I get this situation is different since YouTube is looking for concessions on functionality, but I find it hard to defend Roku with their triple-dipping scheme. They charge for the device (I paid over $100 for my 4k HDR box), then they display massive ads covering 50% of the screen, then they want a cut of revenue from content providers as well.
Roku burned through a lot of goodwill with their customers during the HBO Max holdout.
Yeah I liked them initially, but have since thrown out all their crap and bought Apple TVs.
Once Apple got Amazon prime streaming roku lost their only differentiating feature. The ads really annoyed me to the extent that I don’t care if they fail.
I have been on Roku forever now and I'm always wondering about these people freaking out about the ads there. It is no where close to the ad intrusion of YouTube. They are not animated, have no sound, and basically stay out of the way. It's like the shinning example of how to do ads.
Roku ads take up the entire right half of the main launch screen, visible every time you turn on the TV or change apps. They've recently started displaying branded ads that are even more intrusive, taking over the entire theme + wallpaper (I recall they did this for Mandalorian, Soul, some other big movie launches).
YouTube ads help fund content creators. Roku ads are being displayed on a stand alone device that I already paid $100 for.
Also, it's possible to disable that home screen ad, if you mess around in the secret settings screen.
Hit Home 5 times.
Hit Up, Right, Down, Left, Up.
You're now on a secret settings screen. I don't know what its purpose is, internal development? Channel development?
Set Image Service to "Dev"
Set Home Screen Ad Banner URL to "Demo2"
Do a Reset/Refresh of cached settings.
Go to main Settings/System and reboot for good measure.
When you get back to the Roku home screen you shouldn't see changing ads anymore, just a static black and white Apple AirPlay image.
I've used this trick on a Roku 3 and a Roku 4 and it worked on both. If there's no "reset / clear cache" option for you on the secret settings screen, it might take a little while for any downloaded ads to expire.
For the first headline, this has to do with channels that are too small to be in the partner program. Youtube still is service provided for free, allowing anyone to upload and share unlimited videos. It's ridiculous to think Youtube shouldn't be allowed to monetize said videos and recoup some money. But also each individual channel here probably makes a few pennies and is not worth it for them to setup a whole contract for.
The latter headline is about a recent issue where some creators force-disable all ads on their channel and instead insert their own sponsor ads in the video. This causes two issues, 1. premium members who pay to not get ads still end up getting them and 2. Youtube basically doesn't get a single penny from that channel. In such cases, I think it's also entirely fair for Youtube to make some money from a video being watched by millions and costing bandwidth.
No they're not. Discrediting creators do not disprove anything stated in the headlines.
> But also each individual channel here probably makes a few pennies and is not worth it for them to setup a whole contract for.
So if YouTube is gathering every penny made by small (or in other words, most) creators, maybe it isn't fair to pretend that YouTube profiting is for some greater good while bashing competitors for doing the same.
> The latter headline is about a recent issue where some creators force-disable all ads on their channel and instead insert their own sponsor ads in the video.
That's an "issue" YouTube would rather people talk about. In reality, it is irrelevant as it applies to every single video uploaded to YouTube. It just serves to unfairly discredit creators. And before you ask, yes, there are people who made the conscious decision of not monetizing their videos that were impacted by YouTube's new policy[1].
Two things can be true at once. Youtube is a platform that needs to make money to exist, and it can also help support creators at the same time. No one claimed it was a charity for creators.
They are perfectly justified in making money off of any video on their platform. It's honestly astonishing to me that you think it's acceptable for a creator to be able to rake in thousands from their video, hosted entirely for free, while also blocking Youtube from making a single penny from the video to pay for the cost of operation.
> you think it's acceptable for a creator to be able to rake in thousands from their video, hosted entirely for free, while also blocking Youtube from making a single penny
Please don’t dictate what I think. That’s not at all what I actually wrote.
Second, if anyone is operating at a loss, it’s the small creators. YouTube, operated by one of richest company on this planet, is the one profiting both directly and indirectly from those creators’ work. I also can’t understand how anyone can claim small creators “only makes a few pennies” while “raking in thousands” at the same time.
> Please don’t dictate what I think. That’s not at all what I actually wrote.
Then please explain because either you agree that Youtube should be allowed to override the "no ads" checkbox for creators that run in-video ads, or you disagree with it. I don't really see a middle ground here.
> I also can’t understand how anyone can claim small creators “only makes a few pennies” while “raking in thousands” at the same time.
It's simple; as with literally everything else Google does, scale. A few pennies, multiplied by millions of small creators, adds up very quickly.
But if they had to setup Creator deals with each of those millions of creators with 1-2 videos, then the economics would simply not work out. It's the same reason they have piss poor customer support on their free products. Those products only work because they have billions of users, but providing customer support to that many people doesn't work financially.
Roku's differentiating feature has always been simplicity and universal search. Does Apple TV offer universal search across content providers? I'm asking, I don't know, but it's the one feature I can't give up.
I really enjoy using JustWatch for this. Their service allows you to search across all the streaming services, and browsing through their suggestions is fun. I also like using it to keep track of what I’ve watched and what I’d like to watch in the future. Their mobile app is pretty solid too.
Content providers can choose what content to expose to the universal search. Most do, notably Netflix does not, so you can't find Netflix content using Siri.
Android tv does. Which you can get on an Nvidia shield or a cheaper off brand device on Amazon. Just be sure to get one that is certified for Netflix. (I think it's some kind of DRM that has to be on the device for the Netflix app to work).
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 can't know for sure, or know the future.
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 with it but i guess they realized the Streaming TV problem isn't a software or hardware problem to begin with...
> 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. 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!
I think the comment you're referring to is incorrect in that regard - of course $100 pays (or at least paid pre-chip-shortage) for the bulk-purchased chips and boards in the products, but people buy it because of the streaming services on the box, not because it has a Cortex-A55 in it (although that plays into choosing it over the 1080p model).
I have to chuckle because Google's entire existance has been based on advertising revenue so if you don't like ad supported "Fremium" or "discounted" services, this really is a moot discussion.
It's actually getting quite difficult to buy Raspberry Pi's at the moment, they are out of stock in most places. So people are buying them, but I know that's not what you meant in the context of this conversation.
These accessories are sold in quantities of one, to consumers, and made in relatively smaller batches. All of that gets a lot cheaper if you can injection mold a plastic housing and buy things in hundreds of thousands or millions.
Apple used to sell Apple TV's for $99. It's absolutely possible to make money selling a basic 4K box with a remote for $100 or even $50 these days. You can buy random Chinese emulation consoles and streaming devices for that much where they can only be making money off the hardware.
> 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 can't know for sure, or know the future.
Software services (i.e. updating iOS/Roku's OS) require on-going maintenance. Apple makes this by charging developers who in turn typically charge the consumers. Roku doesn't do this and hence why it can be hostile to the consumer. It's model is generally to use an ad model instead.
Now people know why there is a (arguably high) tax on subscriptions derived from iOS.
100 dollars certainly covers the cost of the hardware. These streaming devices use commodity chips and run Linux. This isn’t a crazy R&D project. The only real value-add from Roku is the software.
I also bought an ATV recently and I'm very happy with it.
I still use an Nvidia Shield for Plex though. The ATV is great for streaming platforms, but lacks HDMI audio passthrough which is essential for watching hi quality BluRay rips on a home theater.
