Read the article. This specifically has nothing to do with financials and all to do with, what some consider to be, a large over reach by google.
This appears to be about more than av1.
Roku I believe already has AV1 hardware support on their $100 device. I think they couldn't get it into their cheaper products.
On the other hand, Google doesn't seem to be leading the way in terms of hardware support despite making it mandatory for other hardware makers.
> Despite Google's internal zeal for AV1, when it comes to streaming hardware, Roku is actually doing a better job supporting AV1 than Google. The official scoreboard shows that Roku has one AV1-compatible device, the $100 Roku Ultra, while Google sells zero AV1 streaming devices. Google's newest, most expensive dongle, the $50 Chromecast with Google TV, does not have a chip that supports AV1. Google has made AV1 support mandatory for Android TV devices, but again, those are other companies' devices. Google should be leading by example here, but it isn't.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-...
"we cannot accept Google's unfair and anticompetitive requirements to manipulate your search results, impact the usage of your data and ultimately cost you more."
The "ultimately cost you more" sounds like spin for requiring AV1 hardware support.
Roku is clearly doing paid placements for the device level search. It pretty obviously shows you "hey this is available here for $xx.xx" There's no confusion around when you're doing one versus the other. The device level search kicks you out of whatever app you're in and does the search from the dashboard.
As another point, I would never expect a search within YouTube to show results on YTM or YTTV. The roku just doesn't work that way.
The Search service is and has always been global.
And _Google_ wanted to inject results from another source (YouTube Music) when you searched (globally) with YouTube TV as the active app (which is not the same as YouTube search, which Google controls and can manipulate however they like), and filter other things out.
Your interpretation is quite misleading.
That's really hard to say: in its dueling email to its customers, Youtube TV says it was offering to continue the service under the old terms but Roku declined. These "carrier" disagreements generate more smoke and heat than light - with both sides blaming the other with carefully crafted PR messages that are technically true when you squint really hard: I don't doubt both statements by both Roku and Youtube TV are misleading in one way or the other (or have glaring omissions) - remember neither of them is under oath, they are just trying to sway public opinion. Don't put too much stock on what's basically corporate trash-talk on the side-lines of negotiations.
Are there any budget streaming solutions that have AV1 support?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-...
I used to have one metered internet provider whose network crumbled when kids would be out of school and use would go up. I wonder if they mismanaged their finances or something to get into this state.
Sadly, more efficient codecs aren't going to decrease bandwidth enough.
I noticed that Xfinity, when you use a rented modem from them, will remove the cap for a small extra fee.
Av1 codec the content providers are pushing is 25% more efficient than VP9 in terms of bandwidth. Most people could stream 4K for and stay under the caps with the codec change.