17 ms·

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 busine

by timmg 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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_ 5y 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.
      - sangnoir 5y ago
        "manipulate your search results" is spin for "Roku wanted to inject results from other sources when you perform a search within the Youtube TV app, Google didn't like that"
        deelowe 5y ago
        I don't know. I mean search on roku is kind of it's own thing. It would be odd to expect the built in roku search to limit itself to just the app. To those who aren't familiar, there are two types of search on roku, the in app version that already does what one would expect and the device level search which searches across all available apps. Roku is clearly doing paid placements for the device level search. It pretty obviously shows you "hey this is available here for $xx.xx" There's no confusion around when you're doing one versus the other. The device level search kicks you out of whatever app you're in and does the search from the dashboard. As another point, I would never expect a search within YouTube to show results on YTM or YTTV. The roku just doesn't work that way.
        FireBeyond 5y ago
        Hah. The Search service is and has always been global. And _Google_ wanted to inject results from another source (YouTube Music) when you searched (globally) with YouTube TV as the active app (which is not the same as YouTube search, which Google controls and can manipulate however they like), and filter other things out. Your interpretation is quite misleading.
        sangnoir 5y ago
        > Your interpretation is quite misleading. That's really hard to say: in its dueling email to its customers, Youtube TV says it was offering to continue the service under the old terms but Roku declined. These "carrier" disagreements generate more smoke and heat than light - with both sides blaming the other with carefully crafted PR messages that are technically true when you squint really hard: I don't doubt both statements by both Roku and Youtube TV are misleading in one way or the other (or have glaring omissions) - remember neither of them is under oath, they are just trying to sway public opinion. Don't put too much stock on what's basically corporate trash-talk on the side-lines of negotiations.
    - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
      Yeah - searching for TV and some other generic searches might be more complicated with YouTube tv - live sports? Not saying right but u could imagine them wanting more terms ? The codec is the thing I’m pushing for - we really need google pushing these open standards
      - gtyras2mrs 5y ago
        AV1 might be a great codec, but does that mean that they can push for hardware decode which would add costs? Roku I believe already has AV1 hardware support on their $100 device. I think they couldn't get it into their cheaper products. On the other hand, Google doesn't seem to be leading the way in terms of hardware support despite making it mandatory for other hardware makers. > Despite Google's internal zeal for AV1, when it comes to streaming hardware, Roku is actually doing a better job supporting AV1 than Google. The official scoreboard shows that Roku has one AV1-compatible device, the $100 Roku Ultra, while Google sells zero AV1 streaming devices. Google's newest, most expensive dongle, the $50 Chromecast with Google TV, does not have a chip that supports AV1. Google has made AV1 support mandatory for Android TV devices, but again, those are other companies' devices. Google should be leading by example here, but it isn't. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-2-the-youtube-tv-app-gets-pulled-from-the-roku-store/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-...
  - gtyras2mrs 5y ago
    > Despite Google's internal zeal for AV1, when it comes to streaming hardware, Roku is actually doing a better job supporting AV1 than Google. The official scoreboard shows that Roku has one AV1-compatible device, the $100 Roku Ultra, while Google sells zero AV1 streaming devices. Google's newest, most expensive dongle, the $50 Chromecast with Google TV, does not have a chip that supports AV1. Google has made AV1 support mandatory for Android TV devices, but again, those are other companies' devices. Google should be leading by example here, but it isn't. Are there any budget streaming solutions that have AV1 support? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-2-the-youtube-tv-app-gets-pulled-from-the-roku-store/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-...
- adrr 5y ago
  As a consumer and on a metered cable modem internet. I want a more efficient codec. I can’t stream 4K without blowing past my quota.
  - mfer 5y ago
    I've often wondered if some metered cable internet companies see 4k bandwidth increases coming and are planning on the overages. I used to have one metered internet provider whose network crumbled when kids would be out of school and use would go up. I wonder if they mismanaged their finances or something to get into this state. Sadly, more efficient codecs aren't going to decrease bandwidth enough. I noticed that Xfinity, when you use a rented modem from them, will remove the cap for a small extra fee.
    - adrr 5y ago
      Cox will remove the cap $50/m. You end paying $150/m with all the fees for 200mb/s uncapped or $200/m for 1gb/s. Av1 codec the content providers are pushing is 25% more efficient than VP9 in terms of bandwidth. Most people could stream 4K for and stay under the caps with the codec change.
  - mjcl 5y ago
    Yes, I was extremely annoyed when Netflix gave me a month of "free upgrade" to 4k with no way to remove it or force HD streaming short of cancelling the account.
contravariant 5y ago
You can't have unaffiliated solutions with DRM, just multi-affiliated.
stevehawk 5y ago
As a fellow Roku user.. I never figured out what the situation was on the HBO MAX thing.. I was an HBO Now subscriber.. HBO never quit working for me .. I'm guessing they migrated me to Max or something.. but I'd like to hear from you how it affected you in case I missed something.
- debacle 5y ago
  It's the same thing with Twitch - for a long time you could still get Twitch on Roku, but it was unsupported. AFAIK you can still install it, but it doesn't work.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
