6 ms·

This is all so ridiculous and anti-consumer. There are working apps. Right now! The status quo should be that existing apps stick around. As far as codecs, or

This is all so ridiculous and anti-consumer. There are working apps. Right now! The status quo should be that existing apps stick around. As far as codecs, or anything of the sort, Roku has a device that they sell to customers. Google must write an app that works on that device. I think it's time we have legislation that working apps cannot be removed from platforms over stupid corporate spats.

aranelsurion 5y ago
Seems to me all these problems would simply vanish if consumers could decide what they want to install. All this craziness started with App Store 's to begin with, and hopefully one day might end with their demise. One can hope.
- falcolas 5y ago
  Nah, this all started with normal retail channels. They introduced the concept of the middle man and the markup that entity would demand for their services. App stores just brought this into the digital space, overwhelmingly large profit margins and all. Folks here frequently laud Epic for their attack against Apple, but even their (comparatively low) margins are kinda ridiculous for the bare minimum service they provide.
shakna 5y ago
> I think it's time we have legislation that working apps cannot be removed from platforms over stupid corporate spats. That's the way the Roku works. If you already have the app installed, then it will continue to work and function as-is. It's only disappeared from the store. If you uninstall, you won't be able to reinstall, but the app isn't remotely removed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- JediWing 5y ago
  But if the app is working, why shouldn't it be on the store?
tw04 5y ago
So google should continue to be forced to pay royalties for a codec because Roku refuses to slightly increase the cost-of-goods by utilizing a newer chipset that supports AV1? On HN of all places, I'm surprised to see that the guy throwing his weight around to GET RID of proprietary codecs is being portrayed as the bad guy. I'm sure if you dig far enough into my history you'll find I have absolutely no sympathy for google under almost any circumstances, but in this case they're doing the right thing.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  > supports VP1 You mean AV1
- yipeedipee 5y ago
  I would understand if: A) Roku were not paying to have it on their platform B) Consumers weren't paying for the service as well.
  - jsnell 5y ago
    But per the earlier reporting, Roku is not paying to have the app. The money is flowing in the opposite direction: they are taking a cut from both subscriptions and adds.
- totalZero 5y ago
  > On HN of all places, I'm surprised to see that the guy throwing his weight around to GET RID of proprietary codecs is being portrayed as the bad guy. When it comes to these gluttonous Big Tech companies, I tend to err on the side of the smaller guy. Your comment doesn't capture that dimension of the conflict.
  - cmeacham98 5y ago
    Why? Roku had over $1 billion in revune in 2019 (couldn't find 2020 data) - they're massive. While Google is obviously bigger comparing their relative sizes doesn't seem to make much sense.
atomicUpdate 5y ago
> Google must write an app that works on that device. Why? Saying they must support Roku devices is a pretty firm (and strange) stance to take. Where does the line get drawn on what devices they do or don't have to support? > I think it's time we have legislation that working apps cannot be removed from platforms over stupid corporate spats. This would certainly have unintended consequences. What do you consider "stupid corporate spats"? Why should Google be forced to support codecs on HW they don't manufacture?
- hundchenkatze 5y ago
  I believe they mean that if Google _wants_ YoutubeTV to run on Roku's devices then Google must write an app that supports that hardware, not that Google must support all devices in existence.
  - JediWing 5y ago
    Yes, exactly what I meant. If they want to be on the device, write within the bounds of the device and support it throughout it's lifetime. Don't hold your massive customer base as leverage after having supported multiple apps on the platform since forever.
oofabz 5y ago
You want to legally mandate backwards compatibility? That would cause all kinds of unintended consequences. The ability to break backwards compatibility has been central to the continued development of every platform. Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS, the web, are all unable to run certain old programs. Some of these platforms offer more compatibility than others, but none offer 100%. Most of the time, the breaking changes end up being good for consumers, especially in the long run. Change is necessary for technological progress and banning such activity would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
- JediWing 5y ago
  It's not backwards compatibility support, it's warranty. Google is running Youtube. It's very profitable. They can afford the maintenance burden of running these apps for the supported lifetime of Roku devices. It's really no different than running Youtube to an old computer.
g_p 5y ago
I am particularly concerned by the eWaste implications of this kind of decision. At a time of a global semiconductor shortage (likely for 6+ months), it looks like consumers will be left to deal with the fallout of these kinds of deals. If we normalise "deprecate that hardware as it lacks some logical software feature", that's bad for the environment, and bad for society in general. That's currently normalised though, so we have a long way to go to get this put right. It's a shame we're nearly full circle - we had fully programmable computers, now we need to add hardware codecs to them, in order to prevent those general purpose programmable computers from lasting too long (!)

