31–40 of 407 posts
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?
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.
My thoughts exactly. This seems particularly stupid to do while regulators are circling them. Someone at Google is asleep at the wheel.
“Don’t be evil.”
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.
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 Rok…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
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.
Yeah, it isn't expensive under those criteria.
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.
The issue is that companies like Roku are increasingly making their money by having companies like YouTube TV pay them to carry their apps. Likewise, there are lots of things about these systems that can fall under negotiations. For example, what analytics does Roku get access to for actions taken within apps? Does Roku get insight into what YouTube videos you're watching? From Roku's blog post, it seems that Google…
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.
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 Rok…
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.
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 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.