play games, but for someone who's
| planning to use a lot of DRM-encumbered services like
| Netflix, they often restrict the streaming resolutions
| available to desktop PCs where the DRM isn't as capable.
| A Shield will work nicely in those cases though.
| refracture wrote:
| An iPhone makes setup easier and it supports some neat
| things like using the camera on your phone to calibrate
| color tone, but it's optional.
|
| If you buy a new Apple TV make sure you get the one that
| just came out with the new Siri remote, it looks much
| better than the old touchpad one that I think at best
| people tolerate.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Despite what people say Apple TV on its own is fine. Yes
| you'll miss out on keyboard entry but I wouldn't call that
| a dealbreaker at all. Mine pretty much runs as it's own
| device.
| syops wrote:
| I believe all you need is an iCloud account. If you do get
| an Apple TV here's the best way to subscribe to video
| services. Subscribe to the video service using the Apple TV
| app (confusing to have an app with the same name as the
| device). Then install the corresponding app and watch the
| programs using that service's app. This will allow you to
| cancel services easily and you won't have to create an
| account for each video service. The Apple TV app itself is
| garbage and I only watch Apple TV+ content on it.
| kenjackson wrote:
| Is there a good TV media player (like Roku) that can play web
| video content? I like to watch lots of local youth sports
| through BallerTV, but they don't have a Roku or XBox app. I'd
| love to find a device that had a good web browser and played
| video content (I feel like the XBox purposely doesn't support a
| lot of video through their web browser), where I didn't have to
| hook up a computer to the TV.
| KFCxK5N1Gp wrote:
| The solution that works for me. I use one of the old
| laptop/tablets that's lying around the house, plug it into the
| tv hdmi, buy one of the many bluetooth keyboards with a
| trackpad and use it as a remote.
|
| Advantages are that I don't buy any hardware, I know it works
| with any streaming service, I don't need a smart tv, I don't
| need to struggle typing in passwords and search terms using a
| tv remote. And, not once have I felt - oh I wish I had a roku
| or chromecast or whatever, and something would have been
| better.
| pradn wrote:
| There is an issue with quality, if that matters to you. I
| might be the only person who cares about Dolby Vision/Atmos,
| but it's supported only by a limited cross section of
| streaming service x device x app version.
| stevehawk wrote:
| As a fellow Roku user.. I never figured out what the situation
| was on the HBO MAX thing.. I was an HBO Now subscriber.. HBO
| never quit working for me .. I'm guessing they migrated me to
| Max or something.. but I'd like to hear from you how it
| affected you in case I missed something.
| drdec wrote:
| With only HBO Now as the app you only had access to HBO
| content, not the full range of the HBO Max content.
| TheHypnotist wrote:
| As far as I know something similar happened with Amazon. They
| didn't have MAX for a very long time.
| debacle wrote:
| It's the same thing with Twitch - for a long time you could
| still get Twitch on Roku, but it was unsupported. AFAIK you
| can still install it, but it doesn't work.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| Twoku works alright, but it's not great. On those extremely
| rare occasions where I want to watch Twitch, let alone
| Twitch on my TV (hello Minecraft Clash of the Creators), I
| hook a laptop into the HDMI of the TV and run from there.
| hyperbovine wrote:
| Apple still makes money selling hardware.
| AviationAtom wrote:
| Fire TV lets you sideload, i.e. NBC's Peacock. Otherwise
| Google's new "Chromecast with Google TV" is a cheap option, or
| Nvidia's Shield.
| andrewla wrote:
| It's the entire reason that they split off from Netflix in the
| first place! I bought my first Roku the day it was announced --
| 5/20/2008, the "Roku Netflix Player", and I was thrilled with
| it. They added support for other streaming sources not too long
| after and I could not have been happier.
|
| The next version had pre-programmed buttons for various
| services that had paid them off, and I was annoyed, but
| whatever.
|
| The version after that they wanted me to enter my credit card
| information just to activate the device.
|
| And finally they just started plastering it with ads, including
| ads for the "Roku Channel".
|
| I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a
| device. I don't know what to do next; I tried an Amazon Fire TV
| but it's garbage. Chromecast I also found unusable; the app
| would lose connection all the time so pausing was always an
| iffy proposition. There are generic Android boxes but I have no
| idea what to expect quality-wise, and there are options like
| building my own Kodi box but I don't know how well streaming
| services are supported. I guess Apple TV is the last option?
| Last time I tried one it was just okay, and now Apple has its
| own streaming platform so I'm sure it's going to get into these
| same fights.
| mgr86 wrote:
| We used to love our roku. Still do, and we have owned various
| versions for nearly as long as you. Even went with a roku tv
| at one point.
|
| I bought an LG OLED CX this past November. I was planning to
| hook a roku up to it. My experience with smart tvs in the
| past has been hugely underwhelming to downright unusable. But
| I've been more than happy with just using the apps on the LG
| tv. Your mileage may vary, but I have a good picture quality
| and I'm pretty happy with the remote. It allows me to program
| the keypad to hard-press them to launch an app of my choice.
| Additionally, they have their own channel offerings similar
| to Pluto.
|
| I have heard great things about the Shield as well. That is
| probably the closest you can find to without building your
| own HTPC.
| ryanianian wrote:
| One downside to many SmartTVs including those sold by
| Samsung and LG is that they do ACR (automatic content
| recognition). It tells the TV manufacturer what you're
| watching so they can sell it to ad networks. I _think_ a
| pihole kills it, but the safest thing to do is to unaccept
| any privacy policies or to not give it wifi. Either option
| will disable built-in apps.
| citrusybread wrote:
| yeah, until they start putting cellular modems in these
| things. only a matter of time. don't new LG/samsung TVs
| connect to open wifi now if they can't connect to yours?
| ryanianian wrote:
| Not agreeing to the privacy policy should prevent that.
| Until of course they say you need to agree in order to
| use the TV at all.
| mgr86 wrote:
| This is very true. I've been losing this battle with my
| wife in other areas of our life and have just, generally,
| given in I suppose. She still thinks I'm a nut and its
| only a coincidence that the arcane thing we were just
| discussing is now showing up as an advertisement
| somewhere.
| colordrops wrote:
| Don't all the set top boxes (other than open source)
| collect and sell your info as well?
| ryanianian wrote:
| The AppleTV does not as far as I know.
| dstaley wrote:
| Another happy LG OLED and Shield owner here! I use the
| Shield when playing more difficult-to-play media from Plex
| (stuff like high-bitrate HDR content with lossless audio),
| and the built-in apps on the TV the rest of the time. Heck,
| even Apple TV is available as an app on the LG.
| mgr86 wrote:
| yes the biggest complaint I have is the no DTS support. A
| lot of my plex library has DTS audio. I've generally been
| able to avoid it now, but it took me by surprise the
| first time my file had no audio.
| throwaway287391 wrote:
| Everyone seems to love the LG WebOS software, I seem to be
| the only one that absolutely hates it. I have the LG E9
| (previous generation, one year old). The picture is great
| but I hate just about everything else about it. Having to
| point at things with the "magic remote" is the least usable
| input interface I've ever encountered -- I'm not sure if
| I'm just completely devoid of motor skills but I find it
| ridiculously difficult to point at a particular thing on
| the screen, especially if it's a small hitbox. I genuinely
| don't understand how anyone likes it (but I know they do).
| I guess I'm the only one who still sometimes watches linear
| TV but the on-screen program guide is basically unusable;
| it takes literally a full minute to load 2 hours' worth of
| shows for the currently displayed 10 channels sometimes
| (and then repeat if you scroll to view a different 10
| channels). Meanwhile my cheap Samsung dumb TV from 5 years
| ago works flawlessly (other than being only 1080p) and it's
| easy to browse with the arrow-key-based remote.
| mgr86 wrote:
| > Having to point at things with the "magic remote"
|
| --
|
| Yeah accidentally switching that one caused some grief
| the first week as I fumbled for the "right" button to
| dismiss it. But _Having to_ use it is not my experience.
| Does the previous generation insist you use it?
|
| We generally use the same 3 or 4 apps. Embarrassingly it
| took us a couple months to figure out we could program
| the keypad and hardpress the button to launch custom
| apps. Not its merely telling the other to "turn on 2"
| etc.
