Live data from Hacker News

YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

theverge.com

21–30 of 161 posts

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#21

I don't use YouTube TV or Cable. Does this price include having 3 minutes of ads every 10 minutes like cable? If not, it being the same price as cable seems like it would still be a good deal.

Nope, YouTube TV still has ads. A lot of people still pay for it because of the convenience of the DVR and accessibility on all devices without having to maintain anything, but the price to benefit calculation is certainly changing after this.

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#22
post #2

As much as I hate to admit it, I'll probably still pay it because it's just so much superior to other cable offerings(recording, multiple devices). And there's no other way to watch live sports.

*legally. There are plenty of ways to watch live HD sports.

Conveniently too. Last year I went to a friend's house to watch a football game and he refuses to pay for YouTube TV or any sports streaming because 'theres free streams on the internet'.

He had to get up every 5 minutes to refresh Chrome on his laptop he had connected to the TV or find a new stream because they get taken down so quickly.

70$ a month is well worth ever dealing with that shit

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#23
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube tv is not the same as YouTube premium.

This is incredibly stupid naming. I saw these prices and just entirely gave up even thinking about premium until I saw the note (and then I still gave up on it, anyway).

Google has decided to use Youtube branding for anything media related. Youtube Music instead of Google Play Music, Youtube Movies & TV instead of Google Play Movies & TV (which is hanging on for now).

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#24
post #2

As much as I hate to admit it, I'll probably still pay it because it's just so much superior to other cable offerings(recording, multiple devices). And there's no other way to watch live sports.

*legally. There are plenty of ways to watch live HD sports.

Our TV bill just went up and I'm debating exploring YT TV.

What I want is the main Sports Networks (FS1, FS2, ESPN, ESPN2), my Regional Sports Network (but that's a Bally channel now -- and that's kind of a bit of a mess at the moment), and MLB TV (the cable channel, not their own MLB service).

I also want "DVR" for everything, and I want to be able to skip the ads (ideally with a +30s button).

I typically watch my games delayed so I can skip the ads, or even just plain "later". We DVR everything else.

Will YT TV let me do that?

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#25
post #11
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is is that all the big networks still own all the rights. Initially they sold them for cheap to vMVPDs but now the networks are charging more so YouTube fubo etc have to pay more leading to these price increases.

But as prices go up customers cancel, and so then there is pressure to decrease prices. The networks can’t achieve economies of scale with independent apps so they have to cave to price pressure too.

I think you're pretty right, but that we are currently in a boom time for standalone streaming apps, where in addition to the big guys (Netflix, DisneyHuluESPN, perhaps another 1-2 who do have both access to huge amounts of owned content and great scale) we also have every other video content producer (Warner Discovery/HBO, Paramount, NBC/Peacock, etc) currently trying to make a go of keeping as much of their content exclusive to their own bespoke paid streaming service as they can. Many of these will probably fail and hopefully resume licensing things to streaming platforms that are bigger and more appealing.

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#26
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly stupid naming. I saw these prices and just entirely gave up even thinking about premium until I saw the note (and then I still gave up on it, anyway).

Google has decided to use Youtube branding for anything media related. Youtube Music instead of Google Play Music, Youtube Movies & TV instead of Google Play Movies & TV (which is hanging on for now).

Oh wow, I just assumed Youtube Music was some kind of subscription to watch official music videos on Youtube (the website) for the past few years.

Until I read your comment. wow.

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#28
I'm mainly just annoyed that I can't sign up for a small package with any service. I want literally locals plus whatever cheap basic cable networks want to tag along just for the exposure. $15 sounds fair for what I could get with an antenna but can't due to HOA rules and being lazy and not wanting to poke holes in my house, but with inflation I can accept that the true number should be $19.99. I haven't heard of such a thing :(

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#29
I cancel my plan outside of football (US) season. Definitely time to do that again. It's astounding how much of broadcast time is spent in commercials. After switching to YouTube Premium and not seeing a single ad there, my life honestly improved dramatically. I wish the same existed for broadcast TV, but it's a structural element that can't be avoided.

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#30

I don't use YouTube TV or Cable. Does this price include having 3 minutes of ads every 10 minutes like cable? If not, it being the same price as cable seems like it would still be a good deal.

Nope, YouTube TV still has ads. A lot of people still pay for it because of the convenience of the DVR and accessibility on all devices without having to maintain anything, but the price to benefit calculation is certainly changing after this.

Compared to cable/satellite TV providers, it still seems like a no brainer considering the ease of watching on any device, anywhere, and starting and stopping the service.
Post reply on HN