[HN Gopher] Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal w...
___________________________________________________________________
Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
Author : cwwc
Score : 193 points
Date : 2021-10-21 13:14 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.axios.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com)
| moocowtruck wrote:
| chromecast here i come
| InTheArena wrote:
| Roku is a advertising company. Google is a advertising company.
| They are fighting over who gets to sell you.
|
| This is why I have chosen to spend the extra money and use a
| Apple TV. Google still spies on my content when I am in their
| app, but at least apple is not using analytics and screenshots to
| figure out what I am watching and sell it others.
| cowmix wrote:
| "Youtube TV", whatevz!
| ec109685 wrote:
| "... new Roku devices will continue to be unable to download
| YouTube or YouTube TV apps"
| lanevorockz wrote:
| YouTube is a proper tyranny, they use the algorithm as way to
| lobby society to their benefit. No wonder Google removed the
| "don't be evil" motto.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Use better youtube alternatives: https://odysee.com/
| post_break wrote:
| There is honestly only one good media box left and it's the Apple
| TV. The only ads it has is for the stupid Apple TV+ program but
| beyond that it supports every streaming service. I've dumped all
| my "it just works" rokus for Apple TVs. The nvidia shield was
| doing good but google got their hands on it and it's full of ads
| now too. The new AppleTV remote is much better and so far has
| passed all wife tests.
| drewg123 wrote:
| Roku should pay for a port of SmartTubeNext (Android TV
| alternative YT client with ad skipping and sponsor block) to Roku
| and pre-load it.
| hiram112 wrote:
| It's probably in Roku (and other companies that depend on the big
| tech monopolies' good behavior) interest to ensure there are
| alternatives that they can "turn on" with the flip of a switch
| should Google play unfairly.
|
| For example, I think I remember some improved but unofficial
| YouTube app (on Github?) that a lot of HN users were sideloading
| onto their phones. I'm not sure of the details of how it worked,
| but it probably did something creative with Youtube's general
| web/http interface and then sliced up the resulting data to
| create an "improved" interface for phone users.
|
| Roku could fund the developers to ensure this thing worked like
| gangbusters on its own Roku OS. Should Google start getting
| greedy, Roku can just tell them to piss off, flip a switch, and
| now tens of millions of homes with Roku boxes and TVs are now
| watching Ad-free Youtube via Roku's "custom" version.
|
| They could do the same thing with customized versions of Prime,
| Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc. A company like Roku has enough
| resources to support the development and ensuing cat-and-mouse
| game of API tricks that the monopolies' would use to try and
| disable the usage, but in the end, Chromium is open source, and
| Roku has absolute control of their own OS and the traffic that
| goes in and out of their hardware.
| angryasian wrote:
| Theres so many better options these days for a simple box to
| install apps and stream media. Its pretty much commodity, why
| anyone cares about Roku alone is surprising to me. Content is
| king and Roku is not it.
| judge2020 wrote:
| The blog post: https://www.roku.com/blog/update-on-youtube-tv
|
| Previous discussions:
|
| "Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-
| competitive demands "
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862
|
| "An update to our YouTube TV members on Roku"
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972
| leafmeal wrote:
| If you're sick of Roku's ads and constant conflicts like this,
| consider a device such as https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/
| which runs Android.
| Crash0v3rid3 wrote:
| The article doesn't mention what exactly Google's demands are.
|
| Doesn't anyone have an idea on this?
| Spivak wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/22412430/roku-youtube-tv-google-feu...
|
| The only demand that Google hasn't refuted is requiring AV1
| codec support. I can't find any specifics about search
| manipulation or user data access.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| This is just the YouTube TV app, not the regular YouTube app.
| Which is extra strange to me, If you have a paid for streaming
| service, wouldn't you want to be available on every platform you
| could be?
| graton wrote:
| Good point. I completely missed the first time that it was the
| "YouTube TV" app, which I have zero interest in. I thought it
| was about plain "YouTube".
| ec109685 wrote:
| "... new Roku devices will continue to be unable to download
| YouTube or YouTube TV apps"
| [deleted]
| op00to wrote:
| Google makes too much money from the video sharing app ad
| revenue on Roku.
|
| Also even if they toss the Roku platform for TV, they keep the
| subscription revenue for YouTube TV - users will just use
| another device.
| barelysapient wrote:
| This seems analogous to Microsoft's antitrust suit in the 90s. By
| forcing unreasonable demands on a competitor, Google improves
| revenues of their own products/licensed products. And further
| solidifies Youtube's monopoly market share.
| johnebgd wrote:
| My thoughts exactly. This seems particularly stupid to do while
| regulators are circling them. Someone at Google is asleep at
| the wheel.
| barelysapient wrote:
| Right, well, that's great if you favor Google being untouched
| by regulators. Personally, I favor Google being broken up by
| services where they dominate market share. Search and video
| would split. And probably, Android would split.
| mindslight wrote:
| Breaking up Google by services is such a lame last-century
| approach - it leaves the same network effects, the same
| middleman position, and the same business dynamics. And
| then we just have to hope that these independent companies,
| run by people who previously worked with one another, don't
| just recreate the same power structure through exclusive
| contracts and informal wink and nods.
|
| We know the right answer - it's forcing these companies to
| have publicly accessible, nondiscriminatory APIs for
| everything that is possible through their proprietary web
| interfaces or proprietary apps. There should be no private
| APIs, API keys, or separate contract/account needed to use
| said API - just the exact same login credentials that a
| user supplies to the website (if any).
|
| The accompanying software provider restriction is that
| companies shouldn't be able to take away functionality that
| has already been sold to users - ie Roku shouldn't be able
| to threaten Google with removal either. An update should
| never be mandatory, should always be able to be rolled
| back, should practically never remove an app, and the bar
| for maintaining backwards compatibility on an embedded
| device should be quite high.
|
| This forms a neutral baseline that companies can choose to
| form additional agreements on top of, without the threat of
| being extorted as the power dynamic changes.
| kgermino wrote:
| Your parent isn't saying _they_ favor Google being
| untouched by regulators. It 's assuming that Google prefers
| being untouched by regulators.
|
| Assuming Google doesn't want to be broken up, poking the
| bear with publicly anti-competitive behavior seems like a
| bad choice.
| silisili wrote:
| This would actually perhaps interest me, then.
|
| I have a CCwGTV, and the voice search drives me up a wall.
|
| me: "hulu"
|
| it: <spinning> "hello! hope you are enjoying" or whatever it says
| because it thinks I said hello.
|
| me: "no hulu you idiot"
|
| it: <spinning> "here are search results for 'no hulu you idiot'
| on youtube" and takes me to the youtube search results.
|
| Ideally the voice search would get miles better, but until then,
| I'd do with Youtube just not existing on it, if that is possible.
| kumarvvr wrote:
| From the original blog of Roku
|
| "First, Google continues to interfere with Roku's independent
| search results, requiring that we preference YouTube over other
| content providers"
|
| "Second, Google discriminates against Roku by demanding search,
| voice, and data features that they do not insist on from other
| streaming platforms."
|
| I would be much more comfortable if the headline says, "Google
| made unreasonable demands on Roku to strike a YouTube deal"
| drzaiusapelord wrote:
| "unreasonable" would then be editorializing, then it wouldnt be
| a news article but an opinion piece.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| And we could just link to the original Roku blog post, instead
| of Axios: https://www.roku.com/blog/update-on-youtube-tv
| inetknght wrote:
| That doesn't load without javascript.
| enobrev wrote:
| You're absolutely right, this website works fine unless you
| deliberately disable it.
| inetknght wrote:
| Websites, especially blogs, should work _fine_ without
| javascript. There 's no reason whatsoever to require
| javascript for a user to read a few paragraphs.
| otterley wrote:
| That war was lost 10 years ago. Sorry.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| It's not your website, so who are you to say what is
| "fine" and what isn't?
|
| It's up to the website owner to determine what the
| minimum requirements for their site are, and they chose
| to require Javascript. Judging by the fact that Axios is
| still up and running, they don't seem to mind their
| decision.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| Probably doesn't work on ie6, either.
| inetknght wrote:
| Probably doesn't work on your bathroom scale. It might
| work on your coffee pot though.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Depends on whether you have javascript enabled on your
| coffee pot.
|
| I prefer to use java with mine, though I've heard there's
| a javascript-compatible language that might target your
| use case.
| echelon wrote:
| This is anticompetitive.
|
| Do me a favor. Look up your representative and call or email
| them.
|
| https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representati...