|
| > . I guess I'm the only one who still sometimes watches
| linear TV but the on-screen program guide is basically
| unusable; it takes literally a full minute to load 2
| hours'
|
| --
|
| That is a fair complaint. I've not really had that
| experience, but I don't watch much linear tv. But I doubt
| you are not the only one to watch tv this way.
|
| We chose this TV after our Roku TV broke after 2 years.
| Surprisingly enough Amazon gave us a full refund for the
| broken TV. Even gave us an extra $30 to purchase a TV
| box.
| throwaway287391 wrote:
| > Yeah accidentally switching that one caused some grief
| the first week as I fumbled for the "right" button to
| dismiss it. But Having to use it is not my experience.
| Does the previous generation insist you use it?
|
| You're right, it can be dismissed that way. I looked for
| a way to disable it completely and quickly found that
| wasn't possible, but I did discover the right-arrow trick
| you mentioned. But it doesn't make it disappear for long,
| and I never managed to build up the reflex of pressing it
| regularly (it's kind of non-obvious, you have to admit),
| and to be honest I'd mostly forgotten right-arrow did
| that. But thank you for reminding me, I may have to try
| to work on that muscle memory.
| leephillips wrote:
| You can buy a mini desktop computer for $100 and just plug it
| in to the TV. Control it with a $10 wireless keyboard, and
| watch anything that you can watch in a web browser (Netflix,
| Amazon Prime, etc.).
|
| https://lee-phillips.org/tcDebian/
| przmk wrote:
| But this lacks a nice and clean UI to watch Youtube,
| Netflix, etc. I wouldn't want to control a browser
| displayed on a TV with a wireless keyboard.
| Fauntleroy wrote:
| Then you simply get to decide which one of these bothers
| you more:
|
| - A wireless keyboard and web browser - Ads being
| mercilessly shoved down your throat
| logix wrote:
| Or, for Youtube (I guess you could use the same device
| for Netflix, Plex client, etc.), you could get the best
| of both worlds: Chromecast-like controls for YouTube and
| an ad blocker (the info from that link can be adapted for
| a desktop): https://www.linuxuprising.com/2021/04/how-to-
| cast-youtube-vi...
| riskable wrote:
| I completely disagree. I have a Roku-powered TV, Amazon
| FireTV, Chromecast Ultra, and have used quite a lot of
| "smart TV" interfaces. They all suck compared to KDE +
| VLC + Firefox (with uBlock Origin). Smart TV/device
| interfaces aren't even in the same league!
|
| Example: By the time the Netflix app is open in Roku I
| will have already found the show and have it playing on
| my Linux desktop in Firefox.
|
| Not only that but the apps are severely limited in
| functionality compared to what you get on the websites
| for the same provider. Even just scrolling through
| shows/movies is a bazillion times faster and _good luck_
| trying to find a specific place in the middle of a show
| using a regular remote control! haha. With a mouse I can
| just click right in the middle of that progress bar and
| be done.
|
| Then there's things like Funimation: Their apps all suck
| _so bad_ that the website seems like a dream in
| comparison even though the website is so awful it makes
| web developers visibly gag. The benefit the computer has
| is that it 's _trivial_ to load up those same shows on
| pirate sites when Funmation stops loading /playing videos
| _again_ (on any given day you could have about a 5%
| chance of a Funimation video actually playing).
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| I usually find the ui on desktop browsers to be most
| friendly to my needs. Couple that with all the
| customization options I have from it being a normal
| computer, it's by far my choice device for watching tv
| voxic11 wrote:
| Have you tried it? In my experience its far nicer then
| most "Smart TV" or media devices in a similar price
| range. (certain devices like the apple tv have acceptable
| UI's but they are a little pricier).
|
| I personally use one with an integrated mouse and its
| very convenient https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Wireless-
| Keyboard-Control-To...
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Eh, it isn't great, but you get used to it and it is a
| hell of a lot better than dealing with all the bullshit
| of the various bespoke players.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Couldn't you run Plex or similar as the UI?
| cronix wrote:
| It was a lot better when MS still had Windows Media
| Center (last in Win 8.1). I could actually watch cable tv
| with a cablecard system through windows. Full DVR,
| accurate guides, able to use WMC remotes, could watch on
| any computer attached to the network, etc. It was one
| slick system.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| I've been doing it for close to 10 years. I hate trying
| to navigate on friends/parents smart tvs. They are slow,
| the UI doesnt always make a lot of sense, the cable
| provider guide always seems to be fighting with the smart
| tv guide/pages.
|
| Is that really a nice and clean UI compared to Windows
| which most people are familiar with?
| _coveredInBees wrote:
| Things have evolved a lot in the last 10 years. I've had
| an HTPC for that long as well, and it has its place but
| if you spend a bit more than the $20 for the cheapest
| streaming sticks, any of the modern streaming devices are
| extremely snappy and responsive and much more enjoyable
| to navigate via a remote than dealing with a wireless
| keyboard and mouse. The smoothness of the video stream is
| also in general better from my experience than streaming
| via a webbrowser. And that's setting aside all the
| downsides of HTPC streaming due to losing out on 4K, HDR
| and 5.1 audio streams.
|
| I love my HTPC, but its role has changed over the years
| in my living room.
| toxican wrote:
| It varies wildly my TV manufacturer. My parent's smart TV
| is god-awful to navigate. You have to go into an app to
| get to the streaming apps...like what?
|
| But my TV has Roku built-in and it's smooth as silk for
| the most part. Most of the issues I encounter are app-
| related. Like HBO Max is really clunky, but Netflix is
| rock-solid.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| Yeah, my Roku Streaming Stick+ plays everything just
| fine. The only thing I use Kodi on my Pi for these days
| is anime with SSA/ASS formatted subtitles since the Roku
| can only handle SRT format, which means you don't get
| nice formatting for times when there's one subtitle for
| dialogue at the same time as a subtitle for a piece of
| text
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Maybe this is a semantics argument but if you have to add
| something additional to the TV for it to play well then
| it doesnt really seem like that speaks to the quality of
| the TV UI.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| I totally agree that Smart TV interface is abysmal. I
| bought the latest LG OLED with WebOS thinking it would be
| the closest to "the future". So wrong. The OS hangs
| consistently. Apps don't load. When you start adding
| streaming sticks and multiple remotes, everything gets
| confusing. Still. It's 2021.
|
| I think this speaks to the opportunity ahead for TVs
| rather than an argument for attaching a PC. Why can't all
| these HDMI sticks just be virtual devices? Provide an app
| store that gives you a Roku or Firestick. Why is
| identifying me and signing into all my streaming services
| still so difficult and full of friction? There is so much
| runway for simply a better TV. Start with good hardware.
| Build up a modern operating system that is smooth and
| just works. Don't even have a built in remote. Start with
| the assumption that all my interaction will be with 3rd
| party remotes and make them all work with zero/one touch.
| When I start interacting with a remote, the TV should
| know what I am trying to do (PS4, Xbox, Roku, Apple TV,
| etc) and simply respond with the interface. The core HW
| operating system should be nearly invisible. Stay out of
| the way. No Ads. no app stores. No crap. Build all of
| that in layers on top.
|
| Imagine a specific example:
|
| 1. I purchase a Roku _remote_.
|
| 2. I unbox the remote and point it at my TV.
|
| 3. My TV downloads the Roku virtual stick and starts
| giving me the Roku interface. In the background. As a
| user, I don't care about any of that crap.
|
| 4. Roku accesses a touchid or faceid to load my account.
|
| 5. Roku installs all my apps I use automatically.
|
| 6. The apps on Roku call Roku APIs to identify me and
| sign me into these apps automatically (Netflix, Hulu,
| etc).
|
| With the right TV and _hardware_ OS, the TV experience
| could be so much better.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| And don't get me started on channel guides. The whole
| premise of assuming events are pre-planned on a fix
| statically scheduled grid is soooo old school. Center the
| TV guide around "events" rather than a grid of time
| slots. Events are the centerpiece of live TV, from news
| to sports. You basically just need 2 flows to cover all
| of TV: on demand "content" and "events".
|
| EDIT: I would also add some "pre" and "post" concept
| around events. This could hook social media into the TV.
