YouTube TV Costs $50 Per Month After Another Price Hike (engadget.com) 227
YouTube TV isn't immune to the latest wave of rate hikes plaguing the streaming world. From a report: The Google-owned service has announced that it's raising the base monthly price to $50 ($55 if you subscribe directly through an Apple TV), effective immediately for new subscribers and from May 13th onward for existing customers. You'll at least get something for your trouble, though, as YouTube TV will finally offer a host of additional channels.
You now have access to eight Discovery channels that include the original as well as Animal Planet, Food Network, HGTV, Investigation Discovery, MotorTrend, TLC and Travel Channel. Oprah Winfrey's OWN channel is coming later in 2019, and Epix's movie-oriented channel is available today if you're willing to spend extra.
You now have access to eight Discovery channels that include the original as well as Animal Planet, Food Network, HGTV, Investigation Discovery, MotorTrend, TLC and Travel Channel. Oprah Winfrey's OWN channel is coming later in 2019, and Epix's movie-oriented channel is available today if you're willing to spend extra.
Pirate Bay is free. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it matter its almost basic cable cost?
It's better than basic cable... It's available anywhere on all your devices, not just at home on the TV. And it's better image quality than broadcast cable TV.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You cant count those expenses and not count the computer, and internet connection needed for youtube tv.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when you consider you need to own a television, rent an apartment, pay for electricity, etc.
LMAO what the shit kind of argument is this.
Re: (Score:3)
It is the type of argument one would expect from either a pedantic troll or a pedantic retard. At this point, it is not easy to determine which it is.
Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
These companies just don't get it, do they?
Give me an option where I can choose exactly what channels I want, and exclude the channels I don't want, and I'll be more than happy to pay for it.
I want a single place where I can have a single bill, not 17 monthly bills from 17 different services. I don't even care if the cost is the same. I want the simplilcity.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, they know _exactly_ that you want TV a la carte -- the thing is they don't care. What are you going to do? They know they have you over a barrel.
A few piddly people "cutting the cord" isn't going to get them to stop.
If people were smart they would **cooperatively organize** a month of no cable / streaming to send a message. But they won't so nothing will change with licensing shenanigans like this.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they know _exactly_ that you want TV a la carte -- the thing is they don't care. What are you going to do? They know they have you over a barrel.
A few piddly people "cutting the cord" isn't going to get them to stop.
If people were smart they would **cooperatively organize** a month of no cable / streaming to send a message. But they won't so nothing will change with licensing shenanigans like this.
What I'm going to do is exactly what I've been doing - refusing to subscribe to / pay for such services, until they're willing to offer me what I want. I vote with my wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you going to do? They know they have you over a barrel.
Not really. I refuse to pay $50/month for some simple entertainment. Right now, I only get the cheapest Netflix option. Some other stuff I get on Pirate Bay.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't pay for a monthly service. I watch some free youtube videos now and then, and maybe once or twice a month my wife and I will rent a movie on Youtube. Costs $5 a month or less.
Re: (Score:3)
Just plan old Youtube has shit load of really good things on it. I like to watch documentaries and it's amazing the number of documentaries that are out there on Youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they know _exactly_ that you want TV a la carte -- the thing is they don't care. What are you going to do? They know they have you over a barrel.
Addicts are abused the same way the world over. Don't want to be thrown over a barrel and abused? Then fix your addiction problem.
Yeah, it is that simple. No one needs the Boob Tube.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, there's blame on more than just the cable TV/Google/etc. The content owners will frequently say "If you want Popular Channel X, then you must also provide Not As Popular Channels Y, Z, and Q." So the cable TV companies (and Google) will be forced to include (and pay for) more and more channels just to get the few that most people want. Even if they wanted to give you ala carte (which they really don't), they couldn't because of these bundling agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
If people were smart they would **cooperatively organize** a month of no cable / streaming to send a message.
Wrong target. It's no the cable/streaming companies that want bundles. It's the channels.
Want ESPN on your cable network? Well, you're gonna have to also carry a lot of crappy channels that nobody really wants, because those channels are made by the same company that owns ESPN. And you're not allowed to separate off those channels, 'cause that would completely undermine what ESPN's owners are trying to do.
A-la-carte is not happening as long as all of the channels are produced by massive corporations wit
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, content licensing is a clusterfuck (due to greed).
