29 ms·

YouTube TV removed from Roku channel store amid Google contract dispute

327 points by jmsflknr 6y ago

jsnell 6y ago
> What's next: YouTube says it remains committed to reaching a good-faith agreement with Google. Seems like those parties should be able to come to an agreement!
- ludamad 6y ago
  It's a curious phrase. What does this mean in practice?
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    I'm guessing it's a typo ... and was supposed to be roku and Google.
  - dsr_ 6y ago
    Good faith means that they want to find an answer satisfactory to both parties, rather than pretending to negotiate while looking around for a weapon.
- pkage 6y ago
  This has been corrected to say: > What's next: Roku says it remains committed to reaching a good-faith agreement with Google which makes a lot more sense in context.
wyldfire 6y ago
I bought rokus because of the previous Amazon/google fight over YoutubeTV. I naively assumed they were immune to this kind of thing. Now I'm getting AppleTVs but I suppose it's just a matter of time before they start the same thing.
- g_p 6y ago
  Not familiar with the Roku ecosystem, but is it possible to sideload apps? On Android there are native YouTube player apps like NewPipe (which reverse engineer the APIs and work without any of the consent prompts and nagging UI), and one whose name escapes me, which is a pretty usable client to YouTube, based around the web interface (used sometimes on fire stick etc.) I guess the underlying issue is the reliance on these large platforms (like YouTube etc), and how they can use access to their walled garden platform as a way to coerce independent commercial negotiations.
  - simcop2387 6y ago
    Sort of, not suremif it's changed but you used to be able to do this with the developer options and load a single channel with it. You'd have to unload the old one to load a new onw though.
    - rascul 6y ago
      I've never used it but here are some docs https://developer.roku.com/docs/developer-program/getting-started/developer-setup.md https://developer.roku.com/docs/developer-program/getting-st...
  - judge2020 6y ago
    You can side load apps but I don’t think anyone is going to put in the work to keep a YouTube TV app up-to-date for Roku once breaking API changes happen.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- devoutsalsa 6y ago
  I use a PlayStation 4. It has client apps for all the things I want to use. And if you’re a little savvy, it can also be used for watching DRM free content (e.g. streaming from a media server, watching from an inserted USB drive, etc.). It's the laziest option to get most of what I want.
progforlyfe 6y ago
If I'm understanding correctly, this is specifically (and only) the YouTube TV app, and not regular YouTube? YouTube TV is their offering for watching broadcast television channels over youtube.
- ru552 6y ago
  You are correct. You can still watch youtube videos on your roku. New subs to Youtube TV will not be able to get the Youtube TV app on roku going forward.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  Oh that's a pretty important clarification, thanks!
- afavour 6y ago
  Not just broadcast TV, it also has a bunch of cable channels in there too.
spacemanmatt 6y ago
Wow, so glad to be a consumer of products that depend on collaboration between competitors to even basically work. This just smacks of effective trade rules.
- minikites 6y ago
  The "free market" once again producing a terrible outcome for everyone except shareholders.
  - cortexio 6y ago
    Although true, there isnt anything better than the free market. The only other alternative i've heard is always either dictatorship by goverment or something where the employees make the decisions. Both way worse than the free market. Any ideas how you would fix this? Personally i would have a free market like we have now, but laws to prevent mega corporations, because they are the problem.
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    Give a better solution?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - rfrey 6y ago
      The system that was in play in the USA up to about 30 years ago, where the government provided a check on the power of corporations? (Not ignoring the capture corporations in the pre-Reagan world had on US foreign policy. However there wasn't the current religious dogma that concentrated corporate power is the only true form of freedom, and companies that went too far in harming societal interests were indeed checked.)
      - throwaway3699 6y ago
        I think you're right, but that has nothing to do with free markets. Quite the opposite.
mikece 6y ago
Do Google's demands have any merit or are they merely self-serving? The article makes mention of wanting Roku to upgrade hardware... but to support what: 8K video? Smoother 4K? I can see a point on both sides: Roku wants to keep their hardware affordable and YouTube doesn't want inexpensive hardware to negatively affect the experience of consuming higher (video) quality YouTube content. Without an knowing the details of the disagreement I have to conclude they are both in the wrong.
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  Probably AV1 codec support https://9to5google.com/2021/01/27/youtube-av1-netflix-requirement/ https://9to5google.com/2021/01/27/youtube-av1-netflix-requir...
- tehbeard 6y ago
  > YouTube doesn't want inexpensive hardware to negatively affect the experience of consuming higher (video) quality YouTube content. Someone should inform their apps team then, as that recent "quality menu" change has all my devices bumping down to 240/480... On a network and devices that up until that point had flawlessly delivered 720/1080 without a hitch.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    As the codebase gets bigger and more complex, performance on identical hardware will necessarily get worse. There is only a certain amount of RAM, and when it's all used up by thousands of coders writing new UI toolkits, there isn't enough RAM left and you're forced to have smaller video buffers and lower resolutions to prevent the app running out of RAM.
    - tehbeard 6y ago
      This is the most drek response I've ever seen. If I switch it back to 720/1080, There. Is. No. Issue. No app crashes, no stalling out buffering, it works fine, just like last month, just like last year, and the year before that. But now video starts in "potato quality" and nessecitates button mashing to get back to being watchable.
FridayoLeary 6y ago