    Twoku works alright, but it's not great. On those extremely rare occasions where I want to watch Twitch, let alone Twitch on my TV (hello Minecraft Clash of the Creators), I hook a laptop into the HDMI of the TV and run from there.
- TheHypnotist 5y ago
  As far as I know something similar happened with Amazon. They didn't have MAX for a very long time.
- drdec 5y ago
  With only HBO Now as the app you only had access to HBO content, not the full range of the HBO Max content.
pkulak 5y ago
I just bought the new Apple TV this morning. I'm exactly with you. Been a Roku user forever, but there's so much pressure to sell the hardware at a loss, that they have to extract money from everywhere else. As far as I can tell, I just paid the full price for my Apple TV hardware and now this is the end of it. But, we'll see, I suppose. I've never used an Apple TV before. Hoping for the best! It seems nice.
- dylan604 5y ago
  If you're already in the Apple ecosystem, sharing the screen with devices/laptops is also super easy with the Apple TV device.
- gpanders 5y ago
  I have used a Roku, an Amazon Fire stick, and an Apple TV. The Apple TV is by far the best, in my experience. The only downside was their god awful remote, but even that has been fixed in the newest version. I think you’ll be happy.
- zucker42 5y ago
  What stops Google from making the same demands they allegedly made to Roku to Apple?
  - MengerSponge 5y ago
    Roku's market cap: 44.178B Apple's market cap: 2.212T
robbiemitchell 5y ago
Roku is still fundamentally a pipe. Each network decides how to make its apps available (or not) and what to charge for them. Getting mad at Roku for this is like getting mad at Spotify when a certain album isn't available -- it's all up to the content owner to decide where to distribute it.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  It's like getting mad at Spotify when an album isn't available when they don't pay the artist/record label OR if the label is making unreasonable demands. It might be up to the content owner to decide where to distribute it, but the content owners may feel like some platforms are especially burdensome to distribute on.
- andrewla 5y ago
  Roku is increasingly _not_ just a pipe. This whole debacle (and the HBO one before) is indicative of that. They could just let you install whatever HBO or Google offered -- that's what they did for a long time. But they want to ensure that things are "integrated", that they can show ads, and that their own content (on the "Roku Channel") doesn't get downprioritized.
- timmg 5y ago
  I would argue that, in this case, getting mad at Roku would be like getting mad at my ISP if they blocked Netflix because Netflix didn't pay them extra money. That's a world I hope we never come to (but the ISPs would love it.)
  - charrondev 5y ago
    Don’t they already do that with peering agreements?
    - BlueTemplar 5y ago
      Yeah, specifically Free used to have poor bandwidth with YouTube and then Netflix. AFAIK they have found an arrangement since then.
quickthrowman 5y ago
I threw my Roku in the garbage when they couldn’t get the HBO Max contract done before launch and bought an Apple TV. Apple doesn't sell user data and nobody wants to be left out of the Apple money machine so all the services I want are available. It was completely worth it, in my opinion.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  I am also considering ditching Roku for an Apple TV. Do you have an idea of how well it would work if the Apple TV was the only Apple product I owned? I don't want to drop $200 only to find out I need an iPhone for the setup process or something.
  - refracture 5y ago
    An iPhone makes setup easier and it supports some neat things like using the camera on your phone to calibrate color tone, but it's optional. If you buy a new Apple TV make sure you get the one that just came out with the new Siri remote, it looks much better than the old touchpad one that I think at best people tolerate.
  - kingsuper20 5y ago
    You might consider the thing that I have, an Nvidia Shield. It appears to work fine and is a lot snappier to use than the Rokus or Fire TVs I've used (also $200ish). After owning quite a few internet appliances through the years (Roku,Fire,Shield,internet radios,Kindles,etc.) I've noticed that they one thing you can always count on working is a desktop/laptop PC. edit: I notice that people above have also mentioned the Shield. Sorry for the repeat. I keep wondering how long youtube will be standable. You can see the ads sneaking in bit by bit over the last few months (5 seconds with cancel, 2 x 5 seconds with cancel, 2 x 6 seconds with cancel, 2 x 6 seconds without cancel on one thing I watch. The worst has been firing up somebody's music list and getting a 5-10 minute(!) ad between each song). I really should be getting to work on a hoard of videos stored locally. The days of 'free' entertainment are coming to an end.
    - 5y ago
andrewla 5y ago
It's the entire reason that they split off from Netflix in the first place! I bought my first Roku the day it was announced -- 5/20/2008, the "Roku Netflix Player", and I was thrilled with it. They added support for other streaming sources not too long after and I could not have been happier. The next version had pre-programmed buttons for various services that had paid them off, and I was annoyed, but whatever. The version after that they wanted me to enter my credit card information just to activate the device. And finally they just started plastering it with ads, including ads for the "Roku Channel". I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a device. I don't know what to do next; I tried an Amazon Fire TV but it's garbage. Chromecast I also found unusable; the app would lose connection all the time so pausing was always an iffy proposition. There are generic Android boxes but I have no idea what to expect quality-wise, and there are options like building my own Kodi box but I don't know how well streaming services are supported. I guess Apple TV is the last option? Last time I tried one it was just okay, and now Apple has its own streaming platform so I'm sure it's going to get into these same fights.
- x1ph0z 5y ago
  Have you tried an Nvidia Shield?
- jeffgreco 5y ago
  Unfortunately the exact same thing is happening with Apple TV right now. A really great box but they are absolutely jamming Apple TV+ down their users’ throats.
  - bullfightonmars 5y ago