|
| Tell them Google is playing evil games with their empire and
| it's impacting hardware you purchased. Suggest a breakup of
| Google and YouTube.
| antasvara wrote:
| I mean, saying it impacts hardware you purchased is a
| stretch. You can just as easily plug in an Android TV box, or
| an Amazon fire stick, or any number of other products with
| different interfaces.
|
| Google doesn't "control" the hardware you own, Roku does.
| Nobody forces people to buy a TV with Roku preinstalled;
| anyone who did this has consented to having their hardware
| limited/controlled by Roku.
|
| This isn't to absolve Google, as their behavior is also
| anticompetitive and generally shady. But saying that Google
| is the one impacting your hardware is letting Roku off the
| hook for the part they play in effectively owning your
| hardware.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| Huh? Roku is "hardware you purchased". Sure, you could go
| out and purchase something else to replace it. I'm not sure
| why you think that means it doesn't impact the hardware you
| already have.
| antasvara wrote:
| Roku is more analogous to software than hardware. My
| phone OS updates at least every few months, and I don't
| have a problem with that. In fact, I'd wager that most
| people don't have a problem with that.
|
| Roku is as much "hardware you purchased" as calling
| Android "hardware you purchase." Even that isn't a good
| analogy, because unlike a phone, you can still use your
| TV without Roku.
|
| When I buy a TV, I'm not "buying" Roku. A lack of access
| to YouTube in no way impacts the things that make my TV
| work _as a TV._ It still turns on and can be used to view
| any content of my choosing, provided I supply it with the
| right accessories.
| devrand wrote:
| > Tell them Google is playing evil games with their empire
| and it's impacting hardware you purchased. Suggest a breakup
| of Google and YouTube.
|
| Why would a breakup make a difference here? AFAICT the entire
| deal is limited to YouTube. A breakup would matter if other
| parts of Google were involved, for example, if Google were
| threatening to remove Roku from search/ads if they couldn't
| strike a deal with YouTube. That would be anticompetitive.
|
| This particular deal doesn't come off as anticompetitive to
| me. It's basically the same problem that Cable TV has with
| carriage fees and networks, just for streaming
| services/devices.
|
| Edit: to clarify I don't see this deal as anticompetitive in
| the monopolistic sense. i.e. I don't see how breaking up
| Google/YouTube would solve anticompetitive-ness of the deal.
| judge2020 wrote:
| And yet
|
| > To be clear, we have never, as they have alleged, made any
| requests to access user data or interfere with search results.
| This claim is baseless and false.
|
| So one of them (but most likely both of them) are being
| dishonest in their PR plays to get the other side to give in to
| demands.
|
| https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/update-our-youtube-tv-m...
| inetknght wrote:
| That blog doesn't address the statements made by Roku.
|
| The Roku blog doesn't load for me because I have javascript
| disabled. But the axios article states:
|
| > _asking Roku to create a dedicated search results row for
| YouTube within the Roku smart TV interface_
|
| The YouTube blog hasn't denied that at all. In fact it
| practically confirms it:
|
| > _Our agreements with partners have technical requirements
| to ensure a high quality experience on YouTube._
|
| Hah, a "high quality" experience indeed. Except, it's not
| quite "on youtube" since it's more "on Roku".
|
| The youtube blog also states:
|
| > _Roku requested exceptions that would break the YouTube
| experience and limit our ability to update YouTube in order
| to fix issues or add new features._
|
| Let users update their YouTube app through Roku app store
| instead of some shitty auto-update crap that lets Google
| shovel shit down Roku users.
| antasvara wrote:
| Note: this isn't meant to defend Google, because their
| practices are shady and by no means good.
|
| What I find interesting here is that Roku is using business
| practices similar to Apple and nobody seems to have a
| problem with it. If I told you that an app store was
| limiting the types of apps you could add to your device
| while also controlling the update process, lots of HN
| readers would call that out. As far as I'm aware, Roku also
| has a way of capturing subscription revenue as well.
|
| By alk means call out Google for their garbage business
| practices. But don't let Roku off the hook either.
| The-Bus wrote:
| Roku captures subscription and advertising revenue, and
| also resells/licenses ACR (Automatic Content Recognition)
| data, aka viewing data. Users can turn this off if
| needed.
|
| ACR Service Policy:
| https://docs.roku.com/published/acrservicepolicy/en/us
|
| Roku is not alone in doing this, of course. Every major
| TV manufacturer in the US does this.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Most platform providers have a certification process for
| apps on their platforms to ensure that they don't have
| stability or data issues.
|
| Apple does it. Sony does it. Microsoft does it. And if
| Google isn't doing it with their own app store, then that
| raises a lot of questions about Google's commitment to
| quality software.
| rkeene2 wrote:
| There's a few differences when compared to Apple:
|
| They will host your app and let others install it with a
| private code for free (you don't have to pay to become a
| developer, and you don't have to pay to use unapproved
| apps, nor periodically reinstall them, and unapproved
| apps get treated the same as other apps, and can be auto-
| updated, etc).
|
| You can (unless this has changed in the past few years
| since I wrote a Roku app) sideload apps onto your own
| devices without Roku's involvement.
|
| Developing for a Roku device doesn't require buying
| anything -- you probably want to buy a Roku to test it
| out on, but that's not a requirement.
|
| These differences make the proposition much different.
|
| Google doesn't need Roku's permission for writing YouTube
| unless they want some kind of special treatment outside
| the published APIs. This part is similar to Apple, where
| the platform owner can withhold some features from some
| people.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _What I find interesting here is that Roku is using
| business practices similar to Apple and nobody seems to
| have a problem with it._
|
| True. But I would also argue that there's a different
| scope.
|
| Roku provides a device that allows you to watch video.
| That's its ultimate purpose.
|
| Apple provides multiple devices; their iOS products are
| meant more for mobile communication. As such it's much
| more user-interactive. More user interaction means more
| "value" inasmuch as there's more opportunities for abuse.
|
| You _can_ use an iOS device to watch video. That 's not
| it's sole (or arguably intended) purpose.
|
| The day that Roku provides chat apps and those chat apps
| can monitor what you do and where then that will be the
| day that I would like Roku much less.
| judge2020 wrote:
| This seems like such an unnecessary fine line. The Apple
| TV box is just for watching video as well - are you fine
| with the App Store monopoly there? If there were
| regulation that allowed competing app stores, would you
| vote for those competitors being locked out of Apple TV
| apps?
| angryasian wrote:
| Doesn't it ?
|
| >asking Roku to create a dedicated search results row for
| YouTube within the Roku smart TV interface
|
| >we have never, as they have alleged, made any requests to
| access user data or interfere with search results.
|
| Doesn't this contradict the idea that Roku claims they are
| asking for special search results.
|
| >Hah, a "high quality" experience indeed. Except, it's not
| quite "on youtube" since it's more "on Roku".
|
| I'm not understanding your point here, its the Youtube app.
| Why is it more on Roku ?
|
| >crap that lets Google shovel shit down Roku users.
|
| If you don't like youtube don't use it.
| hristov wrote:
| Googles demand is very reasonable and it is exactly what I (and
| most other customers, I am sure) expect of the behavior of the
| software. When I am within an app and do a search I expect the
| search to be either limited to that app (preferable) or if not,
| the results of the search that are within the app should be
| somehow highlighted.
|
| If I pay $40/month for Youtube TV, and go into the Youtube TV
| app, and search for a show, I am searching for a show within
| the offerings of the app I am in. I do not want to be offered a
| show in a yet another app for which I will have to pay yet
| another monthly fee.
|
| And I especially do not want to be driven towards another
| service for which I will have to pay another monthly fee, if
| the show I am searching for is already available in the app I
| am already paying for and from which I am searching.
| StevePerkins wrote:
| > _" If I pay $40/month for Youtube TV..."_
|
| Where are you getting YouTube TV for anywhere near $40/mo?
| That may have been the price at launch, but it's already
| climbed more than 50% over the past few years. If you really
| want live television, I'm not even sure whether cutting the
| cord and going with an over-the-top package is even cheaper
| these days.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| And if the opposite is true?
|
| If the content is paid on youtube, but available for free
| through another subscription service that Roku knows you
| have?
| hristov wrote:
| Well, if I am within the you tube app, I am searching
| youtube first and I want the youtube results to be at least
| presented first. If I want to search all the services, I
| can search from the roku homescreen.
| tedajax wrote:
| I'm pretty sure this refers to Roku's top level search which
| searches across all apps not the search inside the YouTube
| app.
