Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Graphics

Developer Pulls Roku's Popular Fish Tank Screensaver Following Fox Sale (arstechnica.com) 55

Posted by BeauHD from the not-part-of-the-Fox-world dept.
Roku is removing its popular Aquatic Life fish tank screensaver on December 1 and automatically switching affected users to Roku City. According to Cord Cutters News, the creator pulled the license after Roku's sale to FOX was announced. Ars Technica reports: The screensaver has been an option for Roku OS users for 10 years. Roku has been licensing the animation, which is called the Marine Aquarium, from artist Jim Sachs through Prolific Publishing. Sachs is the creator and copyright holder of the Marine Aquarium. He developed the screensaver through his company SereneScreen. He tells Ars Technica that the licensing agreement with Roku is up for renewal every October and can be canceled by either party for any reason. A day after learning that Fox was planning to buy Roku, a deal that closed today, Sachs told Prolific that he wouldn't be renewing Roku's license. "I can't be part of the Fox world," he tells Ars, pointing to Fox News' controversial style of news and entertainment.

Roku will automatically switch the Aquatic Life screensaver on affected devices to the Roku City screensaver, another popular animation that includes subtle advertisements, according to the user notice. The Aquatic Life screensaver provided an ad-free, relaxing display for years for some Roku users. Numerous people online have lamented the impending loss of the screensaver for Roku OS. [...] The decision to not renew the licensing contract has "major financial consequences," Sachs said. "Our needs are very small, with a high property tax bill being the only significant expense," he said. "We'll be okay but can't start any of the projects I had planned."

According to Sachs, the licensing "agreement was $80,000 per year for exclusive rights to all set-top devices, or $60,000 per year for non-exclusive. They have always opted for exclusive." Ars asked Roku to confirm the details of the licensing agreement but didn't hear back ahead of publication. The licensing deal with Roku was Sachs' primary form of income, he told Ars, noting low sales of the version of the screensaver for computers. Marine Aquarium fans can still buy the screensaver for Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android, but it seems unlikely that it will return to the Roku platform.

Developer Pulls Roku's Popular Fish Tank Screensaver Following Fox Sale More | Reply

Developer Pulls Roku's Popular Fish Tank Screensaver Following Fox Sale

Comments Filter:
  • Hinging your primary source of income on a proprietary ecosystem beyond your control is not among the worst things that a lone software developer can do, but it is among the inanest. I nevertheless respect this person for standing by an ideal, maybe? Or maybe he sensed the well was already starting to run dry and wanted some publicity on the way out.

  • I remember a time when slashdot linking to a site brought it down.

    Today, slashdot is linking to a deleted reddit thread with a couple of users complaining that their favorite screen saver is getting pulled.

    Truly how far the mighty have fallen.

  • That's insane money for a screensaver. And even more so today in the age of AI, when a monkey with a keyboard can ask AI to create the same thing in minutes.

    • >"That's insane money for a screensaver"

      Yes, it is. Absolutely insane. It was written once. It is a freaking screensaver. As far as I can tell, it needs no maintenance and has never changed.

      Roku could just hire someone to create one they actually own, forever, with no other expense, probably for less than one year of "renting" the old one.

      I do like that screensaver, it is what I use on my Roku Ultra for years. So I hope they do bring another one that is similar.

      • Sadly, someone is going to inevitably just vibe one of these out in week.

        It'll be a pale imitator but that's our timeline

      • Re:$80,000 per year for exclusive rights (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06, 2026 @06:59PM (#66413773)
        I worked at Roku, and did maintenance visits to Aquatic Life, among many other things. The appearance did not change, but mechanisms in the implementation would need to be updated to reconcile with internal API evolution, and verified for smooth and reliable operation on new products. It takes care with thread priorities and mutexes in various parts of the underlying system, to make fish swim smoothly. Fish jerky: ok; jerky fish: bad.

        • It takes care with thread priorities and mutexes in various parts of the underlying system, to make fish swim smoothly.

          Using threads and mutexes is a non-standard way to animate fish, and if thread priorities are causing issues, something has gone horribly wrong in your programming. Did you use AI?

          • roku has seriously limited hardware, they also wrote the software for boeing that they use to connect the refueling booms for mid air refueling.

    • It isn't even all that great. There are all ready better aquarium screen savers available online.

    • The problem is that no monkey with a keyboard is doing it except the ones who see $$$ in their eyes and inject ads into a fucking screensaver. I picked that screensaver as there are no other aquarium choices that don't blare dumb ads at annoying intervals.

  • that is now 80 grand more they have to spend on things that align less with your views. i'd rather continue to exfil that money.

  • You don't know what you have till it's gone (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wickerprints ( 1094741 ) on Friday November 06, 2026 @05:18PM (#66413628)

    It's good publicity for him to pull the licensing and explain why. I've seen so many comments from Roku owners who say they'll really miss the fish. And it sends a message that integrity is more important to him than money. People really need to see more examples like this, because all we ever seem to hear about these days are people who are all too happy to sell out and harm others for their own benefit. Whether he'll be rewarded for holding to his convictions is yet to be seen. But we need more of this energy, because every time we see exploitation and corruption go unpunished, it hardens us against the idea that we should behave with integrity in our own lives. After all, if you see criminals get away with their crimes, why should you go out of the way to be nice to anyone else? In a world without accountability, being nice only draws a target on your own back. And so a pernicious cycle begins.

