3 ms·

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

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
Beg to differ. Roku offers a lot more than just Youtube. It's a nicety. Our entire setup (for better or worse) is built around a consistent Roku set up. I'm not going to change that for a while, so that means, "bye Youtube". It's expendable. I'm not happy about it, but there we go. "bye Youtube".
josefresco 6y ago
Counter-point: Switching hardware costs $ but switching streaming providers costs nothing.
- meragrin_ 6y ago
  What about all of the content on the DVR which is unwatched? Missing out on some channels? Worse features? There are costs but they may not be monetary. Some people would prefer plonk down a one-time $50 or whatever rather than give up recordings, channels, or other features.
  - josefresco 6y ago
    I have 5 Rokus, it's at least $250 for me. The YTTV DVR content isn't actually "mine" and could disappear at any time and can be re-recorded. It's worthless to me.

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

Beg to differ. Roku offers a lot more than just Youtube. It's a nicety. Our entire setup (for better or worse) is built around a consistent Roku set up. I'm not going to change that for a while, so that means, "bye Youtube". It's expendable. I'm not happy about it, but there we go. "bye Youtube".

josefresco 6y ago

Counter-point: Switching hardware costs $ but switching streaming providers costs nothing.

meragrin_ 6y ago
What about all of the content on the DVR which is unwatched? Missing out on some channels? Worse features? There are costs but they may not be monetary. Some people would prefer plonk down a one-time $50 or whatever rather than give up recordings, channels, or other features.
- josefresco 6y ago
  I have 5 Rokus, it's at least $250 for me. The YTTV DVR content isn't actually "mine" and could disappear at any time and can be re-recorded. It's worthless to me.