Tech & Gadgets

YouTube on Roku 3: As Their Worlds Collide, Any Glimmer of Hope?

I’m one of the 5 million fans of the Roku streaming media device, running it with the TV in my master bedroom. With the recent release of the $99 Roku 3, I couldn’t miss Roku founder and CEO Anthony Wood’s talk at the South by Southwest (SxSw) Interactive conference on Sunday.

Content-wise, it didn’t disappoint, as Wood shared some colorful views about competitors. On Google TV: “We take them seriously but they have almost no market share.” Apple, whose $99 Apple TV remains the market leader with an estimated 15 million sold, is not that “motivated” to win, argues Wood, because it makes more money on the also streaming-capable iPad. As for an actual television set from Apple, Wood claims he “personally hopes they build it” because it would drive TV and other hardware manufacturers to embed Roku’s software directly into their gear.

For Roku fanboys (like myself), some of Wood’s other comments may dismay, especially around YouTube. Wood basically confirmed a report last week in the StreamingMediaBlog written by Frost & Sullivan analyst Dan Rayburn that the single-core ARM 11 processor used in older Rokus was a technical hangup for YouTube.


Roku CEO Anthony Wood: “focused on the long-tail”

“Youtube insists on using HTML5 for its UI. When you put that on our [old] Rokus, the picture didn’t move,” he said. The new Roku 3’s faster chip – it uses the same dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 used in the third-generation, 2012 version of the iPad – and revamped user interface enables YouTube now to “work acceptably well, though it’s not snappy,” Wood said.

While Rayburn was hopeful that “an official YouTube channel could come to the Roku 3 shortly,” I’m more circumspect due to two factors: the increasing competition for content between the two firms, compound the already-tricky issue of licensing.

Recommended for YouWebcast: Sales and Marketing Alignment: 7 Steps To Implement Effective Sales Enablement

Roku already officially offers 750 channels, including big names such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon instant Video, HBO Go, as well as many smaller channels from small broadcasters or individual video bloggers who can apply to have their channels promoted in Roku’s Channel Store at no cost.

While Roku users viewed 1 billion hours of streamed content last year, up from 420 million in 2011, only 20% of those hours were from Roku’s 700+ smaller video channels, who make money through subscriptions or ads. Wood is eager to attract more.

“We are trying to be a lot more focused on the long-tail,” Wood said.

Grass-roots video, of course, is dominated today by YouTube, which has more than a million video creators and bloggers making money through its ad program.

Wood didn’t volunteer this brewing conflict as a point of tension, and I was too slow to ask. But his comments made it sound that any alliance was still far off.

“We have not reached business terms yet with YouTube, but I am hopeful that we will,” he said.

Roku, which was a division of Netflix run by Wood until it was spun out in 2007, could also beef up content by creating original programming as Hulu or Netflix’s recent House of Cards drama. But Wood sounded doubtful. “I’d never say never, but we are not doing that now,” he said.

Besides Roku’s 750 official channels, there are also several hundred “private channels.” These are unofficial video channels similar to apps available to iPhone users with “jailbroken” devices (though Roku users do not need to ‘break’ their devices to gain access to them). Channels run the gamut from business to weather to pornographic and those showing pirated shows and movies. “There is bad content,” acknowledged Wood.

Despite that, Roku has a much friendlier relationship with its private channel operators than Apple does with the jailbreaking community. While Apple tries to remove jailbreaks with new OS updates, Roku does not actively police the content in the private channels, Wood said. Still, Roku does quickly remove channels when it receives a copyright infringement notice, which happens about once a week, he said.

Wood is also eager to build up Roku’s official selection of apps and games, of which there are about 100 today. One app that has been highly requested by Roku users is Skype videoconferencing. On this, though, Wood remains dubious.

“We’ve had many discussions internally but always decided not to do it,” he said. (Full disclosure: my employer Avaya makes its own business-class desktop and mobile video conferencing software that compete indirectly with Skype.)

Woods cites that the failure of past TV-based videoconferencing products as proof of lack of interest.

While personal and desktop videoconferencing is already “very popular on phones and laptops, I don’t think that people want to do that in front of their TV,” he said.

  Discuss This Article

Comments: 5

  • I love this man I love this product and I am so greatful for this man making this product.I love this format and learning what I have learned from the incredible channels I have discovered.Thank u and have helped sell 17 so far and post daily about upgrade and new features on my facebook pag.God bless and thank U Mr. Wood.

  • If the older Rokus can’t play youtube videos because of the html5 then why did videobuzz not have any problem playing youtube videos and why did Roku tell videobuzz to remove their channel from the private channels on Roku?
    Also Playon can play Youtube videos. MY cheap made in china $200 10 inch Android Tablet with a single core processor can play Youtube videos.

  • I think that the HTML5 technical argument is a specious one. Until a couple of years ago, a perfectly functional directly-streaming private YouTube channel from a developer known as “nowhereman” was available for use on the original Roku. It was taken down, but those who had already subscribed to it (including myself) were allowed to keep it. I still have it and it still works.

  • Older Rokus can play some form of YouTube. In fact, “nowhereman’s” private YouTube channel plays YouTube videos in 1080p without commercials and has a more streamlined interface than PCs. Maybe the HTML5 setup is needed to force users to watch YouTube’s commercials. Funny how more powerful hardware is required to give users a worse experience that doesn’t offer them any added benefits.

  • There is a kernel of truth hidden behind lies.
    Obviously the real problem with HTML5 is not a lack of performance (it is far more efficient than flash), but a lack of closeness and DRM.
    You cannot enforce the watching of commercials with an html5 client.

Add a New Comment

Thank you for adding to the conversation!

Our comments are moderated. Your comment may not appear immediately.