ARC/eARC is about the TV sending audio from HDMI devices to another HDMI port where your receiver/soundbar is connected.
HDMI audio passthrough is a feature that allows apps to send any raw encoded audio signal "as is" via the HDMI port (eg: Dolby, DTS, etc) to your receiver that will do the decoding.
The ATV does not support DTS or TrueHD, hence to output audio with those codecs, it needs to be decoded and converted on the fly to a supported format like PCM. Unfortunately this produces all sort of issues (sync, volume, etc).
I'm a long time Roku fan but also feel they're in the wrong here. Mostly I'm angry because I feel captive; I bought my TCL TV explicitly because it had the Roku OS. It's great! Right until it can't show the one content site I most want to see because of some stupid business argument. I feel like a sucker for paying for Roku.
I'm kind of done with Roku. When they were holding customers hostage to squeeze more money out of HBOMax I did a bit of reading about Roku and realized how parasitic they are.
None of the commercial streaming device options are great, but I think my next one will be an Apple TV.
I didn't know they charged money from app creators to be hosted. I thought they just made their money on hardware!
All roku had to do was build some quality hardware and a decent streaming UI. The only thing that would take money to maintain from a server perspective should be the update servers and software servers.
I saw them as one of the few dedicated streaming devices (next to Shield) for being "provider neutral" - that is, not apple and not Google.
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.
There's no way that a container full of TVs costs $100 per TV to ship. A bit of quick ddg-ing and it looks like a 40 foot container should be less than $4000 port to port.
With the supply chain problems, prices have gone up - sometimes quite a bit. I saw this article:
>...Container shipping rates from China to the United States have scaled fresh highs above $20,000 per 40-foot box as rising retailer orders ahead of the peak U.S. shopping season add strain to global supply chains.
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 Roku, and that Youtube TV be allowed on Apple and Roku?
Roku also takes a cut for every transaction that goes via its platform. If I end up subscribing to HBO via roku, Roku takes a cut too.
On a related note, is it just me that's flummoxed by the lack of Ad disclosures for the Roku ads? I can't seem to find it - and having worked ij tech ads , I find this troubling and concerning.
> then they display massive ads covering 50% of the screen
Stop this. I have multiple Rokus. The % of time I spend on their menu looking at the ads is like 0.0001% of my total time using Roku. In fact, I didn't even notice any ads for months until someone on Reddit complained about it.
I think the triple dipping is the main issue. If they want a cut from content providers they need to provide something more then just we will have your app.
I am a bit sympathetic to them because that's what the market asks for.
I am looking at the prices of rokus, and my guess is they are losing money on the hardware.
And yes, we should have a completely free (as in speech) device. But if you actually offered it and priced it accordingly, most people would not buy it.
It's dumb but it's what we consumers have voiced with our money.
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 first (like, what's the catch here?), but now I get it - and it was a brilliant move. The Chromecast/Google-TV device is better, much more responsive than Roku on my TV, which was always my biggest complaint with Roku (too slow!). So now, I've pretty much abandoned Roku, and use my Chromecast/Google-TV device almost exclusively. Well-played, Google. Your move, Roku - send me free shit! LOL
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
> 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).
Are you sure you're using a Chromecast? Not only has my Chromecast never once shown me an ad, but I have no idea what screen you're talking about and I use mine every day.
The new Chromecast is a dongle that comes with a remote and has a Google tv interface built on Android tv. You can still cast to it like the old Chromecast. You are likely using one the older, cast only devices which have been discontinued.
Even ignoring the fact that cast-only isn't discontinued, I believe you can set the new Chromecast in a cast-only mode too. Of course this kinda defeats the point of the device, but it is doable.
Chromecasts have ads? I've never seen one in my life on them. Are you talking about free YouTube?
I liked the first Chromecast and since I upgraded to the latest with Google TV, I think it's the best experience ever. I sometimes want to take mine to friends' place so I don't have you suffer through whatever horrible smart TV interface they have.
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.
I think the reality is there is no free-software alternative, because the entire user experience is based on ecosystem buy-in where every media source (Netflix/Amazon/YouTube/Hulu/HBO, even NPR/PBS and Chrome itself) all actively have support for the Cast flows within their products (some only in their native apps, but many in their web experiences as well).
I did a quick search on Github and i see there's a variety of clients implementing the Chromecast protocols, but no server?! Is there really millions of such devices using a proprietary protocol noone has written a free server for?
I disagree. I have 5-6 Rokus and one Chromecast with Google TV.
Chromecast with Google TV does not support YouTubeTV user profiles. That's kind of a big deal, considering it's a feature of YTTV and one that I use extensively. Not being able to access my library of content from my living room TV sucks. I have to use my phone to launch the video, and then I can use the CC remote to skip/navigate. I've reported it multiple times, all I hear back from the YTTV Reddit team is "we're working on it".
Never used the one in Roku but Amazon Prime on the latest Chromecast seems fine to me. It wasn't a good experience a year ago but it's decent now, I guess.
What I've observed when comparing Roku to other devices.
I buy my apple TV -> I get basically no ads, they don't seem to charge that much to allow folks like youtube tv to have an app on the platform
Roku -> I buy and own my device. They seem to sell advertising all over the device I paid for. They seem to be charging companies for buttons and/or to be able to put an app on the roku platform.
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...)
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 crap ads, no advertising buttons I don't want and more. So it's a win for me.
I'd really like Roku to be transparent in terms of what they are asking for from Youtube. In the past, they refused to support encoding Youtube TV was using etc.
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 walled garden and i still can't believe people pay a premium for it.
> 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?
Oh puhhlease. i don't police my wife, she can order whatever tv she wants. I don't have apple tv anymore anyway - BUT, if you do order on the phone there is a good chance its going to try and force Apple Pay or the Store if you installed the app and you're still walled garden paying apple tax
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.
Apple TV original was a very focused platform (and slow really if you were not using the apple stuff). I'm not surprised it couldn't handle YT4K. By the time I joined, Apple TV easily seems to support youtube. Apple TV is limited - no question. Doesn't support USB media etc etc. But you get a very smooth experience, very little in terms of ads. I am thinking about something that supports USB based media directly - though you can also stream to most platforms for a network storage system
The Amazon /Apple spat was annoying for sure. Now I buy my apple stuff on Amazon, etc, I think Amazon realized Apple nto a real threat to their money spinning AWS (apple's network stuff has historically been very poor and not cross platform).
The ATV 4K I'm talking about is one generation behind the current one and was first released in 2017. They sold it until May of this year and it still gets updates. It always "supported" YouTube but not in 4K until tvOS 14 which released LAST YEAR. The hardware could always do YouTube in 4K and weaker devices like the 4K FireTVs could do it too.
I thought apps would make things better or just wide adoption of web players but apparently not.. reminds me of the cablecard fiasco and having to buy new STBs or pay a monthly fee to rent one.. back to plex it is
Yeah, they're actually a pretty crap offering. Between the app buttons on the remote (which serve only a single purpose: interrupting whatever we're watching when my toddler decides to grab the remote and press one of the app buttons), the absolutely AWFUL wifi range (had to get a new AP just for it, even though every other device - in the same room as the Roku but further from the AP - worked fine: iPhone, OnePlus N100, Google Home Mini, Thinkpad, Dell), and the fact that half of the apps on it seem like they would require twice as much processing power as it has to actually be useable...
