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

151–160 of 239 posts

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

#151

Post by jowea »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #61
solardev wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean that's why the ad revenue goes down over time. People get used to clicking the right X's and ignoring the garbage on the sides and in the margins, and between the actual content. Less attention. The sites respond by making the ads more egregious, more numerous and even more aggressively placed but that just trains users to click out of the new ads. Just in my lifetime I've seen the amount of ads on television…

Is my memory fooling me but weren't the first ads already highly obnoxious? Like ads that popup a new window or were flashing and stuff?,

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

#152

Post by parthdesai »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #143
TrinaryWorksToo wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use SponsorBlock to skip those.

Will get more and more difficult. This morning Youtube kicked me out because I was using adblock origin. And update fixed it, but if they start putting DRM...

That and you can also see certain youtubers chopping off sponsored ads block into multiple parts and integrating it with their video

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

#153

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

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

#154

Post by lotsofpulp »

bdcravens wrote: post #123
halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even Sunday Ticket does not give you access to all the games.

https://tv.youtube.com/learn/nflsundayticket/

>NFL Sunday Ticket: Every out-of-market Sunday game[1]

>[1] Locally broadcast Fox and CBS games, Sunday Night Football on NBC, select digital-only games and international games excluded

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

#155

Post by charlesray »

RF_Enthusiast wrote: post #146
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

Does YouTubeTV carry public television stations? Aside from underwriting sponsor mentions at the beginning and end of a program, they're prohibited from mentioning sponsors [1]. [1] 47 CFR 73.621(e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621...

Yes, and YouTube TV does not insert ads into those broadcasts. There's no ads in YouTube TV beyond what you would see on any other cable carrier.

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

#157

Post by xwdv »

paxys wrote: post #86
adocomplete wrote: post #2

I 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.

Tech giants have successfully transformed live TV, simply by killing it completely. No one under 35 subscribes to any kind of live TV service today other than to watch sports, and in another decade that will be fully online as well (look at the inroads Amazon and Apple are already making in that space). Some of the best new TV content is increasingly owned by Netflix, Amazon, Apple and the like. Cable TV and any kind…

Cable TV will still be around for commercial settings.

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

#158

Post by charlesray »

superjared wrote: post #100
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

YouTube TV injects ads on certain content. I know it's there for on-demand TV shows, and some live sports. It's literally overlaid on top of the channel's ads in the live example. I think years ago when I first subscribed one of the major benefits was the ability to skip through these ads just like DVR, but you can no longer do that.

Cable TV broadcasts include both the network's ads and slots for the carrier to run their own ads. They're not inserting bonus ads on top of the actual content. Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked.

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

#159

Post by squeaky-clean »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #112
squeaky-clean wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because lots of people seem to be getting confused, "pre-roll ad" isn't the right term for this. Pre-roll is one of those ads YouTube forces you to watch 5-30 seconds of before you can skip it, and when they play before the video starts. Mid-roll ads are the same thing, but interrupting the middle of the video. And Post-roll are ones that play after the video is over. What you're referring to are usually called…

Hopefully OP understands this, but I can confirm folks like my parents do not distinguish the difference. It's mind boggling

Where it gets really confusing is podcast networks (like Spotify exclusives, but also others) offer the ability to cycle out the sponsored segment. So you may be listening to a Conan O'Briend podcast episode from 2016 and hear an ad break of Conan recommending you check out some tv show airing this Saturday, October 16 2023.

But YouTube doesn't let video makes swap out parts of a video without re-uploading the whole thing and losing your viewcount. From what I've heard they have let some very big channels swap out things without it being considered a new video. But that's for the sake of avoiding copyright or fixing a dangerous error. Not for sponsorships.

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

#160

Post by rchaud »

adocomplete wrote: post #2

I 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.

'Disruption' is a marketing tactic these days. Netflix keeps hiking prices even though they're not paying usurious amounts to license other networks' content. Uber now isn't any cheaper than the stodgy taxis they replaced.
Post reply on HN