34 ms·

Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube

243 points by cwwc 5y ago

pipeline_peak 5y ago
You can barely buy a TV without smart capability these days. I find it weird how Roku is even recognized as a platform and receive this much media coverage. They haven’t had a unique product in like 10 years. They are the Yelp of the antiquated stream box world
- qmarchi 5y ago
  They aren't relying on their own products to sell, but they provide the "operating system" for some cheaper Smart TVs. (Disc: Googler, not in YT)
  - admn2 5y ago
    I wrote off Roku years ago, but have found myself pretty shocked by how simple and easy to use their OS is. It's also fast.
- starik36 5y ago
  The reason people are buying them is because the built-in software is so bad and laggy. I have a Samsung and my primary way to view anything is through the plugged in Amazon Fire stick.
  - sixothree 5y ago
    Samsung TVs are a great example of why people like Roku.
  - Auracle 5y ago
    For Samsung, sure. My LG’s interface is pretty darn good.
- foogazi 5y ago
  My TCL smart TV is a RokuTV no separate device required
admn2 5y ago
Didn't they just do this with HBO?
dec0dedab0de 5y ago
This is just the YouTube TV app, not the regular YouTube app. Which is extra strange to me, If you have a paid for streaming service, wouldn't you want to be available on every platform you could be?
- op00to 5y ago
  Google makes too much money from the video sharing app ad revenue on Roku. Also even if they toss the Roku platform for TV, they keep the subscription revenue for YouTube TV - users will just use another device.
- graton 5y ago
  Good point. I completely missed the first time that it was the "YouTube TV" app, which I have zero interest in. I thought it was about plain "YouTube".
- ec109685 5y ago
  “… new Roku devices will continue to be unable to download YouTube or YouTube TV apps”
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
barelysapient 5y ago
This seems analogous to Microsoft's antitrust suit in the 90s. By forcing unreasonable demands on a competitor, Google improves revenues of their own products/licensed products. And further solidifies Youtube's monopoly market share.
- johnebgd 5y ago
  My thoughts exactly. This seems particularly stupid to do while regulators are circling them. Someone at Google is asleep at the wheel.
  - barelysapient 5y ago
    Right, well, that's great if you favor Google being untouched by regulators. Personally, I favor Google being broken up by services where they dominate market share. Search and video would split. And probably, Android would split.
    - kgermino 5y ago
      Your parent isn't saying they favor Google being untouched by regulators. It's assuming that Google prefers being untouched by regulators. Assuming Google doesn't want to be broken up, poking the bear with publicly anti-competitive behavior seems like a bad choice.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      Breaking up Google by services is such a lame last-century approach - it leaves the same network effects, the same middleman position, and the same business dynamics. And then we just have to hope that these independent companies, run by people who previously worked with one another, don't just recreate the same power structure through exclusive contracts and informal wink and nods. We know the right answer - it's forcing these companies to have publicly accessible, nondiscriminatory APIs for everything that is possible through their proprietary web interfaces or proprietary apps. There should be no private APIs, API keys, or separate contract/account needed to use said API - just the exact same login credentials that a user supplies to the website (if any). The accompanying software provider restriction is that companies shouldn't be able to take away functionality that has already been sold to users - ie Roku shouldn't be able to threaten Google with removal either. An update should never be mandatory, should always be able to be rolled back, should practically never remove an app, and the bar for maintaining backwards compatibility on an embedded device should be quite high. This forms a neutral baseline that companies can choose to form additional agreements on top of, without the threat of being extorted as the power dynamic changes.
kumarvvr 5y ago
From the original blog of Roku "First, Google continues to interfere with Roku’s independent search results, requiring that we preference YouTube over other content providers" "Second, Google discriminates against Roku by demanding search, voice, and data features that they do not insist on from other streaming platforms." I would be much more comfortable if the headline says, "Google made unreasonable demands on Roku to strike a YouTube deal"
- ethbr0 5y ago
  And we could just link to the original Roku blog post, instead of Axios: https://www.roku.com/blog/update-on-youtube-tv https://www.roku.com/blog/update-on-youtube-tv
  - inetknght 5y ago
    That doesn't load without javascript.
    - bmitc 5y ago
      It also doesn't load without a computer.
    - enobrev 5y ago
      You're absolutely right, this website works fine unless you deliberately disable it.
      - inetknght 5y ago
        Websites, especially blogs, should work fine without javascript. There's no reason whatsoever to require javascript for a user to read a few paragraphs.
        mynameisvlad 5y ago
        It's not your website, so who are you to say what is "fine" and what isn't? It's up to the website owner to determine what the minimum requirements for their site are, and they chose to require Javascript. Judging by the fact that Axios is still up and running, they don't seem to mind their decision.
InTheArena 5y ago
Roku is a advertising company. Google is a advertising company. They are fighting over who gets to sell you. This is why I have chosen to spend the extra money and use a Apple TV. Google still spies on my content when I am in their app, but at least apple is not using analytics and screenshots to figure out what I am watching and sell it others.
tyingq 5y ago
I just like the irony that Google is unhappy with the rules of a captive app store, how they are allowed to update, how their app works with the higher level search they don't control, etc.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  I'm not sure where the irony is, since Google doesn't have a captive app store, unlike say Apple.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    Ah, well I suppose Google can just then instruct customers to side load into their Rokus, since that's straightforward and not captive.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      Sideloading on a Roku is actually significantly more difficult thank sideloading on Android. You can also only sideload one application at a time. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Google has a leg to stand on here, but they're the least of the villains in this story as far as a captive app audience goes.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Crash0v3rid3 5y ago
The article doesn’t mention what exactly Google’s demands are. Doesn’t anyone have an idea on this?
- Spivak 5y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/22412430/roku-youtube-tv-google-feud-explainer-timeline https://www.theverge.com/22412430/roku-youtube-tv-google-feu... The only demand that Google hasn't refuted is requiring AV1 codec support. I can't find any specifics about search manipulation or user data access.
gameswithgo 5y ago
It is so dumb and twisted that there even needs to be a deal. Any web browser can hit youtube, you can probably get to youtube via a web browser anyway on a roku, if not they could in principle do that. Also dumb and twisted that as a paying youtube subscriber, I could buy a computer (a roku) and not be allowed to access youtube on it. Do better, tech.
- _ea1k 5y ago
  Yeah, I want something like an OpenRoku standard for TV service providers, and equal access from many hardware platforms. But these companies are moving steadily towards locking things down behind anticompetitive agreements.
- j1elo 5y ago
  Tech is fine. It's humans that get in the middle. And where I say "humans" you might very well read "money". So, Do better, people.
  - jermaustin1 5y ago
    I feel like this comes down to the same issue that every platform gets into with IAP. They want a cut because running a platform is expensive, but the apps on the platform don't want to pay for it, and talks break down. Roku, like Apple, like Google, like Salesforce, like Patreon, like all platforms with payments, rely on their cut of the IAP to make money. Roku, like Google, like Patreon, like all other platforms that are also on platforms, dont want to pay X% to the platform, they want a special rate.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      The actual problem is that running a platform isn't that expensive -- there are a hundred tiny Linux distributions that do it on essentially volunteer work -- but once you control a platform with a large number of users you can use it to shake down anyone who wants to reach them. And then people object to the shakedown and do whatever they can to try and stop it.
blendergeek 5y ago
> Roku still allows customers who bought and downloaded the YouTube TV app before it was removed from Roku's platform in April to use it. Should that not read "Google still allows ..."? Roku would have no interest in blocking their users from using an old version of YouTube TV that predates Google's (allegedly) anti-competitive demands. Google, on the other hand, might see those old non-compliance YouTube TV apps as problematic. Am I missing something here?
- claudiulodro 5y ago
  Google wants favorable distribution for YouTube TV over other streaming services Roku offers -- it's not about the users or the app or compliance.
- mdasen 5y ago
  If Roku stopped Roku customers from using YouTube TV, it would force a lot of YouTube TV customers to either a) buy non-Roku devices; b) move to a different service like Hulu with Live TV, DirecTV Stream, Sling, FuboTV, etc. If Roku removed YouTube TV from their boxes, it would put a lot of pressure on YouTube TV to agree to Roku's terms since they would likely start losing customers fast. Before, if a cable company had a dispute with a network, customers had to wait it out. If Roku has a dispute with YouTube TV, the customers can just switch to one of multiple replacements. That gives the box-providers a lot of leverage. Roku could even work with one of the alternatives to offer a switching bonus. "We're sorry that YouTube TV is being evil. If you switch to Hulu with Live TV, here's $10/mo off for the first year!"
  - dleslie 5y ago
    I think you're over estimating the willingness of customers to remain loyal to a device and not the content it serves.
    - john-radio 5y ago
      I think that's true in some cases but YouTube on a settop box, in my mind, is really just a "nice to have".
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
“Don’t be evil.”
- notwhereyouare 5y ago
  hasn't been their motto for a while now
  - jjkaczor 5y ago
    uh... That's the point... since they turned from 'scrappy-start-up' to the global world-dominating conglomerate of 'Umbrella corporation' (uh... 'Alphabet'), they dropped the phrase... Coincidence?
moocowtruck 5y ago
chromecast here i come
dtjb 5y ago
I get this situation is different since YouTube is looking for concessions on functionality, but I find it hard to defend Roku with their triple-dipping scheme. They charge for the device (I paid over $100 for my 4k HDR box), then they display massive ads covering 50% of the screen, then they want a cut of revenue from content providers as well. Roku burned through a lot of goodwill with their customers during the HBO Max holdout.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  I didn't know they charged money from app creators to be hosted. I thought they just made their money on hardware! All roku had to do was build some quality hardware and a decent streaming UI. The only thing that would take money to maintain from a server perspective should be the update servers and software servers. I saw them as one of the few dedicated streaming devices (next to Shield) for being "provider neutral" - that is, not apple and not Google.
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    OK. So they are supposed to make money selling one of the most unprofitable commodities on earth...electronic hardware? The only company pulling that off is Apple...and probably just on the iPhone. I paid $400 for a huge TCL TV. It probably cost $100 just to move it around the globe. There is no money for development or the platform/service in that price.
