YouTube TV removed from Roku channel store amid Google contract dispute(axios.com)
axios.com
YouTube TV removed from Roku channel store amid Google contract dispute
https://www.axios.com/roku-youtube-tv-removed-google-5580ffdf-b865-428c-91ca-8ad83802fedf.html
408 comments
It's the entire reason that they split off from Netflix in the first place! I bought my first Roku the day it was announced -- 5/20/2008, the "Roku Netflix Player", and I was thrilled with it. They added support for other streaming sources not too long after and I could not have been happier.
The next version had pre-programmed buttons for various services that had paid them off, and I was annoyed, but whatever.
The version after that they wanted me to enter my credit card information just to activate the device.
And finally they just started plastering it with ads, including ads for the "Roku Channel".
I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a device. I don't know what to do next; I tried an Amazon Fire TV but it's garbage. Chromecast I also found unusable; the app would lose connection all the time so pausing was always an iffy proposition. There are generic Android boxes but I have no idea what to expect quality-wise, and there are options like building my own Kodi box but I don't know how well streaming services are supported. I guess Apple TV is the last option? Last time I tried one it was just okay, and now Apple has its own streaming platform so I'm sure it's going to get into these same fights.
The next version had pre-programmed buttons for various services that had paid them off, and I was annoyed, but whatever.
The version after that they wanted me to enter my credit card information just to activate the device.
And finally they just started plastering it with ads, including ads for the "Roku Channel".
I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a device. I don't know what to do next; I tried an Amazon Fire TV but it's garbage. Chromecast I also found unusable; the app would lose connection all the time so pausing was always an iffy proposition. There are generic Android boxes but I have no idea what to expect quality-wise, and there are options like building my own Kodi box but I don't know how well streaming services are supported. I guess Apple TV is the last option? Last time I tried one it was just okay, and now Apple has its own streaming platform so I'm sure it's going to get into these same fights.
For what it's worth, I bought an nvidia shield pro and use that. Just like how Roku started, they just make hardware. There are a few subtle adverts are the nvidia remote play stuff (preinstalled applications) but I hardly notice them. They don't have any skin in the streaming space so I find that comforting.
My only slight worry is that it's running on Android TV, so there's always a chance google bans something.
My only slight worry is that it's running on Android TV, so there's always a chance google bans something.
Another happy NVIDIA Shield owner here.
I switched from Roku to Shield when the first Shield came out in 2015. That device is still going strong, still plays everything I throw at it, has excellent support with Kodi and Plex and every single catch up TV app is available for it.
6 years later, and NVIDIA is still issuing regular Android updates for it. The only Android device that's getting official support from OEM 6 years after release.
highly recommend.
I switched from Roku to Shield when the first Shield came out in 2015. That device is still going strong, still plays everything I throw at it, has excellent support with Kodi and Plex and every single catch up TV app is available for it.
6 years later, and NVIDIA is still issuing regular Android updates for it. The only Android device that's getting official support from OEM 6 years after release.
highly recommend.
I can also recommend the nvidia shield.
I used to run various PC based home theatre bits of software, but they're all inevitably a pain to manage, don't work right, and require fiddling.
Got the Shield TV pro 2019(?) version, pointed Plex at my NAS, and it plays content flawlessly. Youtube, Amazon Prime, Netflix all work well too.
In theory it also plays games - but Nvidia's game service isn't launched here in Australia, and I've not found a game on the Google Play store that's isn't outright terrible. Steam Link theoretically works, but none of the games in my Steam library are suited to play with a controller. Theoretically there's emulators for various consoles which I've seen people saying is excellent, but I've never been able to make any of them work.
Like just about any modern device - it does need to be rebooted occasionally, but for the most part it's just turn on and go.
I used to run various PC based home theatre bits of software, but they're all inevitably a pain to manage, don't work right, and require fiddling.
Got the Shield TV pro 2019(?) version, pointed Plex at my NAS, and it plays content flawlessly. Youtube, Amazon Prime, Netflix all work well too.
In theory it also plays games - but Nvidia's game service isn't launched here in Australia, and I've not found a game on the Google Play store that's isn't outright terrible. Steam Link theoretically works, but none of the games in my Steam library are suited to play with a controller. Theoretically there's emulators for various consoles which I've seen people saying is excellent, but I've never been able to make any of them work.
Like just about any modern device - it does need to be rebooted occasionally, but for the most part it's just turn on and go.
FWIW, the Steam Link app also accepts keyboard and mouse input. You can just them up to your shield and it should detect them in the Steam Link app and suddenly you can just go ahead and play Cities: Skylines or whatever on your TV
Ah, rightio.
If I'm going to play those sort of games I'd rather just go sit at my desk. Not really a good way to use those on my lounge.
I got a controller for the Shield with the idea that I could play more console-y type games.
If I'm going to play those sort of games I'd rather just go sit at my desk. Not really a good way to use those on my lounge.
I got a controller for the Shield with the idea that I could play more console-y type games.
I recommend Crypt of the Necrodancer.
I've got a 2015 Shield and while you can't "Uninstall" all the pre-installed stuff, you can disable them through the global app settings.
I've basically disabled everything on my Shield, just leaving Netflix, Disney+, etc. activated and it's made it much more responsive and stable. I had the feeling some of my slowdowns were occurring as apps polled back home to see what content they should be displaying on the home screen, downloading thumbnails, etc. and sure enough, it's now zipping along like the old days.
Just to add to everybody else, I've had this box for nearly 6 years and it's as good as the day I bought it and has kept up with technology in an amazing way. 4K HDR with whatever surround format you throw at it is incredible. Especially as it acts as a Plex server in the background with no major power consumption. I seem to remember only paying £125 for it on an Amazon deal as well. One of my best tech purchases of all time.
I've basically disabled everything on my Shield, just leaving Netflix, Disney+, etc. activated and it's made it much more responsive and stable. I had the feeling some of my slowdowns were occurring as apps polled back home to see what content they should be displaying on the home screen, downloading thumbnails, etc. and sure enough, it's now zipping along like the old days.
Just to add to everybody else, I've had this box for nearly 6 years and it's as good as the day I bought it and has kept up with technology in an amazing way. 4K HDR with whatever surround format you throw at it is incredible. Especially as it acts as a Plex server in the background with no major power consumption. I seem to remember only paying £125 for it on an Amazon deal as well. One of my best tech purchases of all time.
I switched from a Fire TV Stick and a Valve Stream Link to an Nvidia Shield Pro. Very happy as well.
But to be honest I miss Amazon's voice search. It worked much better to find thing from the Netflix and Prime Video catalogs than Google assistant does now.
And on the other hand I actually would like to get the new Google TV interface of the most recent Chromecast. It looks way prettier than the plain Shield home screen and its universal watch list sounds very useful.
But to be honest I miss Amazon's voice search. It worked much better to find thing from the Netflix and Prime Video catalogs than Google assistant does now.
And on the other hand I actually would like to get the new Google TV interface of the most recent Chromecast. It looks way prettier than the plain Shield home screen and its universal watch list sounds very useful.
I also want to add on to the praise for the Nvidia Shield. After a frustrating experience with Roku, Roku stick, and Fire stick, the Shield experience has been great and I haven't regretted it.
If it has a screen and network access, the demand for growth will inevitably lead it to become an ad platform. Or more generally, a market for eyeballs.
Or at the very least it'll become a data collection platform, to be packaged and sold (whether for use with ads directly or for the many consumer intelligence[1] companies that charge gobs of money for aggregate reporting).
[1] https://www.numerator.com/
[1] https://www.numerator.com/
The shield advertises that it's got google assistant built in. Is there a version that's not a hot mic?
Yours and responders' enthusiasm puts the shield on my list for if my roku stops seeing youtube.
Yours and responders' enthusiasm puts the shield on my list for if my roku stops seeing youtube.
The assistant is built into the remote, not the box. If you wanted, you could buy a different Bluetooth remote or use an old console controller. My PS3 controllers work fine, I use them to play Mario kart 64 and sometimes to control the entire interface if I can't find the main remote.
But the assistant isn't always listening, you need to push a button to turn it on. Considering the remote runs off a couple of AAA batteries which last over a year, it would be impossible for it to be always listening.
But the assistant isn't always listening, you need to push a button to turn it on. Considering the remote runs off a couple of AAA batteries which last over a year, it would be impossible for it to be always listening.
That's great to hear. A hardware button is all I've ever asked of these digital assistants. I'm the only person happy with the Bixby button.
Part of this is bc everything is about Reoccurring, monthly revenue. It’s no longer good enough to build a great product , make a nice profit, and move on to the next iteration. A company now must generate (or extract) stable, reoccurring revenue from its products (which for a company/investors is much more appealing than onetime profits). It sucks imo, but it’s infected everything now.
> I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a device
This comment is exactly my feeling , and why for most products , is an unfortunate outcome of the reoccurring rev model.
> I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a device
This comment is exactly my feeling , and why for most products , is an unfortunate outcome of the reoccurring rev model.
You can buy a mini desktop computer for $100 and just plug it in to the TV. Control it with a $10 wireless keyboard, and watch anything that you can watch in a web browser (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.).
https://lee-phillips.org/tcDebian/
https://lee-phillips.org/tcDebian/
But this lacks a nice and clean UI to watch Youtube, Netflix, etc. I wouldn't want to control a browser displayed on a TV with a wireless keyboard.
I've been doing it for close to 10 years. I hate trying to navigate on friends/parents smart tvs. They are slow, the UI doesnt always make a lot of sense, the cable provider guide always seems to be fighting with the smart tv guide/pages.
Is that really a nice and clean UI compared to Windows which most people are familiar with?
Is that really a nice and clean UI compared to Windows which most people are familiar with?
Things have evolved a lot in the last 10 years. I've had an HTPC for that long as well, and it has its place but if you spend a bit more than the $20 for the cheapest streaming sticks, any of the modern streaming devices are extremely snappy and responsive and much more enjoyable to navigate via a remote than dealing with a wireless keyboard and mouse. The smoothness of the video stream is also in general better from my experience than streaming via a webbrowser. And that's setting aside all the downsides of HTPC streaming due to losing out on 4K, HDR and 5.1 audio streams.
I love my HTPC, but its role has changed over the years in my living room.
I love my HTPC, but its role has changed over the years in my living room.
I totally agree that Smart TV interface is abysmal. I bought the latest LG OLED with WebOS thinking it would be the closest to "the future". So wrong. The OS hangs consistently. Apps don't load. When you start adding streaming sticks and multiple remotes, everything gets confusing. Still. It's 2021.
I think this speaks to the opportunity ahead for TVs rather than an argument for attaching a PC. Why can't all these HDMI sticks just be virtual devices? Provide an app store that gives you a Roku or Firestick. Why is identifying me and signing into all my streaming services still so difficult and full of friction? There is so much runway for simply a better TV. Start with good hardware. Build up a modern operating system that is smooth and just works. Don't even have a built in remote. Start with the assumption that all my interaction will be with 3rd party remotes and make them all work with zero/one touch. When I start interacting with a remote, the TV should know what I am trying to do (PS4, Xbox, Roku, Apple TV, etc) and simply respond with the interface. The core HW operating system should be nearly invisible. Stay out of the way. No Ads. no app stores. No crap. Build all of that in layers on top.
Imagine a specific example:
1. I purchase a Roku _remote_.
2. I unbox the remote and point it at my TV.
3. My TV downloads the Roku virtual stick and starts giving me the Roku interface. In the background. As a user, I don't care about any of that crap.
4. Roku accesses a touchid or faceid to load my account.
5. Roku installs all my apps I use automatically.
6. The apps on Roku call Roku APIs to identify me and sign me into these apps automatically (Netflix, Hulu, etc).
With the right TV and _hardware_ OS, the TV experience could be so much better.
I think this speaks to the opportunity ahead for TVs rather than an argument for attaching a PC. Why can't all these HDMI sticks just be virtual devices? Provide an app store that gives you a Roku or Firestick. Why is identifying me and signing into all my streaming services still so difficult and full of friction? There is so much runway for simply a better TV. Start with good hardware. Build up a modern operating system that is smooth and just works. Don't even have a built in remote. Start with the assumption that all my interaction will be with 3rd party remotes and make them all work with zero/one touch. When I start interacting with a remote, the TV should know what I am trying to do (PS4, Xbox, Roku, Apple TV, etc) and simply respond with the interface. The core HW operating system should be nearly invisible. Stay out of the way. No Ads. no app stores. No crap. Build all of that in layers on top.
Imagine a specific example:
1. I purchase a Roku _remote_.
2. I unbox the remote and point it at my TV.
3. My TV downloads the Roku virtual stick and starts giving me the Roku interface. In the background. As a user, I don't care about any of that crap.
4. Roku accesses a touchid or faceid to load my account.
5. Roku installs all my apps I use automatically.
6. The apps on Roku call Roku APIs to identify me and sign me into these apps automatically (Netflix, Hulu, etc).
With the right TV and _hardware_ OS, the TV experience could be so much better.
> 1. I purchase a Roku _remote_.
> 5. Roku installs all my apps I use automatically.
Maybe I'm missing something that should have been implied, but whose Roku is this (and how does it know), and why should your remote have any say about which apps (read: remote code execution) it installs?
> 5. Roku installs all my apps I use automatically.
Maybe I'm missing something that should have been implied, but whose Roku is this (and how does it know), and why should your remote have any say about which apps (read: remote code execution) it installs?
Its your Roku hardware remote that you buy. When the remote is paired with the TV, the tv recognizes the remote (HW signed, TV manufacturer approves this whitelist), the tv downloads the roku operating system and starts running it. This simply replaces wasteful HDMI interfaces, SoCs, etc and provides hooks for the tv to have better control over the experience. You could imagine extending this to video game controllers like Amazon Luna or Google Stadia.
The experience is smoother with Roku TV. You only have one UI to deal with.
I don't have one, but I can believe it. However, as we have just witnessed, we can't lock ourselves into a single streaming provider as an OS. Business agreements can end. I think what we want with HW is the ability to use these providers as low-level apps. Start with the assumption that the TV is simply a pass through device but gives platforms control of the full screen only when _their_ remote is in use. Build the user interface around full screen control that is only pre-emptible with remote accessory.
And don't get me started on channel guides. The whole premise of assuming events are pre-planned on a fix statically scheduled grid is soooo old school. Center the TV guide around "events" rather than a grid of time slots. Events are the centerpiece of live TV, from news to sports. You basically just need 2 flows to cover all of TV: on demand "content" and "events".
EDIT: I would also add some "pre" and "post" concept around events. This could hook social media into the TV. Every app from Clubhouse, Twitter, Live podcasts, etc. could plug into a pre or post show for key events they cover.
EDIT: I would also add some "pre" and "post" concept around events. This could hook social media into the TV. Every app from Clubhouse, Twitter, Live podcasts, etc. could plug into a pre or post show for key events they cover.
It varies wildly my TV manufacturer. My parent's smart TV is god-awful to navigate. You have to go into an app to get to the streaming apps...like what?
But my TV has Roku built-in and it's smooth as silk for the most part. Most of the issues I encounter are app-related. Like HBO Max is really clunky, but Netflix is rock-solid.
But my TV has Roku built-in and it's smooth as silk for the most part. Most of the issues I encounter are app-related. Like HBO Max is really clunky, but Netflix is rock-solid.
Yeah, my Roku Streaming Stick+ plays everything just fine. The only thing I use Kodi on my Pi for these days is anime with SSA/ASS formatted subtitles since the Roku can only handle SRT format, which means you don't get nice formatting for times when there's one subtitle for dialogue at the same time as a subtitle for a piece of text
Maybe this is a semantics argument but if you have to add something additional to the TV for it to play well then it doesnt really seem like that speaks to the quality of the TV UI.
It was a lot better when MS still had Windows Media Center (last in Win 8.1). I could actually watch cable tv with a cablecard system through windows. Full DVR, accurate guides, able to use WMC remotes, could watch on any computer attached to the network, etc. It was one slick system.
Have you tried it? In my experience its far nicer then most "Smart TV" or media devices in a similar price range. (certain devices like the apple tv have acceptable UI's but they are a little pricier).
I personally use one with an integrated mouse and its very convenient https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Wireless-Keyboard-Control-To...
I personally use one with an integrated mouse and its very convenient https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Wireless-Keyboard-Control-To...