    The Apple TV app is completely optional (and I hope it stays that way). The inly time I open it is to watch Apple TV+ shows. P.S. They made the homescreen button goback to A the Apple TV app a while ago. This behavior can be changed go make it go back to the home screen.
    - snuxoll 5y ago
      The TV app is the single greatest feature of the Apple TV, though. I have one list of shows I am watching (sans Netflix because they are petty, I don’t subscribe to them for more than a month at a time to binge a few shows though); multiple, even, because each person in the house has their own.
jonathannorris 5y ago
Roku and Google (Chromecast) have always been subsidizing their hardware. Their business is: selling your data, showing you ads, and selling you subscriptions, it was a race to the bottom to get on as may TVs as possible. Which has turned into a really solid business for Roku. But it also means that Roku's business interests will conflict with what's best for their consumers, updating their devices to support AV1, fighting with streaming partners to collect more revenue, and selling their customer's data. If you want to see what the real cost of these devices with margin would be, look at the comparatively ridiculously priced new AppleTVs.
- phh 5y ago
  FWIW, considering what's in it, Chromecast with Google TV probably has positive margin in the USA. It is using only off-the-shelf very cheap components. Except for USB-C part, you can find same-speced boxes for 30$ on chinese market. I'm not even going to mention the price of Chromecast with Google TV in Europe, for which Google probably has 30-50% margin, (It's 70€, so 70$ tax-excluded). This doesn't hinder your argument though.
- pja 5y ago
  The real Roku profits lie in charging streaming channels for access to Roku customers I believe; is the viewing data (which you can turn off at the per-device level) worth that much?
  - mdasen 5y ago
    I think it's not just the data. At this point they're selling access to you. If you're Roku and you're the largest in the market, a company like YouTube or NBC or HBO needs to be on your devices. So you ask for X% of the profits and Y% of the ads and you start skimming off that. Many reports have said that Roku wants 20% of streaming charges and 30% of the ad buys. If HBO is charging people $15/mo, that's $3 per HBO subscriber per month. For apps like Discovery or others with ads, you're potentially becoming the largest television advertising powerhouse ever. Imagine 10 years in the future if Roku is 80% of the streaming box market and they're selling 30% of the ads across all the TV you watch. Imagine if they're getting 20% of all the pay-TV revenue. Right now, Netflix has been too big for companies like Roku to put pressure on. However, Netflix has been losing ground as more competitors pop up in the market. I'm not saying that Netflix is vulnerable to pressure now, but as more and more consumers get Peacock, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, etc., there's the possibility that Roku could also start pressuring Netflix. Historically, Netflix has been the company that pressured the device makers. If your device couldn't play Netflix, no one would buy it. I think that's still the case today, but 10 years from now Netflix will be facing off against an entire industry of streaming companies and it's possible that some households become HBO Max/Prime households (or the like). If that happens, Roku will start having power over Netflix.
scarface74 5y ago
There business was never “selling hardware”. The business plan was always to sell hardware at break even and make money via advertising and continued monetization of customers. The CEO admitted as much on a ReCode (?) podcast. You can not profitable provide a “good product” by selling a bunch of $25 sticks.
me551ah 5y ago
I personally use a combination of Xbox and Chromecast, which is plugged into the hdmi-in for Xbox. Almost all of the popular services like netflix, prime, hbo, Twitch, Disney etc are available on the Xbox as native apps. For the odd ones which don't exist Chromecast works well. Xbox even has the Kodi app so you can point it to your FTP/WebDAV server and watch movies from there. I personally use a seedbox and stream from there on the Xbox Kodi app. As a bonus, Xbox is also going to get the full fledged chrome browser soon.
- anonymfus 5y ago
  What is the point of using Chromecast when Xbox can work as a Miracast receiver if I understand correctly?
  - andrewia 5y ago
    It's far more bandwidth-intensive to stream from the internet to a phone screen and again from a phone screen to a Miracast receiver. You also can't use the phone screen nor see notifications while Miracast streaming. With Chromecast, the dongle is actually just a remote-less streaming stick. So it streams directly from the server and the streaming app on your phone is the remote.
    - rezonant 5y ago
      In addition to better efficiency, it also means that multiple devices can act as remotes at the same time, and if the original person who started the stream leaves the WiFi network the stream is not disrupted. It's definitely the more sensible way to handle streaming from cloud services- I just wish it would get standardized as a web standard so that it's not limited to the Google ecosystem
  - rezonant 5y ago
    What apps even support Miracast?
- InsaneOstrich 5y ago
  I love my original Xbox One. It has all the apps, a blu ray player and the hdmi in for a cable box or anything else you want. It's sad to think that it's unlikely that anyone will ever make anything like that again
Consultant32452 5y ago
I originally had Roku for the same reason. The thing that made me leave is when they started pushing channels down to my Roku that I didn't request. The first time it happened I thought someone else in the family downloaded it, or maybe even I did by accident. Once it happened a few more times and I was able to determine they did this on purpose, I immediately dumped Roku and will never use their products again.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  I had a NowTV branded Roku device and someone removed an app and forced an update removing the ability to side-load which had been the key differentiator I bought it for. IMO it was unauthorised access under the Computer Misuse Act (UK). Moved to FireTV installed same app from app store; not sure who was to blame but both companies are on my naughty list.
sixothree 5y ago
