Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Launches 'YouTube TV' In Select Markets (phonedog.com)

In late February, YouTube unveiled its live TV service called YouTube TV, which offers live TV streaming over the internet for $35 per month with no long-term contract required. The company has officially launched the service today in five select markets: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Chicago, and Philadelphia. YouTube says that more markets are coming soon, however, details on when/where are scarce. PhoneDog reports: A membership to YouTube TV costs $35 per month and includes live streaming of channels like ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, ESPN, and others. Subscribers also get an unlimited cloud DVR for recording shows that'll last up to nine months, and six accounts that each get their own recommendations and cloud DVRs. YouTube is offering a free one-month trial of YouTube TV so that everyone can give it a try. After your first paid month, YouTube will give you a Google Chromecast to thank you for sticking with the service. Source: YouTube Official Blog

62 comments

  1. Cable/Sat TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like there won't be any excuses left for not cutting the cord/sat dish.

    1. Re: Cable/Sat TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why pay for channels (except ESPN) when you can get them over the air.

    2. Re: Cable/Sat TV by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2

      ESPN is expensive, and crammed onto almost every paid package. It's the Disney tax that you pay when you buy cable, satellite, and now, some streaming packages!

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    3. Re: Cable/Sat TV by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      First...

      Why pay for channels (except ESPN, ESPN2, USA, FX, FXX, and about 40 others) when you can get them over the air.

      FTFY.

      Second, because they don't work with my TV of choice, namely my iPad/Laptop/Phone.

    4. Re: Cable/Sat TV by mswope · · Score: 2

      You can't always get them over the air. In my market, I'm about 30 miles away from our local tower farm and I'm not easily able to put up a really good antenna.

    5. Re: Cable/Sat TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why pay for ESPN when you can get the same content from MSNBC?

    6. Re: Cable/Sat TV by darkain · · Score: 1

      In the past year, I installed a HDHomeRun on my local network. It is a network connected OTA HDTV tuner with apps available at least on Android. With this setup, yup, sure enough, I have live OTA TV at home on every device in the house.

    7. Re: Cable/Sat TV by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      My reaction was similar when I read the summary, but clicking on the link the channel lineup is actually deeper than that and if the "Coming Soon" channels actually do arrive, I might even consider it.

      If they ever come to my area, that is.

      It's interesting that the 5 channels mentioned in the summary are ones that I have very little interest in watching (zero interest for ESPN). Even when I had cable (an antenna isn't good enough for where I live) I hardly ever watched the other 4 mentioned.

      Still, $35 is a lot IMO when I don't have any interest in most of the other channels either. And it seems at least 12 of them appear to be sports networks. I know that's a big draw for many people, but I have absolutely zero interest in those channels so I would still be subsidizing them.

      Besides, I still haven't run out of things to watch on Netflix and Amazon Prime which combined are still cheaper.

      Put sports in a separate optional tier, add the "Coming Soon" channels and drop the price by at least 1/3 and it might be an attractive deal to me.

      And even though you can watch a lot of PBS content online, it wouldn't hurt to see if they could add that as well.

    8. Re: Cable/Sat TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will need to use the HD Home Run streams to the H264 codec but it does work on an ipad. Also if you want to view it remotely you will have to proxy it through something like apache, recorded on another media player (PLEX, MCE), or have a bridged (layer 2?) VPN to the same subnet as the HDHR, you can't just punch a hole in your firewall to whatever port and access the HDHR.

      Although this may have changed with newer HDHR devices.

    9. Re: Cable/Sat TV by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      IM over 40 miles away from my tower cluster and receive everything, but i have an attic mounted big antenna.

      --
      Good-bye
    10. Re: Cable/Sat TV by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      Good question. Over the air TV is a hassle if you want similar functionality in your home. The technology to do something similar to YouTube TV is expensive and buggy.

      For example: I stuck a giant antenna in my attic ($150), and then I bought an HDHomerun ($200), and their DVR software ($50,). Their DVR software has to run on some kind of a device, but I already own an NVidea shield, which it runs on. Before the HDHomerun I used a Tablo ($250) + ($150) hard drive. The Tablo, though, is a buggy piece of junk. Even before that, I used a Windows media center PC ($1500) that worked very well as a DVR, but Microsoft end-of-lifed their support for DVR.

      So, for about $2300 in sunk cost I have a working, but buggy and difficult-to-use DVR solution, and two DVRs that are collecting dust. This pays for 5.5 years of YouTube TV, with no buggy software and no hardware to setup or collect dust when it's end-of-lifed.

    11. Re: Cable/Sat TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So ESPN gives us Trump haters like Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, et al as well?