However if people put pressure on cable / streaming companies thing might change.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Cable/streaming companies don't have much power in this deal. Especially the streaming companies.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there are two things missing on that for me.
First, it has to be a reasonable price. That means cheaper than cable assuming I'm not getting all the channels I don't care about.
Second, I have to be able to record shows. If we're talking channels, and not a general streaming service, then I want to continue to use MythTV to record my shows. This is a big show-stopper for any of the services available now.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
These companies just don't get it, do they?
Oh, they get it, they just don't care enough to do anything about it.
Give me an option where I can choose exactly what channels I want, and exclude the channels I don't want..
Start with an example: I like Science channel, as it is one of the few "science-y" channels left that actually shows "scienc-y stuff". Unlike The Learning Channel that is hasn't had anything of any value on it in a decade, and I wouldn't pay a dime for. The problem? They are both owned by Discovery, Inc [wikipedia.org], who owns among others, The Food Network, HGTV, Cooking Channel, DIY Network, Great American Country. You'll quickly find that almost every one of your favorite channels is owned by a conglomerate. And while that large "network" may have one or two channels you like, they likely have a dozen that you couldn't care less about. And from what I've seen, all of the "Entertainment Providers" are only willing to sell them by the bundle. Oh, you only want to buy Science Channel? That'll be $50/month please, but the good news is that it includes all this other useless shit we have that you have no interest in.
Re: (Score:2)
They saw all you so-called 'cord cutters' coming a mile away.
Want off the treadmill? Get an antenna on your house and buy a TiVo, and be happy with OTA broadcast.
Re: (Score:2)
What is a "channel"? Is that like a tube?
I realize YouTube calls them channels when they're really not, but it's supremely ironic that YT, famous as one of the first big random access video content sites, is bundling content in their paid system.
No, it won't (Score:5, Informative)
Well it's not going to cost me $50 a month. What is the point of having these services like youtube and hulu tv if they cost you just as much as a cable tv subscription if not more. You have to add in the cost of the internet to get your total cost. I think a lot of "cord cutters" over look this and that is what they want you to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to add in the cost of the internet to get your total cost.
If you use your Internet connection just for streaming, then sure, you should include it. If you also use it for your home office, IoT, telephone, and web surfing, then it's just utilization of an existing cost - you'd be paying for it regardless of whether you had cable TV or YouTube TV.
For an accurate comparison, compare the total cost of living with each option. Include every aspect of your life... The obvious ones are connections needed, consumables (like power consumption running your giant liquid-nitr
Re: (Score:2)
No one's going to cut their $80 cable bill just to get a $50 youtube bill, with or without the ISP charges. $50 is just too damn high. Cord cutters started when you could get most of what you wanted for under $10 for a decent streaming service, or $20 for two, whereas Youtube TV is still just a wannabe with amazingly limited offerings compared to Netflix, Amazon, or Hulu.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's different though, it's local channels, some people that matters to.
Exactly that. YouTube TV (and any other similar service) includes the local network affiliates, which provide local news coverage, and local/regional sports channels.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd pay extra even for streaming over cable.
Sure, the savings is good, but if a truly convenient streaming service came out, I'd pay extra.
I'd want all of the content from the last three weeks available to stream after the fact without DVR and available from the moment it starts broadcasting, and I'd want it to be an app on my phone that could cast 4k to my Chromecast.
YouTube TV is already superior to cable in that it doesn't require a set top box, if they put everything on demand without a DVR, I'd be on i
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's not going to cost me $50 a month. What is the point of having these services like youtube and hulu tv if they cost you just as much as a cable tv subscription if not more.
You're still asking to be provided the same 10 gallons of gasoline, so perhaps stop wondering why 10 gallons still costs the same regardless if you pump it into a truck, van, or car.
And the point of offering the same services over a different medium is capturing a larger audience. Makes sense when you consider the younger generation will happily spend $1000 on a smartphone and $100/month on the all-you-can-eat data plan to consume content and yet refuses to own a television because they're "too expensive".
Easy answer (Score:2)
I actually remember it being a bit of a problem for my kid in high school. When all the other kids were talking about such and such TV
Re: (Score:2)
why do you have to add in the cost of the internet when you are going to get it anyway? I have been a cord cutter for 10 years and as long as you are careful as to what you are subscribing to, you will come out cheaper. I think the problem is, new cord cutters are not doing their homework. They are not looking at the costs of individual subscriptions, they are not looking at equipment costs and more.
