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

41–50 of 239 posts

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

#41

Post by solardev »

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…

FWIW https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y... is a crowdsourced way to skip past promos (by timestamp).

Or some creators have moved to Nebula, which seems to have less of that crap but IMO a worse UI than YouTube.

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

#42

Post by dylan604 »

ghaff wrote: post #25
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.

"You" can :-) But fair comment. For many people, OTA offers good enough live TV. I live at the base of a hill blocking me from the nearest major city about 40 miles away. I've never been able to pick up anything OTA even before digital signals; there was even a big "external" antenna in the attic installed by the previous owner to no avail before he just got a big C-band dish. Even a lot of radio is pretty bad. I was…

The irony here is that your specific situation was one of the driving factors of why cable was created

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

#43

Post by [deleted] »

pythonguython wrote: post #35
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,…

[deleted]

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

#45

Post by legitster »

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.

> live TV with a much much better image quality and without cable's delay

Depends. In our area they have split the digital signal so many times to carve out additional subchannels (10.1,10.2,10.3, etc) that the effective bitrate is now pretty dang low.

When watching football, the channel may only be delivering 720p, and with tons of compression artifacts to boot.

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

#46

Post by nicce »

chung8123 wrote: post #18
adocomplete wrote: post #2

I was really hoping the tech giants would be able to transform live TV as opposed to offer the same experience for (now) the same price.

Netflix did transform TV. Cable subscriptions are shrinking. Many people have switch to a streaming on demand service vs a linear service. You can watch most TV without ads.

That used to be the case couple years back. Now they are bringing ads to these streaming services. And you have 10 different streaming services what you need to buy separately. Soon there will be bundling streaming service and we are back to cable tv pricing and ads.

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

#48

Post by moelf »

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.

that's why https://sponsor.ajay.app/ exists

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

#49

Post by lapetitejort »

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.

If you dislike them, check out the SponsorBlock extension, which will skip in-video ads. While you're at it, also get DeArrow, which chooses a random frame as the thumbnail and allows community written titles that accurately describe the videos.
Post reply on HN