27 ms·

I'm not quite ready to take out the pitchforks... > Roku says Google has threatened to require Roku to use certain chip sets or memory cards that would force R

by fra 5y ago

I'm not quite ready to take out the pitchforks... > Roku says Google has threatened to require Roku to use certain chip sets or memory cards that would force Roku to increase the price of its hardware product, which competes directly with Google's Chromecast. This could simply mean Google is requiring chips with hardware VP9 support > Roku alleges Google has asked it to favor YouTube music results from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the YouTube app is open, even if the user's music preference is set to default to another music app, like Pandora. This is both what many users would expect (if I have an app open, voice search works within that app), and a pretty reasonable ask for any business (don't show competitor's offering when searching within my app).

iforgotpassword 5y ago
Agree on the second one, but why tf should Google force them to support vp9? If they want to save some money there to stay competitive it's none of Google's business.
- cma 5y ago
  Doesn't it cost Google more in either bandwidth or patent fees if they don't support VP9?
  - edoceo 5y ago
    maybe. and that's Gs problem that they are trying to make Rs problem.
    - cma 5y ago
      Not illegal unless it is monopoly abuse somehow.
      - fuzzer37 5y ago
        Well it is monopoly abuse.
        cma 5y ago
        How? They have bargaining power with a monopoly share. But it really saves bandwidth and avoids patent fees to unrelated companies. What part is the abuse? Should they have to support mpeg1 too if someone wants to use an old chip at enormous bandwidth costs? If it is about their DRM and not their freely licensed VP9 then I could see where it get into abuse if competitors can't use it. And I see where standing up the music service using youtube and messing up the system voice search is abusive.
falcolas 5y ago
> This is both what many users would expect Not when it’s not the current behavior, nor behavior present in any other application.
azinman2 5y ago
Not if I have the notion that search from a button on the remote is universal and I want to be taken directly to that content elsewhere. That’d be like suggesting Siri should only fetch content from the active app. It’s a signal for ranking, but not an absolute one.
- fra 5y ago
  That's what they are asking! Take it into account while ranking, not remove all other results: "[...] favor YouTube music results from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the YouTube app is open" Key word is "favor"
  - jellicle 5y ago
    Voice commands aren't going to give you an exhaustive list of possibilities, they're going to play the top result. Q. "Play Diamonds by Rihanna" A1. "Playing Diamonds by Rihanna from Youtube Music" A2. "Playing Diamonds by Rihanna from Spotify" Either A1 or A2 will happen, but not both. There can be only one.
    - azinman2 5y ago
      You don’t always need to have a verb. The way I use my Apple TV is usually to just say the name of the content because I want to pick where it comes from. But even if you say play, it could still ask you where from and/or confirm it got the right thing. Roku != Amazon Echo.
  - 8note 5y ago
    If I'm asking it to play music, favouring YouTube music means playing it from there
smt88 5y ago
> This is both what many users would expect (if I have an app open, voice search works within that app) No, it's not. Most YouTube users have a different primary music app. Google is trying to artificially force a marriage of YouTube and YouTube Music because they have utterly failed to do it in the product experience and user base themselves. If I'm watching a random YouTube video and then want to switch to music, I expect my music app to come up, not YouTube Music.
- cptskippy 5y ago
  As a Roku user who thinks Google takes a pretty hostile approach to anyone using their App on Roku, I disagree. If I'm in an App and search, I expect my search to be localized to that App. That being said, f*k Roku and their voice remote. They've been pushing that crap hard. Showing prompts on screen for upwards of 30 seconds to push the Mic button. I don't want my remote to have a microphone or be able to listen to me. I replaced my Roku remote last month because the one I had started having connectivity issues and missing clicks all of the sudden. The first thing I did with the new remote was pop it open and rip the microphone off the PCB with a pair of pliers. I really don't want an Android TV or Fire TV, and I'm not really keen on Apple TV either but Roku is making it really difficult to stick with them.
  - throwaway189262 5y ago
    The harder they push a feature, the more valuable the data they're stealing from you. Google as an example. They push their "sensor fusion" location service EXTREMELY hard on Android. It will ask you to turn it on every time an app requests location and GPS hasn't locked. It's hard to not turn it on by accident. And once you hit yes, you never see another notification. Well it turns out this "location service" provides some of the most valuable data Google ever receives. It's tied to their maps live traffic, "how busy is this place" features, location based advertising, wifi based mapping, accuracy of their IP->location maps. It's creepy data core to their business and if too many people turned it off, it would seriously degrade their mass data collection. Oh, and it's often given to law enforcement for dubiously legal "area" warrants where they simply say "give me all devices in this radius at this time". Where the radius can be hundreds of meters and the time can be hours.