As far as the application itself goes, YouTube TV for Roku was a hot pile of garbage anyway. I enjoyed using it every so often until they started raising prices. Again.
hyperbovine 5y ago
Apple still makes money selling hardware.
flatiron 5y ago
As a plex user I’m happy with their business model. I get $30 devices to watch all my media on.
- darkwizard42 5y ago
  Until they decide to squeeze Plex... (or limit the device access to do so)
  - flatiron 5y ago
    True. I think that would be a big footgun for them though. My friends and family use roku for my plex but load their own apps through it to bridge gaps. I can’t be the only one like that.
annoyingnoob 5y ago
After Roku bought DataXu it became an advertising company, which put it in direct competition with Google. I used to love Roku, but its really gone down hill as an advertising company. My next device might just be Apple TV.
BlueTemplar 5y ago
That option is piracy. Seriously, if they don't want my money, I will gladly spend it instead on DRM-free ebooks, music and games. And I don't feel any moral guilt about pirating movies and TV shows since they have pushed DRM in the HTML specifications !
- bob1029 5y ago
  Acquiring physical media & piracy are turning into my defaults again. I don't have the patience to manage 10 different subscriptions and still not have access to content that has been otherwise available for consumption for decades.
etempleton 5y ago
I am with you. I am ditching Roku for the new Apple TV. The performance of Roku has always been bad, particularly for Plex, but it also has a terrible app ecosystem now. The competitive advantage for Roku was that they were able to be app agnostic.
notatoad 5y ago
i know it's about as far from "unaffiliated" as it can get, but the chromecast is still pretty good at being a neutral content player.
takeda 5y ago
For someone living under a rock, what was the HBO Max thing? I no longer have HBO since AT&T owns it and pulled the channel from Dish.
KFCxK5N1Gp 5y ago
The solution that works for me. I use one of the old laptop/tablets that's lying around the house, plug it into the tv hdmi, buy one of the many bluetooth keyboards with a trackpad and use it as a remote. Advantages are that I don't buy any hardware, I know it works with any streaming service, I don't need a smart tv, I don't need to struggle typing in passwords and search terms using a tv remote. And, not once have I felt - oh I wish I had a roku or chromecast or whatever, and something would have been better.
- pradn 5y ago
  There is an issue with quality, if that matters to you. I might be the only person who cares about Dolby Vision/Atmos, but it's supported only by a limited cross section of streaming service x device x app version.
ARandomerDude 5y ago
Just be done with all of it. I dumpstered my TV 6 years ago and it was absolutely liberating. I know some people might think "another TV-less life snob" but that's really not my point. Just tuck the TV in the closet for a month and see what you think. You'll have more fun. Honestly.
kenjackson 5y ago
Is there a good TV media player (like Roku) that can play web video content? I like to watch lots of local youth sports through BallerTV, but they don't have a Roku or XBox app. I'd love to find a device that had a good web browser and played video content (I feel like the XBox purposely doesn't support a lot of video through their web browser), where I didn't have to hook up a computer to the TV.
AviationAtom 5y ago
Fire TV lets you sideload, i.e. NBC's Peacock. Otherwise Google's new "Chromecast with Google TV" is a cheap option, or Nvidia's Shield.
disillusioned 5y ago
The new, stupidly named Chromecast with GoogleTV is a fantastic alternative: allows you to install almost any Android app from the Play Store, works brilliantly for YouTubeTV, has a remote, can get around captive portals or use VPN, and it just... works. For $50. Honestly, I love love love mine. Plus, 4k/Atmos/HDR 10+ support. It's a killer device and you can still uninstall stuff you don't want or switch to "apps only" mode if you don't want to see whatever content Google wants to show you.
PretzelFisch 5y ago
I don't see this. I got the new Roku 4k there is a setting to turn off the home screen ad. There was no push to update my subscription. Now the only time I might need a credit card is for some pay for play screen saver or channel. I still feel Roku is the go to stand alone service that works with all the video/audio streamers.
cbozeman 5y ago
It feels like its even worse for those of us with home media servers. I rip all my Blu-rays to MKV files complete with all audio tracks and subtitles. The only solutions - literally the only solutions I have - for direct play through Plex Media Server from my server across my network is NVIDIA Shield Pro or an Xbox Series X because they support 4K Direct Play. I have been a fan of Roku devices since 2013 or so. To be forced to switch all the Rokus in my home to NVIDIA Shield Pros over the past year (the timeframe by which I built my media server) has been frustrating to say the least. $200 per device for a total of three devices. I know $600 doesn't sound like much, and in truth, it isn't, but the fact I have to do this in order to enjoy the 4K Blu-rays I have purchased, at any time, in any room in my home, on multiple devices, is bothersome and feels like an unnecessary expense.
- dleslie 5y ago
  Kodi + NFS can serve 4k mkv; I've done it.
johnnyanmac 5y ago
>but there isn't really an option that is "unaffiliated" anymore :( micro PC + some multi-launcher? I'm sure there's some 3rd party windows/Linux app that streamlines multiple services. Then add Plex server for any custom/downloaded media. It takes setup, but that's seems to almost always be the case; either a black box or assembly required (stability never guaranteed). Perosnally, my "set top box" is a chromecast. and then localcast/airflow for anything that doesn't have chromecast support (all my subcribed streams do, fortunately). It's google so it's not really "unaffiliated", but as long as I can mirror a screen, I technically never have to worry about contracts blocking chromecasting.
- dleslie 5y ago
  This is what I do: there are dozens of cheap x86 microPCs available now, for around or under 200 dollars, that can easily play all streaming media services. Passively cooled, good enough CPU and GPU to decode HD video. I run Kodi, Freetube, and the native Netflix and Prime Video apps on mine.

