An update to our YouTube TV members on Roku | Hacker News Reader

An update to our YouTube TV members on Roku

blog.youtube

61 pointsjudge202081 comments

This is all so ridiculous and anti-consumer. There are working apps. Right now! The status quo should be that existing apps stick around.

As far as codecs, or anything of the sort, Roku has a device that they sell to customers. Google must write an app that works on that device.

I think it's time we have legislation that working apps cannot be removed from platforms over stupid corporate spats.

So google should continue to be forced to pay royalties for a codec because Roku refuses to slightly increase the cost-of-goods by utilizing a newer chipset that supports AV1?

On HN of all places, I'm surprised to see that the guy throwing his weight around to GET RID of proprietary codecs is being portrayed as the bad guy.

I'm sure if you dig far enough into my history you'll find I have absolutely no sympathy for google under almost any circumstances, but in this case they're doing the right thing.

Hear hear. (Disclaimer: I am founder of On2, bought by Google, ancestor of AV1)

I have zero pity for Roku and the rest of the video streaming cartel. For years (decades in fact) these companies colluded to shove down everyone's throat an expensive, unwieldy, made-by-committee 1-size-fits-all technology (MPEG), with a get-out-of-court rule from the Justice dept not to target them with price fixing.

That a small company like On2 was able to survive, much less eventually get acquired by Google (who have dutifully kept the VP* and AV1 codecs open-source) is really quite a miracle.

There is depth to this story that has never been plumbed.

Curious about the downvotes. AV1 is a true Free and Open Source technology,, with additional protection against patent trolls. Surely HN readers would prefer a world where this sort of solution at least co-exists (if not preempts) proprietary tech created by+for the benefit of a few large companies who protect it via a cartel of dubious patents.

What is better for tech startups who don't have a legacy patent to bargain with the patent pool barons? (MPEG-LA)

What is better for artists -- musicians, independent film makers, content creators in general -- a world where the popular devices fully support FOSS protocols, or a world where a few large media companies make back-room deals with tech giants (or just consolidate tech+content into FAANG megaliths)?

This is not a trivial issue. I encourage everyone interested in this to do some research and common-sense thinking about how you want technology to evolve, and who you want controlling and exploiting that technology. It matters.

Roku already supports VP9[1], a royalty-free codec. If getting rid of royalties was the true cause they can use that.

1: https://developer.roku.com/en-gb/docs/specs/media/streaming-...

Only obvious limitation is that they only support that for HLS streams whereas YouTube normally uses DASH.

When I watch 4K YouTube videos in Firefox or Chrome on Windows, YouTube uses VP9. I don't see why YouTube could use the same 4K VP9 streams for Roku, like you suggested. Perhaps they have different requirements from partners for DRM content on YouTube TV?

Average consumers don't care about codecs. Google runs a video streaming service. Paying codec royalties is a cost of doing business unfortunately.

If we could snap our fingers and make it go away, then great but holding consumers hostage on some impractical FOSS crusade is ridiculous.

That's not the issue. Google wants other companies to adapt to their software, not the other way around. Is the MS playbook all over again.

I would understand if: A) Roku were not paying to have it on their platform B) Consumers weren't paying for the service as well.

But per the earlier reporting, Roku is not paying to have the app. The money is flowing in the opposite direction: they are taking a cut from both subscriptions and adds.

> On HN of all places, I'm surprised to see that the guy throwing his weight around to GET RID of proprietary codecs is being portrayed as the bad guy.

When it comes to these gluttonous Big Tech companies, I tend to err on the side of the smaller guy. Your comment doesn't capture that dimension of the conflict.

Why? Roku had over $1 billion in revune in 2019 (couldn't find 2020 data) - they're massive. While Google is obviously bigger comparing their relative sizes doesn't seem to make much sense.

Assuming this is a serious question:

Roku net income was $67m for the Dec quarter versus Google at $15.2b. Two hundred Rokus still do not a Google make. And Google did even better ($17.9b) in the most recent quarter.

Phrased differently, Google will probably earn more profit this year than Roku's entire market cap.

Or, Google will make more profit this week than Roku did over the last couple years.

> supports VP1

You mean AV1

> Google must write an app that works on that device.

Why? Saying they must support Roku devices is a pretty firm (and strange) stance to take. Where does the line get drawn on what devices they do or don't have to support?

> I think it's time we have legislation that working apps cannot be removed from platforms over stupid corporate spats.

This would certainly have unintended consequences. What do you consider "stupid corporate spats"? Why should Google be forced to support codecs on HW they don't manufacture?

I believe they mean that if Google _wants_ YoutubeTV to run on Roku's devices then Google must write an app that supports that hardware, not that Google must support all devices in existence.

