Community Discussions

Connect with other Roku users to learn more about streaming, cord-cutting, finding your favorite content, or talk about the latest entertainment happenings. It's all on Roku!
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
optikhog
Level 9

Re: Cable-cutters be advised:

"kharrisma" wrote:
The OP is not promoting conspiracy.

Specifically, I was referring to the "I'm beginning to think that they're just all in bed together... given cables' deep pockets, they probably just quietly bought Roku, left it mostly alone to appease cable haters like me, and just as quietly started adding their 'cable-subscription-required' content." comment, whereby he/she then went on to claim he/she is not a "conspiracy-theory nut".  I realize that it is possible he/she was simply being hyperbolic but this is certainly conflating conspiracy when it is clearly visible on each and every channel before installation when a subscription may be necessary.  It is a common misconception here that somehow Roku creates/procures all of the content used on its platform and the OP plays into this obvious falsehood.
0 Kudos
twiceover
Level 11

Re: Cable-cutters be advised:

In the early days, I probably would have agreed at least with the sentiment, probably not the statement.  Before this generation, the Roku boxes were emblazoned with logos for poplar networks and the word "Channels" was thrown around all over the packaging.  This can lead consumers into thinking "Hey, I can get ABC for $50 one time purchase!".  They've since moved to only displaying pretty obviously pay channels.  From what I can see on Amazon, they've gone away from using the term "Channels" on the front of the box, which is probably a good move for the consumer.

Anyone that is actually looking to cut cable should do proper research and understand they are definitely going to give up *something*.  
0 Kudos
DBDukes
Level 10

Re: Cable-cutters be advised:

"kharrisma" wrote:
...
@optikhog:  Yes, it does state "Subscription required," or "additional fees may be required," or something to that effect on many channels... and I do indeed pay for several of these channels.  TANSTAAFL (google it.)  Note though: nowhere... I'll repeat: nowhere.. does it say that you must have a cable subscription in order to view this channel.  You find that out only when you try to watch it.  NatGeo actually lets you watch about an hour of programming before they boot you out and want to know who your "provider" is.  That would be called a "misleading practice" in my book.  If a cable subscription is required to view the channel, it ought to say to right up front, so you don't waste your time and wind up frustrated and disappointed... and angry at being jerked around yet again, this time by Roku instead of cable (which most of us have learned to expect from them.)
...

Again, those apps are under the TV Everywhere section. Just because you don't know what that means isn't Roku's fault. Or anyone's fault, except yours. But now you know. Or, you should know, since we told you. But you sure seem to be one who doesn't want to learn or understand. But that's an option you choose.

Now, if you get rid of the conspiracy nut content in your posts, you make good points for those that are ignorant -- not a slam, simply the word for "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular" -- about the alternative method of TV watching called streaming. But, if you choose to go the tin foil hat route, that's on you. If someone new reads this, perhaps they'll take the valid points in your post and have a better understanding going in. I hope they are able to filter out the nonsense and enjoy their streaming experience.
DBDukes
http://www.dbdukes.com/
Roku Ultra (4660)
Roku Premiere+ (3921)
0 Kudos
ghb51
Level 9

Re: Cable-cutters be advised:

There is a "conspiracy" (collusion is more apt), but it's between local governments and cable, not cable and Roku, Roku (and similar devices) are doing to that collusion what ride sharing did to the taxi/government collusion. And yeah, you can hook up a computer to the tv, but it's not a very convenient option and one most people won't take, so if that were the only choice cable companies wouldn't be threatened, it's the ability to buy a little gadget that's the same size as a usb stick for $30 and stream your content anywhere that threatens cable and will make true a la cate programming a reality in a few years.
0 Kudos
DubTaylor
Level 10

Re: Cable-cutters be advised:

Roku, just like everybody else, excels in misleading information.

Channels listed as Free, may be Free and may be Free to download and install, but you need to pay for those channels to work. So... Free? Kinda yes, and kinda no. The hand is quicker than the eye kinda thing. Then there's the old Free for seven days, but we have your credit card info and you get charged on day 8 - in the fine print. I wonder how many $Millions that's good for each year?

Eventually users get used to this kind of thing and stop installing those Free Channels - because they're not Free if you want to use them. If you just noticed a new charge on your credit card and realize you forgot to cancel that 'service' (running on that fast timer). Probably won't do that again.

