Use AdGuard and SponsorBlock on macOS. It's really increased my YouTube browsing quality of life.
YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
101–110 of 239 posts
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y... is a crowdsourced way to skip past promos (by timestamp). Or some creators have moved to Nebula, which seems to have less of that crap but IMO a worse UI than YouTube.
While I like Nebula on premise, it seems creators on it are getting 'lazier' and some of the people on the site are downright questionable ("TL;DR News" and "Therapist Reacts" being the biggest offenders for me) Like, why am I paying Nebula for this garbage? https://i.imgur.com/itiLYbK.png
What is questionable about TLDR News?
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This just made me realize I don't believe I've ever intentionally watched live TV my entire life.
That is extremely rare above a certain age. It may be more common today, especially if you make a point of avoiding sports, but there are a ton of situations in which people gravitated to live TV until very recently (when some don't now have it).
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#105It'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…
Plus they always seem to be taking away channels too. Here in NY, they removed SNY. It’s like ok if you’re raising prices, make sure you aren’t taking things away!
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y... is a crowdsourced way to skip past promos (by timestamp). Or some creators have moved to Nebula, which seems to have less of that crap but IMO a worse UI than YouTube.
While I like Nebula on premise, it seems creators on it are getting 'lazier' and some of the people on the site are downright questionable ("TL;DR News" and "Therapist Reacts" being the biggest offenders for me) Like, why am I paying Nebula for this garbage? https://i.imgur.com/itiLYbK.png
Are you unfamiliar with Little Joel? Big Joel has actual deep analysis if you like, but Little Joel is just a silly side channel of his. You're paying for this, plus also multi-hour-long analysis of, say, media analysis contrasting with the role of Jewish people who were coerced to cooperate with the Nazis in concentration camps.
Nebula is meant to serve a variety of videos. I'd probably feel the same of "I have to watch ads for this crap?" for YouTube, y'know?
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#107Playstation Vue was a great service. Since then streaming "TV" has become less of a value.
Currently we get sling, which is $45 for the typical mainstream cable channels and 2 local channels (ABC and Fox). HuluTV is ok, since it includes Disney+, but about the same price as YouTubeTV. DirectTV Stream is a very complete offering, but barely cheaper than cable (and only because of the lack of equipment fees and taxes)
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#108Are 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 channels, paid for on-demand, paid for sports packages, and then watched a shit load of ads to cap it all off. Complaining that YouTube TV is too pricey or is making things worse just shows that you don't know of the media world outside of YouTube and Netflix.
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y... is a crowdsourced way to skip past promos (by timestamp). Or some creators have moved to Nebula, which seems to have less of that crap but IMO a worse UI than YouTube.
While I like Nebula on premise, it seems creators on it are getting 'lazier' and some of the people on the site are downright questionable ("TL;DR News" and "Therapist Reacts" being the biggest offenders for me) Like, why am I paying Nebula for this garbage? https://i.imgur.com/itiLYbK.png
[deleted]
Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads
#110It'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…
My significant other watches sports, so the comparison to YT Premium doesn't count for us. It was either be subjected to ads and pay a lot of money or be subjected to ads and pay a medium-small amount of money.
But as someone who has never paid for cable TV before, I agree that it's jarring. Our trick is to only watch things we've marked to be recorded, which allows ad skipping. (On demand and live don't allow skipping. Starting a sportsball game an hour late gives plenty of buffer.)