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

191–200 of 292 posts

Re: YouTube TV

#191

Post by lotsofpulp »

res0nat0r wrote: post #164
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.

I tried it, the quality is quite lacking from the buffering to the terrible blurring during quick action in sports and movies. And I tried it from multiple connections, ATT/Comcast/Verizon fits...although this was summer of last year during Olympics. Maybe it's better now or was too saturated back then.

Re: YouTube TV

#192

Post by bestnameever »

shmerl wrote: post #170
wyck wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm guessing most buyers, at least historically, prefer only dealing within specific regions.

Are most cable channels offered in the usa operate internationally?

Re: YouTube TV

#193

Post by bestnameever »

shmerl wrote: post #170
wyck wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm guessing most buyers, at least historically, prefer only dealing within specific regions.

Are most cable channels offered in the usa operate internationally?

Re: YouTube TV

#194

Post by martinald »

nemothekid wrote: post #182
Nullabillity wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

You'd actually be surprised how good bittorrent live video streaming has got. I checked it out and it was pixel perfect 720p HD - absolutely fine for sports.

But yes, it's still niche, but wow it has moved on a lot. The program I used was called acestream.

Re: YouTube TV

#195

Post by sergers »

nemothekid wrote: post #182
Nullabillity wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Live TV competing with illegal IPTV service with reseller cost as low as 2$/month and consumer price 9-20$/month(on a small scale).

I know many people who have either cut their TV subscription, or at least scaled it down to lowest cheaper tier, since grabbing a mag254 IPTV box and finding a reseller offering upwards of 1000s of channels.

If u don't know about it, you may be content with standard livetv. But if you in the know, you are cutting at least part of your cable TV bill.

Re: YouTube TV

#196

Post by shmerl »

bestnameever wrote: post #192
shmerl wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm guessing most buyers, at least historically, prefer only dealing within specific regions. Are most cable channels offered in the usa operate internationally?

The way I understand it, historically geo restrictions originate from physical goods, and are usually driven by distributors, who want to reduce competition and control certain regions. I.e. in order to monopolize the market, they require those who produce some goods to restrict distribution through them only for that region, and in return they offer better pricing and assistance in that distribution. I.e. this basically makes it impossible to make global distribution rights.

This logic falls flat however in the digital world, where distributor isn't limited by region. I.e. you can open a digital store, and sell worldwide (like for example computer games stores like GOG, Steam and etc.).

So in the pure digital world, geo restrictions sound like nonsense, since they reduce reach and profits, both for creators, and distributors. My guess is, this creeps into the digital sphere, because of the influence of physical distributors, who see digital ones as a threat to their local monopolies. I suppose strong grip of some regional cable TV companies, forces creators to limit their distribution through any digital stores as well. The problem is, this approach is pretty nasty when applied in the digital space. It basically becomes xenophobic. Translating it back to physical goods, it can look like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbiacSD13qk

Hopefully, the weaker regional monopolists will become, the more likely we'll have global distribution for video too.

Re: YouTube TV

#198

Post by tyrust »

jonwachob91 wrote: post #187
untog wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Blog post lists more: https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...

Re: YouTube TV

#199

Post by sixothree »

crispytx wrote: post #96

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.

Not just that but the YouTube App is just abysmal on pretty much any device other than a web browser. PASS.

Re: YouTube TV

#200

Post by captainlego »

untog wrote: post #99
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…

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 h…

> 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.

I'd have to disagree. Westworld, Rick and Morty, The 100, The Expanse, Black Mirror, Stranger Things, Outlander, and Sense8 come to mind as great recent Sci-Fi shows in active development. That's without mentioning the numerous high-caliber super hero shows recently released/coming soon.

Post reply on HN