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

161–170 of 292 posts

Re: YouTube TV

#161

Post by veridies »

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…

I know this is off topic, but I really disagree about the quality of broadcast TV. Hannibal and The Good Place are both beautifully shot, very distinctive, and highly ambitious, and both came out of NBC. Speechless is on ABC, and while it's a pretty by the book family sitcom, I still think it's funnier than anything else on right now.

Re: YouTube TV

#162

Post by ryan-allen »

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.

Or a usb TV receiver for less than $100, watch it on ya 'pooter!

Re: YouTube TV

#164

Post by res0nat0r »

kevincennis wrote: post #136

Former Aereo engineer here. First off, there are really two main reasons for someone not to have a cable subscription: 1. They don't care about the content 2. Price sensitivity At Aereo, we saw these sort of mix together to create hugely elastic demand. For a while, we offered a $1 "day pass" that would give you access to live TV for 24 hours at a time. During the Super Bowl and various award shows, we had crazy numb…

I see commercials constantly lately for SlingTV which starts around $20-35 a month so it seems like things are working so far.

Re: YouTube TV

#165

Post by khedoros1 »

bfred_it wrote: post #156
frandroid wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent's point is still valid. There's another 3+ billion of internet users outside the U.S., it would be nice not to be an afterthought's afterthought. They just need to say "Sorry, this product will not be available outside the U.S. at launch." Is it so hard?

Yes it is. From what I understand, a network will license a show to another network in another country, probably in an exclusive way. So they can't just "oh yeah you're paying us millions to distribute in your country? Let me just walk over you by streaming directly to your customers." It doesn't work like that. These contracts are worth more than the few users that are willing to pay to stream across borders. Sad bu…

>> They just need to say "Sorry, this product will not be available outside the U.S. at launch." Is it so hard?

> Yes it is.

No, notifying that the offering won't be available outside of the U.S. wouldn't be difficult. Actually offering it outside would (and I think that's the question you were actually answering, which wasn't the question that was asked).

Re: YouTube TV

#166

Post by mikekchar »

shaunol wrote: post #81

This is a cool idea but it still falls very short by not serving users outside of the US. To the point where the welcome page doesn't even acknowledge that there may be global interest: https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ (enter your ZIP code, no country picker ... YouTube, you do realize you're on the internet, right?) Does YouTube care about getting content to the world? Or just getting as many of their fingers in the…

As someone who has lived in many different countries, I find this stuff so frustrating. When I was living in England, my wife and I wanted to watch Japanese anime (in Japanese). Luckily Crunchyroll exists and it has quite a large amount of content for a very low price (I think we were paying 4 pounds per month). But now that I'm back in Japan, we want to watch shows from BBC... basically not possible legally. I really enjoyed watching cycling on Eurosport. Good luck.

I really wonder who is going to pay $35 a month for US shows, while you are already in the US. There are just so many other ways to get that content.

I hope one day before I die the media companies will realise that their old idea of breaking up the world into pieces and sublicensing is a stupid one.

Re: YouTube TV

#168

Post by shmerl »

shaunol wrote: post #81

This is a cool idea but it still falls very short by not serving users outside of the US. To the point where the welcome page doesn't even acknowledge that there may be global interest: https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ (enter your ZIP code, no country picker ... YouTube, you do realize you're on the internet, right?) Does YouTube care about getting content to the world? Or just getting as many of their fingers in the…

The usual copyright lunacy stands in the way. Some just need to catch up with the times, and realize Internet is a global phenomenon.

Re: YouTube TV

#169

Post by hkmurakami »

kevincennis wrote: post #136

Former Aereo engineer here. First off, there are really two main reasons for someone not to have a cable subscription: 1. They don't care about the content 2. Price sensitivity At Aereo, we saw these sort of mix together to create hugely elastic demand. For a while, we offered a $1 "day pass" that would give you access to live TV for 24 hours at a time. During the Super Bowl and various award shows, we had crazy numb…

If anything you'd think that they could be the low cost leader in the market since they'd have the best vertical integration, from low cost infrastructure to ad inventory and targeting.

Re: YouTube TV

#170

Post by shmerl »

wyck wrote: post #154
shaunol wrote: post #81

This is a cool idea but it still falls very short by not serving users outside of the US. To the point where the welcome page doesn't even acknowledge that there may be global interest: https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ (enter your ZIP code, no country picker ... YouTube, you do realize you're on the internet, right?) Does YouTube care about getting content to the world? Or just getting as many of their fingers in the…

The geo-restricted licensing model is applied because Google has no choice in the matter. They have to abide by laws just like everyone else.

No law forbids creators to release everywhere (i.e. no geo-restrictions). So it's not a question about why Google don't do it, but why creators don't.
Post reply on HN