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

281–290 of 292 posts

Re: YouTube TV

#281

Post by coryfklein »

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…

Yea, let's see, $35 for content interrupted incessantly with commercials vs $8 Netflix where everything is on-demand and commercial free?

That may only be economical for me if I ran out of things to watch on Netflix, and with the rate at which Netflix is producing stellar content that horizon is moving out further every day.

Personally, I value this kind of "TV" service around $5 a month, and I estimate it will reach that pricing in ~15 years, at which time I will purchase a subscription.

Re: YouTube TV

#282

Post by ilaksh »

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.

SlingTV has some local networks in some areas. And it costs at least $10 less than youtube and has more channels.

Re: YouTube TV

#284

Post by Nexxxeh »

dragonwriter wrote: post #146
Nexxxeh wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't mean they were using DVRs, I mean the alternative is a DVR in the comparison.

Re: YouTube TV

#285

Post by youdontknowtho »

chadgeidel wrote: post #143
andrewguenther wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Expanse is fantastic.

Re: YouTube TV

#286

Post by beamatronic »

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 thought Aereo was a neat concept. I think the same concept applied to software defined radio would be awesome as well. In particular, I've often wanted to be able to stream far away FM radio stations, complete with the local commercials, as if I were truly there.

Re: YouTube TV

#287

Post by wyck »

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.

Licensing for most countries is applied to broadcasters, not creators.

Re: YouTube TV

#288

Post by shmerl »

wyck wrote: post #287
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.

Licensing for most countries is applied to broadcasters, not creators.

But creators designate it. So they decide.

Re: YouTube TV

#289

Post by kriro »

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.

I think this will sort itself out in the near future if Google really wants to play in this area (who knows maybe this will be cancelled after a year it's Google after all). They have the machine learning power to negotiate deals with content creators that have some sort fo usage royalties. They basically get worldwide streaming rights in return for a reasonable payback that takes international viewers into account. I think the more interesting play could be targeted add injection. Imagine this service for free but with targeted adds where TV commercials would run...I'm not sure online viewers are actually willing to watch adds for TV shows but free is also free so there's that. Or maybe a hybrid or maybe virtual product placement or some sort of add system I can't think of yet.

Add to that a theoretical possibility of automatic translation and possibly even modeling the Chinese voice of actor X to sound like the original from the original broadcast data which would cut out the dubbing costs and the worldwide streaming workflow could be optimized further.

Re: YouTube TV

#290

Post by kriro »

PhrosTT wrote: post #30
gagege wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's just my local OTA channels, this is basically just paying $35 a month for a DVR.

I guess but I'd pay $35 to get live sports - the only reason I'm still stuck with cable.

Depending on the sports you watch there's other good deals deals. 35x12=420$. All access NFL package (for Europeans, not sure about US prices but iirc. it exists and is in the 250$ range) is about 250€/season. I think NBA/NHL are priced similarly. So you could get about two complete pro leagues for the same price (and these are a lot better than normal live, you get all games archived forever, non-commercial versions the day after, Redzone etc.)

If you want college sports or more variety or something outside of the big stuff (winter sports, cycling etc. etc.) then it's meh.

Post reply on HN