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

391–400 of 466 posts

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#391

Post by dannyw »

zelly wrote: post #214
crazygringo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

If you slap an "academic" label on it, no one will bother you. Same like how PredictIt is run by a university so they're allowed to be a casino that takes MasterCard and Visa.

PredictIt has letters of non-enforcement from either the SEC or the one that regulates commodities trading or both. It’s more than just saying “academic”.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#392

Post by uptown »

gkoberger wrote: post #32
uptown wrote: post #23

What's more interesting to me is that Google only has ~2M YouTube TV subscribers. Perhaps there's newer metrics now. https://twitter.com/RichLightShed/status/1224454820309811202 That's nothing, and in my mind - doesn't bode well for the long-term prospects of the service. I've been a subscriber for about a year, but with the price increases, and the interface on AppleTV that seemingly wants to always show me Tennis w…

That's $1.5Bn/year in revenue for a 3-year-old product that just rebroadcasts content. How is that "nothing"?

Depends entirely on how much they pay for the content. Is it profitable?

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#394

Post by ballenf »

astura wrote: post #328
applecrazy wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I really wish YT would drop the 10 minute cutoff for mid-roll ads. It's a destructive incentive to the platform. Let creators put ads wherever they want on whatever length video they want (within reason and with abuse checks). Then you won't get 7 minute videos with 3 minutes of added fluff just so they can be better monetized.

And we can ignore creators who over-monetize if we want (or buy Premium or use adblocking).

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#395

Post by anonymfus »

briandear wrote: post #386
nojito wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PBS has always been like that. That's how public broadcasting works.

It’s “ad free” yet “sponsors” still get their name on the air. How is that not advertising?

Because sponsor does not control the message?

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#396

Post by dannyw »

Filligree wrote: post #361
jeegsy wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be on to something there. In the email they sent out to subscribers, they are actually provided directions for if you wanted to cancel...I thought that was quite odd

That shouldn't be odd. All it would take is a tiny little bit of ethics in their heads.

This is google: a company that whose practices is borderline malware, especially on Android.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#397

Post by thrownaway954 »

"This is just like cable but with extra steps"

I don't get how everyone was in the "cut the cord" movement not too long ago when all we really have done is create another cord. $70 a month is way too much for a bunch of channels included with basic $30 package in my area:

https://www.moneysavingpro.com/tv-providers/comcast-channels...

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#398

Post by ballenf »

toast0 wrote: post #291
bonestamp2 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you buy a consumer DVD, that DVD only has a license for home viewing. Video stores require a special license to rent out videos. So, I assume netflix would have to pay that fee at least (which they probably already had for their mail order DVDs).

> Video stores require a special license to rent out videos. First sale doctrine covers rentals, but having good relations with studios to get supply of new releases often influences rental establishments to avoid buying discs at retail to rent out. (But, RedBox will sometimes do it)

They agreed to stop a few years ago. Redbox used to break the "buy only" window of DVD releases. Meaning you could rent a movie from Redbox before it was available to rent on any streaming service.

They buckled from pressure from studios and agreed to stop for the reason you gave.

It kind of seemed at the time that they used their right to do this as a negotiating tactic in getting better prices from distributors.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#399

Post by dannyw »

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.

You’d be surprised. A reasonable portion of our SaaS subscribers don’t login for a month, or three, or even 24.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#400

Post by londons_explore »

roywiggins wrote: post #154
crazygringo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

They're maybe trying to use the same law that Locast[1] is: there's a specific carve-out in the law about rebroadcasting for nonprofits: "an exception in U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 111) for retransmission of television programming by non-profits without charge or any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage (besides the costs needed to cover the operations and maintenance of the retransmitter), which w…

> direct or indirect commercial advantage

So none of the research results will be licensed, patented, or used to bolster the universities reputation?

Post reply on HN