    12. Re: Cable/Sat TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only watch FNC and FBN on YouTube live. I'm not sure that $35/month is worth both those channels, and I don't watch anything else

  2. Just delete the You already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know it's just new coke cable now.

  3. Still nope. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Informative

    I see little reason that I should have to pay money for TV shows that have commercials in it that cannot be skipped. They can continue being greedy assholes and I can continue only paying for services without commercials.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  4. Cable TV 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, that didn't take long after the massive banhammer came down from the advertisers now did it?

    I guess they are desperate to get something on youtube now considering they are forcing most of the youtube creators off of the platform. Maybe they just wanted more per-approved content to monetize. Too bad they won't have anything left for people to justify paying $35/mo for once that exodus is complete.

    More proof that if those with power can't control it, they will find another way or make it illegal. Anything to prohibit a narrative circulating that they disapprove of.

    1. Re: Cable TV 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This also means that YouTube Red is a complete failure.

    2. Re: Cable TV 2.0 by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      Did Red offer any useful content other than home made reality shows?
      I coulda paid a small amount to go ad-free and have decent things to watch, but they never showed me anything compelling.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    3. Re: Cable TV 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as i know youtube red was just normal youtube AD free. It also added some other features on the mobile platforms such as being able to keep playing videos and just listen to the sound while the youtube app was "minimized" on Android and i'm sure similar on iOS. Basically for those using youtube for their cheap music fix.

    4. Re: Cable TV 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With YouTube Red, you also get free YouTube Music, and Google Play Music. All-in-all, it is a good deal for 10 bucks a month. For another 25, I can add TV? I'll probably do it. I dropped SlingTV for DirecTV Now, and as soon as YouTube Tv is available here, i'll drop DirecTV Now, and get YouTube TV. Mainly because every device on the planet supports YouTube. For DirecTV Now, I had to get an AppleTv because there is no Roku app for DirecTV Now. I already pay Google for several other services, so I might as well add my TV to Google as well.

  5. A Different Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    YouTube TV, which offers live TV streaming over the internet

    The company has officially launched the service today in five select markets

    So, it's "over the Internet" but only available in 5 cities.

    New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Philadelphia have a different Internet from the rest of us?

    WTF is this shit?

    1. Re: A Different Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. But they have different local programming.

  6. Eleven months from now... by RedCard · · Score: 1

    "We regret to inform you that we're discontinuing YouTube TV. You will have nine days to move to a new TV provider."

    Like clockwork.

    1. Re:Eleven months from now... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention that it was placed in your spam folder 10 days ago -- that's why you found it, looking for account details.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    2. Re:Eleven months from now... by gweilo8888 · · Score: 0

      Of course, the same is true with other providers. Netflix silently canceled my account without informing me because my ex had switched it to her credit card without telling me, then disputed the recurring charge a few months later without ever talking to me about it. Contacted Netflix when I couldn't watch shows even though it showed a successful charge, and they actually made me delete my entire account (losing all my shows in the process, and without warning me so I could quickly note them down myself). All I got for the inconvenience was a single month free, which I'd have gotten anyway by just canceling the account and starting a new one. I'm annoyed to the point that once my free month is up, I'll likely cancel altogether.

  7. This isn't the game changer you're looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't the game changer you're looking for

  8. Make a fucking Kodi plugin. by pecosdave · · Score: 2

    Seriously.

    If you don't want the hacker community hacking together some cluster fuck of a front end so it's half-assed included into Kodi, do it yourself now. You will get more subscribers, have an interface you can get behind, and you will be reaching out to people who are already statistically more likely to be Android people than iPhone people anyways. It's a good way to keep your customers happy.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Make a fucking Kodi plugin. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      What's the advantage of having Kodi for youtube?

      I have it on my Android TV, but I don't see the point in using it when I already have the youtube app already installed on both my Android TV and my Samsung TV.

    2. Re:Make a fucking Kodi plugin. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      It's a pain to switch between apps.

    3. Re:Make a fucking Kodi plugin. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Kodi does have a good YouTube plugin, more than one I think, but nothing that's been Google blessed. I think you could half-ass your way to a favorites setup for channels.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  9. No a la carte? by gweilo8888 · · Score: 2

    No deal. I have no interest in continuing to piss my money away on things like ESPN which I will never, *ever* watch.

    1. Re:No a la carte? by spoot · · Score: 1

      This, and the fact that the official youtube channel crashes my roku after 5-10 minutes of watching. I have signed up for sling I think three times now to get a free roku with the deal and canceled it every time. Just not worth the money. Let me go ala-carte and maybe I'll buy/bite. I like to watch news, so I was essentially paying for sling to watch cnn. how the hell is that worth it. I'll just stick with the free options. France 24 is pretty damn good. Besides there is still Sky, iTV, Deutsche Nx, Al Jazeera, that awful CBS streaming news service and half a dozen more. I just won't bite.

