> $35/month.
With Ads? Ouch, NO.
YouTube TV
71–80 of 292 posts
Re: YouTube TV
#72"NBA Basketball on Fox Sports Regional Networks" - Would this would be a bit of a coup for YouTube? My regional sports network doesn't have any streaming options; not sure if other markets are more liberal with this.
Also, that wording...are they getting the whole regional network or just the NBA basketball?
Re: YouTube TV
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely agree. Maybe 10 times a year I watch live TV, otherwise I want to choose a show and binge on episodes on demand. Unfortunately, the legal situation around licensing I think allows for "unlimited DVR" but not actually just an on-demand episode list. You have to setup your "own" recording of the episode, and your bits can be stored in the cloud for you. I'm not sure even if de-duplicating the bits runs into…
last time I've had this conversation with cable execs, it was explained to me that even just de-duping the bits does in fact run into trouble. They have to store a complete copy for you, for your personal use.
Capitol v. MP3Tunes suggests deduplication is a-okay.
Re: YouTube TV
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
No kidding. The moment I saw the zip code requirement I knew it was going to be pointless. Not only that but $35? Come on. There's not $35 worth of programming there. It's just the same old dumbed down broadcast TV that has been in decline for over a decade. Compared to Netflix, Amazon, and even YouTube shows ABC, NBC, Fox et al just plain suck. As proof, after watching an awesome trailer for some new sci-fi show you…
Maybe I'm odd but Jeopardy and local news without a TV would be worth $35.
At $35/mo, after 1 year you'll have spent $420. You can get a decent sized TV and an antenna for less than that, and enjoy free news/Jeopardy for many years afterwards.
Re: YouTube TV
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't even imagine how some kind of "unified google media" thing would work. It's quite simple. Pay more than a few services (but not as much as all of them together) and get access to all of them. The concept isn't really hard at all. You can go a step further and give increasing discounts the more services you add if you don't want one package deal. You guys already do it for Youtube Red/Google Play Music. It's…
Right, but from my perspective as a consumer, at least right now, the only service I'm even remotely interested in is YTTV, and the reverse would be even worse. If I didn't want the YTTV package, there's no way I'd pay $40/mo for play music or whatever. A la carte models are a lot more efficient, the reason I don't like cable (and comcast) is because of bundled services, why on earth would I want to move to another,…
Sure, but that's you. Another person who subscribes to Youtube Red and Youtube TV and would be more inclined to get a package.
Nobody is advocating taking a la carte away, but packages are known to increase profits because people are going to think "oh I can pay only X more and get Y" instead of evaluating each item individually.
Amazon, for example, has done a great job of balancing between Prime, which is a package subscription, and a la carte subscriptions and addons. You get a Prime music library, and can pay extra to get access to a larger music library, or pay a different price if you don't subscribe to Prime.
Re: YouTube TV
#76When am I going to be able to choose my channels on an individual, channel by channel basis, and then receive a total cost based on those channels?
If I want ONLY the Science channel, then I should be able to purchase JUST the science channel for like, $5/mo.
Re: YouTube TV
#77> $35/month That's a series chunk of coin for something that you can get for free with an antennae. I wonder how much of that is licensing. It's got to be a huge chunk of it. Also, who watches any of those crap channels anyway?!
"free with an antennae" ... You can get ESPN, ShowTime, FXX via antennae?
ShowTime is extra on top of the $35, and I don't see any other channels on the page that aren't OTA in my area (where'd you see ESPN?).
Re: YouTube TV
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
"free with an antennae" ... You can get ESPN, ShowTime, FXX via antennae?
ShowTime is extra on top of the $35, and I don't see any other channels on the page that aren't OTA in my area (where'd you see ESPN?).
The blog post had logos for several cable sports and news channels (and a few other cable channels) that are not available by broadcast.
Re: YouTube TV
#79Being asked for a zip code shows that not even youtube is able to change the old broadcasting business model. The day will come when TV streaming businesses takes over and removes the virtual location barriers set by the industry.
Why would I pay $35 a month to stream broadcast channels that are freely available in HD over the air in my area? It's one thing if they provided something like Netflix. But it's absolutely bonkers that they're selling what is already a free resource. What's the value-add?
Maybe read the blog post first before commenting?
https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...
Re: YouTube TV
#80> $35/month That's a series chunk of coin for something that you can get for free with an antennae. I wonder how much of that is licensing. It's got to be a huge chunk of it. Also, who watches any of those crap channels anyway?!
"free with an antennae" ... You can get ESPN, ShowTime, FXX via antennae?
The only content on the page says, "Stream ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC & more."
While "& more" could include anything, I'm going going to assume it doesn't include any of those or they'd be listed. At the very least they'd put ESPN as that's the big one for people cutting the cord and wanting to watch live sports.