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

91–100 of 161 posts

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

#91

Post by mgdlbp »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #63
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.

How is a video game superior to TV? Storylines on prestige TV shows blow most videogames out of the water

Compromises, compromises. Play a visual novel. There!

Snark aside, I should note the flexibility in storytelling that all interactive fiction provides. Namely, as the author you get to use time travel without having it as a plot element. That way, you also avoid the overemphasis that long-running linear stories place on their singular endings.

Hmm...this has definitely been said on HN before in some thread related to the Netflix CYOAs. I wonder if a useful robot9000 is now feasible with modern language models, with aggregating and summarizing of perennial forum debates.

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

#92

Post by corbulo »

tzs wrote: post #89
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.

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

Good books are far from passive. The worse a book is the more passive, but the reader always has to use reading comprehension to understand a book.

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

#93

Post by password4321 »

Are they going to follow Netflix preventing sharing accounts?

It seems like right now they are actually pretty far in the opposite direction, with the subscription covering a Google family group of up to 5 accounts.

$70 / 5 = $14, back to bearable apart from having to explain your watch history to relatives (if it is visible, I don't know for sure).

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

#94

Post by LegitShady »

jonny_eh wrote: post #68
ianburrell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It's also an internal organizational thing. Anything with a YouTube label is managed by the YouTube org within Google. So Google Music -> YouTube Music was not just a rebrand, it was a new codebase managed by a new team (although some engineers likely moved over).

reminder that the android youtube music app still doesnt have a usable horizontal rotated mode but ipads version of the app had it years ago.

i think youtube layed off even the goldfish in a bowl they had developing the app.

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

#95

Post by fortyseven »

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…

Grandpa? You know the rules about using the family computer after 8pm. You're supposed to be sleeping. It's for your health. Come on: back to bed.

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

#96

Post by DerekL »

godshatter wrote: post #56
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 t…

But why would à la carte be that much cheaper? If a user watches a certain amount of streamed video, it doesn't cost more to stream it if it comes from ten different channels than if it comes from a single channel.

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

#97

Post by iudqnolq »

DerekL wrote: post #96
godshatter wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

But why would à la carte be that much cheaper? If a user watches a certain amount of streamed video, it doesn't cost more to stream it if it comes from ten different channels than if it comes from a single channel.

It's not. But the branding works because Americans are socialized that "customization" must be good. And because changing things often temporarily makes things better.

(Liberty Mutual Insurance takes this to the limits of absurdity by advertising "insurance customized so you only pay for what you'll need to use".)

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

#98

Post by subpixel »

I pay a little over $100/year for YouTube premium and that’s all I need. Premiere League highlights, German documentaries about pretzels, hour long POV shows shot in working Japanese kitchens to entertain my young daughter, the occasional full episode of Stairway to Stardom - and I’m sorted.

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

#99

Post by rhaway84773 »

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 not clear to me how playing video games is any better or worse than watching TV, other than it appears to be your preferred choice of entertainment.

I’ll watch TV for an hour or so a day before calling it a night and it gives my spouse and me a lot to talk about, something to bond over, build a corpus of inside jokes, be able to talk to other people who might have watched a particular show, etc.

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

#100

Post by cozzyd »

adubashi wrote: 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.

I just have an antenna. If it's not on ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox then... oh well.
Post reply on HN