Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Unveils YouTube TV, Its Live TV Streaming Service (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: After a year of rumors, YouTube is finally drawing back the curtain on its latest play for entertainment industry domination -- a live TV service. Distinct from YouTube Red, the new service YouTube TV, which has been in the works for years at Google's internet video behemoth, has quietly been inking contracts with media companies to distribute their content on its TV service. The service is fairly low-cost, with a family of six accounts available for $35 per month, and no long-term contract required. Earlier reports from the Wall Street Journal set pricing for the service somewhere between $25 and $40 per month. However, it will only launch in markets where it can offer full, live local broadcast feeds. That's planned for the months ahead, but YouTube didn't offer an exact date. "We decided to create an offering that would give them all of these can't miss live moments," said YouTube exec Robert Kinsel of YouTube TV's offering. He explained that YouTube has partnered with all of the broadcast networks, in order to offer "comprehensive national coverage with ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox all included." In addition, the service is getting USA, FX, FreeForm, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox News, and Fox Business. ShowTime is available for an additional fee. Missing, however, is HBO. For sports fans, the service includes national coverage from ESPN, FoxSports, and NBC SportsNet. Also offered are regional sports networks from Fox and Comcast, SEC Network, Big Ten and ESPNU. Fox Soccer Plus is available as an add-on. In addition, YouTube TV includes YouTube Red's 28 original series. Some other features of the service include a DVR that will never run out of space and that's cable of simultaneous recordings, a visual TV guide, search feature, and voice support integration via Google Home.
...for something that was 100% twenty years ago.
So if you want to pay for cable TV, but would rather pay Google and get it online? Possibly over a cable modem? Woo?
I guess I don't get it.
Isn't cable-cutting going in the opposite direction? I mean, this has got to be a real kick in the balls to the telecoms. Competition from Google is going to be expensive. It cost them a lot to starve Google out of the ISP business. But isn't the trend of customers going AWAY from buying this sort of thing?
Is $35 cheaper than cable TV?
ESPN reverse mirror with ABC or just blacked out?
Local NFL games or will that verizon only nfl get in the way?
Local news / sports or forced to view watch feeds? Even on O&O channels?
Full local RSN's?? Just your in market ones?
Remember Google TV?
Remember YouTube Red?
(Coming Soon: Remember YouTube TV?)
They can't even get any traction with Play Music / Movies / etc.
Every single new player into this space comes along thinking they're going to shake things up, but they end up offering the same fucking service because they're at the mercy of a few companies who control most of the networks. I'm not going to "cut the cord" and then use the same cord to get 80% of the shit I want across 3 separate subscription services, plus 50+ things I don't want (12 sports channels, 17 Spanish channels, 15 shopping channels, 6 MTV/VH1 variants, etc.).
How come print editors didn't move to the Internet so that some fucking stories can exist without mistakes that a fucking 10 year old can proof read and catch?
"Cable" is not "capable".
Fucking piece of shit editor.
...including the DVR feature and live local network channels in certain markets, but VUE has a few more channels, like AMC and Discovery ( https://www.playstation.com/en... ). Stupidly, Sony linked the VUE service to the Playstation, which doesn't help people take it seriously and one had to have a Playstation to sign up until Sony very recently added VUE to newer Sony smart TVs. Google/You Tube aren't going to wall off their service the way Sony did.
"We decided to create an offering that would give them all of these can't miss live moments," ...which will be on youtube regular moments later for free.
If it has commercials, I wouldn't watch it even if it were free.
Any chance I could get, say, two of those channels for $5 a month?
There's internet-based cable packages already out there, SlingTV/PlayStation Vue are the big obvious ones, but it's not unlikely to be more crowded going forward either. They have the same granular pricing scheme, and I don't care for them either..
The big thing for me is that when I was paying for cable, I'd only really have a couple of 'veg out' channels I ever used, and would really prefer to watch entire series for the serialized content, rather then live, so got nothing out of having those channels available. Add those few remnants of what's mildly interesting in cable, and you'll secure a (lower value) longterm customer.
I won't be willing to pay $35 monthly for what I'm missing now though. I just don't get enough enjoyment out of that, dollar for dollar, than I'd get out of most anything else.
Ryan Fenton
NO!
That's what this would cost me. Sure glad I have an antenna on the roof and TiVo in my living room and can get all that for 100% free. The only people I see going for this are people who have precisely ZERO reception of OTA channels, but somehow have broadband internet connectivity.
I believe with Comcast I can get local channels for $10/month.
The cable package is more, yes, but I also get a lot more channels too. How many channels would you get with the YouTube thing?
Regardless $35 is way, way too much money for what they are providing (yes even "with DVR service" as people here keep bringing up). Netflix is vastly cheaper and offers better content. I would argue that with Netflix alone you get MORE new content in a year than if you had access to all the major broadcast networks!!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Bannon, is that you??
Your robes are showing.
is that like YT/Twitch, except you cant select what and when you watch it?
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Since it gives access to 6 accounts for $35/mo, I feel like it's a pretty decent deal if you split it with 5 friends. Comes out to less than $6/mo per person. That seems pretty good.
Is this allowed in the terms, though?
