Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 161 posts

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

#51

Post by sp332 »

cronix wrote: post #43
pdntspa wrote: post #40

This isn't entirely relevant, but I just want to say I am sick of our society's obsessive fascination with TV. It's solitary, sedentary, and passive. And then we bitch and complain when the people cracking this whip make it more obnoxious, more expensive, and even less entertaining. Every show feels the same. The actors seem interchangeable. There's such a limited subset of permitted stories and things that can be sa…

> Play a videogame > Stop worshipping TV and movies and entertainment

Yeah. I mean, personally I like TV and movies, but video games are more interactive.

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

#52

Post by rbranson »

social_quotient wrote: post #48
adrianmonk wrote: post #6

The last price increase raised it to $64.99. That happened on June 30, 2020 ( https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-tv-update/ ). Let's put that into the BLS CPI Inflation Calculator ( https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm ). Results: "$64.99 in June 2020 has the same buying power as $75.84 in February 2023". So this doesn't quite keep up with inflation.

Why should it if technology is inherently deflationary?

Most of what you're paying for isn't technology.

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

#53

Post by water-your-self »

pdntspa wrote: post #47
cronix wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Play a videogame > Stop worshipping TV and movies and entertainment

Well, ok then, I guess anything entertaining is off limits. Is that the bad-faith argument you are making? Maybe I should have rephrased that to 'passive' entertainment.

The video game industry is quickly approaching the television industry. It has become simply an interactive tool for narrative delivery.

Its simply a matter of time before the cancerous growth of capitalism gets its fingers into the media even deeper.

Mark my words. Gaming is trending towards subscription service, and advertising will only find its way deeper into the way content is delivered until your sessions are 20 minutes long with 5 minutes for ads.

Illegalize advertising.

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

#54

Post by pelagicAustral »

Someone1234 wrote: post #13

I dislike price rises, and related I dislike paying for expensive sports licensing I don't watch. Sports fans should pay for sports instead of everyone subsidizing it. That being said, as someone who helped family move off of cable in the last year, this is only inching closer to cable's headline pricing which is largely a fiction. All the big four providers of cable/satellite have the following pricing: - Advertised…

> I dislike paying for expensive sports licensing I don't watch.

In this line, I've been paying Fanatiz for a while and I absolutely vouch for their service. It was a godsend to me, since I live in a remote area and have no access to a good cable package. I can simply select the leagues I want to watch and pay only for those. It is an absolute delight to deal with their business model. I don't want to pay 100 bucks for every single league on every single country, I literally just want to watch 4 matches a month, why should I pay more than 20 bucks?

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

#55

Post by UtahDave »

whalesalad wrote: post #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.

I do the exact same thing. I just cancelled YouTube TV. I'll probably get it again in the fall

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

#56

Post by godshatter »

costanzaDynasty wrote: post #3

Because its alway been cable. Just Youtube, Sony, Fubo etc are the cable provider. Yes it streams, but it was never the same as a streaming service. Something like PlutoTv or the soon to be oversaturated FAST market is just rabbit ears. Mono culture is coming back big in the next couple of years, and this is how. When our streaming forefathers spoke of a la carte as the future, they should have specified each individ…

The dream of a la carte (before streaming was even a remote possibility) was to choose which channels you actually watched and which you didn't want and you would be charged accordingly. It was a reaction to too many channels that people didn't want but were charged outrageously for anyway. Cable was highly priced back then as I assume it still is today. Instead of all-or-nothing, people wanted to pay only for what they wanted in the hopes of reducing their overall bill.

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

#57

Post by Aaronstotle »

pdntspa wrote: post #40

This isn't entirely relevant, but I just want to say I am sick of our society's obsessive fascination with TV. It's solitary, sedentary, and passive. And then we bitch and complain when the people cracking this whip make it more obnoxious, more expensive, and even less entertaining. Every show feels the same. The actors seem interchangeable. There's such a limited subset of permitted stories and things that can be sa…

I enjoy watching sports, I don't see how playing a videogame isn't another form of "worshipping entertainment".

I also go to the gym and cycle outside, people are allowed to like things

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

#58

Post by Domenic_S »

xp84 wrote: post #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 suc…

> can't due to HOA rules

In 1996, the FCC adopted the Over the Air Reception Device Rule, or (the unfortunately named) OTARD rule. In short, the OTARD rule prohibits homeowners' associations and condominium associations from placing restrictions on residents which impede the installation, maintenance, or use of satellite dishes, TV antennas, or wireless cable antennas.

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

#59

Post by pdntspa »

water-your-self wrote: post #53
pdntspa wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, ok then, I guess anything entertaining is off limits. Is that the bad-faith argument you are making? Maybe I should have rephrased that to 'passive' entertainment.

The video game industry is quickly approaching the television industry. It has become simply an interactive tool for narrative delivery. Its simply a matter of time before the cancerous growth of capitalism gets its fingers into the media even deeper. Mark my words. Gaming is trending towards subscription service, and advertising will only find its way deeper into the way content is delivered until your sessions are…

It certainly feels that way. I am playing fewer and fewer new titles, and find that I keep returning to classics. Even 'indie' stuff is starting to feel very same-ish

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

#60

Post by toast0 »

Our_Benefactors wrote: post #34
xp84 wrote: post #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 suc…

Exterior antennas for broadcast tv are obsolete. Get a coaxial antenna from any big box store, put it behind your TV, boom free HD broadcasts.

That strongly depends on your local conditions. There's plenty of places where an indoor antenna has been fine for receiving local stations for decades, and there's plenty of places where it's not. Digital broadcasting can be a little better than analog broadcasting, in that a good enough signal gets you as good of a picture as an excellent signal, but consistency is still important, and getting your antenna clear of obstructions is still key.
Post reply on HN