17 ms·
YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute
- adamcstephens 5y agoDisney is both a content provider for these channels, and is a competitor to YTTV. It probably wins either way here.
- rvz 5y agoDisney: No thanks, no deal and no ESPN for You(Tube). You simply need more of this for YouTube to listen these days instead of them banning its own users and creators. Just look at this typical ESPN fan: > “I will cancel immediately if you can’t work a deal,” The same will happen for Disney fans watching on YouTube and it is working. They'll just run to the Disney+ app instead.
- dageshi 5y agoI doubt Youtube/Google cares that much. It's not really youtubes core business, more of a side gig for a set of products (cable channels) which frankly are in the process of dying.
- nkozyra 5y agoDisagree. I think YouTubeTV is a trial balloon for YouTube, an attempt to join the Netflix/Prime/streaming world. They piggybacked off of cable the way Netflix piggybacked off of rentals. Sports streaming is a massive point of disruption that's happening at a very small scale but I suspect we'll see more of it as these types of deals fizzle out.
- dageshi 5y agoI doubt it. If that's where they wanted to go, they've missed the window for it already. There's already too many streaming services like Netflix and consumers are already annoyed navigating them all. Plus they don't have the content and probably can't get the content because they'd be competing against Netflix, Disney, Apple, HBO and the other legacy media conglomerates all trying to do the same thing.
- thehappypm 5y agoThere’s little loyalty in the streaming world to platforms. Like Peacock appeared one day, has The Office, so tons of people said “sure”. I don’t think the timing is as important as the content. If you have stuff people want to watch they’ll come.
- nkozyra 5y agoDisney+ is another example of this. Derided prior to launch in late 2019 as having missed the boat, it's a massive force now. Same with HBO Max, which added even more user hostile behavior, but ... they have their content so it's working.
- ghaff 5y agoWhat's user hostile about HBO Max? The app seems to work fine, it's untethered from a cable provider, and it's simple to stream it to an Apple TV (or an Apple TV app).
- brewdad 5y agoTheir Android TV app on my Shield TV is a tire fire. It's really the only reason I haven't committed to a full year discount. I'm not sure how much longer I want to deal with it.
- nkozyra 5y agoThe service itself and the way they handled existing accounts through other services. The plug was pulled rather abruptly
- ghaff 5y agoI guess I had already dropped cable well before I resubscribed through HBO Max.
- 5y ago
- technofiend 5y agoPersonally I'm delighted to trade ABC, ESPN, etc [1] for a $15 reduction in my YouTube TV bill. It just makes me wish Google would unbundle all their different providers so I could choose only the ones I want. [1] Your local ABC channel, ABC News Live, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, Freeform, FX, FXX, FXM, National Geographic, National Geographic Wild, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3 (by authentication to the ESPN app), ESPNU, ESPNEWS SEC Network, ACC Network.
- 14 5y agoI don't have YouTube Tv but your comment almost made me dry heave a little realizing we are back at square one with cable tv and bundling channels users don't want and forcing them to pay for stuff. I haven't had cable tv in years but seldom don't miss a show I want to watch. It is mostly all online if you know where to search. Also Canadian so no one comes knocking on my door for downloading.
- taurath 5y agoSports is the anchor by which unbundling won’t happen for a long time, especially with linear TV. This is partially because it benefits the conglomerates business models to have as many channels and content streams as possible to sell ad time on, and partially because for sports teams they can functionally name their price. In seattle, the brand new hockey team is only available through Root Sports, a smallish production company owned by Warner media and the baseball team. You can only watch the new hockey team if you subscribe to a cable package or online cable package (YouTube tv etc). Why would a brand new team with no established fan base want to not be in front of as many eyeballs as they can? Because they earn more money when someone pays them to put them behind a cable company. At no point does this “competition”, which it isn’t, benefit consumers. We used to regulate things like this.
- mrweasel 5y agoI've not looked into how the US cable market is doing, but here in Denmark it feels like we're very close to cable/bundling snapping. The cable companies are forced to raise prices each year, mostly because of sports and people are cancelling in droves. In 2015 93% of Danes had cable, in 2019 less than 80% had cable and during 2020 - 2022 the largest provider lost at least 250.000 subscribers, pushing them well below 1 million subscribers. Many others have downgrade their subscription to the bundles that doesn't include sports channels. At some point the remaining subscribers can't pay the cost of the ridiculous fees charged for the major sporting events. When that happens the fees must come down, or the sporting companies must find a different solution. Honestly a great solution for the major sports, like football in Europe, would be to great something like what the MLB did in the US. I know a lot of football fans who'd love to get a subscription for all the Champions League games. Just a fixed price and then watch any game you like. Why pay for Formula 1, hockey or even the Bundesliga, if you only care about the Danish Superliga and Champions League.
