@Wtfover And so was Microsoft. Times change. If you can’t keep up with the big dogs stay on the porch
Roku was supposed to be a “better type” of company, the alternative to “big cable”, like I said I didn’t know the was the Roku “fanboy club”. Microsoft have been pirates from day 1.
Roku was never a cable alternative. A Roku is merely a streaming device. Alternatives to cable are an antenna, YouTube TV, DirecTV Stream, FuboTV and Hulu + Live TV. And you don’t need a Roku for any of those. A Roku is basically a smartphone. A smartphone has apps. A Roku has channels.
@Wtfover Roku really had no choice. Too many "developers" were offering private channels that provided illegal content. While Roku worked to keep that away, it because too much of a legal liability. They did what they had to do to stay out of court. Blame the channel developers that didn't adhere to the Roku standards, but you really can't blame Roku. Well, I guess you can blame them if you want. But that doesn't make you right.
@Ello2022 yes Roku was, it was the leader in cutting the cord before it was a thing to cut cords, before Disney, before Amazon, before so many other. They are the reason Disney+ exist today. No Roku, no Disney, no Roku, no smart TVs, no Roku, no Amazon fire stick. Sure companies like Linksys was creating streaming devices too (very “fri GE”, but had one of those) but Roku was the first to push for mainstream.
@atc98092 now this is the first real response that isn’t “fan boy”. See now legal issues I can’t start to understand, but one has to think there has to be alternative avenues?
@Wtfover what do you expect to gain out of this? Do you want Roku to violate their policy and allow these uncertified channels back in?
There won’t be a game plan. Companies had time to apply for proper licensing. They either refused or did not meet the deadlines. But you are the 1% and nothing will change just for you
@Ello2022 I’m glad the world doesn’t think like you, because if they did, there would be no progress.