Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Youtube Businesses

Roku Tells Customers it is Unable To Strike a Deal With YouTube (axios.com) 81

Posted by msmash from the tough-luck dept.
Roku on Thursday told customers via a post on its corporate blog that it has still not been able to strike a distribution agreement with YouTube TV, which has been removed from Roku's channel store for five months. From a report: It's the first time Roku has directly acknowledged the issue to its customers. Roku says YouTube TV parent Google has made anti-competitive demands in distribution negotiations, which still haven't been resolved. In the blog post, Roku says Google has made anti-competitive demands in carriage agreements, including asking Roku to create a dedicated search results row for YouTube within the Roku smart TV interface and demanding certain features on Roku that they don't insist on getting from other streaming platforms. Roku reiterated that "our concerns with Google are not about money," but striking an agreement with fair distribution terms. "We have not asked for a single change in the financial terms of our existing agreement," Roku writes in the blog post. " In fact, Roku does not earn a single dollar from YouTube's ad supported video sharing service today, whereas Google makes hundreds of millions of dollars from the YouTube app on Roku."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Roku Tells Customers it is Unable To Strike a Deal With YouTube More

Roku Tells Customers it is Unable To Strike a Deal With YouTube

Comments Filter:
  • We user lose. This is going to be more and more common as time goes on.
    • Depends on your definition of "big". Roku had less than 1000 employees last time I checked. Roku is well known as a brand, but the company is not "big" to me.

    • Re:When big companies fight (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JKanoock ( 6228864 ) on Thursday October 21, 2021 @12:49PM (#61914489)
      Cable cutting was supposed to make things cheap, now you have to pay for 5 different services and soon 2 or different pieces of hardware, corporations can fuck anything up.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        And you still have to deal with bundles packed with b-sides.

      • Or... just don't watch TV. People still look at me funny when I say "I don't have Disney+ so I can't watch that" or "I don't have Amazon so I can't watch that either". They seem to think that we all MUST watch all of the popular shows and that opting out is not socially acceptable.

      • Cable cutting was supposed to make things cheap, now you have to pay for 5 different services and soon 2 or different pieces of hardware, corporations can fuck anything up.

        When I cut the cable a decade ago, I was paying $70/mo. Checking now, I see it's still $70/mo. If I subscribe to the main streaming players all at once...

        Netflix = $13.99/mo (standard plan)
        HBO Max = $14.99/mo (no ads)
        Disney Plus = $7.99/mo or $13.99/mo with Hulu
        Amazon Prime = $12.99/mo or $119/yr

        at most I'm paying $55.96/mo for everything including Hulu (slightly less if I pay upfront for a year of Amazon Prime instead of on a monthly basis).

        That's still less than $70/mo for cable tv.

        But the thing is I don'

      • This. I got Youtube TV for my wife - "Why can't I get xxx?", how the fuck should I know, I haven't watched tv for at least 10 years...

  • Go Roku (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DriveDog ( 822962 ) on Thursday October 21, 2021 @11:34AM (#61914109)
    Fine. Leave YouTube out. Roku's customers include us, its users. Google's customers do not so they'll never be as responsive to users as to their advertisers.
    • Pretty sure YouTube TV costs me $65 a month, making me a paying customer of Google. Honestly, I'm more likely to drop Roku and switch to Apple TV than I am to drop YouTube TV.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jobslave ( 6255040 )
        Yep. To me, Roku is a device to help stream from other services. If they can't play along with the providers of the content, then fuck them, there are several other options. If I can't stream what I want on their device, I won't buy any more of their devices and I'll buy an Apple TV stick or Fire stick or Chromecast or my laptop streaming to my TV from the various streaming services websites. Roku doesn't really have a leg to stand on at all. They provide no value beyond creating a device that allows c

        • And now your other 13 streaming devices piled up in your living room also fail to work since they're also resisting strong arm pressure from Google? Best to just not watch any TV.

      • Who says this has to be a binary decision. You can use both Roku and Apple TV.
      • There are alternatives to Youtube TV, and some of them are superior. There's not much specific that brings brand loyalty to that platform, unlike people who have a home full of Roku hardware

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by RedMage ( 136286 )

          Superior is very subjective - for me, none of the other live tv streamers can touch Youtube TV except maybe in price. Roku is just a device to facilitate streaming, and none of their content is even a factor for me at all. I like the hardware and would stick with it, but I'd toss it overboard to be eaten by sharks in a hot moment if I can't get the services I want. Just facts.

          C

          There are alternatives to Youtube TV, and some of them are superior. There's not much specific that brings brand loyalty to that platform, unlike people who have a home full of Roku hardware

          • Yes, superior is subjective. If you like sports, Youtube TV is a waste of money and ATT TV/DirecTV Stream is the answer. Not everyone cares about sports, though

          • For me, if I can't get the service I want for the price I want, then I don't get it. It doesn't seem that hard of a decision. Nothing out there has fishhooks into my balls such that I must comply and watch their content. Yet people act like all these streaming services are providing their daily heroin. Just say no!

