Live data from Hacker News

YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

arstechnica.com

111–120 of 239 posts

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#111
post #11

It'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…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#112
post #11

It'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…

Just because lots of people seem to be getting confused, "pre-roll ad" isn't the right term for this. Pre-roll is one of those ads YouTube forces you to watch 5-30 seconds of before you can skip it, and when they play before the video starts. Mid-roll ads are the same thing, but interrupting the middle of the video. And Post-roll are ones that play after the video is over. What you're referring to are usually called…

Hopefully OP understands this, but I can confirm folks like my parents do not distinguish the difference. It's mind boggling

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#113
post #12

I subscribe to YouTube TV but watch it less than 1/month (it's for my parents). It blows my mind that it's $60/month and still contains ads. There is nothing on TV worth sitting through ads for.

I really wonder how much of this effect is a generation gap. I see one commercial and it drives me nuts, but my parents don't even seem to notice them. Then again I have dev coworkers who're younger than me and go like "I should really get adblock at some point" while staring down pages full of pop-ups and animated crap. Guess you really can develop banner blindness by attrition lol.

I'm 41 and watch the nfl with my dad. I try to explain that we can just record it and wait 40 minutes and watch the whole thing with no commercials.

Nope. He wants to look up game stats without getting spoiled and needs frequent smoke breaks.

It's nearly unbearable for me. I only stick it out because he's 76

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#114

Earlier 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

Is that really Nebula's fault? YouTube, TikTok, etc. are full of garbage too.

I don't really know their arrangement with creators (one would hope creators get a bigger cut there, otherwise why leave YouTube?), but my favorite creators* have the same videos on both, just a little earlier on Nebula usually.

*Just engineering channels though, which is probably why they're not as spammy/shock-reaction-y.

https://nebula.tv/practical-engineering

https://nebula.tv/realengineering

https://nebula.tv/the-efficient-engineer

are all excellent

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#115
I just don't understand the value prop of YT TV.

It seems like the exact cable TV model that all the streaming services were supposed to disrupt and put in the ground (eventually).

But then again, I'm probably not the primary user of the service anyway.

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#116
post #108

Are 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 chann…

We were paying about $350 for internet + the full package to get sports.

Now it's $60 for faster internet and $73 for TV. The ads are infuriating, but it's less than half the cost for pretty much the same TV experience. This is a very clear upgrade.

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#117
post #108

Are 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 chann…

Correct, but there are cheaper options. Additionally, you can self-install cable these days in many places.

With streaming services you still have to pay for certain sports packages and premiums.

Most people who stream are still paying the Internet fees and modem rental.

Some streaming services will sell you equipment (for instance, DirecTV Stream has a set-top box that isn't required, but actually behaves more like traditional cable instead of having to navigate to a separate app)

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#118

Baffled by the number of people itt saying "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads." It can't not have ads. It's cable TV, YouTube has zero control over whether or not it has ads. They can't broadcast the USA network without ads. Cable has had ads for like 40 years, and traditional cable providers are much more expensive than this. Are y'all 14 years old? idgi

Over the last 15 years the expectation from online content has been "If I pay money ($10-20/mo), I shouldn't have to see ads." There's been a lot of pushback on this expectation, with sponsored content and tired services. This is the strongest pushback on that expectation.

Of course we cannot get around the limitation of a streaming content provider displaying ads as part of their stream. It's just that $73 buys a lot of entertaining content on the internet that won't have that issue. It doubly feels like a bad deal because the content on cable TV is almost always not the highest quality content available. They are charging premium prices for standard content with long ad breaks.

I wouldn't say "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads" but I would say "I can't believe that people see enough value to spend that kind of money for that content with those ads." In my adult life I have never paid for cable or satellite tv. My parents still do.

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#119

I’m subscribed to them for the same reason I was subscribed to DirecTV for a decade - they have a monopoly on Sunday Ticket. Oh, how I yearn for Sunday Ticket to just be its own entity so I didn’t have to buy another service.

You can subscribe to Sunday Ticket without signing up for YouTube TV. See "NFL Sunday Ticket on YouTube" or "NFL Sunday Ticket + NFL RedZone on YouTube"

While technically true this is hardly an option... Both of those "alternative" plans exclude YouTube TV while charging considerably more. How many users who enjoy paying more for less did they sell to here?

$350/year for Sunday Ticket with YouTube TV included vs. $450/year for just Sunday Ticket, delivered via regular YouTube it seems.

Their pricing page: https://tv.youtube.com/learn/nflsundayticket/#id-plan-matrix

Image if you can't access it: https://i.imgur.com/0nsQZxA.png

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#120

Baffled by the number of people itt saying "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads." It can't not have ads. It's cable TV, YouTube has zero control over whether or not it has ads. They can't broadcast the USA network without ads. Cable has had ads for like 40 years, and traditional cable providers are much more expensive than this. Are y'all 14 years old? idgi

I remember my father complaining about the ads when he started paying for cable in the 1980s. I still complain about it.

You can get a decent amount of channels for free in most metropolitan areas with a digital antenna. You get commercials but a one time cost for a $100 antenna is worth it.

And the more people that switch to OTA TV the better because that will mean more advertiser money, more eDTV antennas, and more channels coming on air. The market certainly is a growing: https://www.nexttv.com/news/nielsen-sees-uptick-in-over-the-...

Post reply on HN