Google Goes Nuclear Against Roku By Adding YouTube TV To the Main YouTube App

A week after their broken-down negotiations spilled into the public, Google and Roku still haven't been able to reach a deal to renew YouTube TV's presence on the huge streaming platform. But Google has come up with a workaround in the meantime: it's going to let people access YouTube TV directly from the main YouTube app. From a report: YouTube users will start seeing a "Go to YouTube TV" option in the main YouTube app over the next few days. When they select that, they'll then be switched over to the standard YouTube TV user experience. This option is coming to Roku devices first -- where it's currently most needed -- but will also come to YouTube on other platforms as well. [...] Google also said today that it's "in ongoing, long-term conversations with Roku to certify that new devices meet our technical requirements," yet more confirmation that the company is insisting hardware makers implement support for AV1 decoding

If google hates it, do I love it?

[shanen]

I hate TV quite a bit, so I haven't even looked at Roku. But if the google hates it so much, then maybe I'll like it? You know, the enemy of my enemy thing.

(And this is a joke of sorts, not a serious thought worth FP.)

ok???

[bhcompy]

It should be accessible through the YouTube app anyways. Why is common sense news?

Re:

[argStyopa]

That was my question. I'll never in my life pay for Youtube, but I'd assumed you could access $youtube from plain-ol-youtube anywhere, anyway. Is that NOT true?

I get it, it's microscopically simpler to launch the $YT app than the YT app and then hit $YT within that...but how fucking simple do people need it to be?

Re:

[KiloByte]

but how fucking simple do people need it to be?

You haven't looked at your fellow species-mates in a while, have you?

Re:

[farble1670]

That was my question. I'll never in my life pay for Youtube, but I'd assumed you could access $youtube from plain-ol-youtube anywhere, anyway. Is that NOT true?

If you can get past the fact that "youtube" is in the name of both of them, It's a completely different service. YT TV is a subscription service with a limited set of live channels. Like TV. Mixing those channels in with the 10 billion other videos on YT proper doesn't seem like the best marketing decision.

YT premium, a different service than YT TV, *is* just regular Youtube, minus the ads, and a few premium channels.

YouTube TV Confusion

[crow]

Is YouTube TV a premium subscription on YouTube, or is it a separate service leveraging off the branding? Having separate apps suggests that they're separate things. Obviously from a branding standpoint, this is not what Google wants to portray. Also, if they merge the apps, then people who have the YouTube app for watching random things on YouTube will already have everything installed for the premium service that they want to sell, which is a plus for Google.

So absent any action from Roku, the only thi

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

Yes, Youtube TV is a premium service that gives you live TV channels and a DVR like a standard cable system. Ranges from $65 to $100+ per month. Different from just regular ol' Youtube

Re:

[EvilSS]

Youtube TV is a separate service branded under the Youtube name. It's Google's IP TV offering: https://tv.youtube.com/welcome... [youtube.com]

Basically it's cable, but over the internet. Youtube also has a premium subscription service, but that's for Youtube proper. Basically you get Youtube with no Youtube placed ads (obviously if a Youtuber integrates an ad into their video, you still see that). They also pool some of the money from the subscriptions to pay out to the video creators when you view their videos.

Popularity codec.

[Ostracus]

Google also said today that it's "in ongoing, long-term conversations with Roku to certify that new devices meet our technical requirements," yet more confirmation that the company is insisting hardware makers implement support for AV1 decoding

If it's good enough for Netflix [engadget.com] then it's good enough for Roku.

Re:

[crow]

That article points out the critical feature of AV1: It uses less bandwidth. So the push to support AV1 is to get the hardware makers to spend a little more so that the streamers can spend less. Lower bandwidth also benefits consumers, but that's not a concern of either party in this dispute.

Re:

[e3m4n]

its not the set tops that suffer. Im sure the AppleTV, FireTV Cube, and even Roku Ultra are just fine with that codec, but the little streaming sticks probably do not. I dont use the Roku 4k often, I bought it for travel/vacations because it deals perfectly with hotel captive portal where the chromecast was a nightmare shit-show every time I went on a trip.

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

Yeah you have to give Google some credit for VP8/VP9 and soon AV1 breaking us out from the MPEG hegemony on modern codecs even if they had their own self-serving reasons for doing it. I remember the concerns over h.264 with regards to legality and licensing and today it's something of a non-issue for the majority of people.

Why is there a Youtube App?

[flyingfsck]

What are the Youtube apps used for? Is it any different from typing youtube in a browser?

Re:

[crow]

Have you never used a smart TV or streaming stick?

Most of these devices don't have browsers. You install apps for the services you use, and that's about it.

