Slashdot Mirror
YouTube To Launch 'Unplugged' Online TV Service In 2017 (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: YouTube is working on a paid subscription service called Unplugged that would offer customers a bundle of cable TV channels streamed over the Internet, people familiar with the plan said. The project, for which YouTube has already overhauled its technical architecture, is one of the online video giant's biggest priorities and is slated to debut as soon as 2017, one of the people said. YouTube executives have discussed these plans with most major media companies, including Comcast Corp.'s NBCUniversal, Viacom Inc., Twenty-First Century Fox Inc. and CBS Corp., but have yet to secure any rights, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. There are reportedly several different ways YouTube could package TV channels in the service. "In one scenario, it would build a bundle of channels with the four U.S. broadcast networks and a smattering of popular cable channels, a concept known in the industry as a skinny bundle," reports Bloomberg. "YouTube has also discussed offering a collection of less-watched TV channels and creating smaller groups of channels around themes. A YouTube Unplugged comedy bundle might include three or four TV channels such as Comedy Central, while a lifestyle bundle might include the Style Network." Apparently, sources familiar with the matter said YouTube would charge one subscription for the main bundle, and extra, smaller monthly fees for said theme-based groups.
"but have yet to secure any rights" - In other words, it's just a bunch of hot air. On to the next story...
Oh did you want to watch that program in hi-def? We'll just default to 480p every time you visit the unplugged site, just in case...
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
...but if it's full of ads like regular network television the answer will be no. I don't understand why it's acceptable to pump something full of ads when I'm already paying for it.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Will the channels be commercial free?
Or will it be the same old same old with 1/3 of each channel's airtime being advertising?
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
This makes no sense. You can't stream ESPN to everybody, it belongs on broadcast bandwidth on your cable system. Turning some Google Fiber bandwidth into a cable system is a better idea.
have to buy espn 4 times to get netflix, youtube gold, twitch platinum, etc.
May I be the first to say YES its about time... its gotten to the point where there is little reason for me to own a conventional TV anymore. This would fit the bill nicely, if they could adhere to the original promise of cable TV (no ads in exchange for subscription fees)
C|N>K
Most providers now impose some sort of quota, while they usually exclude their own service from those quotas. How is this going to work, unless Google brings Google Fiber to my house, so I don't have to live in fear of a huge ATT bill?
I say again, yay! About friggin time.
What with this announcement and a similar announcement from Hulu, I'm wondering if Apple is actually about to announce something and these also-rans (ha ha) are trying to preemptively FUD them ...? One can only hope.
I'm already on the Hulu bandwagon, paying the extra for no ads. If they can put something together with the live TV I want to watch, at a decent price, and retain the ability to cut the commercials on non-live stuff... that would be pretty compelling for a lot of people.
for whatever reason time warner won't stream their live channel if you're not on your home wifi and that means i can't watch the rare afternoon baseball game at work.
I hope they can do it. The only reason I'm still "plugged in" to cable is because of sports, specifically baseball and American football. Otherwise I'd cancel my cable in a heartbeat. Even now I'm considering it because it does cost quite a bit.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
If Google really wanted to "not be evil" they could come up with a bundle structure that allows you to not pay for any sports channels whatsoever unless you actually want them (but with a single sports tier that contains ALL the good sports and channels for one monthly price so you dont have to buy 6 different packages to get the sports stuff)
What is the point of channels in this day and age? Better if you just have a library of content and let customers pull from it.
From the summary, it sounds like we're talking about boring old TV delivered via IP. Hardly a media revolution. Preferably, they'd let us choose shows we wish to subscribe to, and allow us to put 100% of our subscription money into those shows, rather than the old method of subsidizing all the stuff we don't care about with a huge monthly fee.
This is really not that exciting.
