YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99 • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#231

Post by s17n » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 5:20 AM UTC

newbie789 wrote: post #148

sutterbomb wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone thinks they want a la carte, but (most) everyone is wrong. Bundling is generally better for consumers and producers. https://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-... Stratechery also has written about this

That's an interesting perspective, but it kind of looks like a lot of graphs saying "You should pay for stuff you don't want because otherwise it would incentivize the sellers to price gouge you for the stuff you do want" I'm kind of confused, if it's an adversarial relationship where the seller is going to extract as much money from you as possible in either scenario, wouldn't some consumers prefer to pay specifical…

You aren't going to be able to spend less money though. Since there's zero marginal cost to adding extra channels, you should assume that the price you're getting charged isn't actually based on the number of channels you subscribe to.

A better way to think about bundle pricing is that the channels you really want cost $50, and they throw in a whole bunch of other crap for free. Why turn down free stuff?

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#232

Post by mister_hn » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 5:22 AM UTC

ecoqba11 wrote: post #223

There are so many free alternatives now days... PlutoTV, Locast, Plex & Tubi. These combine with Netflix or Prime Video or even TV+ is more than enough.

and if you add also Kodi Addons to the mix..

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#233

Post by rbritton » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 5:24 AM UTC

sutterbomb wrote: post #132

strangescript wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the services fault. These big tv conglomerates don't want their channels optional because they know no one wants them for the most part. Or, at the very least, you won't accidentally start watching something on their network if you don't even have the channel.

Everyone thinks they want a la carte, but (most) everyone is wrong. Bundling is generally better for consumers and producers. https://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-... Stratechery also has written about this

I’m actually more of a fan of a la carte content than channels. I typically spend $0-100/mo on TV shows and movies, which I strip the DRM from and copy into my permanent collection. In aggregate, I probably spend something comparable to what cable would cost. It’s all content I want with no filler or commercials, and I’m not held hostage by some subscription.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#234

Post by mmanfrin » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 5:26 AM UTC

ecoqba11 wrote: post #223

There are so many free alternatives now days... PlutoTV, Locast, Plex & Tubi. These combine with Netflix or Prime Video or even TV+ is more than enough.

The distinction that needs to be made is that people aren't typically looking for things to watch, they're looking for a specific thing (generally live sports).

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#235

Post by vasco » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 5:26 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #226

mfkp wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I pay ~$5/mo for satellite radio. I don't even drive that much but it's worth it to not listen to ads the whole time.

Even on SiriusXM, the DJs never seem to shut up. One of my fondest "one of these days" project ideas: duct-tape a correlator to an RF front end, along with enough storage to "Tivoize" the local FM band. Record everything, recognize and redact any content that reoccurs within 30-second windows, and rebroadcast it for household/car consumption.

They went about it differently but already made it, it's called Spotify.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#236

Post by RHSeeger » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 5:29 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #194

mkhpalm wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about other people but I don't "think" I want a la carte, I absolutely know I do. So much so that I don't pay for anything because nobody offers what I'm willing to pay for.

Many of those channels you "don't want" actually subsidize the channels you do want.

At least for me, I find that unlikely. I'm paying a fee for sports channels I have no interest in (because you can't not pay it), I'm buying a bundle that I only want a couple channels in, and those are the channels most people want. I would guess that I fall into the majority that are subsidizing the minority.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#237

Post by Jeremy1026 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 5:29 AM UTC

keithwinstein wrote: post #12

ObShameless reminder that https://puffer.stanford.edu remains free of charge. The site streams San Francisco affiliates and local stations of NBC/CBS/ABC/PBS/FOX/CW as part of a university study on video streaming algorithms -- it's essentially a big A/B test to try to reproduce or clarify some of the findings in the research literature. We're now posting all our data and analysis each day. Research talk here: https:…

Replying to save for later.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#238

Post by whymauri » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 5:32 AM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #78

Have they figured out how to play the show you click on yet? No. $50 a month and the basic functionality of the app doesn't even work. With a Chromecast, it's even worse. Eventually, after clicking back and forth, disconnecting and reconnecting, it may play. Then you have to turn off the closed captioning for every single show even though it's off in the settings. Then it randomly stops at times. The ui displays the…

The space bar doesn't even pause on our HTPC. No clue how to fix it. Works on normal YouTube, lol.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#239

Post by awill » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 5:32 AM UTC

The content providers want Youtube TV to fail, and are doing it with forced bundling that increases the price. There's no other explanation.

In hindsight, it was stupid for Google to get into a business where they cannot control pricing.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#240

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 5:33 AM UTC

s17n wrote: post #231

newbie789 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting perspective, but it kind of looks like a lot of graphs saying "You should pay for stuff you don't want because otherwise it would incentivize the sellers to price gouge you for the stuff you do want" I'm kind of confused, if it's an adversarial relationship where the seller is going to extract as much money from you as possible in either scenario, wouldn't some consumers prefer to pay specifical…

You aren't going to be able to spend less money though. Since there's zero marginal cost to adding extra channels, you should assume that the price you're getting charged isn't actually based on the number of channels you subscribe to. A better way to think about bundle pricing is that the channels you really want cost $50, and they throw in a whole bunch of other crap for free. Why turn down free stuff?

People don't turn down free stuff. It's just that they no longer value the content provided via TV channels at the price they are asking. The fundamental problem is content that used to be delivered via TV is no longer worth what it once was.