8 ms·

From the original blog of Roku "First, Google continues to interfere with Roku’s independent search results, requiring that we preference YouTube over other co

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.
      - otterley 5y ago
        That war was lost 10 years ago. Sorry.
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    Probably doesn’t work on ie6, either.
    - inetknght 5y ago
      Probably doesn't work on your bathroom scale. It might work on your coffee pot though.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        Depends on whether you have javascript enabled on your coffee pot. I prefer to use java with mine, though I've heard there's a javascript-compatible language that might target your use case.
echelon 5y ago
This is anticompetitive. Do me a favor. Look up your representative and call or email them. https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representati... Tell them Google is playing evil games with their empire and it's impacting hardware you purchased. Suggest a breakup of Google and YouTube.
- antasvara 5y ago
  I mean, saying it impacts hardware you purchased is a stretch. You can just as easily plug in an Android TV box, or an Amazon fire stick, or any number of other products with different interfaces. Google doesn't "control" the hardware you own, Roku does. Nobody forces people to buy a TV with Roku preinstalled; anyone who did this has consented to having their hardware limited/controlled by Roku. This isn't to absolve Google, as their behavior is also anticompetitive and generally shady. But saying that Google is the one impacting your hardware is letting Roku off the hook for the part they play in effectively owning your hardware.
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    Huh? Roku is "hardware you purchased". Sure, you could go out and purchase something else to replace it. I'm not sure why you think that means it doesn't impact the hardware you already have.
    - antasvara 5y ago
      Roku is more analogous to software than hardware. My phone OS updates at least every few months, and I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I'd wager that most people don't have a problem with that. Roku is as much "hardware you purchased" as calling Android "hardware you purchase." Even that isn't a good analogy, because unlike a phone, you can still use your TV without Roku. When I buy a TV, I'm not "buying" Roku. A lack of access to YouTube in no way impacts the things that make my TV work as a TV. It still turns on and can be used to view any content of my choosing, provided I supply it with the right accessories.
judge2020 5y ago
And yet > To be clear, we have never, as they have alleged, made any requests to access user data or interfere with search results. This claim is baseless and false. So one of them (but most likely both of them) are being dishonest in their PR plays to get the other side to give in to demands. https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/update-our-youtube-tv-members-roku/ https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/update-our-youtube-tv-m...
- inetknght 5y ago
  That blog doesn't address the statements made by Roku. The Roku blog doesn't load for me because I have javascript disabled. But the axios article states: > asking Roku to create a dedicated search results row for YouTube within the Roku smart TV interface The YouTube blog hasn't denied that at all. In fact it practically confirms it: > Our agreements with partners have technical requirements to ensure a high quality experience on YouTube. Hah, a "high quality" experience indeed. Except, it's not quite "on youtube" since it's more "on Roku". The youtube blog also states: > Roku requested exceptions that would break the YouTube experience and limit our ability to update YouTube in order to fix issues or add new features. Let users update their YouTube app through Roku app store instead of some shitty auto-update crap that lets Google shovel shit down Roku users.
  - antasvara 5y ago
    Note: this isn't meant to defend Google, because their practices are shady and by no means good. What I find interesting here is that Roku is using business practices similar to Apple and nobody seems to have a problem with it. If I told you that an app store was limiting the types of apps you could add to your device while also controlling the update process, lots of HN readers would call that out. As far as I'm aware, Roku also has a way of capturing subscription revenue as well. By alk means call out Google for their garbage business practices. But don't let Roku off the hook either.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      Most platform providers have a certification process for apps on their platforms to ensure that they don't have stability or data issues. Apple does it. Sony does it. Microsoft does it. And if Google isn't doing it with their own app store, then that raises a lot of questions about Google's commitment to quality software.
drzaiusapelord 5y ago
"unreasonable" would then be editorializing, then it wouldnt be a news article but an opinion piece.
pumaontheprowl 5y ago
First time I've ever seen somebody on HN request to change a neutral headline to a biased headline. This is a he said/she said dispute. Taking either side's statements at face value is just foolish.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  It won’t be the last. See also above, where YouTube doesn’t contest Roku’s core claims when given opportunity to do so. This submission would have been better as a blog post by a third party analyzing both of their statements.
  - jefftk 5y ago
    > See also above, where YouTube doesn’t contest Roku’s core claims when given opportunity to do so. You are unhappy that a blog post from April does not respond to claims made today? (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      I have no feelings on the matter personally, other than my general dislike of both Roku and YouTube for being more interested in getting paid for reselling my personal data than for delivering me an experience worth paying for. Perhaps someone else will have personal data to share with you. Sorry!
- drzaiusapelord 5y ago
  Its a sign of the times. There's a lot of people, especially on the right, whose only experience with "news" is actually editorialized media. There's a "groupthink" and tribal element here too. This person wants to push their anti-Google bias views as fact, when in reality if you dig down into this dispute there's no clear villain.
hristov 5y ago
Googles demand is very reasonable and it is exactly what I (and most other customers, I am sure) expect of the behavior of the software. When I am within an app and do a search I expect the search to be either limited to that app (preferable) or if not, the results of the search that are within the app should be somehow highlighted. If I pay $40/month for Youtube TV, and go into the Youtube TV app, and search for a show, I am searching for a show within the offerings of the app I am in. I do not want to be offered a show in a yet another app for which I will have to pay yet another monthly fee. And I especially do not want to be driven towards another service for which I will have to pay another monthly fee, if the show I am searching for is already available in the app I am already paying for and from which I am searching.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  And if the opposite is true? If the content is paid on youtube, but available for free through another subscription service that Roku knows you have?
  - hristov 5y ago
    Well, if I am within the you tube app, I am searching youtube first and I want the youtube results to be at least presented first. If I want to search all the services, I can search from the roku homescreen.
- tedajax 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure this refers to Roku's top level search which searches across all apps not the search inside the YouTube app.
  - hristov 5y ago
    Why are you pretty sure about that? From what I have read about it, it seems the argument is very much for search results within the youtube app.
    - 5y ago