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

Roku's have a "closed" platform for viewing streams on their hardware, it runs on apps in the device. App for Netflix, app for Hulu, etc etc

Re:

[DDumitru]

It is not what I would call "closed". Pretty much anyone can write an app. It is only if you want to be on the "Roku list" that you need to have a contract with Roku. Private apps can still be installed, although it is intentionally obtuse. Some companies use Roku for training streams and even live camera monitors.

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

Yeah that's why I put the quotations, it's kinda open but you are still really at the mercy of Roku since they control the platform. I can publish an app on the app stores pretty easily but Google and Apple still control it at the end of the day.

Roku itself is pretty good and the "Smart TV" system I would usually recommend to non-tech people.

Re:

[jwhyche]

Pretty much anyone can write an app

I have to question, is this really a good thing? Ruko advertises as having 4,000+ channels but those are really just apps. Most of them, I would say 95%, of them are garbage. Much like most of the crap you see on regular TV. Maybe calling them channels is a option.

I don't have my Ruko any more since I upgraded to a Nividia Shield. If you can chose between a shield and ruko, get the shield. Much better system. But anyway one of the things that I did with my Ruko would dive into the channel list a

Re:

[phantomfive]

Pretty much anyone can write an app

I have to question, is this really a good thing?

Yes. If you don't want the app, don't install it. It is easier than installing it, you can just not do it.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

I'm just here to say yeah, the shield is great. I got the red bull can one and it's totally adequate to the task of streaming. I formerly had an old school fire tv stick and Amazon finally made it worthless with background activity that totally destroys anything but amazon streaming. I don't know what kind of moron buys another amazon streaming device when the first one is deliberately ruined but I am not that kind.

For considerably more money you get considerably more streaming device, including a backlit r

Re:

[jwhyche]

I'm just here to say yeah, the shield is great. I got the red bull can

I got the 2019 pro. They are more expensive for streaming devices but very much worth it. I had had the ruko ultra for a long time. Ruko's are great for streaming HD and even 4K content from Netflix but if you try to use Plex with it you start to find lots of limitations. Plus they are built on the cheap and have random life spans. When I was on the road I would buy a ruko stick for 20 bucks and use it to get around the hotels crappy cable. The sticks are build so on the cheap they don't have goo

In case anyone was wondering

[pablo_max]

Just in case anyone was wondering if companies like Apple and Google have too much power....

In case anyone was wondering-not really.

[Ostracus]

Then buy a Linux PC and use Bing. Problem solved.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

AV1 Support

[crow]

I would love to see AV1 support become standard on streaming devices, but as more people stream directly from smart TVs, services need to be able to fall back to older codecs. There are plenty of TVs shipping now that don't have AV1, and cutting them off in the near future would be a bad business decision.

So require AV1 for 8K streaming. Require AV1 for new hardware as of some date. But keep supporting older systems for a good number of years (at least five, I would argue).

Re: AV1 Support

[reanjr]

Any TV that streams can get a firmware update with more supported codecs. If your TV manufacturer isn't providing such updates, then stop buying their shit.

Re:

[Munchr]

It's not just as simple as updating firmware. A 720p AV1 stream can take 3x-5x more processing power and up to 2x as much ram to decode than VP9 or h264. A lot of "cheap" smart tv's simply don't have powerful enough hardware to perform the decoding process.

Re: AV1 Support

[slack_justyb]

Any TV that streams can get a firmware update with more supported codecs.

While this is true. Not all of them are able to play those codecs well. The crop of Roku TVs from 2017 onward, with exception to the 2021 models just released, are all using an ARM Cortex-A53 with very limited onboard RAM. The devices are made to buffer very little, in fact a ton of the OS has to be unloaded to load up YouTube or Netflix, just to give enough room to buffer 10 seconds of 720p on some models. So that means the CPUs have to decode and do it quickly. And as you might have already guessed, the A53 doesn't have hardware AV1 support. [anyconnect.com] So yeah, you could load up libgav1 to do decoding in software but no one is going to be happy with the results.

People need to remember that these SmartTVs are given just barely enough hardware to support the things that were current at the time of release. These aren't things with 4-8GB of RAM running at 3.6GHz and a full blown OS. We're usually talking 1-2GB with processors running at 800MHz to 1.2GHz with some custom ASIC that specifically supports a single codec and a super trimmed down OS (kernel/libs/and all) that needs to fit in 180MB-300MB or so. The only thing these TV makers do put into these things with lots of room is whatever is the backing non-volatile memory and if they could get away with less, they would.

then stop buying their shit

And just to be fair. Yeah people shouldn't buy this crap, updates or not. These things are put together barebones style and the reality is that you can just get a dumb TV, hook a fairly recent Pi to it, and deal with a lot less ads form the TV itself. These SmartTVs and their respective platforms are just another middleman that nobody really needs. And even then, they're pretty shady as fuck middlemen double dipping by wanting fees from the content providers for "their platform" while also signing deals for ads on "their platform". If I buy a TV the last thing I want is some goddamn ad on the side while I'm trying to browse through the menu of options.