Couldn't you run Plex or similar as the UI?
I completely disagree. I have a Roku-powered TV, Amazon FireTV, Chromecast Ultra, and have used quite a lot of "smart TV" interfaces. They all suck compared to KDE + VLC + Firefox (with uBlock Origin). Smart TV/device interfaces aren't even in the same league!
Example: By the time the Netflix app is open in Roku I will have already found the show and have it playing on my Linux desktop in Firefox.
Not only that but the apps are severely limited in functionality compared to what you get on the websites for the same provider. Even just scrolling through shows/movies is a bazillion times faster and good luck trying to find a specific place in the middle of a show using a regular remote control! haha. With a mouse I can just click right in the middle of that progress bar and be done.
Then there's things like Funimation: Their apps all suck so bad that the website seems like a dream in comparison even though the website is so awful it makes web developers visibly gag. The benefit the computer has is that it's trivial to load up those same shows on pirate sites when Funmation stops loading/playing videos again (on any given day you could have about a 5% chance of a Funimation video actually playing).
Example: By the time the Netflix app is open in Roku I will have already found the show and have it playing on my Linux desktop in Firefox.
Not only that but the apps are severely limited in functionality compared to what you get on the websites for the same provider. Even just scrolling through shows/movies is a bazillion times faster and good luck trying to find a specific place in the middle of a show using a regular remote control! haha. With a mouse I can just click right in the middle of that progress bar and be done.
Then there's things like Funimation: Their apps all suck so bad that the website seems like a dream in comparison even though the website is so awful it makes web developers visibly gag. The benefit the computer has is that it's trivial to load up those same shows on pirate sites when Funmation stops loading/playing videos again (on any given day you could have about a 5% chance of a Funimation video actually playing).
I usually find the ui on desktop browsers to be most friendly to my needs. Couple that with all the customization options I have from it being a normal computer, it's by far my choice device for watching tv
Eh, it isn't great, but you get used to it and it is a hell of a lot better than dealing with all the bullshit of the various bespoke players.
Plex to chromecast works great for me
Does YouTube.com/TV work for you?
Then you simply get to decide which one of these bothers you more:
- A wireless keyboard and web browser - Ads being mercilessly shoved down your throat
- A wireless keyboard and web browser - Ads being mercilessly shoved down your throat
Or, for Youtube (I guess you could use the same device for Netflix, Plex client, etc.), you could get the best of both worlds: Chromecast-like controls for YouTube and an ad blocker (the info from that link can be adapted for a desktop): https://www.linuxuprising.com/2021/04/how-to-cast-youtube-vi...
You won’t be able to watch HD content on Netflix or Amazon Prime (at the very least) that way though. You can only get HD streaming via a browser on Windows, which appears to have an exception to the usual DRM rules.
edit: As pointed out below, Windows is implementing DRM via decoding in hardware, which WideVine (Google’s DRM layer) on desktop Linux doesn’t / can’t do, so there’s no special exemption here.
edit: As pointed out below, Windows is implementing DRM via decoding in hardware, which WideVine (Google’s DRM layer) on desktop Linux doesn’t / can’t do, so there’s no special exemption here.
You can get 1080p with Netflix or Amazon Prime in Firefox on Linux. It just requires some addons to modify their client app js (because the DRM verification level is high enough, it's only their frontend that disables this)
Except that the WideVine DRM library under Linux only does software decoding, so HD video tends to stutter according to the issue logs on said extensions on GitHub. Assuming you get it to work at all of course.
I haven't had any lag issues with it and my HTPC is running a 12-year-old processor with a 10-year-old AMD GPU. Maybe it's an Intel or Nvidia driver issue?
I'm running KDE and have it configured to disable the compositor when an app goes full screen. Maybe that's your issue? Try turning off desktop effects and screwing around with your compositor settings.
Edit: I want to point out that since my GPU can't handle 4k the desktop resolution is limited to ~2k (whatever the highest was that it can handle at 60Hz--I forget now haha).
I'm running KDE and have it configured to disable the compositor when an app goes full screen. Maybe that's your issue? Try turning off desktop effects and screwing around with your compositor settings.
Edit: I want to point out that since my GPU can't handle 4k the desktop resolution is limited to ~2k (whatever the highest was that it can handle at 60Hz--I forget now haha).
I assume that that was a point in regards with $100 mini-pc (think ARM-based one). Your 12-year old device likely has more performance comparing to those modern and cheap pc's.
I already get 1080p on Netflix in Firefox on Linux.
However, Amazon Prime on the same setup gets me 720p at most. (This is a regression because I _know_ I used to watch the first few seasons of The Expanse in 1080.)
Which add-ons allow you to watch Prime in 1080p on Linux? I wasn't able to find them.
However, Amazon Prime on the same setup gets me 720p at most. (This is a regression because I _know_ I used to watch the first few seasons of The Expanse in 1080.)
Which add-ons allow you to watch Prime in 1080p on Linux? I wasn't able to find them.
Same experience here, Netflix works without too much hassle, but Prime is limited to a much lower bitrate than on Windows.
At one point I experimented a bit with making an addon myself, and it's possible to intercept the requests and spoof the UA/platform to get URLs for the HD streams, but then it goes to VMP/widevine and is a bit beyond my abilities. Best I could get was for the HD quality option to appear in the UI, but with a complaint that it wouldn't work because I needed to update or use a different browser.
Now pretty much the only time I use Prime video is for the occasional watchparty, and I'll just pirate the stuff I want to see in HD.
At one point I experimented a bit with making an addon myself, and it's possible to intercept the requests and spoof the UA/platform to get URLs for the HD streams, but then it goes to VMP/widevine and is a bit beyond my abilities. Best I could get was for the HD quality option to appear in the UI, but with a complaint that it wouldn't work because I needed to update or use a different browser.
Now pretty much the only time I use Prime video is for the occasional watchparty, and I'll just pirate the stuff I want to see in HD.
You can watch HD in the Netflix app on Windows if your hardware supports HDCP.
Edge on Windows also gets HD from Netflix and Amazon, because it uses the same DRM pipeline as the app does (Microsoft PlayReady).
There's no exemption from the DRM rules here, Edge and the app implement hardware backed DRM systems.
Edge on Windows also gets HD from Netflix and Amazon, because it uses the same DRM pipeline as the app does (Microsoft PlayReady).
There's no exemption from the DRM rules here, Edge and the app implement hardware backed DRM systems.
WideVine is level3 for browsers on the Desktop: https://go.buydrm.com/thedrmblog/why-google-widevines-drm-is...
I guess Windows streaming is going via PlayReady then.
I guess Windows streaming is going via PlayReady then.
Widevine is not used by Edge for Windows, as you say PlayReady is.
(Well, Widevine actually is also present for a site to use if you really want to, but other than being too lazy to have two license servers there's very little reason why you would.)
Microsoft have not ported PlayReady to other OSes, so Edge for Mac/Linux does use Widevine and gets Level 3.
(Well, Widevine actually is also present for a site to use if you really want to, but other than being too lazy to have two license servers there's very little reason why you would.)
Microsoft have not ported PlayReady to other OSes, so Edge for Mac/Linux does use Widevine and gets Level 3.
Thanks for pointing this out, I wasn’t aware.
I have an HTPC hooked up to my LG C9, but an HTPC really is not a great option for streaming content if you have a reasonably good TV and/or sound system. You lose HDR and in most cases 4K streaming if you try to view content via a web browser for most streaming services. You also lose higher quality audio and 5.1 audio streams with most services when viewing through a web browser. And then there is the issue that browser based streaming is just never quite as smooth and stutter free as streaming on any decently capable modern streaming device due to the native hardware acceleration and the fact that you don't have an entire OS with a bunch of other things running on it competing for CPU/GPU cycles at any given time.
The LG C9 processor is quite powerful and extremely snappy. My HTPC is almost always an inferior option on that front. I would rather recommend someone buy something like the nVidia shield instead of an HTPC if they mainly consume content via streaming services. I still like my HTPC for other uses and it is also great for Zoom/Skype calls with friends and family from my living room.
The LG C9 processor is quite powerful and extremely snappy. My HTPC is almost always an inferior option on that front. I would rather recommend someone buy something like the nVidia shield instead of an HTPC if they mainly consume content via streaming services. I still like my HTPC for other uses and it is also great for Zoom/Skype calls with friends and family from my living room.
Audio, in particular, is much less likely to "just work" on a $100 computer than a Roku. Ditto things like HDR.
[edit] by "audio" I mean, in particular, sending the right codecs to get surround sound for a particular source, when you ought to have it.
[edit] by "audio" I mean, in particular, sending the right codecs to get surround sound for a particular source, when you ought to have it.
Absolutely true. Primitive stereo is good enough for me, but not for everyone.
It costs 129 today at amazon. Plus 10 for the keyboard it is 140.
For 30~50 I can get a Fire TV that can plays for all the sources that I use (Netflix, Amazon Video, and Diskey+), and save on the electricity bill.
For 30~50 I can get a Fire TV that can plays for all the sources that I use (Netflix, Amazon Video, and Diskey+), and save on the electricity bill.
Sure. But my comment was a response to the problems people are having with these streaming devices. Plus, with the mini desktop you have a full-blown Linux computer. You could even record TV on it (though I haven’t tried this).
The latest Chromecast is an Android TV box with its own remote (in the stick form factor). Coming from Google, it's probably the highest quality Android TV box you'll find, and quite affordable. It does come with some Google "bells and whistles", but nothing I found intrusive, and they can be disabled.
Nope, the nVidia Shield is miles ahead.
Chromecast with Google TV doesn't have TrueHD support, ethernet, 6/8ch PCM HDMI output, automatic frame-rate switch, game streaming (yes this is an obvious troll, but still it is true). nVidia Shield have those, and more.
Chromecast with Google TV doesn't have TrueHD support, ethernet, 6/8ch PCM HDMI output, automatic frame-rate switch, game streaming (yes this is an obvious troll, but still it is true). nVidia Shield have those, and more.
The google TV chromecast does support wired ethernet, but you need to buy the separate adapter for it.
I love my 2015 Shield. I do with that Nvidia would release a new Shield with a better SoC though. Even the 2019 model has essentially the same chip. The chip is still fine for all streaming, I'd just like more horsepower for emulation.
Then hope the UK government approves the ARM acquisition.
The nVidia Shield is also like 3-4x as expensive.
You can turn on "apps only" mode which gets rid of most of the pre-loaded stuff, though one massive advertisement remains on the main homepage. Huge improvement over the Fire Stick which doesn't let you turn off the Amazon junk that takes over 90% of the menu real estate. Roku is still clean and simple and you can hide stuff you don't want. But massive downside is its a closed ecosystem and you can't load APKs and are at the whims of Roku removing apps after you buy it.
Be aware that you'll be forced to share your GPS location with Google during the set-up, there's no way around it. You'll also need to do the setup with the Google Home app which requires you to set up a "Home", which is way overkill if all you want is a Chromecast.
Also, the Nvidia Shield is truly a lot better in terms of hardware and application support. Quite a lot of Chromecast "apps" are inferior to the Android TV versions that also run on the Shield.
Also, the Nvidia Shield is truly a lot better in terms of hardware and application support. Quite a lot of Chromecast "apps" are inferior to the Android TV versions that also run on the Shield.
> Be aware that you'll be forced to share your GPS location with Google during the set-up
I think you're misinterpreting the meaning of the location permission: it's probably requesting that to connect to the Chromecast via WiFi Direct or Bluetooth. Android buckets that into location because you can figure out a user's location by looking at nearby WiFi networks/Bluetooth beacons.
I think you're misinterpreting the meaning of the location permission: it's probably requesting that to connect to the Chromecast via WiFi Direct or Bluetooth. Android buckets that into location because you can figure out a user's location by looking at nearby WiFi networks/Bluetooth beacons.
Last time I looked Netflix wasn't available on it, is that still the case?
Netflix is definitely available, and the main app I use on there
That was never the case. The remote even has a dedicated Netflix button.
It was the case at one point [0]. It stopped me buying one.
It seems it's back in a limited form [1]
[0] https://9to5google.com/2020/11/25/google-tv-netflix-dropped/
[1] https://9to5google.com/2021/03/11/netflix-directory-comes-ba...
[0] https://9to5google.com/2020/11/25/google-tv-netflix-dropped/
[1] https://9to5google.com/2021/03/11/netflix-directory-comes-ba...
That's referring to the aggregated listing view that the device provides across many providers. There are still individual apps. The Netflix app (which is what the dedicated button on the remote launches by default) still works. I'm a Netflix subscriber and have been using the new Chromecast since it was released.
Those articles are about the content aggregation feature of the "Google TV" app.
The Netflix app has been working the entire time on the "Chromecast with Google TV" device, which is what cprecioso recommended.
The Netflix app has been working the entire time on the "Chromecast with Google TV" device, which is what cprecioso recommended.
Have you tried consuming less media overall?
I'm at the point where not only are the various set-top boxes and smart devices trash, but the content is as well.
I don't want to watch recycled stories from my childhood, but darker and grittier. I imagine good content exists, but honestly I just can't be bothered to hunt it down anymore, and then wade through the literal sea of ads required to watch it.
I'm at the point where not only are the various set-top boxes and smart devices trash, but the content is as well.
I don't want to watch recycled stories from my childhood, but darker and grittier. I imagine good content exists, but honestly I just can't be bothered to hunt it down anymore, and then wade through the literal sea of ads required to watch it.
The Criterion Channel is very good.
Underrated comment. Sorry, this is a little provocative, but an effective end game here is to wean yourself off of Media Consumption As A Hobby, and find other things to do that don't involve getting your eyeballs milked by media companies. Simply finding another milking machine that doesn't (yet) bombard you with ads is a halfway solution.
Unplugging completely is the way to go! Sometimes the only way to win the game is to just not play at all.
Can only talk for me, but I watch maybe an hour of TV at most a day maximum - generally two episodes of a light comedy before bed each day. On top of that I'll watch one movie or documentary a week - I don't think that is excessive. But when I do want to watch this, I just want it to work. I use chromecast and since changing broadband provider and getting a new router it has misbehaved loads. Watching some last thing TV has become a chore - getting it to play first time, and then pausing or skipping is now a pain. Ordered a new router which should fix things - but a working tool to consume (however much or little you do) makes life simpler. I don't want to battle technology for my limited video entertainment.
Finding great stuff is hard - but the less you watch the longer the good stuff lasts! The Office USA has been great for wind down entertainment.
Finding great stuff is hard - but the less you watch the longer the good stuff lasts! The Office USA has been great for wind down entertainment.
For Darker and Grittier content...try HBO Max. They have some of the darkest shows such as The Night Of, Watchmen etc.
Other languages can help. It s easier if the next language is english, but I always come back to French when Im fed up of the trash. It s so different, has its own little world and self reference, and it gets me going for a while.
I imagine every language has the same unique stories and content that will never be translated well enough.
I imagine every language has the same unique stories and content that will never be translated well enough.
This is definitely my experience as well. I'm constantly just watching the good stuff from the past, because the newer stuff is absolutely awful.
I can’t tell if this is just an artifact of getting old or new stuff is worse than old stuff. After all, my parents still like stuff from their youth that I don’t like.
Vimeo has a bunch of great content.
Man—all I can say is most tech companies suck these days in that way. Bought a Samsung “smart” tv and a couple months later got an update—now it’s showing McDonalds ads. Like WTF I paid $500 for a TV but that’s not good enough?
The ad industry is a cesspool these days.
The ad industry is a cesspool these days.
It's the consumer hardware industry as a whole. The combination of heavy competition on street price and a dearth of salient new features (my mid-tier TV from 2017 is effectively identical in features to its modern counterparts) has encouraged the manufacturers to supplement the one-time revenue from sales with ongoing revenue from advertising, spyware and kickbacks from the subscription streaming companies.
Try an LG TV with webOS. I know it sounds crazy but it works so well these days. It makes dongles feel 2nd rate (at least when used on the LG) because of how integrated and useful the TV interface is. I don't think streaming devices were ever meant to be a permanent thing. That’s kinda the job of the TV if you think about it.
Unless you want to watch HBO Max, in which case you need a dongle….
Lack of an HBO Max app is annoying for sure. I just play it on my iphone and then AirPlay to the TV which isn't too bad. Now if Windows Laptops could cast OTA better that would be the best... haven't been able to get the windows airplay equivalent to work at all
That’s annoying.. I didn’t realize because I have some form of HBO as an Amazon prime video channel. So at least there’s that. Also using echo studios as sound output requires a Fire TV....