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      There's no way that a container full of TVs costs $100 per TV to ship. A bit of quick ddg-ing and it looks like a 40 foot container should be less than $4000 port to port.
      - supernovae 5y ago
        BOM -> Factory -> Warehouse -> Worldwide distribution -> Port of authority -> Warehouse -> Retailer/Etailer -> Customer We're spoiled..
lanevorockz 5y ago
YouTube is a proper tyranny, they use the algorithm as way to lobby society to their benefit. No wonder Google removed the "don't be evil" motto.
- sergiotapia 5y ago
  Use better youtube alternatives: https://odysee.com/ https://odysee.com/
hiram112 5y ago
It's probably in Roku (and other companies that depend on the big tech monopolies' good behavior) interest to ensure there are alternatives that they can "turn on" with the flip of a switch should Google play unfairly. For example, I think I remember some improved but unofficial YouTube app (on Github?) that a lot of HN users were sideloading onto their phones. I'm not sure of the details of how it worked, but it probably did something creative with Youtube's general web/http interface and then sliced up the resulting data to create an "improved" interface for phone users. Roku could fund the developers to ensure this thing worked like gangbusters on its own Roku OS. Should Google start getting greedy, Roku can just tell them to piss off, flip a switch, and now tens of millions of homes with Roku boxes and TVs are now watching Ad-free Youtube via Roku's "custom" version. They could do the same thing with customized versions of Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc. A company like Roku has enough resources to support the development and ensuing cat-and-mouse game of API tricks that the monopolies' would use to try and disable the usage, but in the end, Chromium is open source, and Roku has absolute control of their own OS and the traffic that goes in and out of their hardware.
judge2020 5y ago
The blog post: https://www.roku.com/blog/update-on-youtube-tv https://www.roku.com/blog/update-on-youtube-tv Previous discussions: "Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands " https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862 "An update to our YouTube TV members on Roku" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972
brk 5y ago
The competitive landscape for what is turning out to be the next evolution of in-home video content delivery is just making me realize that the content is not worth the hassle. I'm not going to replace a $100/mo CATV subscription with 10 (or even 5) $10/mo individual subscriptions, where I have to constantly remember which service provides a particular show. I'm not going to have multiple dongles and devices to watch content. I am absolutely not going to rely on smart TV apps to provide a consistent or complete user experience. I am not going to pay for a service and still be subjected to advertisements. Somebody ping me when there is actually a logical option for in-home video content delivery to my TV. Until then, I'll either leave it turned off or use traditional options.
- wincy 5y ago
  I just use a VPN, flexget, PLEX, and a torrent client. Automatically downloads new episodes at the resolution I want for the shows I want. I can watch at my leisure and get no ads. I hate advertisements. I also don’t watch my shows these days, it almost all feels like indoctrination at this point.
  - 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
    Similar approach, but PLEX + Usenet plumbing (Sonarr/Radarr/NZBGet/friends). I pay for ESPN+ because it is a convenient way to get some live sports content I like, and the quality of the service is really strong. Other networks make it harder, enforce blackouts, have terrible players that spin my fans up – and for that I use IPTV.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  I do a round-robin with friends/family where we each pay for a preferred service and share the accounts with everyone in the pool. Every service I've used has been extremely accommodating of this and allows for multiple profiles. If that's not an option, cancelling/pausing subscriptions should work fine. Once you've watched everything on NF, cancel/pause that and get a HBO Max or something.
  - 5y ago
015a 5y ago
This whole situation really feels like Google has their head stuck up their ass. People are just as likely to leave Roku, as they are to leave YouTube TV. Their subscriber numbers can't be strong enough to justify such idiotic behavior. To me, this sounds like a middle manager gone rogue, and no one higher up has stepped in yet and said "Ok, you shot your shot, but Roku called your bluff, you've taken this way too far." If this is really just about additional featured slots for Youtube TV in the Roku home screen. Apple would never cave to that. Xbox, Amazon, PlayStation, none of these companies would cave and give YouTube special treatment. Roku shouldn't either. I had read something earlier which suggested there was also an issue with Roku selling devices with processors too underpowered for some new compression algorithm YouTube wanted to use. If this is the case, this feels more reasonable to me, and I'd be less inclined to pass judgement. At the end of the day, this would be Roku trying to save money and move the costs on to Google, which isn't equitable.
- maxsilver 5y ago
  It's doubly weird, because YouTube TV is literally just a side project -- There's at least a 50% chance Google just totally shuts down YouTube TV within the next five years. (Like they already did with Google Play Music, and Google Play Movies + TV once before). Google's going to war with Roku over something that Google doesn't care about at all (it's one minor ancillary line of business to them), but is Roku's main and only meaningful line of business. If you want to be locked into a single vendor, you can already buy Google TV from Sony or TCL (where this vendor-lock-in is guaranteed). The whole point of Roku is that it's independent, it's not operated by any one streaming/media service, it's not a "Google TV" or an "Apple TV" or a "PlayStation TV" or whatever. Roku has to fight this, tooth-and-nail, or all other services on the Roku platform will demand the same, and totally destroy the entire Roku product lineup.
  - 015a 5y ago
    Right, and that's why I really can't believe this spat has the full force of Alphabet Inc behind it. I think its just Google's highly independent culture taken to the extreme with an idiotic, toxic, vengeful middle manager. Its a form of small dog syndrome; blowing their chest up as a compensation mechanism for how much of a side-project YouTube TV is for Alphabet, a desperate attempt to get additional promotion from Roku to prop up falling subscriber growth. In most other companies, everything else being equal: someone higher up would have already stepped in and said "YouTube TV isn't worth it, you need to end this, you're sullying the corporate brand." But that's not really how Google operates; at least, not yet.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Shit like this is why I just run a web browser on a windows PC hooked up to the TV. There is no other platform out there that can handle every streaming service and local media.
jihadjihad 5y ago
Could we get a moderator to change the title to say YouTube TV instead of YouTube? The dispute between Roku and Google has nothing to do with the latter, and is confusing to readers. Edit: I did not realize that the base YouTube app was specifically mentioned in the article, alongside YTTV. That's surprising and is a bigger deal than I'd thought before.
- LiquidInsect 5y ago
  "The two companies had a December deadline for a renegotiation, but sources say it hasn’t been met, and as a result, new Roku devices will continue to be unable to download YouTube or YouTube TV apps."
- NelsonMinar 5y ago
  That's incorrect; the new dispute is over the base YouTube app, not just YouTube TV.
post_break 5y ago
There is honestly only one good media box left and it's the Apple TV. The only ads it has is for the stupid Apple TV+ program but beyond that it supports every streaming service. I've dumped all my "it just works" rokus for Apple TVs. The nvidia shield was doing good but google got their hands on it and it's full of ads now too. The new AppleTV remote is much better and so far has passed all wife tests.
tyingq 5y ago
The service in question is YouTubeTV, which is basically a replacement for traditional cable. Local channels, things like TNT, CNN, etc. I had the service for a while, solely for local news. They bumped the price up a few times, and it was just too expensive at $65/month. I ended up buying a Tablo device instead. A bit of fiddling with different antennas, but it works great. There is the up-front cost of ~$250 or so for the device, decent antenna, and hard drive. Then $5/month after that, or $10/month if you want the commercial skip. I'm happy with it. You can access it from a Roku app, so the end experience for local news is pretty much the same as it was with YouTubeTV.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  I've been considering getting a TV tuner card so I can use Plex's DVR/live TV features. I haven't found a reason to actually do it yet though; after all, if I even want to watch the local news I can just go to their website.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    For me, it's the ability to DVR the news and watch it an hour or so later than when it airs...without commercials.
natpalmer1776 5y ago
This is no different than when a cable company (usually temporarily) drops a major media provider due to failed contract negotiations. The only difference here is that the specifics of the contract is being waved about in public to get ahead of customer fallout to losing access to the YouTube channel.
LocalH 5y ago
This is literally the modern day equivalent to the classic pissing matches between cable/satellite operators and station groups. Both sides are full of shit, honestly.
cowmix 5y ago
"Youtube TV", whatevz!
- ec109685 5y ago
  “… new Roku devices will continue to be unable to download YouTube or YouTube TV apps”
drewg123 5y ago
Roku should pay for a port of SmartTubeNext (Android TV alternative YT client with ad skipping and sponsor block) to Roku and pre-load it.
LightG 5y ago
Welcome to the world where I can just do wtf I like with the software at my disposal without middlemen trying to get their cut ... wakes up Don't worry about it, Roku ... I use your devices around the house and if I ever need a youtube on bigscreen, I just share direct to the "smart" TV instead ... Hey youtube, or whoever is causing this, you're just making yourselves look dumb to consumers who will either be angry at your or just bypass your dumb stance on the matter. Edit: I remember the old days with disdain, but does anyone miss the Microsoft days? I know I know ... but at least I could force my machine to do whatever the hell I wanted. Download an .exe and get on with it ... phew, actually, I'm forgetting the bad things ... but at least it was "open" and I had control. Kind of. You know what I mean.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > Don't worry about it, Roku ... I use your devices around the house and if I ever need a youtube on bigscreen, I just share direct to the "smart" TV instead ... That is what youtube wants and not what Roku wants though. Roku gets paid when you use youtube there, if you bypass the Roku ecosystem like this to go directly to Youtube then Youtube won.
  - LightG 5y ago
    Fair enough. I rarely use youtube on a TV screen anyway. Thanks for the heads up.
ridaj 5y ago
I get that Sonos, Roku, etc are in a tough spot but this business is structurally to be a good, cheap, dumb terminal. It's no use for Roku to try and get in the way at this point, it just reinforces incentives for players to undercut them with branded sticks (Chromecast, fire tv, apple TV...)
tehwebguy 5y ago
Roku should drop the API and just scrape YouTube from the client side. What's Google going to do, block everyone's home IP?
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  There is some stuff they can do. I forget the details as many years have passed. Microsoft was doing that for Windows Phone and there were some issues.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  Change their layout so the scraper stops working? Block the useragent? Block other identifiable parameters of Roku's networking stack or HTTP stack? Sue them?