Re:

[mattb47]

It's actually really difficult to buy a new dumb TV anymore. They just aren't around.

But just because your TV is "smart" doesn't mean you have to use those features. Get a Roku, Amazon Fire stick, whatever, and run your smart TV apps from that instead. It will likely run better and be more secure.

Anyway, you'll probably keep your TV for at least 8-10 years assuming it doesn't break. There's zero chance that the smart TV features will continue working past 3-4 years. TV manufacturers don't keep pushing

I don't believe you Re: AV1 Support

[aRTeeNLCH]

"... Looks like you're trying to browse through the menu of options, need some help?"

Be honest, you too would choose the ads over Clippy, right?

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

This article shows some of the lengths Youtube goes through to transcode it's videos to older formats for nearly every device even still supporting 3GP today.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/youtube-is-now-building-its-own-video-transcoding-chips/ [arstechnica.com]

Re:

[Ostracus]

That article unintentionally shows what any competitor would have to do as well. People complain about their power and control, and what it took to get there. People will not accept a lessor experience.

Isn't this a win for Google?

[Corporate T00l]

According to the original Axios article [axios.com], the dispute is over the following terms that Roku claims Google is trying to force upon them:

• Roku said Google made demands that included requests for preferential treatment of its YouTube TV and YouTube apps.
• Specifically, the platform cited four demands from Google that it thought were anticompetitive, including Google's request for Roku to manipulate consumer search results and grant access to data not available to other companies.
• Roku also alleged that Google has tried to leverage the power of its YouTube app to force Roku to accept hardware requirements that would increase consumer costs and act in a discriminatory way against Roku.

If this is the case, doesn't adding the feature into the existing YouTube app essentially provide access to YouTube TV functionality to all of Roku's users, without Roku submitting to any of Google's requests?

Correction: Isn't this a win for Roku?

[Corporate T00l]

Sorry, typo in the subject, which should read "Isn't this a win for Roku?"

Re:

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

I think Roku won't get to have access to detailed data about what the Youtube user is watching. So, Roku gets to sell the same cut-rate hardware, Youtube has to run on it, and Roku does not get to analyze what the eyeballs are looking at.

Mixed-bag, with Google getting more control.

Re:

[Dorianny]

"YouTube app to force Roku to accept hardware requirements that would increase consumer costs and act in a discriminatory way against Roku" This is the key to the dispute. AV1 decoding hardware is apparently expensive enough that not even Google's own Chromecast doesn't have it. It is also something that is much more beneficial to Youtube as YoutubeTV's data usage is minuscule compared to it. It seems Google picked YoutubeTV to have this fight with Roku as it doesn't generate the sort of publicity that a fi

This week's flavor.

[msauve]

Google has the attention span of a two year old. They're way out of line asking (let alone demanding) that others support the latest shiny thing they're distracted by.

Seems better anyway

[idontusenumbers]

This seems like a better user experience anyway. When one company has multiple apps for essentially the same thing, it's very hard on the user. NBC and CBS have this and it's very taxing. Google already has this sort of nonsense on their andorid platform with their own apps, as does samsung. Could you imagine asking a user "which app would you use to watch youtube tv?", they respond "youtube" and then you have to respond "incorrect"?

Ain't happening.

[fodder69]

Stop trying to make YouTube TV a thing, it's not going to happen.

Remember when Google had 'do no evil' as a company objective?

Re:

[RightSaidFred99]

Lol, it's already happened. I've been subscribed for a year+. Cheaper (though not that much) than cable, plus a lot more convenient.

Re:

[Angry Coward]

It was "Don't be evil", which isn't quite the same thing. Either way its long forgotten by anyone with decision making power at google.

Nuclear?

[Cpt_Kirks]

Sounds like google caved.

They included their tv app INSIDE the existing app, which runs on Roku.

Google DID NOT get what that wanted.

Awesome

[GoRK]

Its nice when legal pressure aligns with sensible UX.

Users never wanted separate apps for Youtube, Youtube Music, Youtube TV, etc. in the first place. Same goes for Facebook / Facebook Messenger and a whole host of other services that are either 99% the same app or cant be dis-integrated anyway. Used to be that companies only asked me to download one app; now it's 5 or 6. Sometimes it takes 2 apps just to use one service! Ridiculous.

This is the same problem faced by retail where suppliers just manufacture a

Re:

[TREE]

Strongly disagree. I don't want music to have anything to do with Youtube. I'd prefer if music remained a separate product like it was in Google Play Music. The fact that it's branded as Youtube is a negative thing, not positive at all.

Music access and preference management is *completely* different from video access. An app optimized for one is going to suck for the other.

I would also generally have no interest in "TV" having anything to do with "random web videos" that youtube has for similar reasons, but