| Every app from Clubhouse, Twitter, Live podcasts, etc.
| could plug into a pre or post show for key events they
| cover.
| qudat wrote:
| Plex to chromecast works great for me
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| Does YouTube.com/TV work for you?
| jstanley wrote:
| That seems to be a (delayed) redirect to the youtube.com
| home page, at least for me in Firefox on Ubuntu.
| logix wrote:
| Use a smart tv user agent and it will work on a desktop.
| pja wrote:
| You won't be able to watch HD content on Netflix or Amazon
| Prime (at the very least) that way though. You can only get
| HD streaming via a browser on Windows, which appears to
| have an exception to the usual DRM rules.
|
| edit: As pointed out below, Windows is implementing DRM via
| decoding in hardware, which WideVine (Google's DRM layer)
| on desktop Linux doesn't / can't do, so there's no special
| exemption here.
| kuschku wrote:
| You can get 1080p with Netflix or Amazon Prime in Firefox
| on Linux. It just requires some addons to modify their
| client app js (because the DRM verification level is high
| enough, it's only their frontend that disables this)
| pja wrote:
| Except that the WideVine DRM library under Linux only
| does software decoding, so HD video tends to stutter
| according to the issue logs on said extensions on GitHub.
| Assuming you get it to work at all of course.
| riskable wrote:
| I haven't had any lag issues with it and my HTPC is
| running a 12-year-old processor with a 10-year-old AMD
| GPU. Maybe it's an Intel or Nvidia driver issue?
|
| I'm running KDE and have it configured to disable the
| compositor when an app goes full screen. Maybe that's
| your issue? Try turning off desktop effects and screwing
| around with your compositor settings.
|
| Edit: I want to point out that since my GPU can't handle
| 4k the desktop resolution is limited to ~2k (whatever the
| highest was that it can handle at 60Hz--I forget now
| haha).
| zihotki wrote:
| I assume that that was a point in regards with $100 mini-
| pc (think ARM-based one). Your 12-year old device likely
| has more performance comparing to those modern and cheap
| pc's.
| bityard wrote:
| I already get 1080p on Netflix in Firefox on Linux.
|
| However, Amazon Prime on the same setup gets me 720p at
| most. (This is a regression because I _know_ I used to
| watch the first few seasons of The Expanse in 1080.)
|
| Which add-ons allow you to watch Prime in 1080p on Linux?
| I wasn't able to find them.
| Crespyl wrote:
| Same experience here, Netflix works without too much
| hassle, but Prime is limited to a much lower bitrate than
| on Windows.
|
| At one point I experimented a bit with making an addon
| myself, and it's possible to intercept the requests and
| spoof the UA/platform to get URLs for the HD streams, but
| then it goes to VMP/widevine and is a bit beyond my
| abilities. Best I could get was for the HD quality option
| to appear in the UI, but with a complaint that it
| wouldn't work because I needed to update or use a
| different browser.
|
| Now pretty much the only time I use Prime video is for
| the occasional watchparty, and I'll just pirate the stuff
| I want to see in HD.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| You can watch HD in the Netflix app on Windows if your
| hardware supports HDCP.
|
| Edge on Windows also gets HD from Netflix and Amazon,
| because it uses the same DRM pipeline as the app does
| (Microsoft PlayReady).
|
| There's no exemption from the DRM rules here, Edge and
| the app implement hardware backed DRM systems.
| pja wrote:
| WideVine is level3 for browsers on the Desktop:
| https://go.buydrm.com/thedrmblog/why-google-widevines-
| drm-is...
|
| I guess Windows streaming is going via PlayReady then.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Widevine is not used by Edge for Windows, as you say
| PlayReady is.
|
| (Well, Widevine actually is also present for a site to
| use if you really want to, but other than being too lazy
| to have two license servers there's very little reason
| why you would.)
|
| Microsoft have not ported PlayReady to other OSes, so
| Edge for Mac/Linux does use Widevine and gets Level 3.
| leephillips wrote:
| Thanks for pointing this out, I wasn't aware.
| darig wrote:
| Then how do I watch both of those services in 720p on a
| mac using a 140" projector that looks flawless?
|
| Or, are you a first adopter type that only considers 4K+
| "HD"?
|
| 1080i also works, but the projector is 720p native, and
| progressive scan prevents the jagged edges during fast
| motion.
| kwanbix wrote:
| It costs 129 today at amazon. Plus 10 for the keyboard it
| is 140.
|
| For 30~50 I can get a Fire TV that can plays for all the
| sources that I use (Netflix, Amazon Video, and Diskey+),
| and save on the electricity bill.
| leephillips wrote:
| Sure. But my comment was a response to the problems
| people are having with these streaming devices. Plus,
| with the mini desktop you have a full-blown Linux
| computer. You could even record TV on it (though I
| haven't tried this).
| intergalplan wrote:
| Audio, in particular, is much less likely to "just work" on
| a $100 computer than a Roku. Ditto things like HDR.
|
| [edit] by "audio" I mean, in particular, sending the right
| codecs to get surround sound for a particular source, when
| you ought to have it.
| leephillips wrote:
| Absolutely true. Primitive stereo is good enough for me,
| but not for everyone.
| _coveredInBees wrote:
| I have an HTPC hooked up to my LG C9, but an HTPC really is
| not a great option for streaming content if you have a
| reasonably good TV and/or sound system. You lose HDR and in
| most cases 4K streaming if you try to view content via a
| web browser for most streaming services. You also lose
| higher quality audio and 5.1 audio streams with most
| services when viewing through a web browser. And then there
| is the issue that browser based streaming is just never
| quite as smooth and stutter free as streaming on any
| decently capable modern streaming device due to the native
| hardware acceleration and the fact that you don't have an
| entire OS with a bunch of other things running on it
| competing for CPU/GPU cycles at any given time.
|
| The LG C9 processor is quite powerful and extremely snappy.
| My HTPC is almost always an inferior option on that front.
| I would rather recommend someone buy something like the
| nVidia shield instead of an HTPC if they mainly consume
| content via streaming services. I still like my HTPC for
| other uses and it is also great for Zoom/Skype calls with
| friends and family from my living room.
| bakatubas wrote:
| Man--all I can say is most tech companies suck these days in
| that way. Bought a Samsung "smart" tv and a couple months
| later got an update--now it's showing McDonalds ads. Like WTF
| I paid $500 for a TV but that's not good enough?
|
| The ad industry is a cesspool these days.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| It's the consumer hardware industry as a whole. The
| combination of heavy competition on street price and a
| dearth of salient new features (my mid-tier TV from 2017 is
| effectively identical in features to its modern
| counterparts) has encouraged the manufacturers to
| supplement the one-time revenue from sales with ongoing
| revenue from advertising, spyware and kickbacks from the
| subscription streaming companies.
| chaostheory wrote:
| > I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a
| device.
|
| Not many companies can survive with Apple's business model,
| but without the luxury Apple brand.
| TheRealWatson wrote:
| "The next version had pre-programmed buttons for various
| services that had paid them off, and I was annoyed, but
| whatever."
|
| I cut those buttons off with a knife because I kept
| accidentally pressing them just by picking up or holding the
| remote, which would exit whatever I was currently watching.
| Larrikin wrote:
| Just get Plex, it works everywhere and you don't have to
| worry about all the fighting between companies.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I use to use Plex, but they changed the UI to include all
| sorts of junk that I didn't want; really made it unusable
| for me as I didn't want adult films (not porn, but not kids
| friendly) being advertised on the home screen. I only used
| it for pictures and home videos but they wrecked it;
| couldn't find a way to go back.
| Larrikin wrote:
| The home screen and side bars are all fully customizable.
| It's a little annoying they turn them on by default as
| they add channels but you can turn them off easily.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I tried turning everything off, still had content
| thumbnails and details I didn't want and lacked the home
| screen stuff I did (it has been great previously). Waited
| for the next two revisions to see if it was fixed, no
| better so I moved on. Sounds like it's good for you: I
| literally wanted only local network content, nothing from
| the net, is that how you have it?
|
| Might consider going back but we don't look at family
| pics that often and vlc works well enough.
