Channel Issues & Questions

Help & troubleshooting for channels on your Roku device, including adding/removing channels, logging in to, authenticating, or activating a channel, channel-specific playback issues, assistance contacting channel publishers to report issues, and adjusting channel-specific settings.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Level 10

Re: Since HBO Max and Peacock TV are unavailable on Roku - thinking it's time for a new device

And the gatekeeping continues.

Here's an article I ran across today that suggests exactly what I've been saying since the launch of HBO Max:

https://www.vulture.com/2020/07/why-peacock-isnt-on-roku.html

Specifically this paragraph:

"Industry insiders familiar with the situation say NBCU actually isn’t refusing to compensate Roku (or Amazon) for being on those platforms. Its objections have been focused on not wanting to give up control of its advertising inventory and user experience."

I'm fully on board with NBC being able to control the advertising in the two lower Peacock TV tiers. It is, after all, NBC/Universal programming. And as a subscriber, I appreciate the user interface that comes from most of my streaming apps. I have no interest in combining my eight services into one through a Roku Channel or Prime Video Channels. I subscribe to Peacock TV and HBO Max, and the Roku hardware is not supporting my choices. Roku has now officially proven to me that the company has become a gatekeeper, the same way my old cable company decided what broadcast content I could and could not get.

Roku used to supply hardware with an operating system. I would never accept having Hewlett Packard decide which Windows-based software I could install on my desktop.

Which is why I made the decision to replace my dumb living room TV with a smart TV that does not include Roku.

Highlighted
Level 7

Re: First HBO Max, Now Peacock... Roku needs to be more flexible

Not helpful for your customers, RE HBO Max.

Do you not want to keep all of us, as customers?

Do a deal with HBO. 

Be more respectful and responsive when we ask perfectly legitimate questions and ask for help.

Highlighted
Level 7

Re: First HBO Max, Now Peacock... Roku needs to be more flexible

Thanks for replying Danny, but your answer is not a "solution" to the problem. You reiterated what we already know, asked to sign up for Roku's emailing list to boost their numbers, and "passing along the concerns" is polite speak for nothing will change. 

And continuing to mark this issue as "solved" when there is no indication that HBO Max or Peacock is going to be on Roku at any point in the near future is disingenuous.  It's simply being marked as solved to make it look like that Roku is being responsive to their customers, when in reality they are not.

Highlighted
Level 7

Re: First HBO Max, Now Peacock... Roku needs to be more flexible

I have been a Roku cheerleader for years, but with the HBO Max and Peacock standoff the cheering is coming to an end. This is what you get for allowing Wall St Bankers to control the decision-making to drive short term revenue while giving up the long-term viability of the company. You are in danger of losing your most loyal customers with this land grab. And once you've lost us, we won't be coming back. So pass this on to the board: What's 20% of nothing? It's zero! That's what your revenue is going to start looking like, one customer at a time. Your only way out now is to quickly strike a deal and publish a mea culpa to all of your customers for acting like a greedy jerk.

Highlighted
Level 8

Re: First HBO Max, Now Peacock... Roku needs to be more flexible

 

5 years ago, after discovering I could get so much from Prime, I dumped cable.  Then I added Netflix.   I watched both on my PC and tablet.  My tv was on just for videos.  3 years ago I was introduced to Roku and grateful for the practical interface and to use my TV.   I thought their channel was sweet, but I don't like commercials so don't use it.  I even got a Ruko for a friend.

Anyway, now it's back to not using my TV because Roku has decided that they are a cable company and are trying to force us to purchase apps thru them.  That is why the battle between Roku with HBO Max and Peacock.  I won't be a pawn.  After going through these forums I see Prime is trying the same so I won't be getting a Fire device either.

Goodbye Roku.  

Highlighted
Level 9

Re: First HBO Max, Now Peacock... Roku needs to be more flexible

Just got my $30 Chromecast.    Watching Peacock now, next is HBO Max.   So there Roku😝

Highlighted
Level 7

Re: First HBO Max, Now Peacock... Roku needs to be more flexible

If you are getting ANY premium channels through Roku. Cancel ALL of the subscriptions and go to the providers directly. Do not get HBO Max nor the Peacock until a deal is hashed out with ROKU. If they both lose subscribers and revenue we can all force them to find solutions. Neither is acting in the customer's best interest (or any interest frankly). Cutting the cord was about breaking the chains and giving power to those who pay for content. 