Yes, exactly what I meant. If they want to be on the device, write within the bounds of the device and support it throughout it's lifetime. Don't hold your massive customer base as leverage after having supported multiple apps on the platform since forever.

> I think it's time we have legislation that working apps cannot be removed from platforms over stupid corporate spats.

That's the way the Roku works. If you already have the app installed, then it will continue to work and function as-is.

It's only disappeared from the store. If you uninstall, you won't be able to reinstall, but the app isn't remotely removed.

But if the app is working, why shouldn't it be on the store?

I am particularly concerned by the eWaste implications of this kind of decision. At a time of a global semiconductor shortage (likely for 6+ months), it looks like consumers will be left to deal with the fallout of these kinds of deals.

If we normalise "deprecate that hardware as it lacks some logical software feature", that's bad for the environment, and bad for society in general. That's currently normalised though, so we have a long way to go to get this put right.

It's a shame we're nearly full circle - we had fully programmable computers, now we need to add hardware codecs to them, in order to prevent those general purpose programmable computers from lasting too long (!)

Seems to me all these problems would simply vanish if consumers could decide what they want to install.

All this craziness started with App Store 's to begin with, and hopefully one day might end with their demise. One can hope.

Nah, this all started with normal retail channels. They introduced the concept of the middle man and the markup that entity would demand for their services.

App stores just brought this into the digital space, overwhelmingly large profit margins and all.

Folks here frequently laud Epic for their attack against Apple, but even their (comparatively low) margins are kinda ridiculous for the bare minimum service they provide.

You want to legally mandate backwards compatibility? That would cause all kinds of unintended consequences.

The ability to break backwards compatibility has been central to the continued development of every platform. Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS, the web, are all unable to run certain old programs. Some of these platforms offer more compatibility than others, but none offer 100%.

Most of the time, the breaking changes end up being good for consumers, especially in the long run. Change is necessary for technological progress and banning such activity would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

It's not backwards compatibility support, it's warranty. Google is running Youtube. It's very profitable. They can afford the maintenance burden of running these apps for the supported lifetime of Roku devices. It's really no different than running Youtube to an old computer.

This comes across extremely disingenuous.

If you read Roku's version of what is being negotiated and then read Google's, then note that Google only discusses the popular one (codecs) and seemingly forgets all the ones that make them look bad.

I don't consider Roku a "good guy" with all of these disputes, but on this one based on the information we have it seems like Google tried to flex and got rebuffed. They then thought the recent other disputes w/Roku would give them cover, but it hasn't worked too well so far.

PS - I do feel like Roku's position on the codec though is a little weak/vague. But Google's lack of statement about the other 90% of the dispute is worse.

If Google did indeed offer to continue under the current terms, then I would say that Roku seemingly is the one that is at fault. If Roku is trying to renegotiate other items under different terms, it seems reasonable for Google to be able to ask for things they want as well. For example, if Roku wants a bigger cut of ad revenue, it seems reasonable for Google to come back and ask for silicon supporting AV1 to be installed on future Roku devices. (I have no idea if that is the source of contention, but I'm just saying it seems like reasonable, good faith negotiation.)

Is Roku's stance weak? My assumption is that some largish contingent of their userbase owns hardware that doesn't support hardware AV1 decoding. What other reason would they have for not honoring this request? Is the implication that Roku is getting kickbacks?

This is definitely one sided propaganda on Google's part and reads as a juvenile rant. YouTube is dysfunctional as hell. Roku holds the cards, Google didn't want to play, they bluffed, Roku shrugged. Youtube has an implied duty to their customer to make their service accessible from Roku, a very widely used and preferred streaming aggregator.

People are going to keep using thier Roku without a second thought but they might be pissed at Youtube "because it doesn't work on my Roku."

where can i find "roku's version"?

This [0] Axios article has a summary. It also includes a screenshot of the actual email Roku sent. Imgur copy of the screenshot at [1].

0: https://www.axios.com/roku-google-youtube-tv-dispute-525316c...

1: https://i.imgur.com/4VtDUxI.png

Here's an earlier thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26992358

https://www.axios.com/roku-google-youtube-tv-dispute-525316c... seems to have a copy of their version of events, at least that they communicated to customers.

> For example, by not supporting open-source video codecs, you wouldn’t be able to watch YouTube in 4K HDR or 8K even if you bought a Roku device that supports that resolution.

There are two sides to this, the encoding side and the decoding side. Google can frame it charitably towards themselves by saying "the Roku won't be able play 4K HDR", but we could just as easily frame it as "Google doesn't want to encode non-AV1 4K HDR". Both companies are trying to save costs, but Google's trying to frame it as Roku failing its users (users which are Google's as well, if they're trying to watch YouTube TV).