| colordrops wrote:
| I unfortunately bought a roku right before all this went
| down, but fortunately there's a Jellyfin app for it.
| Jellyfin is an open source media server that is probably
| the closest to Plex in functionality.
| 0xEFF wrote:
| Apple TV is quite good these days.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I miss my Roku Soundbridge. It made streaming music in a time
| when that was hard. I'd listen to SomaFM coming through my
| stereo for hours a day.
| scarface74 wrote:
| No, Hastings canceled the project when it was already done to
| allow them to spin off because he didn't want to be seen as
| in competition with hardware makers. He wanted Netflix to be
| everywhere.
|
| Amazon has the same business model as Roku with the Fire.
|
| They don't raise prices for a few reasons
|
| 1. People are cheap
|
| 2. Most of their installed based is now coming from cheap low
| margin TVs with Roku embedded.
|
| 3. Selling a device that people only replace once every 5
| years isn't sustainable.
|
| There is only one company selling streaming devices at a
| profit - Apple. Have you noticed that every streaming
| provider is on AppleTV day one even though it has the lowest
| market share by far?
|
| Streaming providers can just download Xcode, follow a few
| simple requirements (not link to their website for payments)
| and submit an app.
|
| Before I get the standard replies, no streaming providers are
| not required to go through in app purchases and many don't -
| including YouTube Live TV.
|
| Also before I get the other retort. Yes they do have to work
| with Apple to be integrated into the TV app. Which is an app
| on iOS devices.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > They don't raise prices for a few reasons
|
| >1. People are cheap
|
| This is always the answer. Or rather they can not raise
| prices, because then sufficient number of consumers will
| not buy the product.
| ianai wrote:
| They should offer a few beefier, higher margin devices.
| I'd pay for no load times, for instance.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Yes. And the definition of a "sufficient number of
| people" is different for Roku where their entire business
| is based on selling streaming boxes and Apple where sells
| of streaming box is a "hobby" and less than a rounding
| error.
|
| Given a choice, I would rather have an AppleTV and pay
| more for a better user experience than pay less for a
| Roku.
|
| That being said, we have multiple Roku TVs throughout our
| house and they are good enough. But the two I use most
| frequently also have ATV4Ks. I also couldn't in good
| conscience recommend that most people get ATVs at their
| current prices.
| rednerrus wrote:
| FiretTV has been great for us.
| matt_heimer wrote:
| They have a remote that lets you customize the buttons now -
| https://www.roku.com/products/accessories/roku-voice-
| remote-...
|
| The fire tv and android tv both have ads/recommendations that
| take up more space, at least roku ads get in the way less.
|
| I wish there was a kindle like option to pay and remove ads
| on all these devices.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I don 't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a
| device._
|
| Because "everyone else is doing it."
|
| It's the reason that the entirety of the tech industry seems
| to be getting worse, not better. Outside of the people who
| get profiles in the Wall Street Journal, there are no real
| leaders, only followers now. And with the bloating of middle-
| management ranks, reliance on consultants, and fear of
| leaving the comfort of mediocrity, the lack of leadership
| only gets worse.
| StreamBright wrote:
| I went through similar products. The last one was an android
| box. I was tearing out my hair after every upgrade. It is
| just not worth the problems. Raspberry Pi might be a good
| option but only v3. The new v4 has problems and there are
| very hacky ways the get the GPU acceleration working. At this
| stage an Apple Tv or maybe an Intel NUC might be the best
| options.
| rezonant wrote:
| I use Chromecast heavily --- I used to have some problems
| with getting connected and staying connected until I replaced
| my ISP provided router with a new Netgear Nighthawk. On top
| of connecting to wifi taking about 1 second to complete
| (versus tens of seconds on the old router), I now have zero
| issues with Chromecast. Unfortunately the reliability of
| Chromecast is pretty dependent by how good your WiFi network
| is
| wffurr wrote:
| I got a Nexus Player to use as a Chromecast, initially
| because it had 5 GHz wireless, but then I figured out that
| you can use an USB OTG adapter to plug an ethernet adapter
| into the micro USB port. That worked even better.
|
| Frustrating that the new ones don't have an ethernet jack
| on them. WiFi in a condo or apartment building is
| unreliable and slow.
|
| EDIT: Nevermind, they have official ones built into the
| power bricks! https://store.google.com/collection/accessori
| es_wall?compati...
| rezonant wrote:
| The new Chromecast devices definitely support 5Ghz WiFi
| btw- I use the 4K variant for all of my TVs and they are
| all using the 5Ghz variant of my WiFi network.
| wffurr wrote:
| Yeah, the Nexus Player predates those. The OG Chromecast,
| which I also had, did not. I bought the Nexus Player to
| replace it.
| abawany wrote:
| Also, it seems that you can really enhance the
| functionality of the device with other peripherals by
| connecting up a USB-C hub: https://gizmodo.com/how-to-
| use-a-usb-c-hub-to-upgrade-your-c... .
| dcow wrote:
| Try an LG TV with webOS. I know it sounds crazy but it works
| so well these days. It makes dongles feel 2nd rate (at least
| when used on the LG) because of how integrated and useful the
| TV interface is. I don't think streaming devices were ever
| meant to be a permanent thing. That's kinda the job of the TV
| if you think about it.
| sarah180 wrote:
| Unless you want to watch HBO Max, in which case you need a
| dongle....
| chaseha wrote:
| Lack of an HBO Max app is annoying for sure. I just play
| it on my iphone and then AirPlay to the TV which isn't
| too bad. Now if Windows Laptops could cast OTA better
| that would be the best... haven't been able to get the
| windows airplay equivalent to work at all
| tw04 wrote:
| Nvidia shield is great, just make sure you get a pro. For
| reasons I'll never understand, they dropped the standard
| model to 8GB of memory which causes it to run low on memory
| with some apps.
| srswtf123 wrote:
| Have you tried consuming _less media overall_?
|
| I'm at the point where not only are the various set-top boxes
| and smart devices trash, but the content is as well.
|
| I don't want to watch recycled stories from my childhood, but
| darker and grittier. I imagine good content exists, but
| honestly I just can't be bothered to hunt it down anymore,
| and then wade through the literal sea of ads required to
| watch it.
| alamortsubite wrote:
| The Criterion Channel is very good.
| xwolfi wrote:
| Other languages can help. It s easier if the next language
| is english, but I always come back to French when Im fed up
| of the trash. It s so different, has its own little world
| and self reference, and it gets me going for a while.
|
| I imagine every language has the same unique stories and
| content that will never be translated well enough.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Underrated comment. Sorry, this is a little provocative,
| but an effective end game here is to wean yourself off of
| Media Consumption As A Hobby, and find other things to do
| that don't involve getting your eyeballs milked by media
| companies. Simply finding another milking machine that
| doesn't (yet) bombard you with ads is a halfway solution.
| srswtf123 wrote:
| Books continue to exist, for example.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Books can be ads or filled with ads.
| asquabventured wrote:
| Unplugging completely is the way to go! Sometimes the only
| way to win the game is to just not play at all.
| ljf wrote:
| Can only talk for me, but I watch maybe an hour of TV at
| most a day maximum - generally two episodes of a light
| comedy before bed each day. On top of that I'll watch one
| movie or documentary a week - I don't think that is
| excessive. But when I do want to watch this, I just want it
| to work. I use chromecast and since changing broadband
| provider and getting a new router it has misbehaved loads.
| Watching some last thing TV has become a chore - getting it
| to play first time, and then pausing or skipping is now a
| pain. Ordered a new router which should fix things - but a
| working tool to consume (however much or little you do)
| makes life simpler. I don't want to battle technology for
| my limited video entertainment.
|
| Finding great stuff is hard - but the less you watch the
| longer the good stuff lasts! The Office USA has been great
| for wind down entertainment.