New users always bring this up because it seems strange to say one thing and mean something else, but Roku (and plenty of others) is just like The Federal Government in that regard. If it sounds too good to be true - it probably is.

There's no shortage of Roku Apologists ready, willing and able to step up to insult those new users... just so they know where they stand and I see those kind folks have already checked in.

Nothing to see here. A new user noticed the oddity of it all. Said something. Was shot down in flames. End of story.
Bidness as usual.
Move along.
0 Kudos
jeffrok
Level 12

Re: Cable-cutters be advised:

Actually, if the channel description ONLY says "free" and nothing else, it SHOULD be just free, or possibly free with ads.
Yeah, I got some Rokus.
https://youtu.be/d1CSEeqWl10
0 Kudos
DBDukes
Level 10

Re: Cable-cutters be advised:

"DubTaylor" wrote:
...
Channels listed as Free, may be Free and may be Free to download and install, but you need to pay for those channels to work. So... Free? Kinda yes, and kinda no. The hand is quicker than the eye kinda thing. Then there's the old Free for seven days, but we have your credit card info and you get charged on day 8 - in the fine print. I wonder how many $Millions that's good for each year?

In the last couple of years, Roku has modified their channel/app categories so that the "free to download and install" thing isn't really applicable any more. The "free for seven days" thing? Yep. That's still happening with stuff listed in the Free category. However, it does say that in the description. And, yes, I've ended up with being billed because I didn't take the steps to cancel in time. I'm not looking to blame anyone for that, though. Personal responsibility. I'm an adult. I'm not looking to blame Roku, some streaming service, or the boogey man for my error.
"DubTaylor" wrote:
Eventually users get used to this kind of thing and stop installing those Free Channels - because they're not Free if you want to use them. If you just noticed a new charge on your credit card and realize you forgot to cancel that 'service' (running on that fast timer). Probably won't do that again.

Yep. Roku really should have one more category of Free Trials to differentiate fully free (usually ad-supported) from Free To Try. That would be helpful to new users and long-time users alike.
DBDukes
http://www.dbdukes.com/
Roku Ultra (4660)
Roku Premiere+ (3921)
0 Kudos
Vorg
Level 7

Re: Cable-cutters be advised:

Something else very missleading that a lot of sites do to get people to read their articals is start of with a subject  "How to get xyz without cable", or "without paying for cable". But you start reading and you still have to subscribe to _____ to get it or to use what ever channel.
0 Kudos
atc98092
Level 16

Re: Cable-cutters be advised:

"Vorg" wrote:
Something else very missleading that a lot of sites do to get people to read their articals is start of with a subject  "How to get xyz without cable", or "without paying for cable". But you start reading and you still have to subscribe to _____ to get it or to use what ever channel.

Yes, there are many online articles with misleading titles. For example, there are a whole bunch that claim you can install Kodi on a Roku player. No, it can't be done. And when you read the article you see they are only referring to screen mirroring from a computer or smartphone/tablet. That's the good and the bad of the Internet. Anyone can post something, regardless of accuracy. All they need to do is embed enough key phrases and the search bots pick it up and make it available. And I completely agree with you about the ones that claim to get something without paying for it. Same as those infomercials on TV advertising this great little gadget that hooks to your TV to get all these channels for FREE!!!. Guess what, it's a cheap little TV antenna, and unless you have outstanding over the air signals available you won't see anything. And they put in real fine print that it doesn't offer the premium cable channels, where no one with normal eyesight can read it.  :roll:
Dan
Roku Stick (3600), Ultra (4640), Premiere (3920), Insignia 720p Roku TV, Sharp 4K Roku TV, Nvidia Shield, Windows 10 Pro x64 running Serviio and Plex on a wired Gigabit network.
0 Kudos

Re: Cable-cutters be advised:

"atc98092" wrote:
Yes, there are many online articles with misleading titles. 

I've seen articles about how to get a date with Natalie Dormer.  I think I'd fall for that before I'd believe there is any such thing as free television, no matter what anybody's ad copy says.
SoundBridge M500 (retired), PhotoBridge HD1000 rev. B (retired)
Roku 2 XS (retired), Roku XD (retired)
Roku 3 x2, Roku 2, Roku Ultra
0 Kudos