To be clear, I think open-source codecs are great, and it makes sense for devices (especially plugged-in / home internet devices) to support as many as is reasonable.

Google already encodes 4K VP9 streams for youtube.com desktop browsers. Roku supports VP9 playback, though perhaps YouTube TV has unique requirements for DRM video playback? Or perhaps Roku's VP9 decoder doesn't support 4K?

But it's quite possible that the Roku devices won't be capable of supporting those higher resolutions using the older codecs.

Not saying that is the case - I don't know, but I don't think you do either.

None of this passes the smell test to me but this in particular

> ...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.

If Google is telling the truth here I feel like this is worth launching a lawsuit against Roku.

I'm sure that will look good from a PR perspective, and help speed up the resolution of this issue. /s

Assuming the snark, this is correct I think.

> I feel like this is worth launching a lawsuit against Roku.

On what grounds?

Defamation. What Roku is alleging is a direct attack on Google's reputation and if Google is telling the truth then it should be easy to verify in communications between Roku and Google.

There is a simple way for Google to disprove Roku: just support the device. If they don't do that, everything else is just a smoke screen operation.

They don't want to pay Roku money. It wouldn't be natural to demand someone clear their good name by paying money (i.e. 'support' the device) to the person who insulted them.

That's akin to blackmail.

Roku has a platform. If google wants to be on it, they have to be OK with giving them a cut. Why is that so difficult?

Sounds like this is exactly what happened to me with the Spectrum TV roku app. They didn't delete the app from my Roku, but said that I can't install it again from the Roku Store. So now that means I can never upgrade my 2 year old roku streaming stick. This basically means that Roku is useless to me.

There are ways to install apps not through the store. I'm not sure about Spectrum TV specifically, or if old versions of the apps are available from Roku by app code even if they don't show, but side-loading it directly is also an option.

Here's what I just found WRT Spectrum specifically: https://www.techowns.com/spectrum-tv-on-roku/

Thanks for the link. I may decide to go that route if they don't resolve their issues and if I still care at that point.

I specifically bought a new Roku Ultra 2020 for 4k AV1 decode support as I knew AV1 would be big, especially if I move to an area with poor broadband. As far as I know that is the first device that supports that. I love it-plugging in my headphones for private listening works very well.

https://www.engadget.com/roku-ultra-dolby-vision-streaming-p...

From what I am reading between the lines: Youtube wants to dump H.265 because of patent royalties. Roku has a lot of 4K streaming sticks with H.265 support but no AV1 support. Roku picked a fight over it because maybe those customers would leave for Google devices? I no longer will get YT updates for my AV1 device.

Is this correct?

'YouTube' and 'YouTube TV' are separate apps - as far as I know, YouTube TV is no longer on the store (as the contract expired) but the YouTube app contract is still in place and thus still available on the store. The regular YouTube app's fate is unknown at this time but you should be able to use it at least until December (ctrl f this blog post for the source on that).

As always, when Google uses the headline, "An update on X", it means, "We're turning off X."

In this case, it's technically "They're turning off X"

What's the deal with horizontal scroll bars on the top of web pages indicating the vertical position of the page? Do browser scroll bars not work anymore?

It's the modern web, whose motto seems to be: "making the easy difficult through the useless".

I didn't experience that before turning off ublock origin. It seems the YT-specific google tag manager[0] script is loading it, blocked by easylist for `/gtm.js`[1].

0: https://blog.youtube/static/blogv2/js/csp/gtm.js

1: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/blob/3d27d8f9f4752fda71...

They are hidden by default on certain platforms, and you need to scroll to see your position.

Some platforms (at least MacOS) hide the scrollbars by default if you’re using a trackpad.

If the app was there before, and they are saying the terms didn't change, they how could Roku want "lower requirements"? I don't think they can downgrade the hardware in existing devices that are shipped.

Maybe I'm misunderstand this, but this smells fishy.

> Our initial conversations started with Roku simply to renew the current terms of their ongoing deal with YouTube TV

> However, Roku chose to use this as an opportunity to renegotiate a separate deal encompassing the YouTube main app

Those seem to be 2 different apps they're talking about

From the article:

> 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. For example, by not supporting open-source video codecs, you wouldn’t be able to watch YouTube in 4K HDR or 8K even if you bought a Roku device that supports that resolution.

Which is clearly bull crap. Youtube happily provides 4k video in H.* formats elsewhere.

What Google says is: use our VP9 codec, or else.

>Youtube happily provides 4k video in H.* formats elsewhere.