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.
    - otterley 5y ago
      That war was lost 10 years ago. Sorry.
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  Probably doesn’t work on ie6, either.
  - inetknght 5y ago
    Probably doesn't work on your bathroom scale. It might work on your coffee pot though.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Depends on whether you have javascript enabled on your coffee pot. I prefer to use java with mine, though I've heard there's a javascript-compatible language that might target your use case.

echelon 5y ago

This is anticompetitive. Do me a favor. Look up your representative and call or email them. https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representati... Tell them Google is playing evil games with their empire and it's impacting hardware you purchased. Suggest a breakup of Google and YouTube.

antasvara 5y ago
I mean, saying it impacts hardware you purchased is a stretch. You can just as easily plug in an Android TV box, or an Amazon fire stick, or any number of other products with different interfaces. Google doesn't "control" the hardware you own, Roku does. Nobody forces people to buy a TV with Roku preinstalled; anyone who did this has consented to having their hardware limited/controlled by Roku. This isn't to absolve Google, as their behavior is also anticompetitive and generally shady. But saying that Google is the one impacting your hardware is letting Roku off the hook for the part they play in effectively owning your hardware.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  Huh? Roku is "hardware you purchased". Sure, you could go out and purchase something else to replace it. I'm not sure why you think that means it doesn't impact the hardware you already have.
  - antasvara 5y ago
    Roku is more analogous to software than hardware. My phone OS updates at least every few months, and I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I'd wager that most people don't have a problem with that. Roku is as much "hardware you purchased" as calling Android "hardware you purchase." Even that isn't a good analogy, because unlike a phone, you can still use your TV without Roku. When I buy a TV, I'm not "buying" Roku. A lack of access to YouTube in no way impacts the things that make my TV work as a TV. It still turns on and can be used to view any content of my choosing, provided I supply it with the right accessories.