Just get Plex, it works everywhere and you don't have to worry about all the fighting between companies.
I use to use Plex, but they changed the UI to include all sorts of junk that I didn't want; really made it unusable for me as I didn't want adult films (not porn, but not kids friendly) being advertised on the home screen. I only used it for pictures and home videos but they wrecked it; couldn't find a way to go back.
The home screen and side bars are all fully customizable. It's a little annoying they turn them on by default as they add channels but you can turn them off easily.
I tried turning everything off, still had content thumbnails and details I didn't want and lacked the home screen stuff I did (it has been great previously). Waited for the next two revisions to see if it was fixed, no better so I moved on. Sounds like it's good for you: I literally wanted only local network content, nothing from the net, is that how you have it?
Might consider going back but we don't look at family pics that often and vlc works well enough.
Might consider going back but we don't look at family pics that often and vlc works well enough.
I unfortunately bought a roku right before all this went down, but fortunately there's a Jellyfin app for it. Jellyfin is an open source media server that is probably the closest to Plex in functionality.
"The next version had pre-programmed buttons for various services that had paid them off, and I was annoyed, but whatever."
I cut those buttons off with a knife because I kept accidentally pressing them just by picking up or holding the remote, which would exit whatever I was currently watching.
I cut those buttons off with a knife because I kept accidentally pressing them just by picking up or holding the remote, which would exit whatever I was currently watching.
We used to love our roku. Still do, and we have owned various versions for nearly as long as you. Even went with a roku tv at one point.
I bought an LG OLED CX this past November. I was planning to hook a roku up to it. My experience with smart tvs in the past has been hugely underwhelming to downright unusable. But I've been more than happy with just using the apps on the LG tv. Your mileage may vary, but I have a good picture quality and I'm pretty happy with the remote. It allows me to program the keypad to hard-press them to launch an app of my choice. Additionally, they have their own channel offerings similar to Pluto.
I have heard great things about the Shield as well. That is probably the closest you can find to without building your own HTPC.
I bought an LG OLED CX this past November. I was planning to hook a roku up to it. My experience with smart tvs in the past has been hugely underwhelming to downright unusable. But I've been more than happy with just using the apps on the LG tv. Your mileage may vary, but I have a good picture quality and I'm pretty happy with the remote. It allows me to program the keypad to hard-press them to launch an app of my choice. Additionally, they have their own channel offerings similar to Pluto.
I have heard great things about the Shield as well. That is probably the closest you can find to without building your own HTPC.
Everyone seems to love the LG WebOS software, I seem to be the only one that absolutely hates it. I have the LG E9 (previous generation, one year old). The picture is great but I hate just about everything else about it. Having to point at things with the "magic remote" is the least usable input interface I've ever encountered -- I'm not sure if I'm just completely devoid of motor skills but I find it ridiculously difficult to point at a particular thing on the screen, especially if it's a small hitbox. I genuinely don't understand how anyone likes it (but I know they do). I guess I'm the only one who still sometimes watches linear TV but the on-screen program guide is basically unusable; it takes literally a full minute to load 2 hours' worth of shows for the currently displayed 10 channels sometimes (and then repeat if you scroll to view a different 10 channels). Meanwhile my cheap Samsung dumb TV from 5 years ago works flawlessly (other than being only 1080p) and it's easy to browse with the arrow-key-based remote.
> Having to point at things with the "magic remote"
--
Yeah accidentally switching that one caused some grief the first week as I fumbled for the "right" button to dismiss it. But Having to use it is not my experience. Does the previous generation insist you use it?
We generally use the same 3 or 4 apps. Embarrassingly it took us a couple months to figure out we could program the keypad and hardpress the button to launch custom apps. Not its merely telling the other to "turn on 2" etc.
> . I guess I'm the only one who still sometimes watches linear TV but the on-screen program guide is basically unusable; it takes literally a full minute to load 2 hours'
--
That is a fair complaint. I've not really had that experience, but I don't watch much linear tv. But I doubt you are not the only one to watch tv this way.
We chose this TV after our Roku TV broke after 2 years. Surprisingly enough Amazon gave us a full refund for the broken TV. Even gave us an extra $30 to purchase a TV box.
--
Yeah accidentally switching that one caused some grief the first week as I fumbled for the "right" button to dismiss it. But Having to use it is not my experience. Does the previous generation insist you use it?
We generally use the same 3 or 4 apps. Embarrassingly it took us a couple months to figure out we could program the keypad and hardpress the button to launch custom apps. Not its merely telling the other to "turn on 2" etc.
> . I guess I'm the only one who still sometimes watches linear TV but the on-screen program guide is basically unusable; it takes literally a full minute to load 2 hours'
--
That is a fair complaint. I've not really had that experience, but I don't watch much linear tv. But I doubt you are not the only one to watch tv this way.
We chose this TV after our Roku TV broke after 2 years. Surprisingly enough Amazon gave us a full refund for the broken TV. Even gave us an extra $30 to purchase a TV box.
> Yeah accidentally switching that one caused some grief the first week as I fumbled for the "right" button to dismiss it. But Having to use it is not my experience. Does the previous generation insist you use it?
You're right, it can be dismissed that way. I looked for a way to disable it completely and quickly found that wasn't possible, but I did discover the right-arrow trick you mentioned. But it doesn't make it disappear for long, and I never managed to build up the reflex of pressing it regularly (it's kind of non-obvious, you have to admit), and to be honest I'd mostly forgotten right-arrow did that. But thank you for reminding me, I may have to try to work on that muscle memory.
You're right, it can be dismissed that way. I looked for a way to disable it completely and quickly found that wasn't possible, but I did discover the right-arrow trick you mentioned. But it doesn't make it disappear for long, and I never managed to build up the reflex of pressing it regularly (it's kind of non-obvious, you have to admit), and to be honest I'd mostly forgotten right-arrow did that. But thank you for reminding me, I may have to try to work on that muscle memory.
One downside to many SmartTVs including those sold by Samsung and LG is that they do ACR (automatic content recognition). It tells the TV manufacturer what you're watching so they can sell it to ad networks. I _think_ a pihole kills it, but the safest thing to do is to unaccept any privacy policies or to not give it wifi. Either option will disable built-in apps.
This is very true. I've been losing this battle with my wife in other areas of our life and have just, generally, given in I suppose. She still thinks I'm a nut and its only a coincidence that the arcane thing we were just discussing is now showing up as an advertisement somewhere.
Don't all the set top boxes (other than open source) collect and sell your info as well?
The AppleTV does not as far as I know.
yeah, until they start putting cellular modems in these things. only a matter of time. don't new LG/samsung TVs connect to open wifi now if they can't connect to yours?
Not agreeing to the privacy policy should prevent that. Until of course they say you need to agree in order to use the TV at all.
Another happy LG OLED and Shield owner here! I use the Shield when playing more difficult-to-play media from Plex (stuff like high-bitrate HDR content with lossless audio), and the built-in apps on the TV the rest of the time. Heck, even Apple TV is available as an app on the LG.
yes the biggest complaint I have is the no DTS support. A lot of my plex library has DTS audio. I've generally been able to avoid it now, but it took me by surprise the first time my file had no audio.
> I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a device.
They're publicly traded, so selling only hardware makes their business model too predictable and 'low-growth' for Wall St. Also competitors could eat their lunch considering that their hardware isn't any more complex than a $50 Android TV box you can get at a flea market.
In order to create a moat to stave off competition, you make your business model all about 'services', with an increasingly less important hardware component.
They're publicly traded, so selling only hardware makes their business model too predictable and 'low-growth' for Wall St. Also competitors could eat their lunch considering that their hardware isn't any more complex than a $50 Android TV box you can get at a flea market.
In order to create a moat to stave off competition, you make your business model all about 'services', with an increasingly less important hardware component.
As we can see in this case, there's apparently lots of pressure from service providers not to be just a dumb, neutral piece of hardware. And, in my opinion, the control that streaming services have over hardware can be traced back to DRM anti-circumvention laws. The fact that it's illegal to build hardware that controverts dumb restrictions mandated by the streaming services by breaking their DRM means that hardware manufacturers. will risk being cut off by streaming services.
> As we can see in this case, there's apparently lots of pressure from service providers not to be just a dumb, neutral piece of hardware.
I assumed it was the opposite: Roku decided, instead of merely selling neutral hardware, they'd make themselves some extra money by charging streaming services.
And that naturally means services disappearing - if Service A is paying you $1/user/month and you'd like them to pay you $2/user/month you gotta remove their app until they cough up.
I assumed it was the opposite: Roku decided, instead of merely selling neutral hardware, they'd make themselves some extra money by charging streaming services.
And that naturally means services disappearing - if Service A is paying you $1/user/month and you'd like them to pay you $2/user/month you gotta remove their app until they cough up.
According to Roku, the reason for this conflict is demands Google made about the hardware in Roku devices and how Roku handles search results with YouTube open. A Roku representative claimed they ask for not $1 of financial compensation. Of course, they could be lying, but Google hasn't provided an alternate reason.
I use Chromecast heavily --- I used to have some problems with getting connected and staying connected until I replaced my ISP provided router with a new Netgear Nighthawk. On top of connecting to wifi taking about 1 second to complete (versus tens of seconds on the old router), I now have zero issues with Chromecast. Unfortunately the reliability of Chromecast is pretty dependent by how good your WiFi network is
I got a Nexus Player to use as a Chromecast, initially because it had 5 GHz wireless, but then I figured out that you can use an USB OTG adapter to plug an ethernet adapter into the micro USB port. That worked even better.
Frustrating that the new ones don’t have an ethernet jack on them. WiFi in a condo or apartment building is unreliable and slow.
EDIT: Nevermind, they have official ones built into the power bricks! https://store.google.com/collection/accessories_wall?compati...
Frustrating that the new ones don’t have an ethernet jack on them. WiFi in a condo or apartment building is unreliable and slow.
EDIT: Nevermind, they have official ones built into the power bricks! https://store.google.com/collection/accessories_wall?compati...
Also, it seems that you can really enhance the functionality of the device with other peripherals by connecting up a USB-C hub: https://gizmodo.com/how-to-use-a-usb-c-hub-to-upgrade-your-c... .
I've been using the new Google TV (different from just a Chromecast dongle) and think it's pretty good, especially if you're also using other Google apps and services. $50 is a pretty reasonable price for the feature-set, and 1/3 of the cost of an Apple TV.
Streaming works fine on Linux, even from Disney.
I'll second this, with the caveat that you won't always get HD streams.
Netflix only supports 720p on Linux, and I believe Amazon Prime is limited to SD as well.
Disney+ doesn't support Linux, but works for me right now with a spoofed user agent, and claims to be 1080P. YouTube TV works fine without any spoofing, and also claims to be 1080P.
I don't know if Hulu works now, I haven't tried it in years. Vudu doesn't support Linux and I didn't try to work around it. Not sure about any of the other new services like HBO Max, or the CBS or NBC streaming services.
Netflix only supports 720p on Linux, and I believe Amazon Prime is limited to SD as well.
Disney+ doesn't support Linux, but works for me right now with a spoofed user agent, and claims to be 1080P. YouTube TV works fine without any spoofing, and also claims to be 1080P.
I don't know if Hulu works now, I haven't tried it in years. Vudu doesn't support Linux and I didn't try to work around it. Not sure about any of the other new services like HBO Max, or the CBS or NBC streaming services.
720p is still technically HD. SD is 480.
Not even technically, 720p is HD. 1080p is "Full HD" (FHD) and 4k is "Ultra HD" (UHD).
You're both correct, I'm not sure why I made that mistake because I definitely know the difference.
I believe Amazon currently is restricted to SD/480p, at least, that's all I can get with Firefox right now.
I believe Amazon currently is restricted to SD/480p, at least, that's all I can get with Firefox right now.
[deleted]
I gave up on Roku when they and/or NowTV unlawfully deleted a side-loaded app from my device.
Moved to FireTV which has plesk as a downloadable, that allows me to view photos off my local network as I was doing before ... Plex is awful now, the UX is terrible for me (it's geared to viewing Plex's content, which I have never used nor wanted), so I moved to just using VLC (clunky for photo viewing but good enough).
We only use Netflix, Youtube and free catch-up channels and only have 1080p, but FireTV was/is way better than the Roku device was.
What's garbage about FireTV?
Moved to FireTV which has plesk as a downloadable, that allows me to view photos off my local network as I was doing before ... Plex is awful now, the UX is terrible for me (it's geared to viewing Plex's content, which I have never used nor wanted), so I moved to just using VLC (clunky for photo viewing but good enough).
We only use Netflix, Youtube and free catch-up channels and only have 1080p, but FireTV was/is way better than the Roku device was.
What's garbage about FireTV?
I wanted HBOMax and I had given away my AppleTV. I wasn't going to buy a new AppleTV until they upgraded it, so I bought a FireTV. Aside from the ads, it works really well and the remote is decent.
I've gotten used to it, and now that the new AppleTV is out, I probably won't even bother upgrading. Or if I do, I'm on the fence about it.
The Roku interface is easily the worst of the bunch.
I've gotten used to it, and now that the new AppleTV is out, I probably won't even bother upgrading. Or if I do, I'm on the fence about it.
The Roku interface is easily the worst of the bunch.
It doesn't take much effort to unpin the Plex channels from your home page, or remove them completely from your account settings. It's annoying that they're the default, but it's not a huge deal either.
I tried unpinning the Plex stuff, didn't work for, didn't put local content on home either. Maybe errors at my end; had used and liked it for a couple of years before that.
[deleted]
Nvidia shield is great, just make sure you get a pro. For reasons I’ll never understand, they dropped the standard model to 8GB of memory which causes it to run low on memory with some apps.
I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a device.
Because "everyone else is doing it."
It's the reason that the entirety of the tech industry seems to be getting worse, not better. Outside of the people who get profiles in the Wall Street Journal, there are no real leaders, only followers now. And with the bloating of middle-management ranks, reliance on consultants, and fear of leaving the comfort of mediocrity, the lack of leadership only gets worse.
Because "everyone else is doing it."
It's the reason that the entirety of the tech industry seems to be getting worse, not better. Outside of the people who get profiles in the Wall Street Journal, there are no real leaders, only followers now. And with the bloating of middle-management ranks, reliance on consultants, and fear of leaving the comfort of mediocrity, the lack of leadership only gets worse.
I went through similar products. The last one was an android box. I was tearing out my hair after every upgrade. It is just not worth the problems. Raspberry Pi might be a good option but only v3. The new v4 has problems and there are very hacky ways the get the GPU acceleration working. At this stage an Apple Tv or maybe an Intel NUC might be the best options.
No, Hastings canceled the project when it was already done to allow them to spin off because he didn’t want to be seen as in competition with hardware makers. He wanted Netflix to be everywhere.
Amazon has the same business model as Roku with the Fire.
They don’t raise prices for a few reasons
1. People are cheap
2. Most of their installed based is now coming from cheap low margin TVs with Roku embedded.
3. Selling a device that people only replace once every 5 years isn’t sustainable.
There is only one company selling streaming devices at a profit - Apple. Have you noticed that every streaming provider is on AppleTV day one even though it has the lowest market share by far?
Streaming providers can just download Xcode, follow a few simple requirements (not link to their website for payments) and submit an app.
Before I get the standard replies, no streaming providers are not required to go through in app purchases and many don’t - including YouTube Live TV.
Also before I get the other retort. Yes they do have to work with Apple to be integrated into the TV app. Which is an app on iOS devices.
Amazon has the same business model as Roku with the Fire.
They don’t raise prices for a few reasons
1. People are cheap
2. Most of their installed based is now coming from cheap low margin TVs with Roku embedded.
3. Selling a device that people only replace once every 5 years isn’t sustainable.
There is only one company selling streaming devices at a profit - Apple. Have you noticed that every streaming provider is on AppleTV day one even though it has the lowest market share by far?
Streaming providers can just download Xcode, follow a few simple requirements (not link to their website for payments) and submit an app.
Before I get the standard replies, no streaming providers are not required to go through in app purchases and many don’t - including YouTube Live TV.
Also before I get the other retort. Yes they do have to work with Apple to be integrated into the TV app. Which is an app on iOS devices.
