18 ms·

YouTube TV

383 points by loisaidasam 10y ago

djhworld 10y ago
Wonder how many commercial breaks you'll get the privilege of watching for your 35 bucks
- madamelic 10y ago
  Don't worry, you can buy YouTube TV Unlimited for $4 extra per month. :eyeroll: [1] https://help.hulu.com/articles/52427902 https://help.hulu.com/articles/52427902
- pas 10y ago
  I wonder if they'll insert their own commercials instead, maybe you'll get some lower price at the end of the month.
  - gregmac 10y ago
    This would actually be one of the absolutely immense capabilities Google (the advertising company) could bring. I almost never watch cable/broadcast TV (don't have it at home, and haven't for 12+ years) so one of the things I notice when I do watch it is there are some commercials that are genuinely entertaining (well produced, funny, etc). The issue is, after watching TV for an hour, when I see that 'entertaining' commercial for the 3rd time it is no longer entertaining. Google can actually track what they are showing, and have an idea of who's watching. Don't show me the same commercial more than once per day (or every few hours), and definitely don't repeat the same one in a single show. Don't show me ads that are completely irrelevant. Track metrics on ads, and eliminate genuinely bad ads. I'm not sure I'd ever come to a service where I both paid and watched ads, but this is basically the minimum necessary for me personally to watch content with ads at all. Of the companies that would be able to pull this off, Google is definitely at the top of a very short list.
WayneBro 10y ago
Wow, so is this the official beginning of the age of decentralized cable-companies? As a cable cutter, one thing I am really looking forward to is the day that I can flip channels again very easily, without having to think about what I am doing.
- toxican 10y ago
  This doesn't seem like anything more than what Sling has been offering for years....Am I missing something?
  - WayneBro 10y ago
    I never used Sling and I practically forgot about it since I learned of it long time ago. I think it one point I heard some rumors that it was dead. Anyway, can you just flip channels with it, like cable? Perhaps I will check it out.
tombert 10y ago
This is cool, though part of the reason I like things like Hulu Plus is that I don't have to worry about commercials, and it's literally a third of the price. I do find it interesting though; Youtube/Google is taking all the steps to be the next Time Warner or Comcast it seems. I wonder if this proves that that industry isn't impossible to break into.
- harigov 10y ago
  The biggest problem with Google is their branding. They launched so many services - Google Music, Youtube Red, Youtube TV, Youtube Live, Hangouts Live, etc., it's just impossible to keep up on what they are actually trying to do. I am sure they have far less number of customers on any of these individual services than if they would have had if these were independent companies. They do everything and nothing they do recently is up to the mark.
  - joshuamorton 10y ago
    (am googler, but don't work with any of the mentioned products) Keep in mind that all of these products in many cases compete with other companies (music -> spotify, apple, ytr -> netflix/hulu originals, kinda, YTL -> twitch, YTTV -> cable providers). I, as a consumer, wouldn't want these things to all be bundled. I use spotify for my music, and I don't want to have to pay for Play Music or youtube red unless I use those services. I can't even imagine how some kind of "unified google media" thing would work.
    - mynameisvlad 10y ago
      > I can't even imagine how some kind of "unified google media" thing would work. It's quite simple. Pay more than a few services (but not as much as all of them together) and get access to all of them. The concept isn't really hard at all. You can go a step further and give increasing discounts the more services you add if you don't want one package deal. You guys already do it for Youtube Red/Google Play Music. It's not mindblowing to imagine it being expanded from there. There's a common account for all the services anyway, so from a technical perspective you'd have a common place to store subscription information if that's not already done.
rajathagasthya 10y ago
Very interesting. It's a shame Apple shied away from providing TV streaming.
- Eridrus 10y ago
  I don't think Apple shied away from it so much as they assumed their weight in the consumer space would be important and acted like dicks.
colinbartlett 10y ago
Is this similar to Direct TV Now[1]? Both of these services seem like an interesting step forward, but then, who really wants to watch live TV anymore, besides sports fans? The whole idea of watching something at a specific time that it's aired just seems unimaginable to me after years of on demand streaming. Not to mention commercial breaks. 1. https://directvnow.com/ https://directvnow.com/
- harigov 10y ago
  If we started out with a Netflix like video hosting platform and then someone launches a live, continuously running, and a curated-list-of-shows platform, everyone would consider that as a mind-blowing "innovation". I guess some people do want to watch live-tv, simplifies the question of "what to watch next".
  - tekklloneer 10y ago
    Basically, synced playlists? That's a trivial innovation that was done on tons of 3rd party sites after youtube launched. I don't think it's mind blowing, I think it's a neat feature compared to on-demand, which I think is the gold standard experience.
    - harigov 10y ago
      No, synced playlists that are curated by professionals, backed by millions of dollars of budget. I wouldn't consider that as mind-blowing either. It's a sarcastic comment on reactions from the valley about what they consider as an innovation.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- zaroth 10y ago
  Completely agree. Maybe 10 times a year I watch live TV, otherwise I want to choose a show and binge on episodes on demand. Unfortunately, the legal situation around licensing I think allows for "unlimited DVR" but not actually just an on-demand episode list. You have to setup your "own" recording of the episode, and your bits can be stored in the cloud for you. I'm not sure even if de-duplicating the bits runs into trouble.
sachinag 10y ago
You announce this on February 28 without TBS, TNT, or truTV? I get that Turner had you, but come on. Wait until April to announce if you're not gonna have them. Or even until June, when the NBA conference finals are over.
- mynameisvlad 10y ago
  Have you found a source for the "& more" to definitively say that those are not included? Because as far as I could see, all we know is that the big ones are included and that there's others but what those are isn't very clear.
halayli 10y ago
Being asked for a zip code shows that not even youtube is able to change the old broadcasting business model. The day will come when TV streaming businesses takes over and removes the virtual location barriers set by the industry.
- turnip123942 10y ago
  It could be to gather data to be able to negotiate deals with local TV providers. Get an idea of what the demand in a market is and go from there.
- riskable 10y ago
  No kidding. The moment I saw the zip code requirement I knew it was going to be pointless. Not only that but $35? Come on. There's not $35 worth of programming there. It's just the same old dumbed down broadcast TV that has been in decline for over a decade. Compared to Netflix, Amazon, and even YouTube shows ABC, NBC, Fox et al just plain suck. As proof, after watching an awesome trailer for some new sci-fi show you may be totally pumped up to watch it until at the end when they announce, "only on ABC!" "Well shit. So much potential, ruined."
  - VikingCoder 10y ago
    At $35 per month, and since I can skip all ads... That might be something. (The Verge confirms you can skip ads [1].) And the DVR forever thing... That might be very nice, especially if they put up tons of old stuff... Plus, NOT paying my cable provider is worth a lot. ...and if this offers a way to Download content to my phone, to watch offline...? [1] http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming-tv-service-announced-hd-live-cable-channels http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming...
    - aanm1988 10y ago
      > and I can skip all ads For all $ > 0 the number of ads should already be zero.
    - 10y ago
vinylkey 10y ago
> Stream ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC & more. What's included in "& more"? I can get the listed channels from an antenna.
- gagege 10y ago
  If it's just my local OTA channels, this is basically just paying $35 a month for a DVR.
  - PhrosTT 10y ago
    I guess but I'd pay $35 to get live sports - the only reason I'm still stuck with cable.
    - kriro 10y ago
      Depending on the sports you watch there's other good deals deals. 35x12=420$. All access NFL package (for Europeans, not sure about US prices but iirc. it exists and is in the 250$ range) is about 250€/season. I think NBA/NHL are priced similarly. So you could get about two complete pro leagues for the same price (and these are a lot better than normal live, you get all games archived forever, non-commercial versions the day after, Redzone etc.) If you want college sports or more variety or something outside of the big stuff (winter sports, cycling etc. etc.) then it's meh.
- bearcobra 10y ago
  The screenshots show channels like ESPN, USA, and FXX.
  - throwaway287391 10y ago
    Kind of bizarre that they decided to highlight the free OTA networks most prominently in their marketing, when it's actually a cable replacement (or at least a partial one).
    - 10y ago
IanDrake 10y ago
I don't see the value proposition here. Can anyone explain what I'm getting for $35 (over cheap or free alternatives)?
- Eridrus 10y ago
  I think this doesn't provide any extra value to anyone who is not a cable subscriber already; this is more useful to those who think cable is a fine package and would just prefer to not actually deal with cable companies any more than they have to. Getting this through YouTube's apps is probably going to be a big tech improvement. It seems like a decent value proposition if you're into sports, especially if you split the price with 5 other people.
  - burkemw3 10y ago
    The offering does include channels that I only know of on cable (e.g. ESPN, SyFy, Bravo) at a cost significantly less than basic cable (last time I looked).
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  1. Cable only channels in addition to OTA channels 2. Unlimited DVR 3. 6 accounts to possibly share.
  - IanDrake 10y ago
    Thanks. I missed point 1 and 3. Point 2 has almost no value these days unless you don't have Hulu/Amazon/Netflix, which I guess some people don't. I watched commercial TV for the first time in a few years the other day and lost interest in what I was watching because of it. I don't think I can go back now.
    - bitmapbrother 10y ago
      Point 2 is extremely valuable if you watch live stuff. I often DVR live shows and sporting events and then start watching them 30-60 min later just to fast forward through the commercials.
