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