I can't help but feel this will hurt Roku a lot more than google. the average consumer just wants youtube. They have zero interest in being caught in the middle of a turf war. If i had a Roku tv, i would just be angry at Roku, Google not so much, since nothing's wrong with Youtube itself. Obviously, google knows that and that's why they can act like bullies. Also,if had a Roku tv, i would try and jailbreak my roku, or otherwise download an unofficial youtube app.
- myko 6y ago
  YouTube TV (streaming cable) is not YouTube
  - FridayoLeary 6y ago
    I forgot that. but still, my wider point remains true, i think.
    - TingPing 6y ago
      For context Youtube TV has maybe 3 million subscribers. Youtube has over 2 billion active users.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        The thing with the streaming TV services generally is that they're not that much cheaper than cable for the same level of service. So if you really want the cable bundle, for many people it makes more sense just to keep their cable TV especially if that's already how they get their broadband.
        mattmcknight 6y ago
        It is insane that YouTubeTV blundered into the same bundled approach as cable. How much of the cost is ESPN?
- LightG 6y ago
timmg 6y ago
I originally bought Roku because their business (used to be) "selling hardware." I figured I'd pay them money, they'd provide a good product. Now their business is "collecting money from your subscriptions" -- which is not really in my best interest. I got screwed on the HBO Max thing. Now this. Personally, I'm done with Roku. But there isn't really an option that is "unaffiliated" anymore :(
- ru552 6y ago
  Read the article. This specifically has nothing to do with financials and all to do with, what some consider to be, a large over reach by google.
  - whoknowswhat11 6y ago
    The “large overreach” is likely support for an open source codec av1 - thank goodness google is pushing back on this and the patent mafias. This codec also will save google a ton on streaming costs - be good to get more details
    - mfer 6y ago
      The article says that Google is asking for data on customers that's not available to other channels. This appears to be about more than av1.
    - deelowe 6y ago
      I've read a variety of theories, none confirmed. The two I've seen repeated the most are 1) they wanted a change to how the built in search functionality worked and 2) they wanted to collect more user data than roku was willing to provide.
      - meragrin_ 6y ago
        Roku pretty much said that. From an email Roku sent me: "we cannot accept Google's unfair and anticompetitive requirements to manipulate your search results, impact the usage of your data and ultimately cost you more." The "ultimately cost you more" sounds like spin for requiring AV1 hardware support.
shawnz 6y ago
What's the legality of Roku shipping a third-party client? Does the Google/Oracle decision have any impact on that?
- TingPing 6y ago
  That case isn't relevant but its probably against Googles ToS and easily blocked if they care.
  - criddell 6y ago
    If the client is essentially just a browser, I don't see how it would violate any ToS.
- derekp7 6y ago
  They wouldn't be able to without breaking the DRM used on Youtube TV. Or in cases where DRM isn't involved, their client would constantly break until they release a patch every time Youtube changes something.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    That seems like a significant improvement over no Youtube at all.
    - apocalyptic0n3 6y ago
      Note that this is YouTube TV, not YouTube itself. They are separate services. Google has just muddied the waters repeatedly by moving a bunch of services under the YouTube branding.
- criddell 6y ago
  They can do that, but they also want to be paid by Google. So it doesn't help on that front.
LightG 6y ago
Youtube don't seem to want me as a customer. My setup is all running through Roku's. I run my Plex server, Dolby Atmos through an Ultra, and a tonne of other channels through 3 Roku's. Youtube is the expendable link here. They can up their negotiation game and strategy ... or become obsolete in our house. It's the same with Sonos. I can't run or cast ad-based Youtube through Sonos either. Oh well. Am I going to give up Sonos? Nope. Bye Youtube (?) ... Obviously their business doesn't depend on me, but weird to see a once favourite website so relegated ...
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  One one hand, I see why selfishly you would not want to move off your well-established Roku network. However, do you not see that tomorrow Roku could do the same thing to your other "favorite channels" and squeeze them (which based on how they take a cut of subscription fees running through their hardware... not sure why Roku needs those fees.. it all seems like a squeeze) leaving you with a largely useless device that is pay-to-play for companies to run their channels through it?
  - LightG 6y ago
    I'll be honest. It's not clear to me who's doing the squeezing here. All I understand clearly is the end result as a customer. And I'll switch away from Youtube far quicker than I switch away from Roku. To be honest though, it doesn't feel that much of a loss. Youtube TV was always a "handy to have". Youtube feels made for mobile or PC. Again, weird to recognise that relegation in my mind, and just clarifies their weakness on actual TV's. As for your final point. Accepted. If that starts happening, then over the medium term I'll transition to a different solution. But that's then, this is now.
- sologoub 6y ago
  Guessing your beloved sonos setup hasn’t run into the S1/S2 nightmare yet. Nothing like spending thousands on several of company’s products just to have the said company force obsolescence. Personally, sticking with real speakers from real audio companies that won’t force me into either fragmenting my setup or throwing stuff away.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
This kind of thing is why I gave up on specialized TV devices and just hooked up a Windows 10 [0] thin client with wireless M+K device, Kodi, and Chrome. I want one device to watch all the things, why is that so fucking hard for the appliance manufactures and media companies to provide? I only miss the ability to cast youtube videos. [0] I tried things like LibreElec and other Linux-based solutions including just straight ubuntu and they always had sound issues when switching between Kodi and the browser. Yes, I did try both Pulse and ALSA. How is this still a problem in 2021?
- jeroenhd 6y ago
