[HN Gopher] YouTube will be removed from Roku as of December 9th...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube will be removed from Roku as of December 9th existing users
unaffected
Author : BitAstronaut
Score : 56 points
Date : 2021-10-21 20:11 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (9to5google.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (9to5google.com)
| jimt1234 wrote:
| A few weeks after all this beef started, Google emailed me with
| an offer for a free "Chromecast with Google TV" device. I thought
| it was weird, as the email (and the offer) was completely
| unsolicited. The email mentioned something about thanking me for
| being a YouTube-TV customer. I'm sure Google knows I watch
| YouTube-TV from my Roku-enabled TV, so I figured it was related
| to the beef. I just though it was weird at first (like, what's
| the catch here?), but now I get it - and it was a brilliant move.
| The Chromecast/Google-TV device is better, much more responsive
| than Roku on my TV, which was always my biggest complaint with
| Roku (too slow!). So now, I've pretty much abandoned Roku, and
| use my Chromecast/Google-TV device almost exclusively. Well-
| played, Google. Your move, Roku - send me free shit! LOL
| gadrev wrote:
| Lately, the Chromecast has become substantially worse, with
| many more ads and of course a stupid update nobody asked for
| showing kind of a tablet UI when you're in "idle" mode with the
| phone connected to the TV (idk how you're supposed to operate
| it, but I don't care, ofc it's a clickbait showcase screen).
|
| Before the increase in ad frequency (and some bugs like a
| random unlinking of the device when you put the app in
| background) it was pretty good TBH.
|
| But of course, everything worsens as viewership gets more
| concentrated and there are less alternatives.
|
| Will there ever be a product that... just stays like it was
| when you bought it? A lot of things tech related seem like a
| bait and switch... you have this.. haha! now you don't
|
| /rant
| curiousgal wrote:
| Well the latest Chromecast comes with its own OS and a remote
| so you no longer need a phone to use it.
| deeblering4 wrote:
| Then I'll keep the roku and cancel youtube premium. Google is
| just the worst.
| notyourwork wrote:
| My perception of Google has shifted from the kid in the candy
| store feeling I used to get about anything Google touched. Now
| I'm skeptical of every move they make and don't feel like they
| are operating in my best interest. Maybe I was always naive but
| the Google I knew 10+ years ago isn't the one I know today and
| it makes me sad.
| varelse wrote:
| I was bored with billionaires fighting with each other over
| nothing before it was cool.
| bserge wrote:
| Users of a lot of Chinese TVs and other products running Android:
| "first time?"
| [deleted]
| dash488 wrote:
| Roku and AndroidTV aside, has someone come up with an opensource
| alternative to either of these spammy services?
|
| Im in neither camp as I have had both functionalities
| preinstalled on a TV. Recently with my newer Android TV it is
| riddled with ADs and is noisy on my network with telemetry data,
| even when not in use. When I just want to turn it on and play
| PS4, it takes time to load the latest on Amazon Prime, Netflix
| and whatever other streaming service they are shilling, none
| which I pay for. When most of my media is on Plex or a gaming
| system. I just want my TV to be dumb again.
| [deleted]
| phdelightful wrote:
| A bad look when Alphabet is selling competing devices like
| Chromecast (at least partially competing) and then pull YouTube
| from Roku devices.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Interestingly, and only slightly related, Apple seems to be
| expanding the number of devices that it's on.
|
| There was an apple.com web site recently that stated that
| either Apple Music or AppleTV was available on game consoles.
| Naturally, as soon as someone noticed and made it public, it
| was pulled. But it's interesting to see how readily the big
| content producers are willing to add and remove themselves from
| people's boxes.
| LocalH wrote:
| So Google _is_ using YouTube as leverage to convince Roku to do
| what they want, not just YouTube TV. This is _literally_ a cable
| /network pissing match, except with streaming.
|
| Fuck 'em both, honestly. Neither one is an innocent party.
| daemonhunter wrote:
| Sigh. Stuck in between corporate squabbles again.
| johnvaluk wrote:
| I've used Roku in various incarnations (box, TV) since it was
| released and was excited when the official YouTube app was
| finally available. But lately, it's been painful to watch YouTube
| due to the constant and disruptive advertising. Part of me is
| looking forward to the app being pulled from Roku, since it's so
| much like the cable TV experience I thought I was escaping. I
| don't feel this way about the other premium channels I use
| (Netflix, Prime Video). Is it worth paying for YouTube? Will
| pulling the app make it impossible to use the premium (paid)
| service on Roku devices?
| unclekev wrote:
| > Is it worth paying for YouTube?
|
| That depends on how much not seeing that 'constant and
| disruptive advertising' is worth to you.
| pkulak wrote:
| Though, you still get all the in-video promos, even when
| paying. That ticks me off a bit, but it's not too bad.
| notyourwork wrote:
| That's on the content creator, not YouTube right?
| inerte wrote:
| With the current system, yes. YouTube could do something
| where the content creator specifies the sponsored part
| (if it's not straight up merchandising and product
| placement) and paying subscribers could have that
| skipped.