Do they? Because if I put a 4K video through youtube-dl -F, I get this:

    248          webm       1920x1080  1080p 1392k , webm_dash container, vp9@1392k, 24fps, video only, 193.77MiB
    137          mp4        1920x1080  1080p 2650k , mp4_dash container, avc1.640028@2650k, 24fps, video only, 368.92MiB
    271          webm       2560x1440  1440p 3453k , webm_dash container, vp9@3453k, 24fps, video only, 480.62MiB
    313          webm       3840x2160  2160p 10434k , webm_dash container, vp9@10434k, 24fps, video only, 1.42GiB

Youtube will happily stream this in H.264 if WebM isn't available.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2853702?hl=en

> HTML5 streaming: Many browsers support HTML5 and either the H.264 video codec or WebM format.

As others pointed out, this could be about AV1. Which still is bull crap because YouTube hapily delivers video in H.* or VP9 when needed.

And it looks like the only reason Google stopped encoding in H.* to everyone's hand whether it's good or bad. This definitely has nothing to do with "opensource codecs".

YouTube doesn't create H.264 versions for 1440p or higher. If there's no VP9 support, the best resolution you'll get is 1080p.

Some Apple devices are (or used to be?) affected by this. For example, on Mac, Firefox or Chrome have been able to play 8K YouTube videos for a long time while Safari couldn't go past 1080p. This was "fixed" a few months ago, but only because Apple added VP9 support.

I don't think H.264 will disappear from YouTube anytime soon. They'll continue to use it as a fallback for devices that can't play VP9 or AV1 files. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if VP9 was dropped before H.264 when AV1 support (and YouTube's encoding capabilities) improve.

At the end of the day, Google/YouTube doesn't have to use a paid and proprietary codec like H.265 and Roku doesn't have to support VP9 or AV1 with hardware (or software) decoding. But since H.264 support is still there, the hardware should be able to play 1080p YouTube videos without a problem.

Either way it's bull as Roku supports VP9 already[1], there isn't a codec barrier as far as I can tell.

1: https://developer.roku.com/en-gb/docs/specs/media/streaming-...

This may be about AV1 support. Not VP9

Yes but I responded because OP mentioned VP9.

I clean forgot about AV1, since I don't follow the news in the space.

However, consider:

- H.264 has been around siince 2003 (so, 18 years).

- VP9 was released in 2013 (so, 8 years). Google basically forced everyone to adopt the codec by refusing to encode 4k videos in anything else

- AV1 was released in 2018. Only 3 years ago. Yay, a new shiny toy for Google. And Google now tries to force everyone to switch to it, or else? Google's own Android gained support for it only last year.

So, when is Google going to drop VP9 for videos and only encode them in AV1? And should everyone drop it in another 5 years for an AV2?

Google uses H.264, VP9 and now AV1 for videos up to 1080p. After that, it's only VP9 and AV1.

why roku doesn't want to allow av1 is beyond me

they're already selling those streaming sticks at a loss. I imagine adding another hardware decoder chip (is there one for av1?) will increase their costs, without being able to pass it on to youtube, which sounds like part of the problem.

> they're already selling those streaming sticks at a loss

How do you know?

Since they're a public company we get to see exactly what they spend their money on [0].

Look at Platform Gross Profit vs. Player Gross Profit. It looks like previously they were selling at a loss, and in 2020 they managed to start selling basically at-cost.

[0] https://ir.roku.com/static-files/0e84462d-74ac-459d-9aff-be3...

Each company has said conflicting things. Is one of them straight up lying?

Can someone explain what the actual issue is here? Roku is claiming it’s not about the money and they both seem to be talking past each other to a degree.

> From day one, we’ve worked to .. make the app available on as many devices as possible

They have not made the app available on Windows Phone, and banned Microsoft's app a few times: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/08/google-blocks-window...

If you're going to reference the contract, release the specific sections of the contract. If you're going to reference Roku demands, release the emails.

It is tiring when 2 corporations sling it at each other without any backup.

Maybe after the HBO fiasco and now this it's time to reassess choosing Roku devices as the default.

> 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.

I assume that is pr speak for, it would limit youtube in experiencing the app users?

If you ask me for proof I don't provide you any. Less than 3% of Roku users launch YouTube TV channel on Roku.

"to bring you the content you love"

Who writes stuff like this and thinks it sounds authentic?

>> Our agreements with partners have technical requirements to ensure a high quality experience on YouTube

This high quality experience caused my device to randomly reboot while watching youtube. Also because of this the last android update bricked the device that is rendered useless. Because of this great experience I am switching to Apple TV just like I did with my phone long time ago. Google does not give two shits about customer experience for a long time. Unlimited data collection is the only thing they care and everything else is secondary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com