  > [0] It's weird, sound is one of the few hardware things that always work on Linux (until I mess with it, but that's on me). Graphics, sleep, fingerprint readers, overclocking, I've ran into all of them, but sound just always works for me for some reason. I'm using Kodi (running on plain Debian, no specialized distro) on my HTPC/server, with Kore on my phone and a Firefox extension to send Youtube to my TV. It's more complicated than it needs to be, but with neither Google nor Apple opening up their ecosystem enough to have an alternative, it Works For Me (TM) as best as I can make it. I still blame hardware manufacturers for any shitty Linux support because they're the ones with the ability to fine-tune their Linux support, or at least provide an audio interface. The fact that some people are running into trouble but others aren't implies that the hardware level support is once again the reason things are broken for some users.
- banana_giraffe 6y ago
  I've done this as well, but quickly ran into a limitation that most of the major services like Netflix limit the video they send to Chrome to 720p. Defeats the point of using this for viewing videos on my big screen HD monitor, to my mind. I don't have a great solution.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    Doesn't Edge have a fancy pants DRM, which combined with a (potentially backdoored) Intel and Ryzen CPU can allow better than HD Netflix ?
zero_deg_kevin 6y ago
I love being involved in public contract disputes between media licensing companies! May financial ruin visit all parties involved.
FriedrichN 6y ago
The only way to not be bothered by stuff like this as a consumer is to not consume anything. It's an illusion to think you could every be free from companies trying to control the way you consume content. There are much better ways to spend your time and money.
- antiterra 6y ago
  Even the Amish read fiction. Consuming creative works isn’t inherently bad.
  - FriedrichN 6y ago
    I wasn't talking about consuming creative works, I was talking about consumerism.
    - vinay427 6y ago
      > The only way to not be bothered by stuff like this as a consumer is to not consume anything. It's not very clear, from the above sentence, that you exclude consumption of creative works. In any case, how do you draw a distinction between consumerism and consuming certain works?
      - FriedrichN 6y ago
        I draw it where you have to buy new devices every year to keep up with whatever they're pushing now. A book is a book and will be a book until it falls apart. Your smart TV however will cease to be fully functional within three years since you bought it. You will have to buy extra electronics to keep up which in turn will also become obsolete soon enough. It's ridiculous we are expected to buy a new phone every 1-2 years, a TV every 3-5 years, just to be able to consume mediocre media. Meanwhile the e-waste just keeps on piling up. I might just be a grumpy man but I just don't think Avenger movies are worth destroying the environment for.
        codq 6y ago
afavour 6y ago
This really highlights to me how important the web is, and how close we can be to losing it all. You simply can't pull shit like this on the web (and I'm talking about both Roku and Google here, as well as all the crap Amazon has pulled before now). It's an open platform and it's one of the only places you can access all streaming services (I think?). But the web was never able or allowed to adapt to TV set-top boxes (if I recall Mozilla made a TV stick but like Firefox OS it went nowhere). It's a real shame.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > It's an open platform and it's one of the only places you can access all streaming services (I think?). Yes and no. Yes, they all seem to be available, but not entirely as DRM implementations have varying support across browsers and platforms which currently just limits your access to HD content but could in theory limit you entirely.
- whoknowswhat11 6y ago
  Key point - roku is the gatekeeper here- I do think cable companies squeezed Netflix a bit
  - mattmcknight 6y ago
    They are both gatekeepers. YouTubeTV is demanding preferential treatment in the search results.
    - whoknowswhat11 6y ago
      Where is this coming from - google is focused on pushing their codec
- varispeed 6y ago
  It is already too late. The EU just passed TERREG yesterday without a vote that requires anyone running a website with user generated content (a blog with comments, a forum etc.) and if they have significant EU user base to establish legal presence in the EU and have an officer responsible for deleting content with 1 hr SLA. That's out of reach for most of people. You cannot even block your site for EU traffic, because EU users can use VPN. Have a read: https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/04/the-eus-terrorist-content-regulation-and-what-it-means-for-uk-hosting-providers https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/04/the-eus-terrorist-content...
tyingq 6y ago
The email sent to Roku customers: https://pastebin.com/tmeU975Q https://pastebin.com/tmeU975Q It does say existing customers can use the channel/app if it's there, but "don't delete the app" as it's not in the store.
- adam12 6y ago
  I saw the same message for the Spectrum app recently.
- aarongolliver 6y ago
  And here's the email sent by Youtube TV https://pastebin.com/GDUBi14P https://pastebin.com/GDUBi14P
eecs_sal 6y ago
For parents with Roku devices and are tech challenged, having no YouTube on TVs is a ++
- josefresco 6y ago
  YouTubeTV not YouTube.
danShumway 6y ago
Insert Cory Doctorow rant about Youtube TV's DRM being more about controlling this kind of content access and app usage than it is about protecting against privacy. Neither Youtube nor Roku should have the final say in whether or not I connect to my own Youtube TV account from a Roku device. In a worst-case scenario, a 3rd-party client could be created and distributed by either Roku or by Roku's users (see projects like NewPipe on Android). But with Youtube TV, building that app would require breaking DRM, which would kill the project if it ever got any bigger than being someone's side-hobby.
adam12 6y ago
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. I guess that's why these streaming services have been getting more and more expensive.
Siecje 6y ago
I bought a Roku TV and in order to use a service like Netflix, YouTube I need to create a Roku account. Also there is only one button at first I thought it was a directional button where you could move it up and down and press for selection. But pressing it once brings up the menu, pressing it again will move to the next item in the menu, holding it will turn the TV off.
leephillips 6y ago