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| For Darker and Grittier content...try HBO Max. They have
| some of the darkest shows such as The Night Of, Watchmen
| etc.
| colordrops wrote:
| Vimeo has a bunch of great content.
| rabuse wrote:
| This is definitely my experience as well. I'm constantly
| just watching the good stuff from the past, because the
| newer stuff is absolutely awful.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I can't tell if this is just an artifact of getting old
| or new stuff is worse than old stuff. After all, my
| parents still like stuff from their youth that I don't
| like.
| bobbob1921 wrote:
| Part of this is bc everything is about Reoccurring, monthly
| revenue. It's no longer good enough to build a great product
| , make a nice profit, and move on to the next iteration. A
| company now must generate (or extract) stable, reoccurring
| revenue from its products (which for a company/investors is
| much more appealing than onetime profits). It sucks imo, but
| it's infected everything now.
|
| > I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a
| device
|
| This comment is exactly my feeling , and why for most
| products , is an unfortunate outcome of the reoccurring rev
| model.
| lrem wrote:
| Yeah, remember Pebble :(
| x1ph0z wrote:
| Have you tried an Nvidia Shield?
| jeffgreco wrote:
| Unfortunately the exact same thing is happening with Apple TV
| right now. A really great box but they are absolutely jamming
| Apple TV+ down their users' throats.
| r00fus wrote:
| How do? I don't notice any push to watch Apple stuff when I
| navigate directly to Netflix or Prime Video...
| bullfightonmars wrote:
| The Apple TV app is completely optional (and I hope it
| stays that way). The inly time I open it is to watch Apple
| TV+ shows.
|
| P.S. They made the homescreen button goback to A the Apple
| TV app a while ago. This behavior can be changed go make it
| go back to the home screen.
| snuxoll wrote:
| The TV app is the single greatest feature of the Apple
| TV, though. I have one list of shows I am watching (sans
| Netflix because they are petty, I don't subscribe to them
| for more than a month at a time to binge a few shows
| though); multiple, even, because each person in the house
| has their own.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Just take all of the apps off the top bar and put other
| apps up there. Any app on the top bar can control the hero
| banner.
| refracture wrote:
| At least there's a setting to make the 'TV' button take you
| to the home screen instead of the Apple TV+ app, and unlike
| Roku when monitoring network traffic the Apple TV is pretty
| quiet when not in use, unlike the Roku that is constantly
| chattering with ad services... ads on the home screen..
| yuck.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| _the Roku that is constantly chattering with ad services_
|
| This is indeed annoying. But it's easy enough to fix with
| pihole. That just leaves 1/3 of the home screen being
| wasted space.
| bozleh2 wrote:
| How about the nvidia shield? It runs android tv so can
| install kodi etc and can sideload smart-youtube which removes
| all ads.
| drewg123 wrote:
| Plus one to this. I've had a shield for years, and am very
| happy with it. I use smart-youtube which removes YT ads. It
| "just works"
| doix wrote:
| For what it's worth, I bought an nvidia shield pro and use
| that. Just like how Roku started, they just make hardware.
| There are a few subtle adverts are the nvidia remote play
| stuff (preinstalled applications) but I hardly notice them.
| They don't have any skin in the streaming space so I find
| that comforting.
|
| My only slight worry is that it's running on Android TV, so
| there's always a chance google bans something.
| drunkpotato wrote:
| I also want to add on to the praise for the Nvidia Shield.
| After a frustrating experience with Roku, Roku stick, and
| Fire stick, the Shield experience has been great and I
| haven't regretted it.
| jkestner wrote:
| If it has a screen and network access, the demand for
| growth will inevitably lead it to become an ad platform. Or
| more generally, a market for eyeballs.
| cosmie wrote:
| Or at the very least it'll become a data collection
| platform, to be packaged and sold (whether for use with
| ads directly or for the many consumer intelligence[1]
| companies that charge gobs of money for aggregate
| reporting).
|
| [1] https://www.numerator.com/
| paranoidrobot wrote:
| I can also recommend the nvidia shield.
|
| I used to run various PC based home theatre bits of
| software, but they're all inevitably a pain to manage,
| don't work right, and require fiddling.
|
| Got the Shield TV pro 2019(?) version, pointed Plex at my
| NAS, and it plays content flawlessly. Youtube, Amazon
| Prime, Netflix all work well too.
|
| In theory it also plays games - but Nvidia's game service
| isn't launched here in Australia, and I've not found a game
| on the Google Play store that's isn't outright terrible.
| Steam Link theoretically works, but none of the games in my
| Steam library are suited to play with a controller.
| Theoretically there's emulators for various consoles which
| I've seen people saying is excellent, but I've never been
| able to make any of them work.
|
| Like just about any modern device - it does need to be
| rebooted occasionally, but for the most part it's just turn
| on and go.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| I recommend Crypt of the Necrodancer.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| FWIW, the Steam Link app also accepts keyboard and mouse
| input. You can just them up to your shield and it should
| detect them in the Steam Link app and suddenly you can
| just go ahead and play Cities: Skylines or whatever on
| your TV
| aryonoco wrote:
| Another happy NVIDIA Shield owner here.
|
| I switched from Roku to Shield when the first Shield came
| out in 2015. That device is still going strong, still plays
| everything I throw at it, has excellent support with Kodi
| and Plex and every single catch up TV app is available for
| it.
|
| 6 years later, and NVIDIA is still issuing regular Android
| updates for it. The only Android device that's getting
| official support from OEM 6 years after release.
|
| highly recommend.
| rerx wrote:
| I switched from a Fire TV Stick and a Valve Stream Link to
| an Nvidia Shield Pro. Very happy as well.
|
| But to be honest I miss Amazon's voice search. It worked
| much better to find thing from the Netflix and Prime Video
| catalogs than Google assistant does now.
|
| And on the other hand I actually would like to get the new
| Google TV interface of the most recent Chromecast. It looks
| way prettier than the plain Shield home screen and its
| universal watch list sounds very useful.
| christoph wrote:
| I've got a 2015 Shield and while you can't "Uninstall" all
| the pre-installed stuff, you can disable them through the
| global app settings.
|
| I've basically disabled everything on my Shield, just
| leaving Netflix, Disney+, etc. activated and it's made it
| much more responsive and stable. I had the feeling some of
| my slowdowns were occurring as apps polled back home to see
| what content they should be displaying on the home screen,
| downloading thumbnails, etc. and sure enough, it's now
| zipping along like the old days.
|
| Just to add to everybody else, I've had this box for nearly
| 6 years and it's as good as the day I bought it and has
| kept up with technology in an amazing way. 4K HDR with
| whatever surround format you throw at it is incredible.
| Especially as it acts as a Plex server in the background
| with no major power consumption. I seem to remember only
| paying PS125 for it on an Amazon deal as well. One of my
| best tech purchases of all time.
| swiley wrote:
| Streaming works fine on Linux, even from Disney.
| saxonww wrote:
| I'll second this, with the caveat that you won't always get
| HD streams.
|
| Netflix only supports 720p on Linux, and I believe Amazon
| Prime is limited to SD as well.
|
| Disney+ doesn't support Linux, but works for me right now
| with a spoofed user agent, and claims to be 1080P. YouTube
| TV works fine without any spoofing, and also claims to be
| 1080P.
|
| I don't know if Hulu works now, I haven't tried it in
| years. Vudu doesn't support Linux and I didn't try to work
| around it. Not sure about any of the other new services
| like HBO Max, or the CBS or NBC streaming services.
| __david__ wrote:
| 720p is still technically HD. SD is 480.
| ohazi wrote:
| Not even technically, 720p _is_ HD. 1080p is "Full HD"
| (FHD) and 4k is "Ultra HD" (UHD).
| saxonww wrote:
| You're both correct, I'm not sure why I made that mistake
| because I definitely know the difference.
|
| I believe Amazon currently _is_ restricted to SD /480p,
| at least, that's all I can get with Firefox right now.
| [deleted]
| paulpan wrote:
| I've been using the new Google TV (different from just a
| Chromecast dongle) and think it's pretty good, especially if
| you're also using other Google apps and services. $50 is a
| pretty reasonable price for the feature-set, and 1/3 of the
| cost of an Apple TV.
| rchaud wrote:
| > I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a
| device.
|
| They're publicly traded, so selling only hardware makes their
| business model too predictable and 'low-growth' for Wall St.
| Also competitors could eat their lunch considering that their
| hardware isn't any more complex than a $50 Android TV box you
| can get at a flea market.
|
| In order to create a moat to stave off competition, you make
| your business model all about 'services', with an
| increasingly less important hardware component.
