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

191–200 of 239 posts

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

#191

Post by 13of40 »

xwdv wrote: post #157
paxys wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Businesses still have landline telephones too, but I feel like they're just less agile, not that they'll never catch up with the times.

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

#192

Post by bb88 »

hellogoodbye wrote: post #77
bentt wrote: post #28

I pay $73 a month to watch 1 Liverpool game a week (max), 1 Buffalo Bills game per week (maybe), and a smattering of NBA games. I'd so much rather just give the money directly to the teams and/or leagues.

To watch your EPL team you need Youtube TV, Peacock Premium, Paramount Plus (UCL/UEL) and ESPN plus (domestic cups) :/ Youtube TV is the most expensive of the bunch, going to see if there are any other options like IPTV

At least they don't have blackouts in the states....

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

#193

Post by tinus_hn »

chung8123 wrote: post #18
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.

Netflix did transform TV. Cable subscriptions are shrinking. Many people have switch to a streaming on demand service vs a linear service. You can watch most TV without ads.

What used to just be called tv is now ‘linear tv’. It is no longer the default.

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

#194

Post by drewg123 »

bb88 wrote: post #188
drewg123 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that they have added DRM to the ATSC 3.0 standard, and its being implemented quite widely. This means that you'll be unable to freely record time shift sports using applications like MythTV, etc.

Usually after a sports event is over, it's worth a lot less than when it's being played live, too. E.g. The Super Bowl's value is only worth something when people don't know what's going to happen. After the game everyone pretty much knows what has happened.

To each his own. At least for American football, there are so many advertisements and so much dead time between plays, I will typically record a game and then start watching it about 90 minutes after the start. That usually works out so that I finish the game just as I catch up the real time in the recording.

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

#195

Post by drewg123 »

RF_Enthusiast wrote: post #141
drewg123 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that they have added DRM to the ATSC 3.0 standard, and its being implemented quite widely. This means that you'll be unable to freely record time shift sports using applications like MythTV, etc.

This adds an uncertain future to OTA, but I don't think you can say it's implemented widely yet. Here's a list of current ATSC 3.0 channels, with an indicator for the encrypted ones: https://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=atsc3 For now, most network affiliates that air an ATSC 3.0 signal must simulcast the primary video programming stream in ATSC 1.0 format. So most primary channels are still available withou…

In my market (Miami) almost everything is encrypted on ATSC 3. Do you know how long ATSC 1 will be up?

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

#196

Post by carleton »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #101

Use AdGuard and SponsorBlock on macOS. It's really increased my YouTube browsing quality of life.

This doesn’t have anything to do with YouTube TV. SponsorBlock and AdGuard have no effect on YTTV, only regular YouTube.

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

#197

Post by scoofy »

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.

You’re think of YouTube. The business model of television, especially live television, wasn’t really ever going to cost significantly less than it did. The inverse relationship between advertising and number of outlets would necessitate higher costs to the consumer, not lower costs.

Anyone willing to create content at extremely low cost has flourished under the YouTube paradigm.

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

#198

Post by superjared »

charlesray wrote: post #158
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.

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.

> Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked.

Arguably we don't _want_ 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

#199

Post by poulsbohemian »

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.

Dude, this all day long. In this era to have blackouts is just ridiculous when consumers are willing to hand you wads of cash for your content.

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

#200

Post by hx8 »

superjared wrote: post #198
charlesray wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked. Arguably we don't _want_ the same as any cable provider has always worked.

You're not wrong. It's just that YouTube TV needs to be in time sync with Cable TV.
Post reply on HN