Just say NO to Goople
My experience with streaming:
1) Must have fast enough internet
2) Must have reliable enough internet
3) Must have internet at the moment you are watching
4) Must have enough data allocation to deal with it all
5) Clunky interfaces
6) Usually doesn't work with all devices
7) Forced commercials possible and likely on many services
8) Slow to react to controls
9) Jerky and inefficient fast forwarding and rewinding
10) Sometimes doesn't remember place across sessions
This isn't the future I want for TV watching. I want a system of scheduling and automatic DOWNLOADING of content to a local device so I can watch it at my speed, when I want, regardless of connection, in the way I want to watch it. And you can watch WHILE downloading (remember the original Amazon video model?). Otherwise, we *WILL* be held captive by "broadcasters" who simply can't resist adding forced content.... could be ads, could be ratings, could be copyright warnings, could be trailers, whatever.
A hybrid, watch-while-you-download DVR type thing might be the ticket.... as long as they can't force ads. The only thing it can't easily address is total data caps. But many of the streaming models (like Hulu) need to die. And the cable TV model certainly needs to die (pay through the nose for hundreds of channels of what you don't want and can't get what you want when you want it).
the problem is... the customer doesn't want to pay 5 bucks here, 10 bucks there, to 10 different places, using a multitude of different devices, apps, or software, all while chewing into their monthly caps.. and STILL have to resort to cable, satellite or OTA for live broadcasts -- and all of that while using the greedy fucking phone or cable company for their internet -- here both those, telco and cable, offer both internet access and television, so both are direct competitors to online streaming options while also being the conduit to reach them.
sony vue has that in some citys
I actually recently cut the cord so I only have internet, no TV, and the only channels I feel like I am really missing out on is the live sports channels, like ESPN. Anything else I can just pick and choose from Netflix or Hulu or even iTunes for the most part and I can often find a way to watch the day after an episode airs. Bundles are content providers' way of getting you to pay too much for what you actually want. I don't forsee Youtube bundles being any better.
The viewer has total control. Push networks are dead.
What are these "bundles" of which you speak? And why would have any interest in them at all?
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Comcast will just use it as an excuse to sell you a new modem and charge you for an upgraded "faster" service.
Exactly. Channels in the Youtube era are a Dinosaur concept. How hard is it to understand today's consumers only want to subsidize content they watch. Ads have no place in this model.
Area51 - We are watching...
You do suspect there'll be unskippable ads in this (even 6 second-long ones would be abhorrent on a subscription service). but even worse I suspect it'll be US-only, which would be a huge missed revenue opportunity. Many US people will already have access to the channels on cable, so the real demand for this would surely be non-US viewers?
Here is an idea, why not use one of those newfangled computer things to record the exact amount a person watches of any channel and just bill them for that (because they are logged in via their google account), with a real-time account balance indicator etc.? Why bundle at all? Why even charge for the first part of any given show, let people watch for free and get hooked or not, but at least there will be zero barriers to them finding what they like and then consuming it on a regular basis which will maximise the user base and therefore profits for the data supplier (YouTube) and the rights holders. Surely their business model does not rely on bundles and people paying for shows they don't end up watching?
I'm sure they'd be working on that in parallel, but the right to air a TV channel live + x hours of replay streaming might be easier to deal with from the business side than a ton of different content that have very different long term value. News, live sports and other current events have very short shelf life, series and movies a much longer shelf life. An "airing" is a known quantity for the TV networks, it's what they do themselves and know how to price.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's funny that they're calling it Unplugged even though technically you still have to be physically plugged in to a ISP somewhere to receive the content.
Yeah, I know there are mobile wireless plans out there. But realistically you won't be able to use them because of data caps. And yes, there are WISP's out there too, but those still require wiring at the premise. So my point still stands.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
This seems like an arms race between the big players to see who can dominate the online streaming market first.
Being one of the masses that's trying to cut the cord from the cable companies myself, there are two networks that I'm aware of that the majority of cord cutters are waiting for: Hallmark and ESPN. I predict that whoever can land those networks in an online platform and offer subscriptions in an 'a la carte' fashion, with a reasonable price, will be the big winners.
It hasn't gone well.
The service was terrible, intermittent, and eventually totally unresponsive - the app stopped working on the Amazon Fire so I ended my prescription ;)
Exactly. "Bundles" make me feel the same way. Yuck. Exactly what I don't want. I will only pay for something that I know I will watch, thanks.
I hope you can access it from anywhere on the world. I'm approaching 50 and won't stay in Germany any longer.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
... we want a la carte.
I don't care about channels. Channels are not content.