8 ms·

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 t

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.
- jermaustin1 5y ago
  But that is different. You cannot compare free and voluntary with commercial services. If you had to pay for those volunteers to maintain at a market rate, all that free stuff would be prohibitively expensive on a per user basis. I agree that Roku, time and time again, has been too aggressive in their tactics to extract maximum profit from their users via the apps they consume (HBO disappeared for a while last year, and I think Showtime did as well), but they do have COSTS they have to cover, and profits they have to make to maximize value to shareholders. Is this a perfect system, no, but it is the system that exists currently.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > If you had to pay for those volunteers to maintain at a market rate, all that free stuff would be prohibitively expensive on a per user basis. These "platforms" start out with an existing open source operating system (BSD or Linux) that already works and has done so for decades. Then they add some features to it that represent a relatively modest one-time modification to the work that has already been done, after which further necessary changes amount to primarily security updates. Corporations often spend massive resources doing further rearranging on an ongoing basis, but nobody really needs or wants that. If you gave people the choice between the current version of a given platform or the version from 2009 but with security updates, most people would shrug and have no strong preference, if not prefer the older one. But also, YouTube is a platform and it goes both ways. Why should anybody need a special deal to display a website on their device?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Think about what you're saying dude: Hundreds of tiny distributions rely on unpaid volunteers to run a platform. A platform with questionable quality and no real support. Yeah, it isn't expensive under those criteria.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > A platform with questionable quality and no real support. The quality of tiny platforms is often higher than the larger ones because their maintainers will actually accept patches and one of the people having the problem will know how to code, whereas consumers reporting bugs to large vendors is more like adults writing letters to Santa Clause. Anybody can get support for anything by paying someone to support it. For nearly everyone outside of large corporations, the cost of this exceeds the benefit, because 99% of your problems will be solved by whatever comes up when you type the problem into a search engine and the last 1% won't be worth the cost of eliminating.
  - Planktonne 5y ago
    > A platform with questionable quality and no real support This applies equally well to the small volunteer platforms and the large commercial ones. The scale is different, sure, but the various app stores and platforms that take a cut aren't providing great commercial support or quality control.

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.

jermaustin1 5y ago
But that is different. You cannot compare free and voluntary with commercial services. If you had to pay for those volunteers to maintain at a market rate, all that free stuff would be prohibitively expensive on a per user basis. I agree that Roku, time and time again, has been too aggressive in their tactics to extract maximum profit from their users via the apps they consume (HBO disappeared for a while last year, and I think Showtime did as well), but they do have COSTS they have to cover, and profits they have to make to maximize value to shareholders. Is this a perfect system, no, but it is the system that exists currently.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > If you had to pay for those volunteers to maintain at a market rate, all that free stuff would be prohibitively expensive on a per user basis. These "platforms" start out with an existing open source operating system (BSD or Linux) that already works and has done so for decades. Then they add some features to it that represent a relatively modest one-time modification to the work that has already been done, after which further necessary changes amount to primarily security updates. Corporations often spend massive resources doing further rearranging on an ongoing basis, but nobody really needs or wants that. If you gave people the choice between the current version of a given platform or the version from 2009 but with security updates, most people would shrug and have no strong preference, if not prefer the older one. But also, YouTube is a platform and it goes both ways. Why should anybody need a special deal to display a website on their device?
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Think about what you're saying dude: Hundreds of tiny distributions rely on unpaid volunteers to run a platform. A platform with questionable quality and no real support. Yeah, it isn't expensive under those criteria.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > A platform with questionable quality and no real support. The quality of tiny platforms is often higher than the larger ones because their maintainers will actually accept patches and one of the people having the problem will know how to code, whereas consumers reporting bugs to large vendors is more like adults writing letters to Santa Clause. Anybody can get support for anything by paying someone to support it. For nearly everyone outside of large corporations, the cost of this exceeds the benefit, because 99% of your problems will be solved by whatever comes up when you type the problem into a search engine and the last 1% won't be worth the cost of eliminating.
- Planktonne 5y ago
  > A platform with questionable quality and no real support This applies equally well to the small volunteer platforms and the large commercial ones. The scale is different, sure, but the various app stores and platforms that take a cut aren't providing great commercial support or quality control.