The King is dead. Long live the King. (Score:2)
Sounds like all the shite I never watch and don't want
What's this garbage? (Score:3)
We didn't ditch cable to end up with the same nonsense in streaming. I don't want access to eight Discovery channels. I might be interested in, say Animal Planet. On the other hand, you know where you can stick OWN.
NO BUNDLING, PEOPLE! I want to pay for what I want to watch. I do NOT want to pay for what I despise, which I am not going to watch anyway. Ergo, Google, you know where you can stick your YouTube TV.
Re:What's this garbage? (Score:5, Informative)
Take a look at Philo then. It's only $20 a month for around 50 channels, and $16 a month for 45 channels. The have all the channels most geeks would like, science, history, and BBC. What they don't have is endless sports and news channels. You get BBC World News and Cheddar.
It also has a pretty good cloud based DVR.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's this garbage? (Score:5, Informative)
No, actually I am getting it. What you want doesn't exist not yet. I'm just offering you a cheaper alternative in case you do want it.
The writing on the wall, cable companies see it, and these streaming services see it. They just hope you don't see it. Their business model is coming to an end. With devices like Ruko and Fire tv, channels are becoming a app on the device. It's just a matter of time.
The question on the table right now is how much do you want to pay for a tv service, if you want it, till it does happen?
Re: (Score:2)
" It's only $20 a month for around 50 channels, and $16 a month for 45 channels."
Those are bundles, which are literally the opposite of unbundling.
Re:What's this garbage? (Score:4)
Yes, they are. It would be nice if what you wanted existed. But right now if you want to watch these channels you have to deal with the bundling. This is just the cheapest way I've found to get it.
Re: (Score:3)
It is silly. For this $50 a month to Youtube TV, you could get Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, plus some extra movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Discovery, Inc, want to sell you only Animal Planet? They make more money this way, because they are able to shore up the ad rates for the really shitty channels almost no one wants.
Your options are 1) Animal Planet + 7 other channels for more money, or 2) no Animal Planet. Not because Google or your cable company wants this, it's because Discovery, Inc. wants this.
DirecTV NOW just hiked prices too (Score:5, Insightful)
I was on the $40/month DirecTV now with 105 channels. It went up to $65 a month which was too much for me. Why can't we do a cafeteria plan? Give me ABC, CBS, NBC, HGTV, ESPN, and that's it. I don't want anything else. I don't even need DVR capability, I just need my login to the tv provider to work to OAuth into the various channel apps so I can do their shows on demand.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Partly because the cable companies want to make money with big bundle packages and partly because the content owners will only offer their popular channels bundled with a ton of other junk nobody wants (that they charge the cable companies for, which the cable companies charge you for).
Re: (Score:2)
Because the people selling those channels make more money if they can keep the ad rates up.
Let's take HGTV. It's owned by Discovery, Inc. Along with several other channels you won't watch. Let's pick TLC as a placeholder for that.
You'll never watch TLC. So you'll never buy TLC if it was a-la-carte. But if Discovery forces you to buy a bundle that includes TLC to get HGTV, they can count you as a possible viewer for TLC, and thus sell ads on TLC for more money.
(The viewship of virtually all cable channe
The great ReBundling (Score:2)
The awesome thing abut video streaming is that at last I don't have to pay for a collection of channels I mostly hate.
So why on earth are companies trying to go back to a world where they bundle a bunch of crappy channels together with a handful that are good? Who is going to go for that, when you also have the option to just get good single channels, or indeed to just pay for the one show you actually like from a channel, one time?
It's not like I was a YouTube TV subscriber to begin with but I am mystifie
Re: (Score:2)
Some people actually like cable bundles and channel surfing. YouTube TV is a modern version of that. It's a chance for Google to harvest money from people who grew up without cable bundles, but like that approach even so, and from people who just find $50/month cheaper than what they currently pay.
Re: (Score:3)
So why on earth are companies trying to go back to a world where they bundle a bunch of crappy channels together with a handful that are good?
Because one company owns that collection of one good channel and 7 crappy channels. And they want to sell ads on those crappy channels.
If that company allowed a-la-carte pricing, then you wouldn't buy the crappy channels, and their ad revenue would go down because fewer households have access to the channel.
Despite moving to a streaming model, that company still needs to sell ads on those crappy channels, so they're still using bundling.
a la carte vs girl next door (Score:4, Insightful)
What I celebrate most in YouTube is the death of the channel. I've never "subscribed" to one damn thing.
