It's wild to me how much Youtube TV costs and yet they still serve you tons of ads. Coming from youtube premium where occasionally I have to skip through a preroll ad, I forget how much you are bombarded with ads while watching traditional TV. The fact that you have to pay the princely sum of $73/month on top of that boggles my mind. I canceled when they raised the price from $35/month and I'll never go back at these prices...
YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
11–20 of 239 posts
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#12I subscribe to YouTube TV but watch it less than 1/month (it's for my parents). It blows my mind that it's $60/month and still contains ads. There is nothing on TV worth sitting through ads for.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#13Cord-cutting (still get Internet from the cable company) has saved me a fair bit of money after I realized that I could go a month without watching a live broadcast or a show recorded on my TiVo. But you pretty much only get significant cost savings today if you're willing to do mostly without live TV 100% or jump through some hoops for a rare exception. In spite of the occasional annoyance, I'm fine with it but I re…
do people still watch live TV? I’m only exposed it to when I stay in hotels and it seems to only be Seinfeld reruns and Shark Tank
It's for sports and news (which both earn many many eyes and are most satisfying when watched live), not so much for reality or scripted productions. Even if you like channel surfing among the latter, you can do that in most service-specific streaming apps now.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#14Cord-cutting (still get Internet from the cable company) has saved me a fair bit of money after I realized that I could go a month without watching a live broadcast or a show recorded on my TiVo. But you pretty much only get significant cost savings today if you're willing to do mostly without live TV 100% or jump through some hoops for a rare exception. In spite of the occasional annoyance, I'm fine with it but I re…
do people still watch live TV? I’m only exposed it to when I stay in hotels and it seems to only be Seinfeld reruns and Shark Tank
Sports fans watch a lot of live TV.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#15Cord-cutting (still get Internet from the cable company) has saved me a fair bit of money after I realized that I could go a month without watching a live broadcast or a show recorded on my TiVo. But you pretty much only get significant cost savings today if you're willing to do mostly without live TV 100% or jump through some hoops for a rare exception. In spite of the occasional annoyance, I'm fine with it but I re…
do people still watch live TV? I’m only exposed it to when I stay in hotels and it seems to only be Seinfeld reruns and Shark Tank
It's great for when you don't want to choose something to watch
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#16I’m subscribed to them for the same reason I was subscribed to DirecTV for a decade - they have a monopoly on Sunday Ticket.
Oh, how I yearn for Sunday Ticket to just be its own entity so I didn’t have to buy another service.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#17It's wild to me how much Youtube TV costs and yet they still serve you tons of ads. Coming from youtube premium where occasionally I have to skip through a preroll ad, I forget how much you are bombarded with ads while watching traditional TV. The fact that you have to pay the princely sum of $73/month on top of that boggles my mind. I canceled when they raised the price from $35/month and I'll never go back at these…
Yup, cable TV is ridiculous.
Streaming, however, is doing just fine catching up with costs and playing with "ad supported" pricing levels which is only expected to spread.
We're in the "eternal September" of streaming, it's only going to get worse from here.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#18I was really hoping the tech giants would be able to transform live TV as opposed to offer the same experience for (now) the same price.
Netflix did transform TV. Cable subscriptions are shrinking. Many people have switch to a streaming on demand service vs a linear service. You can watch most TV without ads.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#19I subscribe to YouTube TV but watch it less than 1/month (it's for my parents). It blows my mind that it's $60/month and still contains ads. There is nothing on TV worth sitting through ads for.
On Adult Swim, the ads are weird enough that I actually don't really mind.
That's it though.
I want / would use a tenth of what YouTube TV or any cable provider sells. I don't really want to spend 70 dollars a month for it.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#20Cord-cutting (still get Internet from the cable company) has saved me a fair bit of money after I realized that I could go a month without watching a live broadcast or a show recorded on my TiVo. But you pretty much only get significant cost savings today if you're willing to do mostly without live TV 100% or jump through some hoops for a rare exception. In spite of the occasional annoyance, I'm fine with it but I re…
Don't forget you can still get a DTV OTA antenna and watch live TV with a much much better image quality and without cable's delay. Admittedly, in can take a bit of effort finding a location to place the antenna for best reception for your location, but so worth not paying for cable any longer. Sports is the primary reason for me messing with this, but it is definitely worth it.
Having to invest time and money into the antenna is definitely what's stopped me from using OTA up to this point. Especially given that our location is between multiple broadcast points so it's not as simple as pointing an antenna in one direction, it would have to be a multi-directional antenna. Last I looked a decent one of those wasn't cheap.