by timmg 5y ago

ru552 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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_ 5y 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.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      "manipulate your search results" is spin for "Roku wanted to inject results from other sources when you perform a search within the Youtube TV app, Google didn't like that"
      - deelowe 5y ago
        I don't know. I mean search on roku is kind of it's own thing. It would be odd to expect the built in roku search to limit itself to just the app. To those who aren't familiar, there are two types of search on roku, the in app version that already does what one would expect and the device level search which searches across all available apps. Roku is clearly doing paid placements for the device level search. It pretty obviously shows you "hey this is available here for $xx.xx" There's no confusion around when you're doing one versus the other. The device level search kicks you out of whatever app you're in and does the search from the dashboard. As another point, I would never expect a search within YouTube to show results on YTM or YTTV. The roku just doesn't work that way.
      - FireBeyond 5y ago
        Hah. The Search service is and has always been global. And _Google_ wanted to inject results from another source (YouTube Music) when you searched (globally) with YouTube TV as the active app (which is not the same as YouTube search, which Google controls and can manipulate however they like), and filter other things out. Your interpretation is quite misleading.
        sangnoir 5y ago
        > Your interpretation is quite misleading. That's really hard to say: in its dueling email to its customers, Youtube TV says it was offering to continue the service under the old terms but Roku declined. These "carrier" disagreements generate more smoke and heat than light - with both sides blaming the other with carefully crafted PR messages that are technically true when you squint really hard: I don't doubt both statements by both Roku and Youtube TV are misleading in one way or the other (or have glaring omissions) - remember neither of them is under oath, they are just trying to sway public opinion. Don't put too much stock on what's basically corporate trash-talk on the side-lines of negotiations.
  - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
    Yeah - searching for TV and some other generic searches might be more complicated with YouTube tv - live sports? Not saying right but u could imagine them wanting more terms ? The codec is the thing I’m pushing for - we really need google pushing these open standards
    - gtyras2mrs 5y ago
      AV1 might be a great codec, but does that mean that they can push for hardware decode which would add costs? Roku I believe already has AV1 hardware support on their $100 device. I think they couldn't get it into their cheaper products. On the other hand, Google doesn't seem to be leading the way in terms of hardware support despite making it mandatory for other hardware makers. > Despite Google's internal zeal for AV1, when it comes to streaming hardware, Roku is actually doing a better job supporting AV1 than Google. The official scoreboard shows that Roku has one AV1-compatible device, the $100 Roku Ultra, while Google sells zero AV1 streaming devices. Google's newest, most expensive dongle, the $50 Chromecast with Google TV, does not have a chip that supports AV1. Google has made AV1 support mandatory for Android TV devices, but again, those are other companies' devices. Google should be leading by example here, but it isn't. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-2-the-youtube-tv-app-gets-pulled-from-the-roku-store/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-...
- gtyras2mrs 5y ago
  > Despite Google's internal zeal for AV1, when it comes to streaming hardware, Roku is actually doing a better job supporting AV1 than Google. The official scoreboard shows that Roku has one AV1-compatible device, the $100 Roku Ultra, while Google sells zero AV1 streaming devices. Google's newest, most expensive dongle, the $50 Chromecast with Google TV, does not have a chip that supports AV1. Google has made AV1 support mandatory for Android TV devices, but again, those are other companies' devices. Google should be leading by example here, but it isn't. Are there any budget streaming solutions that have AV1 support? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-2-the-youtube-tv-app-gets-pulled-from-the-roku-store/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-...
adrr 5y ago
As a consumer and on a metered cable modem internet. I want a more efficient codec. I can’t stream 4K without blowing past my quota.
- mfer 5y ago
  I've often wondered if some metered cable internet companies see 4k bandwidth increases coming and are planning on the overages. I used to have one metered internet provider whose network crumbled when kids would be out of school and use would go up. I wonder if they mismanaged their finances or something to get into this state. Sadly, more efficient codecs aren't going to decrease bandwidth enough. I noticed that Xfinity, when you use a rented modem from them, will remove the cap for a small extra fee.
  - adrr 5y ago
    Cox will remove the cap $50/m. You end paying $150/m with all the fees for 200mb/s uncapped or $200/m for 1gb/s. Av1 codec the content providers are pushing is 25% more efficient than VP9 in terms of bandwidth. Most people could stream 4K for and stay under the caps with the codec change.
- mjcl 5y ago
  Yes, I was extremely annoyed when Netflix gave me a month of "free upgrade" to 4k with no way to remove it or force HD streaming short of cancelling the account.

contravariant 5y ago

You can't have unaffiliated solutions with DRM, just multi-affiliated.

stevehawk 5y ago

As a fellow Roku user.. I never figured out what the situation was on the HBO MAX thing.. I was an HBO Now subscriber.. HBO never quit working for me .. I'm guessing they migrated me to Max or something.. but I'd like to hear from you how it affected you in case I missed something.

debacle 5y ago
It's the same thing with Twitch - for a long time you could still get Twitch on Roku, but it was unsupported. AFAIK you can still install it, but it doesn't work.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
  Twoku works alright, but it's not great. On those extremely rare occasions where I want to watch Twitch, let alone Twitch on my TV (hello Minecraft Clash of the Creators), I hook a laptop into the HDMI of the TV and run from there.
TheHypnotist 5y ago
As far as I know something similar happened with Amazon. They didn't have MAX for a very long time.
drdec 5y ago
With only HBO Now as the app you only had access to HBO content, not the full range of the HBO Max content.