krzyk 10y ago
They ask for zip code but don't ask for country, should I assume (again) that they mean the default (USA) country?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  You should probably assume that if they ask for only a ZIP code (not a generic postal code) and don't ask for anything else that, yes, they are talking about the one country which uses ZIP codes.
NeonVice 10y ago
Is this the same as Aereo, the service that was shutdown by the supreme court, only with a valid rebroadcast license?
- kevincennis 10y ago
  From a consumer standpoint, yes – except 4x more expensive. From a technology standpoint, definitely not. Disclosure: I'm a former Aereo engineer
soheil 10y ago
The page is extremely void of any details, reminds me of Cable companies landing pages. This is odd because I noticed there has been a recent explosion of third party live CNN, FOX News, ... channels, not sure if this is because YT made their copyright detection algorithms more lenient as a segue to YT TV.
overcast 10y ago
So $35 to stream what is already available free over the air in HD, with a $20 antenna?
- toxican 10y ago
  For what it's worth, not everyone can pick up all of those channels with a $20 antenna. I can pick up NBC, PBS, and a few odd local channels with no national affiliation. I'd imagine those in cities and metro areas would probably have more luck. But anyway, the blog post [1] has a full(er) list of channels. But even then it doesn't look price-competitive with Sling for some reason. [1] - https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  Last time I checked ESPN wasn't available OTA.
bitmapbrother 10y ago
Networks available: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-XNVz76qkd1MShms8X0Vj9MYsGBA7MZ5q_oADJjGFjalgzWwhKW9BtpKRu9RDjA8KihyEaVwPkufGhNwhU4qwFwQccYh4hHTlNYdiVbsGepAnYcFzETGv4RA https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-XNVz76qkd...
- syshum 10y ago
  When am I going to get a package with no Sports... about 40-50% of the channels are sports related... I do not watch any sports at all
  - ggamecrazy 10y ago
    Honestly, TV is not for you then. Live sports is the last vertical where people who haven't cut cable yet can't.
- js2 10y ago
  Just eye-balling but it looks pretty close to the PS Vue Access Slim package which is $29.99/mo: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/channels/ https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/channels/
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    YouTube Live does have an unlimited DVR and works on 6 accounts. I wonder if the service can be shared?
  - camiller 10y ago
    You have to go up to the $35 PS Vue tier to get BTN.
rco8786 10y ago
What does "6 accounts, 1 price" mean?
- apetresc 10y ago
  Presumably that you can add up to 6 Google accounts (i.e, your family members in the same household) to the plan for the listed price. They have a similar deal going for Google Play Music, Netflix has it, etc.
- jwcooper 10y ago
  From the blog post (for what it's worth, I think it's a good idea): >Six accounts, one price. Every YouTube TV membership comes with six accounts, each with its own unique recommendations and personal DVR with no storage limits. You can watch up to three concurrent streams at a time. https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...
wnevets 10y ago
$35/month ouch.
- jwcooper 10y ago
  This is priced about the same as Playstation Vue, DirecTV Now, and Sling for the channels offered. Looks like they're trying to win people over with features (DVR, 6 account profiles, etc).
mmanfrin 10y ago
$35 to get the channels you get OTA...
bsimpson 10y ago
Context: http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming-tv-service-announced-hd-live-cable-channels http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming...
tehabe 10y ago
April 1st is early this year, isn't it?
koolba 10y ago
> $35/month That's a series chunk of coin for something that you can get for free with an antennae. I wonder how much of that is licensing. It's got to be a huge chunk of it. Also, who watches any of those crap channels anyway?!
- guiomie 10y ago
  "free with an antennae" ... You can get ESPN, ShowTime, FXX via antennae?
  - ashark 10y ago
    ShowTime is extra on top of the $35, and I don't see any other channels on the page that aren't OTA in my area (where'd you see ESPN?).
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      The blog post had logos for several cable sports and news channels (and a few other cable channels) that are not available by broadcast.
    - pgodzin 10y ago
      https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-... Includes a bunch of ESPN, Fox Sports channels
    - guiomie 10y ago
      For traditional providers yes, I dont think so for YT TV. Look at this Forbes article, it says: "It has 40 or so channels of broadcast and cable TV, including NBC, ABC, the USA Network and Fox. ESPN is also a part of the bundle." ref: http://fortune.com/2017/03/01/youtube-tv-underwhelming/ http://fortune.com/2017/03/01/youtube-tv-underwhelming/
  - koolba 10y ago
    The only content on the page says, "Stream ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC & more." While "& more" could include anything, I'm going going to assume it doesn't include any of those or they'd be listed. At the very least they'd put ESPN as that's the big one for people cutting the cord and wanting to watch live sports.
haubey 10y ago
I'd just like to see when they start doing personalized ads for every different person. I know TV companies have started to do more targeted ads [1] but if there's a company that can do it, it's gotta be google. If there's enough ad revenue to go around, it could be a tipping point where the local channel rules cease to matter. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-29/tv-ads-are-about-to-get-personal-with-new-targeting-tools https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-29/tv-ads-ar...
- jacquesm 10y ago
  That's the last thing I'd like to see.
ganfortran 10y ago
> $35/month. With Ads? Ouch, NO.
Brendinooo 10y ago
"NBA Basketball on Fox Sports Regional Networks" - Would this would be a bit of a coup for YouTube? My regional sports network doesn't have any streaming options; not sure if other markets are more liberal with this. Also, that wording...are they getting the whole regional network or just the NBA basketball?
- aesthetics1 10y ago
  If this gets around the blackouts, sign me up. Something legal and convenient... This is the way to gain back lost ground on the cord-cutters, and the reason we left Dish/Comcast/etc in droves in the first place. It is simply too complicated or inconvenient to legally get to the different types of entertainment I am interested in viewing. On the contrary, I can see this going down the path where I am back up to $100/month for entertainment between Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV, etc.
rubicon33 10y ago
When am I going to be able to choose my channels on an individual, channel by channel basis, and then receive a total cost based on those channels? If I want ONLY the Science channel, then I should be able to purchase JUST the science channel for like, $5/mo.
- goda90 10y ago
  I doubt the effort will gain them significantly more customers. If they charge $35 for 10 channels, but you can get 1 channel for $5, most people will see the 10 for $35 as a better deal. Unless their per channel price were equal to (bundle price)/(number of channels in bundle), then very few people would go that route.
  - rubicon33 10y ago
    Hmm really? I guess I'm among the minority on this one then. There's really only a few channels I'm interested in, that I can't get online. I'd gladly pay $10 for 2 channels rather than $35 for 10... because I certainly won't be watching the other 8 channels.
- curun1r 10y ago
  The science channel will be a lot more than $5/mo if all the sports fans aren't forced to subscribe to it just to get their ESPN. It sounds reasonable that ala carte pricing should be cheaper because you shouldn't have to subsidize channels you don't watch, but people forget that others are also subsidizing the channels they watch. The reality is that channels are already roughly priced according to their popularity and most people won't save much, if any, money with ala carte pricing.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Except the relative viewer numbers will be taken into account in their contracts with the cable companies. If a channel attracts fewer customers to the package, it will get less money in return for its inclusion, so nothing is really being "subsidised".
  - 10y ago
shaunol 10y ago
This is a cool idea but it still falls very short by not serving users outside of the US. To the point where the welcome page doesn't even acknowledge that there may be global interest: https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ (enter your ZIP code, no country picker ... YouTube, you do realize you're on the internet, right?) Does YouTube care about getting content to the world? Or just getting as many of their fingers in the pie as possible and abusing the current geo-restricted licensing model while they can?
- Groxx 10y ago
  I imagine most people expected to use it don't get there by clicking a link on some other site immediately after it was announced - they'll probably be running ads inside YouTube, at which point they can target more accurately. And I can't imagine they voluntarily restricted things to just the US for zero reason. Licensing around this stuff is nightmarish, and there are benefits to launching even before you're 100% global (which nothing is yet).
- kbhn 10y ago
  > Does YouTube care about getting content to the world? Or just getting as many of their fingers in the pie as possible and abusing the current geo-restricted licensing model while they can? I'd prefer to give YouTube the benefit of the doubt as they introduce a brand new service. They're an American company, it makes perfect sense for them to start with US customers.
- guyzero 10y ago
  It's probably not even possible to offer US cable networks outside of the US. They only have licenses from the content creators to show inside the US. Besides, all their competitors are US only as well - Sling TV, DirecTV Now. Someday who knows, but for now live linear is very region-locked.
  - frandroid 10y ago
    Parent's point is still valid. There's another 3+ billion of internet users outside the U.S., it would be nice not to be an afterthought's afterthought. They just need to say "Sorry, this product will not be available outside the U.S. at launch." Is it so hard?
kristofferR 10y ago