LightG 5y ago
I'll take your pitchfork and brandish it at least ... >>This could simply mean Google is requiring chips with hardware VP9 support Shouldn't we expect reasonable backward-compatibility? Your second point seems valid. To be honest though ... youtube is the weak link in most of my set ups. Can't access ad-based youtube via Sonos (and no, I won't pay for premium because of how I feel about Google right now), scrapes here with Roku, etc. Google is slowly becoming obsolete in my house. n=1
Aissen 5y ago
It's good to see such optimism. But it's not necessarily true, see for example the Apple MFi program that requires custom chips provided only by Apple as way to tax & lock devices. In the TV/broadcast business Roku is in, it is unfortunately pretty common for content providers to mandate DRM X or Y, which is embedded deep into the main SoC, so you'd have only one or two possible sources.
malka 5y ago
> This is both what many users would expect If I'm watching a video on youtube and ask to play music, no I do NOT want at all youtube to handle that. Youtube music is crap. Google has proven many times that they are totally unable to manage music. They should stop to try, because it is utterly embarrassing.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  > Youtube music is crap It's good enough for a lot of people. I pay for YouTube Premium, so I get YouTube music (formerly Google Play Music) included, and it works well enough that I'm not going to pay for a separate music app.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    Which is fine, And what user preferences are for.
  - sircastor 5y ago
    YouTube Premium is the only reason I stick with YouTube Music. I was a Google Play Music user, and that was fine. Getting both was a boon. I would say though that YouTube Music has been an overall downgrade.
  - cardiffspaceman 5y ago
    Youtube music was better until several months ago, when they made some changes that ruined it for me. I haven't used Youtube for an extended session of watching music videos since those changes happened. Overall I have watched many fewer music videos since the change. This is on Youtube as implemented on Android TV. I definitely prefer music videos over plain audio streams.
  - ummonk 5y ago
    Then you can make YouTube music your preferred music app in your settings.
  - jwalton 5y ago
    Google: Look, you can buy a device with less storage, and store all your MP3s in the cloud! Me: This sounds terrible… but ok, let’s give it a go. Google: Now that you have all your music in the cloud, wouldn’t it be nice if you paid us monthly for access to a lot more music? Me: No. Google: I see you switched to another app while watching a YouTube video. If you paid us extra, you could keep playing that in the background! Me: First, why would I ever want that? It’s bad enough YouTube now keeps playing videos in a little thumbnail when I try to exit them. Second, why are you charging a monthly fee for a feature that ought to just come with your app? Google: Hey, how about a free trial of our subscription service? Me: No. Google: Hey, how about we ask you every day if you want a free trial to our subscription service? Me: Still no. Google: Ok, I tell you what. How about we shut down Google Play Music, literally the only built in MP3 player, and then if you want to keep listening to music on your phone, you pay us monthly? Me: Buys an iPhone.
015a 5y ago
> if I have an app open, voice search works within that app This is not how Siri or the Google Assistant works on iOS, Android, or Apple TV.
- raisedbyninjas 5y ago
  Roku does not support multitasking. I would not expect a voice search to close the app I'm using. If I want to switch apps to listen to music, I could hit the home button, then voice search and let music preferences launch the appropriate app.
- izacus 5y ago
  Google Assistant on my Pixel 4 will search in foreground app if I ask a query so you might not be correct in that respect.
- khc 5y ago
  This is how Google Assistant works on Android TV
8note 5y ago
YouTube music is a different product from YouTube itself. If I said "search wikipedia for thing" I'd expect to get wikipedia results back, not YouTube videos about wikipedia and thing
- cptskippy 5y ago
  > YouTube music is a different product from YouTube itself. Sorta not really. On Roku, Google is deprecating all of the other means of playing content (e.g. Google Play Video) and funneling everyone to the Youtube App now for everything.
agilob 5y ago
>This is both what many users would expect So if your default search engine in firefox is duckduckgo, but you're currently on google.com/maps reading reviews of a car service, firefox should use google for your next search request?
- SR2Z 5y ago
  This is a bad comparison. There's only ever one voice search button on the remote, but there are multiple easy-to-click search bars when you're viewing maps. IMO, even if I had Spotify on a Roku, I would be fine with this change. It's not difficult at all to press the home button and then the search button to signal you want to search outside of YouTube. A big chunk of YouTube's utility is that it has music videos.