    2. Re:No a la carte? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the summary:

      live streaming of channels like ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, ESPN, and others

      ESPN is the only one listed that is not available for free over the air. Not interested.

    3. Re:No a la carte? by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

      ESPN is viewed by a lot of people, though. Yes, a lot of us techy-folks don't watch it, but your average Joe Soap does. So they need to have it there to appeal to the masses.

      But I agree - an a là carte option would be good. But that's not how TV Companies work (yet?!).

    4. Re: No a la carte? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disney owns ESPN, ABC and others. Want Disney? You're getting ESPN ... That's just how the house of the mouse rolls

  10. WTF? by Bartles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A bundle of live channels for a monthly fee? That sounds like cable. You're doing it wrong, Google.

  11. Commercials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be interested in a model that gives me the channels I want, without commercials. Say, $2/chan/mo.

    For $35, there better not be ANY commercials.

  12. Competition is Great... why cable sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Early commenters are poo-poing this latest streaming offer, but as a DirectvNow customer I love all the competition in this market space because it means my product will have to get better quick or I'll move to a different vendor. Remember how crappy a process it was to switch from one cable provider to another (or to satellite)? With streaming services, it's dead simple, just cancel your account with one and start up with another, all online, no equipment trade in. Sling streaming starting to degrade? Try DirectvNow, or Sony VUE, or YouTube TV, or whatever else is out there. It's a fraction of the cost and pain of cable or satellite and if you've got a good internet connection it works almost as well. The only thing I miss from cable is the DVR capability, but thanks to the competition YouTube TV is bringing with their DVR option the other players will have to do it as well or I'll switch to them in a heartbeat.

  13. Market by manu0601 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The company has officially launched the service today in five select markets: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

    These are called cities, not markets, you insensitive clod.

    1. Re:Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      San Francisco Bay Area is my favorite city.

    2. Re:Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I never knew that I lived in the city of San Francisco Bay Area! I thought I lived in the city of San Jose, just a block away from the city of Campbell!

      Thanks for the information, kind stranger!

  14. Channels, don't be stupid by sit1963nz · · Score: 0

    As soon as I saw Channels I read "Fail"

    NOBODY watches channels, they watch PROGRAMS.
    No one ever said "Love the Big Bang theory now if only it was on channel 3 instead of 10 I would watch it"

    If these idiots ran a supermarket they would be telling you "Yes, but you have to include 3 items from isle 4, 2 chicken based products and at least 1 feminine hygiene product before you can check out with your loaf of bread, and because you also have milk you are required to buy Bacon, a wooden spatula , and a birthday card for a 3 year old boy, or if you buy a card for a 3 year old girl you will also need to buy 1 pound of Himalayan Salt".

    No, just NO NO NO NO NO.

    And NO, I am also NOT going to pay you money so you can also show me adverts,

    So far Netflix 1 others nil.

  15. Wrong by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Refering to a city as a market in a context like this is completely accurate. Maybe go back to your high school economics class' text book for a review :)

    https://www.merriam-webster.co...

    Relevant portion:
    a (1) : a geographic area of demand for commodities or services - sell in the southern market

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  16. Limited kids channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No Nickelodeon & no Cartoon Network.

    For myself, of course.

    1. Re: Limited kids channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it had cartoon Network and was available in my market I'd be all over it. I watch news and sports ... And this even has BTN so I can watch my Hoosiers. Kids can't live without their Teen Titans Go though!

  17. Why terrestrial stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would they bother with NBC ABC FOX etc when you can just grab them OTA anywhere?

    1. Re:Why terrestrial stations by Megane · · Score: 1

      Because millennials don't understand how antennas work.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:Why terrestrial stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I am a millennial! Maybe you're thinking about the generation after that? I agree all they know is YouTube

    3. Re:Why terrestrial stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Postmillennials, the iGeneration" according to wikipedia

    4. Re:Why terrestrial stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use OTA myself. However, the are some locations where it may be impossible to receive all local channels (especially if there are also antenna constraints).

  18. AdTV by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I wish I knew where the actual satire is, but I saw it watching a Sargon of Akkad video, for "AdTV". Content approved by the names you trust. Coke, Pepsi, GM, Ford, and other great sponsors approve of the content you know you will love.

    Youtube has been killing people that actually brought people to Youtube. While some can argue that they are collateral damage (and I would remain cynical and skeptical) we all see it happening. Youtube TV? no thanks.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:AdTV by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Ads do provide a service. You might have suspicions about the mental capabilities of people who watch certain programs. Marketers have that research. So if your seeing constant ads for scammy and worthless stuff, your probably watching a program aimed at morons.
      Test my theory, turn on AM talk radio and listen to a couple commercial breaks.

  19. A swing and a miss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cut the cord mainly because of the commercials. Sure won't pay 35 bucks for more commercials, just because I can watch it on the internet. I dropped Hulu for the same reason.