|
| Anyway, I chimed in to say YouTube Premium to me is worth
| a lot. I watch more YouTube because of it, it's better,
| better for the kids, less annoying, the whole thing is
| fantastically better. Every time I click an YouTube video
| on my employer account and get an ad it's such a shock.
| meowface wrote:
| Doesn't work for Roku/Chromecast, but:
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-
| for-y...
| phatfish wrote:
| I use the app on my Sky TV box sometimes, and it's actually a
| decent experience until you try to watch something. So I rarely
| do. If they toned down the interruptions I would probably use
| it more. As it is I just revert to a device with an adblocker.
| Jensson wrote:
| If a company is spreading lies about you then there is no reason
| to continue working with that company. I'm not saying Roku did
| that, but if they did then why would Google stay with them and
| try to argue instead of just leaving them?
|
| Edit: I am specifically referring to the fact that Google claims
| Roku did this:
|
| > Roku has once again chosen to make unproductive and baseless
| claims rather than try to work constructively with us. Since we
| haven't been able to continue our conversations in good faith,
| our partnership for all new Roku devices will unfortunately end
| on December 9.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Because it won't look good in the trust-busting lawsuit.
| Monopolies kill competition like this. Is this different?
| Maybe. Doesn't look good.
| Jensson wrote:
| If Roku really did spread lies about Google then I doubt Roku
| would win the lawsuit. Google just needs to show the paper
| trail.
| jrockway wrote:
| Why does Roku even need to work with YouTube to put YouTube on
| the device? It's a web page that can be opened in any browser.
|
| For that reason, I have to assume that Roku wants to extract
| money from Google here, and as with net neutrality, they're right
| to not pay.
| cosmotic wrote:
| YouTube makes ad revenue from Roku users, Roku wants a cut.
| azinman2 wrote:
| It's better used as an app on these devices. A webpage would be
| very cumbersome to use with a basic remote and lower powered
| processor. I also assume they integrated into search and other
| roku functionality.
| warioftw wrote:
| You'd think that, but YT engineers solved this challenge
| using two methods:
|
| 1. Build an efficient "browser" (HTML5 runtime) that can run
| a web app.
|
| 2. Write a webapp specifically targeted towards TVs, includes
| 10 foot interface, etc.
|
| Source: https://cobalt.dev/
| easton wrote:
| Amazon for years just had an app in their store called
| "YouTube.com" which opened YouTube.com/tv in a webview.
| Worked absolutely fine, and was the preferred method until
| Google finally let them have an apk that didn't rely on Play
| Services.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Could Roku start distributing New Pipe[0] or similar? It
| works ok-ish on my android TVs.
|
| [0]https://newpipe.net/
| commoner wrote:
| Google would probably find ways to obstruct any of Roku's
| alternative YouTube clients, just as Google disabled
| Microsoft's YouTube client on Windows Phone years ago:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15
| /...
| jackbravo wrote:
| Your personal account can get suspended for abusing the
| service, like when sidestepping their official apps to
| download videos.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Time to get a new TV then. It's been time for awhile but this is
| gonna be the inciting incident. And definitely not getting a Roku
| TV as my new one.
| deeblering4 wrote:
| This is exactly why its better to buy a dumb TV and install a
| $50 HDMI stick (or two)
| neltnerb wrote:
| Turn wifi off for the existing TV (smart or not matters
| little if you don't connect it) and stick the same $50 HDMI
| stick and avoid throwing out the fully functional display?
|
| At this point, ads displayed to the users who use it as a
| smart TV probably subsidize those of us who use such TVs
| without connecting them to anything. My latest TV is enormous
| and 4K and under a few hundred dollars. The quality is fine,
| even if occasionally I accidentally get it to switch to the
| input that involves agreeing to terms and conditions.
|
| Of course it should be super illegal to ask you to agree to
| terms and conditions after spending over a hundred dollars,
| shipping something, installing it over hours, after you
| finally power it on... but at least I can be one of those
| rare smart TV customers that never agreed to them and can
| prove it!
| partiallypro wrote:
| Just as the monopolistic Google hopes you'd do. Would you be
| interested in a Google product instead?
| notJim wrote:
| There's no need to get a new TV, unless your Roku TV lacks HDMI
| ports. Mine has plenty.
|
| I've been thinking of moving away from Roku anyway though,
| because they seem underpowered. Most of the apps on mine are a
| bit laggy, whereas my AppleTV is smooth. I've even noticed
| jittery playback on high-quality 4k content, even though my tv
| is ostensibly a 4k tv.
| heavymark wrote:
| Don't think it means you need a new tv. Just got an Apple TV
| box, or a Google one, or whichever you prefer since it seems
| your not stuck on using roku tv's service.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Unless you're taking some ideological stance against Roku, no
| need to replace your existing hardware, it will continue to
| work with Youtube:
|
| _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._
| twobitshifter wrote:
| I think this is saying your existing YouTube app will work
| but as a new user you won't be able to find the app
| wanderingmind wrote:
| Maybe its a good time for Roku to fund some of the developers
| like Yurii who has built SmartTubeNext and make it a native app
| in Roku. That will be a reason to buy Roku over its competitors.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-21 23:01 UTC)