9 ms·

I’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 de

I’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 ago
I 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 ago
  Is it really much better to have five $15 services to get the same content?
  - tux3 5y ago
    If GP answers no, does that mean these are the only two options?
  - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
    You 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.
    - 0xcde4c3db 5y ago
      I think they're still trying to figure out a replacement that gives the channel/network/platform leverage over content producers, much like control over "prime time" and fall marketing blitzes did.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - supertrope 5y ago
      It's like unbundling $20 CD into $1 singles. Be prepared for when you get what you wish for. Linear channels and bundling is all to maintain top level revenue. Demonetization will be the death of big budget productions like HBO. We will have more algorithm greenlit average quality content like what pads out Netflix's catalog.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        What crippled newspapers as a whole was essentially unbundling. The local car dealerships didn't actually want to pay for foreign news bureaus in Baghdad but if they wanted to run an ad that local people saw on Sunday, that's what they had to do. The crippling of the classified ad market by Craigslist was probably an even bigger blow. Now, it's hard to argue that people shouldn't be able to pay for just what they want. But now you're effectively arguing for relatively expensive a la carte rentals/purchases which I'm guessing people wouldn't want either if you want to keep revenues neutral. People may want to pay only for the media they watch. But they may not want to pay $5 for a TV show even though I was probably paying way more than that per show when I had cable TV.
    - hakfoo 5y ago
      I will agree that the current state of broadcast TV is a rubbish dump, but there's value in a "channel" concept. If I'm inherently after a passive entertainment experience, there are situations where I want the decisions made for me. If I put on the TV while I exercise, or for background while cooking or cleaning, I don't need it stopping every 30 minutes asking me to choose something else to watch, and yet I also don't want it showing 23 seasons of the Great British Bake Off in a row either. I'll put on a broadcast channel instead.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Well, in fairness, it really isn't the same content. Much of it is premium that wouldn't be on broadcast and it's all generally on demand. I dropped cable TV a couple years ago and while there's occasional live TV I'd maybe like to watch, overall I'm happier with a handful of on demand channels that I pay less for than I was paying for cable.
  - syki 5y ago
    At this time it is much better. I can sign up for a service for a month and binge some shows. Then cancel the service and repeat for another offering. By rotating the services I subscribe to each month I’m effectively watching the content on all the services for a low monthly rate. Eventually these companies will charge an annual rate but right now it’s much better financially and otherwise than cable tv.
    - User23 5y ago
      Cable TV was a screaming deal, so long as you could always stay on the promotional rate. I haven't had it in a while, but I used to call and "cancel" my service every 3 months to get 3 months of free premium channels and a reduced basic rate. It was pretty funny when I moved and had to actually cancel my service because obviously it was on my file and the support person was like sure no problem here you go and I had to clarify no I actually needed to cancel because I was leaving their service area.
      - _flux 5y ago
        Ah, a modern version of the fable "The Boy Why Cried Wolf". Though I suppose with a happier ending.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Assuming a high quality internet connection is available, the qualifications for “screaming deal” would have to be: 1) on demand whatever you want to watch whenever you want to watch on whichever device you want to watch 2) no advertisement breaks 3) no mandatory long term contract (maximum length 1 month)
  - Retric 5y ago
    There’s only so much time in the day so people actually wanted a tiny fraction of that content. Basic cable was setup to be mandatory even if you wanted nothing in it and the money was to be made via advertising. Thus MTV added Real World and the history channel had Ice Road Truckers. Both popular shows, but seemingly out of scope except the audience was anyone flipping channels. This ends up being a quest for the cheapest content that still attracts an audience. HBO on the other hand was constantly fighting for subscribers not just viewership. For them every viewer was worth more money so they had a high bar without much filler.
  - saxonww 5y ago