- hermes8329 5y agoThose channels should be in a separate tier to clearly represent the cost. Instead they rely on required package deals that subsidize their insane costs. More plans need a disney- tier
- starklevnertz 5y agoMaybe all content creators around the world should form a union to fight against the big platforms. At the moment, any individual content creator is just a little xitch when it comes to the power relationship. All the YouTube creators, all the Apple App Store developers, all the Xbox developers etc.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> Maybe all content creators around the world should form a union to fight against the big platforms. Hmmm sounds like an illegal cartel.
- paxys 5y agoYeah, the small-time content creator called Disney definitely needs help to fight the big guys.
- indigodaddy 5y agoIs this mostly just about who’s got a bigger … ?
- timmg 5y ago...revenue stream.
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y agoAnything that hamper's Google's continued effort to turn youtube into the new cable TV is good in my book. I hope they lose all the other channels too, and then I hope those channels die anyway, along with the old-media companies that own them. A pipe dream, I know.
- zinekeller 5y ago> Anything that hamper's Google's continued effort to turn youtube into the new cable TV is good in my book. You confused YouTube and YouTube TV, these are fully separate items despite its name.
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y agoI'm not. I know exactly what Youtube TV is and want it to fail. Was that not clear from my obvious desire to see TV die in general?
- goldenkey 5y agoThe same company runs them. Your definition of "fully separate" has a wide berth.
- VikingCoder 5y agoWhy do you care if I enjoy a product from a company? Is my enjoyment of it harming you in some way?
- vmception 5y agosidenote, every streaming service I paid for I did so willingly and excitedly. youtube is more expensive and feels more like coercion.
- heartbreak 5y agoI’m really surprised by the number of top level comments that are confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube TV. YouTube TV is basically cable TV delivered via the internet with some on-demand content and an “unlimited” DVR system. There are multiple tiers via add-on packages (just like cable), and there is no ad-free offering. YouTube is the video sharing website everyone uses. The ad-free version of which is called YouTube Premium. These two services have very little in common besides the obvious branding and parent company. The contract/fee dispute is between Disney and YouTube TV, and the result is that YouTube TV is currently not broadcasting Disney-owned television channels. Disney content is still all over YouTube itself via their YouTube “Channels.”
- zinekeller 5y agoI agree that the branding was confusing, but it seems that most HN commenters aren't reading anything beyond the headline.
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago> YouTube TV is basically cable TV delivered via the internet And the sooner that dies, the better. Cable TV is crap and I don't want to see that model of media succeed into the internet era.
- adamcstephens 5y agoIs it really much better to have five $15 services to get the same content?
- tux3 5y agoIf GP answers no, does that mean these are the only two options?
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y agoYou still don't get it. I want the "channel" format of media (programmed video content aka broadcast programming) to die. Whether it's accessed by paying comcast to watch it over a settop box or paying google to watch it through a browser or app makes no difference to me, it's the same format of content and I want to see it die. And it has been dying. Look at the ads the roll between the shows and it's clear that TV watchers are aging out. It's all hearing aid commercials and malpractice lawsuits' the only people watching TV through a settop box anymore are the elderly. Bringing that same format of content to youtube's platform, to be watchable on the devices young people use (smartphones, laptops, etc) is a play to make this format relevant to young people again. I hope they fail.
- foxhop 5y agoIf you just want TV on in the background and don't want to pay anything, checkout "Pluto TV" and "Tubi TV", both have apps and may cast to Chromecast or SmartTVs. https://pluto.tv/ https://pluto.tv/ https://tubitv.com/ https://tubitv.com/ Friends help friends cut cords.
- managerclass 5y agoI guess buying a TV antenna isn't completely free but it gives you the same benefit as these online channels, doesn't consume your data cap, and lets you watch sports and local news. I bought a $10 antenna from channel master and it's been a great investment.
- tyingq 5y agoTo be fair, there's plenty of places, even in suburbs, where you need a $100-$200 antenna, and maybe $200 worth of parts, labor and stuff to put it somewhere where it works.
- bjornlouser 5y agoGot perfect reception with a $40 antenna strapped to beams in the attic using bungee cords. The towers are only 50 miles from the house so ymmv https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0024R4B5C/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0024R4B5C/
- comeonseriously 5y agoDoes OTA not work where you're at?