      • Sling is slightly cheaper because it is more a la carte. You can get a basic package and add smaller bundles of channels to it.

      • Why, does YouTube TV actually have content now? $65 a month, is this a troll post, what sort of streaming service charges that much? This has got to be a joke, right?

        • It's basically a streaming version of a Cable TV service with DVR. You can watch local channels and some cable channels and DVR them. I've not used it myself but the two people I knew that had it said they were very pleased with the service.

          • But $65? I dropped my satellite when they hit $75 (still only half the cost of lower quality cable).

            • YouTube TV was the only streaming option that had all the channels my family wanted, as well as unlimited DVR. $65+$35 for 300Mbit internet is a way better option than FiOS, which cost $220 for the triple play with 75Mbit internet. Directv is not doable where I live and Comcast was even more expensive for worse service.

              I have to say, it works really well, I never have to worry about storage space in the DVR, and I can bounce what I'm watching from my phone to any of the TV's pretty seamlessly.
      • $65/month for YouTube! "Customer" isn't the right term for that. Ditch YouTube TV. Get a Tablo. $150 or so out of pocket, ONCE, then $5/month IF you want the guide. $5 make-your-own-antenna-in-the-attic and a butt load of stuff you can put on your OWN Tablo from any reasonably close broadcaster, at will, and find programs you want by browsing programs rather than broadcast schedule. Rokus are the best way to watch stuff on a TV but there are lots of other devices that work well with Tablos including most a
        • To be blunt, I have more money than time, and itâ(TM)s worth $65/month to not have to screw with all that.
          • Set it up once, easy peasy. Run a coax for an antenna, the most time-consuming part. Several years in, I've probably unplugged Tablo twice to reboot it and replaced Roku remote batteries a few times. That's it. Tablo is about the most stable, fuss-free system out there. Prefer something else, whatever, but it's really less hassle than any other means.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by xeoron ( 639412 )
      The thing Roku did not want to agree to was something that would save them millions if they did. Google just wanted them to add AV1 support in their future hardware, which makes since considering it would save Roku money since it has several streaming channels. Google is converting Youtube, YoutubeTV and other services to use AV1, which uses less bandwidth, storage, faster transmission, no royalties for the codex use. Netflix is adopting it and other services, so it would make since for Roku to add support
      • Any reason why Roku would not choose to use AV1? As far as I know some of the chips they have used support AV1 but there is not enough information to know if all support it.

        • Re: Go Roku (Score:3, Informative)

          by waddleman ( 1230926 )
          The latest Roku Ultra does support AV1. It's ironic that no Google devices support AV1. https://www.roku.com/products/... [roku.com] https://developers.google.com/... [google.com]

        • Any reason why Roku would not choose to use AV1?

          In short: cost.

          AV1 is royalty free. However the costs of implementing a decoder in hardware are relatively high. This isn't an issue for higher-end products, but when a streaming stick is expected to cost $30 shipped, that extra buck of hardware is a big problem.

          • AV1 is royalty free. However the costs of implementing a decoder in hardware are relatively high. This isn't an issue for higher-end products, but when a streaming stick is expected to cost $30 shipped, that extra buck of hardware is a big problem.

            Upon researching it more, the newest Roku SoCs have listed hardware support for AV1. My assumption would be older SoCs do not.

      • Interesting. I wouldn't mind if this were true. Personally, I plan on upgrading my Roku devices at some point, i.e., when the latest version of the Ultras has a capability I lack and want or need. AV1 might be a reason to pull the trigger.

    • Roku inserts its own ads. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by waspleg ( 316038 ) on Thursday October 21, 2021 @12:35PM (#61914397) Journal

      They also work directly with the CCP (TCL is a state entity). Fuck them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nadass ( 3963991 )
        Meanwhile, Google simply corporatizes CCP's exploitation of human rights across all national borders. Fuck THEM, I say.
  • Remember back in the dark mists of internet history when Google's motto was "Do no harm"?

    Yeah. Neither do I.

    • Re:Remember when ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21, 2021 @11:44AM (#61914161)

      uhhh.. no one remembers that, because it never was. it was "dont be evil"... do no harm is doctors.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        it was "dont be evil"... do no harm is doctors.

        Keeping quotes straight is rocket surgery.

        Google got rid of "don't be evil" and Fox News got rid of "Fair and Balanced". If they merged, would it have been "Don't be fair and balanced?"

  • Is this regarding YouTube or YouTube TV? I believe they're different apps.
    • YouTube TV. For now, Google has embedded YouTube TV inside the main YouTube app on Roku, but it's not ideal. Thankfully if you already had the YouTube TV app installed on your Roku before this whole battle, its still usable and updated for now.