Why would anyone pay 30-35/month to youtube aka The Google for those channels when Sling TV gives you all those for 20/month? And has been doing so for over a year? And threw in a ton of promotions almost constantly for cheap or free Roku streaming devices?
From Youtube:
Stream ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC & more.
I get all of those stations and 50 more for free using an antenna. Most of them are HD, and I can DVR with Myth TV. Why would I want to spend $35 per month?
Might actually be interested in this one; still, $35 is a bit much since right now I can find streams for free (but for how long is anyone's guess). :)
My kid's in college. Can she use this in another city/state than me or is it gonna pop up and say "Sorry, no way Jose".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What executive (read idiot) thought that the main reason for "linear tv" to fail was a great idea to implement simply because it was on Youtube.
Channels....BAH.
Thanks but no thanks, but for less $$ I will stick to Netflix and watch "Programs" when I want, as I want, Where I want and all advert (and google tracking) free.
Whats next the "Google Buggy Whip" ?
I watch YouTube because I can't stand TV (although I do watch a few PBS shows, but they are on YouTube)
There's already more things on YouTube that I'd like to watch than what I have time for: https://www.youtube.com/user/H...
To clarify I thought it was $10 more than my internet alone. Since the internet is mandatory (esp. for YouTube!) but TV is not...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I have Netflix and it's great, but it's limited to Netflix content, and lacks a lot of the major broadcast network content,
At this point is it not more fair to say broadcast networks lacks Netflix content? There is far more I am interested in watching on Netflix now than on broadcast networks - and here I am only talking about Netflix own content!
And like I said, they are producing content FASTER now than any broadcast network, or I think even the combination of them.
The very few shows I might want to watch form network TV I could either get from Hulu (cheaper than the $35 price) or simply pay for a season on iTunes (way cheaper than $35/month if you just want to watch four shows or less)
For HBO for example I was able to pay $15/month and get to watch a number of great series until I was done, about four months of subscription then I was out. Half the cost of the $35 deal...
So ALL the $35 deal is really about is watching live content i.e. sports. Way too steep for my blood and even if I was really into a sport I would simply sign up for video access for that sport specifically, which would be WAY better than what live TV offers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Pay $35 a month, support republicans via fox news, and pay the espn tax. Avoid this crap. Just let us subscribe to the channels we want. Or better, one monthly fee and let us pick the shows from any/all channels. I want to watch what I want, not what you want me to watch.
TV resists all attempts to fix it from the consumer perspective. Even Apple, with unlimited money was unable to tame it. The only workaround is if you get OTA, put up an antenna and wire and run it into a DVR, ranging from Tivo (expensive but easy) to Mediasonic boxes ($40 plus a HDD for $70-cheap but no real guide...it's a HDTV VCR) When I got a $6 per month sports fee which the cable co refused to cut,, we were done. This would be good if you can't get OTA.
Sorry, until I can get a package for $25 without ESPN I'm not interested.
I don't understand... I remember broadcast TV from when I was young... is it still around?
I'm turning 42 this year (so I will soon be the answer) and I was under the impression that broadcast TV was for only old people. I wonder what old people would do with this.
Now if rednecks and hillbillies also do broadcast TV, then this make sense.
Of course, I wonder if there's anything that broadcast TV offers that you don't get with alternative options other than commercial interruptions.
Advertising is as optional as a STD.
Judging by a single-field form that asks for my "zip code", I assume this is US-only?
For the junk that the broadcast networks have been spewing out for years? Is Google out of its bloody mind?
If it doesn't have PBS then it's worthless trash like the rest of the streaming TV services. While PBS offers a digital service of its own, that service does not include all of the programs aired locally, notably: Hometime, America's Test Kitchen, and Cook's Country. Aereo was our only hope.
...they get all ISPs to zero-bill the streaming traffic.
So... it includes CBS. Does that mean I could watch the new Star Trek show on this service, in the US?
Is $35 cheaper than cable TV?
Google/YouTube is offering streams on up to 6 devices under one account. If your household doesn't need that many streams you could share with others and split the cost. For example, my wife and I share our Netflix account with our respective parents. My wife's parents share their HBO streaming account with us. Our houses are many miles apart. There's no difference in the service other than being limited to certain TVs/devices in our home. A very small sacrifice. So, with Google's 6 streams, two friendly neighbors could each take 3 streams, share the bill and cut their TV bill to $17.50/month. Three friendly households could take 2 accounts each and cut their TV bills to $11.67/month. That's not nothing.
I agree that the larger market wants sports. but if you like sports enough to pay $35/month pretty much just for that, why would you not get something like a NBA or NFL or MLB yearly pass? Those are around $100 or so generally, for a whole YEAR - and you get to watch every game, including many the networks do not carry (for MLB) along with a lot more live stats stuff if you use the apps.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
a TiVo DVR will not function without a TiVo subscription.
secondly you pay ONCE for lifetime program guide on TiVo and never have to pay again for the life of the box
The price of a $200 TiVo DVR and its required $550 All-In Plan will pay for at least a couple years of cable TV, particularly if your cable provider offers a "double play" bundle that includes TV for only $240 per year more than Internet-only service, and particularly if the DVR breaks soon after its factory warranty expires.