judge2020 5y ago

And yet > To be clear, we have never, as they have alleged, made any requests to access user data or interfere with search results. This claim is baseless and false. So one of them (but most likely both of them) are being dishonest in their PR plays to get the other side to give in to demands. https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/update-our-youtube-tv-members-roku/ https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/update-our-youtube-tv-m...

inetknght 5y ago
That blog doesn't address the statements made by Roku. The Roku blog doesn't load for me because I have javascript disabled. But the axios article states: > asking Roku to create a dedicated search results row for YouTube within the Roku smart TV interface The YouTube blog hasn't denied that at all. In fact it practically confirms it: > Our agreements with partners have technical requirements to ensure a high quality experience on YouTube. Hah, a "high quality" experience indeed. Except, it's not quite "on youtube" since it's more "on Roku". The youtube blog also states: > Roku requested exceptions that would break the YouTube experience and limit our ability to update YouTube in order to fix issues or add new features. Let users update their YouTube app through Roku app store instead of some shitty auto-update crap that lets Google shovel shit down Roku users.
- antasvara 5y ago
  Note: this isn't meant to defend Google, because their practices are shady and by no means good. What I find interesting here is that Roku is using business practices similar to Apple and nobody seems to have a problem with it. If I told you that an app store was limiting the types of apps you could add to your device while also controlling the update process, lots of HN readers would call that out. As far as I'm aware, Roku also has a way of capturing subscription revenue as well. By alk means call out Google for their garbage business practices. But don't let Roku off the hook either.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    Most platform providers have a certification process for apps on their platforms to ensure that they don't have stability or data issues. Apple does it. Sony does it. Microsoft does it. And if Google isn't doing it with their own app store, then that raises a lot of questions about Google's commitment to quality software.

drzaiusapelord 5y ago

"unreasonable" would then be editorializing, then it wouldnt be a news article but an opinion piece.

pumaontheprowl 5y ago

First time I've ever seen somebody on HN request to change a neutral headline to a biased headline. This is a he said/she said dispute. Taking either side's statements at face value is just foolish.

floatingatoll 5y ago
It won’t be the last. See also above, where YouTube doesn’t contest Roku’s core claims when given opportunity to do so. This submission would have been better as a blog post by a third party analyzing both of their statements.
- jefftk 5y ago
  > See also above, where YouTube doesn’t contest Roku’s core claims when given opportunity to do so. You are unhappy that a blog post from April does not respond to claims made today? (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    I have no feelings on the matter personally, other than my general dislike of both Roku and YouTube for being more interested in getting paid for reselling my personal data than for delivering me an experience worth paying for. Perhaps someone else will have personal data to share with you. Sorry!
drzaiusapelord 5y ago
Its a sign of the times. There's a lot of people, especially on the right, whose only experience with "news" is actually editorialized media. There's a "groupthink" and tribal element here too. This person wants to push their anti-Google bias views as fact, when in reality if you dig down into this dispute there's no clear villain.

hristov 5y ago

Googles demand is very reasonable and it is exactly what I (and most other customers, I am sure) expect of the behavior of the software. When I am within an app and do a search I expect the search to be either limited to that app (preferable) or if not, the results of the search that are within the app should be somehow highlighted. If I pay $40/month for Youtube TV, and go into the Youtube TV app, and search for a show, I am searching for a show within the offerings of the app I am in. I do not want to be offered a show in a yet another app for which I will have to pay yet another monthly fee. And I especially do not want to be driven towards another service for which I will have to pay another monthly fee, if the show I am searching for is already available in the app I am already paying for and from which I am searching.

horsawlarway 5y ago
And if the opposite is true? If the content is paid on youtube, but available for free through another subscription service that Roku knows you have?
- hristov 5y ago
  Well, if I am within the you tube app, I am searching youtube first and I want the youtube results to be at least presented first. If I want to search all the services, I can search from the roku homescreen.
tedajax 5y ago
I'm pretty sure this refers to Roku's top level search which searches across all apps not the search inside the YouTube app.
- hristov 5y ago
  Why are you pretty sure about that? From what I have read about it, it seems the argument is very much for search results within the youtube app.
  - 5y ago