I have 3 Roku TVs and I love them. The UX is better than any other system I've used in the last 5-10 years.
If YouTube TV isn't available, I'll just cancel YouTube TV and get Hulu TV instead. Roku makes dealing with all of these streaming services a lot easier. If a service isn't going to work on Roku, I'm just not going to use it.
> hey seem to sell advertising all over the device I paid for.
The ads "all over the device" only appear on the menu and "screen saver" screen which represent a tiny fraction of my screen usage.
I turn on TV, I choose Netflix/YTTV/etc. and I'm off. Time spent looking at the ONE banner ad less than 1 second. It's not obtrusive, it's not "all over the device".
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 content.
I am absolutely not going to rely on smart TV apps to provide a consistent or complete user experience.
I am not going to pay for a service and still be subjected to advertisements.
Somebody ping me when there is actually a logical option for in-home video content delivery to my TV. Until then, I'll either leave it turned off or use traditional options.
I do a round-robin with friends/family where we each pay for a preferred service and share the accounts with everyone in the pool. Every service I've used has been extremely accommodating of this and allows for multiple profiles.
If that's not an option, cancelling/pausing subscriptions should work fine. Once you've watched everything on NF, cancel/pause that and get a HBO Max or something.
To some degree that is a valid approach but the management overhead is simply not worth it to me. I don’t want to deal with having to ‘manage’ subscriptions and such on a month to month or recurring basis.
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 want.
> Sounds like there is room for a service that aggregates all your streaming services into a single portal.
Such as Apple App Store? You can search for the media you want to watch in the TV app, it shows up with how much it is, and you click to pay and then watch. I do not understand any aspect of why someone would want to go back to dealing with their not on demand monopoly cable tv provider and cable boxes.
Even if you did want that, seems easier to just sign up for YouTube tv or sling and watch via the app than deal with a cable/satellite tv company.
I just use a VPN, flexget, PLEX, and a torrent client. Automatically downloads new episodes at the resolution I want for the shows I want. I can watch at my leisure and get no ads.
I hate advertisements. I also don’t watch my shows these days, it almost all feels like indoctrination at this point.
Similar approach, but PLEX + Usenet plumbing (Sonarr/Radarr/NZBGet/friends).
I pay for ESPN+ because it is a convenient way to get some live sports content I like, and the quality of the service is really strong. Other networks make it harder, enforce blackouts, have terrible players that spin my fans up – and for that I use IPTV.
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.
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 Apple TV app on my FireTV works quite a bit differently from other apps UIwise.
Same, Nebula/Curiosity Stream, plus YouTube and Crunchyroll (free tier) is more than enough to entertain me when I need it. I don't want to buy content by the "channel" and I'll do literally whatever I need to for it to stay that way.
If you just want to replace cable, why would you need so many services? Surely one or two of them has enough to watch. Probably more than you used to find in 30-100 channels, and on demand, too.
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 channels I use (Netflix, Prime Video). Is it worth paying for YouTube? Will pulling the app make it impossible to use the premium (paid) service on Roku devices?
I think that largely depends on your personal ratio of income vs perceived value of time vs annoyance by ads.
For me,today,I'm lucky enough that it's 100% worth it. Somebody sent me a link last week and it opened in non google Firefox container so I wasn't signed in... After I went through "wtf" moment at inopportune interruptions, I realized how totally worth it it is.
Yes the content promos are a bit annoying too but much more easily skippable,not to mention better timed & integrated,and less disruptive.
Plus again,I'm lucky enough to be able to afford supporting content creators and pay for what I consume. As a student in war torn Bosnia my perspective was radically different than established worker in Canada.
>I think that largely depends on your personal ratio of income vs perceived value of time vs annoyance by ads.
What boggles my mind, is the number of YouTube channels that have jumped on the reaction video genre, and amass thousands upon thousands of views, and occasionally have the video they are reacting to interrupted by ads?! And consequently, all of their viewers now have the same interruption! I generally give up on channels that can't do the minimum effort towards their production.
With the current system, yes. YouTube could do something where the content creator specifies the sponsored part (if it's not straight up merchandising and product placement) and paying subscribers could have that skipped.
Anyway, I chimed in to say YouTube Premium to me is worth a lot. I watch more YouTube because of it, it's better, better for the kids, less annoying, the whole thing is fantastically better. Every time I click an YouTube video on my employer account and get an ad it's such a shock.
> YouTube could do something where the content creator specifies the sponsored part (if it's not straight up merchandising and product placement) and paying subscribers could have that skipped.
Great idea. It would certainly make the videos a lot shorter as well.
> Every time I click an YouTube video on my employer account and get an ad it's such a shock
Whenever I forget to open up youtube in brave or firefox ;-(
I’d use YouTube premium if it didn’t make things actually worse! Without premium I can watch anything anywhere. with premium I get nasty “you’re using this on another device” messages that stop playback and cause other issues
Promotion is baked into so many videos on youtube - just as it has been in television and film for decades. I'm not sure whether it's getting worse, or if it has always been this bad and I just didn't notice it as much.
The nice thing is that the format of promos are pretty consistent. Video intro, promo for about 60 seconds, then main video start. I've never felt bothered by skipping ahead past the promo. Actually many viewers feel really glad and supportive that the content creators they're fans of are getting sponsored and paid.
> Video intro, promo for about 60 seconds, then main video start.
Even better are ad sections that are coloured differently to that of the main video. A good example here is Chain Bear [0]. Chain Bear's colour style is based around yellow, and here the sponsored section is NordVPN, with a blue colour scheme. Very easy to skip exactly to where the content starts.
Why does their advertising feel so disruptive? Is it because it feels like something just broke for a moment? It seems that an ad will often be inserted right at a key moment. Maybe it is that I feel like I have to constantly hold the remote, ready to "skip" the rest of the ads, except now they are getting less and less skippable. Also, lately, they are running two ads instead of one.
It is so annoying I have been watching less and less.
I do not feel the same about regular TV. Perhaps it is because the ads are run at the points the programming is designed for ad insertion.
I made an AI powered skip app to automatically skip the ads for me. Conveniently enough, it also detects Netflix/Hulu "Skip Intro" button, "Skip Re-Cap" button, and maybe even the "Are You Still Watching" button.
Best thing I ever made. Literally cannot fall asleep to YouTube without it.
Oh, man! Falling asleep to youtube is (was) my PRIMARY reason for watching youtube. The recent creep of ads considerably reduces the soporific quality of dozing off to a Malcolm Gladwell conversation or a Royal Institute lecture.
Nothing worse than just drifting off to sleep watching a soothing woodworking video only for a 45 minute ad about some book club or a music video to ruin it.
I don’t know how people can watch ads. We went cable-free a few years ago, so now it’s all Netflix or other pay-to-stream services. When I watch YouTube, as soon as an ad begins, I usually click away. Same for freemium content on Amazon Video. Can’t stand it.
Ads are important cultural information. Imagine not knowing "Snap into a Slim Jim" by Macho Man Randy Savage, or the "Oh Yeah" breaking through a brick wall by the Cool Aid pitcher. The horror.
YouTube premium is the very best subscription I have. Why would I want to see ads all over the place anywhere anyone embedded a video (on twitter or wherever)? When I have to use YouTube signed out or on someone else's device it is just shocking how frequent and bad the YouTube ads are.
$15/month for totally ad-free YouTube and ad-free unlimited YouTube Music for my whole family seems like a complete no-brainer to me.
