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

Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark

deadline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 86 posts

Re: Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark

#41

Post by blantonl »

josefresco wrote: post #25

I have 5 TV's with Roku hardware attached. I've also been a YouTubeTV customer for several years (when it was $35/month). I'll drop YTTV long before I'll swap my Roku hardware. Roku hardware and UI is superior to anything on the market. YouTubeTV is decent, but the competition is robust.

I see this perspective somewhat in reverse. I watch TV for the content, not how nice the remote is or how solid the box feels when I hook up the HDMI connection.

Granted, there are some objective measurements between different devices, such as Dolby support and format support, but that's typically for the most advanced consumers of content - not the vast majority of people who just want to watch certain content.

Re: Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark

#42

Post by lostphilosopher »

helipad wrote: post #5

The streaming landscape is frustrating as an end user. I have a Roku TV and have used YouTube TV, Hulu and Sling for live TV. YouTube TV and Hulu seem to keep increasing their prices to the point where there's not much difference from traditional cable, other than it's easier to cancel. But then there are so many caveats. Bally Sports doesn't appear to be available in my local market to stream our MLB team. I also ne…

I think we have collective amnesia around just how bad "traditional cable" is/was (in no particular order):

1. Tons of ads

2. Ads with terrible content

3. Expensive

4. Piecemeal content (having to pay for multiple packages to get all the programs you're interested in, some options being nearly mutually exclusive)

5. You could either watch live at a time you didn't choose, record (hassle), or use a pretty terrible "on demand" UI (which may also only have the last 3 episodes or other weird restrictions)

6. Bad content

I've used Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, HBO Max, and Disney Plus.

None of them have issues 1 or 2. The "previews" can get more ad like than I'd want, but no where near cable. Huge win for streaming in my book.

Combined they are about on par with the cost of cable, though I rarely have all of them subscribed at once and could easily cut back to a much cheaper combo (so, draw on issue 3, but possible win for streaming).

Issue 4 is still an issue (and I can't really imagine it not being an issue given how for profit business works).

Issue 5 is a win for streaming. Better UIs, better content strategies, etc.

Issue 6 is subjective so I'll leave that to the reader

Re: Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark

#43

Post by dec0dedab0de »

gregmac wrote: post #33

I'm a bit amazed these "live TV" style services even still exist and people use them. It kind of makes sense for specifically live content -- sports, mainly -- but these are basically 1980's style cable TV delivered "over the internet". The killer feature of services like Netflix is not really the "over the internet" part, it's the "watch any show on demand" and "massive library so you can start watching from S1E1, i…

The killer feature of services like Netflix is not really the "over the internet" part, it's the "watch any show on demand" and "massive library so you can start watching from S1E1, if you want to". Streaming live TV services fail at both of these.

I think being over the internet is the killer feature. Cable companies had on demand for a decade before netflix streaming, being over the internet meant you were not locked into a monopoly or duopoly.

That said, I agree it seems old-timey and the wrong way of doing it.

Re: Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark

#44

Post by kschwab »

gregmac wrote: post #33

I'm a bit amazed these "live TV" style services even still exist and people use them. It kind of makes sense for specifically live content -- sports, mainly -- but these are basically 1980's style cable TV delivered "over the internet". The killer feature of services like Netflix is not really the "over the internet" part, it's the "watch any show on demand" and "massive library so you can start watching from S1E1, i…

There is still a set of people that like their local news a lot. Or don't want to figure out the piecemeal way to get access to their cooking show, some current ABC/NBC/CBS show, BBC America, old episodes of Forensic Files, etc, from X different places. Though I agree, I do see it dying out.

Re: Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark

#45

Post by solosoyokaze »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #24
solosoyokaze wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't watch sports but do enjoy cooking, travel and home shows (don't judge me!). I also did not like paying a huge monthly fee for mostly channels I don't watch. I've actually found Discovery+ to be a really great deal as it has Discovery, Food, Travel and HGTV content all bundled and on-demand for $5 a month. It's all of the content I wanted and was paying > $60 /month for, with no commercials and on-demand. It's…

I had a family member that was in a Discovery show recently, so I decided to sign up to Discovery+ watch just to see my family member. Lo and behold, discovery+ does not stream the episodes they put on tv channels until the year after or something stupid. Luckily, I had a free trial so I just canceled at no cost, but they lost any chance of getting me in the future by gate keeping their content like that.

Ah that's unfortunate, I didn't know they were gating content like that. It's still a pretty good deal though, certainly better than bundled cable, and most of the content on these stations is pretty evergreen.

