Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
axios.com
axios.com
Roku burned through a lot of goodwill with their customers during the HBO Max holdout.
Once Apple got Amazon prime streaming roku lost their only differentiating feature. The ads really annoyed me to the extent that I don’t care if they fail.
YouTube ads help fund content creators. Roku ads are being displayed on a stand alone device that I already paid $100 for.
For me if I'm paying for something I don't want ads. If you charge me and then also double dip with ads I'll try to find something else that doesn't.
Nonsense. A raspberry pi costs far less and is, arguably, just as capable.
The problem isn't hardware capability, it's the ecosystem on top of it. Pi doesn't have a robust tv platform and app market system that is built around a remote control. Sure, you can run plex on it but even plex has long abandoned its streaming app platform and decided to roll its own TV service instead... Part of me wishes that Plex would have stuck with it but i guess they realized the Streaming TV problem isn't a software or hardware problem to begin with...
Software services (i.e. updating iOS/Roku's OS) require on-going maintenance. Apple makes this by charging developers who in turn typically charge the consumers. Roku doesn't do this and hence why it can be hostile to the consumer. It's model is generally to use an ad model instead.
Now people know why there is a (arguably high) tax on subscriptions derived from iOS.
It’s like Visa, restaurants will charge all customers including cash paying ones more too. So the Visa card holder, isn’t incentivized not to use it.
I still use an Nvidia Shield for Plex though. The ATV is great for streaming platforms, but lacks HDMI audio passthrough which is essential for watching hi quality BluRay rips on a home theater.
None of the commercial streaming device options are great, but I think my next one will be an Apple TV.
You bought a TV and expected it to not have its features changed. That sounds like a very reasonable expectation.
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.
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.
People are going to buy the hardware that has the content they want. I feel like the big three are squeezing Roku out.
Should legislation be written to require content and hardware platforms be separate? That Apple TV should have to be available for Shield and Roku, and that Youtube TV be allowed on Apple and Roku?
Roku also takes a cut for every transaction that goes via its platform. If I end up subscribing to HBO via roku, Roku takes a cut too.
On a related note, is it just me that's flummoxed by the lack of Ad disclosures for the Roku ads? I can't seem to find it - and having worked ij tech ads , I find this troubling and concerning.
Stop this. I have multiple Rokus. The % of time I spend on their menu looking at the ads is like 0.0001% of my total time using Roku. In fact, I didn't even notice any ads for months until someone on Reddit complained about it.
I am looking at the prices of rokus, and my guess is they are losing money on the hardware.
And yes, we should have a completely free (as in speech) device. But if you actually offered it and priced it accordingly, most people would not buy it.
It's dumb but it's what we consumers have voiced with our money.
But then... I bought the ad version, not for price but because it had the pretty colors and I don't like using cases on kindles anymore.
Well, if you DO pay for the product, you are STILL the product.
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
Are you sure you're using a Chromecast? Not only has my Chromecast never once shown me an ad, but I have no idea what screen you're talking about and I use mine every day.
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.
They put this on my Shield TV and Chromecast Ultra. I now own an Apple TV.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/9to5google.com/2020/10/01/googl...
I feel like that experience is optimal. I don't want any launcher experience on the tv, much less any ads.
I disagree. I have 5-6 Rokus and one Chromecast with Google TV. Chromecast with Google TV does not support YouTubeTV user profiles. That's kind of a big deal, considering it's a feature of YTTV and one that I use extensively. Not being able to access my library of content from my living room TV sucks. I have to use my phone to launch the video, and then I can use the CC remote to skip/navigate. I've reported it multiple times, all I hear back from the YTTV Reddit team is "we're working on it".
https://www.amazon.com/Age-Surveillance-Capitalism-Future-Fr...
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.
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...)
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.
If someone already has youtube tv and signs in on apple tv, the sure...