> They don’t raise prices for a few reasons
>1. People are cheap
This is always the answer. Or rather they can not raise prices, because then sufficient number of consumers will not buy the product.
>1. People are cheap
This is always the answer. Or rather they can not raise prices, because then sufficient number of consumers will not buy the product.
Yes. And the definition of a “sufficient number of people” is different for Roku where their entire business is based on selling streaming boxes and Apple where sells of streaming box is a “hobby” and less than a rounding error.
Given a choice, I would rather have an AppleTV and pay more for a better user experience than pay less for a Roku.
That being said, we have multiple Roku TVs throughout our house and they are good enough. But the two I use most frequently also have ATV4Ks. I also couldn’t in good conscience recommend that most people get ATVs at their current prices.
Given a choice, I would rather have an AppleTV and pay more for a better user experience than pay less for a Roku.
That being said, we have multiple Roku TVs throughout our house and they are good enough. But the two I use most frequently also have ATV4Ks. I also couldn’t in good conscience recommend that most people get ATVs at their current prices.
They should offer a few beefier, higher margin devices. I'd pay for no load times, for instance.
Have you tried an Nvidia Shield?
> I don't know why they couldn't just raise prices and sell a device.
Not many companies can survive with Apple's business model, but without the luxury Apple brand.
Not many companies can survive with Apple's business model, but without the luxury Apple brand.
I miss my Roku Soundbridge. It made streaming music in a time when that was hard. I'd listen to SomaFM coming through my stereo for hours a day.
They have a remote that lets you customize the buttons now - https://www.roku.com/products/accessories/roku-voice-remote-...
The fire tv and android tv both have ads/recommendations that take up more space, at least roku ads get in the way less.
I wish there was a kindle like option to pay and remove ads on all these devices.
The fire tv and android tv both have ads/recommendations that take up more space, at least roku ads get in the way less.
I wish there was a kindle like option to pay and remove ads on all these devices.
Apple TV is quite good these days.
Nvidia shield was okay. But expensive
FiretTV has been great for us.
Unfortunately the exact same thing is happening with Apple TV right now. A really great box but they are absolutely jamming Apple TV+ down their users’ throats.
Just take all of the apps off the top bar and put other apps up there. Any app on the top bar can control the hero banner.
At least there's a setting to make the 'TV' button take you to the home screen instead of the Apple TV+ app, and unlike Roku when monitoring network traffic the Apple TV is pretty quiet when not in use, unlike the Roku that is constantly chattering with ad services... ads on the home screen.. yuck.
the Roku that is constantly chattering with ad services
This is indeed annoying. But it's easy enough to fix with pihole. That just leaves 1/3 of the home screen being wasted space.
This is indeed annoying. But it's easy enough to fix with pihole. That just leaves 1/3 of the home screen being wasted space.
The Apple TV app is completely optional (and I hope it stays that way). The inly time I open it is to watch Apple TV+ shows.
P.S. They made the homescreen button goback to A the Apple TV app a while ago. This behavior can be changed go make it go back to the home screen.
P.S. They made the homescreen button goback to A the Apple TV app a while ago. This behavior can be changed go make it go back to the home screen.
The TV app is the single greatest feature of the Apple TV, though. I have one list of shows I am watching (sans Netflix because they are petty, I don’t subscribe to them for more than a month at a time to binge a few shows though); multiple, even, because each person in the house has their own.
How do? I don’t notice any push to watch Apple stuff when I navigate directly to Netflix or Prime Video...
I just bought the new Apple TV this morning. I'm exactly with you. Been a Roku user forever, but there's so much pressure to sell the hardware at a loss, that they have to extract money from everywhere else. As far as I can tell, I just paid the full price for my Apple TV hardware and now this is the end of it. But, we'll see, I suppose. I've never used an Apple TV before. Hoping for the best! It seems nice.
I have used a Roku, an Amazon Fire stick, and an Apple TV. The Apple TV is by far the best, in my experience. The only downside was their god awful remote, but even that has been fixed in the newest version.
I think you’ll be happy.
I think you’ll be happy.
If you're already in the Apple ecosystem, sharing the screen with devices/laptops is also super easy with the Apple TV device.
What stops Google from making the same demands they allegedly made to Roku to Apple?
Roku's market cap: 44.178B
Apple's market cap: 2.212T
Apple's market cap: 2.212T
I threw my Roku in the garbage when they couldn’t get the HBO Max contract done before launch and bought an Apple TV. Apple doesn't sell user data and nobody wants to be left out of the Apple money machine so all the services I want are available. It was completely worth it, in my opinion.
I am also considering ditching Roku for an Apple TV. Do you have an idea of how well it would work if the Apple TV was the only Apple product I owned? I don't want to drop $200 only to find out I need an iPhone for the setup process or something.
You might consider the thing that I have, an Nvidia Shield. It appears to work fine and is a lot snappier to use than the Rokus or Fire TVs I've used (also $200ish).
After owning quite a few internet appliances through the years (Roku,Fire,Shield,internet radios,Kindles,etc.) I've noticed that they one thing you can always count on working is a desktop/laptop PC.
edit: I notice that people above have also mentioned the Shield. Sorry for the repeat.
I keep wondering how long youtube will be standable. You can see the ads sneaking in bit by bit over the last few months (5 seconds with cancel, 2 x 5 seconds with cancel, 2 x 6 seconds with cancel, 2 x 6 seconds without cancel on one thing I watch. The worst has been firing up somebody's music list and getting a 5-10 minute(!) ad between each song).
I really should be getting to work on a hoard of videos stored locally. The days of 'free' entertainment are coming to an end.
After owning quite a few internet appliances through the years (Roku,Fire,Shield,internet radios,Kindles,etc.) I've noticed that they one thing you can always count on working is a desktop/laptop PC.
edit: I notice that people above have also mentioned the Shield. Sorry for the repeat.
I keep wondering how long youtube will be standable. You can see the ads sneaking in bit by bit over the last few months (5 seconds with cancel, 2 x 5 seconds with cancel, 2 x 6 seconds with cancel, 2 x 6 seconds without cancel on one thing I watch. The worst has been firing up somebody's music list and getting a 5-10 minute(!) ad between each song).
I really should be getting to work on a hoard of videos stored locally. The days of 'free' entertainment are coming to an end.
Personally I love having a desktop plugged in as I mainly watch YouTube, Plex and play games, but for someone who's planning to use a lot of DRM-encumbered services like Netflix, they often restrict the streaming resolutions available to desktop PCs where the DRM isn't as capable. A Shield will work nicely in those cases though.
You can see the ads sneaking in bit by bit over the last few months...
Every time I see a comment like this, I get a jarring reminder that some people don't have uBlock Origin installed. Probably unavoidable on a "device", but like you say the PC is eternal.
Every time I see a comment like this, I get a jarring reminder that some people don't have uBlock Origin installed. Probably unavoidable on a "device", but like you say the PC is eternal.
I have an Apple TV and was able to get it setup using just an apple account.
It has all worked well except two things:
-The remote is inferior to the one that ships with roku. The touchpad you can get used to, but there are so few buttons and one of them is dedicated to just opening the apple tv app (even though we mostly use netflix / amazon).
-I signed up for paramount+ from apple tv's app, and then later needed to change my credit card number. They want me to open iTunes to do this. I can update my card number on the website, but seemingly to get that associated with my streaming subscription I need to use iTunes. Why a proprietary app on a closed platform is needed for something everyone else let's you use a website for is beyond me.
I'll say Apple is famous for their UX design, but something feels unintuitive with the remote and some of the UI choices. However, overall we've gotten used to it and it works well.
It has all worked well except two things:
-The remote is inferior to the one that ships with roku. The touchpad you can get used to, but there are so few buttons and one of them is dedicated to just opening the apple tv app (even though we mostly use netflix / amazon).
-I signed up for paramount+ from apple tv's app, and then later needed to change my credit card number. They want me to open iTunes to do this. I can update my card number on the website, but seemingly to get that associated with my streaming subscription I need to use iTunes. Why a proprietary app on a closed platform is needed for something everyone else let's you use a website for is beyond me.
I'll say Apple is famous for their UX design, but something feels unintuitive with the remote and some of the UI choices. However, overall we've gotten used to it and it works well.
> one of them is dedicated to just opening the apple tv app (even though we mostly use netflix / amazon).
That button is configurable in the settings. I have it set to go to the home screen, which makes way more sense to me (and it's what it used to do before the Apple TV app existed).
That button is configurable in the settings. I have it set to go to the home screen, which makes way more sense to me (and it's what it used to do before the Apple TV app existed).
Thanks! I didn't realize that - definitely an improvement!
I think this is confusing, but the Apple TV app is different than the streaming service Apple TV+. The app is meant to be a centralized location for access to all TVs and movies across all services. It also keeps track of your progress on watching things and tells you when new episodes release.
Our earlier edition Apple TV also works with the TV remote (dumb Philips TV) until it starts to act up. I don't have an iPhone. My partner does but one doesn't don't have to use it, as the Apple TV works fine on its own until it doesn't and I have to power cycle it. Apple made this quite annoying as it doesn't have a power button and I have to unplug the power cord every time. Also if you have content on a NAS the VLC app is crap and keeps buffering after a while if the content is mkv, something which Kodi never did.
[deleted]
You do know they just updated the AppleTV and the remote has more buttons.
Also there is a preference so that button goes to Home screen instead of AppleTV app.
Also there is a preference so that button goes to Home screen instead of AppleTV app.
No I didn't know that. I actually find it frustrating that I paid full price for the one we have a couple of months ago and now it's apparently out of date.
That’s frustrating but happens with every company. Apple does have a good track record of supporting their hardware for a long time, so I wouldn’t be too worried about it.
You also have the option to buy the new remote separately and use it with your existing Apple TV:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...
You also have the option to buy the new remote separately and use it with your existing Apple TV:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...
If you don’t have an Apple phone, it’s not quite as useful since you can enter text on your phone and use it as a remote. AFAIK you’ll need to create an Apple ID to download apps on an Apple TV, and that’s about it. It does come with a remote, the touch remote is one of apple’s few bad products, if you get an Apple TV, wait for the new remote that re-adds buttons.
I believe all you need is an iCloud account. If you do get an Apple TV here’s the best way to subscribe to video services. Subscribe to the video service using the Apple TV app (confusing to have an app with the same name as the device). Then install the corresponding app and watch the programs using that service’s app. This will allow you to cancel services easily and you won’t have to create an account for each video service. The Apple TV app itself is garbage and I only watch Apple TV+ content on it.
An iPhone makes setup easier and it supports some neat things like using the camera on your phone to calibrate color tone, but it's optional.
If you buy a new Apple TV make sure you get the one that just came out with the new Siri remote, it looks much better than the old touchpad one that I think at best people tolerate.
If you buy a new Apple TV make sure you get the one that just came out with the new Siri remote, it looks much better than the old touchpad one that I think at best people tolerate.
Despite what people say Apple TV on its own is fine. Yes you’ll miss out on keyboard entry but I wouldn’t call that a dealbreaker at all. Mine pretty much runs as it’s own device.
[deleted]
I personally use a combination of Xbox and Chromecast, which is plugged into the hdmi-in for Xbox. Almost all of the popular services like netflix, prime, hbo, Twitch, Disney etc are available on the Xbox as native apps. For the odd ones which don't exist Chromecast works well. Xbox even has the Kodi app so you can point it to your FTP/WebDAV server and watch movies from there. I personally use a seedbox and stream from there on the Xbox Kodi app. As a bonus, Xbox is also going to get the full fledged chrome browser soon.
I love my original Xbox One. It has all the apps, a blu ray player and the hdmi in for a cable box or anything else you want. It's sad to think that it's unlikely that anyone will ever make anything like that again
What is the point of using Chromecast when Xbox can work as a Miracast receiver if I understand correctly?
It's far more bandwidth-intensive to stream from the internet to a phone screen and again from a phone screen to a Miracast receiver. You also can't use the phone screen nor see notifications while Miracast streaming.
With Chromecast, the dongle is actually just a remote-less streaming stick. So it streams directly from the server and the streaming app on your phone is the remote.
With Chromecast, the dongle is actually just a remote-less streaming stick. So it streams directly from the server and the streaming app on your phone is the remote.
In addition to better efficiency, it also means that multiple devices can act as remotes at the same time, and if the original person who started the stream leaves the WiFi network the stream is not disrupted. It's definitely the more sensible way to handle streaming from cloud services- I just wish it would get standardized as a web standard so that it's not limited to the Google ecosystem
What apps even support Miracast?
Read the article. This specifically has nothing to do with financials and all to do with, what some consider to be, a large over reach by google.
The “large overreach” is likely support for an open source codec av1 - thank goodness google is pushing back on this and the patent mafias. This codec also will save google a ton on streaming costs - be good to get more details
The article says that Google is asking for data on customers that's not available to other channels.
This appears to be about more than av1.
This appears to be about more than av1.
I've read a variety of theories, none confirmed. The two I've seen repeated the most are 1) they wanted a change to how the built in search functionality worked and 2) they wanted to collect more user data than roku was willing to provide.
Roku pretty much said that. From an email Roku sent me:
"we cannot accept Google's unfair and anticompetitive requirements to manipulate your search results, impact the usage of your data and ultimately cost you more."
The "ultimately cost you more" sounds like spin for requiring AV1 hardware support.
"we cannot accept Google's unfair and anticompetitive requirements to manipulate your search results, impact the usage of your data and ultimately cost you more."
The "ultimately cost you more" sounds like spin for requiring AV1 hardware support.
"manipulate your search results" is spin for "Roku wanted to inject results from other sources when you perform a search within the Youtube TV app, Google didn't like that"
I don't know. I mean search on roku is kind of it's own thing. It would be odd to expect the built in roku search to limit itself to just the app. To those who aren't familiar, there are two types of search on roku, the in app version that already does what one would expect and the device level search which searches across all available apps.
Roku is clearly doing paid placements for the device level search. It pretty obviously shows you "hey this is available here for $xx.xx" There's no confusion around when you're doing one versus the other. The device level search kicks you out of whatever app you're in and does the search from the dashboard.
As another point, I would never expect a search within YouTube to show results on YTM or YTTV. The roku just doesn't work that way.
Roku is clearly doing paid placements for the device level search. It pretty obviously shows you "hey this is available here for $xx.xx" There's no confusion around when you're doing one versus the other. The device level search kicks you out of whatever app you're in and does the search from the dashboard.
As another point, I would never expect a search within YouTube to show results on YTM or YTTV. The roku just doesn't work that way.
Hah.
The Search service is and has always been global.
And _Google_ wanted to inject results from another source (YouTube Music) when you searched (globally) with YouTube TV as the active app (which is not the same as YouTube search, which Google controls and can manipulate however they like), and filter other things out.
Your interpretation is quite misleading.
The Search service is and has always been global.
And _Google_ wanted to inject results from another source (YouTube Music) when you searched (globally) with YouTube TV as the active app (which is not the same as YouTube search, which Google controls and can manipulate however they like), and filter other things out.
Your interpretation is quite misleading.
> Your interpretation is quite misleading.
That's really hard to say: in its dueling email to its customers, Youtube TV says it was offering to continue the service under the old terms but Roku declined. These "carrier" disagreements generate more smoke and heat than light - with both sides blaming the other with carefully crafted PR messages that are technically true when you squint really hard: I don't doubt both statements by both Roku and Youtube TV are misleading in one way or the other (or have glaring omissions) - remember neither of them is under oath, they are just trying to sway public opinion. Don't put too much stock on what's basically corporate trash-talk on the side-lines of negotiations.
That's really hard to say: in its dueling email to its customers, Youtube TV says it was offering to continue the service under the old terms but Roku declined. These "carrier" disagreements generate more smoke and heat than light - with both sides blaming the other with carefully crafted PR messages that are technically true when you squint really hard: I don't doubt both statements by both Roku and Youtube TV are misleading in one way or the other (or have glaring omissions) - remember neither of them is under oath, they are just trying to sway public opinion. Don't put too much stock on what's basically corporate trash-talk on the side-lines of negotiations.
Yeah - searching for TV and some other generic searches might be more complicated with YouTube tv - live sports? Not saying right but u could imagine them wanting more terms ? The codec is the thing I’m pushing for - we really need google pushing these open standards
AV1 might be a great codec, but does that mean that they can push for hardware decode which would add costs?
