Roku Developer Program

[TheEndless]

"firedup" wrote:

"TheEndless" wrote:
Regardless, neither VideoBuzz nor PlayOn were pulled because Roku wanted to release a competing product, which is what mtoto was suggesting that clause in the developer's agreement was for.

Why was PlayOn targeted?

I don't know (only Roku and PlayOn do), but I suspect it was because their primary marketing was/is centered around making content (that they don't own the rights to) that isn't licensed for viewing on certain devices, available on those devices (e.g., Hulu free). Not only was their timing bad (releasing the private Roku channel not long after Roku had announced that Hulu Plus was coming to the device), but they also went out of their way to circumvent the removal of their channel, not only by re-publishing it, but also releasing the source code and providing detailed instructions on their website encouraging their users to publish their own copies of the private channel. You may not have been here when all of that went down, but I was, and I'm talking about what I witnessed first-hand the day the channel was published, that night when it was pulled, and the following days (I have no life), not the baseless speculation that has since overrun the forum on the subject.

[firedup]

"TheEndless" wrote:
I don't know (only Roku and PlayOn do), but I suspect...

I suspect it was because PlayOn was free and Mediamall charged for the server/service depriving Roku of revenue while providing a LOT of compelling content which would compete with content for which Roku received a portion of the proceeds.

I don't know that either. Regardless, the ToS is designed to allow Roku to block channels for any reason. It may take an aggressive interpretation to use the ToS that way, but channels have disappeared with no better explanation. To say that Roku acted because something was 'secret' doesn't wash. PlayOn was a private channel. Most of us don't care about or even read ToS. Lawyers don't write 'sloppy' contracts. The Roku ToS was carefully crafted by lawyers to allow Roku to block/ban channels for any reason.

BTW, Roku DID take extraordinary measures to block Videobuzz. They password protected the sideload function immediately after VB made it easy for nondevelopers to sideload their app.

[kc8pql]

^ You're wrong. Playon came along at exactly the same time the Hulu channel arrived. The story is much like Videobuzz,
most likely a DMCA complaint from Hulu.
Here's one of several threads from that time period if you'd care to look around the archive to see for yourself what happened.
There are other threads around that time as well: http://forums.roku.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=33348#p210813
Also note that scyber had been developing his own PlayOn channel before the "Official" version came along:
viewtopic.php?t=32597#p203376

[firedup]

"kc8pql" wrote:
^ You're wrong...most likely a DMCA complaint from Hulu.

Your speculation is no better substantiated than mine. PlayOn continues to be 'unsued' and available on the Roku. Ditto Whatson. Ditto for fee apps re-steaming broadcast channels. The ToS allows Roku to block developers at will. That is the observation of OP. It's no big deal. There is risk in investing in Roku development. Businesses deal with risk all the time.

To (presumptuously) finish OP's question, why would one begin to develop for a closed platform, with a proprietary scripting language, and developer unfriendly ToS when one can develop apps with more standard tools which can be sideloaded without restriction to more open platforms with more developer friendly ToS.

Getting on an inexpensive, widely installed platform is a good reason today, and was a very good reason a year ago, but a developer choosing a platform to develop for the future will see both of those advantages fade. Roku should open up their platform and loosen up their ToS.

[mtoto]

Roku should open up their platform and loosen up their ToS.

Here him! ..and act quickly!

After a bit more investigation we have decided not to invest in porting any of our applications to roku. We could have put up with the proprietory environment but not the current T&C.

IMO the window of oportunity is closing fast for roku. If they open up and try to provide the _best_ T&C for apps then roku might stand a chance, if they don't they will shortly be flattened by the onslaught of android platforms - which would be a genuine shame.

Thankyou for all your responses.

[EnTerr]

"firedup" wrote:
The ToS allows Roku to block developers at will. That is the observation of OP. It's no big deal. There is risk in investing in Roku development. Businesses deal with risk all the time.

To (presumptuously) finish OP's question, why would one begin to develop for a closed platform, with a proprietary scripting language, and developer unfriendly ToS when one can develop apps with more standard tools which can be sideloaded without restriction to more open platforms with more developer friendly ToS.

Getting on an inexpensive, widely installed platform is a good reason today, and was a very good reason a year ago, but a developer choosing a platform to develop for the future will see both of those advantages fade. Roku should open up their platform and loosen up their ToS.

I agree with this. With FireTV and AndroidTV this year opening "for realz" the flood gates of Android apps to TV streamers, Roku's only hope to hold position is to open player to native apps. But I am afraid they may drag feet till AppleTV opens for iOS apps... and by then it will be "game over".

But @firedup, please don't dig on PlayOn and VideoBuzz any more in this thread, it detracts from the main topic towards the fringes.

[destruk]

Why would I start developing a channel? Because you want to. You are only posting this thread to find excuses to not develop a channel. I don't think anyone cares if you make a channel or not - so it has to be your decision.

[TheEndless]

"EnTerr" wrote:

"firedup" wrote:
The ToS allows Roku to block developers at will. That is the observation of OP. It's no big deal. There is risk in investing in Roku development. Businesses deal with risk all the time.

To (presumptuously) finish OP's question, why would one begin to develop for a closed platform, with a proprietary scripting language, and developer unfriendly ToS when one can develop apps with more standard tools which can be sideloaded without restriction to more open platforms with more developer friendly ToS.

Getting on an inexpensive, widely installed platform is a good reason today, and was a very good reason a year ago, but a developer choosing a platform to develop for the future will see both of those advantages fade. Roku should open up their platform and loosen up their ToS.

I agree with this. With FireTV and AndroidTV this year opening "for realz" the flood gates of Android apps to TV streamers, Roku's only hope to hold position is to open player to native apps. But I am afraid they may drag feet till AppleTV opens for iOS apps... and by then it will be "game over".

You might want to read through the Amazon "APP DISTRIBUTION AND SERVICES AGREEMENT" (https://developer.amazon.com/public/support/legal/da).. they not only have similar language in their agreement that includes using their "discretion to make any App available", but they also have a clause that grants them the right to "modify and add to your Apps so that we can collect analytics relating to the Apps, evaluate and enforce our Program policies, and share aggregated information with you and others regarding the Program". The latter is a much scarier proposition to me.

All platform development agreements are going to include language that allows them to pull an app at their discretion. Without it, they open themselves up to any number of legal issues.

[mtoto]

"destruk" wrote:
Why would I start developing a channel? Because you want to. You are only posting this thread to find excuses to not develop a channel. I don't think anyone cares if you make a channel or not - so it has to be your decision.

What I want has little to do with my questions here, and I certainly am not looking for excuses not to develop apps. We consider 10m roku owners to be a small but high value prospect. Some people did care enough to spend just under 7mE with us last year. And yes, it is indeed my decision. As already stated we won't be porting our front ends to roku at present ...for now we will continue to enhance our web and android front ends.

I want Roku to succeed! I want more open tv app platforms not less! I want to develop for roku!

It just needs Roku to want this as well!

[firedup]

"EnTerr" wrote:
But @firedup, please don't dig on PlayOn and VideoBuzz any more in this thread, it detracts from the main topic towards the fringes.

The only reason I did (and I'm done with this topic), is that these apps were developed, accepted, and later removed. There were others -- Food Network comes to mind -- but those generated a lot of discussion and debate and resulted in unequal application of the ToS -- which is what OP was talking about. Videobuzz gets removed, banned, and blocked but Whatson and Playon do not. You have to use specific examples on these forums. Otherwise people pretend things didn't happen.

I think we've beaten this dead horse sufficiently.