BUT.. when you use an apple tv, Apple makes it remarkably hard NOT to use an apple account to not subscribe to services so in most cases, it's gonna be your wife seeing HBO in the apps and installing and subbing through there.
That's the entire premise of their walled garden and i still can't believe people pay a premium for it.
If YouTube TV isn't available, I'll just cancel YouTube TV and get Hulu TV instead. Roku makes dealing with all of these streaming services a lot easier. If a service isn't going to work on Roku, I'm just not going to use it.
The ads "all over the device" only appear on the menu and "screen saver" screen which represent a tiny fraction of my screen usage.
I turn on TV, I choose Netflix/YTTV/etc. and I'm off. Time spent looking at the ONE banner ad less than 1 second. It's not obtrusive, it's not "all over the device".
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.
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.
> I am not going to pay for a service and still be subjected to advertisements.
I have some bad news for you regarding advertisements on cable...
Then they could make an appliance called a 'cable' box so home users can stream all these 'channels' to any device they want.
And now we are back to the 1990s.
BUT.. the networks killed it and the feature never lived much into the X1 and doesn't exist anywhere at all anymore.
Such as Apple App Store? You can search for the media you want to watch in the TV app, it shows up with how much it is, and you click to pay and then watch. I do not understand any aspect of why someone would want to go back to dealing with their not on demand monopoly cable tv provider and cable boxes.
Even if you did want that, seems easier to just sign up for YouTube tv or sling and watch via the app than deal with a cable/satellite tv company.
I hate advertisements. I also don’t watch my shows these days, it almost all feels like indoctrination at this point.
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.
In my household we really only subscribe to two, maybe three streaming services all at ~$10/mo/ea. The library near us has tons of movies available for streaming with just a library card, and a decent selection of DVDs (been trying to convince them to upgrade to BDs). Each service has more content than I could bother watching in a lifetime. The few times we want to watch something outside of that we'll just rent from a streaming service or if we really care about the media buy it on BD/DVD. So, cost-wise its considerably better.
All of those services really work on just about any device you can buy. Smart TV's have them, Roku's have them, Apple TV's have them, Nvidia Shield's have them, you can watch them on Chromecast, watch them on a laptop, watch them on a tablet, watch them on a phone, whatever. Practically any streaming device you can buy anywhere from $10-200 will play all of those streaming services, so its not like I'm juggling multiple different inputs for some screen. An old Chromecast in the kitchen, a Roku in the living room, my desktop in the office, a tablet in the sitting room, my phone on the bus or train or at a picnic table on lunch break at work.
This is a far cry from having to rent specific crappy power-hungry hardware at $15+/mo for each screen, $100+/mo long term contracts for service to be locked to those boxes, and then only really be able to watch it at home. Hopefully all your recordings are set and you haven't overscheduled your dual or quad tuner cable box making you miss something. Good luck catching a series from the beginning without a time machine.
The only thing I really miss from this setup is seeing NHL games, which is now stupid expensive behind AT&T TV. I used to stomache paying for Hulu Live TV when hockey was in season, but AT&T TV wants >$100/mo to get the package to watch that. I'll just go over to a friend's place or a sports bar to scratch that itch.
Heck they probably have search across all the services you subscribe to so you don't have to remember which services have what stuff.
I think that largely depends on your personal ratio of income vs perceived value of time vs annoyance by ads.
For me,today,I'm lucky enough that it's 100% worth it. Somebody sent me a link last week and it opened in non google Firefox container so I wasn't signed in... After I went through "wtf" moment at inopportune interruptions, I realized how totally worth it it is.
Yes the content promos are a bit annoying too but much more easily skippable,not to mention better timed & integrated,and less disruptive.
Plus again,I'm lucky enough to be able to afford supporting content creators and pay for what I consume. As a student in war torn Bosnia my perspective was radically different than established worker in Canada.
>I think that largely depends on your personal ratio of income vs perceived value of time vs annoyance by ads.
