5 ms·

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.

by ru552 5y ago

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.

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.

by 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.