- sidpatil 5y ago
  It'll end up being a cat-and-mouse game, similar to how youtube-dl is developed.
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  YouTube will probably do what Facebook is doing: randomize URLs and obfuscate the HTML weekly. It then becomes a game of catch-up for Roku, they'd always be one step behind.
silisili 5y ago
This would actually perhaps interest me, then. I have a CCwGTV, and the voice search drives me up a wall. me: "hulu" it: <spinning> "hello! hope you are enjoying" or whatever it says because it thinks I said hello. me: "no hulu you idiot" it: <spinning> "here are search results for 'no hulu you idiot' on youtube" and takes me to the youtube search results. Ideally the voice search would get miles better, but until then, I'd do with Youtube just not existing on it, if that is possible.
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
Funny seeing all the Roku love here. What I've observed when comparing Roku to other devices. I buy my apple TV -> I get basically no ads, they don't seem to charge that much to allow folks like youtube tv to have an app on the platform Roku -> I buy and own my device. They seem to sell advertising all over the device I paid for. They seem to be charging companies for buttons and/or to be able to put an app on the roku platform. Sorry - not that interested in Roku anymore.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  Yeah, they're actually a pretty crap offering. Between the app buttons on the remote (which serve only a single purpose: interrupting whatever we're watching when my toddler decides to grab the remote and press one of the app buttons), the absolutely AWFUL wifi range (had to get a new AP just for it, even though every other device - in the same room as the Roku but further from the AP - worked fine: iPhone, OnePlus N100, Google Home Mini, Thinkpad, Dell), and the fact that half of the apps on it seem like they would require twice as much processing power as it has to actually be useable...
- supernovae 5y ago
  The entire apple ecosystem is extremely expensive to be on - asking 30% of revenue share - not much for major networks since they don't have to invent it themselves, but a hefty tax to consumers in comparison to non apple devices. The funny part is, they charge a premium on both ends and people like it. (and i do believe Apple had to fight similar battles on youtube placement...)
  - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
    This is really totally false. Youtube TV - Apple is not taking 30% - that's a lie basically as an example. Most of these major players (Youtube TV etc) you can sign up just on a regular website. Apple only takes a cut of these subscriptions IF you use their platform to enable them. If you do use them, the % is only 15% after 1 year. Either way - the outcome is I as a user have good access to lots of good content, no crap ads, no advertising buttons I don't want and more. So it's a win for me. I'd really like Roku to be transparent in terms of what they are asking for from Youtube. In the past, they refused to support encoding Youtube TV was using etc.
Pxtl 5y ago
Wait, so the app will still exist... this is about Roku offering cross-provider search and deep links into Youtube videos from Roku shell-level dashboards, right? So Roku isn't losing Youtube support altogether.
sjg007 5y ago
I have apple tv and roku. Both work great, now that roku can get apple tv+ it is even better. My kids find the roku remote easier than the apple one. So much so that I bought a roku express 4k stick instead of another apple tv. Seems good enough.
- bgorman 5y ago
  Roku even supports Airplay. Not sure who the Apple TV is for at this point.
  - criddell 5y ago
    Apple TV is for people who want to pay for a device with money and not their data.
zzzeek 5y ago
remember internet TV was going to solve the problem of cable TV providers being anti competitive? yeah me neither.
dr-detroit 5y ago
This is what I call a HackerNews problem. You refuse to buy both a $15 chromecast and a $14 Roku but you annually purchase iWatches each costing over $1000
mrkramer 5y ago
Classic story of two sides pushing their own self interests while ignoring the interests of the users.
saisundar 5y ago
Becoming the next smart TV platform is the real war here. By becoming the go-to platform for smart tv apps, the winner gets the following advantages - rich access to search and voice data (which, by the Amazon playbook, is super valuable for originals) - hardware profits - ads related profits. My definition of ads are any apps/placements that are not organic. This includes actual ads for shows etc, but also placements in search results dedicated sections etc. - per transaction profits. This is the apple playbook. Take a 30% cut of every transaction. - Subscription profits from original apps - say roku originals or Apple tv+. There is a lot going on here, and what we are seeing here as a deadlock is a stalemate due to clashes between Google and roku on many of the above issues.
forgotmysn 5y ago
I feel like I've read about Roku struggling to come to terms with every streaming service over the years. They only just came around with HBO, finally getting HBO Max on Roku devices. I get the impression that the people running Roku are real shitty people to work with.
astral303 5y ago
Fuck YouTube and their AppleTV app. It's exhibit #1 in anticompetitive behavior -- ship a shitty, subpar app, for a premium service. I wish that Apple were to prohibit any custom video playing controls on AppleTV, but this crowd will roast Apple alive for yet another "walled garden" move. Please Apple, put up walls against a shitty video streaming experience. After the steaaming garbage pile that is the YouTube app on AppleTV, YouTube and Google has lost all respect in my eyes. Go Roku.
- astral303 5y ago
  The downvotes prove the rampant Google fanboyism on HN. The YouTube app for AppleTV is exhibit #1 in Google's anticompetitive behavior.
dirtyid 5y ago
Looking forward to have a Youtube button that goes nowhere on my Roku remote in addition to Google Videos.
brightball 5y ago
Hulu TV it is then.
angryasian 5y ago
Theres so many better options these days for a simple box to install apps and stream media. Its pretty much commodity, why anyone cares about Roku alone is surprising to me. Content is king and Roku is not it.
leafmeal 5y ago
If you're sick of Roku's ads and constant conflicts like this, consider a device such as https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/ https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/ which runs Android.
dcdc123 5y ago
Here's a workaround for you: Use an ad-blocking browser on your phone (I use Brave on iPhone) to view youtube.com then cast the videos ad-free to your Roku using Roku's native Airplay support added last year. Also, when your Roku is EoL, do not replace it with another Roku.
Jensson 5y ago
If a company is spreading lies about you then there is no reason to continue working with that company. I'm not saying Roku did that, but if they did then why would Google stay with them and try to argue instead of just leaving them? Edit: I am specifically referring to the fact that Google claims Roku did this: > Roku has once again chosen to make unproductive and baseless claims rather than try to work constructively with us. Since we haven’t been able to continue our conversations in good faith, our partnership for all new Roku devices will unfortunately end on December 9.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Because it won’t look good in the trust-busting lawsuit. Monopolies kill competition like this. Is this different? Maybe. Doesn’t look good.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    If Roku really did spread lies about Google then I doubt Roku would win the lawsuit. Google just needs to show the paper trail.
varelse 5y ago
I was bored with billionaires fighting with each other over nothing before it was cool.
jrockway 5y ago
Why does Roku even need to work with YouTube to put YouTube on the device? It's a web page that can be opened in any browser. For that reason, I have to assume that Roku wants to extract money from Google here, and as with net neutrality, they're right to not pay.
- azinman2 5y ago
  It’s better used as an app on these devices. A webpage would be very cumbersome to use with a basic remote and lower powered processor. I also assume they integrated into search and other roku functionality.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    Could Roku start distributing New Pipe[0] or similar? It works ok-ish on my android TVs. [0]https://newpipe.net/ https://newpipe.net/
    - commoner 5y ago
      Google would probably find ways to obstruct any of Roku's alternative YouTube clients, just as Google disabled Microsoft's YouTube client on Windows Phone years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/google-disables-windows-phone-youtube-app https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/...
    - jackbravo 5y ago
      Your personal account can get suspended for abusing the service, like when sidestepping their official apps to download videos.
  - warioftw 5y ago
    You'd think that, but YT engineers solved this challenge using two methods: 1. Build an efficient "browser" (HTML5 runtime) that can run a web app. 2. Write a webapp specifically targeted towards TVs, includes 10 foot interface, etc. Source: https://cobalt.dev/ https://cobalt.dev/
CydeWeys 5y ago
Time to get a new TV then. It's been time for awhile but this is gonna be the inciting incident. And definitely not getting a Roku TV as my new one.
- deeblering4 5y ago
  This is exactly why its better to buy a dumb TV and install a $50 HDMI stick (or two)
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    Turn wifi off for the existing TV (smart or not matters little if you don't connect it) and stick the same $50 HDMI stick and avoid throwing out the fully functional display? At this point, ads displayed to the users who use it as a smart TV probably subsidize those of us who use such TVs without connecting them to anything. My latest TV is enormous and 4K and under a few hundred dollars. The quality is fine, even if occasionally I accidentally get it to switch to the input that involves agreeing to terms and conditions. Of course it should be super illegal to ask you to agree to terms and conditions after spending over a hundred dollars, shipping something, installing it over hours, after you finally power it on... but at least I can be one of those rare smart TV customers that never agreed to them and can prove it!
    - deeblering4 5y ago
      Hmm, avoiding the terms and conditions for a TV isn't exactly selling me on this idea, but yeah if you already have a smart TV obviously it's good to stretch its usefulness as far as possible. But when shopping for a new TV, just buy a dumb one or a projector.
      - neltnerb 5y ago
        That's what I'm saying, it seems like a smart TV is cheaper even if you use it as a dumb TV. I think that they are selling them at reduced margins or even as a loss leader in order to get you to pay them for the smart features.
bserge 5y ago
Users of a lot of Chinese TVs and other products running Android: "first time?"
- marderfarker2 5y ago
  Chinese Android TVs don’t have such problems, because you can sideload any APK and boom it works.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
phdelightful 5y ago
A bad look when Alphabet is selling competing devices like Chromecast (at least partially competing) and then pull YouTube from Roku devices.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  Interestingly, and only slightly related, Apple seems to be expanding the number of devices that it's on. There was an apple.com web site recently that stated that either Apple Music or AppleTV was available on game consoles. Naturally, as soon as someone noticed and made it public, it was pulled. But it's interesting to see how readily the big content producers are willing to add and remove themselves from people's boxes.
- ninth_ant 5y ago
  That's not "a bad look", it's continuing anti-competitive behaviour by an aggressive monopolist. Google using their dominance in one area "youtube" to hurt competitors in another space -- in this case to promote their Chromecast devices. Google has already earned $8B in fines for similar behaviour in the last few years in some of their other product areas (ads, android, and search). This is just what they do at this point, it's not a "look".
LocalH 5y ago