    Some folks think that there's a choice involved: you can "choose" to stand up for what you believe in, or you can "choose" to sell out. For people with integrity, it's not a choice--it's a bad turn of events, one in which you are forced to act. If someone came up to you and offered you $80k for your child, you'd probably scoff. It's not something you'd even bother to entertain (or at least, I should hope you wouldn't, if you were human being of any conscience). The point of my example is not saying that a screensaver is as important as a child; it's that if someone were to make that offer and then people heard about it and characterized that offer as a CHOICE, you would find it completely offensive. That's not a real choice. That's how people who have integrity regard being asked to compromise their morals.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by ylleKnaD ( 1826388 )

      I thought Roku was being a jerk to push more ads in front of me when I saw the notice on my Roku Ultra that the aquarium screen saver was going away. Instead it is the developer of the screen saver being a jerk.

      In his "standing up for what he believes in" he is hurting everyone who previously enjoyed his work. His actions won't change anyone's opinion about Fox. But it sure changed my opinion of him. (I am not a Fox fan).

      I considered the screen saver to be part of the device I bought years ago. I am re

      • So typical that you would blame the creator of the work, rather than the corporate managers who (1) negotiated and agreed to the acquisition; (2) did not purchase the work outright and instead only licensed it on an annual basis; (3) sold you a device using such a license and did not adequately disclose to you that the content that came with it might not be permanent.

        Yes, go ahead and blame the artist to deflect from your own failure as a consumer to understand just what you bought. You think you own somet

      • I considered the screen saver to be part of the device I bought years ago.

        That was dumb of you.

  • Good on Him (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Friday November 06, 2026 @05:18PM (#66413632) Homepage Journal

    I've had the privilege of working with Jim Sachs back in the Amiga days, when his work was the benchmark for hand-drawn digital art. He did all the UI artwork for Commodore's CDTV [wikipedia.org] -- to name just one of his many works. He's an exceptionally accomplished programmer and artist, hard worker, and principled guy.

    SereneScreen's "big break" came when it was included with Microsoft Plus! for (I think) Windows XP. It was a limited version that you could upgrade to a full version. Selling screen savers was not so crazy an idea back then, as Berkeley Systems had been doing it with After Dark [wikipedia.org] for the Mac for over ten years at that point.

    And frankly I think $80K/year for exclusive rights was a bargain. Half the price of a single engineer? Roku got off cheap. Hell, they probably paid more for the HDMI licenses.

    Oh, and Google? [google.com] Amazon? [amazon.com] Apple? [apple.com] Now's your chance.

    • Re: Good on Him (Score:3, Interesting)

      by golem100 ( 581505 )

      Ditto. I remember burning ROM's for the CDTV-CR(the unreleased unit that only made it to proto) right after they go updated images for the color-cycled bitmaps that he had created.

      He also did the artwork for the original Amiga version of "Defender of the Crown", plus he wrote what was one of the most pirated games for the C64(Saucer Attack!)

    • And frankly I think $80K/year for exclusive rights was a bargain. Half the price of a single engineer? Roku got off cheap. Hell, they probably paid more for the HDMI licenses.

      Cheap? They paid almost a million dollars over the past 12 years. How many engineer man-years would it take to build themselves? The bonus is that they would not be subject to the whims of a developer.

      • How many engineer man-years would it take to build themselves?

        It could take a ten person team a year to plan and implement, if you want the cheap Harvard-style version.

  • Wrong approach (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 )

    I think a better approach would be to greatly increase the cost. Hey Fox, it is now $8,000,000/year non-exclusive. No good? Okay, have a nice day.

    If Fox pays it then you win and you can feel righteous draining Fox. If Fox says no then its all the same.

    • Re:Wrong approach (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Friday November 06, 2026 @06:17PM (#66413710) Homepage
      It is not about the money but the principle. How hard is that to understand?

      • There is more than one way to apply your principles. How hard is that to understand?

        • So his principle is fundamentally at odds with Fox Specifically, in what alternate way is he supposed to apply his principles? In your answer include the fact that any alternative involves remaining a business partner and aiding in profits of a company he disagrees with.

          Lay it out for us clever man.

    • Not such a bad idea, increase the price significantly, take their money and give it to something that he sees as a worthy cause. That way Fox money gets to fund something that is against their own interests, poetic justice I think.

      • Or retire next year and still do some of those things you planned. The marginal benefit to Fox is much less than the benefit to the seller.

        This action does not cripple Fox in anyway, I'm sure they don't care.

    • Clearly money is more important to you than principle. Jim Sachs has enough money he can care only about principle.

  • I became annoyed at the fakeness of the Roku fish screen saver after I was conditioned to check every internet video for signs of AI gen. If someone could loop a real aquarium for a few hours and sell it to Roku, that'd be great.

  • He's made about a million dollars for one piece of software which it sounds like he hasn't had to update in ten years, which isn't yacht money but is a comfortable fallback income. It's the sort of thing that gives you freedom to explore other things that might not pay the rent next month. Good on him and it sounds like he really has pursued other fulfilling projects.

  • Wanna be petty so you can broadcast your hatred of Fox? Cool, Iâ(TM)ll have Claude make me a replacement and sell it to them.

  • Subtle? Like an ice pick up the nose. (Score:4, Informative)

    by mnemotronic ( 586021 ) <mnemotronicNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday November 07, 2026 @01:04AM (#66414007) Homepage Journal
    Roku city's "subtle advertisements" are now it's overwhelming feature. The cute, and sometimes obscure, visual references to movie characters, locations and props are increasingly hidden behind a continuous barrage of adverts. This started long before the Fox buttreaming.

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie

Close