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

131–140 of 161 posts

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

#131

Post by LocalH »

pdntspa wrote: post #85
wutbrodo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not true for everyone. It's mostly true for me (although I play Guitar Hero, which makes it quite active). It's not at all true for my girlfriend, who listens to music very actively.

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

#132

Post by LocalH »

pdntspa wrote: post #116
corbulo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is exactly why video has taken over reading. As soon as we had the tech for it it became mainstream because it is so brainless and flashy

The "brainlessness" of television is the fault of content producers, not the medium itself. Fred Rogers was probably one of the greatest users of television.

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

#133

Post by HeavyFeather »

rhaway84773 wrote: post #99
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.

> 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.

Having to interact with a world is by definition more active than solely watching. Since GP is judging sedentary and passive content ingestion, then yes, it’s much better. Especially when the TV content is mindless reality TV.

(I’m not a gamer myself)

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

#134

Post by alexvoda »

midoridensha wrote: post #124
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.

They're also basically impossible to play while eating dinner, unlike watching TV. They're also generally not something you can do with your girlfriend or wife.

> They're also generally not something you can do with your girlfriend or wife.

This is an issue of availability. There need to be more games with a broader appeal. I can certainly see why FPSs are not appealing to the feminine demographic. On the other hand, the Wii was popular with all genders and all ages.

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

#135

Post by junon »

midoridensha wrote: post #110
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…

You're single, right? >Do something else! Play a videogame. Read a book. Go out and do something calming. Stop worshipping TV and movies and entertainment Videogames and books are things you can't do with a partner. Going out is, but that takes a lot of time (travel time is a lot of overhead) and usually costs money unless you just go to the local park or something. Plus, it's restricted by the weather. >And for god…

> Videogames and books are things you can't do with a partner.

There are, in fact, many games that are playable by more than one person.

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

#136

Post by mochomocha »

bombcar wrote: post #10
LegitShady wrote: post #7

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).

And it's not only the names that are stupid. 50% of the time on my TV when I'm trying to open the Youtube app, I end up clicking on the Youtube TV app, because the logos look exactly the same.

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

#137

Post by wutbrodo »

pdntspa wrote: post #85
wutbrodo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed about background music, but I definitely spend time listening to music and doing nothing else, and the medium feels active to me in a way that television doesn't.

On the other hand, I've been a musician since I was three, so perhaps the way I'm processing music is different from normal. One facet might be that I usually don't find myself focusing much on lyrics (if any), which means it ends up as a semi-meditative activity in a way that TV can't.

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

#139

Post by jamincan »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #64
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…

Yes, often when we meet folks they wanna talk about their shows. And I kinda inwardly groan. Don't people have their own lives and do things any more? Maybe the rent is too high to do anything but work then crash in front of the TV these days?

It's often nice to talk about things that you share in common - weather, kids, and traditionally TV have often fill those roles. These are the normal ways to break the ice and get to know someone better before delving into other topics.

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

#140

Post by jamincan »

somethoughts wrote: post #15
adrianmonk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What am I missing? You're missing "TV". YouTube and YouTube TV are different products. Yes, the brands are pretty confusing.

I think the smart thing to have done would have been to bundle Youtube TV subscriptions with Youtube Premium access - or at least have a Youtube One subscription plan for $79.99 or something. Otherwise as a potential new customer, Youtube TV seems to be one of just many offerings with no real advantage.

Youtube Music is also an entirely separate product as well.
Post reply on HN