| zucker42 wrote:
| As we can see in this case, there's apparently lots of
| pressure from service providers not to be just a dumb,
| neutral piece of hardware. And, in my opinion, the control
| that streaming services have over hardware can be traced back
| to DRM anti-circumvention laws. The fact that it's illegal to
| build hardware that controverts dumb restrictions mandated by
| the streaming services by breaking their DRM means that
| hardware manufacturers. will risk being cut off by streaming
| services.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> As we can see in this case, there 's apparently lots of
| pressure from service providers not to be just a dumb,
| neutral piece of hardware._
|
| I assumed it was the opposite: Roku decided, instead of
| merely selling neutral hardware, they'd make themselves
| some extra money by charging streaming services.
|
| And that naturally means services disappearing - if Service
| A is paying you $1/user/month and you'd like them to pay
| you $2/user/month you gotta remove their app until they
| cough up.
| zucker42 wrote:
| According to Roku, the reason for this conflict is
| demands Google made about the hardware in Roku devices
| and how Roku handles search results with YouTube open. A
| Roku representative claimed they ask for not $1 of
| financial compensation. Of course, they could be lying,
| but Google hasn't provided an alternate reason.
| [deleted]
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I gave up on Roku when they and/or NowTV unlawfully deleted a
| side-loaded app from my device.
|
| Moved to FireTV which has plesk as a downloadable, that
| allows me to view photos off my local network as I was doing
| before ... Plex is awful now, the UX is terrible for me (it's
| geared to viewing Plex's content, which I have never used nor
| wanted), so I moved to just using VLC (clunky for photo
| viewing but good enough).
|
| We only use Netflix, Youtube and free catch-up channels and
| only have 1080p, but FireTV was/is way better than the Roku
| device was.
|
| What's garbage about FireTV?
| browningstreet wrote:
| I wanted HBOMax and I had given away my AppleTV. I wasn't
| going to buy a new AppleTV until they upgraded it, so I
| bought a FireTV. Aside from the ads, it works really well
| and the remote is decent.
|
| I've gotten used to it, and now that the new AppleTV is
| out, I probably won't even bother upgrading. Or if I do,
| I'm on the fence about it.
|
| The Roku interface is easily the worst of the bunch.
| nvarsj wrote:
| It doesn't take much effort to unpin the Plex channels from
| your home page, or remove them completely from your account
| settings. It's annoying that they're the default, but it's
| not a huge deal either.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I tried unpinning the Plex stuff, didn't work for, didn't
| put local content on home either. Maybe errors at my end;
| had used and liked it for a couple of years before that.
| cprecioso wrote:
| The latest Chromecast is an Android TV box with its own
| remote (in the stick form factor). Coming from Google, it's
| probably the highest quality Android TV box you'll find, and
| quite affordable. It does come with some Google "bells and
| whistles", but nothing I found intrusive, and they can be
| disabled.
| secondcoming wrote:
| Last time I looked Netflix wasn't available on it, is that
| still the case?
| jvolkman wrote:
| That was never the case. The remote even has a dedicated
| Netflix button.
| secondcoming wrote:
| It was the case at one point [0]. It stopped me buying
| one. It seems it's back in a limited form [1]
|
| [0] https://9to5google.com/2020/11/25/google-tv-netflix-
| dropped/
|
| [1] https://9to5google.com/2021/03/11/netflix-directory-
| comes-ba...
| AnssiH wrote:
| Those articles are about the content aggregation feature
| of the "Google TV" app.
|
| The Netflix app has been working the entire time on the
| "Chromecast with Google TV" device, which is what
| cprecioso recommended.
| jvolkman wrote:
| That's referring to the aggregated listing view that the
| device provides across many providers. There are still
| individual apps. The Netflix app (which is what the
| dedicated button on the remote launches by default) still
| works. I'm a Netflix subscriber and have been using the
| new Chromecast since it was released.
| cprecioso wrote:
| Netflix is definitely available, and the main app I use
| on there
| Dave_TRS wrote:
| You can turn on "apps only" mode which gets rid of most of
| the pre-loaded stuff, though one massive advertisement
| remains on the main homepage. Huge improvement over the
| Fire Stick which doesn't let you turn off the Amazon junk
| that takes over 90% of the menu real estate. Roku is still
| clean and simple and you can hide stuff you don't want. But
| massive downside is its a closed ecosystem and you can't
| load APKs and are at the whims of Roku removing apps after
| you buy it.
| cprecioso wrote:
| I 100% didn't know there were ads on the UI -- guess my
| adblocking DNS setup is working perfectly
| phh wrote:
| The UI is 95%+ ads, I wonder how it looks like with
| adblocking.
| phh wrote:
| Nope, the nVidia Shield is miles ahead.
|
| Chromecast with Google TV doesn't have TrueHD support,
| ethernet, 6/8ch PCM HDMI output, automatic frame-rate
| switch, game streaming (yes this is an obvious troll, but
| still it is true). nVidia Shield have those, and more.
| bhassel wrote:
| The google TV chromecast does support wired ethernet, but
| you need to buy the separate adapter for it.
| ubercore wrote:
| The nVidia Shield is also like 3-4x as expensive.
| awill wrote:
| I love my 2015 Shield. I do with that Nvidia would
| release a new Shield with a better SoC though. Even the
| 2019 model has essentially the same chip. The chip is
| still fine for all streaming, I'd just like more
| horsepower for emulation.
| breakingcups wrote:
| Be aware that you'll be forced to share your GPS location
| with Google during the set-up, there's no way around it.
| You'll also need to do the setup with the Google Home app
| which requires you to set up a "Home", which is way
| overkill if all you want is a Chromecast.
|
| Also, the Nvidia Shield is truly a lot better in terms of
| hardware and application support. Quite a lot of Chromecast
| "apps" are inferior to the Android TV versions that also
| run on the Shield.
| murderfs wrote:
| > Be aware that you'll be forced to share your GPS
| location with Google during the set-up
|
| I think you're misinterpreting the meaning of the
| location permission: it's probably requesting that to
| connect to the Chromecast via WiFi Direct or Bluetooth.
| Android buckets that into location because you can figure
| out a user's location by looking at nearby WiFi
| networks/Bluetooth beacons.
| Tyr42 wrote:
| Nvidia shield was okay. But expensive
| disillusioned wrote:
| The new, stupidly named Chromecast with GoogleTV is a fantastic
| alternative: allows you to install almost any Android app from
| the Play Store, works brilliantly for YouTubeTV, has a remote,
| can get around captive portals or use VPN, and it just...
| works. For $50. Honestly, I love love love mine. Plus,
| 4k/Atmos/HDR 10+ support. It's a killer device and you can
| still uninstall stuff you don't want or switch to "apps only"
| mode if you don't want to see whatever content Google wants to
| show you.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| That option is piracy. Seriously, if they don't want my money,
| I will gladly spend it instead on DRM-free ebooks, music and
| games. And I don't feel any moral guilt about pirating movies
| and TV shows since they have pushed DRM in the HTML
| specifications !
| bob1029 wrote:
| Acquiring physical media & piracy are turning into my
| defaults again. I don't have the patience to manage 10
| different subscriptions and still not have access to content
| that has been otherwise available for consumption for
| decades.
| notatoad wrote:
| i know it's about as far from "unaffiliated" as it can get, but
| the chromecast is still pretty good at being a neutral content
| player.
| sixothree wrote:
| As far as the application itself goes, YouTube TV for Roku was
| a hot pile of garbage anyway. I enjoyed using it every so often
| until they started raising prices. Again.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Just be done with all of it. I dumpstered my TV 6 years ago and
| it was absolutely liberating.
|
| I know some people might think "another TV-less life snob" but
| that's really not my point. Just tuck the TV in the closet for
| a month and see what you think. You'll have more fun. Honestly.
| jonathannorris wrote:
| Roku and Google (Chromecast) have always been subsidizing their
| hardware. Their business is: selling your data, showing you
| ads, and selling you subscriptions, it was a race to the bottom
| to get on as may TVs as possible. Which has turned into a
| really solid business for Roku. But it also means that Roku's
| business interests will conflict with what's best for their
| consumers, updating their devices to support AV1, fighting with
| streaming partners to collect more revenue, and selling their
| customer's data.