    I'd certainly like it if I could pay YouTube TV $15 to get just the sports channels. I only subscribe a few months a year, for college football season. I don't like to watch anything else. So I'm spending $65/mo to watch 3-4 games, which is a little embarrassing to post. I do think I'd rather pay YouTube than ESPN directly, because the latter's video services have never worked well for me. Part of me wishes the various services would just tell Disney to get lost, and let them see how much they like providing that service on their own. Though, the conventional wisdom seems to be that live sports programming can't exist on it's own, and that 'regular TV' can't exist without live sports.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      >Though, the conventional wisdom seems to be that live sports programming can't exist on it's own, and that 'regular TV' can't exist without live sports. It feels that way. On the one hand, it seems like you have to be something of a super-fan to subscribe to one or more of the sport/league-specific sites/apps. On the other hand, local sports availability or even just sports as TV on in background seems like a pretty significant sweetener for a lot of people who might not pay for TV just for the occasional late night talk show, local news broadcast, or reality show. Sports isn't enough for me to pay for cable any longer. But, if I did, watching a game now and then would probably be what would push me over the line to pay up.
      - ssharp 5y ago
        Sports is now getting into the territory music did in the early 2000's and movies did before streaming hit big -- where it's become significantly easier and convenient to just pirate than to do it legally. It's much easier to just find pirated live game streams than it is to figure out the cobweb of television rights, which service actually shows local sports, if you're "in" or "out" of market, etc. I'm sure the economics are still strongly in favor of the TV licensing deals but this has to turn at some point, I'd think, where leagues can go direct-to-consumer across all markets or they just sign deals with streaming companies directly, which Amazon is already doing with the NFL.
    - tomrod 5y ago
  - supertrope 5y ago
    Yes. We finally have a la carte. At a grocery store we pick out exactly what we want. If you were given a take it or leave bundle of $85 you'd laugh and walk out.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      It doesn't really make sense in a grocery store context. But that's exactly what something like a farm-share is.
- zzzeek 5y ago
  the youtube TV model (which is also the Sony Vue (they're gone! heh) / Sling model) is nothing like the cable TV model, because these companies do not provide any last mile physical infrastructure. therefore you can switch between any number of providers with no effort. Assuming the other providers can get their fucking act together techinically/user-experience-wise (YTV is like vastly better UX-wise, looks like PS VUE has already been shut down, sad), there's no way a single provider can gouge captive customers for $180 a month, because you can switch freely. meaning it becomes a market again! even liberal democrats like me like markets when they are appropriate. my physical cable to my house is provided by Altice One, I have no option to switch that at all (no there's no FIOS or fiber option here). that's a monopoly.
  - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
    > the youtube TV model (which is also the Sony Vue (they're gone! heh) / Sling model) is nothing like the cable TV model, because these companies do not provide any last mile physical infrastructure. Last mile infrastructure is not what I find objectionable about cable TV, and last mile infrastructure isn't going anywhere anyway. I want this to die: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_programming and I don't care what medium is used to transmit it. Whether it's a coaxial cable, radio transmission from terrestrial tower or satellite, or the internet, it makes no difference to me. The format itself is what I find awful. > Sony Vue (they're gone! heh) Yeah, because broadcast programming is a dying format for boomers. I celebrate the demise of all of it, and any company that produces it.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      If you don't want to watch broadcast TV (I don't), don't watch it? I guess I don't get the hate. There are a ton of things I don't watch or listen to. And broadcast TV probably does now and then produce something I do want to watch on-demand.
      - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
        I don't watch it. > I don't get the hate. I live in a society with people who do watch it. I don't like the way broadcast TV turned people into numbed couch potatoes watching hours of ads a day.
jasode 5y ago
>"I’m really surprised by the number of top level comments that are confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube TV." Thanks for the clarification. It probably adds to the confusion that the landing page for "YouTube TV" goes to the "youtube.com" domain: https://tv.youtube.com/ https://tv.youtube.com/
- weird-eye-issue 5y ago
  People don't confuse Gmail with Google Maps or Google Search just because they are on the same root domain
  - 29083011397778 5y ago
