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

171–180 of 239 posts

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

#171

Post by pests »

DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #113
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'm 41 and watch the nfl with my dad. I try to explain that we can just record it and wait 40 minutes and watch the whole thing with no commercials. Nope. He wants to look up game stats without getting spoiled and needs frequent smoke breaks. It's nearly unbearable for me. I only stick it out because he's 76

I agree with your dad.

Ever have a favorite TV show release an episode and then you have to avoid Facebook and Twitter so you don't get spoiled?

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

#172

Post by mk89 »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #164
mk89 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When I said "they" I meant: content providers, service providers and so on.

I frankly don't care at all, I will never buy Youtube TV. However, justifying this behavior is ludicrous, even if YouTube doesn't monetize on such content.

It's just unfair - you pay for no ads, and ...well you do get them because "the file..."

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

#173

Post by slothtrop »

simonsarris wrote: post #162

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?

With habit-forming I think it helps to first start by adding other activities in rotation rather than just eliminating one.

I can already answer this one: it would be internet-use. My sedentary time is still going to be sedentary time, that's how I want it. I'm not going to chase productivity and socializing for all the leisure time I can spare.

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

#174

Post by squeaky-clean »

pertique wrote: post #103
xdennis wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But at that point why not block all ads without paying? (That's what I do.)

I think you and the comment you replied to are talking about different things. The comment you replied to IS talking about skipping these inline ads without paying (SponsorBlock). If you aren't using it and are watching the same videos, you're also seeing these ads.

xdennis is asking why bother paying for premium if you still need to use sponsorblock. Why not just use sponsorblock + (uBlock Origin, or yt-dl, or etc) to remove both forms of ads for free.

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

#175

Post by Minor49er »

simonsarris wrote: post #162

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?

Or at least the in-between option: Use the savings from cutting the subscription services to run your own NAS at home and locally stream whatever movies or shows you own

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

#176

Post by Moldoteck »

lapetitejort wrote: post #49
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.

If you dislike them, check out the SponsorBlock extension, which will skip in-video ads. While you're at it, also get DeArrow, which chooses a random frame as the thumbnail and allows community written titles that accurately describe the videos.

Too bad sponsorblock will not work on tv((

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

#177

Post by rchaud »

jes5199 wrote: post #7
ghaff wrote: 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…

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

Old people watch a lot of TV, so pretty much every commercial is targeted at them. Medications, retirement planning, predatory "manage your finances" apps, and of course commercials for thinly veiled clones of NCIS.

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

#178

Post by RF_Enthusiast »

charlesray wrote: post #155
RF_Enthusiast wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, it sounds like there's a considerable misunderstanding of the service YouTubeTV provides.

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

#179

Post by rchaud »

mucle6 wrote: post #142
superjared wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought you could skip ads in dvr?

You can, but not while watching live TV.

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

#180

Post by Goronmon »

freedomben wrote: post #67
Goronmon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm in the same boat, and on-the-ground isn't even good enough. I'll have to mount a big antenna on top of my roof, which is a tall order. Not worth it to me so far.

Yup, the few more basic antennas I've tried effectively got no signal worth using on any channels.
Post reply on HN