pkulak 5y ago

I just bought the new Apple TV this morning. I'm exactly with you. Been a Roku user forever, but there's so much pressure to sell the hardware at a loss, that they have to extract money from everywhere else. As far as I can tell, I just paid the full price for my Apple TV hardware and now this is the end of it. But, we'll see, I suppose. I've never used an Apple TV before. Hoping for the best! It seems nice.

dylan604 5y ago
If you're already in the Apple ecosystem, sharing the screen with devices/laptops is also super easy with the Apple TV device.
gpanders 5y ago
I have used a Roku, an Amazon Fire stick, and an Apple TV. The Apple TV is by far the best, in my experience. The only downside was their god awful remote, but even that has been fixed in the newest version. I think you’ll be happy.
zucker42 5y ago
What stops Google from making the same demands they allegedly made to Roku to Apple?
- MengerSponge 5y ago
  Roku's market cap: 44.178B Apple's market cap: 2.212T

robbiemitchell 5y ago

Roku is still fundamentally a pipe. Each network decides how to make its apps available (or not) and what to charge for them. Getting mad at Roku for this is like getting mad at Spotify when a certain album isn't available -- it's all up to the content owner to decide where to distribute it.

madeofpalk 5y ago
It's like getting mad at Spotify when an album isn't available when they don't pay the artist/record label OR if the label is making unreasonable demands. It might be up to the content owner to decide where to distribute it, but the content owners may feel like some platforms are especially burdensome to distribute on.
andrewla 5y ago
Roku is increasingly _not_ just a pipe. This whole debacle (and the HBO one before) is indicative of that. They could just let you install whatever HBO or Google offered -- that's what they did for a long time. But they want to ensure that things are "integrated", that they can show ads, and that their own content (on the "Roku Channel") doesn't get downprioritized.
timmg 5y ago
I would argue that, in this case, getting mad at Roku would be like getting mad at my ISP if they blocked Netflix because Netflix didn't pay them extra money. That's a world I hope we never come to (but the ISPs would love it.)
- charrondev 5y ago
  Don’t they already do that with peering agreements?
  - BlueTemplar 5y ago
    Yeah, specifically Free used to have poor bandwidth with YouTube and then Netflix. AFAIK they have found an arrangement since then.

quickthrowman 5y ago

I threw my Roku in the garbage when they couldn’t get the HBO Max contract done before launch and bought an Apple TV. Apple doesn't sell user data and nobody wants to be left out of the Apple money machine so all the services I want are available. It was completely worth it, in my opinion.

dahfizz 5y ago
I am also considering ditching Roku for an Apple TV. Do you have an idea of how well it would work if the Apple TV was the only Apple product I owned? I don't want to drop $200 only to find out I need an iPhone for the setup process or something.
- refracture 5y ago
  An iPhone makes setup easier and it supports some neat things like using the camera on your phone to calibrate color tone, but it's optional. If you buy a new Apple TV make sure you get the one that just came out with the new Siri remote, it looks much better than the old touchpad one that I think at best people tolerate.
- kingsuper20 5y ago
  You might consider the thing that I have, an Nvidia Shield. It appears to work fine and is a lot snappier to use than the Rokus or Fire TVs I've used (also $200ish). After owning quite a few internet appliances through the years (Roku,Fire,Shield,internet radios,Kindles,etc.) I've noticed that they one thing you can always count on working is a desktop/laptop PC. edit: I notice that people above have also mentioned the Shield. Sorry for the repeat. I keep wondering how long youtube will be standable. You can see the ads sneaking in bit by bit over the last few months (5 seconds with cancel, 2 x 5 seconds with cancel, 2 x 6 seconds with cancel, 2 x 6 seconds without cancel on one thing I watch. The worst has been firing up somebody's music list and getting a 5-10 minute(!) ad between each song). I really should be getting to work on a hoard of videos stored locally. The days of 'free' entertainment are coming to an end.
  - 5y ago

andrewla 5y ago

It's the entire reason that they split off from Netflix in the first place! I bought my first Roku the day it was announced -- 5/20/2008, the "Roku Netflix Player", and I was thrilled with it. They added support for other streaming sources not too long after and I could not have been happier. The next version had pre-programmed buttons for various services that had paid them off, and I was annoyed, but whatever. The version after that they wanted me to enter my credit card information just to activate the device. And finally they just started plastering it with ads, including ads for the "Roku Channel". I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a device. I don't know what to do next; I tried an Amazon Fire TV but it's garbage. Chromecast I also found unusable; the app would lose connection all the time so pausing was always an iffy proposition. There are generic Android boxes but I have no idea what to expect quality-wise, and there are options like building my own Kodi box but I don't know how well streaming services are supported. I guess Apple TV is the last option? Last time I tried one it was just okay, and now Apple has its own streaming platform so I'm sure it's going to get into these same fights.

x1ph0z 5y ago
Have you tried an Nvidia Shield?
jeffgreco 5y ago
Unfortunately the exact same thing is happening with Apple TV right now. A really great box but they are absolutely jamming Apple TV+ down their users’ throats.
- bullfightonmars 5y ago
  The Apple TV app is completely optional (and I hope it stays that way). The inly time I open it is to watch Apple TV+ shows. P.S. They made the homescreen button goback to A the Apple TV app a while ago. This behavior can be changed go make it go back to the home screen.
  - snuxoll 5y ago
    The TV app is the single greatest feature of the Apple TV, though. I have one list of shows I am watching (sans Netflix because they are petty, I don’t subscribe to them for more than a month at a time to binge a few shows though); multiple, even, because each person in the house has their own.

