Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by StevePerkins » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

hristov wrote: post #162

kumarvvr wrote: post #12

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…

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 s…

> "If I pay $40/month for Youtube TV..."

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.

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

#192

Post by brightball » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #100

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 ro…

I have 3 Roku TVs and I love them. The UX is better than any other system I've used in the last 5-10 years.

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.

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

#193

Post by tyingq » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:04 PM UTC

jfrunyon wrote: post #129

tyingq wrote: post #104

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.

I'm not sure where the irony is, since Google doesn't have a captive app store, unlike say Apple.

Ah, well I suppose Google can just then instruct customers to side load into their Rokus, since that's straightforward and not captive.

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

#194

Post by floatingatoll » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #178

floatingatoll wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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)

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!

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

#195

Post by antasvara » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

jfrunyon wrote: post #123

antasvara wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

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

#196

Post by dcdc123 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

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.

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

#197

Post by supernovae » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #184

supernovae wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...)

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…

If someone buys and apple tv and then buys Youtube tv - then the market fees are 30%

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.

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

#198

Post by unethical_ban » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:19 PM UTC

datavirtue wrote: post #121

unethical_ban wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

I suppose the question is, what incentive do Apple or Google or Amazon have to put their content on a competitor's hardware? Moreover, pay to get it on Roku?

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?

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

#199

Post by warkdarrior » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

tehwebguy wrote: post #92

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

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.

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

#200

Post by pchristensen » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:32 PM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #111

HelloMcFly wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roku's differentiating feature has always been simplicity and universal search. Does Apple TV offer universal search across content providers? I'm asking, I don't know, but it's the one feature I can't give up.

Yep - you can search across all installed apps.

Content providers can choose what content to expose to the universal search. Most do, notably Netflix does not, so you can't find Netflix content using Siri.