5 ms·

Either the journalist has interpreted Roku's claims incorrectly, or Roku is spreading falsehoods. It's a very common practice for streaming services to make cr

Either the journalist has interpreted Roku's claims incorrectly, or Roku is spreading falsehoods. It's a very common practice for streaming services to make crazy demands about the devices they're on. Roku[1], Google TV[2] and Firesticks[3] all have Netflix buttons on the remote not because they wanted them there, but because Netflix forces them to with the threat that they will blacklist their device. And inevitably, all devices comply because they know they won't be able to sell the product without Netflix support. [1] https://cigars.roku.com/v1/http%3A%2F%2Fimage.roku.com%2Fw%2Frapid%2Fimages%2Fpdp-carousel-items%2F8c96f4a9-8d7e-4351-aa8e-0137ff08d862.png https://cigars.roku.com/v1/http%3A%2F%2Fimage.roku.com%2Fw%2... [2] https://external-preview.redd.it/9itjeCYci2NPP7Vxr9onH_DFv7EsV0aOQJiJvA1IO3E.png?auto=webp&s=d68f7274ec2f635ddc305dc2b1ba9891e8c2848a https://external-preview.redd.it/9itjeCYci2NPP7Vxr9onH_DFv7E... [3] https://i.gadgets360cdn.com/large/amazon_fire_tv_stick_alexa_voice_remote_3rd_generation_image_1616749963892.jpg?downsize=950:*&output-quality=80 https://i.gadgets360cdn.com/large/amazon_fire_tv_stick_alexa...

wmf 5y ago
I agree that everybody involved is evil but we're still allowed to have opinions about that. Roku's evil and Google's evil don't necessarily cancel out.
inetknght 5y ago
> It's a very common practice for streaming services to make crazy demands about the devices they're on That doesn't make it any less anti-competitive
- Spivak 5y ago
  If it was “you must have a Netflix button and no others” I could see the argument but the demand for a particular user experience isn’t anticompetitive automatically. Company with leverage others might not have using that leverage isn’t something we vilify in general.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    If you're willfully ignorant of the situation, then sure. Otherwise, using leverage to favor your own product over competitors despite user preference is textbook anti-competitive behavior, almost comically so: Not only does it unfairly disadvantage competitors, but it also robs consumers of choice (by ignoring their preferences). I would love to see one of the meetings that lead to absurdly unethical and borderline/outright illegal decisions like this; did anyone bother to bring it up? Did the person that brought it up get the silent treatment? Were they no longer invited to lunch? Does everyone just understand that those topics are off limits? Or do these people seriously not care because they know they can get away with it?
    - Spivak 5y ago
      No, it really isn't. Look, I agree with you -- a company throwing their weight around feels super shitty. But leveraging your advantages is basically just business. Netflix paying Roku to add their button on remotes wouldn't be anti-competitive in the same way that buying exclusive ad space isn't. And therefore Netflix realizing that they bring so much value to the Roku ecosystem that they can get their button without actually having to pay is good business. Like I hate it. But it's true.
    - minhazm 5y ago
      It's like Microsoft sponsoring the NFL and so they have to use Surface tablets. That means they don't have Apple, Samsung, Lenovo, and other competitors tablets. Is that anti-competitive? If so, then every business out there must be anti-competitive. Buying ads to get yourself on a higher position in search results, buying ads on TV during primetime slots, and any behavior that makes you look better than your competitors would also be anti-competitive.
      - bogwog 5y ago
        That's not the same thing at all. Microsoft paid money to the NFL so they use the tablets, presumably more than the other bidders. That's what competition looks like. A better example would be if Microsoft forced the NFL to use their tablets by threatening to invalidate all of the Windows and Office licenses in their organization. Would you say that's "leverage" or anti-competitive behavior? Imagine if Samsung offered $400m to the NFL so they use Samsung computers. Microsoft's "leverage" could prevent the NFL from taking that offer, and there's nothing Samsung can do about it. That's anti-competitive behavior: one company unfairly disadvantaging competitors to the detriment of the customer (NFL in this case, which wouldn't get the $400m)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
adamsvystun 5y ago
I think the difference here is that Netflix does not make the devices themselves, so they are an equal outside force on the market of smart tv devices. Google on the other hand is using it's YouTube product to influence things on the device side, where they have Chromecast as direct competitor.
- Mindwipe 5y ago
  Thing is Google are so internally disfuntional it seems unlikely that that's the actual aim here. Thi is the same Google that still can't get their own gaming streaming service working on their own TV OS. And you think YouTube are trying to attack other manufacturers to boost sales of a $50 dongle with no margin? Tbh I think it's more likely that nobody on the Chromecast team has ever met anyone from the YouTube team. Many things at Google would work better if they did.
tyre 5y ago
Might the difference here be that Netflix doesn't have a competing product? Google could be incentivized to put onerous requirements on Roku which result in a worse user experience, price increases, or additional development time. That would benefit Chromecast.
- Mindwipe 5y ago
  The requirements for Netflix on a set-top box are... significant. Extremely.
deelowe 5y ago
I thought roku gets paid for those buttons to be on the remote.
stale2002 5y ago
> And inevitably, all devices comply because they know they won't be able to sell the product without Netflix support. That sounds pretty anti-competitive to me. So that would not be a "falsehood". Just because lots of companies are making anti-competitive demands, does not invalidate the point.
hamstergene 5y ago
Proving that others are bad too does not mean one is OK and no change is needed. It just means all are bad, all need to be changed.
rOOb85 5y ago
My latest gen firetv stick 4k has no Netflix button(or any app buttons) https://static.slickdealscdn.com/attachment/2/5/1/6/8/8/6/7803601.attach https://static.slickdealscdn.com/attachment/2/5/1/6/8/8/6/78...