I’m sure someone here can explain this mystery to me: I have a Roku and an Amazon Prime account. The account is based in the US, but right now I’m living in another country. The stuff that’s “included with Prime”, that I can watch without paying an extra fee, is completely different through the Roku and through a computer. It’s the same IP and the same account: I need to log in to Amazon through the Roku and through the computer. If I pay for a show on the web, I can not watch it on the Roku. I naively think that there should be no difference.
- delecti 6y ago
  It's probably just that one of them is doing location verification through the account's location and the other one is doing location verification through your IP.
  - leephillips 6y ago
    It seems that something else is going on. The Amazon website knows where I am, because it tells me what I can watch while I am “travelling”, or something like that. But if I actually buy a show through the website, I can only watch it there, and not through the Roku. Even though I am also logged in to Amazon through it Roku, it seems to be unaware of what I have purchased.
- untouchable 6y ago
  Yes there should be no difference. I believe this is due to how Roku handles account region settings. When you create an account and register your Roku it gets region set to your country at that time. According to what I've read this becomes a permanent account setting, which you can change this by contacting Roku support, but they only allow you to change it once. A possible workaround is to create a new separate Roku account from your new country and add it to your Roku, however beware this requires factory resetting your device. Also before doing so make sure Amazon Prime is available in your new country.
VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
I got rid of my Roku when they dropped the Spectrum TV app for the same reason. It's basically useless to me
dawnerd 6y ago
I want to support Roku on this but finding it really hard to stand behind another shady user data collecting company.
InTheArena 6y ago
This is why I spend way too much on a AppleTV. Roku is a advertising company. Google is a advertising company. They are sparring over who gets access to what data for customers. Yes, I also realize that if I go into YouTube TV, then I also get my data scraped, but at least it's not shared across applications.
- selectout 6y ago
  While the sparring happens here as they are both ads companies, there's nothing to say the sparring won't happen between Google and Apple if they wanted the same level of customer data and Apple doesn't provide it.
- deadmutex 6y ago
  Apple has it's own issues. e.g. you couldn't change the default music app on iPhones until recently, etc.
stiltzkin 6y ago
This is a hard move to Roku, other streaming devices are offering so much better characteristics as Android TV and Apple, starting from Roku's limited wall garden software and the lack of game streaming.
mitchdoogle 6y ago
Why is Roku making determinations like this? I think of Roku as a hardware device, for which I get to choose what apps to install. I guess I'll just have to move on to a mini pc or raspberry pi or something... Anyone have suggestions?
- zamadatix 6y ago
  As the article says YouTube made certain demands of Roku to be able to continue hosting the app that Roku didn't want to be required to follow (including about hardware). As such they don't really have the choice to just play "dumb hardware" and let you install it. Shield TV is a better device though, I'd recommend it. If you go Raspberry Pi/mini PC you don't have high enough DRM levels for a lot of services and the ones you do you'll get lower quality streams (again, see aforementioned requirement demands).
Justsignedup 6y ago
tl;dr Google wants the AV1 codec. It requires hardware decoders for low-power devices. This saves google a TON of bandwidth costs. AV1 is actually royalty free available and praised by the industry. Roku doesn't think that decoder chip will fit with their low hardware costs. Therefore wants to pass the cost onto google.
zamalek 6y ago
Just got an email from YouTube TV. > Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we have been unable to reach an agreement with Roku. Given Roku's justification, I am pretty angered by the lie that Google is telling me. I'd be doubly angered if I was a Roku user.
throwawayboise 6y ago
I have some old Chromecast thing that one of my kids brought home. Looks something like a thumb drive and plugs into HDMI socket on TV. I cast from my phone, tablet, or laptop. This works fine. What more does anyone need?
- starik36 6y ago
  Because casting isn't great. It requires 2 "smart" devices to perform the task. If Chromecast had an interface (which it might on the latest ones), that would be better. I am liking the FireTV stick. It's small like the Chromecast, but has a really snappy UI and all the streaming apps that I need.
  - gman83 6y ago
    I really disagree personally. I already have a really snappy interface... my phone. I use it to control YouTube, Plex, etc. Then I just send it to my TV via Chromecast. If I had to navigate using some other remote that I would inevitable lose, it would me more annoying to me.
    - starik36 6y ago
      I've always found establishing Chromecast connection to be finicky. Particularly from the YouTube app on the iPhone (my most used scenario). Just the other day I tried to chromecast it the FireTV stick and built-in chromecast in the Samsung TV. Failed on both. Eventually had to reboot the phone and the TV to get it to comply. Another thing I hate while chromecasting YouTube. You can't change the video speed. If you start the video from TV's YouTube app, you can. But not if you are chromecasting.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
glonq 6y ago
Some people want to use a specific platform to watch "whatever" content. Some people want to use "whatever" platform to watch specific content. Roku+YT was a great marriage: great platform, great content. But if they get divorced, I gotta follow the content. Goodbye Roku.
ineedasername 6y ago
Google: Unfortunately, Roku often engages in these types of tactics in their negotiations Yes sure, Google, always the victim in these situations.
dang 6y ago
Related and ongoing: An update to our YouTube TV members on Roku - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972 - April 2021 (71 comments) Related from earlier this week: Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862 - April 2021 (396 comments) Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942227 - April 2021 (84 comments)