  - dcow 5y ago
    Shouldn't it be up to Roku, not Google, to decide how their product experience works? LGs TVs have a prominent omni search button. If you’re in the YT app and use the omnisearch it searches across all content services you have connected. It’s an amazingly useful feature and makes the TV experience actually feel integrated. First time I’ve been happy with a “smart” TV experience. I’d say it’s a fair comparison.
    - SR2Z 5y ago
      It would be up to Roku if Roku were willing to support Google with resources for developing their YT/YT TV apps. They literally have no power beyond acting as a gatekeeper for their users. Their omnisearch (which was awful, at least the last time I used it) is a major part of their strategy to try and guide users towards content they profit from. Given that it's Google's job to guard the UX of their Roku apps, I think it's 100% reasonable for them to tell Roku to add HW support for new features and not gimp search inside the YT app.
      - mrtranscendence 5y ago
        > not gimp search inside the YT app. I could see this argument if a search for music would lead to a search for (say) a music video. But the idea, as I understand it, is that a request for music to be played would instead be routed through YouTube Music. Even if I'm in the YouTube app, I'm not going to want my music search to go through YouTube Music -- I'm not a subscriber.
SirFatty 5y ago
I agree, it does seem to make sense... and this isn't just with YT, it also affects YT TV. On my Smart TV, with a Roku remote, I don't want to switch out of the current app (YTTV in my case).
arghwhat 5y ago
> This is both what many users would expect (if I have an app open, voice search works within that app), and a pretty reasonable ask for any business (don't show competitor's offering when searching within my app). Only if I search using the in-app search feature do I expect it to be restricted to only that app. If I'm watching a YouTube video and ask my device to play music, I expect Spotify to open as that's what I use and pay for. The platform should prioritize the user, not the app developers.
paxys 5y ago
I doubt users expect that. Voice assistant search on every device/platform today is always global.
reaperducer 5y ago
I understand your position on this. But what I don't understand is what makes Google think it has the right to demand anything from another company.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
> a pretty reasonable ask for any business seems abusive coming from someone with an extremely dominant market position in one area.
impalallama 5y ago
> favor Youtube music results > user preference set to another music app. Entirely irrelevant. Youtube Music is not Youtube. Its a rebranded music streaming service build to compete with Spotify and apple after the failure of google play. Also is the Roku's device search. Which mean it can functionally search anywhere which is the entire point.
charwalker 5y ago
No. If I'm in YouTube I want Tidal to play music, not their janky YTM setup that can't give me quality audio even if I pick the video myself. At least make it a toggle for users to manage themselves vs hard coding it into the app.
ab_testing 5y ago
Agreed. If I am within the YouTube app, I am expecting search results from YouTube. Showing search results from Pandora is just tainting those result. If I want or search across all apps, I should be able to go to the Roku home screen and search there .
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 5y ago
Even if it is what most users would expect (I don't agree it is), that is a product decision that should be entirely under Roku's control. Google's threat to pull YouTube from their device is an anti-competitive move. If customers do want either behavior, they should be advocating to Roku for it. Google has no place setting a requirement here.
dhimes 5y ago
I don't understand why Google, who is apparently competing with Roku with Chromecast, would try to "help" Roku fix a worse user experience? My Spidey sense tells me there's more to it than just trying to fix the Roku UX.
judge2020 5y ago
If they're talking YouTube TV specifically (the terminology doesn't make much distinction between YouTube and YTTV, although the headline makes it seem like 'YouTube' always means YTTV in this case) they also might be requiring a new DRM chip for level 1 widevine.
AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
> This could simply mean Google is requiring chips with hardware VP9 support Almost definitely what they want but that isn't benign. There's very little user benefit here (lower bandwidth costs IF you're on a metered connection which is a tiny % of people) and lots of benefit to google/youtube (lower bandwidth!) and lots of extra cost to roku (these chips will cost more, at least in the short term). So google is basically forcing Roku to spend money to save google money. That said, VP9 isn't just a good idea for Google. It's a good idea for everyone doing video delivery. Google and everyone else shouldn't be strong-arming Roku into deploying VP9-capable hardware they should be finding ways to help. Buy a billion dollars worth of VP9-capable chips for the next Chromecast on the condition that they cost no more than 10% more than H264-chips and the manufacturer agrees to sell to anyone at that price... or... something.