| hristov wrote:
| Why are you pretty sure about that? From what I have read
| about it, it seems the argument is very much for search
| results within the youtube app.
| timfrietas wrote:
| I am sure of this. I help lead search for Hulu and
| Disney+ and own a RokuTV. Roku already allows you the
| option to voice search inside the app you are already in
| (this has to be enabled by the Roku app developer I
| believe).
|
| This definitely refers to the universal search Roku
| offers, and, if true, is an absurd ask on Google's part.
| teh_klev wrote:
| From the Roku blog post:
|
| _First, Google continues to interfere with Roku's
| independent search results, requiring that we preference
| YouTube over other content providers._
|
| That's Roku's own search app Google are trying to
| influence.
|
| https://www.roku.com/blog/en-gb/update-on-youtube-tv
| dolni wrote:
| I have a Roku. YouTube's app, along with all others I
| have used, only search content within that app.
| pumaontheprowl wrote:
| First time I've ever seen somebody on HN request to change a
| neutral headline to a biased headline.
|
| This is a he said/she said dispute. Taking either side's
| statements at face value is just foolish.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| It won't be the last.
|
| See also above, where YouTube doesn't contest Roku's core
| claims when given opportunity to do so.
|
| This submission would have been better as a blog post by a
| third party analyzing both of their statements.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> See also above, where YouTube doesn't contest Roku's
| core claims when given opportunity to do so._
|
| You are unhappy that a blog post from April does not
| respond to claims made today?
|
| (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
| floatingatoll wrote:
| I have no feelings on the matter personally, other than
| my general dislike of both Roku and YouTube for being
| more interested in getting paid for reselling my personal
| data than for delivering me an experience worth paying
| for. Perhaps someone else will have personal data to
| share with you. Sorry!
| drzaiusapelord wrote:
| Its a sign of the times. There's a lot of people, especially
| on the right, whose only experience with "news" is actually
| editorialized media. There's a "groupthink" and tribal
| element here too. This person wants to push their anti-Google
| bias views as fact, when in reality if you dig down into this
| dispute there's no clear villain.
| zzzeek wrote:
| remember internet TV was going to solve the problem of cable TV
| providers being anti competitive? yeah me neither.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| It is so dumb and twisted that there even needs to be a deal. Any
| web browser can hit youtube, you can probably get to youtube via
| a web browser anyway on a roku, if not they could in principle do
| that.
|
| Also dumb and twisted that as a paying youtube subscriber, I
| could buy a computer (a roku) and not be allowed to access
| youtube on it.
|
| Do better, tech.
| otterley wrote:
| Putting a full-fledged browser into a Roku device would require
| significantly more powerful hardware and would make it much
| more expensive as a result. There's also the question of what
| the UX would be. Let's not oversimplify the solution to complex
| business problems.
| graton wrote:
| As a note. The article is about "YouTube TV" not "YouTube". I
| missed it the first time.
| ec109685 wrote:
| "... new Roku devices will continue to be unable to download
| YouTube or YouTube TV apps"
| LocalH wrote:
| This is not totally clear. While the only references I can
| find to this quote are in articles about the situation, I
| honestly can not tell whether the YouTube app is nonetheless
| included in terms of availability. It wouldn't surprise me a
| bit if it was, this kind of thing happens all the time in
| these disputes. "Agree to our terms or we remove all our
| channels".
|
| >"We are, however, giving Roku the ability to continue
| distributing both YouTube and YouTube TV apps to all existing
| users to make sure they are not impacted."
| tootie wrote:
| A few years ago I had a FireTV and Amazon was having the same
| dispute over youtube. FireTV had a few browser options at the
| time (Firefox or Amazon Silk) and either one could load
| youtube. In fact, the youtube app for OTT devices was just a
| wrapped web experience hosted on youtube.com/tv so it was
| nearly identical to the app experience.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| You can still use YouTube TV (The old leanback interface) if
| you set your user agent correctly to spoof Tizen Smart TVs.
| Works almost well enough with keyboard/controller navigation
| but some keys are mapped incorrectly.
| /usr/bin/chromium --start-fullscreen --user-
| agent="smarttv;applewebkit;tizen" "https://youtube.com/tv"
| sgerenser wrote:
| How do I execute /usr/bin/chromium on my Roku?
| kgwxd wrote:
| I find it more annoying that standard websites don't just work
| on a Roku. I'd rather Google didn't have to maintain yet
| another app for yet another proprietary device, it should all
| just be build on open standards.
| phh wrote:
| YouTube app for TVs is a web app everywhere, including
| Android TV.
|
| The twist? Google requires OEM not to use a standard browser,
| they require OEMs to use Cobalt, yet another google web
| browser (whose feature set is too small to actually use as a
| Web browser)
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| As a workaround, when a video provider is not supported on
| Roku, what I do is stream video directly from my Android
| phone to Roku using a free app which is available on both
| platforms. It is not as convenient as having a dedicated Roku
| app, but it works.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Browsers are god-awful slow on the hardware that ships with
| smart TVs. I tried it on a LG TV that ships with a browser.
| Horrid.
|
| I'm still wondering why the keyboard doesn't work for all the
| different channels/apps on my smartphone remote for the Roku.
| Streaming via smart TV is a major regression as far as UX.
| mywittyname wrote:
| This confuses me too. Presumably they can install a build of
| Chrome on the box and have the "app" be `chrome youtube.com`.
|
| Though, I can understand in principle why they don't do this,
| why give traffic to jerks?
| j1elo wrote:
| Tech is fine. It's humans that get in the middle. And where I
| say "humans" you might very well read "money".
|
| So, Do better, people.
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| I feel like this comes down to the same issue that every
| platform gets into with IAP. They want a cut because running
| a platform is expensive, but the apps on the platform don't
| want to pay for it, and talks break down.
|
| Roku, like Apple, like Google, like Salesforce, like Patreon,
| like all platforms with payments, rely on their cut of the
| IAP to make money.
|
| Roku, like Google, like Patreon, like all other platforms
| that are also on platforms, dont want to pay X% to the
| platform, they want a special rate.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The actual problem is that running a platform _isn 't_ that
| expensive -- there are a hundred tiny Linux distributions
| that do it on essentially volunteer work -- but once you
| control a platform with a large number of users you can use
| it to shake down anyone who wants to reach them. And then
| people object to the shakedown and do whatever they can to
| try and stop it.
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| But that is different. You cannot compare free and
| voluntary with commercial services. If you had to pay for
| those volunteers to maintain at a market rate, all that
| free stuff would be prohibitively expensive on a per user
| basis.
|
| I agree that Roku, time and time again, has been too
| aggressive in their tactics to extract maximum profit
| from their users via the apps they consume (HBO
| disappeared for a while last year, and I think Showtime
| did as well), but they do have COSTS they have to cover,
| and profits they have to make to maximize value to
| shareholders.
|
| Is this a perfect system, no, but it is the system that
| exists currently.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > If you had to pay for those volunteers to maintain at a
| market rate, all that free stuff would be prohibitively
| expensive on a per user basis.
|
| These "platforms" start out with an existing open source
| operating system (BSD or Linux) that already works and
| has done so for decades. Then they add some features to
| it that represent a relatively modest one-time
| modification to the work that has already been done,
| after which further necessary changes amount to primarily
| security updates.
|
| Corporations often spend massive resources doing further
| rearranging on an ongoing basis, but nobody really needs
| or wants that. If you gave people the choice between the
| current version of a given platform or the version from
| 2009 but with security updates, most people would shrug
| and have no strong preference, if not prefer the older
| one.
|
| But also, YouTube is a platform and it goes both ways.
| Why should anybody need a special deal to display a
| website on their device?
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Think about what you're saying dude: _Hundreds_ of _tiny_
| distributions rely on _unpaid volunteers_ to run a
| platform. A platform with questionable quality and no
| real support.
|
| Yeah, it isn't expensive under those criteria.
| Peritract wrote:
| > A platform with questionable quality and no real
| support
|
| This applies equally well to the small volunteer
| platforms and the large commercial ones. The scale is
| different, sure, but the various app stores and platforms
| that take a cut aren't providing great commercial support
| or quality control.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > A platform with questionable quality and no real
| support.
|
| The quality of tiny platforms is often higher than the
| larger ones because their maintainers will actually
| accept patches and one of the people having the problem
| will know how to code, whereas consumers reporting bugs
| to large vendors is more like adults writing letters to
| Santa Clause.
|
| Anybody can get support for anything by paying someone to
| support it. For nearly everyone outside of large
| corporations, the cost of this exceeds the benefit,
| because 99% of your problems will be solved by whatever
| comes up when you type the problem into a search engine
| and the last 1% won't be worth the cost of eliminating.
| seoulmetro wrote:
| Why can't you access YouTube on it? Can't you just open the
| browser and type YouTube.com?
| zapataband1 wrote:
| i wonder if apple will strike a deal with hbo or some dumb
| shit. hbo available on macs only. love our corporate controlled
| media
| enos_feedler wrote:
| actually Apple is more likely to recognize the bullshit
| situation we are in with smart tvs these days and just fix
| it. They will offer a very closed, but functional tv service
| that has the things you want, with the choices you want to
| make, without the garbage, for a premium price, accessible on
| premium hardware (and other devices where possible).
