Roku Tries Its Hand at Extortion, Fails Miserably

[Roswell]

 

 

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/30/21116163/roku-super-bowl-fox-sports-channels-apps-email

 

Quote

If you were hoping to watch the Super Bowl on your Roku TV or set-top box, I hope you don’t mind paying for streaming services like FuboTV, Sling or Hulu, because your existing cable subscription is no good as of today — Roku is pulling all of its Fox apps off of the platform, effective tomorrow, two days before the Big Game.

 

That might strike you as sudden, considering we reported this very morning that Fox Sports was working hard to bring a 4K HDR stream of the Super Bowl to Roku’s streaming sticks, pucks, and TVs. But minutes ago, Fox Sports removed references to Roku from multiple spots on its Super Bowl website, and we’ve now confirmed with Roku that seven channels in total are leaving... unless Fox and Roku strike a deal.

 

You see, this isn’t an arbitrary move, or even a technical issue — it’s a carriage dispute between the two companies, Roku tells The Verge. Roku and Fox have a distribution agreement set to expire tomorrow. “We offered Fox an extension... if an agreement is not reached, we’ll be forced to remove the channels,” a company representative says.

 

So Roku decided to send out email all of their users to let them know that they were pulling 7 different FOX apps from customer devices the next day (they gave about 8 hours notice). This was the first that anyone heard of such a thing, it came out of nowhere, days before the Super Bowl. Many people rely on the FOX app for sports since it's usable without a cable subscription. Roku continued on to make a statement saying that this was due to a "carriage dispute" between the companies. However, FOX quickly, and angrily released their own statement:

 

Quote

 

Roku’s threat to delete FOX apps from its customers’ devices is a naked effort to use its customers as pawns. To be clear, FOX has not asked Roku to remove our apps, and we would prefer Roku continue to make them available without interruption. Roku’s tactics are a poorly timed negotiating ploy, fabricating a crisis with no thought for the alarm it generated among its own customers. Even if Roku unilaterally decides to remove FOX apps, savvy Roku customers know Super Bowl LIV on FOX will be ubiquitously available through streaming providers, FOX apps on the biggest streaming platforms and our website. Only Roku can pull apps from its customers’ devices, and we would urge them to stop the intimidation tactics and reconsider the merits of irritating their best customers in pursuit of Roku’s own interests.

Roku told us that it would be “forced to remove the channels” if an agreement is not reached, but Fox says that’s false; it’s entirely Roku’s decision.

 

Well, turns out that FOX called their bluff and didn't cave to their demands. Thus, we have the last second "Hey guys, sorry! We're going to delete all of our FOX apps in a few hours, good luck!" email.

 

It quickly becomes clear that Roku attempted what basically amounts to extortion, using the Super Bowl and its customer base as leverage. They then went on to make a statement which was intended to deceive, as if it was a two-sided dispute/negotiation. It wasn't. To be clear, ROKU isn't a cable company and doesn't need to pay FOX for streaming rights. They're seemingly attempting to extract money from FOX in return for letting FOX have their app on Roku's platform. This is quite interesting as it goes against nearly all known history between platforms and their developers. 

 

 

 

My take:

 

Not exactly sure why they would do this, they must have known FOX would reply, debunking the narrative.That said, it's pretty abhorrent for a company to not only drop a bomb like this with only 8 hours notice, but also to do it just days before the US's largest TV event of the year. They know exactly what they're doing, they're using their enormous customer base as a bargaining chip to squeeze money out of a network because THEY KNOW that it would generate a whole buttload of bad press for FOX.

 

I'm also disappointed that this type of behavior is bleeding over from the cable industry into the streaming industry where it really has little to no place.

[Bombastinator]

So what the headline said except the exact opposite, it’s FOX.

 

this does seem to be a theme with news here.

[Roswell]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

So what the headline said except the exact opposite.  It’s not rok I, it’s FOX.

It's Roku. Fox isn't asking for money, they just develop their Roku apps and put them on the platform.

[Samfisher]

3 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

It's Roku. Fox isn't asking for money, they just develop their Roku apps and put them on the platform.

The licensing ends today/tomorrow so what difference does that make?  Roku won't have access to Fox content if Fox doesn't work with them to get a new agreement going.  Pulling the app or not makes no difference.  You wouldn't be getting Fox content anyway.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

It's Roku. Fox isn't asking for money, they just develop their Roku apps and put them on the platform.