I think they really set the wrong expectation early on. I think the amount of advertising per hour is still barely 1/4 of what you'd get on commercial broadcast TV. They have to pay their creators and product teams to keep it running and it ain't free.
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.
I just watch YouTube with ad blocking. I do feel slightly guilty, as it means my favorite channels don’t get paid for my views, but I justify it by telling myself that most of them have sponsors that they mention in-video.
For some reason the Apple TV YouTube app's recommendations are pretty abysmal compared to the desktop website or the iPad app, and Watch Later isn't saving the day either. Could be that the app displays a grid of just 6 videos per screen, which is utterly ridiculous for any TV screen, god forbid a projector. Premium is still worth it though.
> 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.
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 experience on YouTube.
Hah, a "high quality" experience indeed. Except, it's not quite "on youtube" since it's more "on Roku".
The youtube blog also states:
> Roku requested exceptions that would break the YouTube experience and limit our ability to update YouTube in order to fix issues or add new features.
Let users update their YouTube app through Roku app store instead of some shitty auto-update crap that lets Google shovel shit down Roku users.
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 aware, Roku also has a way of capturing subscription revenue as well.
By alk means call out Google for their garbage business practices. But don't let Roku off the hook either.
They will host your app and let others install it with a private code for free (you don't have to pay to become a developer, and you don't have to pay to use unapproved apps, nor periodically reinstall them, and unapproved apps get treated the same as other apps, and can be auto-updated, etc).
You can (unless this has changed in the past few years since I wrote a Roku app) sideload apps onto your own devices without Roku's involvement.
Developing for a Roku device doesn't require buying anything -- you probably want to buy a Roku to test it out on, but that's not a requirement.
These differences make the proposition much different.
Google doesn't need Roku's permission for writing YouTube unless they want some kind of special treatment outside the published APIs. This part is similar to Apple, where the platform owner can withhold some features from some people.
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.
> What I find interesting here is that Roku is using business practices similar to Apple and nobody seems to have a problem with it.
True. But I would also argue that there's a different scope.
Roku provides a device that allows you to watch video. That's its ultimate purpose.
Apple provides multiple devices; their iOS products are meant more for mobile communication. As such it's much more user-interactive. More user interaction means more "value" inasmuch as there's more opportunities for abuse.
You can use an iOS device to watch video. That's not it's sole (or arguably intended) purpose.
The day that Roku provides chat apps and those chat apps can monitor what you do and where then that will be the day that I would like Roku much less.
This seems like such an unnecessary fine line. The Apple TV box is just for watching video as well - are you fine with the App Store monopoly there? If there were regulation that allowed competing app stores, would you vote for those competitors being locked out of Apple TV apps?
Most platform providers have a certification process for apps on their platforms to ensure that they don't have stability or data issues.
Apple does it. Sony does it. Microsoft does it. And if Google isn't doing it with their own app store, then that raises a lot of questions about Google's commitment to quality software.
>I'm not understanding your point here, its the Youtube app. Why is it more on Roku ?
Because one nice feature of Roku is it will search for a program across all of the services. I can search for a movie and see it's $3.99 to rent on Amazon and $4.99 somewhere and free somewhere else. Maybe Google don't like being at the end of the list alphabetically, which might make sense for company that knows the drop off clickthrough rate.
I have no feelings on the matter personally, other than my general dislike of both Roku and YouTube for being more interested in getting paid for reselling my personal data than for delivering me an experience worth paying for. Perhaps someone else will have personal data to share with you. Sorry!
Its a sign of the times. There's a lot of people, especially on the right, whose only experience with "news" is actually editorialized media. There's a "groupthink" and tribal element here too. This person wants to push their anti-Google bias views as fact, when in reality if you dig down into this dispute there's no clear villain.
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 show, I am searching for a show within the offerings of the app I am in. I do not want to be offered a show in a yet another app for which I will have to pay yet another monthly fee.
And I especially do not want to be driven towards another service for which I will have to pay another monthly fee, if the show I am searching for is already available in the app I am already paying for and from which I am searching.
I am sure of this. I help lead search for Hulu and Disney+ and own a RokuTV. Roku already allows you the option to voice search inside the app you are already in (this has to be enabled by the Roku app developer I believe).
This definitely refers to the universal search Roku offers, and, if true, is an absurd ask on Google's part.
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.
Well, if I am within the you tube app, I am searching youtube first and I want the youtube results to be at least presented first. If I want to search all the services, I can search from the roku homescreen.
Websites, especially blogs, should work fine without javascript. There's no reason whatsoever to require javascript for a user to read a few paragraphs.
It's not your website, so who are you to say what is "fine" and what isn't?
It's up to the website owner to determine what the minimum requirements for their site are, and they chose to require Javascript. Judging by the fact that Axios is still up and running, they don't seem to mind their decision.
> Tell them Google is playing evil games with their empire and it's impacting hardware you purchased. Suggest a breakup of Google and YouTube.
Why would a breakup make a difference here? AFAICT the entire deal is limited to YouTube. A breakup would matter if other parts of Google were involved, for example, if Google were threatening to remove Roku from search/ads if they couldn't strike a deal with YouTube. That would be anticompetitive.
This particular deal doesn't come off as anticompetitive to me. It's basically the same problem that Cable TV has with carriage fees and networks, just for streaming services/devices.
Edit: to clarify I don't see this deal as anticompetitive in the monopolistic sense. i.e. I don't see how breaking up Google/YouTube would solve anticompetitive-ness of the deal.
Roku claims that Google are imposing requirements that they don't impose on other TV box producers. And someone elsewhere in the thread said Google were pushing Chromecast at him at the same time. If Google is offering a better YouTube experience on Chromecast than on third-party devices, that seems anticompetitive.
I mean, saying it impacts hardware you purchased is a stretch. You can just as easily plug in an Android TV box, or an Amazon fire stick, or any number of other products with different interfaces.
Google doesn't "control" the hardware you own, Roku does. Nobody forces people to buy a TV with Roku preinstalled; anyone who did this has consented to having their hardware limited/controlled by Roku.
This isn't to absolve Google, as their behavior is also anticompetitive and generally shady. But saying that Google is the one impacting your hardware is letting Roku off the hook for the part they play in effectively owning your hardware.
Huh? Roku is "hardware you purchased". Sure, you could go out and purchase something else to replace it. I'm not sure why you think that means it doesn't impact the hardware you already have.
Roku is more analogous to software than hardware. My phone OS updates at least every few months, and I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I'd wager that most people don't have a problem with that.
Roku is as much "hardware you purchased" as calling Android "hardware you purchase." Even that isn't a good analogy, because unlike a phone, you can still use your TV without Roku.
When I buy a TV, I'm not "buying" Roku. A lack of access to YouTube in no way impacts the things that make my TV work as a TV. It still turns on and can be used to view any content of my choosing, provided I supply it with the right accessories.
Roku is literally a device that you purchase for using media streaming apps. If there's a TV with Roku built-in, that's only one gateway to their platform and I don't think it's a huge chunk of their userbase.
> Roku sells between 25 and 40 percent of all smart TV's in the US.
Color me extremely dubious. Perhaps Roku TV + Roku devices connected to a TV are about 25-40% of "smart TVs" but I doubt even that.
I have literally never been to a single person's house with a Roku TV in their living room. But a Roku hooked up to their TV? You bet. We have 2, my mom has 1, and several of my friends have them as well.
