Hacker News Reader

Comment by antasvara | Hacker News Reader

Note: this isn't meant to defend Google, because their practices are shady and by no means good.

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.

View on HN

There's a few differences when compared to Apple:

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.

Roku captures subscription and advertising revenue, and also resells/licenses ACR (Automatic Content Recognition) data, aka viewing data. Users can turn this off if needed.

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.

More info:

https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smar...

> What I find interesting here is that Roku is using business practices similar to Apple and nobody seems to have a problem with it.

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.

This seems like such an unnecessary fine line. The Apple TV box is just for watching video as well - are you fine with the App Store monopoly there? If there were regulation that allowed competing app stores, would you vote for those competitors being locked out of Apple TV apps?

Most platform providers have a certification process for apps on their platforms to ensure that they don't have stability or data issues.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com