    Maybe not, but "It's very similar to this other thing, but under a different name" isn't exactly an uncommon theme for Google. That's how we ended up with Inbox vs Gmail, Google Play Music vs Youtube Premium, Google Chat vs Allo, Hangouts vs Google Voice, and the others I'm sure I'm forgetting.
  - ninkendo 5y ago
    They don’t call gmail “YouTube mail” or google maps “YouTube maps” either.
    - weird-eye-issue 5y ago
      That was just one example... Surely you can think of others. How about Google Play, Google Fi, and countless others? They all share the same domain
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
YouTube TV is a separate $65/month subscription. Seems like an absurdly high price relative to Hulu or Netflix, but it’s meant to compete more with local cable packages. Without the premium content, it’s hard to do that. I think the content providers know this and are trying to squeeze YouTube into giving more of their profits to the content providers. Either that, or to raise prices to be similar to cable. YouTube TV is claiming Disney content added $15/month to the bill, so they’re dropping the price by $15/month as long as Disney is out: > “We will be decreasing our monthly price by $15, from $64.99 to $49.99 while this content remains off of our platform,” YouTube TV said in its Friday night statement.
- daigoba66 5y ago
  > so they’re dropping the price by $15/month as long as Disney is out FWIW, I can’t see any traditional cable TV provider doing this. They might even charge an extra fee as a cherry on top.
  - heartbreak 5y ago
    Not only did they drop the price, but in the email they referred subscribers to the Disney+ package that includes Hulu and ESPN.
    - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
      That's actually the reason for the price drop: They are giving you money to get Disney+ so you don't just cancel your YouTube TV subscription and go elsewhere. It's a retention move that they accept a short lack of their cut of the Disney portion in exchange for not losing customers entirely.
      - CryptoBanker 5y ago
        It’s not comparable. Disney+ doesn’t include any live content
        5y ago
cptskippy 5y ago
> YouTube is the video sharing website everyone uses. The ad-free version of which is called YouTube Premium. Technically YouTube Premium is a package designed to bolster their failing YouTube Music product that few want. I'd gladly pay $7.50 a month for AD Free YouTube, but $15 is too much.
- saltminer 5y ago
  I used to be grandfathered in for the Play Music all access + YT premium + YT red for $15/month plan. That was a pretty good deal for me. But without Play Music (YT Music was awful at the time), I couldn't justify the cost.
- josteink 5y ago
  > I'd gladly pay $7.50 a month for AD Free YouTube In some regions you can actually get this. It’s called “Premium Lite”. https://www.youtube.com/premiumlite https://www.youtube.com/premiumlite I’m paying 69 NOK which given currency conversion is roughly $7.60, so it’s more or less literally what you ask for. For those outside the offered regions (thus getting geoblocked) this is literally what the page says for me (copy & paste): —————————————- FAQ What is included with Premium Lite? YouTube • Ad-free videos: Watch millions of videos uninterrupted by ads. Learn more YouTube Kids • Ad-free in the YouTube Kids app Premium Lite doesn't include ad-free access to the YouTube Music app.
mdoms 5y ago
> I’m really surprised by the number of top level comments that are confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube TV. Are you that surprised? The branding is a complete mess. And Youtube TV is not available in most markets so many people have never heard of it.
bobdosherman 5y ago
There also seems to be confusion that ESPN+ is equivalent to ESPN, but ESPN+ does not carry the linear programming of ESPN. Using part of the $15 YouTube TV discount to purchase ESPN+ will not make you whole on the lose of ESPN - still no live ESPN content.
- judge2020 5y ago
  ESPN+ does provide some live TV, but not all of it. For example, it contains the upcoming monday's NFL game, but none of the NCAA games today. https://www.espn.com/espnplus/schedule/_/type/upcoming/categoryId/60459870-f8fc-3b3a-a6b9-d8af4bf19223/channel/ESPN_PLUS/startDate/20211220 https://www.espn.com/espnplus/schedule/_/type/upcoming/categ...
  - dev_by_day 5y ago
    Live UFC events are also shown on ESPN+. Big main events are primarily only offered through ESPN+ as well.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Which is why I forego watching sports altogether. If there was a simple link on US Tennis or Wimbledon’s website to pay $20 or even $50 or $100 to watch the tournament, I would pay it. But I am not going to jump through hoops and pay for stuff I do not want, and most importantly, I am not going to spend time researching what is and is not available on + versions versus not +. Same with NHL. I would pay to watch ice hockey, I will not pay to risk being unable to watch because I live too close to the stadium and hence should be blacked out. I also will not pay to have advertisement breaks shown to me.
gentleman11 5y ago
Why are you surprised that two identically named services they both stream video content are not known to be different by consumers?

