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.
Do better, tech.
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.
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.
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.
This is all hearsay though and it’s unclear if Google even made such demands to Roku.
Globally, Roku controls 30% (down from 33% in 2020).
https://www.protocol.com/roku-global-expansion-conviva-data
"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.
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.
If Google wants to move to AV1 it makes sense to sign forward thinking contracts even if they have existing hardware that doesn't support it.
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.
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.
So, Do better, people.
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.
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.
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?
Yeah, it isn't expensive under those criteria.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
/usr/bin/chromium --start-fullscreen --user-agent="smarttv;applewebkit;tizen" "https://youtube.com/tv"Though, I can understand in principle why they don't do this, why give traffic to jerks?
But these companies are moving steadily towards locking things down behind anticompetitive agreements.
>"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."