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

221–230 of 239 posts

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

#221

Post by 8bitsrule »

scoofy wrote: post #197
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.

You’re think of YouTube. The business model of television, especially live television, wasn’t really ever going to cost significantly less than it did. The inverse relationship between advertising and number of outlets would necessitate higher costs to the consumer, not lower costs. Anyone willing to create content at extremely low cost has flourished under the YouTube paradigm.

> Anyone willing to create content at extremely low cost has flourished under the YouTube paradigm.

That idea won't stand up to close scrutiny. Especially the 'Anyone' part. YouTube undoubtedly enriches itself on their efforts. If most 'Anyone's have 'fluorished' at all it's because of their viewers; most of the 'channel' owners that I've watched regularly for years rely on Patreon for support.

I very much doubt that refusing ad-blockers will change any of that.

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

#222

Post by amanaplanacanal »

ghaff wrote: post #36
hanniabu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A lot of people including my brother do like to have TV as background. (Personally I hate it.) Way back when I would travel in groups and sometimes have a roommate one of the nails on chalkboard things for me was people who would turn on the TV the first thing when they walked into a room.

I usually have music going in the background instead, which I would guess a lot of people would find just as annoying.

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

#223

Post by benj111 »

13of40 wrote: post #191
xwdv wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cable TV will still be around for commercial settings.

Businesses still have landline telephones too, but I feel like they're just less agile, not that they'll never catch up with the times.

Why wouldn't businesses have landline phones?

Mobiles are for a single individual. Landlines are to a single location.

If I ring X corp, I don't really care if I speak to Bob or Barbara, I often don't know if I want to speak to Bob or Barbara.

In the same way I'll email enquiries@xcorp.com not bob@xcorp.com

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

#224

Post by oblio »

babypuncher wrote: post #69
nicce wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That used to be the case couple years back. Now they are bringing ads to these streaming services. And you have 10 different streaming services what you need to buy separately. Soon there will be bundling streaming service and we are back to cable tv pricing and ads.

which services have eliminated their ad-free options?

None, because the pressure to grow and/or show higher profits hasn't reached a boiling point. Give it time.

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

#225

Post by Klonoar »

atourgates wrote: post #220
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…

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.

This is why I’m grateful for how Formula 1 has kept the F1TV app option.

The day they finally rip that away is the day I possibly stop following.

…as much…

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

#226

Post by charlesray »

superjared wrote: post #198
charlesray wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cable TV broadcasts include both the network's ads and slots for the carrier to run their own ads. They're not inserting bonus ads on top of the actual content. Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked.

> Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked. Arguably we don't _want_ the same as any cable provider has always worked.

We don't have a choice. That's how cable works, and YouTube TV exists for those of us who need it. They can't magically create an ad free broadcast of TNT or something. How would that even work?

You don't have to like broccoli but it'd be weird to complain that it doesn't taste like chocolate.

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

#227

Post by footy »

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…

36 and haven't paid for TV since... well, since I moved out of my parents' actually.

I pay for a frankly stupid amount of sports streaming services though. I wish there was a way I could watch everything I want without paying for FuboTV, DAZN, TSN+, and probably others I'm forgetting.

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

#228

Post by DonnyV »

ThatPlayer wrote: post #209
DonnyV wrote: post #147

I think the best hack I've found is get cable and a TiVo with a life time subscription. Now I get the same or more content then YouTube and no commercials because TiVo has a commercial skip feature. I also don't have to pay for hardware for my cable connection because they have to give me 1 free cable card by law. I just insert that into my TiVo.

> they have to give me 1 free cable card by law. At least in the US, that is no longer the case. The FCC dropped the cable card in 2020. HDHomeRun cancelled their newer cable 6 tuner on that news. I was looking into getting one for a Plex server at the time.

Ugh...I also have a Plex server.

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

#229

Post by antifa »

vGPU wrote: post #217
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.

I'm running jellyfin server on an old NUC (but you can use any piece of hardware or even your main computer). My android and iOS devices (including 2 TVs) have the jellyfin client. I can watch movies/TV shows anywhere and resume on another device anytime.

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

#230

Post by ghaff »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #222
ghaff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people including my brother do like to have TV as background. (Personally I hate it.) Way back when I would travel in groups and sometimes have a roommate one of the nails on chalkboard things for me was people who would turn on the TV the first thing when they walked into a room.

I usually have music going in the background instead, which I would guess a lot of people would find just as annoying.

I don't find it as annoying--and sometimes even like it--but I don't routinely put music on as background especially if I'm reading/writing/etc.
Post reply on HN