zinekeller 5y ago

I 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 ago
Is it really much better to have five $15 services to get the same content?
- tux3 5y ago
  If GP answers no, does that mean these are the only two options?
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
  You 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.
  - 0xcde4c3db 5y ago
    I think they're still trying to figure out a replacement that gives the channel/network/platform leverage over content producers, much like control over "prime time" and fall marketing blitzes did.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - supertrope 5y ago
    It's like unbundling $20 CD into $1 singles. Be prepared for when you get what you wish for. Linear channels and bundling is all to maintain top level revenue. Demonetization will be the death of big budget productions like HBO. We will have more algorithm greenlit average quality content like what pads out Netflix's catalog.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      What crippled newspapers as a whole was essentially unbundling. The local car dealerships didn't actually want to pay for foreign news bureaus in Baghdad but if they wanted to run an ad that local people saw on Sunday, that's what they had to do. The crippling of the classified ad market by Craigslist was probably an even bigger blow. Now, it's hard to argue that people shouldn't be able to pay for just what they want. But now you're effectively arguing for relatively expensive a la carte rentals/purchases which I'm guessing people wouldn't want either if you want to keep revenues neutral. People may want to pay only for the media they watch. But they may not want to pay $5 for a TV show even though I was probably paying way more than that per show when I had cable TV.
  - hakfoo 5y ago
    I will agree that the current state of broadcast TV is a rubbish dump, but there's value in a "channel" concept. If I'm inherently after a passive entertainment experience, there are situations where I want the decisions made for me. If I put on the TV while I exercise, or for background while cooking or cleaning, I don't need it stopping every 30 minutes asking me to choose something else to watch, and yet I also don't want it showing 23 seasons of the Great British Bake Off in a row either. I'll put on a broadcast channel instead.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Well, in fairness, it really isn't the same content. Much of it is premium that wouldn't be on broadcast and it's all generally on demand. I dropped cable TV a couple years ago and while there's occasional live TV I'd maybe like to watch, overall I'm happier with a handful of on demand channels that I pay less for than I was paying for cable.
- syki 5y ago
  At this time it is much better. I can sign up for a service for a month and binge some shows. Then cancel the service and repeat for another offering. By rotating the services I subscribe to each month I’m effectively watching the content on all the services for a low monthly rate. Eventually these companies will charge an annual rate but right now it’s much better financially and otherwise than cable tv.
  - User23 5y ago
    Cable TV was a screaming deal, so long as you could always stay on the promotional rate. I haven't had it in a while, but I used to call and "cancel" my service every 3 months to get 3 months of free premium channels and a reduced basic rate. It was pretty funny when I moved and had to actually cancel my service because obviously it was on my file and the support person was like sure no problem here you go and I had to clarify no I actually needed to cancel because I was leaving their service area.
    - _flux 5y ago
      Ah, a modern version of the fable "The Boy Why Cried Wolf". Though I suppose with a happier ending.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Assuming a high quality internet connection is available, the qualifications for “screaming deal” would have to be: 1) on demand whatever you want to watch whenever you want to watch on whichever device you want to watch 2) no advertisement breaks 3) no mandatory long term contract (maximum length 1 month)
- Retric 5y ago
  There’s only so much time in the day so people actually wanted a tiny fraction of that content. Basic cable was setup to be mandatory even if you wanted nothing in it and the money was to be made via advertising. Thus MTV added Real World and the history channel had Ice Road Truckers. Both popular shows, but seemingly out of scope except the audience was anyone flipping channels. This ends up being a quest for the cheapest content that still attracts an audience. HBO on the other hand was constantly fighting for subscribers not just viewership. For them every viewer was worth more money so they had a high bar without much filler.