"Unlimited cloud DVR" seems really pointless. Why not just save everything, as it airs, in a central archive that the users can browse at their leisure instead? It also seems to mean that you can't rewind channels you weren't watching, that you manually have to record stuff yourself. Really backwards of Google if my assumptions are correct. It seems weird that Google aren't able to create/negotiate something relevant for today. All the things I talked about are becoming common for normal TV providers in Norway.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  Because the TV networks don't want that, see: many of them opting out of the 3-day replay functionality on Sling. I'm sure Google does keep one copy of every show users have chosen to "record" instead of duplicating it, but networks don't want people just being able to access an entire series without effort (I'm guessing just because they are money-loving jackasses).
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > "Unlimited cloud DVR" seems really pointless. Why not just save everything, as it airs, in a central archive that the users can browse at their leisure instead? Even if that's what they actually do, "unlimited DVR in the cloud" may be a more accessible way of presenting that to an audience familiar with cable TV.
- synthematics 10y ago
  Your comment made me realise what they're acheiving here. They have created the perfect streaming version of the DVR for all those non-tech-savvy older generation who are only comfortable with what they already know and love. Now, instead of learning about the joy of Netflix and Chromecast, they can just do everything they already do with their DVR, except now it's through YouTube! Brilliant really, particularly since they're the only ones who would pay $35/month for that crap.
- gregmac 10y ago
  No doubt that this is what they are doing. For non-live shows, they may even get a dump prior to it airing, so they have the whole day's worth of content queued up and ready to go. If it lets you view a program guide, and watch anything that "aired" earlier than now, it sounds like it's basically a different interface but otherwise the same as current YouTube or Netflix. YouTube even has live streams. However the way it's described makes it sound like there's probably some limitations to make it "seem like TV". The worst of this would be to totally emulate the normal TV+DVR model: * You only get access to recordings if you picked them to "record" prior to when they "air" * You have some arbitrary limit of number of "concurrent" recordings (eg: you can't just record every show on every channel at the same time, despite being 'unlimited DVR') * If you want to watch/record a show and it's already started, you can only watch/record it from the current point forward * Everything has commercials, at 31% rate, with the same commercial repeating multiple times like current TV. They can also do some really awful things with it being a cloud DVR: * Delete your recordings, or 'expire' them after some time. For example, you have 3 seasons of some show 'recorded' and are working your way through, but then they lose the license for that network and poof, all your 'recordings' are gone. * Make commercials unskippable
koolba 10y ago
I'm guessing there's no way to sign up for this and not have Google keep track of my TV habits.
hcarvalhoalves 10y ago
> Coming soon. Get on the list to find out when YouTube TV launches where you live. Why the f* internet content still depends on where I live in 2017.
- camiller 10y ago
  Probably due to live sports blackout policies and such.
nodesocket 10y ago
Sports!!! All I need and care about for my $160 a month Xfinity cable bill is Sports. Unfortunately sports takes places on various channels (ESPN, ESPN2, FOX, CBS, CBS Sports, TNT, TBS, TruTV).
caio1982 10y ago
Meanwhile, I am very happy with youtube.com/tv on my TV. No worldwide availability is ridiculous these days.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
crispytx 10y ago
Seems like a pretty steep price to watch network television. As a cord-cutter, I think its a great idea because you can't get the networks with SlingTV, and TV antennas suck. But yeah, I'm not going to pay $35 for network television. I'll just keep using my shitty antenna.
- sixothree 10y ago
  Not just that but the YouTube App is just abysmal on pretty much any device other than a web browser. PASS.
- camiller 10y ago
  See the blog post mentioned elsewhere, there are a number of cable only networks as well.
- ilaksh 10y ago
  SlingTV has some local networks in some areas. And it costs at least $10 less than youtube and has more channels.
shirro 10y ago
Why would anyone want to pay $35 per month to access tired old ad supported programming when they can get subscriptions from 3 streaming services for that price.
- chadgeidel 10y ago
  I would - just for sports. My family subscribes to Netflix, HBO, Hulu (with Showtime), and YouTube Red and I still don't get live sports. I'd drop Hulu+Showtime (~$17) and YouTube Red (~$10). I'll be paying more, but then I'll get all NBCSN and Fox Sports which covers most of the motorsports I'm interested in.
uladzislau 10y ago
Is Google launching something that Apple passed on a while ago?
youdontknowtho 10y ago
I'm just not seeing 35$ a month worth of value. Sit coms? Get a grip, man. I feel like they should pay me to watch them. TV is a wasteland. Some cable channels are pretty good. SciFi, Comdey Central, sometimes FX. (I don't like giving money to Fox, but Always Sunny is the funniest thing ever made.) If they had a way to pick channels and only pay for those, that would be worth looking at. EDIT: Do you still have to watch commercials? I don't see anything about commercials. If there are commercials then not just "no", but "hell, f*ck you for asking, no".
- andrewguenther 10y ago
  You can't bash on sitcoms and call SyFy "pretty good." In my opinion, half the stuff in SyFy is worse than sitcoms.
  - chadgeidel 10y ago
    SyFy has really upped their game in the past year or so. The Expanse, Killjoys, and The Magicians are good TV.
    - losvedir 10y ago
      I'm actually really enjoying The Expanse and The Magicians (to the point where I bought one on Google Play and the other on iTunes). What's really cool is that I bought the current season up front and then get to watch the new episodes the day (or maybe day after?) they're released. I'm not sure if Syfy is the only channel doing that, but before these shows I was used to only being able to buy the season after it was released (e.g. Game of Thrones box set). I'll have to check out Killjoys, given that you've put it between the two other shows that I enjoy. Thanks for the rec.
      - wmf 10y ago
        All networks are releasing shows the next day (except HBO has same day).
    - 10y ago
adictator 10y ago
$35? That's a ridiculous price I think, especially people who have consciously cut the cord.
i336_ 10y ago
What about http://youtube.com/tv/ http://youtube.com/tv/ ? Is this a different thing?
viseztrance 10y ago
Any thoughts on why they've chosen tv.youtube.com over youtube.tv? (youtube.tv redirects to .com)
geodel 10y ago
With $35/mo, it looks like another half-ass effort like Google phone hardware business. For 10 dollars extra over internet charges per month I get all the channels that this post explicitly mentions + some more I never watched.
kevincennis 10y ago
Former Aereo engineer here. First off, there are really two main reasons for someone not to have a cable subscription: 1. They don't care about the content 2. Price sensitivity At Aereo, we saw these sort of mix together to create hugely elastic demand. For a while, we offered a $1 "day pass" that would give you access to live TV for 24 hours at a time. During the Super Bowl and various award shows, we had crazy numbers of people sign up for these day passes. We actually had to stop offering them, because we literally couldn't build out the extra capacity in a cost-effective way (remember, we needed distinct physical antennas and transcoders for every user we served). It was tough enough to get people to pay $8/month for access to live broadcast TV and a cloud-based DVR. I have no idea how YouTube will convince anyone to pay $35. If they can work out the licenses, I'd imagine something like a day pass would work well with consumers – but it's probably hard to get the economics of that to work out.
- LargeCompanies 10y ago
  Loved Aereo! Though and as of now your hard wired Internet provider makes it impossible to have just affordable Internet without having some type of TV package. Any streaming service who doesn't also provide Internet service is highly disadvantaged! I been paying $55 for 12 months for Internet and a few local and cable channels. Now that's expiring it went up to $70 a month but Internet alone is either $50 for 6Mbps or $85 for 25Mbps. 6Mbps is junk and Comcast knows it and if I added YouTube my expenses would be $85, yet who knows if 6Mbps would support solid streaming? I'm waiting for 5G fixed wireless from Verizon and Att for some competition to Comcast! I'm sure they too will make it equally unaffordable to just have Internet without their DirectTV Now and Fios. Erggh these OTT services have a tough road ahead of them.. they will probably all end up merging with internet providers.
  - kevincennis 10y ago
    You'll be happy to know that the Aereo crew (myself included) is currently working on a fixed wireless ISP using millimeter waves and some very fancy active phased array technology. Still doing crazy stuff with antennas. https://starry.com/internet https://starry.com/internet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7YYAc9rq4g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7YYAc9rq4g
divbit 10y ago
Wow - good job. Literally people (myself included) were commenting this morning in the saving twitter thread about how something like this is really needed.
faceyspacey 10y ago
I really don't understand--those channels are free with an HD antenna. I don't know if this is possible anymore, but those channels used to be free through your cable cord, even without a cable box. ABC, fox, nbc, and cbs are free. Why pay $35 just to remove adds. Are they including, AMC, MTV, etc? I don't think so or they would say so. Ps. This is a serious question. Please someone help me understand how they are charging for free channels just to drop their ads (presumably)?
- camiller 10y ago
  Yes, they are including AMC, BTN, SYFY, ESPN etc. https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...
katehall 10y ago
Who gonna pay $35/month? It does not make sense when you can get TV subscription for $10/month
itchyjunk 10y ago
