Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 407 posts

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

#351

Post by lotsofpulp »

salamandersauce wrote: post #350
tomjen3 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't brought one myself, but wouldn't an Apple Tv solve the consistent and complete user experience? Plus they are big enough that Google can't bully them like they can Roku. Heck they probably have search across all the services you subscribe to so you don't have to remember which services have what stuff.

They do have a universal search but some of the big players like Netflix don't support it which meant that when I had an Apple TV I never really used it. The interface isn't that consistent either because app developers can pretty much do what they want so Netflix, YouTube etc. have the same UI they have other platforms for the most part which is different from Apple's. Of course Apple does the same thing and the App…

It is pretty much only Netflix that does not want to play ball.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208083

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

#352

Post by LightG »

Jensson wrote: post #137
LightG wrote: post #90

Welcome 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.

Fair enough. I rarely use youtube on a TV screen anyway. Thanks for the heads up.

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

#353

Post by salamandersauce »

whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #184
supernovae wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire apple ecosystem is extremely expensive to be on - asking 30% of revenue share - not much for major networks since they don't have to invent it themselves, but a hefty tax to consumers in comparison to non apple devices. The funny part is, they charge a premium on both ends and people like it. (and i do believe Apple had to fight similar battles on youtube placement...)

This is really totally false. Youtube TV - Apple is not taking 30% - that's a lie basically as an example. Most of these major players (Youtube TV etc) you can sign up just on a regular website. Apple only takes a cut of these subscriptions IF you use their platform to enable them. If you do use them, the % is only 15% after 1 year. Either way - the outcome is I as a user have good access to lots of good content, no…

Apple also refused to support the encoding YT was using for 4K. It took several years before the ATV4K could actually show YT in 4K and they had that whole stupid spat with Amazon that kept Prime Video off the platform for years. Everyone in the streaming market has been greedy and childish.

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

#354

Post by lotsofpulp »

supernovae wrote: post #197
whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really totally false. Youtube TV - Apple is not taking 30% - that's a lie basically as an example. Most of these major players (Youtube TV etc) you can sign up just on a regular website. Apple only takes a cut of these subscriptions IF you use their platform to enable them. If you do use them, the % is only 15% after 1 year. Either way - the outcome is I as a user have good access to lots of good content, no…

If someone buys and apple tv and then buys Youtube tv - then the market fees are 30% If someone already has youtube tv and signs in on apple tv, the sure... BUT.. when you use an apple tv, Apple makes it remarkably hard NOT to use an apple account to not subscribe to services so in most cases, it's gonna be your wife seeing HBO in the apps and installing and subbing through there. That's the entire premise of their w…

> Apple makes it remarkably hard NOT to use an apple account to not subscribe to services so in most cases, it's gonna be your wife seeing HBO in the apps and installing and subbing through there.

It is remarkably hard to tell your spouse to not pay for things on the Apple TV and rather do it via the website using the browser on the phone that is most likely in her hand?

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

#355

Post by lotsofpulp »

The-Bus wrote: post #149
antasvara wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Roku captures subscription and advertising revenue, and also resells/licenses ACR (Automatic Content Recognition) data, aka viewing data. Users can turn this off if needed. ACR Service Policy: https://docs.roku.com/published/acrservicepolicy/en/us Roku is not alone in doing this, of course. Every major TV manufacturer in the US does this.

More info:

https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smar...

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

#356

Post by lotsofpulp »

StevePerkins wrote: post #191
hristov wrote: post #162

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…

> "If I pay $40/month for Youtube TV..." Where are you getting YouTube TV for anywhere near $40/mo? That may have been the price at launch, but it's already climbed more than 50% over the past few years. If you really want live television, I'm not even sure whether cutting the cord and going with an over-the-top package is even cheaper these days.

The only reason it would not be cheaper is if the ISP monopoly, usually coaxial cable internet providers, are bundling internet with TV channel services.

Otherwise it makes no sense that you can add a middleman that needs to employ labor that has to go around to people’s houses and have it be the same cost.

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

#357

Post by sofixa »

southerntofu wrote: post #343
esrauch wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The normal phone-controlled Chromecast definitely doesn't have ads (but ads will play when watching YouTube unless you have premium obviously) I feel like that experience is optimal. I don't want any launcher experience on the tv, much less any ads.

> (but ads will play when watching YouTube unless you have premium obviously) Why obviously? Can't you use an adblocker with Chromecast? Isn't it just a dumb IP video streaming device? I've never used or seen a Chromecast, but if you can recommend a free-software/cheap alternative i'd be curious to try it.

Nope, it's a tiny embedded device you have little control over. It's slightly more intelligent than just IP video streaming ( e.g. there are app integrations) - if you cast a random video, it will play that video; if you cast YouTube or Netflix it does stuff directly with them and there are ads on free YouTube. DNS adblockers don't work by default either, since Chromecasts have Google's DNS servers hardcoded.

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

#358

Post by Mindwipe »

cheeze wrote: post #216
jefftk wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A raspberry pi 4 will, and the accessories are relatively cheap: https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/build-the-ultimate-4k-home-...

Will it? I didn't know that rpi had any HW support for AV1. Last I checked, there wasn't any player capable of doing HDR10 HEVC either, but maybe that has changed. I like the rpi but I don't think its as capable as people are making it out to be.

And it doesn't have any hardware backed DRM, so service compatibility is low and those that do are generally in limited resolutions.

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

#359

Post by sofixa »

qudat wrote: post #301
johnvaluk wrote: post #244

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? Yes it is worth it. It is the one entertainment streaming service I don't cancel. No ads on any devices is incredible. I also really enjoy their music service.

And you can download videos for offline viewing which is great when traveling.

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

#360

Post by Mindwipe »

unethical_ban wrote: post #198
datavirtue wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suppose the question is, what incentive do Apple or Google or Amazon have to put their content on a competitor's hardware? Moreover, pay to get it on Roku? People are going to buy the hardware that has the content they want. I feel like the big three are squeezing Roku out. Should legislation be written to require content and hardware platforms be separate? That Apple TV should have to be available for Shield and R…

> Should legislation be written to require content and hardware platforms be separate?

There are literally thousands of platforms and devices, all with little bespoke niggles. Who's going to pay for that?

Post reply on HN