- saxonww 5y ago
  I'd certainly like it if I could pay YouTube TV $15 to get just the sports channels. I only subscribe a few months a year, for college football season. I don't like to watch anything else. So I'm spending $65/mo to watch 3-4 games, which is a little embarrassing to post. I do think I'd rather pay YouTube than ESPN directly, because the latter's video services have never worked well for me. Part of me wishes the various services would just tell Disney to get lost, and let them see how much they like providing that service on their own. Though, the conventional wisdom seems to be that live sports programming can't exist on it's own, and that 'regular TV' can't exist without live sports.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    >Though, the conventional wisdom seems to be that live sports programming can't exist on it's own, and that 'regular TV' can't exist without live sports. It feels that way. On the one hand, it seems like you have to be something of a super-fan to subscribe to one or more of the sport/league-specific sites/apps. On the other hand, local sports availability or even just sports as TV on in background seems like a pretty significant sweetener for a lot of people who might not pay for TV just for the occasional late night talk show, local news broadcast, or reality show. Sports isn't enough for me to pay for cable any longer. But, if I did, watching a game now and then would probably be what would push me over the line to pay up.
    - ssharp 5y ago
      Sports is now getting into the territory music did in the early 2000's and movies did before streaming hit big -- where it's become significantly easier and convenient to just pirate than to do it legally. It's much easier to just find pirated live game streams than it is to figure out the cobweb of television rights, which service actually shows local sports, if you're "in" or "out" of market, etc. I'm sure the economics are still strongly in favor of the TV licensing deals but this has to turn at some point, I'd think, where leagues can go direct-to-consumer across all markets or they just sign deals with streaming companies directly, which Amazon is already doing with the NFL.
  - tomrod 5y ago
- supertrope 5y ago
  Yes. We finally have a la carte. At a grocery store we pick out exactly what we want. If you were given a take it or leave bundle of $85 you'd laugh and walk out.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    It doesn't really make sense in a grocery store context. But that's exactly what something like a farm-share is.
zzzeek 5y ago
the youtube TV model (which is also the Sony Vue (they're gone! heh) / Sling model) is nothing like the cable TV model, because these companies do not provide any last mile physical infrastructure. therefore you can switch between any number of providers with no effort. Assuming the other providers can get their fucking act together techinically/user-experience-wise (YTV is like vastly better UX-wise, looks like PS VUE has already been shut down, sad), there's no way a single provider can gouge captive customers for $180 a month, because you can switch freely. meaning it becomes a market again! even liberal democrats like me like markets when they are appropriate. my physical cable to my house is provided by Altice One, I have no option to switch that at all (no there's no FIOS or fiber option here). that's a monopoly.
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
  > the youtube TV model (which is also the Sony Vue (they're gone! heh) / Sling model) is nothing like the cable TV model, because these companies do not provide any last mile physical infrastructure. Last mile infrastructure is not what I find objectionable about cable TV, and last mile infrastructure isn't going anywhere anyway. I want this to die: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_programming and I don't care what medium is used to transmit it. Whether it's a coaxial cable, radio transmission from terrestrial tower or satellite, or the internet, it makes no difference to me. The format itself is what I find awful. > Sony Vue (they're gone! heh) Yeah, because broadcast programming is a dying format for boomers. I celebrate the demise of all of it, and any company that produces it.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    If you don't want to watch broadcast TV (I don't), don't watch it? I guess I don't get the hate. There are a ton of things I don't watch or listen to. And broadcast TV probably does now and then produce something I do want to watch on-demand.
    - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
      I don't watch it. > I don't get the hate. I live in a society with people who do watch it. I don't like the way broadcast TV turned people into numbed couch potatoes watching hours of ads a day.

