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

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 239 posts

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

#181

Post by charlesray »

RF_Enthusiast wrote: post #178
charlesray wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and YouTube TV does not insert ads into those broadcasts. There's no ads in YouTube TV beyond what you would see on any other cable carrier.

Yeah, it sounds like there's a considerable misunderstanding of the service YouTubeTV provides.

I think the confusion arises because people view "cable" as something that requires coax and a set top box, and they view "streaming" as anything that goes over the internet, therefore they mistakenly view YouTube TV as streaming, when it's actually just cable. The US government uses the term "multichannel video programming distributor" for platforms like this, which is a mouthful, but at least defines the concept separately from the distribution method.

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

#182

Post by TrinaryWorksToo »

parthdesai wrote: post #152
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will get more and more difficult. This morning Youtube kicked me out because I was using adblock origin. And update fixed it, but if they start putting DRM...

That and you can also see certain youtubers chopping off sponsored ads block into multiple parts and integrating it with their video

SponsorBlock helps with this also, even when it's incorporated into the video (via muting the audio).

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

#183

Post by solardev »

chmod775 wrote: post #126
solardev wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.t…

Never used them. The way they're marketing themselves I didn't think I would have to curate their content myself. How much do I need do I need to pay to not have to sift through brain-numbing clickbait diarrhea? At that point you might as well just kill your time on YouTube. Plenty of good channels there too - if you can stand the stench of the heap of trash they're buried under.

Oh, I never thought of Nebula as a curation service, just a hosting service that the creators I like seem to prefer (who knows why, maybe they get paid more there or have some promotion with them?). But I eventually moved back to YouTube too, for unrelated reasons (auto captions etc.)

I don't think any video site these days can be easily "browsed" if you want to avoid the garbage :( It's all about picking and choosing specific channels/creators to follow and ignoring the crap... sadly.

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

#184

Post by cjbgkagh »

xwdv wrote: post #157
paxys wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech giants have successfully transformed live TV, simply by killing it completely. No one under 35 subscribes to any kind of live TV service today other than to watch sports, and in another decade that will be fully online as well (look at the inroads Amazon and Apple are already making in that space). Some of the best new TV content is increasingly owned by Netflix, Amazon, Apple and the like. Cable TV and any kind…

Cable TV will still be around for commercial settings.

How much of comercial settings will be eaten up be online shopping? I can’t remember the last time I went to a brick and mortar store to buy something.

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

#185

Post by dylan604 »

plsmatt wrote: post #136
dylan604 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can question, or you can do the A/B test yourself and no longer have it as a question. Sure, they've sub-divided their bandwidth, but their flagship station still receives much more bandwidth than your cable provider. Just do the Amazon rental for a weekend. If you don't like it, return it. You'll see the difference.

This is very much a regional thing. After the repack many markets have multiple HD channels sharing the bandwidth previously allocated for one OTA HD channel. In addition, as ATSC 3 is being deployed these channel sharing agreements are only becoming more common. In addition, some cable providers are taking this over-compressed feed and compressing it further. In many situations, streaming is the best option for pict…

I haven't been near broadcast engineering since the DTV transition, but at one point in time, they wanted to have dial-a-yield type of abilities for the splitting of the bandwidth. For primetime, they wanted to to be able to give the main channel a larger portion of the bandwidth when people were watching, and then during the day provide more options for people to view alternate programming. Even if you gave each of the .2-.X channels 3Mbps, that's still a lot of bandwidth in comparison for the .1 channel. Of course any live realtime encoding of 3Mbps will never rival a 3Mbps encode from someone like Netflix, but a lot of that is just SD content anyways so meh it gets.

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

#186

Post by dylan604 »

ghaff wrote: post #58
dylan604 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony here is that your specific situation was one of the driving factors of why cable was created

Even leaving aside the cable-only stations (both premium and non-premium), even getting the basic networks and maybe some UHF channels was marginal for a lot of people involving a lot of fiddling to get a usable signal. And pre-DirectTV, the alternatives were pretty much geeking out with a big Satellite dish which only worked out on your big country property and were willing to spend the money.

> even getting the basic networks and maybe some UHF channels was marginal

In my day, we only had 3 networks and we liked it! You kids and your choices!

But seriously, it is fascinating how in ~20 years of HDTV we've gone so far away from a small collection of channels with nothing worth watching to nothing worth watching available everywhere 24/7. Giving people their own agency in creating content has not increased the PSNR levels in the great vs dreck.

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

#187

Post by dpifke »

andrewgioia wrote: post #119
jpollock wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 I…

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

YouTube TV is required—not included—with the $350/year plan.

So it's either $350/year + $73/month (with), or $450/year (without).

Assuming you only keep YouTube TV for the September-January football season, that's $715/season with YouTube TV, vs. $450/season without. If you don't get any value from YouTube TV (e.g. if you already have cable or satellite), it's cheaper without.

(Sunday Ticket doesn't show locally or nationally broadcast games such as Monday Night Football, so you kinda need access to broadcast TV alongside it.)

When DirecTV had the Sunday Ticket monopoly, you had to sign a two-year contract to be allowed to purchase it. At least with Google, you can cancel YouTube TV as soon as the season is over.

In my family's case, we weighed the cost against what we spent last football season on food + drinks at sports bars, and decided it was a better deal. ($715 over 18 weeks = $40/weekend. If we go out half as frequently, we come out ahead.)

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

#188

Post by bb88 »

drewg123 wrote: post #96
dylan604 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget you can still get a DTV OTA antenna and watch live TV with a much much better image quality and without cable's delay. Admittedly, in can take a bit of effort finding a location to place the antenna for best reception for your location, but so worth not paying for cable any longer. Sports is the primary reason for me messing with this, but it is definitely worth it.

Note that they have added DRM to the ATSC 3.0 standard, and its being implemented quite widely. This means that you'll be unable to freely record time shift sports using applications like MythTV, etc.

Usually after a sports event is over, it's worth a lot less than when it's being played live, too. E.g. The Super Bowl's value is only worth something when people don't know what's going to happen. After the game everyone pretty much knows what has happened.

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

#189

Post by bdcravens »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #154
bdcravens wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sunday Ticket is different than RedZone. RedZone is a single channel that jumps between games; Sunday Ticket gives you unfettered access to all games.

Even Sunday Ticket does not give you access to all the games. https://tv.youtube.com/learn/nflsundayticket/ >NFL Sunday Ticket: Every out-of-market Sunday game[1] >[1] Locally broadcast Fox and CBS games, Sunday Night Football on NBC, select digital-only games and international games excluded

Sure, but it does give you the lion's share, whereas Red Zone is really just one show, six hours on Sundays (and occasionally Saturday)

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

#190

Post by xwdv »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #184
xwdv wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cable TV will still be around for commercial settings.

How much of comercial settings will be eaten up be online shopping? I can’t remember the last time I went to a brick and mortar store to buy something.

TVs in bars is a billion dollar industry.
Post reply on HN