jonathannorris 5y ago

Roku and Google (Chromecast) have always been subsidizing their hardware. Their business is: selling your data, showing you ads, and selling you subscriptions, it was a race to the bottom to get on as may TVs as possible. Which has turned into a really solid business for Roku. But it also means that Roku's business interests will conflict with what's best for their consumers, updating their devices to support AV1, fighting with streaming partners to collect more revenue, and selling their customer's data. If you want to see what the real cost of these devices with margin would be, look at the comparatively ridiculously priced new AppleTVs.

phh 5y ago
FWIW, considering what's in it, Chromecast with Google TV probably has positive margin in the USA. It is using only off-the-shelf very cheap components. Except for USB-C part, you can find same-speced boxes for 30$ on chinese market. I'm not even going to mention the price of Chromecast with Google TV in Europe, for which Google probably has 30-50% margin, (It's 70€, so 70$ tax-excluded). This doesn't hinder your argument though.
pja 5y ago
The real Roku profits lie in charging streaming channels for access to Roku customers I believe; is the viewing data (which you can turn off at the per-device level) worth that much?
- mdasen 5y ago
  I think it's not just the data. At this point they're selling access to you. If you're Roku and you're the largest in the market, a company like YouTube or NBC or HBO needs to be on your devices. So you ask for X% of the profits and Y% of the ads and you start skimming off that. Many reports have said that Roku wants 20% of streaming charges and 30% of the ad buys. If HBO is charging people $15/mo, that's $3 per HBO subscriber per month. For apps like Discovery or others with ads, you're potentially becoming the largest television advertising powerhouse ever. Imagine 10 years in the future if Roku is 80% of the streaming box market and they're selling 30% of the ads across all the TV you watch. Imagine if they're getting 20% of all the pay-TV revenue. Right now, Netflix has been too big for companies like Roku to put pressure on. However, Netflix has been losing ground as more competitors pop up in the market. I'm not saying that Netflix is vulnerable to pressure now, but as more and more consumers get Peacock, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, etc., there's the possibility that Roku could also start pressuring Netflix. Historically, Netflix has been the company that pressured the device makers. If your device couldn't play Netflix, no one would buy it. I think that's still the case today, but 10 years from now Netflix will be facing off against an entire industry of streaming companies and it's possible that some households become HBO Max/Prime households (or the like). If that happens, Roku will start having power over Netflix.

scarface74 5y ago

There business was never “selling hardware”. The business plan was always to sell hardware at break even and make money via advertising and continued monetization of customers. The CEO admitted as much on a ReCode (?) podcast. You can not profitable provide a “good product” by selling a bunch of $25 sticks.

me551ah 5y ago

I personally use a combination of Xbox and Chromecast, which is plugged into the hdmi-in for Xbox. Almost all of the popular services like netflix, prime, hbo, Twitch, Disney etc are available on the Xbox as native apps. For the odd ones which don't exist Chromecast works well. Xbox even has the Kodi app so you can point it to your FTP/WebDAV server and watch movies from there. I personally use a seedbox and stream from there on the Xbox Kodi app. As a bonus, Xbox is also going to get the full fledged chrome browser soon.

anonymfus 5y ago
What is the point of using Chromecast when Xbox can work as a Miracast receiver if I understand correctly?
- andrewia 5y ago
  It's far more bandwidth-intensive to stream from the internet to a phone screen and again from a phone screen to a Miracast receiver. You also can't use the phone screen nor see notifications while Miracast streaming. With Chromecast, the dongle is actually just a remote-less streaming stick. So it streams directly from the server and the streaming app on your phone is the remote.
  - rezonant 5y ago
    In addition to better efficiency, it also means that multiple devices can act as remotes at the same time, and if the original person who started the stream leaves the WiFi network the stream is not disrupted. It's definitely the more sensible way to handle streaming from cloud services- I just wish it would get standardized as a web standard so that it's not limited to the Google ecosystem
- rezonant 5y ago
  What apps even support Miracast?
InsaneOstrich 5y ago
I love my original Xbox One. It has all the apps, a blu ray player and the hdmi in for a cable box or anything else you want. It's sad to think that it's unlikely that anyone will ever make anything like that again

Consultant32452 5y ago

I originally had Roku for the same reason. The thing that made me leave is when they started pushing channels down to my Roku that I didn't request. The first time it happened I thought someone else in the family downloaded it, or maybe even I did by accident. Once it happened a few more times and I was able to determine they did this on purpose, I immediately dumped Roku and will never use their products again.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago
I had a NowTV branded Roku device and someone removed an app and forced an update removing the ability to side-load which had been the key differentiator I bought it for. IMO it was unauthorised access under the Computer Misuse Act (UK). Moved to FireTV installed same app from app store; not sure who was to blame but both companies are on my naughty list.

sixothree 5y ago

As far as the application itself goes, YouTube TV for Roku was a hot pile of garbage anyway. I enjoyed using it every so often until they started raising prices. Again.

hyperbovine 5y ago

Apple still makes money selling hardware.

flatiron 5y ago

As a plex user I’m happy with their business model. I get $30 devices to watch all my media on.

darkwizard42 5y ago
Until they decide to squeeze Plex... (or limit the device access to do so)
- flatiron 5y ago
  True. I think that would be a big footgun for them though. My friends and family use roku for my plex but load their own apps through it to bridge gaps. I can’t be the only one like that.

annoyingnoob 5y ago

After Roku bought DataXu it became an advertising company, which put it in direct competition with Google. I used to love Roku, but its really gone down hill as an advertising company. My next device might just be Apple TV.