Re: Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark

#46

Post by solosoyokaze »

Terretta wrote: post #21
solosoyokaze wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't watch sports but do enjoy cooking, travel and home shows (don't judge me!). I also did not like paying a huge monthly fee for mostly channels I don't watch. I've actually found Discovery+ to be a really great deal as it has Discovery, Food, Travel and HGTV content all bundled and on-demand for $5 a month. It's all of the content I wanted and was paying > $60 /month for, with no commercials and on-demand. It's…

Exactly! Discovery plus a global news package would be ideal. Only streamer with decent selection of global news in a skinny-ish package seems to be Sling, but what you describe would be ideal.

I would love to see local news (minus commercials). I'd definitely pay $5 a month for that.

Re: Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark

#47

Post by mitchdoogle »

lostphilosopher wrote: post #42
helipad wrote: post #5

The streaming landscape is frustrating as an end user. I have a Roku TV and have used YouTube TV, Hulu and Sling for live TV. YouTube TV and Hulu seem to keep increasing their prices to the point where there's not much difference from traditional cable, other than it's easier to cancel. But then there are so many caveats. Bally Sports doesn't appear to be available in my local market to stream our MLB team. I also ne…

I think we have collective amnesia around just how bad "traditional cable" is/was (in no particular order): 1. Tons of ads 2. Ads with terrible content 3. Expensive 4. Piecemeal content (having to pay for multiple packages to get all the programs you're interested in, some options being nearly mutually exclusive) 5. You could either watch live at a time you didn't choose, record (hassle), or use a pretty terrible "on…

Issue 4 (piecemeal content) is a bit ridiculous if you think about it. Netflix, as an example, has enough content to last a person their entire life and adding more every month.

Re: Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark

#48

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

gregmac wrote: post #33

I'm a bit amazed these "live TV" style services even still exist and people use them. It kind of makes sense for specifically live content -- sports, mainly -- but these are basically 1980's style cable TV delivered "over the internet". The killer feature of services like Netflix is not really the "over the internet" part, it's the "watch any show on demand" and "massive library so you can start watching from S1E1, i…

There’s still a lot of Live TV: news, sports and serials. There’s an aspect to live that, while is going through a transformation, will always exist. You might not find any utility in it, but over 100M households in the US alone still have a pay TV subscription.

Re: Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark

#49

Post by rufius »

gregmac wrote: post #33

I'm a bit amazed these "live TV" style services even still exist and people use them. It kind of makes sense for specifically live content -- sports, mainly -- but these are basically 1980's style cable TV delivered "over the internet". The killer feature of services like Netflix is not really the "over the internet" part, it's the "watch any show on demand" and "massive library so you can start watching from S1E1, i…

You basically nailed it specifically on live TV and sports for my use case.

I subscribe to Hulu Live for a portion of the year when the European football season is in full swing. Typically I tune in for the second half of the season.

But as soon as the season wraps and the major trophies or shields are awarded, I downgrade to the regular subscription.

I just don’t watch enough TV, on demand or live, to justify it otherwise.

We’ve got Netflix, Hulu, HBO (included with cell plan), and Disney. That already feels like one too many but our family has a weird breakdown:

- I watch shows on Hulu

- My wife watches shows on Netflix

- My wife and I watch shows on HBO together

- Our family (kids + adults) watch shows on Disney

It’s not ideal but we have the disposable income for it and so it is what it is.

Re: Roku Warns YouTube TV Customers That Service Could Go Dark

#50

Post by josefresco »

blantonl wrote: post #41
josefresco wrote: post #25

I have 5 TV's with Roku hardware attached. I've also been a YouTubeTV customer for several years (when it was $35/month). I'll drop YTTV long before I'll swap my Roku hardware. Roku hardware and UI is superior to anything on the market. YouTubeTV is decent, but the competition is robust.

I see this perspective somewhat in reverse. I watch TV for the content, not how nice the remote is or how solid the box feels when I hook up the HDMI connection. Granted, there are some objective measurements between different devices, such as Dolby support and format support, but that's typically for the most advanced consumers of content - not the vast majority of people who just want to watch certain content.

I literally live and die by the Roku fast forward/back buttons. I can get the "content" from anywhere!

The clicky, rubbery buttons and the responsive UI is amazing. After 5 minutes of use, I was hooked and bought them for all my TVs. This is the single biggest differentiator with Roku and other hardware.

Post reply on HN