Channels & viewing

[John85254]

I don't think it excuses Roku that they provided a popup 120 days ago that you HAD to agree to. I don't recall this, but I'll take your word for it. If you didn't agree, I'm assuming that you couldn't proceed, right? Agree, or your device is bricked.

[MilesT]

Some basic legal points here:

There is a difference between physical property and intellectual property/services.  Generally you never truly "own" the latter (and this is made clear in the small print "T&C" that you agree to when you sign up or start using the device).

Roku is intellectual property/service that has an enabling physical component, which won't work or have value without the intellectual property and a (possibly free) service subscription.  You never own any of this, only license it as part of a service.  Roku, as owner and service provider, can vary the offer when they like (within basic limits of "fair contract" in your jurisdiction).  And they just did. Guess you have now learned an important lesson about modern life. I get why you don't like it, but good luck in finding an alternative that doesn't work this way, you have to trust the provider to not change things in ways you don't like with no redress. (Let's see: streaming etc. has options/involvement from the FANG crowd..trust any of those?  Trust your TV maker or Nvidia as other streaming device options?)

Similar issues are now playing out in terms of other goods and machines, which is why there is a movement called "right to repair", with some legal protections now starting to be enacted.  I don't think Roku is the right level of importance or type of good to be covered.

[DBDukes]

@John85254 

I need to clarify. Roku didn't put any popups on your device. Some apps did have popups, but it was the app developers that updated the apps to include the popups. Roku didn't insert any popups. And, not all app developers did that. Those that did, at least those that I saw, used it to present both some truthful and some deceitful information. They lied, sprinkled with some truth.

The popups that did appear (again, the app developers did that, not Roku) were simply notices, not agreements to which you must agree. Well, you had to click OK or Continue or whatever. You could hit Home and exited the device. But again, that was the app developers that went that route, not Roku. Failing to click OK/Continue didn't brick a device. It exited the app. Again, the developers did that, not Roku.

Roku made a public statement on their official blog 121 days out, and developers were notified. What they did with the notification was up to them. Some chose to work on apps. Some chose to spend time adding a notice to the apps to fire up the base, rather than direct their resources to work on getting the app certified. Some chose to retire their apps and not finish them for certification.

[Moralmajority]

Good news everyone Roku has decided to be our parent It is canceling all pornography channels. I don’t know about you but I already have a mother and Roku should have not removed the pornography channels.

[DBDukes]

@Moralmajority 

Somebody gave  you bad information. Whoever that was, be very wary of what they tell you, because they will give you bad information.

Here's what really happened. Roku had a program where app developers could put apps out for the public while they worked to get it to standards to place in the Channel Store. That was officially and unofficially called Private Channels/Apps, Non-certified Channels/Apps, and Beta Channels/Apps.

Here's what some developers did: they wrote an app, put it in the Private/Non-certified/Beta library, and stopped. Of course, that meant the apps were not supported by Roku.

Eventually, Roku had enough of that and revamped the program. They publicly posted that Private/Non-certified/Beta apps would have a life of 120 days, and a limit of 20 users for beta testing, and a limit of 10 apps at a time to be under concurrent development. link

And, 120 days after that, any apps that remained in the Private/Non-certified/beta library were removed. Any that the developers completed and submitted for certification, if passed certification, were added to the Channel Store. The rest? *poof* As Roku said would happen.

The apps in question were never completed insofar as actual coding development to meet Roku Channel Store guidelines and submission criteria. And before you go down that road that you're about to go down, the guidelines allow for Content Age Rating: 

The four available options include "All Ages," "Content Rated — Parental Guidance Advised," "Content Not Rated — Parental Guidance Advised," and "Adult."

Notice that last option. So, if you want to blame somebody for your being upset, blame the people that didn't submit an app to go through the process, and whoever gave you the bad information about the situation.

[Moralmajority]

@DBDukes 

Thank you for the education. It’s obvious, based on your description, that I got it wrong. 

[MrPink]

I have to say that having my viewing choices limited by the decisions of others who think they know better than I do is really distasteful to me.  I'm a grownup, and I can discern for myself what content is appropriate.

I'm so angry, I'm considering doing what Apple did to Xerox, and that's aping a product, fixing what's broken and calling it something else.

How does Nanatsu sound?  All I need is a VC guy; the code, hardware and infrastructure is child's play.

Grrrr.

[optikhog]

Could you explain what items were removed from the Channel Store which are making you so angry as to believe that you can both violate copyright as well as create your own streaming ecosystem?

[MrPink]

No, because that last time I mentioned them, the thread was closed.  

[TrooperDada326]

So your unhappy that am uncertified channel was removed? Interesting. Funny thing is millions of Roku users are happy with legit free and paid channels. Have you tried hackers are us?