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

151–160 of 161 posts

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

#151

Post by funstuff007 »

dahdum wrote: post #126
funstuff007 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ESPN is the most expensive channel by far and has been forced bundling for decades. They sued Verizon for offering basic packages without ESPN a while back, and have been rightfully terrified of consumer choice. Almost every cable subscriber was forced to pay the ESPN tax. Paying $100+/yr for a channel I’ve never watched or cared about is a big reason why I cut the cord. They certainly aren’t “subsidizing” anything.

I hear you what you are saying, but the counter argument remains: The only way you can get ESPN is purchase ESPN (plus the rest of basic cable). For the most part, you can buy basic cable over the top (sans ESPN). So given the state of play, it seems the inelastic demand for ESPN and its one purchase venue is the subsidizer.

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

#152

Post by dahdum »

funstuff007 wrote: post #151
dahdum wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ESPN is the most expensive channel by far and has been forced bundling for decades. They sued Verizon for offering basic packages without ESPN a while back, and have been rightfully terrified of consumer choice. Almost every cable subscriber was forced to pay the ESPN tax. Paying $100+/yr for a channel I’ve never watched or cared about is a big reason why I cut the cord. They certainly aren’t “subsidizing” anything.

I hear you what you are saying, but the counter argument remains: The only way you can get ESPN is purchase ESPN (plus the rest of basic cable). For the most part, you can buy basic cable over the top (sans ESPN). So given the state of play, it seems the inelastic demand for ESPN and its one purchase venue is the subsidizer.

Until relatively recently you could not easily buy cable without ESPN, because ESPN would refuse all contracts that didn’t include it in the basic package, along with all the other channels people do want they could attach to it.

It’s only inelastic to the fraction of “subscribers” that watch it, the rest would drop it instantly if they could save the $10/month.

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

#153

Post by throwoutway »

iancmceachern wrote: post #120

We were all so excited. We could now record TV on our tivo, replay it later skipping the commercials. Life was good. Then it got even better, we could download or stream our content over the internet so we didn't need to pay $100 a month for cable and $50 for internet, we could just do the $50 for internet. Now that those small startups sold their businesses to the giant media companies, we're all back to being liter…

> we're all back to being literally forced to watch commercials,

Except for those of us who don't watch television and buy blurays of the content we want

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

#154

Post by grecy »

scarface74 wrote: post #127
grecy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're just unavoidable parts of the service's price that the cable/satellite vendors split off to misrepresent the costs. I worked for a Telco (that also did Cable TV). The marketing team would literally sit around a conference table and discuss how they were going to raise quarterly revenue by $amount so they would get their bonuses. Someone would suggest a connection fee. Or a disconnection fee. Or a change ser…

Why do you think it’s unique to cable that a for profit company wants to increase its profit?

Oh, I don't think it's unique to cable, but I do think they're particularly brazen about it and make no attempt to hide the fact they just invent new fees and charges every year for no reason other than to boost profit.

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

#155

Post by iancmceachern »

throwoutway wrote: post #153
iancmceachern wrote: post #120

We were all so excited. We could now record TV on our tivo, replay it later skipping the commercials. Life was good. Then it got even better, we could download or stream our content over the internet so we didn't need to pay $100 a month for cable and $50 for internet, we could just do the $50 for internet. Now that those small startups sold their businesses to the giant media companies, we're all back to being liter…

> we're all back to being literally forced to watch commercials, Except for those of us who don't watch television and buy blurays of the content we want

The challenge is blue rays are increasingly not available for many titles...

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

#156

Post by jen20 »

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 have YouTube TV now and was pleasantly impressed with the software on Comcast Xfinity when I saw it recently.

Meanwhile YouTube TV on the Apple TV is a shit show, with non-native controls that lag, search that barely works and no integration with system services so searching for a channel by voice doesn’t work. And it still doesn’t free me from having to pay for Fox News!

Unless the software stops being the moral equivalent of electron on the TV, I’ll be moving back to cable when I next move house.

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

#157

Post by midoridensha »

junon wrote: post #135
midoridensha wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I need to say this on HN, but since you've probably never dated any women, I have to inform you that almost no women actually want to play first-person shooter deathmatches with you.

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

#158

Post by wutbrodo »

pdntspa wrote: post #146
scarface74 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure if you drew a Venn diagram of “people who post to HN” and “people who dance”, the overlap wouldn’t be that large.

Are you kidding? I bet a ton of us go to raves or undergrounds or festivals, Burning Man has been pretty much taken over by SV tech dweebs, and I meet tons of tech folks in the local scene here, and that scene is just a tiny fraction of the overall picture for this area If YOU don't, I would highly recommend considering it. Hell I'm pretty sure I got my COVID 19lbs because I couldn't go out and dance at parties when…

> Burning Man has been pretty much taken over by SV tech dweebs

Burning Man has been intertwined with tech culture for like...30 years?

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

#159

Post by junon »

midoridensha wrote: post #157
junon wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I need to say this on HN, but since you've probably never dated any women, I have to inform you that almost no women actually want to play first-person shooter deathmatches with you.

First, these sorts of comments are best left to Reddit, not here.

Secondly, I'm gay and my boyfriend and I play tons of video games together.

Third, even if I wasn't, I'd probably have the wherewithall to find a girlfriend that shares my interests or at least doesn't have a problem with them.

Amazingly, humans (yes, including women, perhaps shocking to you) are complex and nuanced creatures that find enjoyment across a wide range of activities. Women can absolutely enjoy video games, just not when they're forced to play with sexist creeps like you.

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

#160

Post by midoridensha »

junon wrote: post #159
midoridensha wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I need to say this on HN, but since you've probably never dated any women, I have to inform you that almost no women actually want to play first-person shooter deathmatches with you.

First, these sorts of comments are best left to Reddit, not here. Secondly, I'm gay and my boyfriend and I play tons of video games together. Third, even if I wasn't, I'd probably have the wherewithall to find a girlfriend that shares my interests or at least doesn't have a problem with them. Amazingly, humans (yes, including women, perhaps shocking to you) are complex and nuanced creatures that find enjoyment across…

Obviously, you're too stupid to realize that women who like video games are extremely rare.
Post reply on HN