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| You go a little further... Google can decide to specifically
| ban you personally from accessing YouTube.
| mdasen wrote:
| The issue is that companies like Roku are increasingly making
| their money by having companies like YouTube TV pay them to
| carry their apps. Likewise, there are lots of things about
| these systems that can fall under negotiations. For example,
| what analytics does Roku get access to for actions taken within
| apps? Does Roku get insight into what YouTube videos you're
| watching?
|
| From Roku's blog post, it seems that Google wants a dedicated
| area in the global search for YouTube results. For example, If
| you search for "Last Week Tonight", Google wants a YouTube
| results row showing clips on their service above results from
| other content platforms like HBO Max. Basically, Google wants
| to have the placement that search ads get on their platform on
| Roku.
|
| Previous Roku complaints about Google have included that Google
| wants all Roku devices to support the AV1 codec - which
| Google's own Chromecast with Google TV doesn't support.
|
| I think the "dumb and twisted" goes both ways. It's dumb and
| twisted that Google won't allow Roku devices to run YouTube if
| Roku doesn't commit that all future Roku devices support AV1 -
| when even Google's own streaming device doesn't support AV1.
| It's dumb and twisted that Google wants a dedicated row for
| YouTube search results rather than neutral search results.
| datavirtue wrote:
| All of this distracts from the fact that this medium used to
| be regulated and broadcasters we're required to exhibit
| fairness, offer news (regulated by fairness), it was free and
| had minimal ads and was accessible to everyone. We have
| democratized content creation and lost the good things we
| developed for "free television," a philosophy of nearly
| ubiquitous distribution and fairness.
|
| What is the philosophy now? The market is going to yield a
| spread of reliable information for free? I have to have the
| means to pay for five different streaming services to get
| access to all of the valuable content to consider myself
| informed. It's not just about the latest Marvel movie or
| Squid Games tripe, it is about an informed citizenry getting
| access to information. Why is that not part of the debate at
| all?
|
| This very situation--Google and Netflix fighting over a
| blanket--is problematic in and of itself and much bigger than
| both of them put together.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > From Roku's blog post, it seems that Google wants a
| dedicated area in the global search for YouTube results. For
| example, If you search for "Last Week Tonight", Google wants
| a YouTube results row showing clips on their service above
| results from other content platforms like HBO Max. Basically,
| Google wants to have the placement that search ads get on
| their platform on Roku.
|
| Previous discussions[0] suggested that it was simply "where
| does pressing the remote search button take you". If you're
| in the YT TV app, Google likely wanted the button to focus
| the search button within the app, not bring you back to the
| system-wide search.
|
| 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26944837
| Pxtl wrote:
| As a user, I see Google's point on this. I often get
| annoyed when I want to search within the system I'm using
| and get pushed to a global search, when I _want_ to stay in
| the app. I 'm sure to the app developers this is doubly
| annoying because it means taking their users away to other
| platforms. Ironically Google themselves are pretty bad
| about this - on any given google product it's a roll of the
| dice what the scope of the "search" button will be.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| It's a great example of what both companies see as their
| value proposition (to users, and to Wall Street).
|
| Roku: aggregating multiple streaming providers in a
| provider-agnostic way
|
| Google: centralizing streaming through the YouTube brand
| (considering it comprises multiple offerings now)
|
| I'm not a huge fan of Roku, due to data collection, but
| it's apparent who's on the side of the user here.
| Google/YouTube has finally grown big enough to be
| everything we hated about legacy content providers.
| supernovae wrote:
| NextDNS seems to block Roku's data collection efforts (as
| well as other "smart tvs")
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| My PiHole blocks the Roku data collection, too
| skinnymuch wrote:
| This isn't new. Google messed with YouTube (and Maps) on
| Windows Phone which is now many years ago.
| jeffbee wrote:
| LG WebOS has a YouTube TV app and the search button in the
| remote takes you to the global search function. This
| doesn't seem to cause any friction between google and LG.
| Because YouTube TV seems to work everywhere but on roku I
| tend to blame roku here.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| To my knowledge, LG hasn't implied that they want a piece
| of YouTube's revenue, while the Roku executive team has
| hinted that capturing some of the revenue from the
| streaming services is one of their long term goals.
|
| I suspect YouTube's dealmakers think Roku are being
| sticklers to try to extract a small financial concession,
| and they're afraid that if they give an inch, it'll open
| the floodgates and everyone will want a piece of their
| revenue.
| samtheprogram wrote:
| Or LG WebOS is not a big enough market for Google to care
| about the experience to put their foot down, at that
| point they'd rather be on the device (and controlling
| other devices where it counts).
|
| This is all hearsay though and it's unclear if Google
| even made such demands to Roku.
| jeffbee wrote:
| LG has 11% of the global TV market and its home
| electronics division revenues are 20 times larger than
| Roku's.
| samtheprogram wrote:
| In most markets, LG and Roku are quite competitive and
| within a few percentage points of one another. In South
| America, a less mature but fast growing market, LG has a
| significant lead over Roku with 23% market share. But in
| North America, Roku is the market leader with 37% market
| share, to LG's 4%.
|
| Globally, Roku controls 30% (down from 33% in 2020).
|
| https://www.protocol.com/roku-global-expansion-conviva-
| data
|
| "Home electronics" covers a lot more than streaming, and
| even a portion of that revenue could account for users
| with an LG TV who use a Roku device instead of WebOS.
| It's not a good comparison.
| toast0 wrote:
| LG tvs are quite a bit more expensive than Roku boxes
| (Roku TVs are made and sold by other parties), so
| comparing revenue is not very meaningful. Also since home
| electronics consists of many products, and Roku has
| essentially a single product.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Is it all Rokus or all new Rokus?
|
| If Google wants to move to AV1 it makes sense to sign forward
| thinking contracts even if they have existing hardware that
| doesn't support it.
| AJ007 wrote:
| Roku should add a one click cancel button for YouTube Premium.
| [deleted]
| jsight wrote:
| Yeah, I want something like an OpenRoku standard for TV service
| providers, and equal access from many hardware platforms.
|
| But these companies are moving steadily towards locking things
| down behind anticompetitive agreements.
| brk wrote:
| The competitive landscape for what is turning out to be the next
| evolution of in-home video content delivery is just making me
| realize that the content is not worth the hassle.
|
| I'm not going to replace a $100/mo CATV subscription with 10 (or
| even 5) $10/mo individual subscriptions, where I have to
| constantly remember which service provides a particular show.
|
| I'm not going to have multiple dongles and devices to watch
| content.
|
| I am absolutely not going to rely on smart TV apps to provide a
| consistent or complete user experience.
|
| I am not going to pay for a service and still be subjected to
| advertisements.
|
| Somebody ping me when there is actually a logical option for in-
| home video content delivery to my TV. Until then, I'll either
| leave it turned off or use traditional options.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| Sounds like there is room for a service that aggregates all
| your streaming services into a single portal. They could even
| include services you don't want into a 'bundle' for 'free'.
| Then they could work with ISPs to bundle their content
| aggregation service with internet for one convenient price.
|
| Then they could make an appliance called a 'cable' box so home
| users can stream all these 'channels' to any device they want.
|
| And now we are back to the 1990s.
| brk wrote:
| LOL, it is almost painful to admit that the current systems
| may already be somewhat close to optimized in a number of
| ways.
| supernovae wrote:
| Xbox tried this... the Xbox search that spanned all the app
| enabled services was freaking awesome.
|
| BUT.. the networks killed it and the feature never lived much
| into the X1 and doesn't exist anywhere at all anymore.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| > I'm not going to replace a $100/mo CATV subscription
|
| > I am not going to pay for a service and still be subjected to
| advertisements.
