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

Post by timfrietas » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

hristov wrote: post #174

tedajax wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure this refers to Roku's top level search which searches across all apps not the search inside the YouTube app.

Why are you pretty sure about that? From what I have read about it, it seems the argument is very much for search results within the youtube app.

Post by p_j_w » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #212

p_j_w wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Like they already did with Google Play Music, and Google Play Movies + TV once before GPM didn't get shut down, it got switched over to YTM. If you want to use that as an example for what might happen to YTTV, then it'd be YTTV getting moved over to an inferior rebrand that occupies the same space. And I don't know what you're talking about with Play Movies and TV. It's still there.

> And I don't know what you're talking about with Play Movies and TV. It's still there. Google Play Movies and TV was shutdown earlier this year to be replaced (sort of) with YouTube TV -- the same "YouTube TV" in the article above. https://twitter.com/liliputingnews/status/138170402082645197... https://www.androidauthority.com/google-play-movies-shutdown... The shutdown of Google Play Movies and TV and the stuffing…

Post by brk » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

yoyohello13 wrote: post #155

brk wrote: post #39

The competitive landscape for what is turning out to be the next evolution of in-home video content delivery is just making me realize that the content is not worth the hassle. 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…

Sounds like there is room for a service that aggregates all your streaming services into a single portal. They could even include services you don't want into a 'bundle' for 'free'. Then they could work with ISPs to bundle their content aggregation service with internet for one convenient price. Then they could make an appliance called a 'cable' box so home users can stream all these 'channels' to any device they wan…

Post by phh » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

kgwxd wrote: post #15

gameswithgo wrote: post #2

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.

I find it more annoying that standard websites don't just work on a Roku. I'd rather Google didn't have to maintain yet another app for yet another proprietary device, it should all just be build on open standards.

Post by judge2020 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 8:21 PM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #173

supernovae wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 problem isn't hardware capability, it's the ecosystem on top of it. 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. Whethe…