I didnt realize that it was already $50/month... I didn't signup at $35 because I thought that it was too much...
I get more than 50 HD channels for free over the air and I watch only 3 of them.
YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99
321–330 of 466 posts
Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99
#322At $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…
> try to charge people to use maps
I think lots of consumers would be willing to pay for Google Maps.
Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument is not about your buying preferences as a consumer. Of course if you had a choice between (a) paying X for watching stuff, or (b) paying Y for the ability to watch exactly the same thing, but Y is overall less money because it is somehow dependent of the amount that you consume, that is the better choice. However, the economic equilibrium of a perfectly unbundled system is not that you get to watch the s…
> You do not have content like History channel because it lies in that tier of things that many people are kind of interested in watching, but only if it comes with something else more valuable that they already paid for. This seems like you're saying "bundling mis-serves the customer." If the History Channel would not exist if people could pay for it directly, then why should it ought to exist?
The idea the article is trying to get at is (I think) that people are willing to pay for the history channel, but as long as they're more willing to pay for some other channels, studios will just jack up the price of the other channels to the point where their funds for discretionary spending on television are exhausted very quickly. This is because it's cheaper for the studios to get people to pay more per show while producing fewer shows, as this increases their profit margins to the maximum they can get away with. The argument that this is bad for consumers is pretty straightforward, but I will point out that these incentives only work so long as consumers have no choice about their cable provider. i.e., the problem is that cable providers are monopolies, not the bundling specifically. Moreover, we've clearly seen over the last two decades that these monopolistic practices have driven huge numbers of people away from television... unfortunately, usually the competition requires the internet, and the same cable companies control internet access, so there's no particular reason for them to change their business model.
Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99
#324Over and over, customer surveys showed people want a la carte cable. They perceive their high bill as paying for 100 channels they have no interest in to get 3 they want. And yet, no provider will offer it that way.
Because it's not profitable and users always want more, it's just that each person wants a different set of channels.
Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99
#325It's the endless cycle between bundled and a-la-carte (regardless of medium).
Cable TV was already priced optimally and digital versions are just catching up. People want more channels from a single source, but each person wants their own selection. Bundling brings down overall cost and provides many more channels, especially smaller ones with more niche content. A-la-carte can be cheaper (not always) but is limited in content.
Add in licensing and rules by content producers and there's no escape. Something fundamental needs to change beyond just the delivery mechanism of video. Many people now watch Youtube creators as a replacement for TV so maybe that's the future altogether.
Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99
#326Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rights to distribute a program on different media and in different geographies are sold separately. The broadcaster itself is likely not authorized to distribute the show online, so they can't authorize you to do it either.
Much of the programming of the OTA networks are produced in-house. (Previously, it was 100% in-house.)
> Much of the programming of the OTA networks are produced in-house.
Not really.
> (Previously, it was 100% in-house.)
Nope.
Even in-house programming doesn't mean you're free of underlying copyright issues.
Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hour shows are 40 minutes. Half hour are 18.
Holy crap. Half-hour shows are basically YouTube videos in terms of length
And yet YouTube videos themselves are approximately 30% non-content.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/the-wadsworth-const...
Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99
#329ObShameless 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:…
I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't exactly seem legal. Streaming free local network broadcasts was definitively ruled as illegal by the Supreme Court in 2014 -- remember that was Aereo's entire business model. [1] It seems like the Stanford service is trying to justify themselves by being an academic study and limiting to 500 concurrent participants... but it's telling they don't list any legal justification on the site,…
Stanford can legally do this only because it's a non-profit conducting research
Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99
#330These OTT retransmission of mostly FTA broadcast channel services haven't caught on at all anywhere globally except the US, and that seems to have been mostly a focus of unsustainable pricing.
It's a shame the US sector is so badly regulated. Must carry obligations and effective competition mean many of these bits of structural weirdness didn't happen elsewhere.