  20. Weird strategic decisions at Youtube by Kiuas · · Score: 2

    I'm an active follower of youtube and watch a lot of Vlogs and podcasts and the likes. Rcenetly in the wake of the so called "PewPewdie scandal" youtube has apparently shifted to be more and more restricve about what kind of content they allow to be monetized. Certain tags and words appear to be banned from getting ad-revenue, (recently it came to light their new policy prohibits including 'atheist' in one's channel name, and in general old channels with atheism in their tittle have seen a huge drop in revenue. Have a look at their 'advertiser friendly content guidelines':

    Content that is considered "not advertiser-friendly" includes, but is not limited to:

    Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
    Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
    Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
    Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
    Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown
    If any of the above describes any portion of your video, then the video may not be approved for monetization. If monetization is approved, your video may not be eligible for all available ad formats. YouTube reserves the right to not monetize a video, as well as suspend monetization features on channels that repeatedly submit videos violating our policies.

    This is all very very strange from a business perspective. I understand that youtube/Google wants to give their paying customers - advertisers - more control over the kind of content their ads are displayed on. I understand that they want to compete more directly with services such as Netflix. However, I do not understand their decision to do this in this way. independent content has been the core of YT for a decade now. it's what lifted them to their current position. And now they want to actively reduce their range of content because a single streamer made some jokes some people/companies didn't like? Like, to me it just seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot.

    Besides, none of this applies to their corporate users, CNN and other news channels can still run content about terrorism and politics and keep getting ad-money, but if a private individual creates content on the same topic they don't get revenue? This is completely nonsensical. the correct move would be to allow advertisers determine whether or not they want their ads to be run just on 'approved' channels or on all kinds of videos. Hell, I can bet you that there are advertisers that would like to specifically target for example political videos or videos with black/vulgar humor or swears. The people who watch this type of content (myself included) are still consumers that buy items and services and they are a separate segment than those who prefer 'family friendly' content, so preventing advertising for this segment to me makes no sense whatsoever.

    Instead of offering a more 'netflix-like' curated experience for those that want it and keeping the 'old youtube' as it is, they've now put in place guidelines which can be used to essentially destroy the majority of independent political vloggers for example. Sure, some of them can manage to keep going via services like Patreon allowing them to accept donationsfunding directly from the audience but that option is really only available to channels with a rather large following.

    To me the great thing about YT has been the possibility it offers: if you create content that's appealing to people - whether it's in-depth political analysis, debates, silly animations or just guys s

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    1. Re:Weird strategic decisions at Youtube by swillden · · Score: 1

      I think your criticism is partially ill-informed and partially premature.

      The ill-informed part is that this isn't just about PewDiePie. That was just the beginning. YouTube's initial response was minor, but then major advertisers started noticing that their ads were still playing on content they didn't want it on, and started pulling their advertising.

      The premature part is that there's no reason to believe that YouTube isn't going to do exactly what you said, allow advertisers to pick what they want to show their ads on. But you don't turn a ship the size of YouTube on a dime. From a user's perspective it's just a web site, but the implementation is undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of servers in a sophisticated multi-tier architecture. For that matter, architectural complexity aside, it's a non-trivial problem to identify the contents of billions of videos. My guess is that they are going to give advertisers control, but it'll take time. Probably 1-2 quarters. In the meantime, they need to stop the bleeding. Advertisers pulling out harms all YouTubers, not just the ones with potentially-offensive content.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  21. same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should i pay for something I don't want?
    I don't have kids and I do not watch sports. Why should I pay for Disney and ESPN---and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the bulk of the $35/month. Besides, I have an antenna and can see all of the major broadcast network TV in my area---not that it's worth watching.

  22. Markets named after cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, how broken is your ability to comprehend abstract throught? What if Markets are names after cities and geographic areas with a large city in them?

    1. Re:Markets named after cities by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how broken is your ability to comprehend abstract throught?

      I perfectly understand the desire of some to reduce everything to the market.

  23. Nooo! by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    NO , don't make a Kodi plugin.

    Publish an API. Other people can make the plugins.

    The only thing really wrong with all these streaming services, is that you have to run their software on your computer. That is weird, abnormal, and definitely highly undesirable. I am not going to run your "app" or plugin. I may decide to buy your service, though, if it has a well-defined interface.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    1. Re:Nooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should interface with AndroidTV and offer 'live channels' integration. You can then re-arrange/hide/show/etc any 'channel' from any source publishing their channels/streams.

      I'd be extremely surprised if this wasn't part of the initial offering.

    2. Re:Nooo! by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      I'm perfectly okay with this, I even thought about it after I hit post.

      I suppose the "DVR" part it mentioned is probably just copies of the show that are accessible to subscribers via a normal search?

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.