Google Blocking Set Top Boxes From Showing YouTube Unless They Pay Up?
from the evil-is-as-evil-does dept
I'm wondering if there's more to this, because it seems rather "un-Google-like." The makers of a set top box that can display internet content are complaining that Google is blocking them from displaying YouTube content, unless they agree to "partner" and commit to buying lots of ads (the amount is in dispute). If this sounds quite a bit like the ongoing battle between Hulu and Boxee, you might be right. However, in that case, at least you could sort of understand the (misguided) thinking behind it, since Hulu is owned by the colossally short-sighted content companies. But what's Google's excuse? If all these set top boxes are really doing is accessing free internet content and formatting it better for a TV, why stop it? They're really no different than accessing content via a computer and a browser -- it's just that the "computer" is a set top box and the "browser" is formatted for a television. That shouldn't require a special agreement, or any sort of ad buy commitment. Update: Received a confused and angry email from YouTube PR linking us to the very Wired article we linked to and demanding we add their PR statement (which is already in the Wired article). However, it does not actually answer the questions raised or change the point of this post. The fact that YouTube restricts set tops from accessing the content still does not make sense.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: api, blocking, set top boxes, tv, video, youtube
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Warner wouldn't like that. I'm sure they would write such an agreement so that it covered all works, not just their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Color me skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More tech than is necessary?
Oh, probably because the manufacturer wants to lock consumers into a service agreement based on licensed use of the platform, I'd guess. Not satisfied just selling the thing to people and letting them decide what it gets to do. This licensing agreement shit is all just so arbitrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More tech than is necessary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More tech than is necessary?
Why does a set-top box have to be aware that it's a set-top box? Suppose it thinks it's a computer running a browser that happens to be accessing the site at the behest of its user?
"""
Exactly my thoughts: Why does it identify itself as anything other than a vanilla computer running IE or Mozilla? If licensing cr@p really is the answer, I agree with the first replier... Head asplode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Firefox next?
Do no evil? What a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Firefox next?
See here: http://lifehacker.com/5046529/how-to-block-ads-in-google-chrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Firefox next?
http://www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is Firefox next?
Until Google removes it. From the Chrome terms of use:
"20.3 From time to time, Google may discover an extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. Google Chrome will periodically download a list of such extensions from Google’s servers. You agree that Google may remotely disable or remove any such extension from user systems in its sole discretion."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube Works Fine On My Box
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evil is as Evil does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe all is not as it appears
I really do think there is a reason for this that is not clearly or openly SHOWN.
I am currently and never have been a defender of any company that seeks to control us the consumer from getting access to content we are rightfully entitled to.
Google has been a fairly good company at defending the rights of us the people. So I need more information before jumping down their throat about access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe all is not as it appears
Not really, though. True, they rarely initiate policies that are as onerous as ones that many other major corporations do routinely. However, they have a long-established trait of folding like a wet tissue when they get any sort of pressure to engage in anti-people's-rights actions.
Their behavior in China set the tone that has continued unabated ever since.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is evil?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google/YT is getting to be worse than Microsoft/Intel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is an Internet capable set-top box different from a HTPC?
*(Impossible in terms of normal human English. You can draw any distinction you want in law by defining terms correctly. But the law isn't how Google will be judged by their customers in this case)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe google is about to get schooled ....
The solution for this one is, google should embed the ads in the big media videos when set top boxes are detected the same way hulu does. With an overlay during the first 2-5 seconds stating .... "due to lisc agreements with (insert big nasty media company name here) this 1 hour video contains 2, 30 second ads"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft started the same way. There was a time that Microsoft was seen as a good company by many it had entire sections dedicated to solving user problems that is all gone now but history repeats itself.
I like Google for now and use it a lot when they start putting walls is the time to move on to newer services that are still eager to compete and don't feel so confortable and still respect(fear) their costumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a Google User
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm a Google User
Book Deal
Newspaper deals
Settlements with everyone when they sue rather than win as they should
and now this Youtube crap.
very disappointing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone have any experiences? Rather than jump all over youtube, let's see what is actually happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Demanding" you add their PR statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
Yes, the email said that my story was misleading, and that I needed to update it with their statement. They were also upset that I didn't contact them before posting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
Google makes the API available for free to individual users but once you begin commercial use of their API they require you to license it.
I bet if it was just using a web broswer type solution through the set-top box it wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that they want to use the API commerically and not pay google for it. Google has every right to charge for access to their API's when they are commercial. When the services aren't commercial but by an individual user they have every incentive to provide it for free to make as many people developing for their platform. It's an ingenious market strategy that gives Google a large community to develop and test their API by users and then selling access to it to commercial entities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
I don't think anyone is disputing that. The questions are whether or not this is a good idea and what it indicates about the nature of the company.
