161–170 of 466 posts
Think this may have an effect of pushing more people to get adblockers and Netflix subscriptions than anything else. Or they just want people to get free Youtube so that they have a wider audience of ad viewers to sell to advertisers.
I liked the service but I just don't use it enough to continue. I'll re-subscribe when they drop the price again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the services fault. These big tv conglomerates don't want their channels optional because they know no one wants them for the most part. Or, at the very least, you won't accidentally start watching something on their network if you don't even have the channel.
Everyone thinks they want a la carte, but (most) everyone is wrong. Bundling is generally better for consumers and producers. https://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-... Stratechery also has written about this
Think this may have an effect of pushing more people to get adblockers and Netflix subscriptions than anything else. Or they just want people to get free Youtube so that they have a wider audience of ad viewers to sell to advertisers.
You may be confusing YouTube TV (a replacement for cable TV) with YouTube Premium (ad-free access to YouTube and Google Play Music).
YouTube TV had enough channels at launch. They kept adding channels that I didn’t want and charging for it. This went from best value to worst value in three short years. Not sure what the old media hacks are trying to accomplish here.
> Not sure what the old media hacks are trying to accomplish here. They're trying to keep their channels artificially expensive and trying to limit the success of (previously) less expensive TV channel platforms like YouTube TV. They don't want to give ground on that, because if they do then it's a big freefall down to what the real value of their channels are. They make an enormous amount of cartel-capture money fro…
I love YoutubeTV, and I've been using it for years. This is probably enough to get me to cancel, though. It started at $40 when I signed up a couple years ago, they raised it to $50 last year, and now $65 for just a few more channels (and among them, only one I even want). I wish they'd offer a more a la carte option. I'd be willing to pay $10-15 per major broadcaster's channel collection, or $2-7 for individual chan…
I don't understand why they don't do that with YouTube channels too [edit: as in "sub to each channel a la cart"]. Let users pay $1 or $2 a month to disable ads on a channel (or $10 a month for "YouTube Premium"). That seems much more sustainable than relying exclusively on ads for income and loosing potential subscription customers to Patreon. They could even offer higher priced, per-channel subscription tiers that…
They already do and have for quite some time.
That cost is nearly double it's original price 3y ago, and looking at the recent channel additions -- I'm not sure the users will be convinced it's worth the extra cost. I wish someone would have a selection like: $5 - one channel $7 - two channels $10 - five channels $20 - fifteen channels (you pick) $50 - 40 channels (we pick) $50 + $15 - 40 channels (the $50 package), plus
YouTube is not the content producer, rather strikes deals with content producers. The reality is there is consolidation in the media world, with a few mega corporations managing most channels. They typically bundle a few channels together for vMVPDs/MVPDs, for leverage - “you want channel X, you must also get channel Y.” Source: I head a Product organization at a mega media org.
Or are you saying that these channel additions were part of an agreement or condition that to continue to offer some of the existing channels they needed to take the additional channels and charge more?