by fra 5y ago

iforgotpassword 5y ago

Agree on the second one, but why tf should Google force them to support vp9? If they want to save some money there to stay competitive it's none of Google's business.

cma 5y ago
Doesn't it cost Google more in either bandwidth or patent fees if they don't support VP9?
- edoceo 5y ago
  maybe. and that's Gs problem that they are trying to make Rs problem.
  - cma 5y ago
    Not illegal unless it is monopoly abuse somehow.
    - fuzzer37 5y ago
      Well it is monopoly abuse.
      - cma 5y ago
        How? They have bargaining power with a monopoly share. But it really saves bandwidth and avoids patent fees to unrelated companies. What part is the abuse? Should they have to support mpeg1 too if someone wants to use an old chip at enormous bandwidth costs? If it is about their DRM and not their freely licensed VP9 then I could see where it get into abuse if competitors can't use it. And I see where standing up the music service using youtube and messing up the system voice search is abusive.

falcolas 5y ago

> This is both what many users would expect Not when it’s not the current behavior, nor behavior present in any other application.

azinman2 5y ago

Not if I have the notion that search from a button on the remote is universal and I want to be taken directly to that content elsewhere. That’d be like suggesting Siri should only fetch content from the active app. It’s a signal for ranking, but not an absolute one.

fra 5y ago
That's what they are asking! Take it into account while ranking, not remove all other results: "[...] favor YouTube music results from voice commands made on the Roku remote while the YouTube app is open" Key word is "favor"
- jellicle 5y ago
  Voice commands aren't going to give you an exhaustive list of possibilities, they're going to play the top result. Q. "Play Diamonds by Rihanna" A1. "Playing Diamonds by Rihanna from Youtube Music" A2. "Playing Diamonds by Rihanna from Spotify" Either A1 or A2 will happen, but not both. There can be only one.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    You don’t always need to have a verb. The way I use my Apple TV is usually to just say the name of the content because I want to pick where it comes from. But even if you say play, it could still ask you where from and/or confirm it got the right thing. Roku != Amazon Echo.
- 8note 5y ago
  If I'm asking it to play music, favouring YouTube music means playing it from there

smt88 5y ago

> This is both what many users would expect (if I have an app open, voice search works within that app) No, it's not. Most YouTube users have a different primary music app. Google is trying to artificially force a marriage of YouTube and YouTube Music because they have utterly failed to do it in the product experience and user base themselves. If I'm watching a random YouTube video and then want to switch to music, I expect my music app to come up, not YouTube Music.

cptskippy 5y ago
As a Roku user who thinks Google takes a pretty hostile approach to anyone using their App on Roku, I disagree. If I'm in an App and search, I expect my search to be localized to that App. That being said, f*k Roku and their voice remote. They've been pushing that crap hard. Showing prompts on screen for upwards of 30 seconds to push the Mic button. I don't want my remote to have a microphone or be able to listen to me. I replaced my Roku remote last month because the one I had started having connectivity issues and missing clicks all of the sudden. The first thing I did with the new remote was pop it open and rip the microphone off the PCB with a pair of pliers. I really don't want an Android TV or Fire TV, and I'm not really keen on Apple TV either but Roku is making it really difficult to stick with them.
- throwaway189262 5y ago
  The harder they push a feature, the more valuable the data they're stealing from you. Google as an example. They push their "sensor fusion" location service EXTREMELY hard on Android. It will ask you to turn it on every time an app requests location and GPS hasn't locked. It's hard to not turn it on by accident. And once you hit yes, you never see another notification. Well it turns out this "location service" provides some of the most valuable data Google ever receives. It's tied to their maps live traffic, "how busy is this place" features, location based advertising, wifi based mapping, accuracy of their IP->location maps. It's creepy data core to their business and if too many people turned it off, it would seriously degrade their mass data collection. Oh, and it's often given to law enforcement for dubiously legal "area" warrants where they simply say "give me all devices in this radius at this time". Where the radius can be hundreds of meters and the time can be hours.

