13 ms·

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

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.
- yurisagalov 10y ago
  last time I've had this conversation with cable execs, it was explained to me that even just de-duping the bits does in fact run into trouble. They have to store a complete copy for you, for your personal use.
  - carussell 10y ago
    Capitol v. MP3Tunes suggests deduplication is a-okay.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Both of these services seem like an interesting step forward, but then, who really wants to watch live TV anymore, besides sports fans? There is probably a reason YouTube is advertising "never run out of DVR space." This isn't just about just live content, it's about no required delay but still on demand viewing.
mrob 10y ago
It's not just watching it at a specific time, but also watching at a specific speed. I watch most video at 1.5x speed. Professional standards for how fast to talk are set low enough for a wide audience including non-native speakers. If you're watching something in your native language you can almost certainly understand faster. Live TV feels annoyingly slow.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>Is this similar to Direct TV Now[1]? DirectTV Now is $70 a month. They'll probably never compete against streaming only services because they need to be at a pricepoint that doesn't destroy their conventional satellite business. Google's offering is half that. I imagine its going to have less channels. Considering Playstation Vue's selection, I guess we'll see how well they can compete.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > DirectTV Now is $70 a month. They'll probably never compete against streaming only services because they need to be at a pricepoint that doesn't destroy their conventional satellite business. Why? Their part of AT&T, if they reinforce AT&T's fixed wired and mobile value proposition more than enough to make up for the satellite business, there's no reason AT&T couldn't accept that cost. As it is, they are already competing with other AT&T offerings.

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.

yurisagalov 10y ago
last time I've had this conversation with cable execs, it was explained to me that even just de-duping the bits does in fact run into trouble. They have to store a complete copy for you, for your personal use.
- carussell 10y ago
  Capitol v. MP3Tunes suggests deduplication is a-okay.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Both of these services seem like an interesting step forward, but then, who really wants to watch live TV anymore, besides sports fans? There is probably a reason YouTube is advertising "never run out of DVR space." This isn't just about just live content, it's about no required delay but still on demand viewing.

mrob 10y ago

It's not just watching it at a specific time, but also watching at a specific speed. I watch most video at 1.5x speed. Professional standards for how fast to talk are set low enough for a wide audience including non-native speakers. If you're watching something in your native language you can almost certainly understand faster. Live TV feels annoyingly slow.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>Is this similar to Direct TV Now[1]? DirectTV Now is $70 a month. They'll probably never compete against streaming only services because they need to be at a pricepoint that doesn't destroy their conventional satellite business. Google's offering is half that. I imagine its going to have less channels. Considering Playstation Vue's selection, I guess we'll see how well they can compete.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> DirectTV Now is $70 a month. They'll probably never compete against streaming only services because they need to be at a pricepoint that doesn't destroy their conventional satellite business. Why? Their part of AT&T, if they reinforce AT&T's fixed wired and mobile value proposition more than enough to make up for the satellite business, there's no reason AT&T couldn't accept that cost. As it is, they are already competing with other AT&T offerings.