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
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.
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.
Why pay for channels (except ESPN) when you can get them over the air.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
No deal. I have no interest in continuing to piss my money away on things like ESPN which I will never, *ever* watch.
A bundle of live channels for a monthly fee? That sounds like cable. You're doing it wrong, Google.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why pay for ESPN when you can get the same content from MSNBC?
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.
Because millennials don't understand how antennas work.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
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.
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.
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':
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
IM over 40 miles away from my tower cluster and receive everything, but i have an attic mounted big antenna.
Good-bye
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.
No, I will not work for your startup
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
Seriously, how broken is your ability to comprehend abstract throught?
I perfectly understand the desire of some to reduce everything to the market.