There is honestly only one good media box left and it's the Apple TV. The only ads it has is for the stupid Apple TV+ program but beyond that it supports every streaming service. I've dumped all my "it just works" rokus for Apple TVs. The nvidia shield was doing good but google got their hands on it and it's full of ads now too. The new AppleTV remote is much better and so far has passed all wife tests.
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.
The issue is that companies like Roku are increasingly making their money by having companies like YouTube TV pay them to carry their apps. Likewise, there are lots of things about these systems that can fall under negotiations. For example, what analytics does Roku get access to for actions taken within apps? Does Roku get insight into what YouTube videos you're watching?
From Roku's blog post, it seems that Google wants a dedicated area in the global search for YouTube results. For example, If you search for "Last Week Tonight", Google wants a YouTube results row showing clips on their service above results from other content platforms like HBO Max. Basically, Google wants to have the placement that search ads get on their platform on Roku.
Previous Roku complaints about Google have included that Google wants all Roku devices to support the AV1 codec - which Google's own Chromecast with Google TV doesn't support.
I think the "dumb and twisted" goes both ways. It's dumb and twisted that Google won't allow Roku devices to run YouTube if Roku doesn't commit that all future Roku devices support AV1 - when even Google's own streaming device doesn't support AV1. It's dumb and twisted that Google wants a dedicated row for YouTube search results rather than neutral search results.
> From Roku's blog post, it seems that Google wants a dedicated area in the global search for YouTube results. For example, If you search for "Last Week Tonight", Google wants a YouTube results row showing clips on their service above results from other content platforms like HBO Max. Basically, Google wants to have the placement that search ads get on their platform on Roku.
Previous discussions[0] suggested that it was simply "where does pressing the remote search button take you". If you're in the YT TV app, Google likely wanted the button to focus the search button within the app, not bring you back to the system-wide search.
It's a great example of what both companies see as their value proposition (to users, and to Wall Street).
Roku: aggregating multiple streaming providers in a provider-agnostic way
Google: centralizing streaming through the YouTube brand (considering it comprises multiple offerings now)
I'm not a huge fan of Roku, due to data collection, but it's apparent who's on the side of the user here. Google/YouTube has finally grown big enough to be everything we hated about legacy content providers.
As a user, I see Google's point on this. I often get annoyed when I want to search within the system I'm using and get pushed to a global search, when I want to stay in the app. I'm sure to the app developers this is doubly annoying because it means taking their users away to other platforms. Ironically Google themselves are pretty bad about this - on any given google product it's a roll of the dice what the scope of the "search" button will be.
LG WebOS has a YouTube TV app and the search button in the remote takes you to the global search function. This doesn’t seem to cause any friction between google and LG. Because YouTube TV seems to work everywhere but on roku I tend to blame roku here.
Or LG WebOS is not a big enough market for Google to care about the experience to put their foot down, at that point they’d rather be on the device (and controlling other devices where it counts).
This is all hearsay though and it’s unclear if Google even made such demands to Roku.
In most markets, LG and Roku are quite competitive and within a few percentage points of one another. In South America, a less mature but fast growing market, LG has a significant lead over Roku with 23% market share. But in North America, Roku is the market leader with 37% market share, to LG's 4%.
Globally, Roku controls 30% (down from 33% in 2020).
"Home electronics" covers a lot more than streaming, and even a portion of that revenue could account for users with an LG TV who use a Roku device instead of WebOS. It's not a good comparison.
LG tvs are quite a bit more expensive than Roku boxes (Roku TVs are made and sold by other parties), so comparing revenue is not very meaningful. Also since home electronics consists of many products, and Roku has essentially a single product.
To my knowledge, LG hasn't implied that they want a piece of YouTube's revenue, while the Roku executive team has hinted that capturing some of the revenue from the streaming services is one of their long term goals.
I suspect YouTube's dealmakers think Roku are being sticklers to try to extract a small financial concession, and they're afraid that if they give an inch, it'll open the floodgates and everyone will want a piece of their revenue.
All of this distracts from the fact that this medium used to be regulated and broadcasters we're required to exhibit fairness, offer news (regulated by fairness), it was free and had minimal ads and was accessible to everyone. We have democratized content creation and lost the good things we developed for "free television," a philosophy of nearly ubiquitous distribution and fairness.
What is the philosophy now? The market is going to yield a spread of reliable information for free? I have to have the means to pay for five different streaming services to get access to all of the valuable content to consider myself informed. It's not just about the latest Marvel movie or Squid Games tripe, it is about an informed citizenry getting access to information. Why is that not part of the debate at all?
This very situation--Google and Netflix fighting over a blanket--is problematic in and of itself and much bigger than both of them put together.
> It's dumb and twisted that Google won't allow Roku devices to run YouTube if Roku doesn't commit that all future Roku devices support AV1 - when even Google's own streaming device doesn't support AV1.
Surely that would only be the case if Google's future streaming devices don't support AV1, not the current one. And they well might tbh.
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 that are also on platforms, dont want to pay X% to the platform, they want a special rate.
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.
Think about what you're saying dude: Hundreds of tiny distributions rely on unpaid volunteers to run a platform. A platform with questionable quality and no real support.
> A platform with questionable quality and no real support.
The quality of tiny platforms is often higher than the larger ones because their maintainers will actually accept patches and one of the people having the problem will know how to code, whereas consumers reporting bugs to large vendors is more like adults writing letters to Santa Clause.
Anybody can get support for anything by paying someone to support it. For nearly everyone outside of large corporations, the cost of this exceeds the benefit, because 99% of your problems will be solved by whatever comes up when you type the problem into a search engine and the last 1% won't be worth the cost of eliminating.
> A platform with questionable quality and no real support
This applies equally well to the small volunteer platforms and the large commercial ones. The scale is different, sure, but the various app stores and platforms that take a cut aren't providing great commercial support or quality control.
But that is different. You cannot compare free and voluntary with commercial services. If you had to pay for those volunteers to maintain at a market rate, all that free stuff would be prohibitively expensive on a per user basis.
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.
> If you had to pay for those volunteers to maintain at a market rate, all that free stuff would be prohibitively expensive on a per user basis.
These "platforms" start out with an existing open source operating system (BSD or Linux) that already works and has done so for decades. Then they add some features to it that represent a relatively modest one-time modification to the work that has already been done, after which further necessary changes amount to primarily security updates.
Corporations often spend massive resources doing further rearranging on an ongoing basis, but nobody really needs or wants that. If you gave people the choice between the current version of a given platform or the version from 2009 but with security updates, most people would shrug and have no strong preference, if not prefer the older one.
But also, YouTube is a platform and it goes both ways. Why should anybody need a special deal to display a website on their device?
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.
Browsers are god-awful slow on the hardware that ships with smart TVs. I tried it on a LG TV that ships with a browser. Horrid.
I'm still wondering why the keyboard doesn't work for all the different channels/apps on my smartphone remote for the Roku. Streaming via smart TV is a major regression as far as UX.
Yeah, I guess you have a point there. My R-Pi can't do video in the browser in even a remotely usable quality and that cost more than the Roku box I have.
As a workaround, when a video provider is not supported on Roku, what I do is stream video directly from my Android phone to Roku using a free app which is available on both platforms. It is not as convenient as having a dedicated Roku app, but it works.
