"First, Google continues to interfere with Roku’s independent search results, requiring that we preference YouTube over other content providers"
"Second, Google discriminates against Roku by demanding search, voice, and data features that they do not insist on from other streaming platforms."
I would be much more comfortable if the headline says, "Google made unreasonable demands on Roku to strike a YouTube deal"
> 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.
https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/update-our-youtube-tv-m...
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.
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.
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.
ACR Service Policy: https://docs.roku.com/published/acrservicepolicy/en/us
Roku is not alone in doing this, of course. Every major TV manufacturer in the US does this.
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.
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.
>asking Roku to create a dedicated search results row for YouTube within the Roku smart TV interface
>we have never, as they have alleged, made any requests to access user data or interfere with search results.
Doesn't this contradict the idea that Roku claims they are asking for special search results.
>Hah, a "high quality" experience indeed. Except, it's not quite "on youtube" since it's more "on Roku".
I'm not understanding your point here, its the Youtube app. Why is it more on Roku ?
>crap that lets Google shovel shit down Roku users.
If you don't like youtube don't use it.
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.
This is a he said/she said dispute. Taking either side's statements at face value is just foolish.
See also above, where YouTube doesn’t contest Roku’s core claims when given opportunity to do so.
This submission would have been better as a blog post by a third party analyzing both of their statements.
You are unhappy that a blog post from April does not respond to claims made today?
(Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
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.
If the content is paid on youtube, but available for free through another subscription service that Roku knows you have?
First, Google continues to interfere with Roku’s independent search results, requiring that we preference YouTube over other content providers.
That's Roku's own search app Google are trying to influence.
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.
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.
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.
I prefer to use java with mine, though I've heard there's a javascript-compatible language that might target your use case.
Do me a favor. Look up your representative and call or email them.
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representati...
Tell them Google is playing evil games with their empire and it's impacting hardware you purchased. Suggest a breakup of Google and YouTube.
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.
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.
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.
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.