Obviously, if you find someone who produces smart content, it's nice to be able to browse that person's back catalogue. But you can do that with Andy Warhol, too, and he never had a "channel", he just had whatever he had made up to that point.
Channels are the natural domain of lazy, content-consuming slobs. Honestly, should what you watch next be a function of your recent viewing history? Only if questions pertaining to fresh material remains insufficiently answered.
But many people seem to prefer the girl-next-door algorithm. If the girl-next-door to the girl-next-door is even prettier, you continue to incrementally change your address: hill-climbing algorithm, one back-yard fence at a time.
Or you could head to a street cafe in the center of Paris, and skip all these silly "channel" increments.
Re: (Score:2)
'What I celebrate most in YouTube is the death of the channel. I've never "subscribed" to one damn thing.'
YouTube has been based on channels that you subscribe to for as long as I can remember. That's not much of a death.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people do choose the next thing they watch based on the last thing. That's one reason why Netflix is so popular: binge watching series. If you get tired of one, flip to whatever you want. Random access, you choose. Free YouTube is the same, the "channels" are just bins where a particular person can put all their videos. Like finding a webpage with Andy Warhol's collection on it.
More forced channels in base rate. game steaming (Score:2)
More forced channels in base rate. game steaming may end up the same way.
$60/mo base for EA, Disney, Activision Blizzard (wow as an added change), paradox games, etc as the base and you must by base to add on things like cd projekt red.
I don't look at montly cost, I look at daily (Score:2)
Cell phone service gets the $1.50/day treatment.
Over the air channels, books, hobbies, ... (Score:2)
I'll vote with my wallet : I'll just watch OTA channels to keep up with local news (we have only 4 OTA channels here). Read more books. More time for my hobbies : country dance (line and partner), gardening, house renovations, ... Found new hobbies...
How to alienate your customer base (Score:2)
If your primary customer is someone who is trying to be frugal with their entertainment spending ( a premise that I don't feel is all that far fetched for youtube ), then raising your prices to make your benefits irrelevant seem particularly stupid.
No wonder "cord cutting" has plateaued. It's bone headed decisions like this. But I'll tell you something; the more you antagonize your customer base, the more they realize they don't need what you're selling.
This is why I still have cable. (Score:2)
I pay $108.99/month for cable TV. That's a lot, I know, way too much for most of y'all. But here's why I do it:
- The wife and I enjoy watching sports. There currently is no way to get all of the available sports channels from a single streaming provider that I currently get with my cable provider. PlayStation Vue comes close at $50/month, but it is missing a bunch still. DirecTV now charges you MORE for the package that includes all of the ESPN channels than what I pay for cable!
- Most streaming pla
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I get a land line phone, voice mail, all the cable channels I don't want, and internet for less.
If I wasn't a curling and soccer fanatic, I could probably just use my HDTV antenna to watch most of that (except CBC which has a player app and BBC which has a player app), but right now it's cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a big hockey fan, love watching it. Most games for my favorite team are broadcast on the regional Fox Sports channel. I'm not paying a cable package just to watch these games. I would get the NHL streaming package but those jerks blackout the games for my favorite team because my town is inside the magical 70 mile radius circle. So I found a reliable website that provides good quality streams that I can watch.
They lose so much money
Tf? (Score:2)
The whole point of the internet is to take control of what you consume rather than have 150 channels shoving the same ad into your private space.
Want an even better deal? (Score:2)
Just watch regular old YouTube for free. Honestly, the self produced content is a lot more interesting than that Hollywood crap.
Re: (Score:2)
I think plain YouTube constitutes about 40% of my kids' video entertainment nowadays. Another 40% is video games and the remaining 20% is streamed shows. (There's a sliver in there for DVDs Borrowed From The Library, but it's negligible.)
The Dark Side is STRONG in that one! (Score:2)
Greedy much?
I think what offends me the most is the google's notion I should pay a lot of money to have my time wasted. Not just the google, of course. Facebook is clearly the #1 abuser of engagement.
(Still an open contest for #1 abuser of personal information, but we suckers can't even tell who's "winning" because they hide our own personal information from us. If I had to bet, I'd wager on Amazon to out-rape the others, but I might take Apple or Microsoft if you give me some points.)
As things stand now, I
you can get HBO on it's own! (Score:2)
you can get HBO on it's own!
