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

YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 466 posts

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#281

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

judge2020 wrote: post #149
kemonocode wrote: post #115

So it's just cable with extra steps now. Nice. I really don't expect too many people to stay subscribed, unless they're relying on the (sketchy) revenue stream that's people who subscribed once and then forgot all about it.

I would doubt more than 1% are in that category - $50 (now 65) a month raises more mental alarms than your old $11 Netflix subscription.

That’s me. I’ve been subscribing to Netflix for 7 years now despite not having watched it at all in 4 years.

I only have YouTubeTV because it’s still the cheapest way to get the BBC World News channel in the US. I used to have DirecTV but they started demanding $130/mo (without the sports channels!) minimum to get that channel - while my local cableco (Wave) doesn’t carry it at all.

I understand the bundling of channels from the same providers like Viacom and NBC/Universal that forces cable/sat customers onto higher pricing tiers, but channels like the BBC World News channel are sourced individually (as far as I know) and are offered at-cost (again, as far as I know) by cableco/sat providers - so there is absolutely no excuse for DirecTV to charge so much besides market segmentation (which they’re probably right on-the-money for (pun intended): the people interested in getting the BBC World News channel probably can afford $130/mo - and they’re right: I can afford it, but I still think it’s outrageous.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#282

Post by gambiting »

solarkraft wrote: post #76

Gen Z speaking: Why would anyone ever have wanted that, even at 40$?

I'm 29 and I haven't had TV for...8 years now? We only watch Netflix/Amazon prime or watch movies on blu ray. Every time I go visit my mum and she has the TV on(she's literally the only person I know still paying for satellite TV) I have no idea why you would. Constant ads, shows which are being interrupted by ads, no freedom of selection when it comes to content....I honestly don't understand why people still watch TV at all. I can maybe understand the argument about watching live sports, but it inevitably comes with watching all the other shit as well.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#283

Post by v7p1Qbt1im »

cwhiz wrote: post #90

YouTube TV had enough channels at launch. They kept adding channels that I didn’t want and charging for it. This went from best value to worst value in three short years. Not sure what the old media hacks are trying to accomplish here.

I can only assume the only remaining reason why people even still want traditional TV is live sports.

Stuff might finally be happening. I can‘t wait for Amazon, YouTube, Netflix, etc. to just come in and start getting those licenses. Imagine a FIFA world cup on YouTube live-streamed in 4K. Granted, it‘s unlikely to happen soon. But sports is really the only valuable thing the traditional content providers still have.

Wait a minute, though. AT&T and NBC both have have their own streaming services now. So why wouldn‘t they use their sports licenses to stream games on there?

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#284

Post by listenallyall »

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

Anti-bundling rants based on subsidizing unwanted channels are illogical. You're annoyed at paying for cable channels you don't watch but OK paying full freight for Netflix where you'll watch less than 5% of the available content? You're subsidizing the other 95%! Or that a-la-carte channel you want, you won't be watching it 24 hours per day so why subsidize programming that's on when you're sleeping or at work? Do you listen to every genre on Spotify? Use every machine at your gym? Drive on every road in your town? Read every article in the local newspaper (if your town still prints one)? Refuse to subsidize! Demand some money back!

Its not unbundling you really want, or a-la-carte, it's just a lower price tag.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#286

Post by thallium205 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #260

At $20 they were disruptive, at $65, they are dead to me. I will be interesting to see how many others leave. The "teaser" cable package is more channels and half the cost. I think it is just a continuing trend in Google getting squeezed harder and harder by the falling search advertising margins and no replacement or even side hustle to compensate. Just before Google winks out of relevance I expect to see them try t…

They definitely charge people to use maps... A lot.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#288

Post by iamwpj »

ralmidani wrote: post #58

Unless you must have live sports/CNBC or can’t have your internet slow down, how are YouTube TV or cable packages attractive? We have Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and Apple TV+. Even when the free/promotional periods are over, they would still end up costing less than a semi-decent cable package, but with way more useful content (in fact, more than we could ever hope to watch), and little to no ads.

We only have Netflix and YouTubeTV. That's $75 for content/mo. Much cheaper than cable in our area (adding in the hardware + DVR services). We have a handful of shows we watch plus a handful of NCAA basketball and the Olympics (this year isn't working out at all..). We've looked at this very objectively (spreadsheets!) and with what we want from our TV service YouTubeTV is the best deal.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#289

Post by toast0 »

nitrogen wrote: post #250
julianlam wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While hoopjumping is still rather high (I did need to configure a MySQL database and read through some rather cryptic docs for SchedulesDirect), it was much easier to get running using MythTV than it was a couple years prior (last time I had tried). It's definitely a nice weekend project if you are serious about cutting the cord and are in an area with decent OTA signals. I will say though, that MythTV does have the…

Ah, takes me back. I ran a MythTV box ages ago. What is the I-frame interval on ATSC streams? Is it all still MPEG-2 or are there more advanced streams being broadcast now? Presumably you have to wait for an I-frame, or show garbled video until you get one.

ATSC 3.0 is starting to show up in some markets, which brings with it newer than mpeg-2 codecs. I haven't yet started to pay attention to that, but it looks like it's h.265

They skipped ATSC 2. There were a couple broadcasters experimenting with newer codecs on ATSC, but I think that mostly fizzled out.

Post reply on HN