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

141–150 of 292 posts

Re: YouTube TV

#141

Post by dragonwriter »

hysan wrote: post #104
VikingCoder wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I kind of assumed that at $35/month, there were no ads. You have to skip them? Seems to me that YouTube wants to have its cake and eat it too.

It's basic cable with unlimited DVR, but bring-your-own data pipe.

Re: YouTube TV

#142

Post by dragonwriter »

kristofferR wrote: post #86

"Unlimited cloud DVR" seems really pointless. Why not just save everything, as it airs, in a central archive that the users can browse at their leisure instead? It also seems to mean that you can't rewind channels you weren't watching, that you manually have to record stuff yourself. Really backwards of Google if my assumptions are correct. It seems weird that Google aren't able to create/negotiate something relevant…

> "Unlimited cloud DVR" seems really pointless. Why not just save everything, as it airs, in a central archive that the users can browse at their leisure instead?

Even if that's what they actually do, "unlimited DVR in the cloud" may be a more accessible way of presenting that to an audience familiar with cable TV.

Re: YouTube TV

#143

Post by chadgeidel »

andrewguenther wrote: post #120
youdontknowtho wrote: post #116

I'm just not seeing 35$ a month worth of value. Sit coms? Get a grip, man. I feel like they should pay me to watch them. TV is a wasteland. Some cable channels are pretty good. SciFi, Comdey Central, sometimes FX. (I don't like giving money to Fox, but Always Sunny is the funniest thing ever made.) If they had a way to pick channels and only pay for those, that would be worth looking at. EDIT: Do you still have to wa…

You can't bash on sitcoms and call SyFy "pretty good." In my opinion, half the stuff in SyFy is worse than sitcoms.

SyFy has really upped their game in the past year or so. The Expanse, Killjoys, and The Magicians are good TV.

Re: YouTube TV

#144

Post by dragonwriter »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #41
colinbartlett wrote: post #6

Is this similar to Direct TV Now[1]? Both of these services seem like an interesting step forward, but then, who really wants to watch live TV anymore, besides sports fans? The whole idea of watching something at a specific time that it's aired just seems unimaginable to me after years of on demand streaming. Not to mention commercial breaks. 1. https://directvnow.com/

>Is this similar to Direct TV Now[1]? DirectTV Now is $70 a month. They'll probably never compete against streaming only services because they need to be at a pricepoint that doesn't destroy their conventional satellite business. Google's offering is half that. I imagine its going to have less channels. Considering Playstation Vue's selection, I guess we'll see how well they can compete.

> DirectTV Now is $70 a month. They'll probably never compete against streaming only services because they need to be at a pricepoint that doesn't destroy their conventional satellite business.

Why? Their part of AT&T, if they reinforce AT&T's fixed wired and mobile value proposition more than enough to make up for the satellite business, there's no reason AT&T couldn't accept that cost. As it is, they are already competing with other AT&T offerings.

Re: YouTube TV

#145

Post by dragonwriter »

throwaway287391 wrote: post #115
bearcobra wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The screenshots show channels like ESPN, USA, and FXX.

Kind of bizarre that they decided to highlight the free OTA networks most prominently in their marketing, when it's actually a cable replacement (or at least a partial one).

Local channel content (even when the network content is available) are something missing on many OTT services, so it makes sense to highlight that as a selling point.

Re: YouTube TV

#146

Post by dragonwriter »

Nexxxeh wrote: post #112
koolba wrote: post #67

> $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?!

That's for 6 simultaneous logins. Potentially that's <$6 per person. That's a lot of DVRs.

Or a lot of connections to a shared pile of cloud-hosted data, more likely, with "DVR" as just a UI metaphor.

Re: YouTube TV

#147

Post by chadgeidel »

shirro wrote: post #100

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.

I would - just for sports. My family subscribes to Netflix, HBO, Hulu (with Showtime), and YouTube Red and I still don't get live sports. I'd drop Hulu+Showtime (~$17) and YouTube Red (~$10). I'll be paying more, but then I'll get all NBCSN and Fox Sports which covers most of the motorsports I'm interested in.

Re: YouTube TV

#148

Post by dragonwriter »

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,…

> Plus you've only handled the subscription portion, even if somehow we fix that. Where do I view this content? Is there a unified media dashboard that connects to 3 parts of youtube, play, and such?

Why does there need to be? YouTube Red/Google Play Music All Access are combined in one subscription, but YouTube itself has a really large number of Google-provided front ends (just for apps, off the top of my head, there is YT, YT Music, YT Kids.) And Google Play Music has its own app, which also.links to video content in YT.

Re: YouTube TV

#149

Post by dragonwriter »

IanDrake wrote: post #118
bitmapbrother wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Cable only channels in addition to OTA channels 2. Unlimited DVR 3. 6 accounts to possibly share.

Thanks. I missed point 1 and 3. Point 2 has almost no value these days unless you don't have Hulu/Amazon/Netflix, which I guess some people don't. I watched commercial TV for the first time in a few years the other day and lost interest in what I was watching because of it. I don't think I can go back now.

> Point 2 has almost no value these days unless you don't have Hulu/Amazon/Netflix, which I guess some people don't.

A lot of their content is from sources that aren't on Hulu, Amazon, or Netflix (or which are on one or more of those with a significant delay), so DVR is still valuable.

Re: YouTube TV

#150

Post by faceyspacey »

I really don't understand--those channels are free with an HD antenna. I don't know if this is possible anymore, but those channels used to be free through your cable cord, even without a cable box. ABC, fox, nbc, and cbs are free. Why pay $35 just to remove adds.

Are they including, AMC, MTV, etc? I don't think so or they would say so.

Ps. This is a serious question. Please someone help me understand how they are charging for free channels just to drop their ads (presumably)?

Post reply on HN