171–180 of 407 posts
I have apple tv and roku. Both work great, now that roku can get apple tv+ it is even better. My kids find the roku remote easier than the apple one. So much so that I bought a roku express 4k stick instead of another apple tv. Seems good enough.
Roku even supports Airplay. Not sure who the Apple TV is for at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a tech consumer has to know that just over $100 does not cover the cost of the hardware. Nonsense. A raspberry pi costs far less and is, arguably, just as capable.
If it was just as capable, then people would buy Raspberry Pi's. 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 w…
The parent comment stated that the $100 doesn't cover the cost of the hardware. I disagree.
I do think it is perhaps a more reasonable statement to say $100 doesn't cover the cost of the hardware and the software platform on top of it.
I don't think it's right to shove ads down customer's throat on a product that they've paid money for. Whether that's money to buy the hardware and the software platform or whether that's money paid to the subscriptions; in both cases advertisements are the wrong solution to revenue. If software costs money then make that cost up front. Sell the software. Sell updates to the software. Sell a subscription for the software. But don't put ads on it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm pretty sure this refers to Roku's top level search which searches across all apps not the search inside the YouTube app.
> Roku still allows customers who bought and downloaded the YouTube TV app before it was removed from Roku's platform in April to use it. 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…
If Roku stopped Roku customers from using YouTube TV, it would force a lot of YouTube TV customers to either a) buy non-Roku devices; b) move to a different service like Hulu with Live TV, DirecTV Stream, Sling, FuboTV, etc. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
And if the opposite is true? If the content is paid on youtube, but available for free through another subscription service that Roku knows you have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't say this for everyone, but a tech consumer has to know that just over $100 does not cover the cost of the hardware. It's got to come from somewhere else. I'm usually not much of an Apple fan, but I just switched to the Apple TV and am really liking it. It certainly seems like charging 2x the price for the hardware removes a lot of the incentive to do all the scammy stuff Ruku is involved in; though I guess I…
> a tech consumer has to know that just over $100 does not cover the cost of the hardware. Nonsense. A raspberry pi costs far less and is, arguably, just as capable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet > 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...
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…
>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.
The 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.