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

441–450 of 466 posts

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#441

Post by DudeInBasement »

juped wrote: post #183
chrsstrm wrote: post #45

For any YouTube TV PMs reading, I just added an event to my calendar marking the day I'll cancel my account. Thanks for the helpful reference to the exact date my current rate expires. Spectrum is offering more channels for $45/month and you don't even need a cable box if you're using an Apple TV. YouTube TV is an OK service that is very rough around the edges and I won't miss it a single minute after I cancel. "This…

I assume they want cancellations so they can shutter it with less friction.

This guy gets it. It doesn't make enough money and not enough people sign up... All that garbage maintenance and 'Youtube TV' only content.

If you know C suit level, then you know within the next metric, you'll have the ammo to cancel the whole thing.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#442

Post by pbhjpbhj »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #346
mkhpalm wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No you don't. It's like saying that you'd be willing to pay for a $2/month Spotify subscription for only the genres of music you want. That's not how the economics work . Going a la carte would mean paying as much as a bundle, for less content. The problem here is that people's mental models are fundamentally self-centered. They imagine paying half or less for just the channels they want. But in total, that would mea…

>Going a la carte would mean paying as much as a bundle, for less content. //

You're arguing past people. Plenty have said they're fine paying the same or more for access to less content.

I used to watch about 2 shows a week on BBC (UK; 1-1.5hrs) and disagreed with paying £M to TV show presenters who just preside over long, talky adverts for Hollywood movies and mainstream media. So I don't pay (nor watch) anymore.

I'd pay to watch those couple of shows separately. As it happens though they occasionally make their way to Netflix, so I don't have to ... but I'd still pay to watch them when they're still current.

Looks to me like there's money left on the table.

Personally I'd like to see some form of legislation that requires shows to be made available to consumers if they are available to other channels - I could pay double to BBC what Netflix pay them to get the show and we'd both win; and I wouldn't mind having it on Netflix, might watch it again.

Now BBC is a special case; I can't work out why they need to compete commercially, nor why we allow showmakers to form companies to be paid through, etc.. they should work on salaried staff paid on civil service pay scales IMO.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#443

Post by skissane »

nojito wrote: post #354
mysterydip wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even PBS has ads nowadays. At the beginning of a show, "sesame street was brought to you today by support from viewers like you, and..." (ad for abcmouse, some minivan, etc plays)

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

> That's how public broadcasting works.

That’s how public broadcasting works in the US. A number of other countries manage to have public broadcasting without any private advertisements or sponsorship. (For example, Australia’s ABC.)

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#444

Post by TulliusCicero »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #442
TulliusCicero wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you don't. It's like saying that you'd be willing to pay for a $2/month Spotify subscription for only the genres of music you want. That's not how the economics work . Going a la carte would mean paying as much as a bundle, for less content. The problem here is that people's mental models are fundamentally self-centered. They imagine paying half or less for just the channels they want. But in total, that would mea…

>Going a la carte would mean paying as much as a bundle, for less content. // You're arguing past people. Plenty have said they're fine paying the same or more for access to less content. I used to watch about 2 shows a week on BBC (UK; 1-1.5hrs) and disagreed with paying £M to TV show presenters who just preside over long, talky adverts for Hollywood movies and mainstream media. So I don't pay (nor watch) anymore. I…

> Plenty have said they're fine paying the same or more for access to less content.

Really? I haven't seen anyone say they want to pay more for less content. The unspoken assumption always seems to be "if I was getting fewer channels I'd be paying less", logic which works fine for tangible goods, but less so for ones with nearly zero marginal cost to produce.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#445

Post by ChuckMcM »

benhurmarcel wrote: post #322
ChuckMcM wrote: post #260

At $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.

I agree, but to charge for it would be an admission from Google that their profitability is under siege. It also opens the door to competition from Apple and Microsoft who could continue to offer free maps (their side hustles* (phones and Apps/OSes) continue to cover those costs).

The challenge I think for Google would be to charge what supporting maps actually costs to have the unit be revenue neutral. Street view fleets, satellite imagery, and 100,000+ machines with multi-petabyte data sets cost a bit, not to mention the engineers who work on massaging the data, developing the hardware, and operating the equipment.

Would you pay $25/month for Google Maps access? Or would you switch to Open Street Maps, Bing Maps and/or Apple Maps which were still free.

* In theory everything is a side hustle to the business of collecting data on people but Microsoft and Apple have revenue streams that aren't as threatened by increasing data privacy efforts that Google's are.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#446

Post by ChuckMcM »

thallium205 wrote: post #286
ChuckMcM wrote: post #260

At $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…

They definitely charge people to use maps... A lot.

I don't disagree, but how much of that pricing authority is directly related to market share? The billion dollar question is, if Google charged $9.99/month for access to Google Maps, what would that do to their market share if OSM, Apple, and Microsoft/Bing were still "free" ?

I've observed that as the other search services have improved their free offerings, it has negatively affected what Google can charge to advertise on their search results, which has put pressure on their profitability. So at what dollar cost do the free alternatives become "good enough" and everyone switches?

As an aside, I've already switched to Apple maps because it lets me continue to save favorite places and addresses without having to turn on privacy eroding options (web and location history in Google). But I recognize I maybe unique in that I value that aspect highly.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#447

Post by neuralRiot »

ozbonus wrote: post #185
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:…

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?

I was thinking the same just days ago after watching a live broadcast since the shutting down of analog TV (never bothered to install an antenna even after buying a new HD TV) i said to myself, no wonder cord cutting is a thing, for every 2 minutes of content you get 15 of mind numbing ads.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#448

Post by mysterydip »

nojito wrote: post #354
mysterydip wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even PBS has ads nowadays. At the beginning of a show, "sesame street was brought to you today by support from viewers like you, and..." (ad for abcmouse, some minivan, etc plays)

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

No, it used to be where they would mention the name of the company on a still image and a quick blurb, like the other poster's youtube link. Now the company gets a whole 30 second ad like any other channel.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#449

Post by shepardrtc »

Bud wrote: post #202
shepardrtc wrote: post #13

YouTube TV is nowhere near good enough to demand that high of a price. The shows are limited, the DVR interface is terrible, and the DVR barely even works. It's nowhere near as good as Vue was.

Disagree, and I doubt you're a regular user of YouTube TV given your comments. "The shows are limited" doesn't even make sense; you get access to the live feed of all the channels in question. The DVR works perfectly in my experience over the last year or so; it has never failed to record what I wanted it to record.

I use it every day. It's just now getting Comedy Central. I tried to DVR an episode of Atlanta and it just didn't do it. It did record an episode later on though.

Re: YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99

#450

Post by mnm1 »

judge2020 wrote: post #151
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…

Sounds like you have a generation 1 Chromecast™ and bad WiFi. We hope you'll try YouTube TV again with a Chromecast Ultra™ and a Nest Wifi™ 3 pack. Take care!

I have every generation and type of Chromecast and they all do this same shit and have been doing it since I got YTV two years ago.
Post reply on HN