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

YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 225 posts

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#111

Post by ende »

freewilly1040 wrote: post #76

The cable provider / content provider dispute playbook: 1. Cease broadcasting / licensing of content 2. Talk to media to patiently explain how your adversary is responsible for depriving you of your precious {sports team | Marvel hero} 3. Hope ensuing social media / support queue shit storm hurts your adversary more than you (by the looks of these comments, advantage Disney) 4. Sign a deal 5. Repeat at next contract!

Google has handled themselves better than the content providers in past disputes, and the providers typically fold. I think Google has garnered goodwill by proactively reducing their prices etc.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#112

Post by nkozyra »

ghaff wrote: post #69
nkozyra wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cable doesn't offer this, generally, because ESPN subsidizes so many other channels and Disney has a lot of power here. They strongarm a lot of providers and I'd be surprised if YouTube held out. They will lose subscribers.

It's not really because ESPN "subsidizes" other channels. ESPN is expensive. It's because sports is the primary hook for a lot of people to continue getting broadcast/cable TV at all outside of on-demand subscriptions. It's not enough of a hook for me to pay but, if I were to do so, it would be the main reason.

What I meant by subsidizes is that it is the hook that allows the others to exist at a smaller profit margin.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#113

Post by uptown »

phil21 wrote: post #109
technofiend wrote: post #3

Personally I'm delighted to trade ABC, ESPN, etc [1] for a $15 reduction in my YouTube TV bill. It just makes me wish Google would unbundle all their different providers so I could choose only the ones I want. [1] Your local ABC channel, ABC News Live, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, Freeform, FX, FXX, FXM, National Geographic, National Geographic Wild, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3 (by authentication to the ESPN app)…

Thing is I would be delighted the the opposite. I'd love to only pay for ESPN and the other sports channels only for $15/mo. Maybe add in CNN/FOX/MSNBC/Etc. for the wife to have on in the background, but plenty of ways to get that otherwise cheaply. OTA works fine for local news, even if the apps are a bit buggy if you want anything DVR or digitally distributed. As would likely most I believe. Thus sports propping up…

"I'm surprised Disney/ESPN is only $15/mo of the bill to be honest"

It's probably more. They're just happy to keep your money.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#114

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

BrazzVuvuzela wrote: post #53
adamcstephens wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really much better to have five $15 services to get the same content?

You still don't get it. I want the "channel" format of media (programmed video content aka broadcast programming) to die. Whether it's accessed by paying comcast to watch it over a settop box or paying google to watch it through a browser or app makes no difference to me, it's the same format of content and I want to see it die. And it has been dying. Look at the ads the roll between the shows and it's clear that TV…

I think they're still trying to figure out a replacement that gives the channel/network/platform leverage over content producers, much like control over "prime time" and fall marketing blitzes did.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#115

Post by [deleted] »

BrazzVuvuzela wrote: post #53
adamcstephens wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really much better to have five $15 services to get the same content?

You still don't get it. I want the "channel" format of media (programmed video content aka broadcast programming) to die. Whether it's accessed by paying comcast to watch it over a settop box or paying google to watch it through a browser or app makes no difference to me, it's the same format of content and I want to see it die. And it has been dying. Look at the ads the roll between the shows and it's clear that TV…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#116

Post by notsureaboutpg »

nathcd wrote: post #70
foxhop wrote: post #32

If you just want TV on in the background and don't want to pay anything, checkout "Pluto TV" and "Tubi TV", both have apps and may cast to Chromecast or SmartTVs. https://pluto.tv/ https://tubitv.com/ Friends help friends cut cords.

Wow, these look great. Don't need to sign up, and they don't even use EME. Have they been around for awhile?

The trick is they are stuffed with ads. I swear the reruns have extra ads than when they originally aired. It will show 3 minutes of programming than 1.5 minutes of ads.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#117

Post by 29083011397778 »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #101
jasode wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I’m really surprised by the number of top level comments that are confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube TV." Thanks for the clarification. It probably adds to the confusion that the landing page for "YouTube TV" goes to the "youtube.com" domain: https://tv.youtube.com/

People don't confuse Gmail with Google Maps or Google Search just because they are on the same root domain

Maybe not, but "It's very similar to this other thing, but under a different name" isn't exactly an uncommon theme for Google. That's how we ended up with Inbox vs Gmail, Google Play Music vs Youtube Premium, Google Chat vs Allo, Hangouts vs Google Voice, and the others I'm sure I'm forgetting.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#118

Post by BrazzVuvuzela »

hiptobecubic wrote: post #73
BrazzVuvuzela wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't watch it. > I don't get the hate. I live in a society with people who do watch it. I don't like the way broadcast TV turned people into numbed couch potatoes watching hours of ads a day.

The ads are not any more of a problem than the content and the shitty content is available in many formats.

The content itself is often ads. All of those pawn shop shows might as well be infomercials.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#119

Post by ghaff »

dreyfan wrote: post #108
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube TV is a separate $65/month subscription. Seems like an absurdly high price relative to Hulu or Netflix, but it’s meant to compete more with local cable packages. Without the premium content, it’s hard to do that. I think the content providers know this and are trying to squeeze YouTube into giving more of their profits to the content providers. Either that, or to raise prices to be similar to cable. YouTube T…

Hulu + LiveTV is $65 and Sling is about $50 and Youtube TV $65. These aren’t really comparable to standard Hulu or Netflix or Amazon Prime etc. It’s for people that want to pretend they’re cord-cutting while buying the exact same thing from a streaming company.

And because you're buying essentially the same content package, there's no reason one would expect it to be significantly cheaper just because it's streamed.

As a content package, it's evolved to be something largely different from what you get from the streaming services like Netflix. It's largely sports, news/talk shows, and reality TV and other relatively low-cost lightly scripted/unscripted content, some documentaries... You still have some traditional network content but it's been a while since I've even heard of a network drama or comedy of note.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#120

Post by BrazzVuvuzela »

ipaddr wrote: post #78
BrazzVuvuzela wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't watch it. > I don't get the hate. I live in a society with people who do watch it. I don't like the way broadcast TV turned people into numbed couch potatoes watching hours of ads a day.

As opposed to netflix users who are more likely not to binge because not having ads and having the next show play makes it less easy to binge?

One does not redeem the other.
Post reply on HN