327 points by jmsflknr 6y ago

> What's next: YouTube says it remains committed to reaching a good-faith agreement with Google. Seems like those parties should be able to come to an agreement!

ludamad 6y ago
It's a curious phrase. What does this mean in practice?
- nkozyra 6y ago
  I'm guessing it's a typo ... and was supposed to be roku and Google.
- dsr_ 6y ago
  Good faith means that they want to find an answer satisfactory to both parties, rather than pretending to negotiate while looking around for a weapon.
pkage 6y ago
This has been corrected to say: > What's next: Roku says it remains committed to reaching a good-faith agreement with Google which makes a lot more sense in context.

wyldfire 6y ago

I bought rokus because of the previous Amazon/google fight over YoutubeTV. I naively assumed they were immune to this kind of thing. Now I'm getting AppleTVs but I suppose it's just a matter of time before they start the same thing.

g_p 6y ago
Not familiar with the Roku ecosystem, but is it possible to sideload apps? On Android there are native YouTube player apps like NewPipe (which reverse engineer the APIs and work without any of the consent prompts and nagging UI), and one whose name escapes me, which is a pretty usable client to YouTube, based around the web interface (used sometimes on fire stick etc.) I guess the underlying issue is the reliance on these large platforms (like YouTube etc), and how they can use access to their walled garden platform as a way to coerce independent commercial negotiations.
- simcop2387 6y ago
  Sort of, not suremif it's changed but you used to be able to do this with the developer options and load a single channel with it. You'd have to unload the old one to load a new onw though.
  - rascul 6y ago
    I've never used it but here are some docs https://developer.roku.com/docs/developer-program/getting-started/developer-setup.md https://developer.roku.com/docs/developer-program/getting-st...
- judge2020 6y ago
  You can side load apps but I don’t think anyone is going to put in the work to keep a YouTube TV app up-to-date for Roku once breaking API changes happen.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
devoutsalsa 6y ago
I use a PlayStation 4. It has client apps for all the things I want to use. And if you’re a little savvy, it can also be used for watching DRM free content (e.g. streaming from a media server, watching from an inserted USB drive, etc.). It's the laziest option to get most of what I want.

progforlyfe 6y ago

If I'm understanding correctly, this is specifically (and only) the YouTube TV app, and not regular YouTube? YouTube TV is their offering for watching broadcast television channels over youtube.

ru552 6y ago
You are correct. You can still watch youtube videos on your roku. New subs to Youtube TV will not be able to get the Youtube TV app on roku going forward.
jrochkind1 6y ago
Oh that's a pretty important clarification, thanks!
afavour 6y ago
Not just broadcast TV, it also has a bunch of cable channels in there too.

spacemanmatt 6y ago

Wow, so glad to be a consumer of products that depend on collaboration between competitors to even basically work. This just smacks of effective trade rules.

minikites 6y ago
The "free market" once again producing a terrible outcome for everyone except shareholders.
- cortexio 6y ago
  Although true, there isnt anything better than the free market. The only other alternative i've heard is always either dictatorship by goverment or something where the employees make the decisions. Both way worse than the free market. Any ideas how you would fix this? Personally i would have a free market like we have now, but laws to prevent mega corporations, because they are the problem.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  Give a better solution?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rfrey 6y ago
    The system that was in play in the USA up to about 30 years ago, where the government provided a check on the power of corporations? (Not ignoring the capture corporations in the pre-Reagan world had on US foreign policy. However there wasn't the current religious dogma that concentrated corporate power is the only true form of freedom, and companies that went too far in harming societal interests were indeed checked.)
    - throwaway3699 6y ago
      I think you're right, but that has nothing to do with free markets. Quite the opposite.

mikece 6y ago

Do Google's demands have any merit or are they merely self-serving? The article makes mention of wanting Roku to upgrade hardware... but to support what: 8K video? Smoother 4K? I can see a point on both sides: Roku wants to keep their hardware affordable and YouTube doesn't want inexpensive hardware to negatively affect the experience of consuming higher (video) quality YouTube content. Without an knowing the details of the disagreement I have to conclude they are both in the wrong.

wlesieutre 6y ago
Probably AV1 codec support https://9to5google.com/2021/01/27/youtube-av1-netflix-requirement/ https://9to5google.com/2021/01/27/youtube-av1-netflix-requir...
tehbeard 6y ago
> YouTube doesn't want inexpensive hardware to negatively affect the experience of consuming higher (video) quality YouTube content. Someone should inform their apps team then, as that recent "quality menu" change has all my devices bumping down to 240/480... On a network and devices that up until that point had flawlessly delivered 720/1080 without a hitch.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  As the codebase gets bigger and more complex, performance on identical hardware will necessarily get worse. There is only a certain amount of RAM, and when it's all used up by thousands of coders writing new UI toolkits, there isn't enough RAM left and you're forced to have smaller video buffers and lower resolutions to prevent the app running out of RAM.
  - tehbeard 6y ago
    This is the most drek response I've ever seen. If I switch it back to 720/1080, There. Is. No. Issue. No app crashes, no stalling out buffering, it works fine, just like last month, just like last year, and the year before that. But now video starts in "potato quality" and nessecitates button mashing to get back to being watchable.