  • That poor and defenseless little Roku is the one having these issues with others?

    • Because their trying to charge companies for app inclusion. The bigger the app, the bigger they want to charge them.

      I can guarantee that Roku is just as complicit in this dispute as Google. Just like it was with Fox, Disney, Peacock/NBC or Spectrum. They know they're the #1 Smart TV platform and have recently been strong arming the larger channels to pay up for inclusion into their steaming platform.

      The only reason they're getting away with it though is because every other TV platform sucks. Fire TV is terr

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Time for an app store model? (Score:3)

    by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Thursday October 21, 2021 @12:16PM (#61914313) Homepage Journal

    Maybe it is time for Roku just to go the app store model and let anyone develop an app that can run on the device, without the need of prior licensing agreements?

  • But I am not holding my breath.

  • Roku is a pipe and moat (Score:4, Interesting)

    by atrimtab ( 247656 ) on Thursday October 21, 2021 @12:48PM (#61914481)

    I note that Google sent me a Chromecast with Google TV for free shortly after this dispute started. It supports all the major player streaming channels and has a better (if more creepy user tracking) UI.

    Roku has a lot more "channels" at the moment, but the vast majority are low quality IPTV streams wrapped in a little code for the Roku platform.

    Roku is vulnerable as a pipe and moat to content in the home. Particularly, if the larger players just give away players while also placing their content on the general Internet as Google, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, Paramount, Peacock, Disney, etc are ALL doing.

    • And yet, Chromecast was crap when I tried it. Roku just worked. Chromecast seemed to think that I should use my phone as a remote control, what nonsense. Maybe they got better but it was so terrible in the past that I can't understand why this is the one product that Google forgot to cancel. It had a small value in the past of being small and just a stick you plugged into the back of the TV but now others have similar products as well.

      Content providers really should learn that they would make more money

      • Chomecast with Google TV includes a remote that is simpler to use and responds faster to button presses than my Roku Ultra.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nadass ( 3963991 )
      So what you're saying is that Netflix, Disney, Viacom, and Peacock will ALSO launch HDMI TV sticks in the near future?!

      Cuz the 3 largest TV stick players (Roku, Amazon, Google) do this... and these players also build smart-tv software (plus Samsung's Tizen).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jaegs ( 645749 )

      It supports all the major player streaming channels and has a better (if more creepy user tracking) UI.

      Install Pi-hole [pi-hole.net], watch how much of your Roku's traffic is blocked—spoiler alert: it phones home A LOT—and tell me it's not every bit as creepy as the Chromecast.

      I have a mix of Amazon, Android, Apple, and Roku streamers. As /. doesn't allow images, here's a text version of my Top Blocked Domains from the last time I checked:

      giga.logs.roku.com: 4019 hits
      scribe.logs.roku.com: 1150 hits
      device-metrics-us.amazon.com: 449 hits
      s.amazon-adsystem.com: 345 hits
      mads.amazon.com: 340 hits
      ssl.google-ana

  • ...a FAANG-sized company to get the leverage to compete with the other FAANGs.

    • ...a FAANG-sized company to get the leverage to compete with the other FAANGs.

      Ehh...Amazon, Apple, and Google have their own hardware. This leaves Facebook and Netflix. I don't foresee Netflix wanted to buy a company built on the expectation of Netflix being one option of many. Facebook hasn't managed to make any headway pretty much anywhere in the hardware game; from their partnerships with phone manufacturers, to the Portal, to other IoT endeavors, Facebook doesn't have the sort of good will to profit off the purchase.

      No, the closest thing that would work in terms of a merger with

  • I originally got into Roku years ago because it was simple, and they seemed content to just be a neutral device manufacturer so I could get all my apps, whereas my cable box was proprietary garbage. I don't know exactly when that mindset changed, but the device doesn't really do much more than a Raspberry Pi and hasn't really improved much in 10ish years, so I don't see why they feel positioned to force everyone to turn over a slice of their pies.

    • I originally got into Roku years ago because it was simple, and they seemed content to just be a neutral device manufacturer so I could get all my apps, whereas my cable box was proprietary garbage.

      I don't know exactly when that mindset changed, but the device doesn't really do much more than a Raspberry Pi and hasn't really improved much in 10ish years, so I don't see why they feel positioned to force everyone to turn over a slice of their pies.

      Interesting.

      Which streaming services work on the Pi?

  • Nerds can get a $20 FireTV stick, turn on network ADB, and sideload an S-Tube apk from Github.

    It's everything the YouTube app should be on a device with a better API than Roku.

    Get any cheap shitbox AndroidTV device from China if you don't want to deal with Amazon and/or corporate behemoth spats.

    Not sure if FLOSS Android distros support them yet. That would be fantastic but in the meantime, for the love of gods put them on an isolated VLAN.

  • Can't Roku just include a browser on their device? Or a browser app hard wired to go to youtube.com ?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close