|
| I have some bad news for you regarding advertisements on
| cable...
| vel0city wrote:
| Eh, there are several pros to the streaming media landscape at
| least for my use cases. I get that it gets stupid expensive if
| you're really trying to get access to every possible show on
| every possible streaming platform all the time, but honestly to
| me I don't get the need to be able to do that. If I've missed
| some series on some other streaming platform, its not the end
| of the world to me.
|
| In my household we really only subscribe to two, maybe three
| streaming services all at ~$10/mo/ea. The library near us has
| tons of movies available for streaming with just a library
| card, and a decent selection of DVDs (been trying to convince
| them to upgrade to BDs). Each service has more content than I
| could bother watching in a lifetime. The few times we want to
| watch something outside of that we'll just rent from a
| streaming service or if we really care about the media buy it
| on BD/DVD. So, cost-wise its considerably better.
|
| All of those services really work on just about any device you
| can buy. Smart TV's have them, Roku's have them, Apple TV's
| have them, Nvidia Shield's have them, you can watch them on
| Chromecast, watch them on a laptop, watch them on a tablet,
| watch them on a phone, whatever. Practically any streaming
| device you can buy anywhere from $10-200 will play all of those
| streaming services, so its not like I'm juggling multiple
| different inputs for some screen. An old Chromecast in the
| kitchen, a Roku in the living room, my desktop in the office, a
| tablet in the sitting room, my phone on the bus or train or at
| a picnic table on lunch break at work.
|
| This is a far cry from having to rent specific crappy power-
| hungry hardware at $15+/mo for each screen, $100+/mo long term
| contracts for service to be locked to those boxes, and then
| only really be able to watch it at home. Hopefully all your
| recordings are set and you haven't overscheduled your dual or
| quad tuner cable box making you miss something. Good luck
| catching a series from the beginning without a time machine.
|
| The only thing I really miss from this setup is seeing NHL
| games, which is now stupid expensive behind AT&T TV. I used to
| stomache paying for Hulu Live TV when hockey was in season, but
| AT&T TV wants >$100/mo to get the package to watch that. I'll
| just go over to a friend's place or a sports bar to scratch
| that itch.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I do a round-robin with friends/family where we each pay for a
| preferred service and share the accounts with everyone in the
| pool. Every service I've used has been extremely accommodating
| of this and allows for multiple profiles.
|
| If that's not an option, cancelling/pausing subscriptions
| should work fine. Once you've watched everything on NF,
| cancel/pause that and get a HBO Max or something.
| brk wrote:
| To some degree that is a valid approach but the management
| overhead is simply not worth it to me. I don't want to deal
| with having to 'manage' subscriptions and such on a month to
| month or recurring basis.
| wincy wrote:
| I just use a VPN, flexget, PLEX, and a torrent client.
| Automatically downloads new episodes at the resolution I want
| for the shows I want. I can watch at my leisure and get no ads.
|
| I hate advertisements. I also don't watch my shows these days,
| it almost all feels like indoctrination at this point.
| 35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote:
| Similar approach, but PLEX + Usenet plumbing
| (Sonarr/Radarr/NZBGet/friends).
|
| I pay for ESPN+ because it is a convenient way to get some
| live sports content I like, and the quality of the service is
| really strong. Other networks make it harder, enforce
| blackouts, have terrible players that spin my fans up - and
| for that I use IPTV.
| 015a wrote:
| This whole situation really feels like Google has their head
| stuck up their ass. People are just as likely to leave Roku, as
| they are to leave YouTube TV. Their subscriber numbers can't be
| strong enough to justify such idiotic behavior. To me, this
| sounds like a middle manager gone rogue, and no one higher up has
| stepped in yet and said "Ok, you shot your shot, but Roku called
| your bluff, you've taken this way too far."
|
| If this is really just about additional featured slots for
| Youtube TV in the Roku home screen. Apple would never cave to
| that. Xbox, Amazon, PlayStation, none of these companies would
| cave and give YouTube special treatment. Roku shouldn't either.
|
| I had read something earlier which suggested there was also an
| issue with Roku selling devices with processors too underpowered
| for some new compression algorithm YouTube wanted to use. If this
| is the case, this feels _more_ reasonable to me, and I 'd be less
| inclined to pass judgement. At the end of the day, this would be
| Roku trying to save money and move the costs on to Google, which
| isn't equitable.
| kritiko wrote:
| "middle managers" are not negotiating these partnership deals.
|
| I don't really buy the compression algorithm thing either -
| surely they make more off of ads than the savings that would be
| generated from better compression.
|
| pretty sure this is just hardball over revenue sharing, data
| sharing, and technical requirements...
| 015a wrote:
| Sure they are. In mega-corporations like Alphabet, even the
| head of YouTube is a middle-manager.
| sassifrass wrote:
| The "head of YouTube" is Susan Wojcicki [1]. Her title is
| CEO of YouTube, she reports directly to the CEO of
| Alphabet, Sundar Pichai [2], and is frequently floated as a
| candidate for next CEO of Alphabet if Mr. Pichai left. She
| has thousands of people in her reporting chain. She is
| about as far from a middle-manager as you are from being
| Alphabet's CEO. Please inform yourself a bit more before
| making completely outlandish statements.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Wojcicki [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai
| jefftk wrote:
| The term "middle manager" doesn't mean "someone who has a
| boss and also has reports".
|
| See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_management
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| This whole situation really feels like Roku has their head
| stuck up their ass. People are just as likely to leave Roku, as
| they are to leave YouTube TV. Their customer numbers can't be
| strong enough to justify such idiotic behavior. To me, this
| sounds like a middle manager gone rogue, and no one higher up
| has stepped in yet and said "Ok, you shot your shot, but
| YouTube called your bluff, you've taken this way too far."
| skinnymuch wrote:
| This kind of response appears immature. You could have said
| the equivalent with something like "you could swap Roku and
| YouTube TV etc" and it wouldn't appear petty.
| dpweb wrote:
| No, I can easily drop YouTube TV. Roku is built into each of my
| 3 TVs. I'm glad this was about Youtube TV, if it ws the Youtube
| app I'd have a problem.
| jumelles wrote:
| It IS about the regular YouTube app.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| I thought the same thing, but apparently the article mentions
| that the _base_ YouTube app is _also_ affected by this spat:
|
| "The two companies had a December deadline for renegotiation,
| but sources say it hasn't been met, and as a result, new Roku
| devices will continue to be unable to download YouTube or
| YouTube TV apps."
| maxsilver wrote:
| It's doubly weird, because YouTube TV is literally just a side
| project -- There's at least a 50% chance Google just totally
| shuts down YouTube TV within the next five years. (Like they
| already did with Google Play Music, and Google Play Movies + TV
| once before).
|
| Google's going to war with Roku over something that Google
| doesn't care about at all (it's one minor ancillary line of
| business to them), but is Roku's main and only meaningful line
| of business.
|
| If you want to be locked into a single vendor, you can already
| buy Google TV from Sony or TCL (where this vendor-lock-in is
| guaranteed). The whole point of Roku is that it's independent,
| it's not operated by any one streaming/media service, it's not
| a "Google TV" or an "Apple TV" or a "PlayStation TV" or
| whatever.
|
| Roku _has_ to fight this, tooth-and-nail, or all other services
| on the Roku platform will demand the same, and totally destroy
| the entire Roku product lineup.
| 015a wrote:
| Right, and that's why I really can't believe this spat has
| the full force of Alphabet Inc behind it. I think its just
| Google's highly independent culture taken to the extreme with
| an idiotic, toxic, vengeful middle manager. Its a form of
| small dog syndrome; blowing their chest up as a compensation
| mechanism for how much of a side-project YouTube TV is for
| Alphabet, a desperate attempt to get additional promotion
| from Roku to prop up falling subscriber growth.
|
| In most other companies, everything else being equal: someone
| higher up would have already stepped in and said "YouTube TV
| isn't worth it, you need to end this, you're sullying the
| corporate brand." But that's not really how Google operates;
| at least, not yet.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| Actually its not true at all. There is a real and growing
| market for people who just want old cable packages but served
| over the internet (something Google knows about). They have
| the cash and technical chops to make the best service for
| this. It aligns with some other things (Stadia, Youtube,
| Android TV/cast) to round out a total home/living room
| offering. Home is core for google (hubs, cams, routers, etc)
| and they do well at it.
|
| Also, the competition is faltering. SlingTV lost NBC regional
| sports networks in April. I now must move over to Youtube TV.