I cannot get HBO on acceptable terms, if at all. (Score:2)
Did I stutter?
Or were you simply too lazy to read all the way to the third paragraph?
Or did you merely forget to say something useful about HBO's financial model? Perhaps you could have corrected my ignorance? LOTS of ignorance here, and you could have asked if you were unsure about which parts of my ignorance apply to HBO.
Or did you just have nothing to say, but lacked the self-control to say nothing?
Almost there... (Score:2)
I dropped cable TV, and had to pickup both Youtube TV, and Direct TV Now so that I could get Viacom (Comedy Central) and the Discovery properties.
DirectTV Now has dropped Viacom for new subscribers, but I am still grandfathered in.
With this announcement, I can drop Direct TV Now. I don't watch Comedy Central enough to justify the charge. YouTube TV delivers a better image than Direct TV Now, as well as has a better DVR capability.
Re: (Score:2)
I fondly recall the days of calling the cable company and asking if they offered Comedy Central.
"No, I'm sorry, sir."
Click from me hanging up.
Long time ago and I don't really care anymore, but it was funny, I had a few calls along those lines in the 1990s.
I like the service (Score:2)
Too Expensive (Score:2)
That's a 44% price increase (from the $35 grandfathered price) for a bunch of crap we wont watch... on top of already subsidizing sports channels that we don't want. Guess it's time to "cut-the-cord" again.
bringing us back to the good old days... (Score:2)
did youtube and google just totally miss the whole point of chord-cutting is people getting sick of feeling like they're paying for shit channels they never watch?
American TV must be very high quality (Score:2)
Free media nearly killed Traditional media... (Score:3)
...how?
Simple. Do you remember back when traditional media was laughing so hard at the thought of downloading music? And when CD and traditional media was dying slowly, but surely?
Do you remember when news became more popular on the internet than the printed Traditional media?
Do you remember why Netflix succeeded? Because they put YOU in control of what you see and when you want to see it. Same with the original youtube, the idea was the little person being able to share their experiences, life, friends with the world. If they had an idea, they could produce it themselves and upload it, and it would instantly become available to everyone.
In traditional media - this kind of freedom would be unthinkable, simply because they are used to a controlled audience, professional actors, journalists and other media professionals - all one big payroll machine, a club of people who "made it" through the censorship. It was a comfortable club of a life with good pay, friends who had the same social status as you, had the same schooling as you, background as you - and a safe job in the spotlight or not (depending on the position) for life.
They had guaranteed funding, either from the government, or by advertisement where they had TOTAL control of what gets published or not, no competition whatsoever. This also meant they could basically decide what you'd like to watch, because there weren't other alternatives.
They also had a much more sinister power, the power of information distribution. Traditional media has always conveyed to the public that they represent neutralism and honest journalism, but history has shown us over and over again, it's paid media - paid by our officials and those with money enough to control the influence, and them being the trusted traditional media - they don't really want to give that power away, without a world war class fight, this has been a comfy place for a certain amount of people - over 100 years.
Now - in less than 10 years, all of this changed so fast that the big boys didn't even know what hit them, people stopped buying traditional media, because they had tons of new alternatives. Sure - you didn't get in-debt journalism, you often had to sift through 1000s of hours of amateur-garbage, but this grew too - and people soon realized they could earn money on their content too.
For traditional media - this is a disaster, they KNOW this is the final nail in the coffin, and they're prepared to fight tooth and nail to cling to life - and they're about to actually do that.
HOW?
Did you see what happened in E.U not one month ago? A certain law was passed that would change personal journalism, free media and almost every independent youtube channel for all future. Same with free media on the internet. Just because most people slept during the class, the bill passed and traditional media won big-time.
What traditional media haven't counted on though, is that they're essentially digging their own grave. With the onslaught of planned programming, planned advertisement, and mind numbingly stupid content... we as the public, just got a taste how freedom really tasted like (I'm talking about the early era You Tube), we know what it feels like to just watch whatever we feel like - live in the moment so to speak.
I for once, find it nearly impossible to watch TV after this, even listen to radio in my car. I never turn it on anymore, because I know it's just going to be endless amounts of Casino / betting ads or loan offers, and the little content there is - will be 80's reruns (albeit I love the 80's) it's cheaper to push, and they already own all the licenses to all of this music anyway, remember - they're basically owned by the people BEHIND traditional media.