So Google is using YouTube as leverage to convince Roku to do what they want, not just YouTube TV. This is literally a cable/network pissing match, except with streaming. Fuck 'em both, honestly. Neither one is an innocent party.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- voidwtf 5y ago
  Roku has been demanding increasing amounts of revenue sharing from their "channels". I moved away from Roku after their spat with Spectrum made some of my Roku TVs useless for watching my Spectrum subscription (kids doing kid things deleted the app and it couldn't be reinstalled). I've never had any app be subject to a contract dispute on my Apple TV, whereas Roku has had 3 that affected me at varying points. Take a look at Roku's quarterly reports and you can see that they're not a streaming device company, they're a streaming platform company. Roku televisions are not the product, you are the product. From Q3 2016 to Q2 2021 their platform revenue has increased from 27.3% to 82.5%, or 24.3M to 532M. This is not even taking into account the profit margins for the platform are much higher than they are for the device, in some cases they're using the device as a loss-leader. Roku has taken the Apple App Store revenue sharing route and decided that even when they don't provide the content they still want a considerable piece of the monthly revenue. They've taken it a step farther by placing ads on the home screen, search screen, and idle screen as well.
  - LocalH 5y ago
    IIRC, during that Spectrum spat, they were giving channel codes to people who either could prove, or would attest, that they had the channel installed before the date that it was removed. I myself got the channel reinstalled after doing some research by trying different variants of the codes that were reported by others. Then, it became moot when they reached an agreement and began making the channel available again.
daemonhunter 5y ago
Sigh. Stuck in between corporate squabbles again.
jimt1234 5y ago
A few weeks after all this beef started, Google emailed me with an offer for a free "Chromecast with Google TV" device. I thought it was weird, as the email (and the offer) was completely unsolicited. The email mentioned something about thanking me for being a YouTube-TV customer. I'm sure Google knows I watch YouTube-TV from my Roku-enabled TV, so I figured it was related to the beef. I just though it was weird at first (like, what's the catch here?), but now I get it - and it was a brilliant move. The Chromecast/Google-TV device is better, much more responsive than Roku on my TV, which was always my biggest complaint with Roku (too slow!). So now, I've pretty much abandoned Roku, and use my Chromecast/Google-TV device almost exclusively. Well-played, Google. Your move, Roku - send me free shit! LOL
- gadrev 5y ago
  Lately, the Chromecast has become substantially worse, with many more ads and of course a stupid update nobody asked for showing kind of a tablet UI when you're in "idle" mode with the phone connected to the TV (idk how you're supposed to operate it, but I don't care, ofc it's a clickbait showcase screen). Before the increase in ad frequency (and some bugs like a random unlinking of the device when you put the app in background) it was pretty good TBH. But of course, everything worsens as viewership gets more concentrated and there are less alternatives. Will there ever be a product that... just stays like it was when you bought it? A lot of things tech related seem like a bait and switch... you have this.. haha! now you don't /rant
  - curiousgal 5y ago
    Well the latest Chromecast comes with its own OS and a remote so you no longer need a phone to use it.
  - gtirloni 5y ago
    Chromecasts have ads? I've never seen one in my life on them. Are you talking about free YouTube? I liked the first Chromecast and since I upgraded to the latest with Google TV, I think it's the best experience ever. I sometimes want to take mine to friends' place so I don't have you suffer through whatever horrible smart TV interface they have.
johnvaluk 5y ago
I've used Roku in various incarnations (box, TV) since it was released and was excited when the official YouTube app was finally available. But lately, it's been painful to watch YouTube due to the constant and disruptive advertising. Part of me is looking forward to the app being pulled from Roku, since it's so much like the cable TV experience I thought I was escaping. I don't feel this way about the other premium channels I use (Netflix, Prime Video). Is it worth paying for YouTube? Will pulling the app make it impossible to use the premium (paid) service on Roku devices?
- ypcx 5y ago
  For some reason the Apple TV YouTube app's recommendations are pretty abysmal compared to the desktop website or the iPad app, and Watch Later isn't saving the day either. Could be that the app displays a grid of just 6 videos per screen, which is utterly ridiculous for any TV screen, god forbid a projector. Premium is still worth it though.
- unclekev 5y ago
  > Is it worth paying for YouTube? That depends on how much not seeing that 'constant and disruptive advertising' is worth to you.
  - pkulak 5y ago
    Though, you still get all the in-video promos, even when paying. That ticks me off a bit, but it's not too bad.
    - notyourwork 5y ago
      That's on the content creator, not YouTube right?
      - inerte 5y ago
        With the current system, yes. YouTube could do something where the content creator specifies the sponsored part (if it's not straight up merchandising and product placement) and paying subscribers could have that skipped. Anyway, I chimed in to say YouTube Premium to me is worth a lot. I watch more YouTube because of it, it's better, better for the kids, less annoying, the whole thing is fantastically better. Every time I click an YouTube video on my employer account and get an ad it's such a shock.
deeblering4 5y ago
Then I’ll keep the roku and cancel youtube premium. Google is just the worst.
- notyourwork 5y ago
  My perception of Google has shifted from the kid in the candy store feeling I used to get about anything Google touched. Now I'm skeptical of every move they make and don't feel like they are operating in my best interest. Maybe I was always naive but the Google I knew 10+ years ago isn't the one I know today and it makes me sad.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    The Google founders started the process of stepping down around 10 years ago. Pretty sure this was the turning point and the company just got worse since then: > The explanation that Page posted Tuesday on his Google Plus profile cleared up a mystery hanging over him since he lost his voice a year ago, causing him to miss Google Inc.'s annual shareholders meeting in June and a conference call to discuss the company's quarterly earnings in July. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/google-ceo-larry-page-discloses-health-issue-1.1302245 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/google-ceo-larry-page-discl...
    - ajcp 5y ago
      Medical reasons aside everything I've seen on them stepping away hints that they were unhappy with (although resigned to) the corporate behemoth that Google had become. It could no longer do things the way it did that made it so successful. I think we've seen their fears of that these past 10 years.
wanderingmind 5y ago
Maybe its a good time for Roku to fund some of the developers like Yurii who has built SmartTubeNext and make it a native app in Roku. That will be a reason to buy Roku over its competitors.
dash488 5y ago
Roku and AndroidTV aside, has someone come up with an opensource alternative to either of these spammy services? Im in neither camp as I have had both functionalities preinstalled on a TV. Recently with my newer Android TV it is riddled with ADs and is noisy on my network with telemetry data, even when not in use. When I just want to turn it on and play PS4, it takes time to load the latest on Amazon Prime, Netflix and whatever other streaming service they are shilling, none which I pay for. When most of my media is on Plex or a gaming system. I just want my TV to be dumb again.
- AceJohnny2 5y ago
  Kodi/XBMC? Plex? Unfortunately that's only for local media. Obviously all the commercial streaming services have DRM that make them incompatible with open-source.
  - croutonwagon 5y ago
    Plex has its own telemetry and doesn’t really make devices per-se. it’s an App, including on Roku. My hous is basically all rokus at this point. But I do keep the isolated on their own net and behind pi-holes. I’d love an opensource alternative that can do all the things Roku does. Netflix, Hulu (though I don’t have it), prime, or Plex etc. Sure with something like atomictoolkit you can do it all in Plex, to a degree. But I even use YouTube for things like guitar lessons/song learning etc. To be fair. I can probably do that with those options. Roku was simple enough that I can work around. I should probably do some better research on alternatives.
  - blendergeek 5y ago
    There is an "app" for most commerical services available for Kodi. These apps do not break DRM (they use an extracted Widevine binary from ChromeOS). These app are not official however and are not in the main repositories for Kodi. Just search the Kodi forums for the service you need and you will find the app (for most services that I know about).
- commoner 5y ago
  KDE is making an attempt with Plasma Bigscreen: https://plasma-bigscreen.org https://plasma-bigscreen.org It runs on the Raspberry Pi 4.
babyshake 5y ago
I find that very basic navigation like getting to a channel from a video published by that channel is very frustrating on the Roku app. Is this by design, or just laziness?
- Wistar 5y ago
  I never have figured that one out.
wilburTheDog 5y ago
I've heard good things about the Nvidia Shield. I've even considered getting one to replace my Roku, but they cost so much more than all competitors it gives me pause. They do run Android, though, so that's pretty flexible. Does anyone think they're worth the price?
- ferdowsi 5y ago
  The Shield is probably the most valuable bit of electronics in my home. It's the right level of complexity for family/guests to consume media. Gamestream, the Plex Server, and the ability to serve as a NAS are big wins as well.
macspoofing 5y ago
YouTube is too big.
petarb 5y ago
The only reason I’m using a Roku device is because Xfinity Stream is only available on Roku and I don’t want to pay shit Comcast for an extra box. Talk about two companies everyone hates. I really hope Xfinity Stream makes its way to Apple TV but I highly doubt it with the bureaucracy.
foxyv 5y ago
I recently got an Apple TV just for Zwift after using Roku for 8 years. The difference between Apple TV 4K and the Roku Ultra is striking. I got my Apple TV used for about the same price as the Ultra new. However I think paying an extra $100 for an Apple TV is a pretty good investment. Roku is SLOW. Apple TV is so fast it makes my brain hurt. I'm so used to clicking on YouTube then looking at my phone for a minute waiting for it to start. Now it just starts up in a few seconds. Also the stupid buttons on the Roku remote keep opening Hulu and Vudu whenever someone sits on the remote. I'll probably just switch to Apple TV for everything soon. I dislike their unreliable, overpriced, and unrepairable laptops, phones, and tablets. But the TV box seems pretty solid so far.
- josefresco 5y ago
  > Roku is SLOW What's slow? I have several Roku Streaming Sticks which are their lowest hardware spec and I have never experienced any UI slowness. I love the clicky remote, and can blaze through DVR recordings using the skip buttons. It's so fast, I can skip 15 between pitches in an MLB game without lag, whereas with my Chromecast it's a slight delay which doesn't make it worth it.
  - foxyv 5y ago
    It may be that I just have an older Roku Ultra (2019 ish) but it's definitely slow. Loading Youtube takes 30 seconds to a minute, moving between videos is a 30 second delay, everything loads slowly. It likes to eat inputs from the remote as well. Scrolling through video is brutally painful. The Apple TV is probably 5-10x faster on everything.
    - josefresco 5y ago
      Yeah something's wrong. I bought my Rokus over several years, some of them are older than 2019 for sure. The only issue we had was my daughter's remote stopped working. Otherwise the low end streaming sticks, performance wise have been very fast. My Smart LG TV in contrast, is painfully slow. Given the spat between Google/Roku I bought a Chromecast but I'm not thrilled given it doesn't support multiple YTTV profiles.
HelixEndeavor 5y ago
Two garbage companies trying to out-garbage each other.

