Roku should drop the API and just scrape YouTube from the client side. What's Google going to do, block everyone's home IP?
It'll end up being a cat-and-mouse game, similar to how youtube-dl is developed.
Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
131–140 of 407 posts
Re: Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
#132It 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.
i wonder if apple will strike a deal with hbo or some dumb shit. hbo available on macs only. love our corporate controlled media
actually Apple is more likely to recognize the bullshit situation we are in with smart tvs these days and just fix it. They will offer a very closed, but functional tv service that has the things you want, with the choices you want to make, without the garbage, for a premium price, accessible on premium hardware (and other devices where possible).
Re: Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
#133Earlier 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.
There's no way that a container full of TVs costs $100 per TV to ship. A bit of quick ddg-ing and it looks like a 40 foot container should be less than $4000 port to port.
Re: Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
#134The service in question is YouTubeTV, which is basically a replacement for traditional cable. Local channels, things like TNT, CNN, etc. 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…
I've been considering getting a TV tuner card so I can use Plex's DVR/live TV features. I haven't found a reason to actually do it yet though; after all, if I even want to watch the local news I can just go to their website.
Re: Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
#135From 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…
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.
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.
Re: Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
#136I get this situation is different since YouTube is looking for concessions on functionality, but I find it hard to defend Roku with their triple-dipping scheme. They charge for the device (I paid over $100 for my 4k HDR box), then they display massive ads covering 50% of the screen, then they want a cut of revenue from content providers as well. Roku burned through a lot of goodwill with their customers during the HB…
I'm a long time Roku fan but also feel they're in the wrong here. Mostly I'm angry because I feel captive; I bought my TCL TV explicitly because it had the Roku OS. It's great! Right until it can't show the one content site I most want to see because of some stupid business argument. I feel like a sucker for paying for Roku.
I'm kind of done with Roku. When they were holding customers hostage to squeeze more money out of HBOMax I did a bit of reading about Roku and realized how parasitic they are.
None of the commercial streaming device options are great, but I think my next one will be an Apple TV.
Re: Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
#137Welcome to the world where I can just do wtf I like with the software at my disposal without middlemen trying to get their cut ... 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 a…
> 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 ...
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.
Re: Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 awa…
> What I find interesting here is that Roku is using business practices similar to Apple and nobody seems to have a problem with it.
True. But I would also argue that there's a different scope.
Roku provides a device that allows you to watch video. That's its ultimate purpose.
Apple provides multiple devices; their iOS products are meant more for mobile communication. As such it's much more user-interactive. More user interaction means more "value" inasmuch as there's more opportunities for abuse.
You can use an iOS device to watch video. That's not it's sole (or arguably intended) purpose.
The day that Roku provides chat apps and those chat apps can monitor what you do and where then that will be the day that I would like Roku much less.
Re: Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
#139Re: Roku tells customers it is unable to strike a deal with YouTube
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't load without javascript.
You're absolutely right, this website works fine unless you deliberately disable it.
Websites, especially blogs, should work fine without javascript. There's no reason whatsoever to require javascript for a user to read a few paragraphs.