Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

111–120 of 161 posts

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

#111
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly stupid naming. I saw these prices and just entirely gave up even thinking about premium until I saw the note (and then I still gave up on it, anyway).

No one has ever accused Google of being good with naming things, that's for sure.

Well, to be fair, they're not nearly as bad as Microsoft.

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

#112
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…

> 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.

NewPipe is available on F-Droid and offers the same thing.

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

#113
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 are 4 million books published each year. 4 million!

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

#115

YouTube (Premium) subscription pricing stinks if you're outside the US as well. You're ripped off on what feels like a nationalistic basis. Eg. Last time I looked the annual option which saves money over the monthly wasn't available in the UK and the monthly was the same number despite the currency differences. ie $11.99 per month against £11.99. Outrageous. I was on a cheap trial but cancelled on principle when I ch…

You don't need to pay for access to YouTube; you can just watch it for free. Of course, the downside is all the ads, but you can avoid that by either using it in a browser with uBlock Origin, or using the "SmartTubeNext" app.

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

#116
post #92
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading books was on your approved list. How is that not passive entertainment?

Good books are far from passive. The worse a book is the more passive, but the reader always has to use reading comprehension to understand a book.

This is exactly why video has taken over reading. As soon as we had the tech for it it became mainstream because it is so brainless and flashy

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

#117
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No local blackouts for the new AppleTV MLS deal.

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

#118
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Right. Is why I offer no defense of games as a whole. But "prestige" of either is good. And probably is more sophisticated than the norm of the other.

That said, I offered charity to the idea. Breaking Bad is entertaining. Is it mentally stimulating, though? Tetris is probably as mentally challenging. More, in many ways.

That said, even with that charity to the idea, I think it is misguided. Mentally stimulating can just be addicting with no growth.

And then further, I think the idea that you need growth is misguided. Being entertained is fine.

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

#119
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…

>$15 sounds fair for what I could get with an antenna

I happily paid $10 a month for Locast. All I want is the locals and whatever they piggyback on. I can't get it for less than $40.

I continue to do without. Don't tell me about antennas. I live too far away for my "locals" to be picked up with an antenna.

I bitterly resent the graft that allowed the major networks to get a 90+ year old judge out of retirement to specifically rule in their favor.

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

#120
We were all so excited. We could now record TV on our tivo, replay it later skipping the commercials. Life was good.

Then it got even better, we could download or stream our content over the internet so we didn't need to pay $100 a month for cable and $50 for internet, we could just do the $50 for internet.

Now that those small startups sold their businesses to the giant media companies, we're all back to being literally forced to watch commercials, pay $100 to some big media company on top of our isp costs, and we can't record content locally perpetually and "own" it, even if we "buy" it.

Post reply on HN