243 points by cwwc 5y ago

You can barely buy a TV without smart capability these days. I find it weird how Roku is even recognized as a platform and receive this much media coverage. They haven’t had a unique product in like 10 years. They are the Yelp of the antiquated stream box world

qmarchi 5y ago
They aren't relying on their own products to sell, but they provide the "operating system" for some cheaper Smart TVs. (Disc: Googler, not in YT)
- admn2 5y ago
  I wrote off Roku years ago, but have found myself pretty shocked by how simple and easy to use their OS is. It's also fast.
starik36 5y ago
The reason people are buying them is because the built-in software is so bad and laggy. I have a Samsung and my primary way to view anything is through the plugged in Amazon Fire stick.
- sixothree 5y ago
  Samsung TVs are a great example of why people like Roku.
- Auracle 5y ago
  For Samsung, sure. My LG’s interface is pretty darn good.
foogazi 5y ago
My TCL smart TV is a RokuTV no separate device required

admn2 5y ago

Didn't they just do this with HBO?

dec0dedab0de 5y ago

This is just the YouTube TV app, not the regular YouTube app. Which is extra strange to me, If you have a paid for streaming service, wouldn't you want to be available on every platform you could be?

op00to 5y ago
Google makes too much money from the video sharing app ad revenue on Roku. Also even if they toss the Roku platform for TV, they keep the subscription revenue for YouTube TV - users will just use another device.
graton 5y ago
Good point. I completely missed the first time that it was the "YouTube TV" app, which I have zero interest in. I thought it was about plain "YouTube".
ec109685 5y ago
“… new Roku devices will continue to be unable to download YouTube or YouTube TV apps”
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

barelysapient 5y ago

This seems analogous to Microsoft's antitrust suit in the 90s. By forcing unreasonable demands on a competitor, Google improves revenues of their own products/licensed products. And further solidifies Youtube's monopoly market share.

johnebgd 5y ago
My thoughts exactly. This seems particularly stupid to do while regulators are circling them. Someone at Google is asleep at the wheel.
- barelysapient 5y ago
  Right, well, that's great if you favor Google being untouched by regulators. Personally, I favor Google being broken up by services where they dominate market share. Search and video would split. And probably, Android would split.
  - kgermino 5y ago
    Your parent isn't saying they favor Google being untouched by regulators. It's assuming that Google prefers being untouched by regulators. Assuming Google doesn't want to be broken up, poking the bear with publicly anti-competitive behavior seems like a bad choice.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    Breaking up Google by services is such a lame last-century approach - it leaves the same network effects, the same middleman position, and the same business dynamics. And then we just have to hope that these independent companies, run by people who previously worked with one another, don't just recreate the same power structure through exclusive contracts and informal wink and nods. We know the right answer - it's forcing these companies to have publicly accessible, nondiscriminatory APIs for everything that is possible through their proprietary web interfaces or proprietary apps. There should be no private APIs, API keys, or separate contract/account needed to use said API - just the exact same login credentials that a user supplies to the website (if any). The accompanying software provider restriction is that companies shouldn't be able to take away functionality that has already been sold to users - ie Roku shouldn't be able to threaten Google with removal either. An update should never be mandatory, should always be able to be rolled back, should practically never remove an app, and the bar for maintaining backwards compatibility on an embedded device should be quite high. This forms a neutral baseline that companies can choose to form additional agreements on top of, without the threat of being extorted as the power dynamic changes.

kumarvvr 5y ago

From the original blog of Roku "First, Google continues to interfere with Roku’s independent search results, requiring that we preference YouTube over other content providers" "Second, Google discriminates against Roku by demanding search, voice, and data features that they do not insist on from other streaming platforms." I would be much more comfortable if the headline says, "Google made unreasonable demands on Roku to strike a YouTube deal"

ethbr0 5y ago
And we could just link to the original Roku blog post, instead of Axios: https://www.roku.com/blog/update-on-youtube-tv https://www.roku.com/blog/update-on-youtube-tv
- inetknght 5y ago
  That doesn't load without javascript.
  - bmitc 5y ago
    It also doesn't load without a computer.
  - enobrev 5y ago
    You're absolutely right, this website works fine unless you deliberately disable it.
    - inetknght 5y ago
      Websites, especially blogs, should work fine without javascript. There's no reason whatsoever to require javascript for a user to read a few paragraphs.
      - mynameisvlad 5y ago
        It's not your website, so who are you to say what is "fine" and what isn't? It's up to the website owner to determine what the minimum requirements for their site are, and they chose to require Javascript. Judging by the fact that Axios is still up and running, they don't seem to mind their decision.

InTheArena 5y ago

Roku is a advertising company. Google is a advertising company. They are fighting over who gets to sell you. This is why I have chosen to spend the extra money and use a Apple TV. Google still spies on my content when I am in their app, but at least apple is not using analytics and screenshots to figure out what I am watching and sell it others.

tyingq 5y ago

I just like the irony that Google is unhappy with the rules of a captive app store, how they are allowed to update, how their app works with the higher level search they don't control, etc.

jfrunyon 5y ago
I'm not sure where the irony is, since Google doesn't have a captive app store, unlike say Apple.
- tyingq 5y ago
  Ah, well I suppose Google can just then instruct customers to side load into their Rokus, since that's straightforward and not captive.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    Sideloading on a Roku is actually significantly more difficult thank sideloading on Android. You can also only sideload one application at a time. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Google has a leg to stand on here, but they're the least of the villains in this story as far as a captive app audience goes.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Crash0v3rid3 5y ago

The article doesn’t mention what exactly Google’s demands are. Doesn’t anyone have an idea on this?

Spivak 5y ago
https://www.theverge.com/22412430/roku-youtube-tv-google-feud-explainer-timeline https://www.theverge.com/22412430/roku-youtube-tv-google-feu... The only demand that Google hasn't refuted is requiring AV1 codec support. I can't find any specifics about search manipulation or user data access.

gameswithgo 5y ago

It is so dumb and twisted that there even needs to be a deal. Any web browser can hit youtube, you can probably get to youtube via a web browser anyway on a roku, if not they could in principle do that. Also dumb and twisted that as a paying youtube subscriber, I could buy a computer (a roku) and not be allowed to access youtube on it. Do better, tech.

_ea1k 5y ago
Yeah, I want something like an OpenRoku standard for TV service providers, and equal access from many hardware platforms. But these companies are moving steadily towards locking things down behind anticompetitive agreements.
j1elo 5y ago
Tech is fine. It's humans that get in the middle. And where I say "humans" you might very well read "money". So, Do better, people.
- jermaustin1 5y ago
  I feel like this comes down to the same issue that every platform gets into with IAP. They want a cut because running a platform is expensive, but the apps on the platform don't want to pay for it, and talks break down. Roku, like Apple, like Google, like Salesforce, like Patreon, like all platforms with payments, rely on their cut of the IAP to make money. Roku, like Google, like Patreon, like all other platforms that are also on platforms, dont want to pay X% to the platform, they want a special rate.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    The actual problem is that running a platform isn't that expensive -- there are a hundred tiny Linux distributions that do it on essentially volunteer work -- but once you control a platform with a large number of users you can use it to shake down anyone who wants to reach them. And then people object to the shakedown and do whatever they can to try and stop it.

blendergeek 5y ago

> Roku still allows customers who bought and downloaded the YouTube TV app before it was removed from Roku's platform in April to use it. Should that not read "Google still allows ..."? Roku would have no interest in blocking their users from using an old version of YouTube TV that predates Google's (allegedly) anti-competitive demands. Google, on the other hand, might see those old non-compliance YouTube TV apps as problematic. Am I missing something here?

claudiulodro 5y ago
Google wants favorable distribution for YouTube TV over other streaming services Roku offers -- it's not about the users or the app or compliance.
mdasen 5y ago
If Roku stopped Roku customers from using YouTube TV, it would force a lot of YouTube TV customers to either a) buy non-Roku devices; b) move to a different service like Hulu with Live TV, DirecTV Stream, Sling, FuboTV, etc. If Roku removed YouTube TV from their boxes, it would put a lot of pressure on YouTube TV to agree to Roku's terms since they would likely start losing customers fast. Before, if a cable company had a dispute with a network, customers had to wait it out. If Roku has a dispute with YouTube TV, the customers can just switch to one of multiple replacements. That gives the box-providers a lot of leverage. Roku could even work with one of the alternatives to offer a switching bonus. "We're sorry that YouTube TV is being evil. If you switch to Hulu with Live TV, here's $10/mo off for the first year!"
- dleslie 5y ago
  I think you're over estimating the willingness of customers to remain loyal to a device and not the content it serves.
  - john-radio 5y ago
    I think that's true in some cases but YouTube on a settop box, in my mind, is really just a "nice to have".

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

“Don’t be evil.”

notwhereyouare 5y ago
hasn't been their motto for a while now
- jjkaczor 5y ago
  uh... That's the point... since they turned from 'scrappy-start-up' to the global world-dominating conglomerate of 'Umbrella corporation' (uh... 'Alphabet'), they dropped the phrase... Coincidence?

moocowtruck 5y ago

chromecast here i come

dtjb 5y ago

I get this situation is different since YouTube is looking for concessions on functionality, but I find it hard to defend Roku with their triple-dipping scheme. They charge for the device (I paid over $100 for my 4k HDR box), then they display massive ads covering 50% of the screen, then they want a cut of revenue from content providers as well. Roku burned through a lot of goodwill with their customers during the HBO Max holdout.

unethical_ban 5y ago
I didn't know they charged money from app creators to be hosted. I thought they just made their money on hardware! All roku had to do was build some quality hardware and a decent streaming UI. The only thing that would take money to maintain from a server perspective should be the update servers and software servers. I saw them as one of the few dedicated streaming devices (next to Shield) for being "provider neutral" - that is, not apple and not Google.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  OK. So they are supposed to make money selling one of the most unprofitable commodities on earth...electronic hardware? The only company pulling that off is Apple...and probably just on the iPhone. I paid $400 for a huge TCL TV. It probably cost $100 just to move it around the globe. There is no money for development or the platform/service in that price.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    There's no way that a container full of TVs costs $100 per TV to ship. A bit of quick ddg-ing and it looks like a 40 foot container should be less than $4000 port to port.
    - supernovae 5y ago
      BOM -> Factory -> Warehouse -> Worldwide distribution -> Port of authority -> Warehouse -> Retailer/Etailer -> Customer We're spoiled..

