Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 239 posts

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

#121

Post by vishwajeetv »

solardev wrote: post #41
ylhert wrote: 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…

FWIW https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y... is a crowdsourced way to skip past promos (by timestamp). Or some creators have moved to Nebula, which seems to have less of that crap but IMO a worse UI than YouTube.

I wish there was AI + crowdsourced extension as such.

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

#122

Post by I_Am_Nous »

charlesray wrote: post #89

Baffled by the number of people itt saying "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads." It can't not have ads. It's cable TV, YouTube has zero control over whether or not it has ads. They can't broadcast the USA network without ads. Cable has had ads for like 40 years, and traditional cable providers are much more expensive than this. Are y'all 14 years old? idgi

For a lot of people I imagine they are only used to ads on free stuff, like Pandora, while paying for the service removes ads. It's just an old world vs new world disparity, where old-worlders (pre-internet or slow moving area residents) are used to things like ads on cable and broadcast radio, while new-worlders (people who mostly grew up on the modern internet) didn't experience the same world at all.

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

#123

Post by bdcravens »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #34
jordanmorgan10 wrote: post #16

I’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.

I know not exactly what you're looking for but I bought RedZone for the first time through the NFL+ app this year and it's so nice to just have that and not fuss with any other service.

Sunday Ticket is different than RedZone. RedZone is a single channel that jumps between games; Sunday Ticket gives you unfettered access to all games.

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

#124

Post by icelancer »

solardev wrote: post #54
xnx wrote: post #12

I 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.

I really wonder how much of this effect is a generation gap. I see one commercial and it drives me nuts, but my parents don't even seem to notice them. Then again I have dev coworkers who're younger than me and go like "I should really get adblock at some point" while staring down pages full of pop-ups and animated crap. Guess you really can develop banner blindness by attrition lol.

It blows my mind how many of my employees and co-workers don't have uBlock Origin or even ABP installed. I'm 40 years old and have had an adblocker installed for as long as they've been around, and I'd guess over half of the mid-20 year old developers, analysts, content creators, and customer service people who work for me have never heard of it or used an adblocker.

Not sure how you survive the Internet these days without one.

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

#125

Post by a_JIT_pie »

solardev wrote: post #41
ylhert wrote: 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…

FWIW https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y... is a crowdsourced way to skip past promos (by timestamp). Or some creators have moved to Nebula, which seems to have less of that crap but IMO a worse UI than YouTube.

I enjoy this with the Youtube ReVanced app. It's an amazing feature on top of regular ad blocking. I can never go back to regular YouTube.

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

#126

Post by chmod775 »

solardev wrote: post #114
IntelMiner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I like Nebula on premise, it seems creators on it are getting 'lazier' and some of the people on the site are downright questionable ("TL;DR News" and "Therapist Reacts" being the biggest offenders for me) Like, why am I paying Nebula for this garbage? https://i.imgur.com/itiLYbK.png

Is that really Nebula's fault? YouTube, TikTok, etc. are full of garbage too. I don't really know their arrangement with creators (one would hope creators get a bigger cut there, otherwise why leave YouTube?), but my favorite creators* have the same videos on both, just a little earlier on Nebula usually. *Just engineering channels though, which is probably why they're not as spammy/shock-reaction-y. https://nebula.t…

Never used them.

The way they're marketing themselves I didn't think I would have to curate their content myself. How much do I need do I need to pay to not have to sift through brain-numbing clickbait diarrhea?

At that point you might as well just kill your time on YouTube. Plenty of good channels there too - if you can stand the stench of the heap of trash they're buried under.

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

#127

Post by rchaud »

IntelMiner wrote: post #68
solardev wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y... is a crowdsourced way to skip past promos (by timestamp). Or some creators have moved to Nebula, which seems to have less of that crap but IMO a worse UI than YouTube.

While I like Nebula on premise, it seems creators on it are getting 'lazier' and some of the people on the site are downright questionable ("TL;DR News" and "Therapist Reacts" being the biggest offenders for me) Like, why am I paying Nebula for this garbage? https://i.imgur.com/itiLYbK.png

You may be paying Nebula, but like all UGC platforms, it can't show you what it doesn't have. Social media video is heavy on lazy "TLDR", and light on substance.

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

#128

Post by bdcravens »

legitster wrote: post #51
hanniabu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's great for when you don't want to choose something to watch

My guilty pleasure have been the Roku Digital Channels. They have channels that are just a 24 hour feed of MST3K, or Cook's Illustrated, or How It's Made, or Antiques Roadshow. Just to turn on some background while I am making dinner or working on a project has been enjoyable, commercials and all.

Many of the smart TVs have similar (I think they're just repackaging what was already out there on Pluto etc; Sling also includes those same channels in their Freestream)

I actually watch a ton of This Old House on my Samsung TV in my home office.

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

#129

Post by addicted »

IntelMiner wrote: post #68
solardev wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y... is a crowdsourced way to skip past promos (by timestamp). Or some creators have moved to Nebula, which seems to have less of that crap but IMO a worse UI than YouTube.

While I like Nebula on premise, it seems creators on it are getting 'lazier' and some of the people on the site are downright questionable ("TL;DR News" and "Therapist Reacts" being the biggest offenders for me) Like, why am I paying Nebula for this garbage? https://i.imgur.com/itiLYbK.png

I don’t pay Nebula for that “garbage” (although that creator has a very different, and possibly unique, style of videos).

What you are paying for is all the other stuff that isn’t garbage.

The “garbage” adds negligible costs to the Nebula experience.

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

#130

Post by rchaud »

duped wrote: post #64
banana_giraffe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Pretty much every streaming service with a "no ads" tier does this. I agree it's infuriating.

I bought an licensed VHS of Mission Impossible in '96, and had to FFW through trailers for other movies made by that studio.
Post reply on HN