I asked my questions in a "dupe" thread so reposting here. From TV to internet to TV on internet to internet TV on any devices. One thing I wonder about is how people who purchase "bundles" traditionally will react. I'd imagine they are the biggest consumer of TV programs. (TV + INTERNET or TV + Phone + Internet style bundles). Will it end up costing the same when you break you bundle to only get internet from a provider and get "TV" from Youtube? Another question I have is about the "cloud DVR". How does it work? Is the content already in a server somewhere so when I hit the "DVR" it just tags that? It makes no sense saving the same content multiple time because multiple people tried to DVR the same episode right? Is lot of the modern TV already through internet? If not, won't this cause an increase in internet bandwidth used? Maybe it's no significant but i'm curious about it none the less. There was a talk on HN about cell phones and FM being enabled on it. Will a similar thing happen on TV, i.e my TV won't work without internet in the future? Does privacy concerns increase with this? Is it easier to track users view patterns and what not with this as opposed to traditional tv? Will it be more likely that people will post the episodes or clips they watch to youtube or will it be less common as it will be even easier for youtube to recognize and flag stuff? (I wonder if youtube will provide a tool to post tiny clips directly from TV so people can have discussions and what not as well). Thanks in advance if anyone takes time to answer any of my question! Edit: https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-... It's unlimited but for 9 months. So you'll have to Re-DVR it when/if air's again i guess? Makes more sense for people already paying for youtube red I guess? Creators on youtube red might get more traffic too possibly.
- wmf 10y ago
  Will it end up costing the same when you break you bundle to only get internet from a provider and get "TV" from Youtube? Yes, resistance is futile. ESPN won't accept less money per viewer "because Internet". It makes no sense saving the same content multiple time because multiple people tried to DVR the same episode right? There are some convoluted and non-intuitive legal precedents about this topic, but yeah, Google is probably only keeping one copy. won't this cause an increase in internet bandwidth used? Yes, bandwidth usage has increased significantly in recent years, probably faster than Moore's Law.
Animats 10y ago
$420 a year to watch broadcast TV?
bubblethink 10y ago
It's quite tragic to see cable reinvented piece by piece. Piracy still remains the only unifying force.
shmerl 10y ago
Is it DRM-free HTML5, or it's using DRM blobs and EME?
hkmurakami 10y ago
Initial reactions: 1) Will it have ESPN? I only really care about ESPN on a daily basis for TV. 2) "Never run out of DVR storage" -> Will I be able to easily save recordings of any show on Youtube TV? I value this a lot for particular sporting events and have years' worth of footage backed up.
- camiller 10y ago
  1) yes 2:) only for 9 months
- GFischer 10y ago
  Yep, it has ESPN, ESPN2 and 3 too. Some posters referred to the channel list: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-XNVz76qkd1MShms8X0Vj9MYsGBA7MZ5q_oADJjGFjalgzWwhKW9BtpKRu9RDjA8KihyEaVwPkufGhNwhU4qwFwQccYh4hHTlNYdiVbsGepAnYcFzETGv4RA https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-XNVz76qkd... and the blog post https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...
ipozgaj 10y ago
People commenting that $35 is too much for the content included - if you want an equivalent set of channels from Comcast/XFINITY, it will cost you almost 3x more. So it's a non brainer for me, and the fact I don't have to deal with Comcast is worth even more than saving ~60% of my monthly cable bill.
- myrandomcomment 10y ago
  This of course is only true if you pay for cable TV. I have Netflix and Amazon and the reset of the internet. I had a HDHomeRun hooked to an over the air but since I moved I have not hooked that up again yet as I need a huge mast to get reception. You can use a VPN like service to get world wide streams also. I do pay Comcast for a business internet connection to keep away from the data caps however.
smilbandit 10y ago
I'd be cooler if I didn't have this shiny new 1tb data cap on my internet now.
- srssays 10y ago
  Assuming a bitrate of 10Mbps and a solid 7 hours of sleep per night, you'd have to spend 43% of your waking hours watching TV to hit the cap.
zeta0134 10y ago
In light grey on the bottom of the page, for me: "SHOWTIME® available for extra monthly charge" Yup, this is going to be exactly like Cable television, and it's no cheaper. No thank you, I cut that cord for a reason. Maybe if it had no ads? But I'm sure it'll be live television with the ads. There's no point.
- chipperyman573 10y ago
  >it's no cheaper. It's $25/mo cheaper than a plan from xfinity that includes all those channels (probably around $35-40 cheaper after the 12 month "trial" period, but they don't list those prices on the landing page).
ravenstine 10y ago
Um, no thanks. Most of that content is uninteresting, free with an antenna, and loaded with commercial breaks. I would rather spend that money for a season pass on Amazon, or to go out and see a movie once a month. If money weren't an issue, my time is still better spent on Netflix or watching lectures by smart people on YouTube. I guess its fine if they want to attract the geriatric crowd, but I cant imagine people in my generation paying that much for a vastly inferior experience. As others have said, a cheaper day pass would be better, as there still is a place for live content. Whether or not that should be a form of life support for the old guard corporate media empire, that's up to you.
Cub3 10y ago
They would have to strip advertising for this to be worth it
jasikpark 10y ago
I just think it's wonderful that this launched within hours of someone recommending twitter be turned around by being the go-to solution for interacting with and watching live tv.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
All this so that I can not have one of those unsightly antennas near my tv? Sign me up! /s No, really, this is too much money. And with data caps, I don't really think I'd get my $35 out of it. Besides, who know what Ajit Pai is going to let Comcast do? Won't be long and I'll have choices like: Basic internet - for reading email. Basic Plus Internet - Basic internet + Amazon shopping (but no streaming) Internet + streaming - Basic Plus Internet + Comcasts own streaming service. Internet Premium - Internet + streaming + Netflix, Amazon and YouTube streaming. etc...
rocky1138 10y ago
Sorry, this is TheirTube, not YouTube. The whole point of YouTube is democratization and sharing of personal videos.
silveira 10y ago
I have cable TV even tough I pretty much never watch it. I don't want it, but to remove it is more expensive than to keep it. I don't have a good incentive to pay more to have more TV.
cgranier 10y ago
Nice... Only took them 11 years (http://red66.com/2006/04/google-media/ http://red66.com/2006/04/google-media/)
bane 10y ago
$35? What is this 1990? The fundamental problem I think is that this is yet another offering of packaged channels, 90% of which I don't want. Okay, maybe not 90%, but in their initial channel offering I count at least 25 of the 46 channels I'm not even remotely interested in. Once you drop sports, Spanish language content, kids content and some of the more useless news channels I'd be paying effectively paying $35/mo for local TV I can already get for free, USA, FX, Bravo, FX, Syfy and I guess...Youtube Red? If I were to pay $1/mo for each channel I might watch, I might pay $4 or $5/mo for this. Dump the live TV entirely, just put the shows up so I can binge watch the ones I want. The "cloud DVR" is a dumb gimmick, all the content is already sliced and diced and uploaded to some server somewhere anyway. Ugh..this offering is probably only really of interest to sportsball enthusiasts who are desperate to cut the cord but can't.
- camiller 10y ago
  You omitted AMC from your list, or are you not a fan of The Walking Dead and Into The Badlands? Regardless, yeah, my wife likes Nebraska Football and I like Purdue Basketball so a service without BTN would be a deal breaker. And If I dropped my 200+ channel cable package (smallest I could get and get all of the things we both watch) and picked up either this or the $35 tier of Playstation Vue I'd save about $100 a month. We already have Netflix and Amazon Prime and I'd probably have to subscribe to HBO now for GoT and Westworld. I'd still save close to $100 a month AND get my sportsball!
  - bane 10y ago
    Was AMC on the list? I must have lost it in the disinterest cloud that surrounded the four ESPNs. In all seriousness, I believe that we may be approaching a tipping point where sports franchises are going to have to come to terms about offering other ways to watch their games. Lots of people I know who do watch sports grumble about having to pay for 400 other channels they don't watch. So I know the feeling is mutual in some ways.
brokenmasonjars 10y ago
I don't think I'd personally use it as I have tv. However I can see it being useful for cord cutters. It would be nice to see some sort of bundling. Pay x amount, get youtube premium stuff, with movie rentals, and streaming tv with other google features etc such as google play/music. However have it broken up is a good option too. I think both options could be useful.
facepalm 10y ago
Why would anybody pay 35$ for crappy TV if Netflix is only 10$?
bbcbasic 10y ago
$35/month. Even from the perspective of living in ripoff Australia, that seems expensive.
Corrado 10y ago
OK, one question I have is how am I supposed to view this content on the various TVs throughout my house? Will this be a new Roku app? Will I just use the old Roku YouTube app? Will I have to stream it from my laptop/phone? I think the answer to this question will determine how much traction they get. My parents, my wife, nor any other non technical folks are going to stream anything from their phone. I can't see how this will win.
127 10y ago
I don't really understand what's the point of this. YouTube is already my TV. With a little streamlining and a little bit more intelligence, I wouldn't have to even click the links and just switch on autoplay to stream all the interesting content I want to see for the day. That vision is not far away. Is Google purposefully sabotaging their subscription integration in order to leave space for paid services?
dilipray 10y ago
I don't have any hopes of it coming India.
alistproducer2 10y ago
Why would I do this when a dtv antenna is a one-time charge of $35? Kodi + prime + dtv = never paying for TV again. Ever.
- jdalgetty 10y ago
  because many if not most people live in an area without good OTA coverage
  - alistproducer2 10y ago
    I didn't think of this. Wouldn't that be a matter of purchasing a better, stronger antenna?
    - jdalgetty 10y ago
      Always an option but you are still limited by what's available to you. - http://www.tvfool.com http://www.tvfool.com
Jyefet 10y ago
Cant you get all those channels with a digital antenna?
timsayshey 10y ago
um, sorry youtube, that already exists and cheaper: https://www.playon.tv/cloud https://www.playon.tv/cloud ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
reitanqild 10y ago
Zip code. As usual only for Americans. This time they didn't even pretend otherwise.
VonGuard 10y ago
Just as a personal anechdote: I have cable for one reason -- my local cable provider has a monopoly on the A's. I cannot watch the A's play babeball without a $75 per month Comcast subscription. It is not included with the $30 shit tier cable they offer. This fucking sucks, especially because baseball is as American as you can get. But then, charging people for stuff that used to be free is also as American as you can get.
ilaksh 10y ago
So just like Sling except fewer channels and more expensive?

