Live data from Hacker News

YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

arstechnica.com

21–30 of 239 posts

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#21
Subscription cost for entertainment is so high, and the quality of entertainment is so low, I can't help but think that most people keep these subscriptions purely out of habit and a BIG shift in consumption patterns is bound to occur. The shift will be to offline, generative software, or offline physical media. Online consumption will be limited to periodic cheap/free options like PBS Newshour, PBS Kids, newsletters, podcasts, and similar. Ideally we'd even see a re-uptake of media like a daily local or regional paper.

Personally, I think this shift could really improve society, the state of people's minds, and encourage more offline time without some draconian top-down time-limit. And all thanks to increasing the price and decreasing the quality of streaming content until you break the relationship. Cool!

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#25
post #8
post #3

Cord-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.

"You" can :-) But fair comment. For many people, OTA offers good enough live TV. I live at the base of a hill blocking me from the nearest major city about 40 miles away. I've never been able to pick up anything OTA even before digital signals; there was even a big "external" antenna in the attic installed by the previous owner to no avail before he just got a big C-band dish. Even a lot of radio is pretty bad.

I was able to get cable TV before taking any extreme measures.

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#26
post #11

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…

> youtube premium where occasionally I have to skip through a preroll ad

I thought YouTube Premium was ad-free?

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#27
post #11

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…

You still endured ads with YT Premium!? That's shocking if true.

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#29
post #8
post #3

Cord-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.

I'd question the better image quality part of this, almost all broadcast providers have chosen to use their bandwidth to ship the maximum number of 480p subchannels.

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#30
post #11

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…

> youtube premium where occasionally I have to skip through a preroll ad I thought YouTube Premium was ad-free?

It's free of ads from YouTube. Plenty of videos have baked in ads from the content creators themselves.
Post reply on HN