Roku I believe already has AV1 hardware support on their $100 device. I think they couldn't get it into their cheaper products.
On the other hand, Google doesn't seem to be leading the way in terms of hardware support despite making it mandatory for other hardware makers.
> Despite Google's internal zeal for AV1, when it comes to streaming hardware, Roku is actually doing a better job supporting AV1 than Google. The official scoreboard shows that Roku has one AV1-compatible device, the $100 Roku Ultra, while Google sells zero AV1 streaming devices. Google's newest, most expensive dongle, the $50 Chromecast with Google TV, does not have a chip that supports AV1. Google has made AV1 support mandatory for Android TV devices, but again, those are other companies' devices. Google should be leading by example here, but it isn't.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-...
Roku I believe already has AV1 hardware support on their $100 device. I think they couldn't get it into their cheaper products.
On the other hand, Google doesn't seem to be leading the way in terms of hardware support despite making it mandatory for other hardware makers.
> Despite Google's internal zeal for AV1, when it comes to streaming hardware, Roku is actually doing a better job supporting AV1 than Google. The official scoreboard shows that Roku has one AV1-compatible device, the $100 Roku Ultra, while Google sells zero AV1 streaming devices. Google's newest, most expensive dongle, the $50 Chromecast with Google TV, does not have a chip that supports AV1. Google has made AV1 support mandatory for Android TV devices, but again, those are other companies' devices. Google should be leading by example here, but it isn't.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-...
> Despite Google's internal zeal for AV1, when it comes to streaming hardware, Roku is actually doing a better job supporting AV1 than Google. The official scoreboard shows that Roku has one AV1-compatible device, the $100 Roku Ultra, while Google sells zero AV1 streaming devices. Google's newest, most expensive dongle, the $50 Chromecast with Google TV, does not have a chip that supports AV1. Google has made AV1 support mandatory for Android TV devices, but again, those are other companies' devices. Google should be leading by example here, but it isn't.
Are there any budget streaming solutions that have AV1 support?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-...
Are there any budget streaming solutions that have AV1 support?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/roku-vs-google-part-...
As a consumer and on a metered cable modem internet. I want a more efficient codec. I can’t stream 4K without blowing past my quota.
I've often wondered if some metered cable internet companies see 4k bandwidth increases coming and are planning on the overages.
I used to have one metered internet provider whose network crumbled when kids would be out of school and use would go up. I wonder if they mismanaged their finances or something to get into this state.
Sadly, more efficient codecs aren't going to decrease bandwidth enough.
I noticed that Xfinity, when you use a rented modem from them, will remove the cap for a small extra fee.
I used to have one metered internet provider whose network crumbled when kids would be out of school and use would go up. I wonder if they mismanaged their finances or something to get into this state.
Sadly, more efficient codecs aren't going to decrease bandwidth enough.
I noticed that Xfinity, when you use a rented modem from them, will remove the cap for a small extra fee.
Cox will remove the cap $50/m. You end paying $150/m with all the fees for 200mb/s uncapped or $200/m for 1gb/s.
Av1 codec the content providers are pushing is 25% more efficient than VP9 in terms of bandwidth. Most people could stream 4K for and stay under the caps with the codec change.
Av1 codec the content providers are pushing is 25% more efficient than VP9 in terms of bandwidth. Most people could stream 4K for and stay under the caps with the codec change.
Yes, I was extremely annoyed when Netflix gave me a month of "free upgrade" to 4k with no way to remove it or force HD streaming short of cancelling the account.
After Roku bought DataXu it became an advertising company, which put it in direct competition with Google. I used to love Roku, but its really gone down hill as an advertising company.
My next device might just be Apple TV.
My next device might just be Apple TV.
You can't have unaffiliated solutions with DRM, just multi-affiliated.
There business was never “selling hardware”. The business plan was always to sell hardware at break even and make money via advertising and continued monetization of customers.
The CEO admitted as much on a ReCode (?) podcast.
You can not profitable provide a “good product” by selling a bunch of $25 sticks.
The CEO admitted as much on a ReCode (?) podcast.
You can not profitable provide a “good product” by selling a bunch of $25 sticks.
As a fellow Roku user.. I never figured out what the situation was on the HBO MAX thing.. I was an HBO Now subscriber.. HBO never quit working for me .. I'm guessing they migrated me to Max or something.. but I'd like to hear from you how it affected you in case I missed something.
It's the same thing with Twitch - for a long time you could still get Twitch on Roku, but it was unsupported. AFAIK you can still install it, but it doesn't work.
Twoku works alright, but it's not great. On those extremely rare occasions where I want to watch Twitch, let alone Twitch on my TV (hello Minecraft Clash of the Creators), I hook a laptop into the HDMI of the TV and run from there.
With only HBO Now as the app you only had access to HBO content, not the full range of the HBO Max content.
As far as I know something similar happened with Amazon. They didn't have MAX for a very long time.
That option is piracy. Seriously, if they don't want my money, I will gladly spend it instead on DRM-free ebooks, music and games. And I don't feel any moral guilt about pirating movies and TV shows since they have pushed DRM in the HTML specifications !
Acquiring physical media & piracy are turning into my defaults again. I don't have the patience to manage 10 different subscriptions and still not have access to content that has been otherwise available for consumption for decades.
Roku and Google (Chromecast) have always been subsidizing their hardware. Their business is: selling your data, showing you ads, and selling you subscriptions, it was a race to the bottom to get on as may TVs as possible. Which has turned into a really solid business for Roku. But it also means that Roku's business interests will conflict with what's best for their consumers, updating their devices to support AV1, fighting with streaming partners to collect more revenue, and selling their customer's data.
If you want to see what the real cost of these devices with margin would be, look at the comparatively ridiculously priced new AppleTVs.
If you want to see what the real cost of these devices with margin would be, look at the comparatively ridiculously priced new AppleTVs.
The Apple TVs are quite over-powered devices compared to competitors. They come with A12 processors getting around 1,100 single-core and 2,800 multi-core Geekbench scores. To put that in perspective, the brand-new Samsung Galaxy S21+ gets 1,000 single-core and 3,100 multi-core. Apple is shipping an Apple TV with a processor that basically matches the best processors ever on Android.
That's quite over-powered for a device whose main function is decoding video which can be done in hardware rather than the main CPU performance.
The last generation came with 3GB of RAM which is also more than you see in TV devices. This generation might be 4GB.
Likewise, the remote is metal, comes with a scroll wheel, and is rechargeable rather than using AAA batteries like competitors.
I think the cost of Apple TVs is partly because Apple has decided to create a device with much better specifications. No other device is offering performance that rivals the best Android phones ever made.
I think part of this is that Apple is (half-heartedly) thinking of the Apple TV as a gaming device. They noted that you could hook up XBox and Playstation controllers to it during their keynote.
The real competition for an Apple TV is the NVidia Shield. The Shield TV costs $150 and the Shield TV Pro costs $200 - similar to Apple's price point, but with worse specs.
The Shield TV Pro is $200 and comes with 16GB of storage (compared to 32GB on the base Apple TV 4K at $180). The Tegra X1+ processor is no match for an A12. The cheaper ($150) Shield TV stick only comes with 2GB of RAM and 8GB of storage. It's hard to find Geekbench results for the X1+, but this (https://androidpctv.com/comparative-nvidia-tegra-x1-plus/) seems to indicate Geekbench 4 results of 1,300 and 3,700 for single/multi-core. The A12 hits around 4,800 and 11,000. NVidia is selling a competitor with less storage and way less processing power for more money (probably less RAM too).
I don't think one can compare a Roku or Chromecast to an NVidia Shield TV. The Shield will run circles around those devices. An Apple TV will run circles around the Shield. Some of it might be companies not having the same business model, but some of it will be the fact that the Apple TV is a device with way higher specs.
That's quite over-powered for a device whose main function is decoding video which can be done in hardware rather than the main CPU performance.
The last generation came with 3GB of RAM which is also more than you see in TV devices. This generation might be 4GB.
Likewise, the remote is metal, comes with a scroll wheel, and is rechargeable rather than using AAA batteries like competitors.
I think the cost of Apple TVs is partly because Apple has decided to create a device with much better specifications. No other device is offering performance that rivals the best Android phones ever made.
I think part of this is that Apple is (half-heartedly) thinking of the Apple TV as a gaming device. They noted that you could hook up XBox and Playstation controllers to it during their keynote.
The real competition for an Apple TV is the NVidia Shield. The Shield TV costs $150 and the Shield TV Pro costs $200 - similar to Apple's price point, but with worse specs.
The Shield TV Pro is $200 and comes with 16GB of storage (compared to 32GB on the base Apple TV 4K at $180). The Tegra X1+ processor is no match for an A12. The cheaper ($150) Shield TV stick only comes with 2GB of RAM and 8GB of storage. It's hard to find Geekbench results for the X1+, but this (https://androidpctv.com/comparative-nvidia-tegra-x1-plus/) seems to indicate Geekbench 4 results of 1,300 and 3,700 for single/multi-core. The A12 hits around 4,800 and 11,000. NVidia is selling a competitor with less storage and way less processing power for more money (probably less RAM too).
I don't think one can compare a Roku or Chromecast to an NVidia Shield TV. The Shield will run circles around those devices. An Apple TV will run circles around the Shield. Some of it might be companies not having the same business model, but some of it will be the fact that the Apple TV is a device with way higher specs.
These price points are approaching Xbox Series S at $300, which is certainly a better streaming + gaming option.
The Apple TV is a headless iPhone - I will not be surprised to see it "merge" with the Mac mini at some point when it has the M1.
>That's quite over-powered for a device whose main function is decoding video
Is it? Maybe. However, it's also able to run games, and that's being pushed with Apple's Arcade service. So, yes, it needs all of that CPU/GPU for games. You can connect an Xbox/Playstaion controller to it for game play.
Is it? Maybe. However, it's also able to run games, and that's being pushed with Apple's Arcade service. So, yes, it needs all of that CPU/GPU for games. You can connect an Xbox/Playstaion controller to it for game play.
FWIW, considering what's in it, Chromecast with Google TV probably has positive margin in the USA. It is using only off-the-shelf very cheap components. Except for USB-C part, you can find same-speced boxes for 30$ on chinese market. I'm not even going to mention the price of Chromecast with Google TV in Europe, for which Google probably has 30-50% margin, (It's 70€, so 70$ tax-excluded).
This doesn't hinder your argument though.
This doesn't hinder your argument though.
The real Roku profits lie in charging streaming channels for access to Roku customers I believe; is the viewing data (which you can turn off at the per-device level) worth that much?
I think it's not just the data. At this point they're selling access to you.
If you're Roku and you're the largest in the market, a company like YouTube or NBC or HBO needs to be on your devices. So you ask for X% of the profits and Y% of the ads and you start skimming off that.
Many reports have said that Roku wants 20% of streaming charges and 30% of the ad buys. If HBO is charging people $15/mo, that's $3 per HBO subscriber per month. For apps like Discovery or others with ads, you're potentially becoming the largest television advertising powerhouse ever. Imagine 10 years in the future if Roku is 80% of the streaming box market and they're selling 30% of the ads across all the TV you watch. Imagine if they're getting 20% of all the pay-TV revenue.
Right now, Netflix has been too big for companies like Roku to put pressure on. However, Netflix has been losing ground as more competitors pop up in the market. I'm not saying that Netflix is vulnerable to pressure now, but as more and more consumers get Peacock, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, etc., there's the possibility that Roku could also start pressuring Netflix.
Historically, Netflix has been the company that pressured the device makers. If your device couldn't play Netflix, no one would buy it. I think that's still the case today, but 10 years from now Netflix will be facing off against an entire industry of streaming companies and it's possible that some households become HBO Max/Prime households (or the like). If that happens, Roku will start having power over Netflix.
If you're Roku and you're the largest in the market, a company like YouTube or NBC or HBO needs to be on your devices. So you ask for X% of the profits and Y% of the ads and you start skimming off that.
Many reports have said that Roku wants 20% of streaming charges and 30% of the ad buys. If HBO is charging people $15/mo, that's $3 per HBO subscriber per month. For apps like Discovery or others with ads, you're potentially becoming the largest television advertising powerhouse ever. Imagine 10 years in the future if Roku is 80% of the streaming box market and they're selling 30% of the ads across all the TV you watch. Imagine if they're getting 20% of all the pay-TV revenue.
Right now, Netflix has been too big for companies like Roku to put pressure on. However, Netflix has been losing ground as more competitors pop up in the market. I'm not saying that Netflix is vulnerable to pressure now, but as more and more consumers get Peacock, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, etc., there's the possibility that Roku could also start pressuring Netflix.
Historically, Netflix has been the company that pressured the device makers. If your device couldn't play Netflix, no one would buy it. I think that's still the case today, but 10 years from now Netflix will be facing off against an entire industry of streaming companies and it's possible that some households become HBO Max/Prime households (or the like). If that happens, Roku will start having power over Netflix.
Netflix needs a pivot to stay relevant. Right now it looks like self programming, but everyone else can do that, and Disney can do it better. They'll be around, probably more like Hallmark channel than the big name they are now.
Yes, there are services that sell the viewing data to help advertisers track conversion on their tv ads.
Is Chromecast just hoping you use it for YouTube and see YouTube ads then? It doesn't have any ads of its own that I know of. Just a slideshow of nature pictures while it's idle, then whatever you cast to it when you're casting.
I am with you. I am ditching Roku for the new Apple TV. The performance of Roku has always been bad, particularly for Plex, but it also has a terrible app ecosystem now.
The competitive advantage for Roku was that they were able to be app agnostic.
The competitive advantage for Roku was that they were able to be app agnostic.
I originally had Roku for the same reason. The thing that made me leave is when they started pushing channels down to my Roku that I didn't request. The first time it happened I thought someone else in the family downloaded it, or maybe even I did by accident. Once it happened a few more times and I was able to determine they did this on purpose, I immediately dumped Roku and will never use their products again.
I had a NowTV branded Roku device and someone removed an app and forced an update removing the ability to side-load which had been the key differentiator I bought it for.
IMO it was unauthorised access under the Computer Misuse Act (UK).
Moved to FireTV installed same app from app store; not sure who was to blame but both companies are on my naughty list.
IMO it was unauthorised access under the Computer Misuse Act (UK).
Moved to FireTV installed same app from app store; not sure who was to blame but both companies are on my naughty list.
It feels like its even worse for those of us with home media servers.
I rip all my Blu-rays to MKV files complete with all audio tracks and subtitles. The only solutions - literally the only solutions I have - for direct play through Plex Media Server from my server across my network is NVIDIA Shield Pro or an Xbox Series X because they support 4K Direct Play.
I have been a fan of Roku devices since 2013 or so. To be forced to switch all the Rokus in my home to NVIDIA Shield Pros over the past year (the timeframe by which I built my media server) has been frustrating to say the least. $200 per device for a total of three devices.
I know $600 doesn't sound like much, and in truth, it isn't, but the fact I have to do this in order to enjoy the 4K Blu-rays I have purchased, at any time, in any room in my home, on multiple devices, is bothersome and feels like an unnecessary expense.
I rip all my Blu-rays to MKV files complete with all audio tracks and subtitles. The only solutions - literally the only solutions I have - for direct play through Plex Media Server from my server across my network is NVIDIA Shield Pro or an Xbox Series X because they support 4K Direct Play.
I have been a fan of Roku devices since 2013 or so. To be forced to switch all the Rokus in my home to NVIDIA Shield Pros over the past year (the timeframe by which I built my media server) has been frustrating to say the least. $200 per device for a total of three devices.
I know $600 doesn't sound like much, and in truth, it isn't, but the fact I have to do this in order to enjoy the 4K Blu-rays I have purchased, at any time, in any room in my home, on multiple devices, is bothersome and feels like an unnecessary expense.
Kodi + NFS can serve 4k mkv; I've done it.
>but there isn't really an option that is "unaffiliated" anymore :(
micro PC + some multi-launcher? I'm sure there's some 3rd party windows/Linux app that streamlines multiple services. Then add Plex server for any custom/downloaded media. It takes setup, but that's seems to almost always be the case; either a black box or assembly required (stability never guaranteed).
