21–30 of 407 posts
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.
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.
> 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…
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.
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.
I agree that Roku, time and time again, has been too aggressive in their tactics to extract maximum profit from their users via the apps they consume (HBO disappeared for a while last year, and I think Showtime did as well), but they do have COSTS they have to cover, and profits they have to make to maximize value to shareholders.
Is this a perfect system, no, but it is the system that exists currently.
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.
YouTube is a proper tyranny, they use the algorithm as way to lobby society to their benefit. No wonder Google removed the "don't be evil" motto.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're over estimating the willingness of customers to remain loyal to a device and not the content it serves.
I think that's true in some cases but YouTube on a settop box, in my mind, is really just a "nice to have".
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