| I think the competition gets stronger here, including Apple
| getting into the space with a live TV offering at some point.
| Amazon probably too with its sports rights.
|
| Youtube TV is both important for Google, but also a way they
| can make Roku weaker. At the end of the day, I don't think
| Google, Amazon or Apple really want another strong competitor
| in the living room. Don't give them youtube TV.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >Like they already did with Google Play Music, and Google
| Play Movies + TV once before
|
| GPM didn't get shut down, it got switched over to YTM. If you
| want to use that as an example for what might happen to YTTV,
| then it'd be YTTV getting moved over to an inferior rebrand
| that occupies the same space. And I don't know what you're
| talking about with Play Movies and TV. It's still there.
| maxsilver wrote:
| > And I don't know what you're talking about with Play
| Movies and TV. It's still there.
|
| Google Play Movies and TV was shutdown earlier this year to
| be replaced (sort of) with YouTube TV -- the same "YouTube
| TV" in the article above.
|
| https://twitter.com/liliputingnews/status/13817040208264519
| 7...
|
| https://www.androidauthority.com/google-play-movies-
| shutdown...
|
| The shutdown of Google Play Movies and TV and the stuffing
| of parts of that system into "YouTube TV", is sort of the
| original catalyst for how Roku and YouTube TV got into this
| fight in the first place.
| p_j_w wrote:
| The service itself was not shut down. It still exists.
| It's not supported on the same platforms as it was
| before.
| saisundar wrote:
| Becoming the next smart TV platform is the real war here.
|
| By becoming the go-to platform for smart tv apps, the winner gets
| the following advantages - rich access to search and voice data
| (which, by the Amazon playbook, is super valuable for originals)
| - hardware profits - ads related profits. My definition of ads
| are any apps/placements that are not organic. This includes
| actual ads for shows etc, but also placements in search results
| dedicated sections etc. - per transaction profits. This is the
| apple playbook. Take a 30% cut of every transaction. -
| Subscription profits from original apps - say roku originals or
| Apple tv+.
|
| There is a lot going on here, and what we are seeing here as a
| deadlock is a stalemate due to clashes between Google and roku on
| many of the above issues.
| tyingq wrote:
| The service in question is YouTubeTV, which is basically a
| replacement for traditional cable. Local channels, things like
| TNT, CNN, etc.
|
| I had the service for a while, solely for local news. They bumped
| the price up a few times, and it was just too expensive at
| $65/month.
|
| I ended up buying a Tablo device instead. A bit of fiddling with
| different antennas, but it works great. There is the up-front
| cost of ~$250 or so for the device, decent antenna, and hard
| drive. Then $5/month after that, or $10/month if you want the
| commercial skip. I'm happy with it. You can access it from a Roku
| app, so the end experience for local news is pretty much the same
| as it was with YouTubeTV.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| I've been considering getting a TV tuner card so I can use
| Plex's DVR/live TV features. I haven't found a reason to
| actually do it yet though; after all, if I even want to watch
| the local news I can just go to their website.
| tyingq wrote:
| For me, it's the ability to DVR the news and watch it an hour
| or so later than when it airs...without commercials.
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Funny seeing all the Roku love here.
|
| What I've observed when comparing Roku to other devices.
|
| I buy my apple TV -> I get basically no ads, they don't seem to
| charge that much to allow folks like youtube tv to have an app on
| the platform
|
| Roku -> I buy and own my device. They seem to sell advertising
| all over the device I paid for. They seem to be charging
| companies for buttons and/or to be able to put an app on the roku
| platform.
|
| Sorry - not that interested in Roku anymore.
| brightball wrote:
| I have 3 Roku TVs and I love them. The UX is better than any
| other system I've used in the last 5-10 years.
|
| If YouTube TV isn't available, I'll just cancel YouTube TV and
| get Hulu TV instead. Roku makes dealing with all of these
| streaming services a lot easier. If a service isn't going to
| work on Roku, I'm just not going to use it.
| supernovae wrote:
| The entire apple ecosystem is extremely expensive to be on -
| asking 30% of revenue share - not much for major networks since
| they don't have to invent it themselves, but a hefty tax to
| consumers in comparison to non apple devices.
|
| The funny part is, they charge a premium on both ends and
| people like it. (and i do believe Apple had to fight similar
| battles on youtube placement...)
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| This is really totally false.
|
| Youtube TV - Apple is not taking 30% - that's a lie basically
| as an example. Most of these major players (Youtube TV etc)
| you can sign up just on a regular website. Apple only takes a
| cut of these subscriptions IF you use their platform to
| enable them.
|
| If you do use them, the % is only 15% after 1 year.
|
| Either way - the outcome is I as a user have good access to
| lots of good content, no crap ads, no advertising buttons I
| don't want and more. So it's a win for me.
|
| I'd really like Roku to be transparent in terms of what they
| are asking for from Youtube. In the past, they refused to
| support encoding Youtube TV was using etc.
| supernovae wrote:
| If someone buys and apple tv and then buys Youtube tv -
| then the market fees are 30%
|
| If someone already has youtube tv and signs in on apple tv,
| the sure...
|
| BUT.. when you use an apple tv, Apple makes it remarkably
| hard NOT to use an apple account to not subscribe to
| services so in most cases, it's gonna be your wife seeing
| HBO in the apps and installing and subbing through there.
|
| That's the entire premise of their walled garden and i
| still can't believe people pay a premium for it.
| josefresco wrote:
| > hey seem to sell advertising all over the device I paid for.
|
| The ads "all over the device" only appear on the menu and
| "screen saver" screen which represent a tiny fraction of my
| screen usage.
|
| I turn on TV, I choose Netflix/YTTV/etc. and I'm off. Time
| spent looking at the ONE banner ad less than 1 second. It's not
| obtrusive, it's not "all over the device".
| jfrunyon wrote:
| Yeah, they're actually a pretty crap offering. Between the app
| buttons on the remote (which serve only a single purpose:
| interrupting whatever we're watching when my toddler decides to
| grab the remote and press one of the app buttons), the
| absolutely AWFUL wifi range (had to get a new AP just for it,
| even though every other device - in the same room as the Roku
| but _further_ from the AP - worked fine: iPhone, OnePlus N100,
| Google Home Mini, Thinkpad, Dell), and the fact that half of
| the apps on it seem like they would require twice as much
| processing power as it has to actually be useable...
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Shit like this is why I just run a web browser on a windows PC
| hooked up to the TV. There is no other platform out there that
| can handle every streaming service and local media.
| natpalmer1776 wrote:
| This is no different than when a cable company (usually
| temporarily) drops a major media provider due to failed contract
| negotiations.
|
| The only difference here is that the specifics of the contract is
| being waved about in public to get ahead of customer fallout to
| losing access to the YouTube channel.
| blendergeek wrote:
| > Roku still allows customers who bought and downloaded the
| YouTube TV app before it was removed from Roku's platform in
| April to use it.
|
| Should that not read "Google still allows ..."? Roku would have
| no interest in blocking their users from using an old version of
| YouTube TV that predates Google's (allegedly) anti-competitive
| demands. Google, on the other hand, might see those old non-
| compliance YouTube TV apps as problematic.
|
| Am I missing something here?
| mdasen wrote:
| If Roku stopped Roku customers from using YouTube TV, it would
| force a lot of YouTube TV customers to either a) buy non-Roku
| devices; b) move to a different service like Hulu with Live TV,
| DirecTV Stream, Sling, FuboTV, etc.
|
| If Roku removed YouTube TV from their boxes, it would put a lot
| of pressure on YouTube TV to agree to Roku's terms since they
| would likely start losing customers fast. Before, if a cable
| company had a dispute with a network, customers had to wait it
| out. If Roku has a dispute with YouTube TV, the customers can
| just switch to one of multiple replacements. That gives the
| box-providers a lot of leverage. Roku could even work with one
| of the alternatives to offer a switching bonus. "We're sorry
| that YouTube TV is being evil. If you switch to Hulu with Live
| TV, here's $10/mo off for the first year!"
| enos_feedler wrote:
| I think you have this backwards. I am more likely to remain
| loyal to Sling or Youtube TV than I am to Roku or some other
| smart TV OS. Simple reason: content. Sling doesn't have
| regional sports networks from NBC any more, but Youtube TV
| does. Switching over to Sling is a non-starter. Meanwhile,
| Roku's operating system doesn't really offer something I
| can't get elsewhere.
| dleslie wrote:
| I think you're over estimating the willingness of customers
| to remain loyal to a device and not the content it serves.
