YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99 • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#401

Post by datenhorst » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:32 PM UTC

v7p1Qbt1im wrote: post #283

cwhiz wrote: post #90

YouTube TV had enough channels at launch. They kept adding channels that I didn’t want and charging for it. This went from best value to worst value in three short years. Not sure what the old media hacks are trying to accomplish here.

I can only assume the only remaining reason why people even still want traditional TV is live sports. Stuff might finally be happening. I can‘t wait for Amazon, YouTube, Netflix, etc. to just come in and start getting those licenses. Imagine a FIFA world cup on YouTube live-streamed in 4K. Granted, it‘s unlikely to happen soon. But sports is really the only valuable thing the traditional content providers still have.…

Amazon is already moving into that space, they offer some Premier League matches in many countries. There's also a dedicated sports streaming service called DAZN in some European countries

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#402

Post by Xunxi » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:32 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #197

ozbonus wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the first time I've watched live broadcast US TV since leaving the country ten years ago. Are there any shows on, or is every channel besides PBS just advertisements all day?

Try listening to a music radio station sometime. I turned one on for the first time a 10 years a couple weeks ago and in a 45 minute drive heard approximately 2 songs. The entire rest was station identifiers and commercials.

AM radio stations work for me, none of the twaddle and blather that you experience on FM stations. There's also a lot more productive content on AM radio.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#403

Post by kup0 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:33 PM UTC

Couldn't YouTube TV at least do what other providers and cable companies do- have different packages with different sets of channels? That + the DVR functionality/etc just might be enough to make it worth it to enough users instead of only having this noncompetitive high price-point.

I can't stand any normal cable TV other than sports, so both YTTV and cable are not for me at all, but my local cable company offers enough channels at less than $65 that even if I did decide to pay for cable TV, YT TV is a tough sell.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#404

Post by londons_explore » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:36 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #268

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,…

Isn’t it true that in all cases of copyright violation the party who believe their rights are being infringed has to first ask the other party to stop, usually called a cease and desist notice.

No... One can still pursue in court for damages that occurred before the cease and desist letter was sent.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#405

Post by TheHypnotist » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:37 PM UTC

datenhorst wrote: post #401

v7p1Qbt1im wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only assume the only remaining reason why people even still want traditional TV is live sports. Stuff might finally be happening. I can‘t wait for Amazon, YouTube, Netflix, etc. to just come in and start getting those licenses. Imagine a FIFA world cup on YouTube live-streamed in 4K. Granted, it‘s unlikely to happen soon. But sports is really the only valuable thing the traditional content providers still have.…

Amazon is already moving into that space, they offer some Premier League matches in many countries. There's also a dedicated sports streaming service called DAZN in some European countries

American Football too. Yahoo also helps with this. I'm waiting for someone to fill the Sunday gap now that Redzone is off sling and youtube TV is no longer worth it.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#406

Post by majewsky » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:44 PM UTC

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...

> The Wadsworth Constant is the idea (and 2011 meme) that one can safely skip past the first 30 percent of any YouTube video without missing any important content.

I heard about this a few months ago, and have since checked when the actual content starts in the videos I watch. I certainly can't agree with 30%, usually in 15-minute videos, the introduction is 1-2 minutes before they go into the meat. The bigger problem is all the filler, sponsorship breaks, "remember to ring the bell" etc., that occur at seemingly random points, though I don't think it adds up to 30% filler even if you count all that. Maybe I just skip over most of the garbage.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#407

Post by cc23 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:44 PM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #78

Have they figured out how to play the show you click on yet? No. $50 a month and the basic functionality of the app doesn't even work. With a Chromecast, it's even worse. Eventually, after clicking back and forth, disconnecting and reconnecting, it may play. Then you have to turn off the closed captioning for every single show even though it's off in the settings. Then it randomly stops at times. The ui displays the…

This is so true. I've always had horrible usability issues with YoutubeTV, especially when using with a Chromecast. I was always shocked that the app/website had so many bugs, the same type of bugs OP is talking about. It was literally the buggiest piece of software I've used in the past few years. The person I share the membership with never ran into these bugs somehow, so seeing this comment really makes me feel better about my experience. Still scratching my head about how so many bugs could show up in production for so long. I'm guessing severely inadequate testing.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#408

Post by lkxijlewlf » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:52 PM UTC

keithwinstein wrote: post #12

ObShameless 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:…

Anyone else getting a CSRF error on Firefox?

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#409

Post by cableshaft » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:53 PM UTC

mkhpalm wrote: post #157

sutterbomb wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone thinks they want a la carte, but (most) everyone is wrong. Bundling is generally better for consumers and producers. https://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-... Stratechery also has written about this

I'm not sure about other people but I don't "think" I want a la carte, I absolutely know I do. So much so that I don't pay for anything because nobody offers what I'm willing to pay for.

I find it funny that people are arguing that you don't want this and actually want bundling services when you're flat out saying you aren't currently paying for what's being offered.

I don't even want a la carte, I'm fine with just "It's on Netflix/Hulu/HBO Max or I don't need to watch it." I'm not willing to pay more than $20 a month for TV most months, with the rare extra service to get caught up on a show I really like.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#410

Post by s17n » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:53 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #240

s17n wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't going to be able to spend less money though. Since there's zero marginal cost to adding extra channels, you should assume that the price you're getting charged isn't actually based on the number of channels you subscribe to. A better way to think about bundle pricing is that the channels you really want cost $50, and they throw in a whole bunch of other crap for free. Why turn down free stuff?

People don't turn down free stuff. It's just that they no longer value the content provided via TV channels at the price they are asking. The fundamental problem is content that used to be delivered via TV is no longer worth what it once was.

If that's the case, then the prices should go down for bundled content (and this does in fact appear to be what is happening).

A la carte makes no sense.