What boggles my mind, is the number of YouTube channels that have jumped on the reaction video genre, and amass thousands upon thousands of views, and occasionally have the video they are reacting to interrupted by ads?! And consequently, all of their viewers now have the same interruption! I generally give up on channels that can't do the minimum effort towards their production.
Yes it is worth it. It is the one entertainment streaming service I don't cancel.
No ads on any devices is incredible. I also really enjoy their music service.
That depends on how much not seeing that 'constant and disruptive advertising' is worth to you.
It is so annoying I have been watching less and less.
I do not feel the same about regular TV. Perhaps it is because the ads are run at the points the programming is designed for ad insertion.
Best thing I ever made. Literally cannot fall asleep to YouTube without it.
Just threw it out on GitHub if anyone is interested: https://github.com/SkipSentry/Skip-Pi
Ads are important cultural information. Imagine not knowing "Snap into a Slim Jim" by Macho Man Randy Savage, or the "Oh Yeah" breaking through a brick wall by the Cool Aid pitcher. The horror.
$15/month for totally ad-free YouTube and ad-free unlimited YouTube Music for my whole family seems like a complete no-brainer to me.
"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"
> 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-m...
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.
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.
>asking Roku to create a dedicated search results row for YouTube within the Roku smart TV interface
>we have never, as they have alleged, made any requests to access user data or interfere with search results.
Doesn't this contradict the idea that Roku claims they are asking for special search results.
>Hah, a "high quality" experience indeed. Except, it's not quite "on youtube" since it's more "on Roku".
I'm not understanding your point here, its the Youtube app. Why is it more on Roku ?
>crap that lets Google shovel shit down Roku users.
If you don't like youtube don't use it.
This is a he said/she said dispute. Taking either side's statements at face value is just foolish.
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.
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)
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.
Where are you getting YouTube TV for anywhere near $40/mo? That may have been the price at launch, but it's already climbed more than 50% over the past few years. If you really want live television, I'm not even sure whether cutting the cord and going with an over-the-top package is even cheaper these days.
Otherwise it makes no sense that you can add a middleman that needs to employ labor that has to go around to people’s houses and have it be the same cost.
If the content is paid on youtube, but available for free through another subscription service that Roku knows you have?
Do me a favor. Look up your representative and call or email them.
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.
Why would a breakup make a difference here? AFAICT the entire deal is limited to YouTube. A breakup would matter if other parts of Google were involved, for example, if Google were threatening to remove Roku from search/ads if they couldn't strike a deal with YouTube. That would be anticompetitive.
This particular deal doesn't come off as anticompetitive to me. It's basically the same problem that Cable TV has with carriage fees and networks, just for streaming services/devices.
Edit: to clarify I don't see this deal as anticompetitive in the monopolistic sense. i.e. I don't see how breaking up Google/YouTube would solve anticompetitive-ness of the deal.
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.
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.
From Roku's blog post, it seems that Google wants a dedicated area in the global search for YouTube results. For example, If you search for "Last Week Tonight", Google wants a YouTube results row showing clips on their service above results from other content platforms like HBO Max. Basically, Google wants to have the placement that search ads get on their platform on Roku.
Previous Roku complaints about Google have included that Google wants all Roku devices to support the AV1 codec - which Google's own Chromecast with Google TV doesn't support.
I think the "dumb and twisted" goes both ways. It's dumb and twisted that Google won't allow Roku devices to run YouTube if Roku doesn't commit that all future Roku devices support AV1 - when even Google's own streaming device doesn't support AV1. It's dumb and twisted that Google wants a dedicated row for YouTube search results rather than neutral search results.
Previous discussions[0] suggested that it was simply "where does pressing the remote search button take you". If you're in the YT TV app, Google likely wanted the button to focus the search button within the app, not bring you back to the system-wide search.
If Google wants to move to AV1 it makes sense to sign forward thinking contracts even if they have existing hardware that doesn't support it.