YouTube app for TVs is a web app everywhere, including Android TV.
The twist? Google requires OEM not to use a standard browser, they require OEMs to use Cobalt, yet another google web browser (whose feature set is too small to actually use as a Web browser)
You can still use YouTube TV (The old leanback interface) if you set your user agent correctly to spoof Tizen Smart TVs. Works almost well enough with keyboard/controller navigation but some keys are mapped incorrectly.
A few years ago I had a FireTV and Amazon was having the same dispute over youtube. FireTV had a few browser options at the time (Firefox or Amazon Silk) and either one could load youtube. In fact, the youtube app for OTT devices was just a wrapped web experience hosted on youtube.com/tv so it was nearly identical to the app experience.
This is not totally clear. While the only references I can find to this quote are in articles about the situation, I honestly can not tell whether the YouTube app is nonetheless included in terms of availability. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if it was, this kind of thing happens all the time in these disputes. "Agree to our terms or we remove all our channels".
>"We are, however, giving Roku the ability to continue distributing both YouTube and YouTube TV apps to all existing users to make sure they are not impacted."
Putting a full-fledged browser into a Roku device would require significantly more powerful hardware and would make it much more expensive as a result. There's also the question of what the UX would be. Let's not oversimplify the solution to complex business problems.
actually Apple is more likely to recognize the bullshit situation we are in with smart tvs these days and just fix it. They will offer a very closed, but functional tv service that has the things you want, with the choices you want to make, without the garbage, for a premium price, accessible on premium hardware (and other devices where possible).
Roku is a advertising company. Google is a advertising company. They are fighting over who gets to sell you.
This is why I have chosen to spend the extra money and use a Apple TV. Google still spies on my content when I am in their app, but at least apple is not using analytics and screenshots to figure out what I am watching and sell it others.
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.
Right, well, that's great if you favor Google being untouched by regulators. Personally, I favor Google being broken up by services where they dominate market share. Search and video would split. And probably, Android would split.
Breaking up Google by services is such a lame last-century approach - it leaves the same network effects, the same middleman position, and the same business dynamics. And then we just have to hope that these independent companies, run by people who previously worked with one another, don't just recreate the same power structure through exclusive contracts and informal wink and nods.
We know the right answer - it's forcing these companies to have publicly accessible, nondiscriminatory APIs for everything that is possible through their proprietary web interfaces or proprietary apps. There should be no private APIs, API keys, or separate contract/account needed to use said API - just the exact same login credentials that a user supplies to the website (if any).
The accompanying software provider restriction is that companies shouldn't be able to take away functionality that has already been sold to users - ie Roku shouldn't be able to threaten Google with removal either. An update should never be mandatory, should always be able to be rolled back, should practically never remove an app, and the bar for maintaining backwards compatibility on an embedded device should be quite high.
This forms a neutral baseline that companies can choose to form additional agreements on top of, without the threat of being extorted as the power dynamic changes.
> 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 problematic.
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 had a dispute with a network, customers had to wait it out. If Roku has a dispute with YouTube TV, the customers can just switch to one of multiple replacements. That gives the box-providers a lot of leverage. Roku could even work with one of the alternatives to offer a switching bonus. "We're sorry that YouTube TV is being evil. If you switch to Hulu with Live TV, here's $10/mo off for the first year!"
I think you have this backwards. I am more likely to remain loyal to Sling or Youtube TV than I am to Roku or some other smart TV OS. Simple reason: content. Sling doesn’t have regional sports networks from NBC any more, but Youtube TV does. Switching over to Sling is a non-starter. Meanwhile, Roku’s operating system doesn’t really offer something I can’t get elsewhere.
This whole situation really feels like Google has their head stuck up their ass. People are just as likely to leave Roku, as they are to leave YouTube TV. Their subscriber numbers can't be strong enough to justify such idiotic behavior. To me, this sounds like a middle manager gone rogue, and no one higher up has stepped in yet and said "Ok, you shot your shot, but Roku called your bluff, you've taken this way too far."
If this is really just about additional featured slots for Youtube TV in the Roku home screen. Apple would never cave to that. Xbox, Amazon, PlayStation, none of these companies would cave and give YouTube special treatment. Roku shouldn't either.
I had read something earlier which suggested there was also an issue with Roku selling devices with processors too underpowered for some new compression algorithm YouTube wanted to use. If this is the case, this feels more reasonable to me, and I'd be less inclined to pass judgement. At the end of the day, this would be Roku trying to save money and move the costs on to Google, which isn't equitable.
It's doubly weird, because YouTube TV is literally just a side project -- There's at least a 50% chance Google just totally shuts down YouTube TV within the next five years. (Like they already did with Google Play Music, and Google Play Movies + TV once before).
Google's going to war with Roku over something that Google doesn't care about at all (it's one minor ancillary line of business to them), but is Roku's main and only meaningful line of business.
If you want to be locked into a single vendor, you can already buy Google TV from Sony or TCL (where this vendor-lock-in is guaranteed). The whole point of Roku is that it's independent, it's not operated by any one streaming/media service, it's not a "Google TV" or an "Apple TV" or a "PlayStation TV" or whatever.
Roku has to fight this, tooth-and-nail, or all other services on the Roku platform will demand the same, and totally destroy the entire Roku product lineup.
Right, and that's why I really can't believe this spat has the full force of Alphabet Inc behind it. I think its just Google's highly independent culture taken to the extreme with an idiotic, toxic, vengeful middle manager. Its a form of small dog syndrome; blowing their chest up as a compensation mechanism for how much of a side-project YouTube TV is for Alphabet, a desperate attempt to get additional promotion from Roku to prop up falling subscriber growth.
In most other companies, everything else being equal: someone higher up would have already stepped in and said "YouTube TV isn't worth it, you need to end this, you're sullying the corporate brand." But that's not really how Google operates; at least, not yet.
>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.
The shutdown of Google Play Movies and TV and the stuffing of parts of that system into "YouTube TV", is sort of the original catalyst for how Roku and YouTube TV got into this fight in the first place.
Actually its not true at all. There is a real and growing market for people who just want old cable packages but served over the internet (something Google knows about). They have the cash and technical chops to make the best service for this. It aligns with some other things (Stadia, Youtube, Android TV/cast) to round out a total home/living room offering. Home is core for google (hubs, cams, routers, etc) and they do well at it.
Also, the competition is faltering. SlingTV lost NBC regional sports networks in April. I now must move over to Youtube TV. I think the competition gets stronger here, including Apple getting into the space with a live TV offering at some point. Amazon probably too with its sports rights.
Youtube TV is both important for Google, but also a way they can make Roku weaker. At the end of the day, I don’t think Google, Amazon or Apple really want another strong competitor in the living room. Don’t give them youtube TV.
No, I can easily drop YouTube TV. Roku is built into each of my 3 TVs. I'm glad this was about Youtube TV, if it ws the Youtube app I'd have a problem.
I thought the same thing, but apparently the article mentions that the base YouTube app is also affected by this spat:
"The two companies had a December deadline for renegotiation, but sources say it hasn’t been met, and as a result, new Roku devices will continue to be unable to download YouTube or YouTube TV apps."
"middle managers" are not negotiating these partnership deals.
I don't really buy the compression algorithm thing either - surely they make more off of ads than the savings that would be generated from better compression.
pretty sure this is just hardball over revenue sharing, data sharing, and technical requirements...