Perosnally, my "set top box" is a chromecast. and then localcast/airflow for anything that doesn't have chromecast support (all my subcribed streams do, fortunately). It's google so it's not really "unaffiliated", but as long as I can mirror a screen, I technically never have to worry about contracts blocking chromecasting.
micro PC + some multi-launcher? I'm sure there's some 3rd party windows/Linux app that streamlines multiple services. Then add Plex server for any custom/downloaded media. It takes setup, but that's seems to almost always be the case; either a black box or assembly required (stability never guaranteed).
Perosnally, my "set top box" is a chromecast. and then localcast/airflow for anything that doesn't have chromecast support (all my subcribed streams do, fortunately). It's google so it's not really "unaffiliated", but as long as I can mirror a screen, I technically never have to worry about contracts blocking chromecasting.
This is what I do: there are dozens of cheap x86 microPCs available now, for around or under 200 dollars, that can easily play all streaming media services. Passively cooled, good enough CPU and GPU to decode HD video.
I run Kodi, Freetube, and the native Netflix and Prime Video apps on mine.
I run Kodi, Freetube, and the native Netflix and Prime Video apps on mine.
As a plex user I’m happy with their business model. I get $30 devices to watch all my media on.
Until they decide to squeeze Plex... (or limit the device access to do so)
True. I think that would be a big footgun for them though. My friends and family use roku for my plex but load their own apps through it to bridge gaps. I can’t be the only one like that.
The new, stupidly named Chromecast with GoogleTV is a fantastic alternative: allows you to install almost any Android app from the Play Store, works brilliantly for YouTubeTV, has a remote, can get around captive portals or use VPN, and it just... works. For $50. Honestly, I love love love mine. Plus, 4k/Atmos/HDR 10+ support. It's a killer device and you can still uninstall stuff you don't want or switch to "apps only" mode if you don't want to see whatever content Google wants to show you.
The solution that works for me. I use one of the old laptop/tablets that's lying around the house, plug it into the tv hdmi, buy one of the many bluetooth keyboards with a trackpad and use it as a remote.
Advantages are that I don't buy any hardware, I know it works with any streaming service, I don't need a smart tv, I don't need to struggle typing in passwords and search terms using a tv remote. And, not once have I felt - oh I wish I had a roku or chromecast or whatever, and something would have been better.
Advantages are that I don't buy any hardware, I know it works with any streaming service, I don't need a smart tv, I don't need to struggle typing in passwords and search terms using a tv remote. And, not once have I felt - oh I wish I had a roku or chromecast or whatever, and something would have been better.
There is an issue with quality, if that matters to you. I might be the only person who cares about Dolby Vision/Atmos, but it's supported only by a limited cross section of streaming service x device x app version.
Is there a good TV media player (like Roku) that can play web video content? I like to watch lots of local youth sports through BallerTV, but they don't have a Roku or XBox app. I'd love to find a device that had a good web browser and played video content (I feel like the XBox purposely doesn't support a lot of video through their web browser), where I didn't have to hook up a computer to the TV.
I don't see this. I got the new Roku 4k there is a setting to turn off the home screen ad. There was no push to update my subscription. Now the only time I might need a credit card is for some pay for play screen saver or channel.
I still feel Roku is the go to stand alone service that works with all the video/audio streamers.
As far as the application itself goes, YouTube TV for Roku was a hot pile of garbage anyway. I enjoyed using it every so often until they started raising prices. Again.
i know it's about as far from "unaffiliated" as it can get, but the chromecast is still pretty good at being a neutral content player.
For someone living under a rock, what was the HBO Max thing?
I no longer have HBO since AT&T owns it and pulled the channel from Dish.
I no longer have HBO since AT&T owns it and pulled the channel from Dish.
Just be done with all of it. I dumpstered my TV 6 years ago and it was absolutely liberating.
I know some people might think "another TV-less life snob" but that's really not my point. Just tuck the TV in the closet for a month and see what you think. You'll have more fun. Honestly.
I know some people might think "another TV-less life snob" but that's really not my point. Just tuck the TV in the closet for a month and see what you think. You'll have more fun. Honestly.
Apple still makes money selling hardware.
Fire TV lets you sideload, i.e. NBC's Peacock. Otherwise Google's new "Chromecast with Google TV" is a cheap option, or Nvidia's Shield.
Roku is still fundamentally a pipe. Each network decides how to make its apps available (or not) and what to charge for them. Getting mad at Roku for this is like getting mad at Spotify when a certain album isn't available -- it's all up to the content owner to decide where to distribute it.
Roku is increasingly _not_ just a pipe. This whole debacle (and the HBO one before) is indicative of that. They could just let you install whatever HBO or Google offered -- that's what they did for a long time. But they want to ensure that things are "integrated", that they can show ads, and that their own content (on the "Roku Channel") doesn't get downprioritized.
I would argue that, in this case, getting mad at Roku would be like getting mad at my ISP if they blocked Netflix because Netflix didn't pay them extra money. That's a world I hope we never come to (but the ISPs would love it.)
Don’t they already do that with peering agreements?
Yeah, specifically Free used to have poor bandwidth with YouTube and then Netflix. AFAIK they have found an arrangement since then.
I'm not smart enough to know how that works. But I do know that my ISP has not (yet) blocked Youtube or Netflix or whatever.
>it's all up to the content owner to decide where to distribute it. //
Maybe this is wrong.
Perhaps we, the demos should be demanding a sort of "least favoured nation" [do I mean 'most'?] deal where content owners have to make works available to all streamers at the same rate. Disney sell to Disney Streaming Channel? They also have to sell to $streamingChannel at the same rate, then people can watch copyright content without channels manipulating the market by restricting access.
Then, if they don't want to follow that rule we should say 'fine, no copyright for you'.
Seems fair to me. I'm already so over every streaming channel monopolising content.
This is entirely my personal opinion.
Maybe this is wrong.
Perhaps we, the demos should be demanding a sort of "least favoured nation" [do I mean 'most'?] deal where content owners have to make works available to all streamers at the same rate. Disney sell to Disney Streaming Channel? They also have to sell to $streamingChannel at the same rate, then people can watch copyright content without channels manipulating the market by restricting access.
Then, if they don't want to follow that rule we should say 'fine, no copyright for you'.
Seems fair to me. I'm already so over every streaming channel monopolising content.
This is entirely my personal opinion.
While there are a lot of problems with this growth in digital walled gardens, one flipside is that it heavily incentivizes the development of killer content, much like how Console makers have extensive lineups of first party games that are often better funded and given more support then 3rd party titles.
Roku is not just a pipe. They charge 20% of your income to have your streaming channel on Roku devices.
Big hitters like Netflix presumably negotiate custom contracts, but 20% is the standard rate.
Big hitters like Netflix presumably negotiate custom contracts, but 20% is the standard rate.
It's like getting mad at Spotify when an album isn't available when they don't pay the artist/record label OR if the label is making unreasonable demands.
It might be up to the content owner to decide where to distribute it, but the content owners may feel like some platforms are especially burdensome to distribute on.
It might be up to the content owner to decide where to distribute it, but the content owners may feel like some platforms are especially burdensome to distribute on.
This really highlights to me how important the web is, and how close we can be to losing it all.
You simply can't pull shit like this on the web (and I'm talking about both Roku and Google here, as well as all the crap Amazon has pulled before now). It's an open platform and it's one of the only places you can access all streaming services (I think?). But the web was never able or allowed to adapt to TV set-top boxes (if I recall Mozilla made a TV stick but like Firefox OS it went nowhere). It's a real shame.
You simply can't pull shit like this on the web (and I'm talking about both Roku and Google here, as well as all the crap Amazon has pulled before now). It's an open platform and it's one of the only places you can access all streaming services (I think?). But the web was never able or allowed to adapt to TV set-top boxes (if I recall Mozilla made a TV stick but like Firefox OS it went nowhere). It's a real shame.
It is already too late. The EU just passed TERREG yesterday without a vote that requires anyone running a website with user generated content (a blog with comments, a forum etc.) and if they have significant EU user base to establish legal presence in the EU and have an officer responsible for deleting content with 1 hr SLA. That's out of reach for most of people. You cannot even block your site for EU traffic, because EU users can use VPN.
Have a read: https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/04/the-eus-terrorist-content...
Have a read: https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/04/the-eus-terrorist-content...
I do not believe that the Biden administration will extradite me to Brussels for failing to moderate my blog comments. EU can make whatever rules they want. It's only enforceable if you do business in Europe.
To be clear though, if you are playing this game you can never visit or transit through the EU either.
Is it really the case if the user isn't conducting business in EU with their website?
Genuine question, because I thought that this was only a requirement if you are trying to conduct business with EU.
But if you are only running your website for fun, for example, and aren't making any money off of it at all, would you still be in trouble for not following those EU guidelines (as a US resident)?
Genuine question, because I thought that this was only a requirement if you are trying to conduct business with EU.
But if you are only running your website for fun, for example, and aren't making any money off of it at all, would you still be in trouble for not following those EU guidelines (as a US resident)?
From the original article,
> Offering services within the EU Hosting service providers are covered by the Regulation if they "offer services within the EU".
> The main repercussion of this is extraterritoriality: that providers established outside the EU can still be in scope of the Regulation.
And "hosting services" seems to include running a blog with comments, not the narrow technical definition we'd be familiar with.
So a cursory read suggests that yes, a personal blog would be theoretically targetable.
FWIW, it seems unlikely that they are actually going to go after personal blog operators, and that the intent here is really to get sites like FB / Reddit / Parler that are based outside of the EU, but that show content to users inside the EU. But I'm not seeing anything that actually prevents them from pointing this weapon at the little guys. (Not an expert in this area so please let me know if I'm thinking about this wrong).
> Offering services within the EU Hosting service providers are covered by the Regulation if they "offer services within the EU".
> The main repercussion of this is extraterritoriality: that providers established outside the EU can still be in scope of the Regulation.
And "hosting services" seems to include running a blog with comments, not the narrow technical definition we'd be familiar with.
So a cursory read suggests that yes, a personal blog would be theoretically targetable.
FWIW, it seems unlikely that they are actually going to go after personal blog operators, and that the intent here is really to get sites like FB / Reddit / Parler that are based outside of the EU, but that show content to users inside the EU. But I'm not seeing anything that actually prevents them from pointing this weapon at the little guys. (Not an expert in this area so please let me know if I'm thinking about this wrong).
What does that have to do with video streaming services on set top boxes? It kind of sounds like you're determined to make a point here no matter whether it has anything to do with the topic at hand.
How have I not heard of this!
US-dominated western media tends not to care for EU policy and procedure, and habitually avoids stories that may show EU governance in a negative light.
Making companies respect users' rights seems like a great use of legislation.
> It's an open platform and it's one of the only places you can access all streaming services (I think?).
Yes and no. Yes, they all seem to be available, but not entirely as DRM implementations have varying support across browsers and platforms which currently just limits your access to HD content but could in theory limit you entirely.
Yes and no. Yes, they all seem to be available, but not entirely as DRM implementations have varying support across browsers and platforms which currently just limits your access to HD content but could in theory limit you entirely.
Except the web experience is now being handicapped to not provide full resolution content.
Good thing there's always sailing the high seas of piracy.
> This really highlights to me how important the web is, and how close we can be to losing it all.
The web is dominated by YouTube to an absurd degree, which is the root of the problem.
Look, I love the web. The web is awesome. But it's not a self-correcting mechanism. It's possible to build monopolies on the web, and once that happens, it screws over everyone and makes things move in a closed, proprietary direction. You can see examples of this everywhere.
The web is dominated by YouTube to an absurd degree, which is the root of the problem.
Look, I love the web. The web is awesome. But it's not a self-correcting mechanism. It's possible to build monopolies on the web, and once that happens, it screws over everyone and makes things move in a closed, proprietary direction. You can see examples of this everywhere.
Key point - roku is the gatekeeper here- I do think cable companies squeezed Netflix a bit
They are both gatekeepers. YouTubeTV is demanding preferential treatment in the search results.
Where is this coming from - google is focused on pushing their codec
If I'm understanding correctly, this is specifically (and only) the YouTube TV app, and not regular YouTube?
YouTube TV is their offering for watching broadcast television channels over youtube.
YouTube TV is their offering for watching broadcast television channels over youtube.
You are correct. You can still watch youtube videos on your roku. New subs to Youtube TV will not be able to get the Youtube TV app on roku going forward.
Oh that's a pretty important clarification, thanks!
Not just broadcast TV, it also has a bunch of cable channels in there too.
> What's next: YouTube says it remains committed to reaching a good-faith agreement with Google.
Seems like those parties should be able to come to an agreement!
Seems like those parties should be able to come to an agreement!
This has been corrected to say:
> What's next: Roku says it remains committed to reaching a good-faith agreement with Google
which makes a lot more sense in context.
> What's next: Roku says it remains committed to reaching a good-faith agreement with Google
which makes a lot more sense in context.
This kind of thing is why I gave up on specialized TV devices and just hooked up a Windows 10 [0] thin client with wireless M+K device, Kodi, and Chrome. I want one device to watch all the things, why is that so fucking hard for the appliance manufactures and media companies to provide? I only miss the ability to cast youtube videos.
[0] I tried things like LibreElec and other Linux-based solutions including just straight ubuntu and they always had sound issues when switching between Kodi and the browser. Yes, I did try both Pulse and ALSA. How is this still a problem in 2021?
[0] I tried things like LibreElec and other Linux-based solutions including just straight ubuntu and they always had sound issues when switching between Kodi and the browser. Yes, I did try both Pulse and ALSA. How is this still a problem in 2021?
> I want one device to watch all the things, why is that so fucking hard for the appliance manufactures and media companies to provide?
As far as I can tell from the outside, it's because every company involved thinks that it owns the audience and thereby is in a position to sell it to any given counterparty.
As far as I can tell from the outside, it's because every company involved thinks that it owns the audience and thereby is in a position to sell it to any given counterparty.
Probably because those that don't act that way and take no money for pushing distribution get undercut by those that do.
I can well see Roku starting out with best intentions and then realizing that they're gonna have to play the game too if they don't wanna be priced out.
You can't really rely upon the average person shopping for a TV media player understanding the economics of content distribution. They'll get the device that looks cheap and good.
I can well see Roku starting out with best intentions and then realizing that they're gonna have to play the game too if they don't wanna be priced out.
You can't really rely upon the average person shopping for a TV media player understanding the economics of content distribution. They'll get the device that looks cheap and good.
It's simple really. Lock someone into a device and you've created a moat.
Consumer friendliness and investor returns are at odds with each other on this one.
Consumer friendliness and investor returns are at odds with each other on this one.
> [0]
It's weird, sound is one of the few hardware things that always work on Linux (until I mess with it, but that's on me). Graphics, sleep, fingerprint readers, overclocking, I've ran into all of them, but sound just always works for me for some reason.
I'm using Kodi (running on plain Debian, no specialized distro) on my HTPC/server, with Kore on my phone and a Firefox extension to send Youtube to my TV. It's more complicated than it needs to be, but with neither Google nor Apple opening up their ecosystem enough to have an alternative, it Works For Me (TM) as best as I can make it.
I still blame hardware manufacturers for any shitty Linux support because they're the ones with the ability to fine-tune their Linux support, or at least provide an audio interface. The fact that some people are running into trouble but others aren't implies that the hardware level support is once again the reason things are broken for some users.
I'm using Kodi (running on plain Debian, no specialized distro) on my HTPC/server, with Kore on my phone and a Firefox extension to send Youtube to my TV. It's more complicated than it needs to be, but with neither Google nor Apple opening up their ecosystem enough to have an alternative, it Works For Me (TM) as best as I can make it.
I still blame hardware manufacturers for any shitty Linux support because they're the ones with the ability to fine-tune their Linux support, or at least provide an audio interface. The fact that some people are running into trouble but others aren't implies that the hardware level support is once again the reason things are broken for some users.
The technical aspects many of us would like are all there and work fine - it's the business aspects that seem to be problematic.
As the hardware or service providers get greedy, they keep trying to extract more money from the consumer.
Not saying Roku got greedy, merely saying it could happen with the hardware or the streaming services themselves.
As the hardware or service providers get greedy, they keep trying to extract more money from the consumer.
Not saying Roku got greedy, merely saying it could happen with the hardware or the streaming services themselves.
I've done this as well, but quickly ran into a limitation that most of the major services like Netflix limit the video they send to Chrome to 720p. Defeats the point of using this for viewing videos on my big screen HD monitor, to my mind.