FridayoLeary 6y ago

I can't help but feel this will hurt Roku a lot more than google. the average consumer just wants youtube. They have zero interest in being caught in the middle of a turf war. If i had a Roku tv, i would just be angry at Roku, Google not so much, since nothing's wrong with Youtube itself. Obviously, google knows that and that's why they can act like bullies. Also,if had a Roku tv, i would try and jailbreak my roku, or otherwise download an unofficial youtube app.

myko 6y ago
YouTube TV (streaming cable) is not YouTube
- FridayoLeary 6y ago
  I forgot that. but still, my wider point remains true, i think.
  - TingPing 6y ago
    For context Youtube TV has maybe 3 million subscribers. Youtube has over 2 billion active users.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      The thing with the streaming TV services generally is that they're not that much cheaper than cable for the same level of service. So if you really want the cable bundle, for many people it makes more sense just to keep their cable TV especially if that's already how they get their broadband.
      - mattmcknight 6y ago
        It is insane that YouTubeTV blundered into the same bundled approach as cable. How much of the cost is ESPN?
LightG 6y ago

timmg 6y ago

I originally bought Roku because their business (used to be) "selling hardware." I figured I'd pay them money, they'd provide a good product. Now their business is "collecting money from your subscriptions" -- which is not really in my best interest. I got screwed on the HBO Max thing. Now this. Personally, I'm done with Roku. But there isn't really an option that is "unaffiliated" anymore :(

ru552 6y ago
Read the article. This specifically has nothing to do with financials and all to do with, what some consider to be, a large over reach by google.
- whoknowswhat11 6y ago
  The “large overreach” is likely support for an open source codec av1 - thank goodness google is pushing back on this and the patent mafias. This codec also will save google a ton on streaming costs - be good to get more details
  - mfer 6y ago
    The article says that Google is asking for data on customers that's not available to other channels. This appears to be about more than av1.
  - deelowe 6y ago
    I've read a variety of theories, none confirmed. The two I've seen repeated the most are 1) they wanted a change to how the built in search functionality worked and 2) they wanted to collect more user data than roku was willing to provide.
    - meragrin_ 6y ago
      Roku pretty much said that. From an email Roku sent me: "we cannot accept Google's unfair and anticompetitive requirements to manipulate your search results, impact the usage of your data and ultimately cost you more." The "ultimately cost you more" sounds like spin for requiring AV1 hardware support.

shawnz 6y ago

What's the legality of Roku shipping a third-party client? Does the Google/Oracle decision have any impact on that?

TingPing 6y ago
That case isn't relevant but its probably against Googles ToS and easily blocked if they care.
- criddell 6y ago
  If the client is essentially just a browser, I don't see how it would violate any ToS.
derekp7 6y ago
They wouldn't be able to without breaking the DRM used on Youtube TV. Or in cases where DRM isn't involved, their client would constantly break until they release a patch every time Youtube changes something.
- shawnz 6y ago
  That seems like a significant improvement over no Youtube at all.
  - apocalyptic0n3 6y ago
    Note that this is YouTube TV, not YouTube itself. They are separate services. Google has just muddied the waters repeatedly by moving a bunch of services under the YouTube branding.
criddell 6y ago
They can do that, but they also want to be paid by Google. So it doesn't help on that front.

LightG 6y ago

Youtube don't seem to want me as a customer. My setup is all running through Roku's. I run my Plex server, Dolby Atmos through an Ultra, and a tonne of other channels through 3 Roku's. Youtube is the expendable link here. They can up their negotiation game and strategy ... or become obsolete in our house. It's the same with Sonos. I can't run or cast ad-based Youtube through Sonos either. Oh well. Am I going to give up Sonos? Nope. Bye Youtube (?) ... Obviously their business doesn't depend on me, but weird to see a once favourite website so relegated ...

darkwizard42 6y ago
One one hand, I see why selfishly you would not want to move off your well-established Roku network. However, do you not see that tomorrow Roku could do the same thing to your other "favorite channels" and squeeze them (which based on how they take a cut of subscription fees running through their hardware... not sure why Roku needs those fees.. it all seems like a squeeze) leaving you with a largely useless device that is pay-to-play for companies to run their channels through it?
- LightG 6y ago
  I'll be honest. It's not clear to me who's doing the squeezing here. All I understand clearly is the end result as a customer. And I'll switch away from Youtube far quicker than I switch away from Roku. To be honest though, it doesn't feel that much of a loss. Youtube TV was always a "handy to have". Youtube feels made for mobile or PC. Again, weird to recognise that relegation in my mind, and just clarifies their weakness on actual TV's. As for your final point. Accepted. If that starts happening, then over the medium term I'll transition to a different solution. But that's then, this is now.
sologoub 6y ago
Guessing your beloved sonos setup hasn’t run into the S1/S2 nightmare yet. Nothing like spending thousands on several of company’s products just to have the said company force obsolescence. Personally, sticking with real speakers from real audio companies that won’t force me into either fragmenting my setup or throwing stuff away.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

This kind of thing is why I gave up on specialized TV devices and just hooked up a Windows 10 [0] thin client with wireless M+K device, Kodi, and Chrome. I want one device to watch all the things, why is that so fucking hard for the appliance manufactures and media companies to provide? I only miss the ability to cast youtube videos. [0] I tried things like LibreElec and other Linux-based solutions including just straight ubuntu and they always had sound issues when switching between Kodi and the browser. Yes, I did try both Pulse and ALSA. How is this still a problem in 2021?