YouTube TV

383 points by loisaidasam 10y ago

djhworld 10y ago

Wonder how many commercial breaks you'll get the privilege of watching for your 35 bucks

madamelic 10y ago
Don't worry, you can buy YouTube TV Unlimited for $4 extra per month. :eyeroll: [1] https://help.hulu.com/articles/52427902 https://help.hulu.com/articles/52427902
pas 10y ago
I wonder if they'll insert their own commercials instead, maybe you'll get some lower price at the end of the month.
- gregmac 10y ago
  This would actually be one of the absolutely immense capabilities Google (the advertising company) could bring. I almost never watch cable/broadcast TV (don't have it at home, and haven't for 12+ years) so one of the things I notice when I do watch it is there are some commercials that are genuinely entertaining (well produced, funny, etc). The issue is, after watching TV for an hour, when I see that 'entertaining' commercial for the 3rd time it is no longer entertaining. Google can actually track what they are showing, and have an idea of who's watching. Don't show me the same commercial more than once per day (or every few hours), and definitely don't repeat the same one in a single show. Don't show me ads that are completely irrelevant. Track metrics on ads, and eliminate genuinely bad ads. I'm not sure I'd ever come to a service where I both paid and watched ads, but this is basically the minimum necessary for me personally to watch content with ads at all. Of the companies that would be able to pull this off, Google is definitely at the top of a very short list.

WayneBro 10y ago

Wow, so is this the official beginning of the age of decentralized cable-companies? As a cable cutter, one thing I am really looking forward to is the day that I can flip channels again very easily, without having to think about what I am doing.

toxican 10y ago
This doesn't seem like anything more than what Sling has been offering for years....Am I missing something?
- WayneBro 10y ago
  I never used Sling and I practically forgot about it since I learned of it long time ago. I think it one point I heard some rumors that it was dead. Anyway, can you just flip channels with it, like cable? Perhaps I will check it out.

tombert 10y ago

This is cool, though part of the reason I like things like Hulu Plus is that I don't have to worry about commercials, and it's literally a third of the price. I do find it interesting though; Youtube/Google is taking all the steps to be the next Time Warner or Comcast it seems. I wonder if this proves that that industry isn't impossible to break into.

harigov 10y ago
The biggest problem with Google is their branding. They launched so many services - Google Music, Youtube Red, Youtube TV, Youtube Live, Hangouts Live, etc., it's just impossible to keep up on what they are actually trying to do. I am sure they have far less number of customers on any of these individual services than if they would have had if these were independent companies. They do everything and nothing they do recently is up to the mark.
- joshuamorton 10y ago
  (am googler, but don't work with any of the mentioned products) Keep in mind that all of these products in many cases compete with other companies (music -> spotify, apple, ytr -> netflix/hulu originals, kinda, YTL -> twitch, YTTV -> cable providers). I, as a consumer, wouldn't want these things to all be bundled. I use spotify for my music, and I don't want to have to pay for Play Music or youtube red unless I use those services. I can't even imagine how some kind of "unified google media" thing would work.
  - mynameisvlad 10y ago
    > I can't even imagine how some kind of "unified google media" thing would work. It's quite simple. Pay more than a few services (but not as much as all of them together) and get access to all of them. The concept isn't really hard at all. You can go a step further and give increasing discounts the more services you add if you don't want one package deal. You guys already do it for Youtube Red/Google Play Music. It's not mindblowing to imagine it being expanded from there. There's a common account for all the services anyway, so from a technical perspective you'd have a common place to store subscription information if that's not already done.

rajathagasthya 10y ago

Very interesting. It's a shame Apple shied away from providing TV streaming.

Eridrus 10y ago
I don't think Apple shied away from it so much as they assumed their weight in the consumer space would be important and acted like dicks.

colinbartlett 10y ago

Is this similar to Direct TV Now[1]? Both of these services seem like an interesting step forward, but then, who really wants to watch live TV anymore, besides sports fans? The whole idea of watching something at a specific time that it's aired just seems unimaginable to me after years of on demand streaming. Not to mention commercial breaks. 1. https://directvnow.com/ https://directvnow.com/

harigov 10y ago
If we started out with a Netflix like video hosting platform and then someone launches a live, continuously running, and a curated-list-of-shows platform, everyone would consider that as a mind-blowing "innovation". I guess some people do want to watch live-tv, simplifies the question of "what to watch next".
- tekklloneer 10y ago
  Basically, synced playlists? That's a trivial innovation that was done on tons of 3rd party sites after youtube launched. I don't think it's mind blowing, I think it's a neat feature compared to on-demand, which I think is the gold standard experience.
  - harigov 10y ago
    No, synced playlists that are curated by professionals, backed by millions of dollars of budget. I wouldn't consider that as mind-blowing either. It's a sarcastic comment on reactions from the valley about what they consider as an innovation.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zaroth 10y ago
Completely agree. Maybe 10 times a year I watch live TV, otherwise I want to choose a show and binge on episodes on demand. Unfortunately, the legal situation around licensing I think allows for "unlimited DVR" but not actually just an on-demand episode list. You have to setup your "own" recording of the episode, and your bits can be stored in the cloud for you. I'm not sure even if de-duplicating the bits runs into trouble.

sachinag 10y ago

You announce this on February 28 without TBS, TNT, or truTV? I get that Turner had you, but come on. Wait until April to announce if you're not gonna have them. Or even until June, when the NBA conference finals are over.

mynameisvlad 10y ago
Have you found a source for the "& more" to definitively say that those are not included? Because as far as I could see, all we know is that the big ones are included and that there's others but what those are isn't very clear.

halayli 10y ago

Being asked for a zip code shows that not even youtube is able to change the old broadcasting business model. The day will come when TV streaming businesses takes over and removes the virtual location barriers set by the industry.

turnip123942 10y ago
It could be to gather data to be able to negotiate deals with local TV providers. Get an idea of what the demand in a market is and go from there.
riskable 10y ago
No kidding. The moment I saw the zip code requirement I knew it was going to be pointless. Not only that but $35? Come on. There's not $35 worth of programming there. It's just the same old dumbed down broadcast TV that has been in decline for over a decade. Compared to Netflix, Amazon, and even YouTube shows ABC, NBC, Fox et al just plain suck. As proof, after watching an awesome trailer for some new sci-fi show you may be totally pumped up to watch it until at the end when they announce, "only on ABC!" "Well shit. So much potential, ruined."
- VikingCoder 10y ago
  At $35 per month, and since I can skip all ads... That might be something. (The Verge confirms you can skip ads [1].) And the DVR forever thing... That might be very nice, especially if they put up tons of old stuff... Plus, NOT paying my cable provider is worth a lot. ...and if this offers a way to Download content to my phone, to watch offline...? [1] http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming-tv-service-announced-hd-live-cable-channels http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming...
  - aanm1988 10y ago
    > and I can skip all ads For all $ > 0 the number of ads should already be zero.
  - 10y ago

vinylkey 10y ago

> Stream ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC & more. What's included in "& more"? I can get the listed channels from an antenna.

gagege 10y ago
If it's just my local OTA channels, this is basically just paying $35 a month for a DVR.
- PhrosTT 10y ago
  I guess but I'd pay $35 to get live sports - the only reason I'm still stuck with cable.
  - kriro 10y ago
    Depending on the sports you watch there's other good deals deals. 35x12=420$. All access NFL package (for Europeans, not sure about US prices but iirc. it exists and is in the 250$ range) is about 250€/season. I think NBA/NHL are priced similarly. So you could get about two complete pro leagues for the same price (and these are a lot better than normal live, you get all games archived forever, non-commercial versions the day after, Redzone etc.) If you want college sports or more variety or something outside of the big stuff (winter sports, cycling etc. etc.) then it's meh.
bearcobra 10y ago
The screenshots show channels like ESPN, USA, and FXX.
- throwaway287391 10y ago
  Kind of bizarre that they decided to highlight the free OTA networks most prominently in their marketing, when it's actually a cable replacement (or at least a partial one).
  - 10y ago

IanDrake 10y ago

I don't see the value proposition here. Can anyone explain what I'm getting for $35 (over cheap or free alternatives)?

Eridrus 10y ago
I think this doesn't provide any extra value to anyone who is not a cable subscriber already; this is more useful to those who think cable is a fine package and would just prefer to not actually deal with cable companies any more than they have to. Getting this through YouTube's apps is probably going to be a big tech improvement. It seems like a decent value proposition if you're into sports, especially if you split the price with 5 other people.
- burkemw3 10y ago
  The offering does include channels that I only know of on cable (e.g. ESPN, SyFy, Bravo) at a cost significantly less than basic cable (last time I looked).
bitmapbrother 10y ago
1. Cable only channels in addition to OTA channels 2. Unlimited DVR 3. 6 accounts to possibly share.
- IanDrake 10y ago
  Thanks. I missed point 1 and 3. Point 2 has almost no value these days unless you don't have Hulu/Amazon/Netflix, which I guess some people don't. I watched commercial TV for the first time in a few years the other day and lost interest in what I was watching because of it. I don't think I can go back now.
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    Point 2 is extremely valuable if you watch live stuff. I often DVR live shows and sporting events and then start watching them 30-60 min later just to fast forward through the commercials.

krzyk 10y ago

They ask for zip code but don't ask for country, should I assume (again) that they mean the default (USA) country?

dragonwriter 10y ago
You should probably assume that if they ask for only a ZIP code (not a generic postal code) and don't ask for anything else that, yes, they are talking about the one country which uses ZIP codes.