|
| If you want to see what the real cost of these devices with
| margin would be, look at the comparatively ridiculously priced
| new AppleTVs.
| phh wrote:
| FWIW, considering what's in it, Chromecast with Google TV
| probably has positive margin in the USA. It is using only
| off-the-shelf very cheap components. Except for USB-C part,
| you can find same-speced boxes for 30$ on chinese market. I'm
| not even going to mention the price of Chromecast with Google
| TV in Europe, for which Google probably has 30-50% margin,
| (It's 70EUR, so 70$ tax-excluded).
|
| This doesn't hinder your argument though.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| Is Chromecast just hoping you use it for YouTube and see
| YouTube ads then? It doesn't have any ads of its own that I
| know of. Just a slideshow of nature pictures while it's idle,
| then whatever you cast to it when you're casting.
| pja wrote:
| The real Roku profits lie in charging streaming channels for
| access to Roku customers I believe; is the viewing data
| (which you can turn off at the per-device level) worth that
| much?
| mdasen wrote:
| I think it's not just the data. At this point they're
| selling access to you.
|
| If you're Roku and you're the largest in the market, a
| company like YouTube or NBC or HBO needs to be on your
| devices. So you ask for X% of the profits and Y% of the ads
| and you start skimming off that.
|
| Many reports have said that Roku wants 20% of streaming
| charges and 30% of the ad buys. If HBO is charging people
| $15/mo, that's $3 per HBO subscriber per month. For apps
| like Discovery or others with ads, you're potentially
| becoming the largest television advertising powerhouse
| ever. Imagine 10 years in the future if Roku is 80% of the
| streaming box market and they're selling 30% of the ads
| across all the TV you watch. Imagine if they're getting 20%
| of all the pay-TV revenue.
|
| Right now, Netflix has been too big for companies like Roku
| to put pressure on. However, Netflix has been losing ground
| as more competitors pop up in the market. I'm not saying
| that Netflix is vulnerable to pressure now, but as more and
| more consumers get Peacock, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Amazon
| Prime Video, Disney+, etc., there's the possibility that
| Roku could also start pressuring Netflix.
|
| Historically, Netflix has been the company that pressured
| the device makers. If your device couldn't play Netflix, no
| one would buy it. I think that's still the case today, but
| 10 years from now Netflix will be facing off against an
| entire industry of streaming companies and it's possible
| that some households become HBO Max/Prime households (or
| the like). If that happens, Roku will start having power
| over Netflix.
| downrightmike wrote:
| Netflix needs a pivot to stay relevant. Right now it
| looks like self programming, but everyone else can do
| that, and Disney can do it better. They'll be around,
| probably more like Hallmark channel than the big name
| they are now.
| rblatz wrote:
| Yes, there are services that sell the viewing data to help
| advertisers track conversion on their tv ads.
| mdasen wrote:
| The Apple TVs are quite over-powered devices compared to
| competitors. They come with A12 processors getting around
| 1,100 single-core and 2,800 multi-core Geekbench scores. To
| put that in perspective, the brand-new Samsung Galaxy S21+
| gets 1,000 single-core and 3,100 multi-core. Apple is
| shipping an Apple TV with a processor that basically matches
| the best processors ever on Android.
|
| That's quite over-powered for a device whose main function is
| decoding video which can be done in hardware rather than the
| main CPU performance.
|
| The last generation came with 3GB of RAM which is also more
| than you see in TV devices. This generation might be 4GB.
|
| Likewise, the remote is metal, comes with a scroll wheel, and
| is rechargeable rather than using AAA batteries like
| competitors.
|
| I think the cost of Apple TVs is partly because Apple has
| decided to create a device with much better specifications.
| No other device is offering performance that rivals the best
| Android phones ever made.
|
| I think part of this is that Apple is (half-heartedly)
| thinking of the Apple TV as a gaming device. They noted that
| you could hook up XBox and Playstation controllers to it
| during their keynote.
|
| The real competition for an Apple TV is the NVidia Shield.
| The Shield TV costs $150 and the Shield TV Pro costs $200 -
| similar to Apple's price point, but with worse specs.
|
| The Shield TV Pro is $200 and comes with 16GB of storage
| (compared to 32GB on the base Apple TV 4K at $180). The Tegra
| X1+ processor is no match for an A12. The cheaper ($150)
| Shield TV stick only comes with 2GB of RAM and 8GB of
| storage. It's hard to find Geekbench results for the X1+, but
| this (https://androidpctv.com/comparative-nvidia-
| tegra-x1-plus/) seems to indicate Geekbench 4 results of
| 1,300 and 3,700 for single/multi-core. The A12 hits around
| 4,800 and 11,000. NVidia is selling a competitor with less
| storage and way less processing power for more money
| (probably less RAM too).
|
| I don't think one can compare a Roku or Chromecast to an
| NVidia Shield TV. The Shield will run circles around those
| devices. An Apple TV will run circles around the Shield. Some
| of it might be companies not having the same business model,
| but some of it will be the fact that the Apple TV is a device
| with way higher specs.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >That's quite over-powered for a device whose main function
| is decoding video
|
| Is it? Maybe. However, it's also able to run games, and
| that's being pushed with Apple's Arcade service. So, yes,
| it needs all of that CPU/GPU for games. You can connect an
| Xbox/Playstaion controller to it for game play.
| jvolkman wrote:
| These price points are approaching Xbox Series S at $300,
| which is certainly a better streaming + gaming option.
| bombcar wrote:
| The Apple TV is a headless iPhone - I will not be surprised
| to see it "merge" with the Mac mini at some point when it
| has the M1.
| etempleton wrote:
| I am with you. I am ditching Roku for the new Apple TV. The
| performance of Roku has always been bad, particularly for Plex,
| but it also has a terrible app ecosystem now.
|
| The competitive advantage for Roku was that they were able to
| be app agnostic.
| flatiron wrote:
| As a plex user I'm happy with their business model. I get $30
| devices to watch all my media on.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Until they decide to squeeze Plex... (or limit the device
| access to do so)
| flatiron wrote:
| True. I think that would be a big footgun for them though.
| My friends and family use roku for my plex but load their
| own apps through it to bridge gaps. I can't be the only one
| like that.
| scarface74 wrote:
| There business was never "selling hardware". The business plan
| was always to sell hardware at break even and make money via
| advertising and continued monetization of customers.
|
| The CEO admitted as much on a ReCode (?) podcast.
|
| You can not profitable provide a "good product" by selling a
| bunch of $25 sticks.
| me551ah wrote:
| I personally use a combination of Xbox and Chromecast, which is
| plugged into the hdmi-in for Xbox. Almost all of the popular
| services like netflix, prime, hbo, Twitch, Disney etc are
| available on the Xbox as native apps. For the odd ones which
| don't exist Chromecast works well. Xbox even has the Kodi app
| so you can point it to your FTP/WebDAV server and watch movies
| from there. I personally use a seedbox and stream from there on
| the Xbox Kodi app. As a bonus, Xbox is also going to get the
| full fledged chrome browser soon.
| anonymfus wrote:
| What is the point of using Chromecast when Xbox can work as a
| Miracast receiver if I understand correctly?
| andrewia wrote:
| It's far more bandwidth-intensive to stream from the
| internet to a phone screen and again from a phone screen to
| a Miracast receiver. You also can't use the phone screen
| nor see notifications while Miracast streaming.
|
| With Chromecast, the dongle is actually just a remote-less
| streaming stick. So it streams directly from the server and
| the streaming app on your phone is the remote.
| rezonant wrote:
| In addition to better efficiency, it also means that
| multiple devices can act as remotes at the same time, and
| if the original person who started the stream leaves the
| WiFi network the stream is not disrupted. It's definitely
| the more sensible way to handle streaming from cloud
| services- I just wish it would get standardized as a web
| standard so that it's not limited to the Google ecosystem
| rezonant wrote:
| What apps even support Miracast?
| InsaneOstrich wrote:
| I love my original Xbox One. It has all the apps, a blu ray
| player and the hdmi in for a cable box or anything else you
| want. It's sad to think that it's unlikely that anyone will
| ever make anything like that again
| pkulak wrote:
| I just bought the new Apple TV this morning. I'm exactly with
| you. Been a Roku user forever, but there's so much pressure to
| sell the hardware at a loss, that they have to extract money
| from everywhere else. As far as I can tell, I just paid the
| full price for my Apple TV hardware and now this is the end of
| it. But, we'll see, I suppose. I've never used an Apple TV
| before. Hoping for the best! It seems nice.
| gpanders wrote:
| I have used a Roku, an Amazon Fire stick, and an Apple TV.
| The Apple TV is by far the best, in my experience. The only
| downside was their god awful remote, but even that has been
| fixed in the newest version.
|
| I think you'll be happy.
| zucker42 wrote:
| What stops Google from making the same demands they allegedly
| made to Roku to Apple?