The “head of YouTube” is Susan Wojcicki [1]. Her title is CEO of YouTube, she reports directly to the CEO of Alphabet, Sundar Pichai [2], and is frequently floated as a candidate for next CEO of Alphabet if Mr. Pichai left. She has thousands of people in her reporting chain. She is about as far from a middle-manager as you are from being Alphabet’s CEO. Please inform yourself a bit more before making completely outlandish statements.
Hah, Wojcicki being the next CEO would be the end of Google. Who needs a CEO that is despised in their organisation and utterly ignorant to what is happening on YT?
This whole situation really feels like Roku has their head stuck up their ass. People are just as likely to leave Roku, as they are to leave YouTube TV. Their customer numbers can't be strong enough to justify such idiotic behavior. To me, this sounds like a middle manager gone rogue, and no one higher up has stepped in yet and said "Ok, you shot your shot, but YouTube called your bluff, you've taken this way too far."
This kind of response appears immature. You could have said the equivalent with something like “you could swap Roku and YouTube TV etc” and it wouldn’t appear petty.
It’s better used as an app on these devices. A webpage would be very cumbersome to use with a basic remote and lower powered processor. I also assume they integrated into search and other roku functionality.
Amazon for years just had an app in their store called "YouTube.com" which opened YouTube.com/tv in a webview. Worked absolutely fine, and was the preferred method until Google finally let them have an apk that didn't rely on Play Services.
Google would probably find ways to obstruct any of Roku's alternative YouTube clients, just as Google disabled Microsoft's YouTube client on Windows Phone years ago:
That’s so f’ing messed up. I paid extra for Roku because I thought they made their money by selling me a product that I own as opposed to one that owns me.
Shit like this is why I just run a web browser on a windows PC hooked up to the TV. There is no other platform out there that can handle every streaming service and local media.
This is just the YouTube TV app, not the regular YouTube app.
Which is extra strange to me, If you have a paid for streaming service, wouldn't you want to be available on every platform you could be?
Good point. I completely missed the first time that it was the "YouTube TV" app, which I have zero interest in. I thought it was about plain "YouTube".
It's probably in Roku (and other companies that depend on the big tech monopolies' good behavior) interest to ensure there are alternatives that they can "turn on" with the flip of a switch should Google play unfairly.
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.
I recently got an Apple TV just for Zwift after using Roku for 8 years. The difference between Apple TV 4K and the Roku Ultra is striking. I got my Apple TV used for about the same price as the Ultra new. However I think paying an extra $100 for an Apple TV is a pretty good investment.
Roku is SLOW. Apple TV is so fast it makes my brain hurt. I'm so used to clicking on YouTube then looking at my phone for a minute waiting for it to start. Now it just starts up in a few seconds. Also the stupid buttons on the Roku remote keep opening Hulu and Vudu whenever someone sits on the remote.
I'll probably just switch to Apple TV for everything soon. I dislike their unreliable, overpriced, and unrepairable laptops, phones, and tablets. But the TV box seems pretty solid so far.
What's slow? I have several Roku Streaming Sticks which are their lowest hardware spec and I have never experienced any UI slowness. I love the clicky remote, and can blaze through DVR recordings using the skip buttons. It's so fast, I can skip 15 between pitches in an MLB game without lag, whereas with my Chromecast it's a slight delay which doesn't make it worth it.
It may be that I just have an older Roku Ultra (2019 ish) but it's definitely slow. Loading Youtube takes 30 seconds to a minute, moving between videos is a 30 second delay, everything loads slowly. It likes to eat inputs from the remote as well. Scrolling through video is brutally painful. The Apple TV is probably 5-10x faster on everything.
Yeah something's wrong. I bought my Rokus over several years, some of them are older than 2019 for sure. The only issue we had was my daughter's remote stopped working. Otherwise the low end streaming sticks, performance wise have been very fast.
My Smart LG TV in contrast, is painfully slow. Given the spat between Google/Roku I bought a Chromecast but I'm not thrilled given it doesn't support multiple YTTV profiles.
That's not "a bad look", it's continuing anti-competitive behaviour by an aggressive monopolist. Google using their dominance in one area "youtube" to hurt competitors in another space -- in this case to promote their Chromecast devices.
Google has already earned $8B in fines for similar behaviour in the last few years in some of their other product areas (ads, android, and search). This is just what they do at this point, it's not a "look".
Interestingly, and only slightly related, Apple seems to be expanding the number of devices that it's on.
There was an apple.com web site recently that stated that either Apple Music or AppleTV was available on game consoles. Naturally, as soon as someone noticed and made it public, it was pulled. But it's interesting to see how readily the big content producers are willing to add and remove themselves from people's boxes.
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.
The Google founders started the process of stepping down around 10 years ago. Pretty sure this was the turning point and the company just got worse since then:
> The explanation that Page posted Tuesday on his Google Plus profile cleared up a mystery hanging over him since he lost his voice a year ago, causing him to miss Google Inc.'s annual shareholders meeting in June and a conference call to discuss the company's quarterly earnings in July.
Medical reasons aside everything I've seen on them stepping away hints that they were unhappy with (although resigned to) the corporate behemoth that Google had become. It could no longer do things the way it did that made it so successful. I think we've seen their fears of that these past 10 years.
I find that very basic navigation like getting to a channel from a video published by that channel is very frustrating on the Roku app. Is this by design, or just laziness?
Unless you're taking some ideological stance against Roku, no need to replace your existing hardware, it will continue to work with Youtube:
We are, however, giving Roku the ability to continue distributing both YouTube and YouTube TV apps to all existing users to make sure they are not impacted.
There's no need to get a new TV, unless your Roku TV lacks HDMI ports. Mine has plenty.
I've been thinking of moving away from Roku anyway though, because they seem underpowered. Most of the apps on mine are a bit laggy, whereas my AppleTV is smooth. I've even noticed jittery playback on high-quality 4k content, even though my tv is ostensibly a 4k tv.
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!
Hmm, avoiding the terms and conditions for a TV isn't exactly selling me on this idea, but yeah if you already have a smart TV obviously it's good to stretch its usefulness as far as possible.
But when shopping for a new TV, just buy a dumb one or a projector.
Don't think it means you need a new tv. Just got an Apple TV box, or a Google one, or whichever you prefer since it seems your not stuck on using roku tv's service.
I've heard good things about the Nvidia Shield. I've even considered getting one to replace my Roku, but they cost so much more than all competitors it gives me pause. They do run Android, though, so that's pretty flexible. Does anyone think they're worth the price?
The Shield is probably the most valuable bit of electronics in my home. It's the right level of complexity for family/guests to consume media. Gamestream, the Plex Server, and the ability to serve as a NAS are big wins as well.
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 at your or just bypass your dumb stance on the matter.
Edit: I remember the old days with disdain, but does anyone miss the Microsoft days? I know I know ... but at least I could force my machine to do whatever the hell I wanted. Download an .exe and get on with it ... phew, actually, I'm forgetting the bad things ... but at least it was "open" and I had control. Kind of. You know what I mean.
> 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.
Becoming the next smart TV platform is the real war here.
By becoming the go-to platform for smart tv apps, the winner gets the following advantages
- rich access to search and voice data (which, by the Amazon playbook, is super valuable for originals)
- hardware profits
- ads related profits. My definition of ads are any apps/placements that are not organic. This includes actual ads for shows etc, but also placements in search results dedicated sections etc.