NeonVice 10y ago

Is this the same as Aereo, the service that was shutdown by the supreme court, only with a valid rebroadcast license?

kevincennis 10y ago
From a consumer standpoint, yes – except 4x more expensive. From a technology standpoint, definitely not. Disclosure: I'm a former Aereo engineer

soheil 10y ago

The page is extremely void of any details, reminds me of Cable companies landing pages. This is odd because I noticed there has been a recent explosion of third party live CNN, FOX News, ... channels, not sure if this is because YT made their copyright detection algorithms more lenient as a segue to YT TV.

overcast 10y ago

So $35 to stream what is already available free over the air in HD, with a $20 antenna?

toxican 10y ago
For what it's worth, not everyone can pick up all of those channels with a $20 antenna. I can pick up NBC, PBS, and a few odd local channels with no national affiliation. I'd imagine those in cities and metro areas would probably have more luck. But anyway, the blog post [1] has a full(er) list of channels. But even then it doesn't look price-competitive with Sling for some reason. [1] - https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...
bitmapbrother 10y ago
Last time I checked ESPN wasn't available OTA.

bitmapbrother 10y ago

Networks available: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-XNVz76qkd1MShms8X0Vj9MYsGBA7MZ5q_oADJjGFjalgzWwhKW9BtpKRu9RDjA8KihyEaVwPkufGhNwhU4qwFwQccYh4hHTlNYdiVbsGepAnYcFzETGv4RA https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-XNVz76qkd...

syshum 10y ago
When am I going to get a package with no Sports... about 40-50% of the channels are sports related... I do not watch any sports at all
- ggamecrazy 10y ago
  Honestly, TV is not for you then. Live sports is the last vertical where people who haven't cut cable yet can't.
js2 10y ago
Just eye-balling but it looks pretty close to the PS Vue Access Slim package which is $29.99/mo: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/channels/ https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/channels/
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  YouTube Live does have an unlimited DVR and works on 6 accounts. I wonder if the service can be shared?
- camiller 10y ago
  You have to go up to the $35 PS Vue tier to get BTN.

rco8786 10y ago

What does "6 accounts, 1 price" mean?

apetresc 10y ago
Presumably that you can add up to 6 Google accounts (i.e, your family members in the same household) to the plan for the listed price. They have a similar deal going for Google Play Music, Netflix has it, etc.
jwcooper 10y ago
From the blog post (for what it's worth, I think it's a good idea): >Six accounts, one price. Every YouTube TV membership comes with six accounts, each with its own unique recommendations and personal DVR with no storage limits. You can watch up to three concurrent streams at a time. https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...

wnevets 10y ago

$35/month ouch.

jwcooper 10y ago
This is priced about the same as Playstation Vue, DirecTV Now, and Sling for the channels offered. Looks like they're trying to win people over with features (DVR, 6 account profiles, etc).

mmanfrin 10y ago

$35 to get the channels you get OTA...

bsimpson 10y ago

Context: http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming-tv-service-announced-hd-live-cable-channels http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming...

tehabe 10y ago

April 1st is early this year, isn't it?

koolba 10y ago

> $35/month That's a series chunk of coin for something that you can get for free with an antennae. I wonder how much of that is licensing. It's got to be a huge chunk of it. Also, who watches any of those crap channels anyway?!

guiomie 10y ago
"free with an antennae" ... You can get ESPN, ShowTime, FXX via antennae?
- ashark 10y ago
  ShowTime is extra on top of the $35, and I don't see any other channels on the page that aren't OTA in my area (where'd you see ESPN?).
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The blog post had logos for several cable sports and news channels (and a few other cable channels) that are not available by broadcast.
  - pgodzin 10y ago
    https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-... Includes a bunch of ESPN, Fox Sports channels
  - guiomie 10y ago
    For traditional providers yes, I dont think so for YT TV. Look at this Forbes article, it says: "It has 40 or so channels of broadcast and cable TV, including NBC, ABC, the USA Network and Fox. ESPN is also a part of the bundle." ref: http://fortune.com/2017/03/01/youtube-tv-underwhelming/ http://fortune.com/2017/03/01/youtube-tv-underwhelming/
- koolba 10y ago
  The only content on the page says, "Stream ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC & more." While "& more" could include anything, I'm going going to assume it doesn't include any of those or they'd be listed. At the very least they'd put ESPN as that's the big one for people cutting the cord and wanting to watch live sports.

haubey 10y ago

I'd just like to see when they start doing personalized ads for every different person. I know TV companies have started to do more targeted ads [1] but if there's a company that can do it, it's gotta be google. If there's enough ad revenue to go around, it could be a tipping point where the local channel rules cease to matter. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-29/tv-ads-are-about-to-get-personal-with-new-targeting-tools https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-29/tv-ads-ar...

jacquesm 10y ago
That's the last thing I'd like to see.

ganfortran 10y ago

> $35/month. With Ads? Ouch, NO.

Brendinooo 10y ago

"NBA Basketball on Fox Sports Regional Networks" - Would this would be a bit of a coup for YouTube? My regional sports network doesn't have any streaming options; not sure if other markets are more liberal with this. Also, that wording...are they getting the whole regional network or just the NBA basketball?

aesthetics1 10y ago
If this gets around the blackouts, sign me up. Something legal and convenient... This is the way to gain back lost ground on the cord-cutters, and the reason we left Dish/Comcast/etc in droves in the first place. It is simply too complicated or inconvenient to legally get to the different types of entertainment I am interested in viewing. On the contrary, I can see this going down the path where I am back up to $100/month for entertainment between Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV, etc.

rubicon33 10y ago

When am I going to be able to choose my channels on an individual, channel by channel basis, and then receive a total cost based on those channels? If I want ONLY the Science channel, then I should be able to purchase JUST the science channel for like, $5/mo.

goda90 10y ago
I doubt the effort will gain them significantly more customers. If they charge $35 for 10 channels, but you can get 1 channel for $5, most people will see the 10 for $35 as a better deal. Unless their per channel price were equal to (bundle price)/(number of channels in bundle), then very few people would go that route.
- rubicon33 10y ago
  Hmm really? I guess I'm among the minority on this one then. There's really only a few channels I'm interested in, that I can't get online. I'd gladly pay $10 for 2 channels rather than $35 for 10... because I certainly won't be watching the other 8 channels.
curun1r 10y ago
The science channel will be a lot more than $5/mo if all the sports fans aren't forced to subscribe to it just to get their ESPN. It sounds reasonable that ala carte pricing should be cheaper because you shouldn't have to subsidize channels you don't watch, but people forget that others are also subsidizing the channels they watch. The reality is that channels are already roughly priced according to their popularity and most people won't save much, if any, money with ala carte pricing.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Except the relative viewer numbers will be taken into account in their contracts with the cable companies. If a channel attracts fewer customers to the package, it will get less money in return for its inclusion, so nothing is really being "subsidised".
- 10y ago

shaunol 10y ago

This is a cool idea but it still falls very short by not serving users outside of the US. To the point where the welcome page doesn't even acknowledge that there may be global interest: https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ (enter your ZIP code, no country picker ... YouTube, you do realize you're on the internet, right?) Does YouTube care about getting content to the world? Or just getting as many of their fingers in the pie as possible and abusing the current geo-restricted licensing model while they can?

Groxx 10y ago
I imagine most people expected to use it don't get there by clicking a link on some other site immediately after it was announced - they'll probably be running ads inside YouTube, at which point they can target more accurately. And I can't imagine they voluntarily restricted things to just the US for zero reason. Licensing around this stuff is nightmarish, and there are benefits to launching even before you're 100% global (which nothing is yet).
kbhn 10y ago
> Does YouTube care about getting content to the world? Or just getting as many of their fingers in the pie as possible and abusing the current geo-restricted licensing model while they can? I'd prefer to give YouTube the benefit of the doubt as they introduce a brand new service. They're an American company, it makes perfect sense for them to start with US customers.
guyzero 10y ago
It's probably not even possible to offer US cable networks outside of the US. They only have licenses from the content creators to show inside the US. Besides, all their competitors are US only as well - Sling TV, DirecTV Now. Someday who knows, but for now live linear is very region-locked.
- frandroid 10y ago
  Parent's point is still valid. There's another 3+ billion of internet users outside the U.S., it would be nice not to be an afterthought's afterthought. They just need to say "Sorry, this product will not be available outside the U.S. at launch." Is it so hard?

kristofferR 10y ago

"Unlimited cloud DVR" seems really pointless. Why not just save everything, as it airs, in a central archive that the users can browse at their leisure instead? It also seems to mean that you can't rewind channels you weren't watching, that you manually have to record stuff yourself. Really backwards of Google if my assumptions are correct. It seems weird that Google aren't able to create/negotiate something relevant for today. All the things I talked about are becoming common for normal TV providers in Norway.

