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

211–220 of 239 posts

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

#211

Post by kbelder »

legitster wrote: post #51
hanniabu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's great for when you don't want to choose something to watch

My guilty pleasure have been the Roku Digital Channels. They have channels that are just a 24 hour feed of MST3K, or Cook's Illustrated, or How It's Made, or Antiques Roadshow. Just to turn on some background while I am making dinner or working on a project has been enjoyable, commercials and all.

I watch those occasionally. I couple weeks ago I happened across some South Korean movie that was their own version of a Tom Clancy war thriller. It was horrible but fascinating(1), and I would never have sought it out on my own. I like the stumble-upon factor that channels give you.

(1) Fascinating in how it depicted other nations. South Korea as competent protagonists who are threading the needle in a dangerous world, North Korea as a broken relation who needs to redeem themselves, China as a looming threat that can still be diplomatically dealt with, USA as clumsy good guys who have lost their way, and Japan as just horrible villains.

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

#212

Post by tzs »

stronglikedan wrote: post #74
babypuncher wrote: post #66

YouTube TV is still cable, just delivered differently. For that reason, it was DOA in my eyes. My problem with cable was never necessarily the price (though that was a big factor), but the linear, scheduled nature of the whole thing. I don't know why some companies keep clinging to this dated distribution model well more than a decade after Netflix showed everyone how to do it better.

Because there's enough people like me to make it profitable. I don't want to feel committed every time I turn on the TV. Sometimes I just like to watch whatever's on, carefree. Different strokes, all equally valid.

Similarly, I've got the first 20 or so seasons of The Simpsons on DVD, and after watching them once with the commentary on I never watched them again. But I would watch the two episodes a day that my local Fox affiliate would broadcast.

If I actually pick a specific episode to watch (or nowadays to stream) it somewhere seems like I need to pay more attention to it than when I was watching a regularly scheduled syndicated episode. With the later it puts me in the same mindset as listening to radio...a casual thing that I might multitask with other things, such as reading or doing a crossword puzzle.

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

#213

Post by plsmatt »

dylan604 wrote: post #185
plsmatt wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah it’s all VBR (statmux) and they do make manual adjustments around special events. But at this point, in this market, there are multiple “.1” channels sharing the same physical channel. They are just out of bits.

When NBC last broadcast the Super Bowl there were two 1080i broadcasts (NBC and Telemundo) of the same game sharing the same physical channel (along with some sub channels). It was borderline unwatchable IMO.

I’m sure the situation isn’t as dire in all TV markets, but I think we are looking back on the days during which we could unilaterally state that OTA provides the best picture quality.

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

#214

Post by smsm42 »

paxys wrote: post #86
adocomplete wrote: post #2

I was really hoping the tech giants would be able to transform live TV as opposed to offer the same experience for (now) the same price.

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…

Over 35 here and stopped paying for TV years ago. No point anymore. That said, I don't watch sports, maybe if I did it'd be different.

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

#215

Post by pests »

DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #201
pests wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your dad. Ever have a favorite TV show release an episode and then you have to avoid Facebook and Twitter so you don't get spoiled?

It's not so much that it's that he wants to follow the game as it goes as far as stats go. How many completions, ints, etc. For me I don't care so I just don't watch the game for 30 minutes or so and that's perfect. But there is no way to do what he wants without watching in real time. Miserable though for me.

Stats is the game, for some.

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

#217

Post by vGPU »

paxys wrote: 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…

Torrents and reasonably fast internet have both existed for decades now.

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

#218

Post by solardev »

jowea wrote: post #151
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that's why the ad revenue goes down over time. People get used to clicking the right X's and ignoring the garbage on the sides and in the margins, and between the actual content. Less attention. The sites respond by making the ads more egregious, more numerous and even more aggressively placed but that just trains users to click out of the new ads. Just in my lifetime I've seen the amount of ads on television…

Is my memory fooling me but weren't the first ads already highly obnoxious? Like ads that popup a new window or were flashing and stuff?,

Yeah, it's true, a lot of the early DoubleClick ads were atrocious popups and tower banners with animated GIFs and fake marquees

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

#219

Post by PeterStuer »

I worked on research projects with large traditional live TV broadcasters. Their viewer demographic was 56+ and aging year by year. Even in those early days of Twitch top online streamers were attracting larger audiences than their top programs and that was not even on their radar.

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

#220

Post by atourgates »

paxys wrote: post #86
adocomplete wrote: post #2

I was really hoping the tech giants would be able to transform live TV as opposed to offer the same experience for (now) the same price.

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…

The problem is that “to watch sports” bit.

Apart from pirating, the only way to watch, say, NFL Football, your local baseball team and say Division 1 College Football games is gonna be with one of those $70/mo+ packages.

I would love to just pay directly for the sports/leagues I care about, but that’s just not an option.

Post reply on HN