jeroenhd 6y ago
> [0] It's weird, sound is one of the few hardware things that always work on Linux (until I mess with it, but that's on me). Graphics, sleep, fingerprint readers, overclocking, I've ran into all of them, but sound just always works for me for some reason. I'm using Kodi (running on plain Debian, no specialized distro) on my HTPC/server, with Kore on my phone and a Firefox extension to send Youtube to my TV. It's more complicated than it needs to be, but with neither Google nor Apple opening up their ecosystem enough to have an alternative, it Works For Me (TM) as best as I can make it. I still blame hardware manufacturers for any shitty Linux support because they're the ones with the ability to fine-tune their Linux support, or at least provide an audio interface. The fact that some people are running into trouble but others aren't implies that the hardware level support is once again the reason things are broken for some users.
banana_giraffe 6y ago
I've done this as well, but quickly ran into a limitation that most of the major services like Netflix limit the video they send to Chrome to 720p. Defeats the point of using this for viewing videos on my big screen HD monitor, to my mind. I don't have a great solution.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Doesn't Edge have a fancy pants DRM, which combined with a (potentially backdoored) Intel and Ryzen CPU can allow better than HD Netflix ?

zero_deg_kevin 6y ago

I love being involved in public contract disputes between media licensing companies! May financial ruin visit all parties involved.

FriedrichN 6y ago

The only way to not be bothered by stuff like this as a consumer is to not consume anything. It's an illusion to think you could every be free from companies trying to control the way you consume content. There are much better ways to spend your time and money.

antiterra 6y ago
Even the Amish read fiction. Consuming creative works isn’t inherently bad.
- FriedrichN 6y ago
  I wasn't talking about consuming creative works, I was talking about consumerism.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    > The only way to not be bothered by stuff like this as a consumer is to not consume anything. It's not very clear, from the above sentence, that you exclude consumption of creative works. In any case, how do you draw a distinction between consumerism and consuming certain works?
    - FriedrichN 6y ago
      I draw it where you have to buy new devices every year to keep up with whatever they're pushing now. A book is a book and will be a book until it falls apart. Your smart TV however will cease to be fully functional within three years since you bought it. You will have to buy extra electronics to keep up which in turn will also become obsolete soon enough. It's ridiculous we are expected to buy a new phone every 1-2 years, a TV every 3-5 years, just to be able to consume mediocre media. Meanwhile the e-waste just keeps on piling up. I might just be a grumpy man but I just don't think Avenger movies are worth destroying the environment for.
      - codq 6y ago

afavour 6y ago

This really highlights to me how important the web is, and how close we can be to losing it all. You simply can't pull shit like this on the web (and I'm talking about both Roku and Google here, as well as all the crap Amazon has pulled before now). It's an open platform and it's one of the only places you can access all streaming services (I think?). But the web was never able or allowed to adapt to TV set-top boxes (if I recall Mozilla made a TV stick but like Firefox OS it went nowhere). It's a real shame.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> It's an open platform and it's one of the only places you can access all streaming services (I think?). Yes and no. Yes, they all seem to be available, but not entirely as DRM implementations have varying support across browsers and platforms which currently just limits your access to HD content but could in theory limit you entirely.
whoknowswhat11 6y ago
Key point - roku is the gatekeeper here- I do think cable companies squeezed Netflix a bit
- mattmcknight 6y ago
  They are both gatekeepers. YouTubeTV is demanding preferential treatment in the search results.
  - whoknowswhat11 6y ago
    Where is this coming from - google is focused on pushing their codec
varispeed 6y ago
It is already too late. The EU just passed TERREG yesterday without a vote that requires anyone running a website with user generated content (a blog with comments, a forum etc.) and if they have significant EU user base to establish legal presence in the EU and have an officer responsible for deleting content with 1 hr SLA. That's out of reach for most of people. You cannot even block your site for EU traffic, because EU users can use VPN. Have a read: https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/04/the-eus-terrorist-content-regulation-and-what-it-means-for-uk-hosting-providers https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/04/the-eus-terrorist-content...

tyingq 6y ago

The email sent to Roku customers: https://pastebin.com/tmeU975Q https://pastebin.com/tmeU975Q It does say existing customers can use the channel/app if it's there, but "don't delete the app" as it's not in the store.

adam12 6y ago
I saw the same message for the Spectrum app recently.
aarongolliver 6y ago
And here's the email sent by Youtube TV https://pastebin.com/GDUBi14P https://pastebin.com/GDUBi14P

eecs_sal 6y ago

For parents with Roku devices and are tech challenged, having no YouTube on TVs is a ++

josefresco 6y ago
YouTubeTV not YouTube.

danShumway 6y ago

Insert Cory Doctorow rant about Youtube TV's DRM being more about controlling this kind of content access and app usage than it is about protecting against privacy. Neither Youtube nor Roku should have the final say in whether or not I connect to my own Youtube TV account from a Roku device. In a worst-case scenario, a 3rd-party client could be created and distributed by either Roku or by Roku's users (see projects like NewPipe on Android). But with Youtube TV, building that app would require breaking DRM, which would kill the project if it ever got any bigger than being someone's side-hobby.

adam12 6y ago

Everyone wants a piece of the pie. I guess that's why these streaming services have been getting more and more expensive.