Highlighted
Level 11

Re: First HBO Max, Now Peacock... Roku needs to be more flexible


@drphibes13 wrote:

Roku, and Peacock really need to work harder at reaching agreements faster. In the end the customer always suffers when it comes to these disputes. Roku, and Peacock need customers more than just about anything else, to make their business model thrive. These disputes drive customers away, which in turn costs both parties revenue. It's silly negotiations are always taking this long with just about any new service now days. I think long term Peacock will still continue to thrive either way, but Roku stands much more to lose in the long run. Customers don't want to deal with these disputes like they used to with cable, and satellite. When Roku drives away their fan base with actions like this, they stand much, much more to lose than just potential Revenue from Peacock. They lose any avenue of revenue they had per customer as well, whether that be ad revenue, premium subscription revenue, etc. Roku really needs to start thinking about their strategies in negotiating deals faster, or it will certainly spell their demise in the long run... That was why everyone loved Roku. They worked really hard to get channels for everything that was worthwhile.  Take that away, and it hinders them as a company severely. Super Bowl was a close call. HBO Max... Still nothing. Peacock. Still nothing. What's next that we won't get access to for who knows how long, if ever? That's what Roku's customers are thinking right now. Think about it Roku. Seriously. I'm not saying this out of malice, I'm saying this because I am a fan of Roku, and I want the best for you all.


Surely some of you are Comcast customers. Maybe not. If you are, you will understand that if Roku cares about their customers, and Peacock does not, what is happening is exactly what you would expect. If Roku does not care, and Peacock does, Peacock would have already given in - they've been offered a deal with 50% off ad fees. We don't know the rest of the deal, but that in itself is pretty sweet.

But it's not about customers, it's about customer data. Both sides want to control customer data. Peacock and ATT want to be able to sell customer data to others - including Roku. Roku wants customer data to be part of the streaming deal. That is really the short term core of this disagreement. Long term HBO and Universal have plans that sure could use the revenue from that user data. So does Roku. If I have to choose between them, I will go with Roku. Perhaps a little bit because Roku is the underdog, but definitely a lot because Comcast and Warner are untrustworthy and treat their customers like garbage. Usually because they have government-sanctioned monopolies in most of their coverage area, so customers have no choice.

Highlighted
Level 11

Re: Roku either adds Peacock or lose me as a customer/promoter


@roxburylib wrote:

"The Peacock app is ready to launch across platforms with the flip of a switch," a Peacock spokeswoman said. "We think it's important for consumers to know that Peacock is free to use and free to any platform who wants to distribute it. If Peacock is not available on a platform at launch, it is not because we didn't make it available, and it's not because we didn't make it available for free."

"Roku said Peacock was trying to launch a service supported by advertising without sharing the ad model with its distribution partners.

I own Roku boxes, sticks, and TVs. I bought and gave them as gifts. I convinced many others to buy Roku products. Maybe I should have figured that Roku, once it dominated the market, would abuse their power. If the Peacock model proves profitable, more network and cable producers will adopt it and cable will either have to do better to compete or give up TV. That might not happen if Amazon and Roku try to squeeze the profits from ads that support their free content. There's no reason to support companies that don't care about supporting their customers.

https://www.cnet.com/news/peacock-roku-amazon-fire-tv-support-entrenching-a-battle-line/?fbclid=IwAR...


Two points:

First, even if Peacock is offered to Roku for free, Roku incurs costs, however small, that it needs to pay somehow.

Second, NBC/Universal is owned by Comcast, one of the largest cable companies in the U.S. (along with Warner, owner of ATT/HBO) whose cable business is in ever-faster decline. If you think this has nothing to do with control of streaming (they're trying to discredit the two largest streaming aggregators, or hadn't you noticed?) then enjoy your kool-aid.

Highlighted
Level 11

Re: First HBO Max, Now Peacock... Roku needs to be more flexible


@jay_dub wrote:

People do not cut the cord and come to streaming to put up with carriage disputes. ROKU is trying to serve two masters now, one is the stock price and two is the customers. When you chose the stock price you are just another Comcast and you will lose your customers just like they and all of the cable outfits are losing theirs.


You do realize that they are legally required to put the stock price first, right? They can be charged with malfeasance and lose their jobs if they don't and can't prove their choice benefitted the bottom line. That was decided by a supreme court decision back in the 70's.