BlueTemplar 5y ago

That option is piracy. Seriously, if they don't want my money, I will gladly spend it instead on DRM-free ebooks, music and games. And I don't feel any moral guilt about pirating movies and TV shows since they have pushed DRM in the HTML specifications !

bob1029 5y ago
Acquiring physical media & piracy are turning into my defaults again. I don't have the patience to manage 10 different subscriptions and still not have access to content that has been otherwise available for consumption for decades.

etempleton 5y ago

I am with you. I am ditching Roku for the new Apple TV. The performance of Roku has always been bad, particularly for Plex, but it also has a terrible app ecosystem now. The competitive advantage for Roku was that they were able to be app agnostic.

notatoad 5y ago

i know it's about as far from "unaffiliated" as it can get, but the chromecast is still pretty good at being a neutral content player.

takeda 5y ago

For someone living under a rock, what was the HBO Max thing? I no longer have HBO since AT&T owns it and pulled the channel from Dish.

KFCxK5N1Gp 5y ago

The solution that works for me. I use one of the old laptop/tablets that's lying around the house, plug it into the tv hdmi, buy one of the many bluetooth keyboards with a trackpad and use it as a remote. Advantages are that I don't buy any hardware, I know it works with any streaming service, I don't need a smart tv, I don't need to struggle typing in passwords and search terms using a tv remote. And, not once have I felt - oh I wish I had a roku or chromecast or whatever, and something would have been better.

pradn 5y ago
There is an issue with quality, if that matters to you. I might be the only person who cares about Dolby Vision/Atmos, but it's supported only by a limited cross section of streaming service x device x app version.

ARandomerDude 5y ago

Just be done with all of it. I dumpstered my TV 6 years ago and it was absolutely liberating. I know some people might think "another TV-less life snob" but that's really not my point. Just tuck the TV in the closet for a month and see what you think. You'll have more fun. Honestly.

kenjackson 5y ago

Is there a good TV media player (like Roku) that can play web video content? I like to watch lots of local youth sports through BallerTV, but they don't have a Roku or XBox app. I'd love to find a device that had a good web browser and played video content (I feel like the XBox purposely doesn't support a lot of video through their web browser), where I didn't have to hook up a computer to the TV.

AviationAtom 5y ago

Fire TV lets you sideload, i.e. NBC's Peacock. Otherwise Google's new "Chromecast with Google TV" is a cheap option, or Nvidia's Shield.

disillusioned 5y ago

The new, stupidly named Chromecast with GoogleTV is a fantastic alternative: allows you to install almost any Android app from the Play Store, works brilliantly for YouTubeTV, has a remote, can get around captive portals or use VPN, and it just... works. For $50. Honestly, I love love love mine. Plus, 4k/Atmos/HDR 10+ support. It's a killer device and you can still uninstall stuff you don't want or switch to "apps only" mode if you don't want to see whatever content Google wants to show you.

PretzelFisch 5y ago

I don't see this. I got the new Roku 4k there is a setting to turn off the home screen ad. There was no push to update my subscription. Now the only time I might need a credit card is for some pay for play screen saver or channel. I still feel Roku is the go to stand alone service that works with all the video/audio streamers.

cbozeman 5y ago

It feels like its even worse for those of us with home media servers. I rip all my Blu-rays to MKV files complete with all audio tracks and subtitles. The only solutions - literally the only solutions I have - for direct play through Plex Media Server from my server across my network is NVIDIA Shield Pro or an Xbox Series X because they support 4K Direct Play. I have been a fan of Roku devices since 2013 or so. To be forced to switch all the Rokus in my home to NVIDIA Shield Pros over the past year (the timeframe by which I built my media server) has been frustrating to say the least. $200 per device for a total of three devices. I know $600 doesn't sound like much, and in truth, it isn't, but the fact I have to do this in order to enjoy the 4K Blu-rays I have purchased, at any time, in any room in my home, on multiple devices, is bothersome and feels like an unnecessary expense.

dleslie 5y ago
Kodi + NFS can serve 4k mkv; I've done it.

johnnyanmac 5y ago

>but there isn't really an option that is "unaffiliated" anymore :( micro PC + some multi-launcher? I'm sure there's some 3rd party windows/Linux app that streamlines multiple services. Then add Plex server for any custom/downloaded media. It takes setup, but that's seems to almost always be the case; either a black box or assembly required (stability never guaranteed). Perosnally, my "set top box" is a chromecast. and then localcast/airflow for anything that doesn't have chromecast support (all my subcribed streams do, fortunately). It's google so it's not really "unaffiliated", but as long as I can mirror a screen, I technically never have to worry about contracts blocking chromecasting.

dleslie 5y ago
This is what I do: there are dozens of cheap x86 microPCs available now, for around or under 200 dollars, that can easily play all streaming media services. Passively cooled, good enough CPU and GPU to decode HD video. I run Kodi, Freetube, and the native Netflix and Prime Video apps on mine.