Heh. Except roku  offered them an extension and they refused it.  The implication is that roku is holding them over a barrel when it’s the opposite.

[mr moose]

I don't see how roku is the one trying to black mail here, it seems they don't have anything to hold for ransom..

[Roswell]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Heh. Except roku  offered them an extension and they refused it.  The implication is that roku is holding them over a barrel when it’s the opposite.

Well, that's the point. They seemingly fabricated the "extension". Fox clearly said that they're not the ones requesting the channels be pulled and that they're happy to leave them there for people to use. 

[Bombastinator]

Just now, Vitamanic said:

Well, that's the point. They seemingly fabricated the "extension". Fox clearly said that they're not the ones requesting the channels be pulled and that they're happy to leave them there for people to use. 

Heh.  Without the only thing anyone ever really wanted to watch on them.

[Roswell]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I don't see how roku is the one trying to black mail here, it seems they don't have anything to hold for ransom..

Roku takes a cut of ad supported content. They advertised extensively that they would be one of the only places to stream the Super Bowl in 4K. They then try to set a deadline days before said event and use it as leverage. Fox said nope and Roku threw a hissy fit taking down all of Fox's apps and tried to spin it saying that Fox declined an extension, which it seems is false.

[Roswell]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Heh.  Without the only thing anyone ever really wanted to watch on them.

If the apps remain, they would be functional. Roku can't control what apps serve.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Roku takes a cut of ad supported content. They advertised extensively that they would be one of the only places to stream the Super Bowl in 4K. They then try to set a deadline days before said event and use it as leverage. Fox said nope and Roku threw a hissy fit taking down all of Fox's apps and tried to spin it saying that Fox declined an extension, which it seems is false.

 

So what are they using for blackmale?   if they don't own the rights to the content and only make a cut from it then they never had any control to begin with.   I don't even know if there is an issue here, but if there is it looks more like foxtell holds the cards and makes the demands not the other way around.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

If the apps remain, they would be functional. Roku can't control what apps serve.

..and that is what they call a duck and weave.  I stand by my statement.  I’m not blaming roku. 

[Derangel]

8 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Well, that's the point. They seemingly fabricated the "extension". Fox clearly said that they're not the ones requesting the channels be pulled and that they're happy to leave them there for people to use. 

 

Fox saying they didn't ask the apps to be removed is not them saying that the extension is fabricated. Those are two entirely separate things. Also, if they have a licensing agreement in place then they would have to remove or deactivate the services once it expires. This happens all the time with cable companies and the channels always make themselves out to be the victim when they never are. Fox ALWAYS plays the victim card and throws a temper tantrum when a company dares to ask for more money for a licensing agreement. This is despite the fact that Fox Sports is massive and brings in a ton of money. Roku are dicks for only alerting people a few hours before the apps were pulled, but that doesn't absolve Fox.

[Kilrah]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So what are they using for blackmale?  

Seems they just want to turn the agreement they have with Fox more into their favor, and to that purpose are trying to screw their customers into being angry at Fox if they don't cave in instead of them - but it obviously doesn't exactly go as planned.

[AdmiralMeowmix]

"Fox didnt agree on an extension so its on them"

The issue with this logic is that it's entirely based upon a lie. Roku claimed it was a carriage dispute but Fox was more than ready to renew any actual extension of agreement and to let them host their app. The issue was Roku decided to demand more money from Fox. The term "strike a deal" is used and that in the industry implies Roku is wanting greater compensation for hosting Fox's apps or they're wanting more compensation than they have been given and Fox noticed their timing and likely raise of cost to be too coincidental. The announcement was too sudden, there had likely not been any actual long term negotiation behind the scenes until that point. Likely Roku sending in a demand for more money and Fox refusal, once the refusal hit instead of negotiating Roku pulled in the consumers as leverage against Fox. Roku decided to use the big game that will air in 4K HDR for the first time ever to try and extort Fox hoping they'd be desperate enough to get that content out there to make money that they'd accept a deal. Fox was smart and refused the extortion and will likely take its apps elsewhere.