But it's going to be a breath of fresh air - literally - just entertain ourselves with things we really should be doing, learning something, going outdoors, talk more with friends - and just watch whatever you want to, whenever you want to. I also have a HUGE Dvd collection,
No thanks (Score:2)
I think I’ll be happier with the dollar.
Discovery Networks Owner Helped Start OWN (Score:2)
One person primarily benefits from this all: David Zaslav, the CEO of the Discovery networks.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/1... [cnbc.com]
Oh, he helped Oprah start OWN, and Discovery has a majority stake in OWN at this point (so he OWNs it as well):
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/0... [cnbc.com]
I have YouTube TV and like it. I'm not sure what the alternatives are around this price point and feature set (DVR and on-demand are well implemented). These new channels are not compelling, but more repelling.
This is why we can't have nic
oh well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not popular, in the sense that consumers want it. It's just that no one is offering an alternative, other than subscribing to a bunch of different smaller services resulting in a bunch of smaller bills every month.
I'd gladly pay $50/month in a single bill if I got to choose what I got - but no one seems interested in providing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can't because they have no incentive to do so. I'd actually be willing to pay a bit more if I got to choose.
If a channel needs to be subsidized to survive, that channel has no place in the commercial environment. If it's truly something that's needed for society or for the public discourse, let it move to PBS.
Re:Sweet spot? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's cross subsidies within a channel family, like ESPN subsidizing ESPN-3 or MTV subsidizing VH-1 Classic 3 or something.
I think mostly these channels exist because the "root" channel is too valuable for a cable system to lose, so the root channel owner can strong arm the cable system to carry the lesser channels, too.
I think the original idea was to grab up channel space when cable systems had more limited channel capacity, effectively blocking competitors and extending the brand. Now that cable channel capacity is expended via digital encoding, its probably more about branding and additional capacity during large-scale events.
It's not really a "subsidy" in the traditional sense, since the channels are all owned by one company and the company itself is profitable, but the channel wouldn't exist if it didn't have a powerful parent channel to force it onto the cable system. It's not profitable enough from an advertising/carriage fee perspective to actually support its production costs -- to the extent that it has production costs and isn't just running tape delayed content from another channel or other content they already own.
I don't know how you get rid of this, really, as long as you have cable systems willing to play along to keep the likes of ESPN. My guess is the relationship is so symbiotic now that cable systems actually don't mind so long as the total carriage agreement works financially. Bundling keeps cable systems alive by preventing a lot of individual channels from being ala carte, and channel owners just extend it to new "cable-like" streaming services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a cycle that everyone is caught in. The production companies need to have a large suite of channels so that they have bargaining leverage over the content delivery services (Comcast, AT&T, FiOS, YouTube TV, etc). The content delivery services merge so that they can have bargaining leverage over the production companies. It's very hard to make an economic case for a la carte if you are a production company because you will lose this leverage.
Even Netflix is not immune from this... they stick with th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I subscribe to just one service at a time, far far less than $50 which used to be what you could get cable or satellite for less than ten years ago.
Right now my TV watching is so low that $50 a month would be more expensive than going to the movies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I actually audit my CC bill to make sure there's nothing funny on there.
Weirdo!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The flip side is, I can more easily cancel small services I don't need, rather than one big service with stuff I want mixed in with the crap I don't want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube Red is a different deal. It's the $10/month thing that takes Ads off Youtbue (adblock yes, I know), allows access to premium shows from well-known channels and provides paid streaming access to Google Play Music. Most of the premium shows aren't that good or interesting, and I'd rather support creators directly than give Google extra money, but it's an option.
Youtube TV is functionally a basic cable TV package for someone who just can't give up on their History channel or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
I use a third party Android client called Smart Youtube TV for access on Set Top Boxes and mobile clients. It bypasses the ads. PCs running a browser can just block the ads in the normal way. That works well enough for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I swapped my HTPC for a Nvidia Shield and haven't looked back. I use Kodi as the front end and it simply launches the AndroidTV app (Youtube, Netflix, Amazon, HBOGo, Disney, Nick, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Just pass laws keeping Corp execs from serving on multiple boards and prohibit bonus structures. The system has been gamed and we need some different rules to shake up the top. Leaders are supposed to eat last.
Sounds simple enough, until you realize those passing laws are the corporate execs, or are controlled by them.
How else do you think we created this clusterfuck...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)