Previously on Google versus Roku: Roku and Google needed to renew the contract for YouTube TV, Google's $65-per-month cable TV replacement, on Roku's TV platform. The two companies weren't able to come to an agreement on the new contract, resulting in YouTube TV being pulled from the Roku store. Oh no! While existing customers could still use the YouTube TV app they had already installed, new users couldn't sign up. Will the two companies ever be able to settle their differences, or is their friendship ruined forever?
The next exciting episode in this saga aired on Friday, when Google announced in a blog post that it was just going to run an end-around on Roku and stick the YouTube TV app in the YouTube app. YouTube and YouTube TV exist as separate apps, and while the YouTube TV contract expired and the app was taken off the Roku store, the YouTube contract does not expire until December.Since the YouTube app is still running, Google was able to quickly shove YouTube TV functionality into it. On the side navigation menu, the last link in the list reads, "Go to YouTube TV." This is not unprecedented—it's actually the way YouTube Music works, too, with a sort of app-within-an-app interface.
Google says it is "still working to come to an agreement with Roku to ensure continued access to YouTube TV for our mutual customers." But Google threatened Roku with another escalation, saying, "We’re also in discussions with other partners to secure free streaming devices in case YouTube TV members face any access issues on Roku."
A few weeks ago, Google offered to "renew the YouTube TV deal under the existing reasonable terms" with Roku, so Roku seems to be the current aggressor. In response to this latest move, Roku sent the following statement to The Verge.
Google’s actions are the clear conduct of an unchecked monopolist bent on crushing fair competition and harming consumer choice. The bundling announcement by YouTube highlights the kind of predatory business practices used by Google that Congress, Attorney Generals and regulatory bodies around the world are investigating. Roku has not asked for one additional dollar in financial value from YouTubeTV. We have simply asked Google to stop their anticompetitive behavior of manipulating user search results to their unique financial benefit and to stop demanding access to sensitive data that no other partner on our platform receives today. In response, Google has continued its practice of blatantly leveraging its YouTube monopoly to force an independent company into an agreement that is both bad for consumers and bad for fair competition.
These are the same claims Roku has made before, and Google has already responded to them, saying, "To be clear, we have never, as they have alleged, made any requests to access user data or interfere with search results. This claim is baseless and false."
The real reason for the rift between the two companies seems to be over Google's AV1 video codec requirements for YouTube (presumably only for new devices), and it seems these requirements would start in December, when the mainline YouTube app contract expires.AV1 is a cutting-edge, royalty-free video codec that will likely be the next de facto video standard, since it's backed by Google, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft, Samsung, Intel, Facebook, Arm, Hulu, and a ton of other companies. AV1 would save on bandwidth for streaming companies and customers, but it requires hardware decode support on cheaper devices like a Roku box. Google wants to make AV1 a requirement for YouTube, but that requires new chips, which are probably more expensive than the older chips Roku would prefer to use.
Google says, "Separately, we are also in ongoing, long-term conversations with Roku to certify that new devices meet our technical requirements. This certification process exists to ensure a consistent and high-quality YouTube experience across different devices, including Google’s own—so you know how to navigate the app and what to expect. We'll continue our conversations with Roku on certification, in good faith, with the goal of advocating for our mutual customers."
reader comments
227