wmf 5y ago

I agree that everybody involved is evil but we're still allowed to have opinions about that. Roku's evil and Google's evil don't necessarily cancel out.

inetknght 5y ago

> It's a very common practice for streaming services to make crazy demands about the devices they're on That doesn't make it any less anti-competitive

Spivak 5y ago
If it was “you must have a Netflix button and no others” I could see the argument but the demand for a particular user experience isn’t anticompetitive automatically. Company with leverage others might not have using that leverage isn’t something we vilify in general.
- bogwog 5y ago
  If you're willfully ignorant of the situation, then sure. Otherwise, using leverage to favor your own product over competitors despite user preference is textbook anti-competitive behavior, almost comically so: Not only does it unfairly disadvantage competitors, but it also robs consumers of choice (by ignoring their preferences). I would love to see one of the meetings that lead to absurdly unethical and borderline/outright illegal decisions like this; did anyone bother to bring it up? Did the person that brought it up get the silent treatment? Were they no longer invited to lunch? Does everyone just understand that those topics are off limits? Or do these people seriously not care because they know they can get away with it?
  - Spivak 5y ago
    No, it really isn't. Look, I agree with you -- a company throwing their weight around feels super shitty. But leveraging your advantages is basically just business. Netflix paying Roku to add their button on remotes wouldn't be anti-competitive in the same way that buying exclusive ad space isn't. And therefore Netflix realizing that they bring so much value to the Roku ecosystem that they can get their button without actually having to pay is good business. Like I hate it. But it's true.
  - minhazm 5y ago
    It's like Microsoft sponsoring the NFL and so they have to use Surface tablets. That means they don't have Apple, Samsung, Lenovo, and other competitors tablets. Is that anti-competitive? If so, then every business out there must be anti-competitive. Buying ads to get yourself on a higher position in search results, buying ads on TV during primetime slots, and any behavior that makes you look better than your competitors would also be anti-competitive.
    - bogwog 5y ago
      That's not the same thing at all. Microsoft paid money to the NFL so they use the tablets, presumably more than the other bidders. That's what competition looks like. A better example would be if Microsoft forced the NFL to use their tablets by threatening to invalidate all of the Windows and Office licenses in their organization. Would you say that's "leverage" or anti-competitive behavior? Imagine if Samsung offered $400m to the NFL so they use Samsung computers. Microsoft's "leverage" could prevent the NFL from taking that offer, and there's nothing Samsung can do about it. That's anti-competitive behavior: one company unfairly disadvantaging competitors to the detriment of the customer (NFL in this case, which wouldn't get the $400m)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

adamsvystun 5y ago

I think the difference here is that Netflix does not make the devices themselves, so they are an equal outside force on the market of smart tv devices. Google on the other hand is using it's YouTube product to influence things on the device side, where they have Chromecast as direct competitor.

Mindwipe 5y ago
Thing is Google are so internally disfuntional it seems unlikely that that's the actual aim here. Thi is the same Google that still can't get their own gaming streaming service working on their own TV OS. And you think YouTube are trying to attack other manufacturers to boost sales of a $50 dongle with no margin? Tbh I think it's more likely that nobody on the Chromecast team has ever met anyone from the YouTube team. Many things at Google would work better if they did.

tyre 5y ago

Might the difference here be that Netflix doesn't have a competing product? Google could be incentivized to put onerous requirements on Roku which result in a worse user experience, price increases, or additional development time. That would benefit Chromecast.

Mindwipe 5y ago
The requirements for Netflix on a set-top box are... significant. Extremely.

deelowe 5y ago

I thought roku gets paid for those buttons to be on the remote.

stale2002 5y ago

> And inevitably, all devices comply because they know they won't be able to sell the product without Netflix support. That sounds pretty anti-competitive to me. So that would not be a "falsehood". Just because lots of companies are making anti-competitive demands, does not invalidate the point.

hamstergene 5y ago

Proving that others are bad too does not mean one is OK and no change is needed. It just means all are bad, all need to be changed.

rOOb85 5y ago

My latest gen firetv stick 4k has no Netflix button(or any app buttons) https://static.slickdealscdn.com/attachment/2/5/1/6/8/8/6/7803601.attach https://static.slickdealscdn.com/attachment/2/5/1/6/8/8/6/78...