Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 161 posts

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#101

Post by abudabi123 »

minsc_and_boo wrote: post #67
pdntspa wrote: post #40

This isn't entirely relevant, but I just want to say I am sick of our society's obsessive fascination with TV. It's solitary, sedentary, and passive. And then we bitch and complain when the people cracking this whip make it more obnoxious, more expensive, and even less entertaining. Every show feels the same. The actors seem interchangeable. There's such a limited subset of permitted stories and things that can be sa…

>It's solitary, sedentary, and passive. People probably said the same about reading at several points in history. It's about how you use the technology, not the technology itself.

Reading a language you are in the process of learning is a form of puzzle assembly and takes the mind to places it would not have other wise.

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#102

Post by karlshea »

owlninja wrote: post #18
Someone1234 wrote: post #13

I dislike price rises, and related I dislike paying for expensive sports licensing I don't watch. Sports fans should pay for sports instead of everyone subsidizing it. That being said, as someone who helped family move off of cable in the last year, this is only inching closer to cable's headline pricing which is largely a fiction. All the big four providers of cable/satellite have the following pricing: - Advertised…

All my regional sports got moved to Bally's and my subscription price to Hulu did not change :(

Now I pay $80 a year for MLS Season Pass, which is about a month of Hulu Live TV. And I won’t have to see shitty compressed ESPN+ or Bally streams for a decade.

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#103

Post by Rebelgecko »

xp84 wrote: post #28

I'm mainly just annoyed that I can't sign up for a small package with any service. I want literally locals plus whatever cheap basic cable networks want to tag along just for the exposure. $15 sounds fair for what I could get with an antenna but can't due to HOA rules and being lazy and not wanting to poke holes in my house, but with inflation I can accept that the true number should be $19.99. I haven't heard of suc…

HOAs can't stop you from putting an antenna, and honestly a $10 antenna from monoprice is surprisingly good. Works much better for digital broadcasts than old rabbitears

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#104

Post by tracerbulletx »

pdntspa wrote: post #40

This isn't entirely relevant, but I just want to say I am sick of our society's obsessive fascination with TV. It's solitary, sedentary, and passive. And then we bitch and complain when the people cracking this whip make it more obnoxious, more expensive, and even less entertaining. Every show feels the same. The actors seem interchangeable. There's such a limited subset of permitted stories and things that can be sa…

There exists many TV shows that have artistic merit rivaling any book or film. The secret is just to actively select and seek out those specific works and not passively watch whatever random thing.

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#105

Post by Terretta »

costanzaDynasty wrote: post #3

Because its alway been cable. Just Youtube, Sony, Fubo etc are the cable provider. Yes it streams, but it was never the same as a streaming service. Something like PlutoTv or the soon to be oversaturated FAST market is just rabbit ears. Mono culture is coming back big in the next couple of years, and this is how. When our streaming forefathers spoke of a la carte as the future, they should have specified each individ…

> when our streaming forefathers spoke of a la carte as the future, they should have specified each individual piece of content and not a la carte channels.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/genre/tv-shows/id32

Previously, this wasn't cheaper, you could get basically all the things with 2 subs, e.g. Netflix and Hulu Plus w/ Live.

Then there was a sort of golden age where Apple TV or Amazon Prime offered brand umbrellas as individual channel subscriptions. You could even add/cancel them right in the iPhone's subscription list (a few are still there).

Now most shows are congregating back under brands, each wanting full freight as if they had it all, the combination adds up.

Doing the math, if you watch specific named shows instead of background TV, it's to where season purchases might again make sense for individuals or DINK type households that only watch prestige TV.

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#106

Post by lotsofpulp »

DerekL wrote: post #96
godshatter wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dream of a la carte (before streaming was even a remote possibility) was to choose which channels you actually watched and which you didn't want and you would be charged accordingly. It was a reaction to too many channels that people didn't want but were charged outrageously for anyway. Cable was highly priced back then as I assume it still is today. Instead of all-or-nothing, people wanted to pay only for what t…

But why would à la carte be that much cheaper? If a user watches a certain amount of streamed video, it doesn't cost more to stream it if it comes from ten different channels than if it comes from a single channel.

Why would it not be cheaper?

I have no interest in paying for sports, so I do not buy sports. I can buy individual episodes, seasons, or month to month subscriptions within seconds now.

I now wait until all the episodes are out, and word of mouth from multiple sources has established quality of the content, to purchase it. I can then consume it within a month or few months, and cancel the subscription. Or rent the movie for a few dollars.

I probably pay $150 per year at most. Before a la carte steaming, that would have easily been $75+ per month with contracts and equipment fees or whatnot to Comcast. Mostly to pay for other people’s interest in sports.

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#107

Post by Volundr »

Our_Benefactors wrote: post #34
xp84 wrote: post #28

I'm mainly just annoyed that I can't sign up for a small package with any service. I want literally locals plus whatever cheap basic cable networks want to tag along just for the exposure. $15 sounds fair for what I could get with an antenna but can't due to HOA rules and being lazy and not wanting to poke holes in my house, but with inflation I can accept that the true number should be $19.99. I haven't heard of suc…

Exterior antennas for broadcast tv are obsolete. Get a coaxial antenna from any big box store, put it behind your TV, boom free HD broadcasts.

My metal roof blocks these signals pretty impressively. An external antenna is the only way for me.

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#108

Post by pdwetz »

karlshea wrote: post #102
owlninja wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All my regional sports got moved to Bally's and my subscription price to Hulu did not change :(

Now I pay $80 a year for MLS Season Pass, which is about a month of Hulu Live TV. And I won’t have to see shitty compressed ESPN+ or Bally streams for a decade.

Does that have blackouts for "local" teams? I'm 1-2 hours (traffic depending) from the Mets and MLB subscription in the past was useless for live games due to blackout restrictions.

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#109

Post by FormerBandmate »

taeric wrote: post #72
FormerBandmate wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a video game superior to TV? Storylines on prestige TV shows blow most videogames out of the water

I will make no defense of video game stories... but I find it laughable to hold up most "prestige" TV shows. How do the "prestige" video games hold up against most TV shows? :D Putting charity to the claim, since you do have to interact with games, I could see how the thought could be that they are more mentally stimulating. Gambling, of course, gives the lie to that claim. Addictive does not mean productive, and all…

I’m not saying TV is better than videogames. I’m saying Breaking Bad is better than Clash Royale, and as such, judging all videogames as worse than TV is absurd.

The Last of Us (game) is much better than MILF Manor lol

Re: YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing

#110

Post by midoridensha »

pdntspa wrote: post #40

This isn't entirely relevant, but I just want to say I am sick of our society's obsessive fascination with TV. It's solitary, sedentary, and passive. And then we bitch and complain when the people cracking this whip make it more obnoxious, more expensive, and even less entertaining. Every show feels the same. The actors seem interchangeable. There's such a limited subset of permitted stories and things that can be sa…

You're single, right?

>Do something else! Play a videogame. Read a book. Go out and do something calming. Stop worshipping TV and movies and entertainment

Videogames and books are things you can't do with a partner. Going out is, but that takes a lot of time (travel time is a lot of overhead) and usually costs money unless you just go to the local park or something. Plus, it's restricted by the weather.

>And for god sakes stop sucking off the teat of these stupid subscription plans! The least we can do to fight pack is to pirate it.

Since this article is about YouTube TV, I'd like to plug the excellent Android TV app "SmartTubeNext". If you have a Google/Android TV, you can install this app (it's a bit of a pain since Google won't allow it in the Play store, so you need a downloader app to install it directly from GitHub) and watch YouTube videos without ads or sponsor segments.

Post reply on HN