lanevorockz 5y ago

YouTube is a proper tyranny, they use the algorithm as way to lobby society to their benefit. No wonder Google removed the "don't be evil" motto.

sergiotapia 5y ago
Use better youtube alternatives: https://odysee.com/ https://odysee.com/

hiram112 5y ago

It's probably in Roku (and other companies that depend on the big tech monopolies' good behavior) interest to ensure there are alternatives that they can "turn on" with the flip of a switch should Google play unfairly. For example, I think I remember some improved but unofficial YouTube app (on Github?) that a lot of HN users were sideloading onto their phones. I'm not sure of the details of how it worked, but it probably did something creative with Youtube's general web/http interface and then sliced up the resulting data to create an "improved" interface for phone users. Roku could fund the developers to ensure this thing worked like gangbusters on its own Roku OS. Should Google start getting greedy, Roku can just tell them to piss off, flip a switch, and now tens of millions of homes with Roku boxes and TVs are now watching Ad-free Youtube via Roku's "custom" version. They could do the same thing with customized versions of Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc. A company like Roku has enough resources to support the development and ensuing cat-and-mouse game of API tricks that the monopolies' would use to try and disable the usage, but in the end, Chromium is open source, and Roku has absolute control of their own OS and the traffic that goes in and out of their hardware.

judge2020 5y ago

The blog post: https://www.roku.com/blog/update-on-youtube-tv https://www.roku.com/blog/update-on-youtube-tv Previous discussions: "Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands " https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862 "An update to our YouTube TV members on Roku" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972

brk 5y ago

The competitive landscape for what is turning out to be the next evolution of in-home video content delivery is just making me realize that the content is not worth the hassle. I'm not going to replace a $100/mo CATV subscription with 10 (or even 5) $10/mo individual subscriptions, where I have to constantly remember which service provides a particular show. I'm not going to have multiple dongles and devices to watch content. I am absolutely not going to rely on smart TV apps to provide a consistent or complete user experience. I am not going to pay for a service and still be subjected to advertisements. Somebody ping me when there is actually a logical option for in-home video content delivery to my TV. Until then, I'll either leave it turned off or use traditional options.

wincy 5y ago
I just use a VPN, flexget, PLEX, and a torrent client. Automatically downloads new episodes at the resolution I want for the shows I want. I can watch at my leisure and get no ads. I hate advertisements. I also don’t watch my shows these days, it almost all feels like indoctrination at this point.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
  Similar approach, but PLEX + Usenet plumbing (Sonarr/Radarr/NZBGet/friends). I pay for ESPN+ because it is a convenient way to get some live sports content I like, and the quality of the service is really strong. Other networks make it harder, enforce blackouts, have terrible players that spin my fans up – and for that I use IPTV.
mywittyname 5y ago
I do a round-robin with friends/family where we each pay for a preferred service and share the accounts with everyone in the pool. Every service I've used has been extremely accommodating of this and allows for multiple profiles. If that's not an option, cancelling/pausing subscriptions should work fine. Once you've watched everything on NF, cancel/pause that and get a HBO Max or something.
- 5y ago

015a 5y ago

This whole situation really feels like Google has their head stuck up their ass. People are just as likely to leave Roku, as they are to leave YouTube TV. Their subscriber numbers can't be strong enough to justify such idiotic behavior. To me, this sounds like a middle manager gone rogue, and no one higher up has stepped in yet and said "Ok, you shot your shot, but Roku called your bluff, you've taken this way too far." If this is really just about additional featured slots for Youtube TV in the Roku home screen. Apple would never cave to that. Xbox, Amazon, PlayStation, none of these companies would cave and give YouTube special treatment. Roku shouldn't either. I had read something earlier which suggested there was also an issue with Roku selling devices with processors too underpowered for some new compression algorithm YouTube wanted to use. If this is the case, this feels more reasonable to me, and I'd be less inclined to pass judgement. At the end of the day, this would be Roku trying to save money and move the costs on to Google, which isn't equitable.

maxsilver 5y ago
It's doubly weird, because YouTube TV is literally just a side project -- There's at least a 50% chance Google just totally shuts down YouTube TV within the next five years. (Like they already did with Google Play Music, and Google Play Movies + TV once before). Google's going to war with Roku over something that Google doesn't care about at all (it's one minor ancillary line of business to them), but is Roku's main and only meaningful line of business. If you want to be locked into a single vendor, you can already buy Google TV from Sony or TCL (where this vendor-lock-in is guaranteed). The whole point of Roku is that it's independent, it's not operated by any one streaming/media service, it's not a "Google TV" or an "Apple TV" or a "PlayStation TV" or whatever. Roku has to fight this, tooth-and-nail, or all other services on the Roku platform will demand the same, and totally destroy the entire Roku product lineup.
- 015a 5y ago
  Right, and that's why I really can't believe this spat has the full force of Alphabet Inc behind it. I think its just Google's highly independent culture taken to the extreme with an idiotic, toxic, vengeful middle manager. Its a form of small dog syndrome; blowing their chest up as a compensation mechanism for how much of a side-project YouTube TV is for Alphabet, a desperate attempt to get additional promotion from Roku to prop up falling subscriber growth. In most other companies, everything else being equal: someone higher up would have already stepped in and said "YouTube TV isn't worth it, you need to end this, you're sullying the corporate brand." But that's not really how Google operates; at least, not yet.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

Shit like this is why I just run a web browser on a windows PC hooked up to the TV. There is no other platform out there that can handle every streaming service and local media.

jihadjihad 5y ago

Could we get a moderator to change the title to say YouTube TV instead of YouTube? The dispute between Roku and Google has nothing to do with the latter, and is confusing to readers. Edit: I did not realize that the base YouTube app was specifically mentioned in the article, alongside YTTV. That's surprising and is a bigger deal than I'd thought before.

LiquidInsect 5y ago
"The two companies had a December deadline for a renegotiation, but sources say it hasn’t been met, and as a result, new Roku devices will continue to be unable to download YouTube or YouTube TV apps."
NelsonMinar 5y ago
That's incorrect; the new dispute is over the base YouTube app, not just YouTube TV.

post_break 5y ago

There is honestly only one good media box left and it's the Apple TV. The only ads it has is for the stupid Apple TV+ program but beyond that it supports every streaming service. I've dumped all my "it just works" rokus for Apple TVs. The nvidia shield was doing good but google got their hands on it and it's full of ads now too. The new AppleTV remote is much better and so far has passed all wife tests.

tyingq 5y ago

The service in question is YouTubeTV, which is basically a replacement for traditional cable. Local channels, things like TNT, CNN, etc. I had the service for a while, solely for local news. They bumped the price up a few times, and it was just too expensive at $65/month. I ended up buying a Tablo device instead. A bit of fiddling with different antennas, but it works great. There is the up-front cost of ~$250 or so for the device, decent antenna, and hard drive. Then $5/month after that, or $10/month if you want the commercial skip. I'm happy with it. You can access it from a Roku app, so the end experience for local news is pretty much the same as it was with YouTubeTV.

jfrunyon 5y ago
I've been considering getting a TV tuner card so I can use Plex's DVR/live TV features. I haven't found a reason to actually do it yet though; after all, if I even want to watch the local news I can just go to their website.
- tyingq 5y ago
  For me, it's the ability to DVR the news and watch it an hour or so later than when it airs...without commercials.

natpalmer1776 5y ago

This is no different than when a cable company (usually temporarily) drops a major media provider due to failed contract negotiations. The only difference here is that the specifics of the contract is being waved about in public to get ahead of customer fallout to losing access to the YouTube channel.

LocalH 5y ago

This is literally the modern day equivalent to the classic pissing matches between cable/satellite operators and station groups. Both sides are full of shit, honestly.

cowmix 5y ago

"Youtube TV", whatevz!

ec109685 5y ago
“… new Roku devices will continue to be unable to download YouTube or YouTube TV apps”

drewg123 5y ago

Roku should pay for a port of SmartTubeNext (Android TV alternative YT client with ad skipping and sponsor block) to Roku and pre-load it.

LightG 5y ago

Welcome to the world where I can just do wtf I like with the software at my disposal without middlemen trying to get their cut ... wakes up Don't worry about it, Roku ... I use your devices around the house and if I ever need a youtube on bigscreen, I just share direct to the "smart" TV instead ... Hey youtube, or whoever is causing this, you're just making yourselves look dumb to consumers who will either be angry at your or just bypass your dumb stance on the matter. Edit: I remember the old days with disdain, but does anyone miss the Microsoft days? I know I know ... but at least I could force my machine to do whatever the hell I wanted. Download an .exe and get on with it ... phew, actually, I'm forgetting the bad things ... but at least it was "open" and I had control. Kind of. You know what I mean.

Jensson 5y ago
> Don't worry about it, Roku ... I use your devices around the house and if I ever need a youtube on bigscreen, I just share direct to the "smart" TV instead ... That is what youtube wants and not what Roku wants though. Roku gets paid when you use youtube there, if you bypass the Roku ecosystem like this to go directly to Youtube then Youtube won.
- LightG 5y ago
  Fair enough. I rarely use youtube on a TV screen anyway. Thanks for the heads up.

ridaj 5y ago

I get that Sonos, Roku, etc are in a tough spot but this business is structurally to be a good, cheap, dumb terminal. It's no use for Roku to try and get in the way at this point, it just reinforces incentives for players to undercut them with branded sticks (Chromecast, fire tv, apple TV...)

tehwebguy 5y ago

Roku should drop the API and just scrape YouTube from the client side. What's Google going to do, block everyone's home IP?

skinnymuch 5y ago
There is some stuff they can do. I forget the details as many years have passed. Microsoft was doing that for Windows Phone and there were some issues.
jfrunyon 5y ago
Change their layout so the scraper stops working? Block the useragent? Block other identifiable parameters of Roku's networking stack or HTTP stack? Sue them?
sidpatil 5y ago
It'll end up being a cat-and-mouse game, similar to how youtube-dl is developed.
warkdarrior 5y ago
YouTube will probably do what Facebook is doing: randomize URLs and obfuscate the HTML weekly. It then becomes a game of catch-up for Roku, they'd always be one step behind.