snuxoll 10y ago
Because the TV networks don't want that, see: many of them opting out of the 3-day replay functionality on Sling. I'm sure Google does keep one copy of every show users have chosen to "record" instead of duplicating it, but networks don't want people just being able to access an entire series without effort (I'm guessing just because they are money-loving jackasses).
dragonwriter 10y ago
> "Unlimited cloud DVR" seems really pointless. Why not just save everything, as it airs, in a central archive that the users can browse at their leisure instead? Even if that's what they actually do, "unlimited DVR in the cloud" may be a more accessible way of presenting that to an audience familiar with cable TV.
synthematics 10y ago
Your comment made me realise what they're acheiving here. They have created the perfect streaming version of the DVR for all those non-tech-savvy older generation who are only comfortable with what they already know and love. Now, instead of learning about the joy of Netflix and Chromecast, they can just do everything they already do with their DVR, except now it's through YouTube! Brilliant really, particularly since they're the only ones who would pay $35/month for that crap.
gregmac 10y ago
No doubt that this is what they are doing. For non-live shows, they may even get a dump prior to it airing, so they have the whole day's worth of content queued up and ready to go. If it lets you view a program guide, and watch anything that "aired" earlier than now, it sounds like it's basically a different interface but otherwise the same as current YouTube or Netflix. YouTube even has live streams. However the way it's described makes it sound like there's probably some limitations to make it "seem like TV". The worst of this would be to totally emulate the normal TV+DVR model: * You only get access to recordings if you picked them to "record" prior to when they "air" * You have some arbitrary limit of number of "concurrent" recordings (eg: you can't just record every show on every channel at the same time, despite being 'unlimited DVR') * If you want to watch/record a show and it's already started, you can only watch/record it from the current point forward * Everything has commercials, at 31% rate, with the same commercial repeating multiple times like current TV. They can also do some really awful things with it being a cloud DVR: * Delete your recordings, or 'expire' them after some time. For example, you have 3 seasons of some show 'recorded' and are working your way through, but then they lose the license for that network and poof, all your 'recordings' are gone. * Make commercials unskippable

koolba 10y ago

I'm guessing there's no way to sign up for this and not have Google keep track of my TV habits.

hcarvalhoalves 10y ago

> Coming soon. Get on the list to find out when YouTube TV launches where you live. Why the f* internet content still depends on where I live in 2017.

camiller 10y ago
Probably due to live sports blackout policies and such.

nodesocket 10y ago

Sports!!! All I need and care about for my $160 a month Xfinity cable bill is Sports. Unfortunately sports takes places on various channels (ESPN, ESPN2, FOX, CBS, CBS Sports, TNT, TBS, TruTV).

caio1982 10y ago

Meanwhile, I am very happy with youtube.com/tv on my TV. No worldwide availability is ridiculous these days.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

crispytx 10y ago

Seems like a pretty steep price to watch network television. As a cord-cutter, I think its a great idea because you can't get the networks with SlingTV, and TV antennas suck. But yeah, I'm not going to pay $35 for network television. I'll just keep using my shitty antenna.

sixothree 10y ago
Not just that but the YouTube App is just abysmal on pretty much any device other than a web browser. PASS.
camiller 10y ago
See the blog post mentioned elsewhere, there are a number of cable only networks as well.
ilaksh 10y ago
SlingTV has some local networks in some areas. And it costs at least $10 less than youtube and has more channels.

shirro 10y ago

Why would anyone want to pay $35 per month to access tired old ad supported programming when they can get subscriptions from 3 streaming services for that price.

chadgeidel 10y ago
I would - just for sports. My family subscribes to Netflix, HBO, Hulu (with Showtime), and YouTube Red and I still don't get live sports. I'd drop Hulu+Showtime (~$17) and YouTube Red (~$10). I'll be paying more, but then I'll get all NBCSN and Fox Sports which covers most of the motorsports I'm interested in.

uladzislau 10y ago

Is Google launching something that Apple passed on a while ago?

youdontknowtho 10y ago

I'm just not seeing 35$ a month worth of value. Sit coms? Get a grip, man. I feel like they should pay me to watch them. TV is a wasteland. Some cable channels are pretty good. SciFi, Comdey Central, sometimes FX. (I don't like giving money to Fox, but Always Sunny is the funniest thing ever made.) If they had a way to pick channels and only pay for those, that would be worth looking at. EDIT: Do you still have to watch commercials? I don't see anything about commercials. If there are commercials then not just "no", but "hell, f*ck you for asking, no".

andrewguenther 10y ago
You can't bash on sitcoms and call SyFy "pretty good." In my opinion, half the stuff in SyFy is worse than sitcoms.
- chadgeidel 10y ago
  SyFy has really upped their game in the past year or so. The Expanse, Killjoys, and The Magicians are good TV.
  - losvedir 10y ago
    I'm actually really enjoying The Expanse and The Magicians (to the point where I bought one on Google Play and the other on iTunes). What's really cool is that I bought the current season up front and then get to watch the new episodes the day (or maybe day after?) they're released. I'm not sure if Syfy is the only channel doing that, but before these shows I was used to only being able to buy the season after it was released (e.g. Game of Thrones box set). I'll have to check out Killjoys, given that you've put it between the two other shows that I enjoy. Thanks for the rec.
    - wmf 10y ago
      All networks are releasing shows the next day (except HBO has same day).
  - 10y ago

adictator 10y ago

$35? That's a ridiculous price I think, especially people who have consciously cut the cord.

i336_ 10y ago

What about http://youtube.com/tv/ http://youtube.com/tv/ ? Is this a different thing?

viseztrance 10y ago

Any thoughts on why they've chosen tv.youtube.com over youtube.tv? (youtube.tv redirects to .com)

geodel 10y ago

With $35/mo, it looks like another half-ass effort like Google phone hardware business. For 10 dollars extra over internet charges per month I get all the channels that this post explicitly mentions + some more I never watched.

kevincennis 10y ago

Former Aereo engineer here. First off, there are really two main reasons for someone not to have a cable subscription: 1. They don't care about the content 2. Price sensitivity At Aereo, we saw these sort of mix together to create hugely elastic demand. For a while, we offered a $1 "day pass" that would give you access to live TV for 24 hours at a time. During the Super Bowl and various award shows, we had crazy numbers of people sign up for these day passes. We actually had to stop offering them, because we literally couldn't build out the extra capacity in a cost-effective way (remember, we needed distinct physical antennas and transcoders for every user we served). It was tough enough to get people to pay $8/month for access to live broadcast TV and a cloud-based DVR. I have no idea how YouTube will convince anyone to pay $35. If they can work out the licenses, I'd imagine something like a day pass would work well with consumers – but it's probably hard to get the economics of that to work out.

LargeCompanies 10y ago
Loved Aereo! Though and as of now your hard wired Internet provider makes it impossible to have just affordable Internet without having some type of TV package. Any streaming service who doesn't also provide Internet service is highly disadvantaged! I been paying $55 for 12 months for Internet and a few local and cable channels. Now that's expiring it went up to $70 a month but Internet alone is either $50 for 6Mbps or $85 for 25Mbps. 6Mbps is junk and Comcast knows it and if I added YouTube my expenses would be $85, yet who knows if 6Mbps would support solid streaming? I'm waiting for 5G fixed wireless from Verizon and Att for some competition to Comcast! I'm sure they too will make it equally unaffordable to just have Internet without their DirectTV Now and Fios. Erggh these OTT services have a tough road ahead of them.. they will probably all end up merging with internet providers.
- kevincennis 10y ago
  You'll be happy to know that the Aereo crew (myself included) is currently working on a fixed wireless ISP using millimeter waves and some very fancy active phased array technology. Still doing crazy stuff with antennas. https://starry.com/internet https://starry.com/internet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7YYAc9rq4g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7YYAc9rq4g

divbit 10y ago

Wow - good job. Literally people (myself included) were commenting this morning in the saving twitter thread about how something like this is really needed.

faceyspacey 10y ago

I really don't understand--those channels are free with an HD antenna. I don't know if this is possible anymore, but those channels used to be free through your cable cord, even without a cable box. ABC, fox, nbc, and cbs are free. Why pay $35 just to remove adds. Are they including, AMC, MTV, etc? I don't think so or they would say so. Ps. This is a serious question. Please someone help me understand how they are charging for free channels just to drop their ads (presumably)?

camiller 10y ago
Yes, they are including AMC, BTN, SYFY, ESPN etc. https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...

katehall 10y ago

Who gonna pay $35/month? It does not make sense when you can get TV subscription for $10/month

itchyjunk 10y ago

I asked my questions in a "dupe" thread so reposting here. From TV to internet to TV on internet to internet TV on any devices. One thing I wonder about is how people who purchase "bundles" traditionally will react. I'd imagine they are the biggest consumer of TV programs. (TV + INTERNET or TV + Phone + Internet style bundles). Will it end up costing the same when you break you bundle to only get internet from a provider and get "TV" from Youtube? Another question I have is about the "cloud DVR". How does it work? Is the content already in a server somewhere so when I hit the "DVR" it just tags that? It makes no sense saving the same content multiple time because multiple people tried to DVR the same episode right? Is lot of the modern TV already through internet? If not, won't this cause an increase in internet bandwidth used? Maybe it's no significant but i'm curious about it none the less. There was a talk on HN about cell phones and FM being enabled on it. Will a similar thing happen on TV, i.e my TV won't work without internet in the future? Does privacy concerns increase with this? Is it easier to track users view patterns and what not with this as opposed to traditional tv? Will it be more likely that people will post the episodes or clips they watch to youtube or will it be less common as it will be even easier for youtube to recognize and flag stuff? (I wonder if youtube will provide a tool to post tiny clips directly from TV so people can have discussions and what not as well). Thanks in advance if anyone takes time to answer any of my question! Edit: https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-... It's unlimited but for 9 months. So you'll have to Re-DVR it when/if air's again i guess? Makes more sense for people already paying for youtube red I guess? Creators on youtube red might get more traffic too possibly.

wmf 10y ago
Will it end up costing the same when you break you bundle to only get internet from a provider and get "TV" from Youtube? Yes, resistance is futile. ESPN won't accept less money per viewer "because Internet". It makes no sense saving the same content multiple time because multiple people tried to DVR the same episode right? There are some convoluted and non-intuitive legal precedents about this topic, but yeah, Google is probably only keeping one copy. won't this cause an increase in internet bandwidth used? Yes, bandwidth usage has increased significantly in recent years, probably faster than Moore's Law.

