YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
1–10 of 239 posts
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#2I 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.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#3Cord-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 realize a lot of people wouldn't be--especially for sports.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#4I 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.
Content is king. And you can't even neatly excise sports content from everything else. If you can live without most live content, you really do have good, albeit fragmented, alternatives. But it does require giving up live TV.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#5"The National Advertising Division (NAD) previously ruled in Charter's favor"
HaHa! Google got kicked in the NAD[s]! Imagine that. A company having to respect the "truth in advertising" concept. Calling a company out by name with out-dated (at best) or flat out inaccurate information is ballsy, for which they deserved to get kicked squarely in for flaunting the rules everyone else plays by.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#6 "Charter contended the $600 figure was inaccurate, arguing that its Spectrum TV Select service in Los Angeles only cost around $219 a year more than Google's YouTube TV service," according to a MediaPost article in August.
I would have settled for "$600 less than most cable"
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#7Cord-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
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#8Cord-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…
Don't forget you can still get a DTV OTA antenna and watch live TV with a much much better image quality and without cable's delay. Admittedly, in can take a bit of effort finding a location to place the antenna for best reception for your location, but so worth not paying for cable any longer.
Sports is the primary reason for me messing with this, but it is definitely worth it.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#9I 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.
It's because the shape was due to licensing and contracts by content producers, not the technology of distribution.
Online distribution licenses were underpriced and differently packaged for a while because producers didn't know what revenue to anticipate or which horse would be the best to bet on. But as the industry matured, stuff evened out again and it's mostly back to normal.
Many conveniences of the new technology are nice, though.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#10Cord-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
There's a large population of people from a prior generation to you.