silisili 5y ago

This would actually perhaps interest me, then. I have a CCwGTV, and the voice search drives me up a wall. me: "hulu" it: <spinning> "hello! hope you are enjoying" or whatever it says because it thinks I said hello. me: "no hulu you idiot" it: <spinning> "here are search results for 'no hulu you idiot' on youtube" and takes me to the youtube search results. Ideally the voice search would get miles better, but until then, I'd do with Youtube just not existing on it, if that is possible.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

Funny seeing all the Roku love here. What I've observed when comparing Roku to other devices. I buy my apple TV -> I get basically no ads, they don't seem to charge that much to allow folks like youtube tv to have an app on the platform Roku -> I buy and own my device. They seem to sell advertising all over the device I paid for. They seem to be charging companies for buttons and/or to be able to put an app on the roku platform. Sorry - not that interested in Roku anymore.

jfrunyon 5y ago
Yeah, they're actually a pretty crap offering. Between the app buttons on the remote (which serve only a single purpose: interrupting whatever we're watching when my toddler decides to grab the remote and press one of the app buttons), the absolutely AWFUL wifi range (had to get a new AP just for it, even though every other device - in the same room as the Roku but further from the AP - worked fine: iPhone, OnePlus N100, Google Home Mini, Thinkpad, Dell), and the fact that half of the apps on it seem like they would require twice as much processing power as it has to actually be useable...
supernovae 5y ago
The entire apple ecosystem is extremely expensive to be on - asking 30% of revenue share - not much for major networks since they don't have to invent it themselves, but a hefty tax to consumers in comparison to non apple devices. The funny part is, they charge a premium on both ends and people like it. (and i do believe Apple had to fight similar battles on youtube placement...)
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  This is really totally false. Youtube TV - Apple is not taking 30% - that's a lie basically as an example. Most of these major players (Youtube TV etc) you can sign up just on a regular website. Apple only takes a cut of these subscriptions IF you use their platform to enable them. If you do use them, the % is only 15% after 1 year. Either way - the outcome is I as a user have good access to lots of good content, no crap ads, no advertising buttons I don't want and more. So it's a win for me. I'd really like Roku to be transparent in terms of what they are asking for from Youtube. In the past, they refused to support encoding Youtube TV was using etc.

Pxtl 5y ago

Wait, so the app will still exist... this is about Roku offering cross-provider search and deep links into Youtube videos from Roku shell-level dashboards, right? So Roku isn't losing Youtube support altogether.

sjg007 5y ago

I have apple tv and roku. Both work great, now that roku can get apple tv+ it is even better. My kids find the roku remote easier than the apple one. So much so that I bought a roku express 4k stick instead of another apple tv. Seems good enough.

bgorman 5y ago
Roku even supports Airplay. Not sure who the Apple TV is for at this point.
- criddell 5y ago
  Apple TV is for people who want to pay for a device with money and not their data.

zzzeek 5y ago

remember internet TV was going to solve the problem of cable TV providers being anti competitive? yeah me neither.

dr-detroit 5y ago

This is what I call a HackerNews problem. You refuse to buy both a $15 chromecast and a $14 Roku but you annually purchase iWatches each costing over $1000

mrkramer 5y ago

Classic story of two sides pushing their own self interests while ignoring the interests of the users.

saisundar 5y ago

Becoming the next smart TV platform is the real war here. By becoming the go-to platform for smart tv apps, the winner gets the following advantages - rich access to search and voice data (which, by the Amazon playbook, is super valuable for originals) - hardware profits - ads related profits. My definition of ads are any apps/placements that are not organic. This includes actual ads for shows etc, but also placements in search results dedicated sections etc. - per transaction profits. This is the apple playbook. Take a 30% cut of every transaction. - Subscription profits from original apps - say roku originals or Apple tv+. There is a lot going on here, and what we are seeing here as a deadlock is a stalemate due to clashes between Google and roku on many of the above issues.

forgotmysn 5y ago

I feel like I've read about Roku struggling to come to terms with every streaming service over the years. They only just came around with HBO, finally getting HBO Max on Roku devices. I get the impression that the people running Roku are real shitty people to work with.

astral303 5y ago

Fuck YouTube and their AppleTV app. It's exhibit #1 in anticompetitive behavior -- ship a shitty, subpar app, for a premium service. I wish that Apple were to prohibit any custom video playing controls on AppleTV, but this crowd will roast Apple alive for yet another "walled garden" move. Please Apple, put up walls against a shitty video streaming experience. After the steaaming garbage pile that is the YouTube app on AppleTV, YouTube and Google has lost all respect in my eyes. Go Roku.

astral303 5y ago
The downvotes prove the rampant Google fanboyism on HN. The YouTube app for AppleTV is exhibit #1 in Google's anticompetitive behavior.

dirtyid 5y ago

Looking forward to have a Youtube button that goes nowhere on my Roku remote in addition to Google Videos.

brightball 5y ago

Hulu TV it is then.

angryasian 5y ago

Theres so many better options these days for a simple box to install apps and stream media. Its pretty much commodity, why anyone cares about Roku alone is surprising to me. Content is king and Roku is not it.

leafmeal 5y ago

If you're sick of Roku's ads and constant conflicts like this, consider a device such as https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/ https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/ which runs Android.

dcdc123 5y ago

Here's a workaround for you: Use an ad-blocking browser on your phone (I use Brave on iPhone) to view youtube.com then cast the videos ad-free to your Roku using Roku's native Airplay support added last year. Also, when your Roku is EoL, do not replace it with another Roku.

Jensson 5y ago

If a company is spreading lies about you then there is no reason to continue working with that company. I'm not saying Roku did that, but if they did then why would Google stay with them and try to argue instead of just leaving them? Edit: I am specifically referring to the fact that Google claims Roku did this: > Roku has once again chosen to make unproductive and baseless claims rather than try to work constructively with us. Since we haven’t been able to continue our conversations in good faith, our partnership for all new Roku devices will unfortunately end on December 9.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
Because it won’t look good in the trust-busting lawsuit. Monopolies kill competition like this. Is this different? Maybe. Doesn’t look good.
- Jensson 5y ago
  If Roku really did spread lies about Google then I doubt Roku would win the lawsuit. Google just needs to show the paper trail.

varelse 5y ago

I was bored with billionaires fighting with each other over nothing before it was cool.

jrockway 5y ago

Why does Roku even need to work with YouTube to put YouTube on the device? It's a web page that can be opened in any browser. For that reason, I have to assume that Roku wants to extract money from Google here, and as with net neutrality, they're right to not pay.

azinman2 5y ago
It’s better used as an app on these devices. A webpage would be very cumbersome to use with a basic remote and lower powered processor. I also assume they integrated into search and other roku functionality.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  Could Roku start distributing New Pipe[0] or similar? It works ok-ish on my android TVs. [0]https://newpipe.net/ https://newpipe.net/
  - commoner 5y ago
    Google would probably find ways to obstruct any of Roku's alternative YouTube clients, just as Google disabled Microsoft's YouTube client on Windows Phone years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/google-disables-windows-phone-youtube-app https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/...
  - jackbravo 5y ago
    Your personal account can get suspended for abusing the service, like when sidestepping their official apps to download videos.
- warioftw 5y ago
  You'd think that, but YT engineers solved this challenge using two methods: 1. Build an efficient "browser" (HTML5 runtime) that can run a web app. 2. Write a webapp specifically targeted towards TVs, includes 10 foot interface, etc. Source: https://cobalt.dev/ https://cobalt.dev/

CydeWeys 5y ago

Time to get a new TV then. It's been time for awhile but this is gonna be the inciting incident. And definitely not getting a Roku TV as my new one.

deeblering4 5y ago
This is exactly why its better to buy a dumb TV and install a $50 HDMI stick (or two)
- neltnerb 5y ago
  Turn wifi off for the existing TV (smart or not matters little if you don't connect it) and stick the same $50 HDMI stick and avoid throwing out the fully functional display? At this point, ads displayed to the users who use it as a smart TV probably subsidize those of us who use such TVs without connecting them to anything. My latest TV is enormous and 4K and under a few hundred dollars. The quality is fine, even if occasionally I accidentally get it to switch to the input that involves agreeing to terms and conditions. Of course it should be super illegal to ask you to agree to terms and conditions after spending over a hundred dollars, shipping something, installing it over hours, after you finally power it on... but at least I can be one of those rare smart TV customers that never agreed to them and can prove it!
  - deeblering4 5y ago
    Hmm, avoiding the terms and conditions for a TV isn't exactly selling me on this idea, but yeah if you already have a smart TV obviously it's good to stretch its usefulness as far as possible. But when shopping for a new TV, just buy a dumb one or a projector.
    - neltnerb 5y ago
      That's what I'm saying, it seems like a smart TV is cheaper even if you use it as a dumb TV. I think that they are selling them at reduced margins or even as a loss leader in order to get you to pay them for the smart features.

bserge 5y ago

Users of a lot of Chinese TVs and other products running Android: "first time?"

marderfarker2 5y ago
Chinese Android TVs don’t have such problems, because you can sideload any APK and boom it works.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

phdelightful 5y ago

A bad look when Alphabet is selling competing devices like Chromecast (at least partially competing) and then pull YouTube from Roku devices.

reaperducer 5y ago
Interestingly, and only slightly related, Apple seems to be expanding the number of devices that it's on. There was an apple.com web site recently that stated that either Apple Music or AppleTV was available on game consoles. Naturally, as soon as someone noticed and made it public, it was pulled. But it's interesting to see how readily the big content producers are willing to add and remove themselves from people's boxes.
ninth_ant 5y ago
That's not "a bad look", it's continuing anti-competitive behaviour by an aggressive monopolist. Google using their dominance in one area "youtube" to hurt competitors in another space -- in this case to promote their Chromecast devices. Google has already earned $8B in fines for similar behaviour in the last few years in some of their other product areas (ads, android, and search). This is just what they do at this point, it's not a "look".