I don't have a great solution.
I don't have a great solution.
I haven't tried it, but you might be able to use Chrome via WINE to get the Widevine support Netflix requires.
Back in the day, I was able to use Android Flash plugins on x86 Linux browsers by loading them with binfmt_misc. You might be able to use binfmt_misc in a similar manner with WINE.
Back in the day, I was able to use Android Flash plugins on x86 Linux browsers by loading them with binfmt_misc. You might be able to use binfmt_misc in a similar manner with WINE.
Sorry, to be clear, I tried this on a full fledged Windows box with all the things that Windows wants to enable TPM support and just generally make Widevine happy.
Another poster suggested Edge, I'll try that, though honestly the entire process has just taught me how little I value the streaming services anymore, so I'm not super motivated.
Another poster suggested Edge, I'll try that, though honestly the entire process has just taught me how little I value the streaming services anymore, so I'm not super motivated.
Oh, wow, I didn't realize that streaming via the browser was so hindered even on Windows.
But, yeah, the market has diverged so far from the Netflix streaming heyday that I just download the things I want to watch these days.
But, yeah, the market has diverged so far from the Netflix streaming heyday that I just download the things I want to watch these days.
The solution is to stop fiddling with proprietary streaming whose entire purpose is to create these headaches, and just torrent the content instead.
I miss the state of streaming piracy from a few years ago, where you could just run Kodi with Exodus and have instant access to basically every movie and TV show to ever grace a screen.
I would pay good money for that service if anyone would fucking offer it! Gabe Newell nailed it long ago when he said that piracy was a service problem, but unfortunately nobody fucking listened.
I would pay good money for that service if anyone would fucking offer it! Gabe Newell nailed it long ago when he said that piracy was a service problem, but unfortunately nobody fucking listened.
Doesn't Edge have a fancy pants DRM, which combined with a (potentially backdoored) Intel and Ryzen CPU can allow better than HD Netflix ?
Yes, but still no 4K, HDR or 5.1 audio IIRC. Streaming on PCs is just inferior and at this point clearly intentionally so. I was waiting forever for "native" apps for all the streaming providers on the Windows store so I could just use my HTPC as a streaming box without sacrificing on video and audio quality, but the streaming services just don't care as they'd rather have more control over things.
> I tried things like LibreElec and other Linux-based solutions including just straight ubuntu and they always had sound issues when switching between Kodi and the browser. Yes, I did try both Pulse and ALSA. How is this still a problem in 2021?
It might be your hardware. I have a similar setup with an Ubuntu box hooked up to my TV, and I haven't had issues with sound when switching between Kodi and the browser. The last time I had issues with audio on Linux was over a decade ago.
There are USB sound cards that you can pick up for a few bucks, and it might be worth trying one out.
It might be your hardware. I have a similar setup with an Ubuntu box hooked up to my TV, and I haven't had issues with sound when switching between Kodi and the browser. The last time I had issues with audio on Linux was over a decade ago.
There are USB sound cards that you can pick up for a few bucks, and it might be worth trying one out.
> It might be your hardware.
I do not wish to purchase new hardware for this trivial application. The hardware works fine in Windows, so I use Windows. I have no desire to spend the better part of a year researching and coding and convincing some kernel maintainer to merge my changes to fix the damn thing, nor do I wish to spend that time collecting logs and other debugging data for whoever maintains that driver so that they can completely ignore it.
I do not wish to purchase new hardware for this trivial application. The hardware works fine in Windows, so I use Windows. I have no desire to spend the better part of a year researching and coding and convincing some kernel maintainer to merge my changes to fix the damn thing, nor do I wish to spend that time collecting logs and other debugging data for whoever maintains that driver so that they can completely ignore it.
> I only miss the ability to cast youtube videos.
I think if you spoof your user agent on your windows box you can use youtube.com/tv
I think if you spoof your user agent on your windows box you can use youtube.com/tv
How does that allow me to cast to my Kodi box running Chrome though?
You used to be able to use the tv view for chrome and then control it via other devices. Looks like they killed it.
https://9to5google.com/2019/09/16/youtube-leanback-tv-interf...
https://9to5google.com/2019/09/16/youtube-leanback-tv-interf...
You didn't even try Pipewire!?
:D
:D
Do Google's demands have any merit or are they merely self-serving? The article makes mention of wanting Roku to upgrade hardware... but to support what: 8K video? Smoother 4K? I can see a point on both sides: Roku wants to keep their hardware affordable and YouTube doesn't want inexpensive hardware to negatively affect the experience of consuming higher (video) quality YouTube content. Without an knowing the details of the disagreement I have to conclude they are both in the wrong.
Probably AV1 codec support https://9to5google.com/2021/01/27/youtube-av1-netflix-requir...
> YouTube doesn't want inexpensive hardware to negatively affect the experience of consuming higher (video) quality YouTube content.
Someone should inform their apps team then, as that recent "quality menu" change has all my devices bumping down to 240/480... On a network and devices that up until that point had flawlessly delivered 720/1080 without a hitch.
Someone should inform their apps team then, as that recent "quality menu" change has all my devices bumping down to 240/480... On a network and devices that up until that point had flawlessly delivered 720/1080 without a hitch.
As the codebase gets bigger and more complex, performance on identical hardware will necessarily get worse.
There is only a certain amount of RAM, and when it's all used up by thousands of coders writing new UI toolkits, there isn't enough RAM left and you're forced to have smaller video buffers and lower resolutions to prevent the app running out of RAM.
There is only a certain amount of RAM, and when it's all used up by thousands of coders writing new UI toolkits, there isn't enough RAM left and you're forced to have smaller video buffers and lower resolutions to prevent the app running out of RAM.
This is the most drek response I've ever seen.
If I switch it back to 720/1080, There. Is. No. Issue.
No app crashes, no stalling out buffering, it works fine, just like last month, just like last year, and the year before that.
But now video starts in "potato quality" and nessecitates button mashing to get back to being watchable.
If I switch it back to 720/1080, There. Is. No. Issue.
No app crashes, no stalling out buffering, it works fine, just like last month, just like last year, and the year before that.
But now video starts in "potato quality" and nessecitates button mashing to get back to being watchable.
There are parts of this system you can't see...
Imagine the connection from your ISP to youtube is 1 Gbit.
Thats 200 HD AV1 streams, or 100 MP4 streams, or 1000 Low quality streams.
If your device only supports MP4, then by you selecting HD, 5 other people have to watch in SD.
Youtube autoselects the quality to maximize overall enjoyment, but lets individuals override it. But by overriding it, you probably hurt other viewers experience (they will get auto-defaulted to lower quality).
Imagine the connection from your ISP to youtube is 1 Gbit.
Thats 200 HD AV1 streams, or 100 MP4 streams, or 1000 Low quality streams.
If your device only supports MP4, then by you selecting HD, 5 other people have to watch in SD.
Youtube autoselects the quality to maximize overall enjoyment, but lets individuals override it. But by overriding it, you probably hurt other viewers experience (they will get auto-defaulted to lower quality).
Are you in Europe?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/20/21187930/youtube-reduces-...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/20/21187930/youtube-reduces-...
Yes but as that article points out, BT and other ISPs aren't anywhere near their network capacity.
Honestly with how the UI of the menu is designed it reeks of one of the Googlers wanting to "be bold" to get a promotion/side transfer. changes for changes sake and nice padding on their CV.
Honestly with how the UI of the menu is designed it reeks of one of the Googlers wanting to "be bold" to get a promotion/side transfer. changes for changes sake and nice padding on their CV.
This works if you use Chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/auto-quality-for-y...
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/auto-quality-for-y...
First, this is about more than codecs and quality. The article notes that Google wants data on users that other channels don't get.
Hardware may be part of it, though.
Codecs also affect bandwidth. Videos in newer codecs often have a smaller file size which is less bandwidth to stream and smaller files to keep on their edge nodes. At the scale of Google and Netflix this is substantial and plays into their costs.
Google, via YouTube, has a history of only wanting to support the latest systems. I've had older devices where the YouTube app has gone away. This is a bit of forced obsolescence to push people to buy newer stuff. Not because they need it but for reasons outside the end users needs.
Hardware may be part of it, though.
Codecs also affect bandwidth. Videos in newer codecs often have a smaller file size which is less bandwidth to stream and smaller files to keep on their edge nodes. At the scale of Google and Netflix this is substantial and plays into their costs.
Google, via YouTube, has a history of only wanting to support the latest systems. I've had older devices where the YouTube app has gone away. This is a bit of forced obsolescence to push people to buy newer stuff. Not because they need it but for reasons outside the end users needs.
At the same time, that 'data on users' could be as simple as being able to manage their YouTube TV subscription. Roku right now forces you to go through Roku's payment to sign up for stuff IIRC. That's exactly what happened with Roku and HBO Max:
https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/roku-stops-selling-hbo...
https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/roku-stops-selling-hbo...
But at the same time YouTube still had support for the 3gp format dating back to the pre-iPhone smartphones ?
Youtube is demanding AV1 support, which will reduce bandwidth required to give you video.
That in turn means that more people in your neighbourhood (or a shared cable link) can watch video at the same time without lowering quality or buffering.
That in turn means that more people in your neighbourhood (or a shared cable link) can watch video at the same time without lowering quality or buffering.
I love being involved in public contract disputes between media licensing companies! May financial ruin visit all parties involved.
I bought rokus because of the previous Amazon/google fight over YoutubeTV. I naively assumed they were immune to this kind of thing.
Now I'm getting AppleTVs but I suppose it's just a matter of time before they start the same thing.
Now I'm getting AppleTVs but I suppose it's just a matter of time before they start the same thing.
I use a PlayStation 4. It has client apps for all the things I want to use. And if you’re a little savvy, it can also be used for watching DRM free content (e.g. streaming from a media server, watching from an inserted USB drive, etc.). It's the laziest option to get most of what I want.
I have a PS4 sitting around collecting dust - I’ll have to give this a try! Thanks for the suggestion
If your TV and remote support HDMI CEC, you can even control the PS4 mostly fine with just the TV remote. Not enough buttons to play games, but for browsing videos, I find it works.
My original inspiration was that I wanted to watch Netflix with a non-crappy remote! Playing the occasional video game was just a bonus :)
A non-crappy remote that has to be constantly plugged in for charging..
Does PS4 support any streaming game services?
Not familiar with the Roku ecosystem, but is it possible to sideload apps? On Android there are native YouTube player apps like NewPipe (which reverse engineer the APIs and work without any of the consent prompts and nagging UI), and one whose name escapes me, which is a pretty usable client to YouTube, based around the web interface (used sometimes on fire stick etc.)
I guess the underlying issue is the reliance on these large platforms (like YouTube etc), and how they can use access to their walled garden platform as a way to coerce independent commercial negotiations.
I guess the underlying issue is the reliance on these large platforms (like YouTube etc), and how they can use access to their walled garden platform as a way to coerce independent commercial negotiations.
Sort of, not suremif it's changed but you used to be able to do this with the developer options and load a single channel with it. You'd have to unload the old one to load a new onw though.
I've never used it but here are some docs
https://developer.roku.com/docs/developer-program/getting-st...
https://developer.roku.com/docs/developer-program/getting-st...
You can side load apps but I don’t think anyone is going to put in the work to keep a YouTube TV app up-to-date for Roku once breaking API changes happen.
[deleted]
If they were able to leverage something existing like NewPipe though (which is tracking the upstream breaking changes regularly and near-realtime), I guess the bar to doing this would be much lower though.
Same! I bought a chrome cast without realizing I couldn’t watch Prime on it, then I learned about the Amazon/Google dispute. I felt so disappointed in these companies.
Amazon has added casting support to the prime video app.
Why did they withhold support in the first place? I had assumed it was because they wanted to sell fire sticks. It's not in Google's interest to make Chromecast less capable.
Why did they withhold support in the first place? I had assumed it was because they wanted to sell fire sticks. It's not in Google's interest to make Chromecast less capable.
This was honestly never a big deal for me because I could always cast from my browser on a laptop. But, yeah, I've observed that some of the Apple/Google/Amazon incompatibilities seem to have gone away over time.
I believe Google didn't permit FireTV to carry YoutubeTV because Amazon wouldn't sell Google Chromecast in their store (because it competed w/FireTV I guess).
I’m sure someone here can explain this mystery to me:
I have a Roku and an Amazon Prime account. The account is based in the US, but right now I’m living in another country. The stuff that’s “included with Prime”, that I can watch without paying an extra fee, is completely different through the Roku and through a computer. It’s the same IP and the same account: I need to log in to Amazon through the Roku and through the computer. If I pay for a show on the web, I can not watch it on the Roku. I naively think that there should be no difference.
I have a Roku and an Amazon Prime account. The account is based in the US, but right now I’m living in another country. The stuff that’s “included with Prime”, that I can watch without paying an extra fee, is completely different through the Roku and through a computer. It’s the same IP and the same account: I need to log in to Amazon through the Roku and through the computer. If I pay for a show on the web, I can not watch it on the Roku. I naively think that there should be no difference.
Yes there should be no difference. I believe this is due to how Roku handles account region settings. When you create an account and register your Roku it gets region set to your country at that time. According to what I've read this becomes a permanent account setting, which you can change this by contacting Roku support, but they only allow you to change it once.
A possible workaround is to create a new separate Roku account from your new country and add it to your Roku, however beware this requires factory resetting your device. Also before doing so make sure Amazon Prime is available in your new country.
A possible workaround is to create a new separate Roku account from your new country and add it to your Roku, however beware this requires factory resetting your device. Also before doing so make sure Amazon Prime is available in your new country.
It's probably just that one of them is doing location verification through the account's location and the other one is doing location verification through your IP.
It seems that something else is going on. The Amazon website knows where I am, because it tells me what I can watch while I am “travelling”, or something like that. But if I actually buy a show through the website, I can only watch it there, and not through the Roku. Even though I am also logged in to Amazon through it Roku, it seems to be unaware of what I have purchased.
I can't help but feel this will hurt Roku a lot more than google. the average consumer just wants youtube. They have zero interest in being caught in the middle of a turf war. If i had a Roku tv, i would just be angry at Roku, Google not so much, since nothing's wrong with Youtube itself. Obviously, google knows that and that's why they can act like bullies.
Also,if had a Roku tv, i would try and jailbreak my roku, or otherwise download an unofficial youtube app.
Also,if had a Roku tv, i would try and jailbreak my roku, or otherwise download an unofficial youtube app.
YouTube TV (streaming cable) is not YouTube
I forgot that. but still, my wider point remains true, i think.
For context Youtube TV has maybe 3 million subscribers. Youtube has over 2 billion active users.
The thing with the streaming TV services generally is that they're not that much cheaper than cable for the same level of service. So if you really want the cable bundle, for many people it makes more sense just to keep their cable TV especially if that's already how they get their broadband.
It is insane that YouTubeTV blundered into the same bundled approach as cable. How much of the cost is ESPN?
Counter-point: Switching hardware costs $ but switching streaming providers costs nothing.
What about all of the content on the DVR which is unwatched? Missing out on some channels? Worse features? There are costs but they may not be monetary. Some people would prefer plonk down a one-time $50 or whatever rather than give up recordings, channels, or other features.
I have 5 Rokus, it's at least $250 for me. The YTTV DVR content isn't actually "mine" and could disappear at any time and can be re-recorded. It's worthless to me.
Beg to differ. Roku offers a lot more than just Youtube. It's a nicety. Our entire setup (for better or worse) is built around a consistent Roku set up. I'm not going to change that for a while, so that means, "bye Youtube". It's expendable.
I'm not happy about it, but there we go. "bye Youtube".
I'm not happy about it, but there we go. "bye Youtube".
This is why I spend way too much on a AppleTV. Roku is a advertising company. Google is a advertising company. They are sparring over who gets access to what data for customers.
Yes, I also realize that if I go into YouTube TV, then I also get my data scraped, but at least it's not shared across applications.
Yes, I also realize that if I go into YouTube TV, then I also get my data scraped, but at least it's not shared across applications.
While the sparring happens here as they are both ads companies, there's nothing to say the sparring won't happen between Google and Apple if they wanted the same level of customer data and Apple doesn't provide it.
Apple has it's own issues. e.g. you couldn't change the default music app on iPhones until recently, etc.