 

This is entirely on Roku for trying to exploit a MASSIVE upcoming event for profit at the cost of the consumers. I can tell you right now it isn't a mistake or coincidence that this happened before one of the biggest money makers for Fox. Thing is it would be a massive money maker for Roku too due to ad space but they likely wanted to try and squeeze more out of Fox because of it being "the first 4k HDR super bowl". Negotiations on a deadline happen more often than not weeks in advance or at maximum a week in advance if a company believes it'll go by quick. NO ONE would wait until *days* before to try and negotiate and when refused go public about it. The timing isn't coincidental, it'd be *insane* of Roku to decide to demand negotiation THIS CLOSE to super bowl sunday.

Fox likely has some blame as I'm sure thew broadcast will cause Roku's servers to be used HEAVILY but Roku should also already have a way to profit in ad space for it anyways and if not then it's on them for that. It's Roku wanting more money on a surely justifiable reason at a glance but it's them trying to offset costs onto the app provider which is still scummy to do in any industry where you already have an agreed or fixed rate. It'd be as if Steam decided that it'd pull all of the batman games from its store unless the publisher or developers paid them extra money to keep it there outside of an actual copyright dispute that tends to only happen to copyrighted games made by dead studios. It's an extortion method thats scummy for business and scummy for the consumer when something like this happens on such short sudden notice. If it was say two weeks maybe a week in a half at the earliest of an announcement then I doubt it'd be suspicious but the timing is just too damn coincidental to be a coincidence.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Seems they just want to turn the agreement they have with Fox more into their favor, and to that purpose are trying to screw their customers into being angry at Fox if they don't cave in instead of them - but it obviously doesn't exactly go as planned.

That's not blackmail or extortion, that's basically the chess equivalent of throwing the pawn at the queen because you don't have any other pieces left.   They have nothing to bargain with, their services are clearly not important to foxtell, at least not in any measurable way.  How big are Roku by comparison, is this David and Goliath but David only has words left to argue with?    

[Kilrah]

Yep, pretty much seems like someone threw a fit and engaged in a losing fight.

[Dabombinable]

Roku...don't they make those very shitty Telstra TV things? From the completely pointless tiny dome thing to the slightly less pointless rounded square slab?

[vanished]

Reminds me of when Google and Amazon were bickering and lacked each others' apps for a time as a result.  If you use these sort of devices you have to acknowledge and accept the risks and issues that come with that, this being one of them.  You do not control it, it, and the company behind it, controls you.  I have always recommended that people base their home theatre setup on an impartial platform which lacks both a reason and (more importantly) even the ability to be impacted by nonsense such as this through which you can access each content provider's material directly, thus avoiding the possibility of another company that doesn't like them standing in your way.  This recommendation still stands.

[Bombastinator]

The way I see it is there a bunch of home users and bars and stuff that bought rokus because they were supposed to be able to display the Super Bowl.  They are going to be screwed.  The question is who is doing the screwing?  FOX or roku?  The implication of the title is that it is roku.  The implication of the body copy is that it is FOX.  Who is screwed does not change though.   

[Commodus]

Makes me glad to have an Apple TV.... guess whose media box can still play the Super Bowl? 

[Donut417]

Just want to point out that you can watch it on OTA tv. So......... there are other options. For those who care. 

[Brooksie359]

19 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The way I see it is there a bunch of home users and bars and stuff that bought rokus because they were supposed to be able to display the Super Bowl.  They are going to be screwed.  The question is who is doing the screwing?  FOX or roku?  The implication of the title is that it is roku.  The implication of the body copy is that it is FOX.  Who is screwed does not change though.   

Probably both tbh. 

[Bombastinator]

19 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Just want to point out that you can watch it on OTA tv. So......... there are other options. For those who care. 

OTA is not possible in a lot of places, and it’s not hi Rez.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Probably both tbh. 

I don’t know.  I’m tempted to suspect it’s fox based on behavior of roku up to this point.   It matters little to me personally.  I’m not a football fan.  If I was a bar owner who bought a roku I’d be scrambling though.  This seems to be more about who’s name the bar owner should be cursing. 
 

Some entities counting on the thing to work for them come Super Bowl Sunday are going to be very angry.  I suspect a lawsuit will be filed.  The courts should in theory sort things out.  
 

The most interesting bit so far in this thread is the Apple TV comment.  If it in fact would work, (which would need to be confirmed) if I was a bar owner I’d be making my way toward an Apple store before it sells out of the things.