As it is, I'm already in a mixed household (Me with iOS and my wife with Android) and it's a pain to deal with the lack of cross-platform playing together.
Same. I'm so sick of being locked into one system or another, having my eyeballs monetized, or getting the shitty version of an app because it isn't the vendor's platform. I got a Roku because they're as neutral as one can get, and so far I'm happy paying for YouTube Premium, Amazon Prime and Netflix. You tell me I can't run those on my Roku, well fuck you and your service.
The thing is that Google shouldn't be forced to make their apps for the 30 different streaming box app stores if they don't want to. If there's no money to be made and they inherently lose money by tasking a team to keep the Roku app (or LG app or Samsung app, etc) up-to-date then they shouldn't have to.
The Google Cast protocol is actually pretty open in this regard - the apps are just a combination of html, js, websocket, and a protobuf server with no need to publish anything - all the TV makers would have to do is embed Chrome (they would also have to use a not-e-waste chip to do so, though, as supporting 4k hardware vp9 and drm is intense and expensive). There also really isn't an app store that needs moderation or business deals to happen for your casting to work - the only registration is really so Google has a paper trail of accountability in order to prevent malware and perform some API calls (https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/registration).
Wait, what? Who exactly is "forcing" them to do any such thing, and how?
Fire Stick is a joke. The wifi reception is terrible, the entire UI is laggier than my old cable box, and the apps crash on launch more often than not.
Roku just works, and it works like something that was designed by professional adults and not blood-sucking marketeers eager to screw over their users to make an extra ten cents.
Sadly, you and I are exceptions - caring about it only enough to voice our disregard for it. Usually, by the time a person is old enough to not need the churn of mass culture to be relevant to their peers, they're usually hooked on some brand or other of high-quality spam. Unlike street drugs, mass media rots your brain with full societal approval.
This is nothing new of course - many writers, musicians, and filmmakers of the 20th century have expounded on the soul-crushing effects of commercialized culture. As expected, they have ended up being more obscure to the general public than the ones who embraced it. It was weird seeing for the first time a mainstream artist or work that risked to be slightly more original than the industry average (in order to reach a previously uncaptured audience segment) being lauded as some sort of genius, while its subject matter was the same old "hey you, yes you, buy a bigger TV!"
Allocating resources and incentives (economy) and collectively deciding what's valuable and worth incentivizing (culture) are two separate layers of the social "stack". Advertising couples them in the worst possible way, effecting a positive feedback loop of wastage. The possibility that the emergent adtech hivemind's ultimate purpose is to measure and hone the efficiency of this mass pacification strategy is Orwellian par excellence.
My answer to this? Just enough economic productivity to afford unabashed dirtbaggery on the cultural plane. Anyone who does not share this perspective is watching a different movie.
People said something similar 10 -15 years ago about pirating with bit-torrent. There was certain rage with them I couldn't understand. Now I finally feel the same. I think the age of Napster and BT will be back.
No, streaming providers do not have to give Apple a cut. They can force you to pay on their website. You can not pay for Hulu Live, Youtube Live TV, Netflix or many others through the App Store.
Content providers do have to make deals to get on AppleTV. You just don't hear about it.
Here's an example:
"WarnerMedia has firmed up a distribution deal with Apple for distribution of its forthcoming streaming service HBO Max.... Under the deal, HBO Max will be available on Apple devices and integrated with the Apple TV app on iPhone, iPad, iPod touch and Apple TV."
(note the words "the deal")
https://deadline.com/2020/04/hbo-max-apple-streaming-distrib...
And there are few details around the HBO and CBS deal to get on Apple TV here:
In a second sign of frayed relations between the two companies, Netflix has decided to opt out of the Apple bundle, which will upsell subscriptions to HBO and CBS in addition to its original programming
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/multimedia/netflix-apple-...
Over the years there has been drama between Netflix and Apple over it (and Spotify and Amazon Prime Video). I think it's mostly been resolved, but Apple wants apps to integrate more deeply but it sounds like it needs to convince these companies to do it one at a time.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prim...
Amazon chose to avoid this fight with Kindle years ago and everyone I talk to is confused why they can't buy books from their iPhone/iPad. Mostly because Amazon can't tell them.
The point is these are all oddball, Apple-imposed hoops that affect these companies from running their business. Even though they're spelled out and relatively consistent, it's relevant if you're claiming Roku is more heavy-handed than Apple.
There is a huge difference between having to follow one rule and submitting your app to the store and being required to make a revenue and ad sharing deal.
The proof is in the pudding. Every streaming service has always supported iOS from day one. Then you hear “we are still waiting to make a deal with Roku”.
Yeah I know it’s confusing (not being sarcastic). The AppleTV is the device. The TV app is an app on the AppleTV and iOS devices.
Is this a comparison with Roku? Whenever I buy stuff using a Roku app, Roku is not involved.
The comment you quoted was specifically for people who I knew would reply about Apple “forcing” content providers to use in app purchasing.