What is the philosophy now? The market is going to yield a spread of reliable information for free? I have to have the means to pay for five different streaming services to get access to all of the valuable content to consider myself informed. It's not just about the latest Marvel movie or Squid Games tripe, it is about an informed citizenry getting access to information. Why is that not part of the debate at all?
This very situation--Google and Netflix fighting over a blanket--is problematic in and of itself and much bigger than both of them put together.
Surely that would only be the case if Google's future streaming devices don't support AV1, not the current one. And they well might tbh.
So, Do better, people.
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.
I'm still wondering why the keyboard doesn't work for all the different channels/apps on my smartphone remote for the Roku. Streaming via smart TV is a major regression as far as UX.
As a workaround, when a video provider is not supported on Roku, what I do is stream video directly from my Android phone to Roku using a free app which is available on both platforms. It is not as convenient as having a dedicated Roku app, but it works.
The twist? Google requires OEM not to use a standard browser, they require OEMs to use Cobalt, yet another google web browser (whose feature set is too small to actually use as a Web browser)
/usr/bin/chromium --start-fullscreen --user-agent="smarttv;applewebkit;tizen" "https://youtube.com/tv"Though, I can understand in principle why they don't do this, why give traffic to jerks?
But these companies are moving steadily towards locking things down behind anticompetitive agreements.
>"We are, however, giving Roku the ability to continue distributing both YouTube and YouTube TV apps to all existing users to make sure they are not impacted."
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.
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?
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!"
If YouTube disappeared from my Roku I would go buy a device that does support it. At the moment there isn't much competition in the YouTube space.
If Netflix or Amazon Prime disappeared from my Roku, I wouldn't be as bothered as they are more fungible services.
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.
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.
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.
GPM didn't get shut down, it got switched over to YTM. If you want to use that as an example for what might happen to YTTV, then it'd be YTTV getting moved over to an inferior rebrand that occupies the same space. And I don't know what you're talking about with Play Movies and TV. It's still there.
Also, the competition is faltering. SlingTV lost NBC regional sports networks in April. I now must move over to Youtube TV. I think the competition gets stronger here, including Apple getting into the space with a live TV offering at some point. Amazon probably too with its sports rights.
Youtube TV is both important for Google, but also a way they can make Roku weaker. At the end of the day, I don’t think Google, Amazon or Apple really want another strong competitor in the living room. Don’t give them youtube TV.
"The two companies had a December deadline for 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."
I don't really buy the compression algorithm thing either - surely they make more off of ads than the savings that would be generated from better compression.
pretty sure this is just hardball over revenue sharing, data sharing, and technical requirements...
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.
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://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/...
Also even if they toss the Roku platform for TV, they keep the subscription revenue for YouTube TV - users will just use another device.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Previous discussions:
"Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands " https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862
"An update to our YouTube TV members on Roku" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972
> 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-discl...
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.
We are, however, giving Roku the ability to continue distributing both YouTube and YouTube TV apps to all existing users to make sure they are not impacted.
I've been thinking of moving away from Roku anyway though, because they seem underpowered. Most of the apps on mine are a bit laggy, whereas my AppleTV is smooth. I've even noticed jittery playback on high-quality 4k content, even though my tv is ostensibly a 4k tv.
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!
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.
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.
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.
They haven’t had a unique product in like 10 years. They are the Yelp of the antiquated stream box world
I have a Samsung and my primary way to view anything is through the plugged in Amazon Fire stick.
(Disc: Googler, not in YT)
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.
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.
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.
Unfortunately that's only for local media. Obviously all the commercial streaming services have DRM that make them incompatible with open-source.
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).
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.
It runs on the Raspberry Pi 4.
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.
Block the useragent?
Block other identifiable parameters of Roku's networking stack or HTTP stack?
Sue them?
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.
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.
Doesn’t anyone have an idea on this?
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.
So Roku isn't losing Youtube support altogether.
Fuck 'em both, honestly. Neither one is an innocent party.
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.
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.