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

81–90 of 161 posts

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

#81

Post by pdntspa »

ask_b123 wrote: post #77
pdntspa wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idunno, beating Cyberpunk 2077 elicited more of an emotional reaction from me than anything TV or movies has done. Baldur's Gate, Anachronox, Oblivion, hell even the old final fantasy games had so much more going for them story-wise than pretty much anything Hollywood could come up with save for its most longest-running series.

I don't disagree with the value of videogames, but I'm sure that my grandma could say the same about (some of?) her soap operas/doramas.

The apt comparison there would be books to soaps, I would think. I have a hard time seeing how anyone could defend soaps for their narrative depth.

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

#83

Post by wutbrodo »

kevinventullo wrote: post #74
FormerBandmate wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN viewing videogames as more sophisticated or intellectual than TV is hilarious ngl. Reverse Boomerism

I wouldn’t call video games more sophisticated or intellectual, but they do require you to use your brain in a way that is not strictly necessary for watching TV.

Likewise, I don't have any illusions about medium fully defining the quality of content: eg reading 50 Shades of Grey isn't more rewarding or meaningful than watching The Wire.

But apples-to-apples, watching video is the only common activity that feels maximally passive.

I guess with the exception of listening to music? Not sure how this fits in

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

#84

Post by funstuff007 »

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…

Really? I've always felt it was the ESPN viewer subsidizing the rest of the cable universe. ESPN is basically the only premium service you can't go over the top on. However, Iger says he's considering it.

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

#85

Post by pdntspa »

wutbrodo wrote: post #83
kevinventullo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t call video games more sophisticated or intellectual, but they do require you to use your brain in a way that is not strictly necessary for watching TV.

Likewise, I don't have any illusions about medium fully defining the quality of content: eg reading 50 Shades of Grey isn't more rewarding or meaningful than watching The Wire. But apples-to-apples, watching video is the only common activity that feels maximally passive. I guess with the exception of listening to music? Not sure how this fits in

Music consumption itself is passive, but we frequently use it as a backdrop to do other things. Or we dance to it. I would like to think that the curation of playlists or mp3 libraries is considerably more involved than doing so with videos, on account of how limited in scope most songs/tracks are compared to video.

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

#86

Post by syzarian »

ShakataGaNai wrote: post #50

I subscribed when YouTube TV first came out in 2017, for $35/mo. It was a good deal at the time and well worth it (since I didn't have cable), even though I didn't watch much regularly scheduled TV. When it hit $50/mo it wasn't a good deal anymore. Doesn't matter they added a ton of new channels because most of what is there is stuff no one (in my household) watches. This was the problem with cable, I don't want to p…

When you add in the broadcast tv fee, regional sports fee, HD technology fee, and any other fess it won’t be a better deal in terms of cost.

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

#87

Post by HKH2 »

minsc_and_boo wrote: post #67
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…

>It's solitary, sedentary, and passive. People probably said the same about reading at several points in history. It's about how you use the technology, not the technology itself.

Reading requires that you use your imagination to make words make sense. It is not passive.

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

#88

Post by secabeen »

Retric wrote: post #32
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…

You could setup an antenna for TV or Ham radio etc in your attic or similar space. Sticking them on the roof generally offers the best reception and doesn’t take up space in your house, but even just TV rabbit ears work reasonably well for local stations. Local TV is rarely worth the effort, but it can be a cheap way to watch the Olympics or your local sports team etc.

True, but only in major cities. In secondary markets, especially ones in mountainous areas, you are lucky to get 1-2 major networks.

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

#89

Post by tzs »

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.

Reading books was on your approved list. How is that not passive entertainment?

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

#90

Post by jpmoral »

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…

Not sure if it's law but in Australia providers (phone, Internet, streaming, etc.) display what the actual up-front and ongoing costs are, inclusive of fees, taxes, and one-time costs (e.g. modems).
Post reply on HN