LocalH 5y ago

So Google is using YouTube as leverage to convince Roku to do what they want, not just YouTube TV. This is literally a cable/network pissing match, except with streaming. Fuck 'em both, honestly. Neither one is an innocent party.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
voidwtf 5y ago
Roku has been demanding increasing amounts of revenue sharing from their "channels". I moved away from Roku after their spat with Spectrum made some of my Roku TVs useless for watching my Spectrum subscription (kids doing kid things deleted the app and it couldn't be reinstalled). I've never had any app be subject to a contract dispute on my Apple TV, whereas Roku has had 3 that affected me at varying points. Take a look at Roku's quarterly reports and you can see that they're not a streaming device company, they're a streaming platform company. Roku televisions are not the product, you are the product. From Q3 2016 to Q2 2021 their platform revenue has increased from 27.3% to 82.5%, or 24.3M to 532M. This is not even taking into account the profit margins for the platform are much higher than they are for the device, in some cases they're using the device as a loss-leader. Roku has taken the Apple App Store revenue sharing route and decided that even when they don't provide the content they still want a considerable piece of the monthly revenue. They've taken it a step farther by placing ads on the home screen, search screen, and idle screen as well.
- LocalH 5y ago
  IIRC, during that Spectrum spat, they were giving channel codes to people who either could prove, or would attest, that they had the channel installed before the date that it was removed. I myself got the channel reinstalled after doing some research by trying different variants of the codes that were reported by others. Then, it became moot when they reached an agreement and began making the channel available again.

daemonhunter 5y ago

Sigh. Stuck in between corporate squabbles again.

jimt1234 5y ago

A few weeks after all this beef started, Google emailed me with an offer for a free "Chromecast with Google TV" device. I thought it was weird, as the email (and the offer) was completely unsolicited. The email mentioned something about thanking me for being a YouTube-TV customer. I'm sure Google knows I watch YouTube-TV from my Roku-enabled TV, so I figured it was related to the beef. I just though it was weird at first (like, what's the catch here?), but now I get it - and it was a brilliant move. The Chromecast/Google-TV device is better, much more responsive than Roku on my TV, which was always my biggest complaint with Roku (too slow!). So now, I've pretty much abandoned Roku, and use my Chromecast/Google-TV device almost exclusively. Well-played, Google. Your move, Roku - send me free shit! LOL

gadrev 5y ago
Lately, the Chromecast has become substantially worse, with many more ads and of course a stupid update nobody asked for showing kind of a tablet UI when you're in "idle" mode with the phone connected to the TV (idk how you're supposed to operate it, but I don't care, ofc it's a clickbait showcase screen). Before the increase in ad frequency (and some bugs like a random unlinking of the device when you put the app in background) it was pretty good TBH. But of course, everything worsens as viewership gets more concentrated and there are less alternatives. Will there ever be a product that... just stays like it was when you bought it? A lot of things tech related seem like a bait and switch... you have this.. haha! now you don't /rant
- curiousgal 5y ago
  Well the latest Chromecast comes with its own OS and a remote so you no longer need a phone to use it.
- gtirloni 5y ago
  Chromecasts have ads? I've never seen one in my life on them. Are you talking about free YouTube? I liked the first Chromecast and since I upgraded to the latest with Google TV, I think it's the best experience ever. I sometimes want to take mine to friends' place so I don't have you suffer through whatever horrible smart TV interface they have.

johnvaluk 5y ago

I've used Roku in various incarnations (box, TV) since it was released and was excited when the official YouTube app was finally available. But lately, it's been painful to watch YouTube due to the constant and disruptive advertising. Part of me is looking forward to the app being pulled from Roku, since it's so much like the cable TV experience I thought I was escaping. I don't feel this way about the other premium channels I use (Netflix, Prime Video). Is it worth paying for YouTube? Will pulling the app make it impossible to use the premium (paid) service on Roku devices?

ypcx 5y ago
For some reason the Apple TV YouTube app's recommendations are pretty abysmal compared to the desktop website or the iPad app, and Watch Later isn't saving the day either. Could be that the app displays a grid of just 6 videos per screen, which is utterly ridiculous for any TV screen, god forbid a projector. Premium is still worth it though.
unclekev 5y ago
> Is it worth paying for YouTube? That depends on how much not seeing that 'constant and disruptive advertising' is worth to you.
- pkulak 5y ago
  Though, you still get all the in-video promos, even when paying. That ticks me off a bit, but it's not too bad.
  - notyourwork 5y ago
    That's on the content creator, not YouTube right?
    - inerte 5y ago
      With the current system, yes. YouTube could do something where the content creator specifies the sponsored part (if it's not straight up merchandising and product placement) and paying subscribers could have that skipped. Anyway, I chimed in to say YouTube Premium to me is worth a lot. I watch more YouTube because of it, it's better, better for the kids, less annoying, the whole thing is fantastically better. Every time I click an YouTube video on my employer account and get an ad it's such a shock.

deeblering4 5y ago

Then I’ll keep the roku and cancel youtube premium. Google is just the worst.

notyourwork 5y ago
My perception of Google has shifted from the kid in the candy store feeling I used to get about anything Google touched. Now I'm skeptical of every move they make and don't feel like they are operating in my best interest. Maybe I was always naive but the Google I knew 10+ years ago isn't the one I know today and it makes me sad.
- Jensson 5y ago
  The Google founders started the process of stepping down around 10 years ago. Pretty sure this was the turning point and the company just got worse since then: > The explanation that Page posted Tuesday on his Google Plus profile cleared up a mystery hanging over him since he lost his voice a year ago, causing him to miss Google Inc.'s annual shareholders meeting in June and a conference call to discuss the company's quarterly earnings in July. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/google-ceo-larry-page-discloses-health-issue-1.1302245 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/google-ceo-larry-page-discl...
  - ajcp 5y ago
    Medical reasons aside everything I've seen on them stepping away hints that they were unhappy with (although resigned to) the corporate behemoth that Google had become. It could no longer do things the way it did that made it so successful. I think we've seen their fears of that these past 10 years.

wanderingmind 5y ago

Maybe its a good time for Roku to fund some of the developers like Yurii who has built SmartTubeNext and make it a native app in Roku. That will be a reason to buy Roku over its competitors.

dash488 5y ago

Roku and AndroidTV aside, has someone come up with an opensource alternative to either of these spammy services? Im in neither camp as I have had both functionalities preinstalled on a TV. Recently with my newer Android TV it is riddled with ADs and is noisy on my network with telemetry data, even when not in use. When I just want to turn it on and play PS4, it takes time to load the latest on Amazon Prime, Netflix and whatever other streaming service they are shilling, none which I pay for. When most of my media is on Plex or a gaming system. I just want my TV to be dumb again.

AceJohnny2 5y ago
Kodi/XBMC? Plex? Unfortunately that's only for local media. Obviously all the commercial streaming services have DRM that make them incompatible with open-source.
- croutonwagon 5y ago
  Plex has its own telemetry and doesn’t really make devices per-se. it’s an App, including on Roku. My hous is basically all rokus at this point. But I do keep the isolated on their own net and behind pi-holes. I’d love an opensource alternative that can do all the things Roku does. Netflix, Hulu (though I don’t have it), prime, or Plex etc. Sure with something like atomictoolkit you can do it all in Plex, to a degree. But I even use YouTube for things like guitar lessons/song learning etc. To be fair. I can probably do that with those options. Roku was simple enough that I can work around. I should probably do some better research on alternatives.
- blendergeek 5y ago
  There is an "app" for most commerical services available for Kodi. These apps do not break DRM (they use an extracted Widevine binary from ChromeOS). These app are not official however and are not in the main repositories for Kodi. Just search the Kodi forums for the service you need and you will find the app (for most services that I know about).
commoner 5y ago
KDE is making an attempt with Plasma Bigscreen: https://plasma-bigscreen.org https://plasma-bigscreen.org It runs on the Raspberry Pi 4.

babyshake 5y ago

I find that very basic navigation like getting to a channel from a video published by that channel is very frustrating on the Roku app. Is this by design, or just laziness?

Wistar 5y ago
I never have figured that one out.

wilburTheDog 5y ago

I've heard good things about the Nvidia Shield. I've even considered getting one to replace my Roku, but they cost so much more than all competitors it gives me pause. They do run Android, though, so that's pretty flexible. Does anyone think they're worth the price?

ferdowsi 5y ago
The Shield is probably the most valuable bit of electronics in my home. It's the right level of complexity for family/guests to consume media. Gamestream, the Plex Server, and the ability to serve as a NAS are big wins as well.

macspoofing 5y ago

YouTube is too big.

petarb 5y ago

The only reason I’m using a Roku device is because Xfinity Stream is only available on Roku and I don’t want to pay shit Comcast for an extra box. Talk about two companies everyone hates. I really hope Xfinity Stream makes its way to Apple TV but I highly doubt it with the bureaucracy.

foxyv 5y ago

I recently got an Apple TV just for Zwift after using Roku for 8 years. The difference between Apple TV 4K and the Roku Ultra is striking. I got my Apple TV used for about the same price as the Ultra new. However I think paying an extra $100 for an Apple TV is a pretty good investment. Roku is SLOW. Apple TV is so fast it makes my brain hurt. I'm so used to clicking on YouTube then looking at my phone for a minute waiting for it to start. Now it just starts up in a few seconds. Also the stupid buttons on the Roku remote keep opening Hulu and Vudu whenever someone sits on the remote. I'll probably just switch to Apple TV for everything soon. I dislike their unreliable, overpriced, and unrepairable laptops, phones, and tablets. But the TV box seems pretty solid so far.

josefresco 5y ago
> Roku is SLOW What's slow? I have several Roku Streaming Sticks which are their lowest hardware spec and I have never experienced any UI slowness. I love the clicky remote, and can blaze through DVR recordings using the skip buttons. It's so fast, I can skip 15 between pitches in an MLB game without lag, whereas with my Chromecast it's a slight delay which doesn't make it worth it.
- foxyv 5y ago
  It may be that I just have an older Roku Ultra (2019 ish) but it's definitely slow. Loading Youtube takes 30 seconds to a minute, moving between videos is a 30 second delay, everything loads slowly. It likes to eat inputs from the remote as well. Scrolling through video is brutally painful. The Apple TV is probably 5-10x faster on everything.
  - josefresco 5y ago
    Yeah something's wrong. I bought my Rokus over several years, some of them are older than 2019 for sure. The only issue we had was my daughter's remote stopped working. Otherwise the low end streaming sticks, performance wise have been very fast. My Smart LG TV in contrast, is painfully slow. Given the spat between Google/Roku I bought a Chromecast but I'm not thrilled given it doesn't support multiple YTTV profiles.

HelixEndeavor 5y ago

Two garbage companies trying to out-garbage each other.