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

181–190 of 292 posts

Re: YouTube TV

#181

Post by ravenstine »

Um, no thanks.

Most of that content is uninteresting, free with an antenna, and loaded with commercial breaks. I would rather spend that money for a season pass on Amazon, or to go out and see a movie once a month. If money weren't an issue, my time is still better spent on Netflix or watching lectures by smart people on YouTube. I guess its fine if they want to attract the geriatric crowd, but I cant imagine people in my generation paying that much for a vastly inferior experience. As others have said, a cheaper day pass would be better, as there still is a place for live content. Whether or not that should be a form of life support for the old guard corporate media empire, that's up to you.

Re: YouTube TV

#182

Post by nemothekid »

Nullabillity wrote: post #174
guyzero wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably not even possible to offer US cable networks outside of the US. They only have licenses from the content creators to show inside the US. Besides, all their competitors are US only as well - Sling TV, DirecTV Now. Someday who knows, but for now live linear is very region-locked.

They aren't competing against traditional cable providers, they're competing against TPB, and they're behind by a huge margin. * Works with any player or device, vs you have to use their application * Free vs $35/mo * Has been available for 13+ years, vs available nowhere so far * Available worldwide, vs some unknown region-locking but certainly US-only for the foreseeable future * Has pretty much everything, vs "6 a…

Live TV isn't competing against TBP. You can't watch sports or other live events on TBP. Why would you sign up for a live TV service, if you prefer to watch things on demand on TPB?

For any live TV offering they are competing against traditional cable providers. Netflix is already on their way on figuring out the "on-demand" content space. If you look at the blog post, 3/4s of the channels offered are either sports or live news. This simply isn't a service for on demand content.

Re: YouTube TV

#184

Post by jasikpark »

I just think it's wonderful that this launched within hours of someone recommending twitter be turned around by being the go-to solution for interacting with and watching live tv.

Re: YouTube TV

#185

Post by JustSomeNobody »

All this so that I can not have one of those unsightly antennas near my tv? Sign me up! /s

No, really, this is too much money. And with data caps, I don't really think I'd get my $35 out of it.

Besides, who know what Ajit Pai is going to let Comcast do? Won't be long and I'll have choices like:

Basic internet - for reading email.

Basic Plus Internet - Basic internet + Amazon shopping (but no streaming)

Internet + streaming - Basic Plus Internet + Comcasts own streaming service.

Internet Premium - Internet + streaming + Netflix, Amazon and YouTube streaming.

etc...

Re: YouTube TV

#186

Post by mikelward »

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.

That's exactly why I gave in and paid for basic cable. Which ends up costing $17.76 ($10 HD fee, $5 broadcast TV fee, $2.76 taxes and fees). For access to free content.

I also bought a good indoor broadcast TV antenna. A winegard one, I think. And it normally works great, but it's only 90% reliable.

I wouldn't pay the extra $17.24 for nothing, but I'd like to watch some sports too.

Re: YouTube TV

#187

Post by jonwachob91 »

untog wrote: post #134
snuxoll wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PlayStation Vue has packages for $35/mo that include FOX, ABC, etc plus a healthy selection of channels not available OTA (including FX, etc). YouTube's marketing here is pretty crappy, but if they're actually trying to just sell access to OTA network content for $35/mo they are insane.

> if they're actually trying to just sell access to OTA network content for $35/mo they are insane. Which they aren't. It includes (probably) the exact same "healthy selection of channels not available OTA (including FX, etc)" as PlayStation.

But we don't know that. All they've told us are the OTA channels.

Re: YouTube TV

#188

Post by mikelward »

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...

According to the blog [1], the DVR lasts 9 months. Which is much better than the competitors, but not "forever".

1. https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-... "we’ll store each of your recordings for nine months."

Re: YouTube TV

#189

Post by srssays »

smilbandit wrote: post #176

I'd be cooler if I didn't have this shiny new 1tb data cap on my internet now.

Assuming a bitrate of 10Mbps and a solid 7 hours of sleep per night, you'd have to spend 43% of your waking hours watching TV to hit the cap.

Re: YouTube TV

#190

Post by mikepurvis »

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…

This kind of thing is part of why Netflix & friends are so keen to create a bunch of original content— it's theirs, exclusively, and they don't need to deal with navigating all these preexisting commitments.
Post reply on HN