The email sent to Roku customers: https://pastebin.com/tmeU975Q
It does say existing customers can use the channel/app if it's there, but "don't delete the app" as it's not in the store.
It does say existing customers can use the channel/app if it's there, but "don't delete the app" as it's not in the store.
And here's the email sent by Youtube TV
https://pastebin.com/GDUBi14P
https://pastebin.com/GDUBi14P
I saw the same message for the Spectrum app recently.
Related and ongoing:
An update to our YouTube TV members on Roku - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972 - April 2021 (71 comments)
Related from earlier this week:
Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862 - April 2021 (396 comments)
Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942227 - April 2021 (84 comments)
An update to our YouTube TV members on Roku - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996972 - April 2021 (71 comments)
Related from earlier this week:
Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942862 - April 2021 (396 comments)
Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26942227 - April 2021 (84 comments)
The only way to not be bothered by stuff like this as a consumer is to not consume anything. It's an illusion to think you could every be free from companies trying to control the way you consume content. There are much better ways to spend your time and money.
Even the Amish read fiction. Consuming creative works isn’t inherently bad.
I wasn't talking about consuming creative works, I was talking about consumerism.
> The only way to not be bothered by stuff like this as a consumer is to not consume anything.
It's not very clear, from the above sentence, that you exclude consumption of creative works. In any case, how do you draw a distinction between consumerism and consuming certain works?
It's not very clear, from the above sentence, that you exclude consumption of creative works. In any case, how do you draw a distinction between consumerism and consuming certain works?
I draw it where you have to buy new devices every year to keep up with whatever they're pushing now. A book is a book and will be a book until it falls apart. Your smart TV however will cease to be fully functional within three years since you bought it. You will have to buy extra electronics to keep up which in turn will also become obsolete soon enough.
It's ridiculous we are expected to buy a new phone every 1-2 years, a TV every 3-5 years, just to be able to consume mediocre media. Meanwhile the e-waste just keeps on piling up. I might just be a grumpy man but I just don't think Avenger movies are worth destroying the environment for.
It's ridiculous we are expected to buy a new phone every 1-2 years, a TV every 3-5 years, just to be able to consume mediocre media. Meanwhile the e-waste just keeps on piling up. I might just be a grumpy man but I just don't think Avenger movies are worth destroying the environment for.
I’ve had my “smart” TV for more than three years, and if the OS stops working or ceases to be supported, there are 4 HDMI ports I can plug anything into.
It’s as smart, or dumb, as I want it to be.
It’s as smart, or dumb, as I want it to be.
Until they decide to release HDCP 3.x and make it mandatory for HD streams then you can continue to enjoy 480p video on those hdmi ports.
Some people want to use a specific platform to watch "whatever" content.
Some people want to use "whatever" platform to watch specific content.
Roku+YT was a great marriage: great platform, great content.
But if they get divorced, I gotta follow the content. Goodbye Roku.
Roku+YT was a great marriage: great platform, great content.
But if they get divorced, I gotta follow the content. Goodbye Roku.
I want to support Roku on this but finding it really hard to stand behind another shady user data collecting company.
Wow, so glad to be a consumer of products that depend on collaboration between competitors to even basically work. This just smacks of effective trade rules.
I'm going to guess that the majority of significant hardware and software products depend on some degree of collaboration/cooperation between companies that are also competitive to at least some degree. (Coopetition is the term.)
Case in point is Apple using Samsung components in their phones.
Yes, these are examples of commodity markets working well. Video service should be the same. Roku should be able to get uniform terms from multiple content vendors.
From the way Roku has worded their statement, it sounds like this was the case -- all the streaming channels on Roku got the same access to user data, but Google wanted better terms, and the relationship broke down for YTTV.
The "free market" once again producing a terrible outcome for everyone except shareholders.
'free market' is not really the wrong issue here.
It was more of 'web 2.0' thing.
Hook your service up to this other micro service and get a cool thing. It was one of the main selling points of web2.0.
But turns out your service is very dependent on that microservice.
I have seen this happen over and over in many products even completely free ones. Service X needs service Y. The people who own the machines for service y say 'hey this is expensive can you chip in?'... crickets. So they turn themselves into a paid for API, or turn it off. Suddenly service X can no longer function even slightly correctly without that service Y.
Had a neighbor that was mad someone was bulldozing a bunch of trees behind his house. He had even paid the builder of his house to 'live near trees'. But he however did not own them. The real owner decided something else was to be done with that land. The lesson? You dont own it, you dont control it.
It was more of 'web 2.0' thing.
Hook your service up to this other micro service and get a cool thing. It was one of the main selling points of web2.0.
But turns out your service is very dependent on that microservice.
I have seen this happen over and over in many products even completely free ones. Service X needs service Y. The people who own the machines for service y say 'hey this is expensive can you chip in?'... crickets. So they turn themselves into a paid for API, or turn it off. Suddenly service X can no longer function even slightly correctly without that service Y.
Had a neighbor that was mad someone was bulldozing a bunch of trees behind his house. He had even paid the builder of his house to 'live near trees'. But he however did not own them. The real owner decided something else was to be done with that land. The lesson? You dont own it, you dont control it.
Give a better solution?
[deleted]
The system that was in play in the USA up to about 30 years ago, where the government provided a check on the power of corporations?
(Not ignoring the capture corporations in the pre-Reagan world had on US foreign policy. However there wasn't the current religious dogma that concentrated corporate power is the only true form of freedom, and companies that went too far in harming societal interests were indeed checked.)
(Not ignoring the capture corporations in the pre-Reagan world had on US foreign policy. However there wasn't the current religious dogma that concentrated corporate power is the only true form of freedom, and companies that went too far in harming societal interests were indeed checked.)
I think you're right, but that has nothing to do with free markets. Quite the opposite.
Every newly proposed regulation or check on the power of corporations is met with the argument from conservatives that it will destroy businesses and that the free market would produce a better outcome than regulation.
Beware consultants and lobbyists bearing already prewritten regulations. If you read many of them you will find they little more than a way to lock in more monopoly power. There is a balance but you have to look at side effects. I saw one set that was proposed by 'liberals' the 'conservatives' called it the worst thing ever (it was really bad). Then a year later a bit of flippy floppy in who was elected. Proposed by 'conservatives' the 'liberals' called it the worst thing ever (it still was). It was almost verbatim the same thing. It was written by a lobbyist.
My point? Regulation in a company that is trying to establish or defend a monopoly can use it to lock others out more. They will use the rule of law a tool. You have to be careful just throwing it out there and not look at side effects. Regulation like any tool can be used for good or evil.
My point? Regulation in a company that is trying to establish or defend a monopoly can use it to lock others out more. They will use the rule of law a tool. You have to be careful just throwing it out there and not look at side effects. Regulation like any tool can be used for good or evil.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. I guess that's why these streaming services have been getting more and more expensive.
I have some old Chromecast thing that one of my kids brought home. Looks something like a thumb drive and plugs into HDMI socket on TV. I cast from my phone, tablet, or laptop. This works fine. What more does anyone need?
Because casting isn't great. It requires 2 "smart" devices to perform the task.
If Chromecast had an interface (which it might on the latest ones), that would be better.
I am liking the FireTV stick. It's small like the Chromecast, but has a really snappy UI and all the streaming apps that I need.
If Chromecast had an interface (which it might on the latest ones), that would be better.
I am liking the FireTV stick. It's small like the Chromecast, but has a really snappy UI and all the streaming apps that I need.
I really disagree personally. I already have a really snappy interface... my phone. I use it to control YouTube, Plex, etc. Then I just send it to my TV via Chromecast. If I had to navigate using some other remote that I would inevitable lose, it would me more annoying to me.
I've always found establishing Chromecast connection to be finicky. Particularly from the YouTube app on the iPhone (my most used scenario).
Just the other day I tried to chromecast it the FireTV stick and built-in chromecast in the Samsung TV. Failed on both. Eventually had to reboot the phone and the TV to get it to comply.
Another thing I hate while chromecasting YouTube. You can't change the video speed. If you start the video from TV's YouTube app, you can. But not if you are chromecasting.
Just the other day I tried to chromecast it the FireTV stick and built-in chromecast in the Samsung TV. Failed on both. Eventually had to reboot the phone and the TV to get it to comply.
Another thing I hate while chromecasting YouTube. You can't change the video speed. If you start the video from TV's YouTube app, you can. But not if you are chromecasting.
What's the legality of Roku shipping a third-party client? Does the Google/Oracle decision have any impact on that?
They wouldn't be able to without breaking the DRM used on Youtube TV. Or in cases where DRM isn't involved, their client would constantly break until they release a patch every time Youtube changes something.
That seems like a significant improvement over no Youtube at all.
Note that this is YouTube TV, not YouTube itself. They are separate services. Google has just muddied the waters repeatedly by moving a bunch of services under the YouTube branding.
They can do that, but they also want to be paid by Google. So it doesn't help on that front.
I got rid of my Roku when they dropped the Spectrum TV app for the same reason. It's basically useless to me
Why is Roku making determinations like this? I think of Roku as a hardware device, for which I get to choose what apps to install. I guess I'll just have to move on to a mini pc or raspberry pi or something... Anyone have suggestions?
As the article says YouTube made certain demands of Roku to be able to continue hosting the app that Roku didn't want to be required to follow (including about hardware). As such they don't really have the choice to just play "dumb hardware" and let you install it.
Shield TV is a better device though, I'd recommend it. If you go Raspberry Pi/mini PC you don't have high enough DRM levels for a lot of services and the ones you do you'll get lower quality streams (again, see aforementioned requirement demands).
Shield TV is a better device though, I'd recommend it. If you go Raspberry Pi/mini PC you don't have high enough DRM levels for a lot of services and the ones you do you'll get lower quality streams (again, see aforementioned requirement demands).
Just got an email from YouTube TV.
> Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we have been unable to reach an agreement with Roku.
Given Roku's justification, I am pretty angered by the lie that Google is telling me. I'd be doubly angered if I was a Roku user.
> Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we have been unable to reach an agreement with Roku.
Given Roku's justification, I am pretty angered by the lie that Google is telling me. I'd be doubly angered if I was a Roku user.
This is a hard move to Roku, other streaming devices are offering so much better characteristics as Android TV and Apple, starting from Roku's limited wall garden software and the lack of game streaming.
Google: Unfortunately, Roku often engages in these types of tactics in their negotiations
Yes sure, Google, always the victim in these situations.
Yes sure, Google, always the victim in these situations.
I bought a Roku TV and in order to use a service like Netflix, YouTube I need to create a Roku account.
Also there is only one button at first I thought it was a directional button where you could move it up and down and press for selection. But pressing it once brings up the menu, pressing it again will move to the next item in the menu, holding it will turn the TV off.
Also there is only one button at first I thought it was a directional button where you could move it up and down and press for selection. But pressing it once brings up the menu, pressing it again will move to the next item in the menu, holding it will turn the TV off.
[deleted]
tl;dr
Google wants the AV1 codec. It requires hardware decoders for low-power devices. This saves google a TON of bandwidth costs.
AV1 is actually royalty free available and praised by the industry.
Roku doesn't think that decoder chip will fit with their low hardware costs. Therefore wants to pass the cost onto google.
Google wants the AV1 codec. It requires hardware decoders for low-power devices. This saves google a TON of bandwidth costs.
AV1 is actually royalty free available and praised by the industry.
Roku doesn't think that decoder chip will fit with their low hardware costs. Therefore wants to pass the cost onto google.
For parents with Roku devices and are tech challenged, having no YouTube on TVs is a ++
YouTubeTV not YouTube.
Insert Cory Doctorow rant about Youtube TV's DRM being more about controlling this kind of content access and app usage than it is about protecting against privacy.
Neither Youtube nor Roku should have the final say in whether or not I connect to my own Youtube TV account from a Roku device. In a worst-case scenario, a 3rd-party client could be created and distributed by either Roku or by Roku's users (see projects like NewPipe on Android). But with Youtube TV, building that app would require breaking DRM, which would kill the project if it ever got any bigger than being someone's side-hobby.
Neither Youtube nor Roku should have the final say in whether or not I connect to my own Youtube TV account from a Roku device. In a worst-case scenario, a 3rd-party client could be created and distributed by either Roku or by Roku's users (see projects like NewPipe on Android). But with Youtube TV, building that app would require breaking DRM, which would kill the project if it ever got any bigger than being someone's side-hobby.
Youtube don't seem to want me as a customer.
My setup is all running through Roku's.
I run my Plex server, Dolby Atmos through an Ultra, and a tonne of other channels through 3 Roku's.
Youtube is the expendable link here.
They can up their negotiation game and strategy ... or become obsolete in our house.
It's the same with Sonos. I can't run or cast ad-based Youtube through Sonos either. Oh well. Am I going to give up Sonos? Nope.
Bye Youtube (?) ... Obviously their business doesn't depend on me, but weird to see a once favourite website so relegated ...
My setup is all running through Roku's.
I run my Plex server, Dolby Atmos through an Ultra, and a tonne of other channels through 3 Roku's.
Youtube is the expendable link here.
They can up their negotiation game and strategy ... or become obsolete in our house.
It's the same with Sonos. I can't run or cast ad-based Youtube through Sonos either. Oh well. Am I going to give up Sonos? Nope.
Bye Youtube (?) ... Obviously their business doesn't depend on me, but weird to see a once favourite website so relegated ...
One one hand, I see why selfishly you would not want to move off your well-established Roku network. However, do you not see that tomorrow Roku could do the same thing to your other "favorite channels" and squeeze them (which based on how they take a cut of subscription fees running through their hardware... not sure why Roku needs those fees.. it all seems like a squeeze) leaving you with a largely useless device that is pay-to-play for companies to run their channels through it?
I'll be honest. It's not clear to me who's doing the squeezing here.
All I understand clearly is the end result as a customer.
And I'll switch away from Youtube far quicker than I switch away from Roku.
To be honest though, it doesn't feel that much of a loss. Youtube TV was always a "handy to have". Youtube feels made for mobile or PC. Again, weird to recognise that relegation in my mind, and just clarifies their weakness on actual TV's.
As for your final point. Accepted. If that starts happening, then over the medium term I'll transition to a different solution. But that's then, this is now.
All I understand clearly is the end result as a customer.
And I'll switch away from Youtube far quicker than I switch away from Roku.
To be honest though, it doesn't feel that much of a loss. Youtube TV was always a "handy to have". Youtube feels made for mobile or PC. Again, weird to recognise that relegation in my mind, and just clarifies their weakness on actual TV's.
As for your final point. Accepted. If that starts happening, then over the medium term I'll transition to a different solution. But that's then, this is now.
Guessing your beloved sonos setup hasn’t run into the S1/S2 nightmare yet. Nothing like spending thousands on several of company’s products just to have the said company force obsolescence.
Personally, sticking with real speakers from real audio companies that won’t force me into either fragmenting my setup or throwing stuff away.
Personally, sticking with real speakers from real audio companies that won’t force me into either fragmenting my setup or throwing stuff away.
You're guessing wrong. Sonos is not beloved. I've heard all about the S1/S2 nightmare and I don't have a solution to it.
I detested Sonos for that and tried to avoid them because of it, but no one has stepped up. Other multiroom audio solutions have sucked in my experience, so far. Maybe Bluesound stepped up, but that's it.
And, kind of agreeing with you, I do stick with real speakers from real audio companies ... I just get the amps and multiroom app from Sonos.
And, back on point, to not be able to do a simple cast of youtube to Sonos and, I'm guessing, potentially Roku, is just silly and I jetison Youtube because of it, not Roku or Sonos. Doesn't matter who is right or wrong, that's the impact.
I detested Sonos for that and tried to avoid them because of it, but no one has stepped up. Other multiroom audio solutions have sucked in my experience, so far. Maybe Bluesound stepped up, but that's it.
And, kind of agreeing with you, I do stick with real speakers from real audio companies ... I just get the amps and multiroom app from Sonos.
And, back on point, to not be able to do a simple cast of youtube to Sonos and, I'm guessing, potentially Roku, is just silly and I jetison Youtube because of it, not Roku or Sonos. Doesn't matter who is right or wrong, that's the impact.
Now their business is "collecting money from your subscriptions" -- which is not really in my best interest. I got screwed on the HBO Max thing. Now this.
Personally, I'm done with Roku. But there isn't really an option that is "unaffiliated" anymore :(