4 ms·

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,

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.

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.