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

161–170 of 239 posts

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

#161

Post by choppaface »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #88
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…

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…

Doesn’t matter how the pre-roll ad is served or who is serving it. The customer wants to pay for no ads, and that includes removing ads otherwise embedded into the video. The fact that ads people see this as out-of-scope demonstrates how little ads people want to make a product that users want. It’s all about burning the dumb money of advertisers and abusing the users along the way.

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

#162

Post by simonsarris »

I strongly recommend cancelling all your subscription services and seeing how long you can go without renewing any of them. Try no TV, really none at all, for a month and see how it feels. Ask yourself at the end: How did you spend your time differently?

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

#163

Post by spike021 »

jayknight wrote: post #79
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.

I hope mlb.tv someday offers all games (without blackouts) and no commercial breaks. Just leave the cameras in the field and crowd between innings. I'd pay good money for that.

As soon as they do I'm dropping YTTV.

Fortunately I pay 1/3 the YTTV cost by sharing with a friend so the cost isn't too bad. But it's too much content for my needs, and I don't prefer sharing access.

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

#164

Post by squeaky-clean »

mk89 wrote: post #138
mk89 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an implementation detail leak: for the end user it's just an advertisement. Call it as you want, but when I pay premium and you write "no ads" I want no ads. That's it. I don't care that the content provider found a way to show ads. I have a contract with you - you have to figure it out.

Ah right, I forgot: they don't want to do content moderation, because then they become gatekeepers etc. They just want our money. Twice.

Youtube doesn't get any money from sponsored segments. It's a direct deal between the channel owner and the sponsor.

The only way it gets YouTube additional money is because it lets those channels put out more frequent or higher budget videos, which usually leads to more views.

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

#165

Post by mk89 »

tedunangst wrote: post #150
mk89 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an implementation detail leak: for the end user it's just an advertisement. Call it as you want, but when I pay premium and you write "no ads" I want no ads. That's it. I don't care that the content provider found a way to show ads. I have a contract with you - you have to figure it out.

So if you pay for premium you're blocked from watching movie trailers?

Movie trailers are a bit different than coca cola ads, come on...

Plus, offer the chance to choose: with the amount of metadata flying through our networks, they are even able to guess what I ate for lunch, ... can't they really offer a checkbox like "show/don't show movie trailers"?

They are Youtube, not random startup run by a guy working on it over the weekends...

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

#166

Post by spike021 »

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.

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, if mlb tv could release a subscription without blackouts I would no longer need YouTube tv. Same kind of problem.

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

#167

Post by charlesray »

mucle6 wrote: post #144
schnable wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The in-program ad revenue is a huge part of YTTV and Google's business model. The sub costs mostly go to purchase the content.

Even if they didn't profit from the ads, could they get rid of them?

No.

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

#168

Post by maest »

paxys wrote: post #108

Are people here really so young that they never had to deal with traditional cable subscriptions? Let me tell you what it was like. You signed up for Comcast, paid a $50+ installation fee, prayed that the technician would even show up in the allotted window, paid $100-150 month for basic service, paid for a cable box/modem rental, paid for HD, paid for DVR, paid for each extra TV in your house, paid for premium chann…

...in the US.

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

#170

Post by squeaky-clean »

choppaface wrote: post #161
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…

Doesn’t matter how the pre-roll ad is served or who is serving it. The customer wants to pay for no ads, and that includes removing ads otherwise embedded into the video. The fact that ads people see this as out-of-scope demonstrates how little ads people want to make a product that users want. It’s all about burning the dumb money of advertisers and abusing the users along the way.

If you had just said ad, I would agree with you. But a pre-roll ad is a specific type of youtube that many people are familiar with but don't know the proper name of. That's my point. The OP comment does not get pre-roll ads with premium. But they still get sponsor segment ads.
Post reply on HN