aranelsurion 5y ago

Seems to me all these problems would simply vanish if consumers could decide what they want to install. All this craziness started with App Store 's to begin with, and hopefully one day might end with their demise. One can hope.

falcolas 5y ago
Nah, this all started with normal retail channels. They introduced the concept of the middle man and the markup that entity would demand for their services. App stores just brought this into the digital space, overwhelmingly large profit margins and all. Folks here frequently laud Epic for their attack against Apple, but even their (comparatively low) margins are kinda ridiculous for the bare minimum service they provide.

shakna 5y ago

> I think it's time we have legislation that working apps cannot be removed from platforms over stupid corporate spats. That's the way the Roku works. If you already have the app installed, then it will continue to work and function as-is. It's only disappeared from the store. If you uninstall, you won't be able to reinstall, but the app isn't remotely removed.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JediWing 5y ago
But if the app is working, why shouldn't it be on the store?

tw04 5y ago

So google should continue to be forced to pay royalties for a codec because Roku refuses to slightly increase the cost-of-goods by utilizing a newer chipset that supports AV1? On HN of all places, I'm surprised to see that the guy throwing his weight around to GET RID of proprietary codecs is being portrayed as the bad guy. I'm sure if you dig far enough into my history you'll find I have absolutely no sympathy for google under almost any circumstances, but in this case they're doing the right thing.

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
> supports VP1 You mean AV1
yipeedipee 5y ago
I would understand if: A) Roku were not paying to have it on their platform B) Consumers weren't paying for the service as well.
- jsnell 5y ago
  But per the earlier reporting, Roku is not paying to have the app. The money is flowing in the opposite direction: they are taking a cut from both subscriptions and adds.
totalZero 5y ago
> On HN of all places, I'm surprised to see that the guy throwing his weight around to GET RID of proprietary codecs is being portrayed as the bad guy. When it comes to these gluttonous Big Tech companies, I tend to err on the side of the smaller guy. Your comment doesn't capture that dimension of the conflict.
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  Why? Roku had over $1 billion in revune in 2019 (couldn't find 2020 data) - they're massive. While Google is obviously bigger comparing their relative sizes doesn't seem to make much sense.

atomicUpdate 5y ago

> Google must write an app that works on that device. Why? Saying they must support Roku devices is a pretty firm (and strange) stance to take. Where does the line get drawn on what devices they do or don't have to support? > I think it's time we have legislation that working apps cannot be removed from platforms over stupid corporate spats. This would certainly have unintended consequences. What do you consider "stupid corporate spats"? Why should Google be forced to support codecs on HW they don't manufacture?

hundchenkatze 5y ago
I believe they mean that if Google _wants_ YoutubeTV to run on Roku's devices then Google must write an app that supports that hardware, not that Google must support all devices in existence.
- JediWing 5y ago
  Yes, exactly what I meant. If they want to be on the device, write within the bounds of the device and support it throughout it's lifetime. Don't hold your massive customer base as leverage after having supported multiple apps on the platform since forever.

oofabz 5y ago

You want to legally mandate backwards compatibility? That would cause all kinds of unintended consequences. The ability to break backwards compatibility has been central to the continued development of every platform. Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS, the web, are all unable to run certain old programs. Some of these platforms offer more compatibility than others, but none offer 100%. Most of the time, the breaking changes end up being good for consumers, especially in the long run. Change is necessary for technological progress and banning such activity would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

JediWing 5y ago
It's not backwards compatibility support, it's warranty. Google is running Youtube. It's very profitable. They can afford the maintenance burden of running these apps for the supported lifetime of Roku devices. It's really no different than running Youtube to an old computer.

g_p 5y ago

I am particularly concerned by the eWaste implications of this kind of decision. At a time of a global semiconductor shortage (likely for 6+ months), it looks like consumers will be left to deal with the fallout of these kinds of deals. If we normalise "deprecate that hardware as it lacks some logical software feature", that's bad for the environment, and bad for society in general. That's currently normalised though, so we have a long way to go to get this put right. It's a shame we're nearly full circle - we had fully programmable computers, now we need to add hardware codecs to them, in order to prevent those general purpose programmable computers from lasting too long (!)