| john-radio wrote:
| I think that's true in some cases but YouTube on a settop
| box, in my mind, is really just a "nice to have".
| dfinninger wrote:
| The comment chain is about YouTube TV. That's a $65/mo
| live TV service that includes DVR.
| [deleted]
| graton wrote:
| Edit: I thought the article was talking about "YouTube" and
| not "YouTube TV". I don't care at all about "YouTube TV"
|
| If YouTube disappeared from my Roku I would go buy a device
| that does support it. At the moment there isn't much
| competition in the YouTube space.
|
| If Netflix or Amazon Prime disappeared from my Roku, I
| wouldn't be as bothered as they are more fungible services.
| claudiulodro wrote:
| Google wants favorable distribution for YouTube TV over other
| streaming services Roku offers -- it's not about the users or
| the app or compliance.
| LocalH wrote:
| This is literally the modern day equivalent to the classic
| pissing matches between cable/satellite operators and station
| groups. Both sides are full of shit, honestly.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| "Don't be evil."
| notwhereyouare wrote:
| hasn't been their motto for a while now
| jjkaczor wrote:
| uh... That's the point... since they turned from 'scrappy-
| start-up' to the global world-dominating conglomerate of
| 'Umbrella corporation' (uh... 'Alphabet'), they dropped the
| phrase... Coincidence?
| dr-detroit wrote:
| This is what I call a HackerNews problem. You refuse to buy both
| a $15 chromecast and a $14 Roku but you annually purchase
| iWatches each costing over $1000
| dcdc123 wrote:
| Here's a workaround for you:
|
| Use an ad-blocking browser on your phone (I use Brave on iPhone)
| to view youtube.com then cast the videos ad-free to your Roku
| using Roku's native Airplay support added last year.
|
| Also, when your Roku is EoL, do not replace it with another Roku.
| tyingq wrote:
| I just like the irony that Google is unhappy with the rules of a
| captive app store, how they are allowed to update, how their app
| works with the higher level search they don't control, etc.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| I'm not sure where the irony is, since Google doesn't have a
| captive app store, unlike say Apple.
| tyingq wrote:
| Ah, well I suppose Google can just then instruct customers to
| side load into their Rokus, since that's straightforward and
| not captive.
| forgotmysn wrote:
| I feel like I've read about Roku struggling to come to terms with
| every streaming service over the years. They only just came
| around with HBO, finally getting HBO Max on Roku devices. I get
| the impression that the people running Roku are real shitty
| people to work with.
| Pxtl wrote:
| Wait, so the app will still exist... this is about Roku offering
| cross-provider search and deep links into Youtube videos from
| Roku shell-level dashboards, right?
|
| So Roku isn't losing Youtube support altogether.
| LightG wrote:
| Welcome to the world where I can just do wtf I like with the
| software at my disposal without middlemen trying to get their cut
| ...
|
| _wakes up_
|
| Don't worry about it, Roku ... I use your devices around the
| house and if I ever need a youtube on bigscreen, I just share
| direct to the "smart" TV instead ...
|
| Hey youtube, or whoever is causing this, you're just making
| yourselves look dumb to consumers who will either be angry at
| your or just bypass your dumb stance on the matter.
|
| Edit: I remember the old days with disdain, but does anyone miss
| the Microsoft days? I know I know ... but at least I could force
| my machine to do whatever the hell I wanted. Download an .exe and
| get on with it ... phew, actually, I'm forgetting the bad things
| ... but at least it was "open" and I had control. Kind of. You
| know what I mean.
| Jensson wrote:
| > Don't worry about it, Roku ... I use your devices around the
| house and if I ever need a youtube on bigscreen, I just share
| direct to the "smart" TV instead ...
|
| That is what youtube wants and not what Roku wants though. Roku
| gets paid when you use youtube there, if you bypass the Roku
| ecosystem like this to go directly to Youtube then Youtube won.
| sjg007 wrote:
| I have apple tv and roku. Both work great, now that roku can get
| apple tv+ it is even better. My kids find the roku remote easier
| than the apple one. So much so that I bought a roku express 4k
| stick instead of another apple tv. Seems good enough.
| bgorman wrote:
| Roku even supports Airplay. Not sure who the Apple TV is for at
| this point.
| criddell wrote:
| Apple TV is for people who want to pay for a device with
| money and not their data.
| ridaj wrote:
| I get that Sonos, Roku, etc are in a tough spot but this business
| is structurally to be a good, cheap, dumb terminal. It's no use
| for Roku to try and get in the way at this point, it just
| reinforces incentives for players to undercut them with branded
| sticks (Chromecast, fire tv, apple TV...)
| mrkramer wrote:
| Classic story of two sides pushing their own self interests while
| ignoring the interests of the users.
| dtjb wrote:
| I get this situation is different since YouTube is looking for
| concessions on functionality, but I find it hard to defend Roku
| with their triple-dipping scheme. They charge for the device (I
| paid over $100 for my 4k HDR box), then they display massive ads
| covering 50% of the screen, then they want a cut of revenue from
| content providers as well.
|
| Roku burned through a lot of goodwill with their customers during
| the HBO Max holdout.
| CarlosEscobedo wrote:
| I think the triple dipping is the main issue. If they want a
| cut from content providers they need to provide something more
| then just we will have your app.
| saisundar wrote:
| 4 way dipping.
|
| Roku also takes a cut for every transaction that goes via its
| platform. If I end up subscribing to HBO via roku, Roku takes a
| cut too.
|
| On a related note, is it just me that's flummoxed by the lack
| of Ad disclosures for the Roku ads? I can't seem to find it -
| and having worked ij tech ads , I find this troubling and
| concerning.
| pkulak wrote:
| I can't say this for everyone, but a tech consumer has to know
| that just over $100 does not cover the cost of the hardware.
| It's got to come from somewhere else. I'm usually not much of
| an Apple fan, but I just switched to the Apple TV and am really
| liking it. It certainly seems like charging 2x the price for
| the hardware removes a lot of the incentive to do all the
| scammy stuff Ruku is involved in; though I guess I can't know
| for sure, or know the future.
| bgorman wrote:
| 100 dollars certainly covers the cost of the hardware. These
| streaming devices use commodity chips and run Linux. This
| isn't a crazy R&D project. The only real value-add from Roku
| is the software.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Yeah, embedded hardware is _really_ cheap at scale, even
| with 4K video decoding.
| pier25 wrote:
| I also bought an ATV recently and I'm very happy with it.
|
| I still use an Nvidia Shield for Plex though. The ATV is
| great for streaming platforms, but lacks HDMI audio
| passthrough which is essential for watching hi quality BluRay
| rips on a home theater.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _a tech consumer has to know that just over $100 does not
| cover the cost of the hardware._
|
| Nonsense. A raspberry pi costs far less and is, arguably,
| just as capable.
| pkulak wrote:
| A raspberry pi will do 4k, HDR AV1 and h265, and includes a
| remote, case, storage, power supply and HDMI cable?
| jefftk wrote:
| A raspberry pi 4 will, and the accessories are relatively
| cheap: https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/build-the-
| ultimate-4k-home-...
| cheeze wrote:
| Will it? I didn't know that rpi had any HW support for
| AV1.
|
| Last I checked, there wasn't any player capable of doing
| HDR10 HEVC either, but maybe that has changed.
|
| I like the rpi but I don't think its as capable as people
| are making it out to be.
| pkulak wrote:
| I'm still seeing $65 for the Pi, then adding up
| everything else you need takes you over $100 easily.
| nitrogen wrote:
| These accessories are sold in quantities of one, to
| consumers, and made in relatively smaller batches. All of
| that gets a lot cheaper if you can injection mold a
| plastic housing and buy things in hundreds of thousands
| or millions.
| supernovae wrote:
| If it was just as capable, then people would buy Raspberry
| Pi's.
|
| The problem isn't hardware capability, it's the ecosystem
| on top of it. Pi doesn't have a robust tv platform and app
| market system that is built around a remote control. Sure,
| you can run plex on it but even plex has long abandoned its
| streaming app platform and decided to roll its own TV
| service instead... Part of me wishes that Plex would have
| stuck with it but i guess they realized the Streaming TV
| problem isn't a software or hardware problem to begin
| with...
| inetknght wrote:
| > _The problem isn 't hardware capability, it's the
| ecosystem on top of it._
|
| The parent comment stated that the $100 doesn't cover the
| cost of the hardware. I disagree.