jasode 5y ago

>"I’m really surprised by the number of top level comments that are confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube TV." Thanks for the clarification. It probably adds to the confusion that the landing page for "YouTube TV" goes to the "youtube.com" domain: https://tv.youtube.com/ https://tv.youtube.com/

weird-eye-issue 5y ago
People don't confuse Gmail with Google Maps or Google Search just because they are on the same root domain
- 29083011397778 5y ago
  Maybe not, but "It's very similar to this other thing, but under a different name" isn't exactly an uncommon theme for Google. That's how we ended up with Inbox vs Gmail, Google Play Music vs Youtube Premium, Google Chat vs Allo, Hangouts vs Google Voice, and the others I'm sure I'm forgetting.
- ninkendo 5y ago
  They don’t call gmail “YouTube mail” or google maps “YouTube maps” either.
  - weird-eye-issue 5y ago
    That was just one example... Surely you can think of others. How about Google Play, Google Fi, and countless others? They all share the same domain

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

YouTube TV is a separate $65/month subscription. Seems like an absurdly high price relative to Hulu or Netflix, but it’s meant to compete more with local cable packages. Without the premium content, it’s hard to do that. I think the content providers know this and are trying to squeeze YouTube into giving more of their profits to the content providers. Either that, or to raise prices to be similar to cable. YouTube TV is claiming Disney content added $15/month to the bill, so they’re dropping the price by $15/month as long as Disney is out: > “We will be decreasing our monthly price by $15, from $64.99 to $49.99 while this content remains off of our platform,” YouTube TV said in its Friday night statement.

daigoba66 5y ago
> so they’re dropping the price by $15/month as long as Disney is out FWIW, I can’t see any traditional cable TV provider doing this. They might even charge an extra fee as a cherry on top.
- heartbreak 5y ago
  Not only did they drop the price, but in the email they referred subscribers to the Disney+ package that includes Hulu and ESPN.
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    That's actually the reason for the price drop: They are giving you money to get Disney+ so you don't just cancel your YouTube TV subscription and go elsewhere. It's a retention move that they accept a short lack of their cut of the Disney portion in exchange for not losing customers entirely.
    - CryptoBanker 5y ago
      It’s not comparable. Disney+ doesn’t include any live content
      - 5y ago

cptskippy 5y ago

> YouTube is the video sharing website everyone uses. The ad-free version of which is called YouTube Premium. Technically YouTube Premium is a package designed to bolster their failing YouTube Music product that few want. I'd gladly pay $7.50 a month for AD Free YouTube, but $15 is too much.

saltminer 5y ago
I used to be grandfathered in for the Play Music all access + YT premium + YT red for $15/month plan. That was a pretty good deal for me. But without Play Music (YT Music was awful at the time), I couldn't justify the cost.
josteink 5y ago
> I'd gladly pay $7.50 a month for AD Free YouTube In some regions you can actually get this. It’s called “Premium Lite”. https://www.youtube.com/premiumlite https://www.youtube.com/premiumlite I’m paying 69 NOK which given currency conversion is roughly $7.60, so it’s more or less literally what you ask for. For those outside the offered regions (thus getting geoblocked) this is literally what the page says for me (copy & paste): —————————————- FAQ What is included with Premium Lite? YouTube • Ad-free videos: Watch millions of videos uninterrupted by ads. Learn more YouTube Kids • Ad-free in the YouTube Kids app Premium Lite doesn't include ad-free access to the YouTube Music app.

mdoms 5y ago

> I’m really surprised by the number of top level comments that are confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube TV. Are you that surprised? The branding is a complete mess. And Youtube TV is not available in most markets so many people have never heard of it.

bobdosherman 5y ago

There also seems to be confusion that ESPN+ is equivalent to ESPN, but ESPN+ does not carry the linear programming of ESPN. Using part of the $15 YouTube TV discount to purchase ESPN+ will not make you whole on the lose of ESPN - still no live ESPN content.

judge2020 5y ago
ESPN+ does provide some live TV, but not all of it. For example, it contains the upcoming monday's NFL game, but none of the NCAA games today. https://www.espn.com/espnplus/schedule/_/type/upcoming/categoryId/60459870-f8fc-3b3a-a6b9-d8af4bf19223/channel/ESPN_PLUS/startDate/20211220 https://www.espn.com/espnplus/schedule/_/type/upcoming/categ...
- dev_by_day 5y ago
  Live UFC events are also shown on ESPN+. Big main events are primarily only offered through ESPN+ as well.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Which is why I forego watching sports altogether. If there was a simple link on US Tennis or Wimbledon’s website to pay $20 or even $50 or $100 to watch the tournament, I would pay it. But I am not going to jump through hoops and pay for stuff I do not want, and most importantly, I am not going to spend time researching what is and is not available on + versions versus not +. Same with NHL. I would pay to watch ice hockey, I will not pay to risk being unable to watch because I live too close to the stadium and hence should be blacked out. I also will not pay to have advertisement breaks shown to me.

gentleman11 5y ago

Why are you surprised that two identically named services they both stream video content are not known to be different by consumers?