- foxhop 5y agoYeah, OTA doesn't really work anywhere except cities. I used to sell "big screens" at Sears and I was asked that question so frequently, especially back when cable was switching from analog to digital. Years 2004-2006.
- gouda-gouda 5y agoI feel like YoutubeTV forgot that at the end of the day, I’m paying them for content, not their cute little app. Left them last year when they lost my MLB team and haven’t really looked back.
- FireBeyond 5y agoAnd I'm sure you'd also complain when it's "Youtube wants $15 more a month to carry my MLB channels(/ESPN/ABC/whatever)!" like they might end up doing now?
- paxys 5y agoThis is some weird corporate game theory at play. Signing a deal is the ideal outcome for Disney, Google and all their mutual customers, but in pursuit of that extra dollar both sides shoot themselves in the foot and end up with nothing.
- awb 5y agoI think Disney is hoping it’ll drive people to sign up for Disney+ which cuts out the middleman at the cost of not being able to channel surf but instead opening an app.
- jayknight 5y agoDisney+ doesn't have live sports.
- awb 5y agoYes it does: https://www.disneyplus.com/welcome/disney-hulu-espn-bundle https://www.disneyplus.com/welcome/disney-hulu-espn-bundle
- asciimov 5y agoNo, it doesn't. ESPN ≠ ESPN+ Live sports on ESPN isn't typically on ESPN+.
- awb 5y agoYes, Disney+ bundle has live sports. Read the site: > Stream live sports and exclusive originals on ESPN+ > Thousands of live events > With movies, TV shows, and live sports, there's something for everyone. They say it 3 times. Maybe OC meant to say Disney+ doesn’t include ESPN, that would be a true statement. Or maybe they meant to say Disney+ doesn’t include major live sports events, but that wasn’t the claim. Saying Disney+ doesn’t have live sports is an inaccurate claim. They do in fact offer live sports if you read their offering.
- wj 5y agoI resubscribed to YouTube TV a few months ago for two channels: CNBC and ESPN. The rest of my family doesn't watch anything on it which is why I had cancelled it a couple of years ago. CNBC isn't worth $50/month to me. I'll give them another week before changing anything as I imagine someone is going to bend with this being college bowl season.
- drewbailey 5y agoFor what it’s worth they are reducing their pricing by $15 while they figure it out.
- auspex 5y agoGreat… all the shows my kid watched just got removed from the DVR. Even if they make a deal tomorrow, we had so much recorded that just disappeared. Going to be lots of crying kids in the morning
- hazelnut 5y agoSling keeps the recordings even if you don’t have the channel anymore. Though, quality of recordings is lower and we had some random losses over time.
- freewilly1040 5y agoThe cable provider / content provider dispute playbook: 1. Cease broadcasting / licensing of content 2. Talk to media to patiently explain how your adversary is responsible for depriving you of your precious {sports team | Marvel hero} 3. Hope ensuing social media / support queue shit storm hurts your adversary more than you (by the looks of these comments, advantage Disney) 4. Sign a deal 5. Repeat at next contract!
- ende 5y agoGoogle has handled themselves better than the content providers in past disputes, and the providers typically fold. I think Google has garnered goodwill by proactively reducing their prices etc.
- adregan 5y agoI'm so frustrated by the state of things as I only subscribed to YoutubeTV because I wanted to watch Mets baseball and media blackouts prevent me from streaming despite my MLB.tv subscription. The price has only risen over the years and it's been a pretty bitter pill to swallow. I already pay for Disney+ but am also paying for their content through YoutubeTV, which I rarely consume (never watch the disney channel; sometimes I have to watch baseball on ESPN because of media rights). ABC, which is really only used to record the Bachelor/ette programs in this house, is free with an antenna (but lacking the DVR). Not to mention you can watch it a day later using the Hulu subscription we also pay for. I love the DVR feature of YoutubeTV, but I really only record content that's free over the airwaves. Including This Old House, which is now owned by Roku and has it's own for pay streaming service. I'm paying eight ways to Sunday for this content, and increasingly of the opinion that it's not worth it. EDIT: Anyone know of a DVR + digital antenna solution I could implement? EDIT2: Just pulled the digital antenna out of the drawer and, as expected, the features of the surrounding landscape block all the channels.
- ghaff 5y agoTiVo still exists I guess if you can receive over the air.
