Roku Developer Program

[EnTerr]

"TheEndless" wrote:

"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.

Wait, who are you arguing with here? It ain't me - i already said other app stores have analogous terms. Twice, even.
And it's not @firedup, since he said - right above, quote by you - "ToS allows Roku to block developers at will... It's no big deal"
You can have a soapbox and repeat the same but please don't address to me or him - that's preaching to the choir. 😉

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.

Repeating myself: "legal issues" is addressed by much weaker and narrower contract language. Kindly, please don't wave that red herring again and again.

[TheEndless]

"firedup" wrote:
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

I wrote the Food Network Nighttime channel, and it was pulled at the request (DMCA complaint) of Scripps Networks. Scripps contacted Roku about it, and Roku forwarded the legal complaint to me, asking me to take it down.
The same happened with my HGTV channel, my TV.com channel, and my Onion News Network channel. All requests to have them removed/crippled (in the case of ONN) were accompanied by the request from the content owners' legal counsel. None were pulled, because Roku made the decision to pull them on their own.

"EnTerr" wrote:
Wait, who are you arguing with here? It ain't me - i already said other app stores have analogous terms. Twice, even.
And it's not @firedup, since he said - right above, quote by you - "ToS allows Roku to block developers at will... It's no big deal"
You can have a soapbox and repeat the same but please don't address to me or him - that's preaching to the choir.

I was addressing the part where firedup referred to "more open platforms with more developer friendly ToS" and Roku's need to "loosen up their ToS" and where you said "I agree with this," by pointing out that there's even more severe language in the ToS of (at least one of) the other platforms being referenced. If you were only agreeing to the "open up their platform" part, then consider yourself excused from the argument.. 😉

"EnTerr" wrote:

"TheEndless" wrote:
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.

Repeating myself: "legal issues" is addressed by much weaker and narrower contract language. Kindly, please don't wave that red herring again and again.

Ok, replace "legal" with "unforeseen" which is what the sentence said when I originally typed it, before I went back and changed it (probably subconsciously just to spite you :P). The point still stands that the clause is there (in my opinion) for CYA purposes, not to give them the power to pull your app because it competes with something they plan to release, which again, is what the OP was suggesting.