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Roku's market cap: 44.178B
|
| Apple's market cap: 2.212T
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you're already in the Apple ecosystem, sharing the screen
| with devices/laptops is also super easy with the Apple TV
| device.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| After Roku bought DataXu it became an advertising company,
| which put it in direct competition with Google. I used to love
| Roku, but its really gone down hill as an advertising company.
|
| My next device might just be Apple TV.
| takeda wrote:
| For someone living under a rock, what was the HBO Max thing?
|
| I no longer have HBO since AT&T owns it and pulled the channel
| from Dish.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I originally had Roku for the same reason. The thing that made
| me leave is when they started pushing channels down to my Roku
| that I didn't request. The first time it happened I thought
| someone else in the family downloaded it, or maybe even I did
| by accident. Once it happened a few more times and I was able
| to determine they did this on purpose, I immediately dumped
| Roku and will never use their products again.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I had a NowTV branded Roku device and someone removed an app
| and forced an update removing the ability to side-load which
| had been the key differentiator I bought it for.
|
| IMO it was unauthorised access under the Computer Misuse Act
| (UK).
|
| Moved to FireTV installed same app from app store; not sure
| who was to blame but both companies are on my naughty list.
| shawnz wrote:
| What's the legality of Roku shipping a third-party client? Does
| the Google/Oracle decision have any impact on that?
| criddell wrote:
| They can do that, but they also want to be paid by Google. So
| it doesn't help on that front.
| TingPing wrote:
| That case isn't relevant but its probably against Googles ToS
| and easily blocked if they care.
| criddell wrote:
| If the client is essentially just a browser, I don't see how
| it would violate any ToS.
| derekp7 wrote:
| They wouldn't be able to without breaking the DRM used on
| Youtube TV. Or in cases where DRM isn't involved, their client
| would constantly break until they release a patch every time
| Youtube changes something.
| shawnz wrote:
| That seems like a significant improvement over no Youtube at
| all.
| apocalyptic0n3 wrote:
| Note that this is YouTube _TV_ , not YouTube itself. They
| are separate services. Google has just muddied the waters
| repeatedly by moving a bunch of services under the YouTube
| branding.
| zamalek wrote:
| Just got an email from YouTube TV.
|
| > Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we have been unable to
| reach an agreement with Roku.
|
| Given Roku's justification, I am pretty angered by the lie that
| Google is telling me. I'd be doubly angered if I was a Roku user.
| zero_deg_kevin wrote:
| I love being involved in public contract disputes between media
| licensing companies! May financial ruin visit all parties
| involved.
| wyldfire wrote:
| I bought rokus because of the previous Amazon/google fight over
| YoutubeTV. I naively assumed they were immune to this kind of
| thing.
|
| Now I'm getting AppleTVs but I suppose it's just a matter of time
| before they start the same thing.
| crocsarecool wrote:
| Same! I bought a chrome cast without realizing I couldn't watch
| Prime on it, then I learned about the Amazon/Google dispute. I
| felt so disappointed in these companies.
| bagacrap wrote:
| Amazon has added casting support to the prime video app.
|
| Why did they withhold support in the first place? I had
| assumed it was because they wanted to sell fire sticks. It's
| not in Google's interest to make Chromecast less capable.
| ghaff wrote:
| This was honestly never a big deal for me because I could
| always cast from my browser on a laptop. But, yeah, I've
| observed that some of the Apple/Google/Amazon
| incompatibilities seem to have gone away over time.
| wyldfire wrote:
| I believe Google didn't permit FireTV to carry YoutubeTV
| because Amazon wouldn't sell Google Chromecast in their
| store (because it competed w/FireTV I guess).
| g_p wrote:
| Not familiar with the Roku ecosystem, but is it possible to
| sideload apps? On Android there are native YouTube player apps
| like NewPipe (which reverse engineer the APIs and work without
| any of the consent prompts and nagging UI), and one whose name
| escapes me, which is a pretty usable client to YouTube, based
| around the web interface (used sometimes on fire stick etc.)
|
| I guess the underlying issue is the reliance on these large
| platforms (like YouTube etc), and how they can use access to
| their walled garden platform as a way to coerce independent
| commercial negotiations.
| simcop2387 wrote:
| Sort of, not suremif it's changed but you used to be able to
| do this with the developer options and load a single channel
| with it. You'd have to unload the old one to load a new onw
| though.
| rascul wrote:
| I've never used it but here are some docs
|
| https://developer.roku.com/docs/developer-program/getting-
| st...
| judge2020 wrote:
| You can side load apps but I don't think anyone is going to
| put in the work to keep a YouTube TV app up-to-date for Roku
| once breaking API changes happen.
| [deleted]
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| I use a PlayStation 4. It has client apps for all the things I
| want to use. And if you're a little savvy, it can also be used
| for watching DRM free content (e.g. streaming from a media
| server, watching from an inserted USB drive, etc.). It's the
| laziest option to get most of what I want.
| deadmutex wrote:
| Does PS4 support any streaming game services?
| jtms wrote:
| I have a PS4 sitting around collecting dust - I'll have to
| give this a try! Thanks for the suggestion
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| If your TV and remote support HDMI CEC, you can even
| control the PS4 mostly fine with just the TV remote. Not
| enough buttons to play games, but for browsing videos, I
| find it works.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| My original inspiration was that I wanted to watch Netflix
| with a non-crappy remote! Playing the occasional video game
| was just a bonus :)
| ahefner wrote:
| A non-crappy remote that has to be constantly plugged in
| for charging..
| FriedrichN wrote:
| The only way to not be bothered by stuff like this as a consumer
| is to not consume anything. It's an illusion to think you could
| every be free from companies trying to control the way you
| consume content. There are much better ways to spend your time
| and money.
| antiterra wrote:
| Even the Amish read fiction. Consuming creative works isn't
| inherently bad.
| FriedrichN wrote:
| I wasn't talking about consuming creative works, I was
| talking about consumerism.
| vinay427 wrote:
| > The only way to not be bothered by stuff like this as a
| consumer is to not consume anything.
|
| It's not very clear, from the above sentence, that you
| exclude consumption of creative works. In any case, how do
| you draw a distinction between consumerism and consuming
| certain works?
| FriedrichN wrote:
| I draw it where you have to buy new devices every year to
| keep up with whatever they're pushing now. A book is a
| book and will be a book until it falls apart. Your smart
| TV however will cease to be fully functional within three
| years since you bought it. You will have to buy extra
| electronics to keep up which in turn will also become
| obsolete soon enough.
|
| It's ridiculous we are expected to buy a new phone every
| 1-2 years, a TV every 3-5 years, just to be able to
| consume mediocre media. Meanwhile the e-waste just keeps
| on piling up. I might just be a grumpy man but I just
| don't think Avenger movies are worth destroying the
| environment for.
| codq wrote:
| I've had my "smart" TV for more than three years, and if
| the OS stops working or ceases to be supported, there are
| 4 HDMI ports I can plug anything into.
|
| It's as smart, or dumb, as I want it to be.
| kasabali wrote:
| Until they decide to release HDCP 3.x and make it
| mandatory for HD streams then you can continue to enjoy
| 480p video on those hdmi ports.
| Siecje wrote:
| I bought a Roku TV and in order to use a service like Netflix,
| YouTube I need to create a Roku account.
|
| Also there is only one button at first I thought it was a
| directional button where you could move it up and down and press
| for selection. But pressing it once brings up the menu, pressing
| it again will move to the next item in the menu, holding it will
| turn the TV off.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-30 23:01 UTC)