You have a good point underneath that, though -- it does seem as though people are confusing their web presence with their API services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
To me, the problem here arises from the desire on the part of the manufacturer, the media companies, and the third party software creators to impose a service-plan type model where simply selling the hardware and calling it done would work just fine. If they'd just sell the damn things and forget about the long-term contracts, license agreements and billing cycles, they wouldn't have these problems. There'd be a higher up-front cost to consumers (and woe betide the early adopters), but that's life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
Therefore, since they are asking customers to pay a subscription to access Youtube Google figures "Hey, lets charge them to access YouTube because they are charging the users to access YouTube through our API".
Maybe Google, in it's own and unique way, was actually, gasp, protecting its customers from paying for something that IS free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
So you're just making stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
No, I'm hypothesizing that YouTube is free when accessed by a device that uses a web-browser.
/sarcastic stupidity off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
So lets review.
Making stuff up = you don't know if it's true or not, you don't know that it's true, but you assert it is.
suggesting (or speculating) = you don't know if it's true but you are acknowledging you don't know, you are merely making a suggestion. Nothing wrong with this, it's perfectly fine.
lying = saying something you know is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
Making stuff up (when you know it's wrong) appears to be lying since you are asserting something. Then, making stuff up (when you know it's right) appears to be not lying but just being lucky with truth. Providing doubt (any doubt, to the positive or negative) is suggesting, speculating, betting, hypothesizing, etc. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
BTW, some dude making a blog is often far more educated in far more relevant topics than news media, who tend to only have an education in journalism perhaps. I would much rather listen to some dude making a blog who has a graduate or post graduate degree in the relevant topics they are discussing (ie: bet it economics, computer science, biology, math, etc...) than some lame journalist any day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Demanding" you add their PR statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google do no evil?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pls post the email! totally google-like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey mike...
Would you care to post a copy of your email from the PR rep? Just curious to see what they had to say.
Unless Google can pull some really good reason for this out of their collective @$$, this move has just totally dissuaded me from trading in my Samsung phone for the Droid this December when my contract allows it.
I really hope that this isn't, as many are saying, a sign of things to come. Google has always been good to me and for me, but, I guess times change huh?
Maybe we should all use Bing for a day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey mike...
I'm not going to post the full email, since we don't have permission, to do so, but the subject line said that the article was "misleading" and needed to be "updated with YouTube POV." In the email, it asked why I had not contacted YT, and why there was no "YouTube/Google POV" and then said that it was "bad due diligence and poor journalism" before saying I needed to update the article with the bland PR statement that's already in the Wired article. It then linked to the Wired article suggesting I look at that (even though it was the basis of this very post).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey mike...
... and then said that it was "bad due diligence and poor journalism" before saying I needed to update the article with the bland PR statement that's already in the Wired article."""
Hey, but at least they didn't send a DMCA take-down notice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saints, not Sinners
Google use a dual-licence model. They provide "browser-based" access to their products for free, but charge for commercial API access. This is no different from e.g. Google Maps.
Browser-based access is automatically funded by advertising, but API access is unfunded by default and so commercial users must pay, either in money or by showing ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saints, not Sinners
No. One can watch the videos without agreeing to any licensing terms at all.
Browser-based access is automatically funded by advertising,
How's that? Lots of people filter the ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been waiting for my PCH C-200 NMT to arrive - Google contacted PCH (Syabas) about a week ago and told them to pull Youtube support from the device. This is all right about the time where the above services were enabled on the PS3 using PlayOn - coincidence?
Link to PCH Announcement: http://www.networkedmediatank.com/announcements.php?aid=34
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um, no it wasn't. PlayOn has been around for over a year, supporting all those services. Before that, it was in public beta for several months. Sorry you just noticed, but perhaps you should note that things can exist in the universe without your knowledge. So, it is neither conspiracy nor coincidence. It is a non-event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
RE: Syabas/Youtube
Source
The reason there’s no deal, according to Syabas COO Alex Limberis, is that YouTube demanded a multimillion-dollar advertising commitment in return for permission to display its videos on televisions through the Popcorn Hour A-110 and C-200 set-top boxes.
“YouTube mentioned that they are only going to work with ’strategic partners,’ ” Limberis told Wired.com. “When asked what it would take to become a strategic partner, they said we would need to spend ‘multiple seven figures’ with them on advertising.”
So it's money, pure and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I put my laptop on top
Now what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watch youtube on computer for free
no youtube video on set top TV.
really stupid,evil,and lame of google.
then again now we can see their true face and it is the same one that others we hate wear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Net Neutrality?
Only when it's good for Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its only fair
The broadcaster earns money out of something that is free ... thats not fair ... why would google spend money to the loss making youtube so that some broadcaster can make money ...
if the STB broadcasters provide free service , then i think youtube should be free ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]