Live data from Hacker News

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

axios.com

251–260 of 407 posts

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

#251

A few weeks after all this beef started, Google emailed me with an offer for a free "Chromecast with Google TV" device. I thought it was weird, as the email (and the offer) was completely unsolicited. The email mentioned something about thanking me for being a YouTube-TV customer. I'm sure Google knows I watch YouTube-TV from my Roku-enabled TV, so I figured it was related to the beef. I just though it was weird at f…

Lately, the Chromecast has become substantially worse, with many more ads and of course a stupid update nobody asked for showing kind of a tablet UI when you're in "idle" mode with the phone connected to the TV (idk how you're supposed to operate it, but I don't care, ofc it's a clickbait showcase screen).

Before the increase in ad frequency (and some bugs like a random unlinking of the device when you put the app in background) it was pretty good TBH.

But of course, everything worsens as viewership gets more concentrated and there are less alternatives.

Will there ever be a product that... just stays like it was when you bought it? A lot of things tech related seem like a bait and switch... you have this.. haha! now you don't

/rant

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

#252
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…

Eh, there are several pros to the streaming media landscape at least for my use cases. I get that it gets stupid expensive if you're really trying to get access to every possible show on every possible streaming platform all the time, but honestly to me I don't get the need to be able to do that. If I've missed some series on some other streaming platform, its not the end of the world to me.

In my household we really only subscribe to two, maybe three streaming services all at ~$10/mo/ea. The library near us has tons of movies available for streaming with just a library card, and a decent selection of DVDs (been trying to convince them to upgrade to BDs). Each service has more content than I could bother watching in a lifetime. The few times we want to watch something outside of that we'll just rent from a streaming service or if we really care about the media buy it on BD/DVD. So, cost-wise its considerably better.

All of those services really work on just about any device you can buy. Smart TV's have them, Roku's have them, Apple TV's have them, Nvidia Shield's have them, you can watch them on Chromecast, watch them on a laptop, watch them on a tablet, watch them on a phone, whatever. Practically any streaming device you can buy anywhere from $10-200 will play all of those streaming services, so its not like I'm juggling multiple different inputs for some screen. An old Chromecast in the kitchen, a Roku in the living room, my desktop in the office, a tablet in the sitting room, my phone on the bus or train or at a picnic table on lunch break at work.

This is a far cry from having to rent specific crappy power-hungry hardware at $15+/mo for each screen, $100+/mo long term contracts for service to be locked to those boxes, and then only really be able to watch it at home. Hopefully all your recordings are set and you haven't overscheduled your dual or quad tuner cable box making you miss something. Good luck catching a series from the beginning without a time machine.

The only thing I really miss from this setup is seeing NHL games, which is now stupid expensive behind AT&T TV. I used to stomache paying for Hulu Live TV when hockey was in season, but AT&T TV wants >$100/mo to get the package to watch that. I'll just go over to a friend's place or a sports bar to scratch that itch.

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

#253

I've used Roku in various incarnations (box, TV) since it was released and was excited when the official YouTube app was finally available. But lately, it's been painful to watch YouTube due to the constant and disruptive advertising. Part of me is looking forward to the app being pulled from Roku, since it's so much like the cable TV experience I thought I was escaping. I don't feel this way about the other premium…

> Is it worth paying for YouTube? That depends on how much not seeing that 'constant and disruptive advertising' is worth to you.

Though, you still get all the in-video promos, even when paying. That ticks me off a bit, but it's not too bad.

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

#254
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it worth paying for YouTube? That depends on how much not seeing that 'constant and disruptive advertising' is worth to you.

Though, you still get all the in-video promos, even when paying. That ticks me off a bit, but it's not too bad.

That's on the content creator, not YouTube right?

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

#255
post #251

A few weeks after all this beef started, Google emailed me with an offer for a free "Chromecast with Google TV" device. I thought it was weird, as the email (and the offer) was completely unsolicited. The email mentioned something about thanking me for being a YouTube-TV customer. I'm sure Google knows I watch YouTube-TV from my Roku-enabled TV, so I figured it was related to the beef. I just though it was weird at f…

Lately, the Chromecast has become substantially worse, with many more ads and of course a stupid update nobody asked for showing kind of a tablet UI when you're in "idle" mode with the phone connected to the TV (idk how you're supposed to operate it, but I don't care, ofc it's a clickbait showcase screen). Before the increase in ad frequency (and some bugs like a random unlinking of the device when you put the app in…

Well the latest Chromecast comes with its own OS and a remote so you no longer need a phone to use it.

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

#256

I've used Roku in various incarnations (box, TV) since it was released and was excited when the official YouTube app was finally available. But lately, it's been painful to watch YouTube due to the constant and disruptive advertising. Part of me is looking forward to the app being pulled from Roku, since it's so much like the cable TV experience I thought I was escaping. I don't feel this way about the other premium…

I use the app on my Sky TV box sometimes, and it's actually a decent experience until you try to watch something. So I rarely do. If they toned down the interruptions I would probably use it more. As it is I just revert to a device with an adblocker.

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

#257

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.

Why can't you access YouTube on it? Can't you just open the browser and type YouTube.com?

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

#258

Then I’ll keep the roku and cancel youtube premium. Google is just the worst.

My perception of Google has shifted from the kid in the candy store feeling I used to get about anything Google touched. Now I'm skeptical of every move they make and don't feel like they are operating in my best interest. Maybe I was always naive but the Google I knew 10+ years ago isn't the one I know today and it makes me sad.

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

#259

Time to get a new TV then. It's been time for awhile but this is gonna be the inciting incident. And definitely not getting a Roku TV as my new one.

This is exactly why its better to buy a dumb TV and install a $50 HDMI stick (or two)

Turn wifi off for the existing TV (smart or not matters little if you don't connect it) and stick the same $50 HDMI stick and avoid throwing out the fully functional display?

At this point, ads displayed to the users who use it as a smart TV probably subsidize those of us who use such TVs without connecting them to anything. My latest TV is enormous and 4K and under a few hundred dollars. The quality is fine, even if occasionally I accidentally get it to switch to the input that involves agreeing to terms and conditions.

Of course it should be super illegal to ask you to agree to terms and conditions after spending over a hundred dollars, shipping something, installing it over hours, after you finally power it on... but at least I can be one of those rare smart TV customers that never agreed to them and can prove it!

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

#260
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it worth paying for YouTube? That depends on how much not seeing that 'constant and disruptive advertising' is worth to you.

Though, you still get all the in-video promos, even when paying. That ticks me off a bit, but it's not too bad.

Doesn't work for Roku/Chromecast, but: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y...
Post reply on HN