Animats 10y ago

$420 a year to watch broadcast TV?

bubblethink 10y ago

It's quite tragic to see cable reinvented piece by piece. Piracy still remains the only unifying force.

shmerl 10y ago

Is it DRM-free HTML5, or it's using DRM blobs and EME?

hkmurakami 10y ago

Initial reactions: 1) Will it have ESPN? I only really care about ESPN on a daily basis for TV. 2) "Never run out of DVR storage" -> Will I be able to easily save recordings of any show on Youtube TV? I value this a lot for particular sporting events and have years' worth of footage backed up.

camiller 10y ago
1) yes 2:) only for 9 months
GFischer 10y ago
Yep, it has ESPN, ESPN2 and 3 too. Some posters referred to the channel list: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-XNVz76qkd1MShms8X0Vj9MYsGBA7MZ5q_oADJjGFjalgzWwhKW9BtpKRu9RDjA8KihyEaVwPkufGhNwhU4qwFwQccYh4hHTlNYdiVbsGepAnYcFzETGv4RA https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-XNVz76qkd... and the blog post https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...

ipozgaj 10y ago

People commenting that $35 is too much for the content included - if you want an equivalent set of channels from Comcast/XFINITY, it will cost you almost 3x more. So it's a non brainer for me, and the fact I don't have to deal with Comcast is worth even more than saving ~60% of my monthly cable bill.

myrandomcomment 10y ago
This of course is only true if you pay for cable TV. I have Netflix and Amazon and the reset of the internet. I had a HDHomeRun hooked to an over the air but since I moved I have not hooked that up again yet as I need a huge mast to get reception. You can use a VPN like service to get world wide streams also. I do pay Comcast for a business internet connection to keep away from the data caps however.

smilbandit 10y ago

I'd be cooler if I didn't have this shiny new 1tb data cap on my internet now.

srssays 10y ago
Assuming a bitrate of 10Mbps and a solid 7 hours of sleep per night, you'd have to spend 43% of your waking hours watching TV to hit the cap.

zeta0134 10y ago

In light grey on the bottom of the page, for me: "SHOWTIME® available for extra monthly charge" Yup, this is going to be exactly like Cable television, and it's no cheaper. No thank you, I cut that cord for a reason. Maybe if it had no ads? But I'm sure it'll be live television with the ads. There's no point.

chipperyman573 10y ago
>it's no cheaper. It's $25/mo cheaper than a plan from xfinity that includes all those channels (probably around $35-40 cheaper after the 12 month "trial" period, but they don't list those prices on the landing page).

ravenstine 10y ago

Um, no thanks. Most of that content is uninteresting, free with an antenna, and loaded with commercial breaks. I would rather spend that money for a season pass on Amazon, or to go out and see a movie once a month. If money weren't an issue, my time is still better spent on Netflix or watching lectures by smart people on YouTube. I guess its fine if they want to attract the geriatric crowd, but I cant imagine people in my generation paying that much for a vastly inferior experience. As others have said, a cheaper day pass would be better, as there still is a place for live content. Whether or not that should be a form of life support for the old guard corporate media empire, that's up to you.

Cub3 10y ago

They would have to strip advertising for this to be worth it

jasikpark 10y ago

I just think it's wonderful that this launched within hours of someone recommending twitter be turned around by being the go-to solution for interacting with and watching live tv.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

All this so that I can not have one of those unsightly antennas near my tv? Sign me up! /s No, really, this is too much money. And with data caps, I don't really think I'd get my $35 out of it. Besides, who know what Ajit Pai is going to let Comcast do? Won't be long and I'll have choices like: Basic internet - for reading email. Basic Plus Internet - Basic internet + Amazon shopping (but no streaming) Internet + streaming - Basic Plus Internet + Comcasts own streaming service. Internet Premium - Internet + streaming + Netflix, Amazon and YouTube streaming. etc...

rocky1138 10y ago

Sorry, this is TheirTube, not YouTube. The whole point of YouTube is democratization and sharing of personal videos.

silveira 10y ago

I have cable TV even tough I pretty much never watch it. I don't want it, but to remove it is more expensive than to keep it. I don't have a good incentive to pay more to have more TV.

cgranier 10y ago

Nice... Only took them 11 years (http://red66.com/2006/04/google-media/ http://red66.com/2006/04/google-media/)

bane 10y ago

$35? What is this 1990? The fundamental problem I think is that this is yet another offering of packaged channels, 90% of which I don't want. Okay, maybe not 90%, but in their initial channel offering I count at least 25 of the 46 channels I'm not even remotely interested in. Once you drop sports, Spanish language content, kids content and some of the more useless news channels I'd be paying effectively paying $35/mo for local TV I can already get for free, USA, FX, Bravo, FX, Syfy and I guess...Youtube Red? If I were to pay $1/mo for each channel I might watch, I might pay $4 or $5/mo for this. Dump the live TV entirely, just put the shows up so I can binge watch the ones I want. The "cloud DVR" is a dumb gimmick, all the content is already sliced and diced and uploaded to some server somewhere anyway. Ugh..this offering is probably only really of interest to sportsball enthusiasts who are desperate to cut the cord but can't.

camiller 10y ago
You omitted AMC from your list, or are you not a fan of The Walking Dead and Into The Badlands? Regardless, yeah, my wife likes Nebraska Football and I like Purdue Basketball so a service without BTN would be a deal breaker. And If I dropped my 200+ channel cable package (smallest I could get and get all of the things we both watch) and picked up either this or the $35 tier of Playstation Vue I'd save about $100 a month. We already have Netflix and Amazon Prime and I'd probably have to subscribe to HBO now for GoT and Westworld. I'd still save close to $100 a month AND get my sportsball!
- bane 10y ago
  Was AMC on the list? I must have lost it in the disinterest cloud that surrounded the four ESPNs. In all seriousness, I believe that we may be approaching a tipping point where sports franchises are going to have to come to terms about offering other ways to watch their games. Lots of people I know who do watch sports grumble about having to pay for 400 other channels they don't watch. So I know the feeling is mutual in some ways.

brokenmasonjars 10y ago

I don't think I'd personally use it as I have tv. However I can see it being useful for cord cutters. It would be nice to see some sort of bundling. Pay x amount, get youtube premium stuff, with movie rentals, and streaming tv with other google features etc such as google play/music. However have it broken up is a good option too. I think both options could be useful.

facepalm 10y ago

Why would anybody pay 35$ for crappy TV if Netflix is only 10$?

bbcbasic 10y ago

$35/month. Even from the perspective of living in ripoff Australia, that seems expensive.

Corrado 10y ago

OK, one question I have is how am I supposed to view this content on the various TVs throughout my house? Will this be a new Roku app? Will I just use the old Roku YouTube app? Will I have to stream it from my laptop/phone? I think the answer to this question will determine how much traction they get. My parents, my wife, nor any other non technical folks are going to stream anything from their phone. I can't see how this will win.

127 10y ago

I don't really understand what's the point of this. YouTube is already my TV. With a little streamlining and a little bit more intelligence, I wouldn't have to even click the links and just switch on autoplay to stream all the interesting content I want to see for the day. That vision is not far away. Is Google purposefully sabotaging their subscription integration in order to leave space for paid services?

dilipray 10y ago

I don't have any hopes of it coming India.

alistproducer2 10y ago

Why would I do this when a dtv antenna is a one-time charge of $35? Kodi + prime + dtv = never paying for TV again. Ever.

jdalgetty 10y ago
because many if not most people live in an area without good OTA coverage
- alistproducer2 10y ago
  I didn't think of this. Wouldn't that be a matter of purchasing a better, stronger antenna?
  - jdalgetty 10y ago
    Always an option but you are still limited by what's available to you. - http://www.tvfool.com http://www.tvfool.com

Jyefet 10y ago

Cant you get all those channels with a digital antenna?

timsayshey 10y ago

um, sorry youtube, that already exists and cheaper: https://www.playon.tv/cloud https://www.playon.tv/cloud ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

reitanqild 10y ago

Zip code. As usual only for Americans. This time they didn't even pretend otherwise.

VonGuard 10y ago

Just as a personal anechdote: I have cable for one reason -- my local cable provider has a monopoly on the A's. I cannot watch the A's play babeball without a $75 per month Comcast subscription. It is not included with the $30 shit tier cable they offer. This fucking sucks, especially because baseball is as American as you can get. But then, charging people for stuff that used to be free is also as American as you can get.

ilaksh 10y ago

So just like Sling except fewer channels and more expensive?