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

31–40 of 239 posts

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

#31

Post by jjoonathan »

ylhert wrote: post #11

It's wild to me how much Youtube TV costs and yet they still serve you tons of ads. Coming from youtube premium where occasionally I have to skip through a preroll ad, I forget how much you are bombarded with ads while watching traditional TV. The fact that you have to pay the princely sum of $73/month on top of that boggles my mind. I canceled when they raised the price from $35/month and I'll never go back at these…

You won't have to go back, youtube premium will bring the enshitification to your door over the coming decade or so.

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

#32

Post by extragood »

dylan604 wrote: post #8
ghaff wrote: post #3

Cord-cutting (still get Internet from the cable company) has saved me a fair bit of money after I realized that I could go a month without watching a live broadcast or a show recorded on my TiVo. But you pretty much only get significant cost savings today if you're willing to do mostly without live TV 100% or jump through some hoops for a rare exception. In spite of the occasional annoyance, I'm fine with it but I re…

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.

While the image quality is better (and the price difference is beyond compare), I've noticed that a lot of channels are still broadcast at 720p.

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

#33

Post by FanaHOVA »

secondcoming wrote: post #27
ylhert wrote: post #11

It's wild to me how much Youtube TV costs and yet they still serve you tons of ads. Coming from youtube premium where occasionally I have to skip through a preroll ad, I forget how much you are bombarded with ads while watching traditional TV. The fact that you have to pay the princely sum of $73/month on top of that boggles my mind. I canceled when they raised the price from $35/month and I'll never go back at these…

You still endured ads with YT Premium!? That's shocking if true.

He just means promos by creators, not YT ads.

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

#34

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

jordanmorgan10 wrote: post #16

I’m subscribed to them for the same reason I was subscribed to DirecTV for a decade - they have a monopoly on Sunday Ticket. Oh, how I yearn for Sunday Ticket to just be its own entity so I didn’t have to buy another service.

I know not exactly what you're looking for but I bought RedZone for the first time through the NFL+ app this year and it's so nice to just have that and not fuss with any other service.

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

#35

Post by pythonguython »

simpaticoder wrote: post #21

Subscription cost for entertainment is so high, and the quality of entertainment is so low, I can't help but think that most people keep these subscriptions purely out of habit and a BIG shift in consumption patterns is bound to occur. The shift will be to offline, generative software, or offline physical media. Online consumption will be limited to periodic cheap/free options like PBS Newshour, PBS Kids, newsletters…

Just because it’s expensive and low quality doesn’t mean people will stop using it - even if they recognize that. Based on the trends in entertainment over the last 70 years, I’d wager that entertainment will only be filled with more ads will be less substantive. I also think offline generative content will never happen. Will everyone have a gpu cluster in their home to run it? Generative content is certainly coming, but it will come though YouTube, Instagram, and whatever openAI has planned

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

#36

Post by ghaff »

hanniabu wrote: post #15
jes5199 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do people still watch live TV? I’m only exposed it to when I stay in hotels and it seems to only be Seinfeld reruns and Shark Tank

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.

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

#37

Post by lotsofpulp »

ericabiz wrote: post #14
jes5199 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do people still watch live TV? I’m only exposed it to when I stay in hotels and it seems to only be Seinfeld reruns and Shark Tank

Sports fans watch a lot of live TV.

Based on the couple times I have watched sports recently, I would have thought it was a series of gambling ads interspersed with sports.

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

#38

Post by lapetitejort »

simpaticoder wrote: post #21

Subscription cost for entertainment is so high, and the quality of entertainment is so low, I can't help but think that most people keep these subscriptions purely out of habit and a BIG shift in consumption patterns is bound to occur. The shift will be to offline, generative software, or offline physical media. Online consumption will be limited to periodic cheap/free options like PBS Newshour, PBS Kids, newsletters…

This is a reminder to check out your local library. Not only do they have tons of physical media (in some cases current movies and TV shows in disc format) but you may also get access to Hoopla, Libby, and/or Kanopy which are free apps where you can borrow all sorts of digital items.

Some libraries also have a Library of Things, which lend out a random assortment of objects. I've seen musical instruments, baby monitors, cake tins, etc.

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

#39

Post by dylan604 »

Goronmon wrote: post #20
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.

Having to invest time and money into the antenna is definitely what's stopped me from using OTA up to this point. Especially given that our location is between multiple broadcast points so it's not as simple as pointing an antenna in one direction, it would have to be a multi-directional antenna. Last I looked a decent one of those wasn't cheap.

I have one of those little table top style ones that came with a pretty long cable. It is a bit of an annoyance in that in my location, there are different places I need to place the antenna for best reception for that channel. Luckily, I only use it for sports, and I know the best location for each channel. So I just move it as needed, and then place it back behind the TV when done. I look at it like being similar to grabbing a gaming controller and putting it back on the charger when done.

Fun things happen with reception though. Just this weekend, I was watching a match and everything was coming through just fine. The UPS truck pulled up to deliver a package to my house, and the whole time the truck was parked, the signal was struggling. As soon as the truck pulled away, everything was fine again.

As much "fun" as all of that is, it is much cheaper than me finding a sports bar to watch a match. Besides, at the time of the morning what I'm watching is on, I really am not in the mood to go some where.

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

#40

Post by _boffin_ »

banana_giraffe wrote: post #30
daveidol wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> youtube premium where occasionally I have to skip through a preroll ad I thought YouTube Premium was ad-free?

It's free of ads from YouTube. Plenty of videos have baked in ads from the content creators themselves.

Check out SponsorBlock.
Post reply on HN