Siecje 6y ago

I bought a Roku TV and in order to use a service like Netflix, YouTube I need to create a Roku account. Also there is only one button at first I thought it was a directional button where you could move it up and down and press for selection. But pressing it once brings up the menu, pressing it again will move to the next item in the menu, holding it will turn the TV off.

leephillips 6y ago

I’m sure someone here can explain this mystery to me: I have a Roku and an Amazon Prime account. The account is based in the US, but right now I’m living in another country. The stuff that’s “included with Prime”, that I can watch without paying an extra fee, is completely different through the Roku and through a computer. It’s the same IP and the same account: I need to log in to Amazon through the Roku and through the computer. If I pay for a show on the web, I can not watch it on the Roku. I naively think that there should be no difference.

delecti 6y ago
It's probably just that one of them is doing location verification through the account's location and the other one is doing location verification through your IP.
- leephillips 6y ago
  It seems that something else is going on. The Amazon website knows where I am, because it tells me what I can watch while I am “travelling”, or something like that. But if I actually buy a show through the website, I can only watch it there, and not through the Roku. Even though I am also logged in to Amazon through it Roku, it seems to be unaware of what I have purchased.
untouchable 6y ago
Yes there should be no difference. I believe this is due to how Roku handles account region settings. When you create an account and register your Roku it gets region set to your country at that time. According to what I've read this becomes a permanent account setting, which you can change this by contacting Roku support, but they only allow you to change it once. A possible workaround is to create a new separate Roku account from your new country and add it to your Roku, however beware this requires factory resetting your device. Also before doing so make sure Amazon Prime is available in your new country.

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago

I got rid of my Roku when they dropped the Spectrum TV app for the same reason. It's basically useless to me

dawnerd 6y ago

I want to support Roku on this but finding it really hard to stand behind another shady user data collecting company.

InTheArena 6y ago

This is why I spend way too much on a AppleTV. Roku is a advertising company. Google is a advertising company. They are sparring over who gets access to what data for customers. Yes, I also realize that if I go into YouTube TV, then I also get my data scraped, but at least it's not shared across applications.

selectout 6y ago
While the sparring happens here as they are both ads companies, there's nothing to say the sparring won't happen between Google and Apple if they wanted the same level of customer data and Apple doesn't provide it.
deadmutex 6y ago
Apple has it's own issues. e.g. you couldn't change the default music app on iPhones until recently, etc.

stiltzkin 6y ago

This is a hard move to Roku, other streaming devices are offering so much better characteristics as Android TV and Apple, starting from Roku's limited wall garden software and the lack of game streaming.

mitchdoogle 6y ago

Why is Roku making determinations like this? I think of Roku as a hardware device, for which I get to choose what apps to install. I guess I'll just have to move on to a mini pc or raspberry pi or something... Anyone have suggestions?

zamadatix 6y ago
As the article says YouTube made certain demands of Roku to be able to continue hosting the app that Roku didn't want to be required to follow (including about hardware). As such they don't really have the choice to just play "dumb hardware" and let you install it. Shield TV is a better device though, I'd recommend it. If you go Raspberry Pi/mini PC you don't have high enough DRM levels for a lot of services and the ones you do you'll get lower quality streams (again, see aforementioned requirement demands).

Justsignedup 6y ago

tl;dr Google wants the AV1 codec. It requires hardware decoders for low-power devices. This saves google a TON of bandwidth costs. AV1 is actually royalty free available and praised by the industry. Roku doesn't think that decoder chip will fit with their low hardware costs. Therefore wants to pass the cost onto google.

zamalek 6y ago

Just got an email from YouTube TV. > Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we have been unable to reach an agreement with Roku. Given Roku's justification, I am pretty angered by the lie that Google is telling me. I'd be doubly angered if I was a Roku user.

throwawayboise 6y ago

I have some old Chromecast thing that one of my kids brought home. Looks something like a thumb drive and plugs into HDMI socket on TV. I cast from my phone, tablet, or laptop. This works fine. What more does anyone need?

starik36 6y ago
Because casting isn't great. It requires 2 "smart" devices to perform the task. If Chromecast had an interface (which it might on the latest ones), that would be better. I am liking the FireTV stick. It's small like the Chromecast, but has a really snappy UI and all the streaming apps that I need.
- gman83 6y ago
  I really disagree personally. I already have a really snappy interface... my phone. I use it to control YouTube, Plex, etc. Then I just send it to my TV via Chromecast. If I had to navigate using some other remote that I would inevitable lose, it would me more annoying to me.
  - starik36 6y ago
    I've always found establishing Chromecast connection to be finicky. Particularly from the YouTube app on the iPhone (my most used scenario). Just the other day I tried to chromecast it the FireTV stick and built-in chromecast in the Samsung TV. Failed on both. Eventually had to reboot the phone and the TV to get it to comply. Another thing I hate while chromecasting YouTube. You can't change the video speed. If you start the video from TV's YouTube app, you can. But not if you are chromecasting.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

glonq 6y ago

Some people want to use a specific platform to watch "whatever" content. Some people want to use "whatever" platform to watch specific content. Roku+YT was a great marriage: great platform, great content. But if they get divorced, I gotta follow the content. Goodbye Roku.

ineedasername 6y ago

Google: Unfortunately, Roku often engages in these types of tactics in their negotiations Yes sure, Google, always the victim in these situations.

dang 6y ago

Related and ongoing: An update to our YouTube TV members on Roku - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972 - April 2021 (71 comments) Related from earlier this week: Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862 - April 2021 (396 comments) Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942227 - April 2021 (84 comments)