|
| I do think it is perhaps a more reasonable statement to
| say $100 doesn't cover the cost of the hardware _and the
| software platform on top of it_.
|
| I don't think it's right to shove ads down customer's
| throat on a product that they've paid money for. Whether
| that's money to buy the hardware _and the software
| platform_ or whether that 's money paid to the
| subscriptions; in both cases advertisements are the wrong
| solution to revenue. If software costs money then make
| that cost up front. Sell the software. Sell updates to
| the software. Sell a subscription for the software. But
| don't put ads on it!
| judge2020 wrote:
| I think the comment you're referring to is incorrect in
| that regard - of course $100 pays (or at least paid pre-
| chip-shortage) for the bulk-purchased chips and boards in
| the products, but people buy it because of the streaming
| services on the box, not because it has a Cortex-A55 in
| it (although that plays into choosing it over the 1080p
| model).
| supernovae wrote:
| I have to chuckle because Google's entire existance has
| been based on advertising revenue so if you don't like ad
| supported "Fremium" or "discounted" services, this really
| is a moot discussion.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I didn't know they charged money from app creators to be
| hosted. I thought they just made their money on hardware!
|
| _All_ roku had to do was build some quality hardware and a
| decent streaming UI. The only thing that would take money to
| maintain from a server perspective should be the update servers
| and software servers.
|
| I saw them as one of the few dedicated streaming devices (next
| to Shield) for being "provider neutral" - that is, not apple
| and not Google.
| datavirtue wrote:
| OK. So they are supposed to make money selling one of the
| most unprofitable commodities on earth...electronic hardware?
| The only company pulling that off is Apple...and probably
| just on the iPhone.
|
| I paid $400 for a huge TCL TV. It probably cost $100 just to
| move it around the globe. There is no money for development
| or the platform/service in that price.
| nitrogen wrote:
| There's no way that a container full of TVs costs $100 per
| TV to ship. A bit of quick ddg-ing and it looks like a 40
| foot container should be less than $4000 port to port.
| opo wrote:
| With the supply chain problems, prices have gone up -
| sometimes quite a bit. I saw this article:
|
| >...Container shipping rates from China to the United
| States have scaled fresh highs above $20,000 per 40-foot
| box as rising retailer orders ahead of the peak U.S.
| shopping season add strain to global supply chains.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/china-us-container-
| shipping...
| supernovae wrote:
| BOM -> Factory -> Warehouse -> Worldwide distribution ->
| Port of authority -> Warehouse -> Retailer/Etailer ->
| Customer
|
| We're spoiled..
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I suppose the question is, what incentive do Apple or
| Google or Amazon have to put their content on a
| competitor's hardware? Moreover, _pay_ to get it on Roku?
|
| People are going to buy the hardware that has the content
| they want. I feel like the big three are squeezing Roku
| out.
|
| Should legislation be written to require content and
| hardware platforms be separate? That Apple TV should have
| to be available for Shield and Roku, and that Youtube TV be
| allowed on Apple and Roku?
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| I'm a long time Roku fan but also feel they're in the wrong
| here. Mostly I'm angry because I feel captive; I bought my TCL
| TV explicitly because it had the Roku OS. It's great! Right
| until it can't show the one content site I most want to see
| because of some stupid business argument. I feel like a sucker
| for paying for Roku.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _I 'm angry because I feel captive; I bought my TCL TV
| explicitly because it had the Roku OS._
|
| You bought a TV and expected it to not have its features
| changed. That sounds like a very reasonable expectation.
| supernovae wrote:
| The TV has roku built in, but, it's still a TV with HDMI and
| USB ports so you can use it with any non ROKU device you
| want. You're not worse off...
| criddell wrote:
| I'm kind of done with Roku. When they were holding customers
| hostage to squeeze more money out of HBOMax I did a bit of
| reading about Roku and realized how parasitic they are.
|
| None of the commercial streaming device options are great,
| but I think my next one will be an Apple TV.
| Gunax wrote:
| I am a bit sympathetic to them because that's what the market
| asks for.
|
| I am looking at the prices of rokus, and my guess is they are
| losing money on the hardware.
|
| And yes, we should have a completely free (as in speech)
| device. But if you actually offered it and priced it
| accordingly, most people would not buy it.
|
| It's dumb but it's what we consumers have voiced with our
| money.
| scantron4 wrote:
| amazon offers an ad free version of the kindle for $30 more.
| I'd love the same from Roku.
|
| But then... I bought the ad version, not for price but
| because it had the pretty colors and I don't like using cases
| on kindles anymore.
| supernovae wrote:
| NextDNS blocks Roku's ads and tracking for me. I just get a
| blank square on the home page.
| josefresco wrote:
| > then they display massive ads covering 50% of the screen
|
| Stop this. I have multiple Rokus. The % of time I spend on
| their menu looking at the ads is like 0.0001% of my total time
| using Roku. In fact, I didn't even notice any ads for months
| until someone on Reddit complained about it.
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah I liked them initially, but have since thrown out all
| their crap and bought Apple TVs.
|
| Once Apple got Amazon prime streaming roku lost their only
| differentiating feature. The ads really annoyed me to the
| extent that I don't care if they fail.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| Roku's differentiating feature has always been simplicity and
| universal search. Does Apple TV offer universal search across
| content providers? I'm asking, I don't know, but it's the one
| feature I can't give up.
| fossuser wrote:
| Yep - you can search across all installed apps.
| pchristensen wrote:
| Content providers can choose what content to expose to
| the universal search. Most do, notably Netflix does not,
| so you can't find Netflix content using Siri.
| datavirtue wrote:
| I have been on Roku forever now and I'm always wondering
| about these people freaking out about the ads there. It is no
| where close to the ad intrusion of YouTube. They are not
| animated, have no sound, and basically stay out of the way.
| It's like the shinning example of how to do ads.
| dtjb wrote:
| Roku ads take up the entire right half of the main launch
| screen, visible every time you turn on the TV or change
| apps. They've recently started displaying branded ads that
| are even more intrusive, taking over the entire theme +
| wallpaper (I recall they did this for Mandalorian, Soul,
| some other big movie launches).
|
| YouTube ads help fund content creators. Roku ads are being
| displayed on a stand alone device that I already paid $100
| for.
| fossuser wrote:
| I pay for YouTube Premium - I have a more than average
| negative response to ads.
|
| For me if I'm paying for something I don't want ads. If you
| charge me and then also double dip with ads I'll try to
| find something else that doesn't.
| astral303 wrote:
| Fuck YouTube and their AppleTV app. It's exhibit #1 in
| anticompetitive behavior -- ship a shitty, subpar app, for a
| premium service.
|
| I wish that Apple were to prohibit any custom video playing
| controls on AppleTV, but this crowd will roast Apple alive for
| yet another "walled garden" move. Please Apple, put up walls
| against a shitty video streaming experience.
|
| After the steaaming garbage pile that is the YouTube app on
| AppleTV, YouTube and Google has lost all respect in my eyes.
|
| Go Roku.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| Roku should drop the API and just scrape YouTube from the client
| side. What's Google going to do, block everyone's home IP?
| jfrunyon wrote:
| Change their layout so the scraper stops working?
|
| Block the useragent?
|
| Block other identifiable parameters of Roku's networking stack
| or HTTP stack?
|
| Sue them?
| sidpatil wrote:
| It'll end up being a cat-and-mouse game, similar to how
| youtube-dl is developed.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| There is some stuff they can do. I forget the details as many
| years have passed. Microsoft was doing that for Windows Phone
| and there were some issues.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| YouTube will probably do what Facebook is doing: randomize URLs
| and obfuscate the HTML weekly. It then becomes a game of catch-
| up for Roku, they'd always be one step behind.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| Could we get a moderator to change the title to say YouTube TV
| instead of YouTube? The dispute between Roku and Google has
| nothing to do with the latter, and is confusing to readers.
|
| Edit: I did not realize that the base YouTube app was
| specifically mentioned in the article, alongside YTTV. That's
| surprising and is a bigger deal than I'd thought before.
| LiquidInsect wrote:
| "The two companies had a December deadline for a renegotiation,
| but sources say it hasn't been met, and as a result, new Roku
| devices will continue to be unable to download YouTube or
| YouTube TV apps."
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| That's incorrect; the new dispute is over the base YouTube app,
| not just YouTube TV.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Looking forward to have a Youtube button that goes nowhere on my
| Roku remote in addition to Google Videos.
| brightball wrote:
| Hulu TV it is then.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-21 23:02 UTC)