LightG 5y ago

I'll take your pitchfork and brandish it at least ... >>This could simply mean Google is requiring chips with hardware VP9 support Shouldn't we expect reasonable backward-compatibility? Your second point seems valid. To be honest though ... youtube is the weak link in most of my set ups. Can't access ad-based youtube via Sonos (and no, I won't pay for premium because of how I feel about Google right now), scrapes here with Roku, etc. Google is slowly becoming obsolete in my house. n=1

Aissen 5y ago

It's good to see such optimism. But it's not necessarily true, see for example the Apple MFi program that requires custom chips provided only by Apple as way to tax & lock devices. In the TV/broadcast business Roku is in, it is unfortunately pretty common for content providers to mandate DRM X or Y, which is embedded deep into the main SoC, so you'd have only one or two possible sources.

malka 5y ago

> This is both what many users would expect If I'm watching a video on youtube and ask to play music, no I do NOT want at all youtube to handle that. Youtube music is crap. Google has proven many times that they are totally unable to manage music. They should stop to try, because it is utterly embarrassing.

throwawayboise 5y ago
> Youtube music is crap It's good enough for a lot of people. I pay for YouTube Premium, so I get YouTube music (formerly Google Play Music) included, and it works well enough that I'm not going to pay for a separate music app.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  Which is fine, And what user preferences are for.
- sircastor 5y ago
  YouTube Premium is the only reason I stick with YouTube Music. I was a Google Play Music user, and that was fine. Getting both was a boon. I would say though that YouTube Music has been an overall downgrade.
- cardiffspaceman 5y ago
  Youtube music was better until several months ago, when they made some changes that ruined it for me. I haven't used Youtube for an extended session of watching music videos since those changes happened. Overall I have watched many fewer music videos since the change. This is on Youtube as implemented on Android TV. I definitely prefer music videos over plain audio streams.
- ummonk 5y ago
  Then you can make YouTube music your preferred music app in your settings.
- jwalton 5y ago
  Google: Look, you can buy a device with less storage, and store all your MP3s in the cloud! Me: This sounds terrible… but ok, let’s give it a go. Google: Now that you have all your music in the cloud, wouldn’t it be nice if you paid us monthly for access to a lot more music? Me: No. Google: I see you switched to another app while watching a YouTube video. If you paid us extra, you could keep playing that in the background! Me: First, why would I ever want that? It’s bad enough YouTube now keeps playing videos in a little thumbnail when I try to exit them. Second, why are you charging a monthly fee for a feature that ought to just come with your app? Google: Hey, how about a free trial of our subscription service? Me: No. Google: Hey, how about we ask you every day if you want a free trial to our subscription service? Me: Still no. Google: Ok, I tell you what. How about we shut down Google Play Music, literally the only built in MP3 player, and then if you want to keep listening to music on your phone, you pay us monthly? Me: Buys an iPhone.

015a 5y ago

> if I have an app open, voice search works within that app This is not how Siri or the Google Assistant works on iOS, Android, or Apple TV.

raisedbyninjas 5y ago
Roku does not support multitasking. I would not expect a voice search to close the app I'm using. If I want to switch apps to listen to music, I could hit the home button, then voice search and let music preferences launch the appropriate app.
izacus 5y ago
Google Assistant on my Pixel 4 will search in foreground app if I ask a query so you might not be correct in that respect.
khc 5y ago
This is how Google Assistant works on Android TV

8note 5y ago

YouTube music is a different product from YouTube itself. If I said "search wikipedia for thing" I'd expect to get wikipedia results back, not YouTube videos about wikipedia and thing

cptskippy 5y ago
> YouTube music is a different product from YouTube itself. Sorta not really. On Roku, Google is deprecating all of the other means of playing content (e.g. Google Play Video) and funneling everyone to the Youtube App now for everything.

agilob 5y ago

>This is both what many users would expect So if your default search engine in firefox is duckduckgo, but you're currently on google.com/maps reading reviews of a car service, firefox should use google for your next search request?