- per transaction profits. This is the apple playbook. Take a 30% cut of every transaction.
- Subscription profits from original apps - say roku originals or Apple tv+.
There is a lot going on here, and what we are seeing here as a deadlock is a stalemate due to clashes between Google and roku on many of the above issues.
You can barely buy a TV without smart capability these days. I find it weird how Roku is even recognized as a platform and receive this much media coverage.
They haven’t had a unique product in like 10 years. They are the Yelp of the antiquated stream box world
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.
Use an ad-blocking browser on your phone (I use Brave on iPhone) to view youtube.com then cast the videos ad-free to your Roku using Roku's native Airplay support added last year.
Also, when your Roku is EoL, do not replace it with another Roku.
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 for the device, decent antenna, and hard drive. Then $5/month after that, or $10/month if you want the commercial skip. I'm happy with it. You can access it from a Roku app, so the end experience for local news is pretty much the same as it was with YouTubeTV.
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.
Roku and AndroidTV aside, has someone come up with an opensource alternative to either of these spammy services?
Im in neither camp as I have had both functionalities preinstalled on a TV. Recently with my newer Android TV it is riddled with ADs and is noisy on my network with telemetry data, even when not in use. When I just want to turn it on and play PS4, it takes time to load the latest on Amazon Prime, Netflix and whatever other streaming service they are shilling, none which I pay for. When most of my media is on Plex or a gaming system. I just want my TV to be dumb again.
There is an "app" for most commerical services available for Kodi. These apps do not break DRM (they use an extracted Widevine binary from ChromeOS).
These app are not official however and are not in the main repositories for Kodi. Just search the Kodi forums for the service you need and you will find the app (for most services that I know about).
Plex has its own telemetry and doesn’t really make devices per-se. it’s an App, including on Roku.
My hous is basically all rokus at this point. But I do keep the isolated on their own net and behind pi-holes.
I’d love an opensource alternative that can do all the things Roku does. Netflix, Hulu (though I don’t have it), prime, or Plex etc.
Sure with something like atomictoolkit you can do it all in Plex, to a degree. But I even use YouTube for things like guitar lessons/song learning etc.
To be fair. I can probably do that with those options. Roku was simple enough that I can work around. I should probably do some better research on alternatives.
If a company is spreading lies about you then there is no reason to continue working with that company. I'm not saying Roku did that, but if they did then why would Google stay with them and try to argue instead of just leaving them?
Edit: I am specifically referring to the fact that Google claims Roku did this:
> Roku has once again chosen to make unproductive and baseless claims rather than try to work constructively with us. Since we haven’t been able to continue our conversations in good faith, our partnership for all new Roku devices will unfortunately end on December 9.
Maybe its a good time for Roku to fund some of the developers like Yurii who has built SmartTubeNext and make it a native app in Roku. That will be a reason to buy Roku over its competitors.
YouTube will probably do what Facebook is doing: randomize URLs and obfuscate the HTML weekly. It then becomes a game of catch-up for Roku, they'd always be one step behind.
There is some stuff they can do. I forget the details as many years have passed. Microsoft was doing that for Windows Phone and there were some issues.
Could we get a moderator to change the title to say YouTube TV instead of YouTube? The dispute between Roku and Google has nothing to do with the latter, and is confusing to readers.
Edit: I did not realize that the base YouTube app was specifically mentioned in the article, alongside YTTV. That's surprising and is a bigger deal than I'd thought before.
"The two companies had a December deadline for a renegotiation, but sources say it hasn’t been met, and as a result, new Roku devices will continue to be unable to download YouTube or YouTube TV apps."
The only reason I’m using a Roku device is because Xfinity Stream is only available on Roku and I don’t want to pay shit Comcast for an extra box. Talk about two companies everyone hates. I really hope Xfinity Stream makes its way to Apple TV but I highly doubt it with the bureaucracy.
I get that Sonos, Roku, etc are in a tough spot but this business is structurally to be a good, cheap, dumb terminal. It's no use for Roku to try and get in the way at this point, it just reinforces incentives for players to undercut them with branded sticks (Chromecast, fire tv, apple TV...)
This is no different than when a cable company (usually temporarily) drops a major media provider due to failed contract negotiations.
The only difference here is that the specifics of the contract is being waved about in public to get ahead of customer fallout to losing access to the YouTube channel.
I feel like I've read about Roku struggling to come to terms with every streaming service over the years. They only just came around with HBO, finally getting HBO Max on Roku devices. I get the impression that the people running Roku are real shitty people to work with.
Theres so many better options these days for a simple box to install apps and stream media. Its pretty much commodity, why anyone cares about Roku alone is surprising to me. Content is king and Roku is not it.
Wait, so the app will still exist... this is about Roku offering cross-provider search and deep links into Youtube videos from Roku shell-level dashboards, right?
I just like the irony that Google is unhappy with the rules of a captive app store, how they are allowed to update, how their app works with the higher level search they don't control, etc.
Sideloading on a Roku is actually significantly more difficult thank sideloading on Android. You can also only sideload one application at a time.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Google has a leg to stand on here, but they're the least of the villains in this story as far as a captive app audience goes.
This is literally the modern day equivalent to the classic pissing matches between cable/satellite operators and station groups. Both sides are full of shit, honestly.
So Google is using YouTube as leverage to convince Roku to do what they want, not just YouTube TV. This is literally a cable/network pissing match, except with streaming.
Fuck 'em both, honestly. Neither one is an innocent party.
Roku has been demanding increasing amounts of revenue sharing from their "channels". I moved away from Roku after their spat with Spectrum made some of my Roku TVs useless for watching my Spectrum subscription (kids doing kid things deleted the app and it couldn't be reinstalled). I've never had any app be subject to a contract dispute on my Apple TV, whereas Roku has had 3 that affected me at varying points.
Take a look at Roku's quarterly reports and you can see that they're not a streaming device company, they're a streaming platform company. Roku televisions are not the product, you are the product. From Q3 2016 to Q2 2021 their platform revenue has increased from 27.3% to 82.5%, or 24.3M to 532M. This is not even taking into account the profit margins for the platform are much higher than they are for the device, in some cases they're using the device as a loss-leader.
Roku has taken the Apple App Store revenue sharing route and decided that even when they don't provide the content they still want a considerable piece of the monthly revenue. They've taken it a step farther by placing ads on the home screen, search screen, and idle screen as well.
IIRC, during that Spectrum spat, they were giving channel codes to people who either could prove, or would attest, that they had the channel installed before the date that it was removed. I myself got the channel reinstalled after doing some research by trying different variants of the codes that were reported by others. Then, it became moot when they reached an agreement and began making the channel available again.
uh... That's the point... since they turned from 'scrappy-start-up' to the global world-dominating conglomerate of 'Umbrella corporation' (uh... 'Alphabet'), they dropped the phrase... Coincidence?
Fuck YouTube and their AppleTV app. It's exhibit #1 in anticompetitive behavior -- ship a shitty, subpar app, for a premium service.
I wish that Apple were to prohibit any custom video playing controls on AppleTV, but this crowd will roast Apple alive for yet another "walled garden" move. Please Apple, put up walls against a shitty video streaming experience.
After the steaaming garbage pile that is the YouTube app on AppleTV, YouTube and Google has lost all respect in my eyes.
Roku burned through a lot of goodwill with their customers during the HBO Max holdout.