Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube TV

tv.youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 292 posts

Re: YouTube TV

#91

Post by fryguy »

joshuamorton wrote: post #45
mynameisvlad wrote: post #29

Earlier 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,…

Think about it this way. Netflix wanted to separate their DVD and streaming into separate companies, so there would be different websites for each. Consumers complained about that so much that they changed their mind and stayed with one. If Google/YouTube started with a single product and broken it out like it is now, people I think would rightly complain.

I think the most egregious thing is music, rather than YouTube Red or this service itself. There's Google Play where you can buy music, Google Play Music where you can subscribe like Spotify, and YouTube Red also includes unlimited music on top of the shows on Red but is somehow different than Google Play Music. I guess what I would suggest if I had any say in things is just killing the Google Play Music and Google Play Movie/TV brands, and moving the content to YouTube and maybe integrating YouTube into the Google Play app on phones. YouTube already has movies, so it would just be a matter of making the music and live streaming part of it more visible on the home page. I don't see any links to them on my front page.

Re: YouTube TV

#94

Post by jclardy »

atomicUpdate wrote: post #74
flycaliguy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think his point was being able to watch them without using a TV and antenna.

I don't see why you would pay $35 a month though when you could get something like an HDHomerun and plug an antenna up to it. Or use an antenna, digital tuner and capture card and wire up your own solution.

The only advantage I see of YTTV is ESPN, so for some people that is probably enough to justify it.

Re: YouTube TV

#95

Post by Tiksi »

halayli wrote: post #15

Being 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.

My guess is they're asking for a zip code to see in which areas there's enough demand to negotiate with local news stations. I know a few people that only keep cable because of the local news stations.

Re: YouTube TV

#96

Post by crispytx »

Seems like a pretty steep price to watch network television. As a cord-cutter, I think its a great idea because you can't get the networks with SlingTV, and TV antennas suck. But yeah, I'm not going to pay $35 for network television. I'll just keep using my shitty antenna.

Re: YouTube TV

#97

Post by [deleted] »

flycaliguy wrote: post #65
riskable wrote: post #32

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube TV

#98

Post by elif »

VikingCoder wrote: post #59
riskable wrote: post #32

Earlier 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…

At $35 per month, and since I can skip all ads... That might be something. (The Verge confirms you can skip ads [1].) And the DVR forever thing... That might be very nice, especially if they put up tons of old stuff... Plus, NOT paying my cable provider is worth a lot. ...and if this offers a way to Download content to my phone, to watch offline...? [1] http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming...

AT&T's version of this, which coincidentally also costs $35/mo includes all the ads.

Re: YouTube TV

#99

Post by untog »

riskable wrote: post #32
halayli wrote: post #15

Being 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.

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…

Judging by how much people currently pay for cable, there is more than $35/mo worth of programming there. Perhaps not to you, but that just means you aren't the customer for this product.

> As proof, after watching an awesome trailer for some new sci-fi show you may be totally pumped up to watch it until at the end when they announce, "only on ABC!"

Legion is pretty good. Legion is on FX. FX is on YouTube TV. To be honest I'm struggling to come up with too many recent sci-fi shows that don't entirely suck, irrespective of where they're being made.

Re: YouTube TV

#100

Post by shirro »

Why would anyone want to pay $35 per month to access tired old ad supported programming when they can get subscriptions from 3 streaming services for that price.
Post reply on HN