SR2Z 5y ago
This is a bad comparison. There's only ever one voice search button on the remote, but there are multiple easy-to-click search bars when you're viewing maps. IMO, even if I had Spotify on a Roku, I would be fine with this change. It's not difficult at all to press the home button and then the search button to signal you want to search outside of YouTube. A big chunk of YouTube's utility is that it has music videos.
- dcow 5y ago
  Shouldn't it be up to Roku, not Google, to decide how their product experience works? LGs TVs have a prominent omni search button. If you’re in the YT app and use the omnisearch it searches across all content services you have connected. It’s an amazingly useful feature and makes the TV experience actually feel integrated. First time I’ve been happy with a “smart” TV experience. I’d say it’s a fair comparison.
  - SR2Z 5y ago
    It would be up to Roku if Roku were willing to support Google with resources for developing their YT/YT TV apps. They literally have no power beyond acting as a gatekeeper for their users. Their omnisearch (which was awful, at least the last time I used it) is a major part of their strategy to try and guide users towards content they profit from. Given that it's Google's job to guard the UX of their Roku apps, I think it's 100% reasonable for them to tell Roku to add HW support for new features and not gimp search inside the YT app.
    - mrtranscendence 5y ago
      > not gimp search inside the YT app. I could see this argument if a search for music would lead to a search for (say) a music video. But the idea, as I understand it, is that a request for music to be played would instead be routed through YouTube Music. Even if I'm in the YouTube app, I'm not going to want my music search to go through YouTube Music -- I'm not a subscriber.

SirFatty 5y ago

I agree, it does seem to make sense... and this isn't just with YT, it also affects YT TV. On my Smart TV, with a Roku remote, I don't want to switch out of the current app (YTTV in my case).

arghwhat 5y ago

> This is both what many users would expect (if I have an app open, voice search works within that app), and a pretty reasonable ask for any business (don't show competitor's offering when searching within my app). Only if I search using the in-app search feature do I expect it to be restricted to only that app. If I'm watching a YouTube video and ask my device to play music, I expect Spotify to open as that's what I use and pay for. The platform should prioritize the user, not the app developers.

paxys 5y ago

I doubt users expect that. Voice assistant search on every device/platform today is always global.

reaperducer 5y ago

I understand your position on this. But what I don't understand is what makes Google think it has the right to demand anything from another company.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

> a pretty reasonable ask for any business seems abusive coming from someone with an extremely dominant market position in one area.

impalallama 5y ago

> favor Youtube music results > user preference set to another music app. Entirely irrelevant. Youtube Music is not Youtube. Its a rebranded music streaming service build to compete with Spotify and apple after the failure of google play. Also is the Roku's device search. Which mean it can functionally search anywhere which is the entire point.

charwalker 5y ago

No. If I'm in YouTube I want Tidal to play music, not their janky YTM setup that can't give me quality audio even if I pick the video myself. At least make it a toggle for users to manage themselves vs hard coding it into the app.

ab_testing 5y ago

Agreed. If I am within the YouTube app, I am expecting search results from YouTube. Showing search results from Pandora is just tainting those result. If I want or search across all apps, I should be able to go to the Roku home screen and search there .

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kelnos 5y ago

Even if it is what most users would expect (I don't agree it is), that is a product decision that should be entirely under Roku's control. Google's threat to pull YouTube from their device is an anti-competitive move. If customers do want either behavior, they should be advocating to Roku for it. Google has no place setting a requirement here.

dhimes 5y ago

I don't understand why Google, who is apparently competing with Roku with Chromecast, would try to "help" Roku fix a worse user experience? My Spidey sense tells me there's more to it than just trying to fix the Roku UX.

judge2020 5y ago

If they're talking YouTube TV specifically (the terminology doesn't make much distinction between YouTube and YTTV, although the headline makes it seem like 'YouTube' always means YTTV in this case) they also might be requiring a new DRM chip for level 1 widevine.

AdamJacobMuller 5y ago

> This could simply mean Google is requiring chips with hardware VP9 support Almost definitely what they want but that isn't benign. There's very little user benefit here (lower bandwidth costs IF you're on a metered connection which is a tiny % of people) and lots of benefit to google/youtube (lower bandwidth!) and lots of extra cost to roku (these chips will cost more, at least in the short term). So google is basically forcing Roku to spend money to save google money. That said, VP9 isn't just a good idea for Google. It's a good idea for everyone doing video delivery. Google and everyone else shouldn't be strong-arming Roku into deploying VP9-capable hardware they should be finding ways to help. Buy a billion dollars worth of VP9-capable chips for the next Chromecast on the condition that they cost no more than 10% more than H264-chips and the manufacturer agrees to sell to anyone at that price... or... something.