Roku's over the top video platform and a la carte channel operations were supposed to be the exception to the rule -- or an example of how broadband can transform the viewing experience into a more democratic, consumer friendly process. But GigaOM has an interesting report exploring how as the company grows and gets more successful, some of their behavior has started to look uncomfortably familiar.
While getting your video app on Roku is free, content publishers are finding themselves surprised with Roku demands to pay up once their channel reaches a certain degree of success. Notes Janko Roettgers:
quote:I’ve had conversations with a number of publishers who have channels on Roku recently, all of whom declined to go on the record because of their existing business relationship with the company. They all had been approached by Roku to strike a commercial deal in recent months, and not everyone saw this coming. “They called out of the blue,” said one publisher, and I’ve been told more than once that Roku representatives were pretty aggressive in their demands for revenue sharing deals, asking for cuts of advertising, subscription and transactional pay-per-view revenue. “They are acting like a cable company,” said one publisher.
I have 3 lcd tv's acting as monitors that seem to have that problem. all 3 different brands.. and the high end monitors of only 5 years ago had only component.
Ahh gotcha, I have a habit of calling screens not used for computer display a "TV" Even though I should know better and that I believe to be a TV it has to be capable of signal reception of TV broadcast on its own.
The HDML has security blocks to protect against piracy. The HDML can can disable/block hardware sent from a device to a converter etc. With today's internet patched devices simple updates can disable TV's converters etc.
The Tashiba TV in my living room had the companies device ID codes hacked and codes where released on the internet. This allowed people to make devices that identified themselves as this TV. When the HDMI standards found out about this internet updated devices with HDMI that are attached to these unpatchable Tashiba TV's where blocked from displaying high quality content.
An example of this is a DISH network HD compatible system like 712 or 512 series. If you try to view a rented movie on those through their blockbuster while hooked up to a blocked TV it won't allow you to view the movie PERIOD. Even if the HDML device fine watching most channels it says the device connected is insecure.
I assume you can convert from a lower standard too HDML but the reverse is and can be limited.
Why would someone upgrade just to have an HDMI port? Why toss another TV in the dump and pollute when most tvs will live 15+ years, including tube sets. And just because TVs have come down in price it doesn't mean you need to run out and buy one.
The same can be said with computers, they go down in price daily and yearly, but you don't see people out buying yearly just because its down in price.
Those would be old SD tube TVs. maybe time to upgrade. TVs are dirt cheap now.
No sh*t... I got a 29" LED 720p at Sam's for $168 the other day. 3 HDMI connections, 1 75 ohm, 1 USB, 1 PC connection, and 1 component connection. (Magnavox) And.... the LED HD TV uses much less power than a CRT!!!
I find it hard to believe many people still use a TV without HDMI port. Even my 80 year old grandmother has a TV with HDMI in. Flat screen TVs are down to 99 bucks on black friday, so by now the only hold-outs are the people who simply enjoy parroting that "I ain't got one of them-there flatscreens"
I find it hard to believe many people still use a TV without HDMI port. Even my 80 year old grandmother has a TV with HDMI in. Flat screen TVs are down to 99 bucks on black friday, so by now the only hold-outs are the people who simply enjoy parroting that "I ain't got one of them-there flatscreens"
You make your bed you sleep in it.
A good many people seem to take joy in clinging to outdated technology and then complaining when anything changes, especially if it means their stuff becomes obsolete.
They've decied not to ALLOW the update on older device versions so eventually when the providers upgrade their streaming technology those devices will break. You'll need to upgrade no matter what if you choose Roku for streaming. Companies who don't work with Roku's new "piece of the pie" demand will get removed while older devices won't allow channel updates.
The newer models only have HDML out so, if the older ones aren't getting patched meaning you're SOL. They want you to throw away the older versions and $$$UPGRADE$$$ so they can make money off the new hardware sales. that's not enough for Roku. They also want money for rights for popular channels to be on their devices. Greedy intentions check!
I have one without HDMI and it works just fine. It has for over 3 years now. And was just updated. Actually they rarely update the software if anything apps on them are only updated by the publishers.
Roku is more popular, and has a higher quality. Most people who have a Chromecast don't use it. The biggest issue is that you always need another device with a processor to operate Chromecast.
Most people? How would you know. Personally I use both of our chromecasts daily. I would rather control my Chromecast with my phone than adding another remote control to my many already.
In my opinion, requiring a secondary device for it to function is a turnoff compared to its competitors. And I don't think your argument about another remote holds water. The remotes for these things are pretty small. The remote for the AppleTV, for instance, has the same amount of volume as a couple of sticks of gum.
If this is really happening, then this would be a sad day. There are enough cable cos doing this, it'd be nice if Roku would not. Just as I was going to cut the cord and go with Roku .
I use Roku and it's a good device, I don't think this stuff is going to affect the end users that much. I've cut the cord, 95% of our usage is on the Roku or chromecast. So I have a lot of experience with both.
Roku's don't have the absolute best interface, some apps like plex can be a little dated but they have the most varied channels, you aren't limited like you are with an apple tv which pushes apple content or a firetv which pushes amazon content. In that respect I think the Roku is still the best streaming device. I like the chromecast, in fact I have one in our bedroom. and we have a roku 3 in the living room. eventually the chromecast is going to be replaced by a roku and this is why. 2.4 ghz only, I live in an apartment and the 2.4ghz airwaves are jammed and while streaming works probably 95% of the time, it still cuts out now and then My roku 3 with 5Ghz wireless never misses a beat and it's much farther away from the router.
and the other reason is the interface, many technically inclined people myself included may like the chromecast interface, my wife she hates it, she'd much rather have a roku remote with only a few buttons, it's much simpler. technically inclined chromecast lovers seem to miss that average user component.
Unfortunately for Roku there are a bunch of options to get and send out that content besides them unlike cable providers. Doing this is just shooting themselves in the foot.
I'm willing to bet the ChromeCast is eating into their sales, and they're none too pleased. Apparently instead of trying to innovate, this troll toll is their chosen response.
Behavior like this will make me reconsider ever buying another Roku or recommending them.
Android TV seems like better competition, not Chromecast like some believe. Android TV already has popular apps, and is not yet available to the public.
Until its available to the public its a moot topic and product to bring up. Plus Android TV died before and it can surely die again. And when it comes out, surely ChromeCast will be retired and unmaintained. A typical Google move.
Basically the message is that if you let roku get big enough, they will try their best to leverage their size to screw you (yes you, ultimately you pay directly or indirectly) over just like a cabelco/telco. Got it.
On the older Roku 1's and Roku 2's they REFUSE to update the netflix channels so they can select profiles.
Seriously, they think customers are that dumb. If the hardware is capable of steaming videos perfectly its software wouldn't take much to switch simple profiles. The problem with them and netflix is they want the software/firmware to be RAM hogs and not optimize it.
Perfect example of planned obsolescence. Tell them we can't or won't update so they'll buy the newest version which was bought less then a year ago. Not getting a penny more from me I'll look for another company or use a game console.
I had a feeling 2 years ago when I got my 2nd roku that someday, they would get greedy so I wasn't going to put all my eggs in one basket. That's why I decided not to buy any more and have beefed up my home media server(s) and got SmartTV's with WiFi. There are SOOO many other streaming devices out there, Roku best watch it's azz or it will alienate content providers and they fade away.
This charge can backfire. If Amazon and Netflix refused to pay and were removed, how many Roku(s) would folks continue to buy? I can always stream Netflix on my OPPO or Sharp Smart HDTV. However, I would be out of luck with Amazon.