- wyldfire 5y ago> EDIT: Anyone know of a DVR + digital antenna solution I could implement? Not sure about the current generation of devices but I had a HomeRun device [1] in the past and it was great. More recently I think I heard of a FireTV product that had an antenna and DVR support. [1] https://www.silicondust.com/ https://www.silicondust.com/
- tacon 5y agoI have been using an HD Homerun Extend bought used off eBay since 2015, with an HD antenna on a mast above the roof. For a few years, I used Windows Media Center's free electronic program guide as a DVR. That data feed became unstable, so I switched to program data from Schedules Direct[0], which costs $25/yr. [0] https://www.schedulesdirect.org/ https://www.schedulesdirect.org/
- whywhywhywhy 5y agoThink it’s worrying that YouTube hasn’t realized they’re the disruptor and actually have more value in a lot of people, especially young peoples minds than Disney properties. I don’t see this as a space them worth burning the money to compete in. Makes more sense to invest that back in their own platform, even with their budgets lack of focus can be damaging.
- cptskippy 5y agoBut they, like Sling before and T-Mobile after them, have claimed to disrupt Cable TV while basically just offering Cable TV. The only difference is that you're now responsible for maintaining your own streaming equipment.
- supertrope 5y agoA one time $50 purchase of a device is a much better deal than paying $10-$20 monthly rent per box from 2009 that also uses $50 in electricity per year because the power button only cuts video output.
- colinmhayes 5y agoYoutubeTV is $65 a month
- supertrope 5y agoI'm referring to >The only difference is that you're now responsible for maintaining your own streaming equipment. Losing those box fees, HD fee, regulatory recovery fee, etc. nets one a savings even if the advertised monthly price is the same. Being able to self-install is also worth a day of PTO.
- rp1 5y agoThis is just a small microcosm of what’s going on in the cable TV world. Many channels are raising their fees, but the cable providers are very reluctant to raise the price charged to end users. Instead, cable providers are opting to drop channels. This is leading to an increasingly fragmented cable TV market where it’s impossible to get all the channels you may want to watch. For instance, Comcast just dropped MSG, which is a channel for NY-based sports. The only alternative many people have is to use FuboTV, but Fubo has dropped Adult Swim for the same reason. So now it’s impossible to get both MSG and Adult Swim.
- fullshark 5y agoGonna take 5 years for this market collapse to sort itself out, and by then they will realize the younger consumer has already moved on even from live sports, the last thing holding them to cable/broadcast television.
- logbiscuitswave 5y agoA few years back my cable provider got in a tiff with the local CBS affiliate about programming fees. Each side blamed the other and neither side was willing to compromise. The cable provider dropped the channel in retaliation and for some 2 years we had no CBS. (Naturally there was no discount in the monthly cable bill as a result of this “principled stand”.)
- asciimov 5y agoEvery time one of these conflicts happens I wish both sides had to publicly state their wants and demands for continued service.
- kwertyoowiyop 5y agoIt’s a giant game of Go.
- usaphp 5y agoI love watching soccer, I tried different services (fubo, paramount plus, espn+, youtube TV) and YouTube TV is by far the best in streaming quality, I also like how you can force a specific resolution in youtube tv, unlike other apps which determine the quality of streaming themselves, I have 500mpbs connection and espn and fubo are streaming 480p content half of the time.
- ryguytilidie 5y agoI absolutely cannot stand the way these TV providers continually try to rope their customers into their disputes. This happened when I had directv, it happened when I had comcast, it happens now with YoutubeTV. I would never in a million years, as a business owner, message one of my clients and blame a vendor for bad service and want them to help solve the dispute. I just do not get the thought process here. "Well, these people are paying us a ton of money every month and we're just swimming in profits. Lets ask those same customers to try to get us a better deal for us with Disney so that we'll be more profitable! No.
- timmg 5y ago> I would never in a million years, as a business owner, message one of my clients and blame a vendor for bad service and want them to help solve the dispute. If you were re-selling a vendor's product and the vender raised their prices (to you) by, say, 50%: you'd be silly not to explain to your customers what happened.
- syshum 5y agoOne of the things I always thought Copyright law needed was some kind of FRAND style provisions, if we as a society give an owner exclusive rights we should require that owner (if the choose to distribute the work) to do is in a non-exclusionary, fair manner.
- robomartin 5y agoWell, I don't really care for Disney. I am happy to save $15 per month. Not a lot of money, yet it is when you consider that we never really watch the channels we are losing. In other words, we are not going to mis anything. Disney is doing us a favor. One way I interpret this is that Disney is trying to muscle everyone by using their content. They'd rather it be available exclusively by subscription to their streaming service. For some reason all of these companies think everyone has $50 per month to throw their way. Most people can't subscribe to five or six streaming services simultaneously. Even if you could, how much TV do you watch? Is that a good use of time and money?