Why would anybody pay 35$ for crappy TV if Netflix is only 10$?
YouTube TV
241–250 of 292 posts
Re: YouTube TV
#242Earlier 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.
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?
It was a running Joke about Netflix, "Available from anywhere across any OS [in the following regions North America, Europe etc]"
Re: YouTube TV
#243Earlier 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…
I don't understand, you can just torrent it for free?
Because torrents are illegal?
Re: YouTube TV
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 reall…
You can watch iPlayer via a VPN or DNS service like unblock.us (do not know if they have service in Japan). Note to the BBC - I would be to pay 3x the license fee to be able to watch on the internet with a subscription from outside the U.K. I bet if you opened it up world wide you would make more money then you do on the all the U.K license fees.
I disagree since I am already paying for a licence in the UK I am barely able to take advantage of (I live outside the UK for 9 months a year). I am rather annoyed that I have do a workaround to watch stuff I have paid for.
I get especially annoyed when I also have to 'prove' I have a licence by ticking a box.
In other words, it's easier to get for free outside the UK than it is to pay for it.
Re: YouTube TV
#245Re: YouTube TV
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is still only true if you have the pipe. Attempting this from Melbourne and the streams still fall on their face.
You only need a few people locally for the stream to become viable. That's the beauty of p2p.
Re: YouTube TV
#247Re: YouTube TV
#248This 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…
Yeah the entertainment industry wants content to spread at the speed of a steam ship, rather than the speed of light. Fortunately: Ǝ VPN.
Re: YouTube TV
#249$35/month. Even from the perspective of living in ripoff Australia, that seems expensive.
Re: YouTube TV
#250Earlier 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.
The reason is that most content creators don't have the business bandwidth to do this on their own; they don't have multi-lingual business development staff, multi jurisdiction lawyers etc. So they hand this all off to content distributors, and the vast majority of these distributors are old school, they have happy and mostly profitable relationships with various resellers and TV stations around the globe. So because the content creators sell locally themselves they have automatically bifurcated the global market for their goods; local and global. It is a small step from that to regional based licensing, especially given differential pricing based on various regions ability to pay and maximising revenue.