Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Google Unveils New 'YouTube TV' Streaming Service for $35 per Month

Solomani said:
So the average nerd now pays like $35 + $40 + $19.99 + 29.95 + $49.99 = total of $175 for all their monthly media content subscriptions? When does it end?

Never mind that doesn't include other hardware services, like the cable TV bill, or the gas and electric bills, the heating bill, etc.
Click to expand...

No one is forcing anyone to pay for anything. The fragmentation will only get worse though as new services spring up all over the places and these companies try to secure exclusive and new content. Due to desperation they will begin to find new ways to try and make money like shoehorning adverts in to shows etc and it will all blow up in their faces eventually.

Most people are only going to pay for 1 or 2 services & download illegally the other stuff they want to watch.
 
This is the best streaming service for sports channels that I have seen. If you like sports like me and have several tvs this is a great deal. Currently paying over $200 for directv, I will try this out for sure.
 
davidgolfer said:
This is the best streaming service for sports channels that I have seen. If you like sports like me and have several tvs this is a great deal. Currently paying over $200 for directv, I will try this out for sure.
Click to expand...

Really depends on the sports and blackout rules. But would be nice to have an all in one package that gets me the sports I want as someone who wants to cut the chord

right now though, I'm stuck having cable package just for the sports. it's actually quite weird:

If I wanted the NHL network + MLB network, it would cost me nearly $200 / year just for those two alone.

but for $40, I get 300+ Cable channels, 4k Cable access, AND MLB and NHL network PLUS logins for all the other sports channels streaming. So unless all of these individual packages comes to < $40 combined / month, it's worht it to keep cable.
 
Why do people here not talk about IPTV? I mean EVERY Android TV can have KODI installed and services like NTV.MX will give you 200+ channels for $14.95 a month. Why nobody here considered that?
 
leshkanyc said:
Why do people here not talk about IPTV? I mean EVERY Android TV can have KODI installed and services like NTV.MX will give you 200+ channels for $14.95 a month. Why nobody here considered that?
Click to expand...

Legality.

Many of these services aren't 100% legal and operate often in a copyright grey zone, or completely out of copyright.

Also knowledge. Kodi is not mainstream. Neither are it's plugins and capabilities.

Android TV is also not all that big a player in the set top boxes. Google focuses a lot more of their time and effort on Chromecast sales and support than Android TV. Heck, Android TV boxes aren't even being sold right now via Store.google.com

all of this combined makes Kodi and its related services very small player, and mostly unheard of.
 
oneMadRssn said:
This person is not really depriving the concert venue and the band of a sale, because there is infinite space and therefore no willing customers were turned away. This person is causing some economic harm, but what that harm is exactly is really tough to define.
Click to expand...
Ah, but what if everyone had that same attitude and no one paid? What if that mindset spread?

Abazigal said:
Does that not sound like a contradiction?

The people who would be willing to pay for no ads would be the very group of people that advertisers will want to target, because these are presumably the people with more disposal income. And now you are removing them from the demographic to be targeted? Sounds like that would simply making advertising far less effective.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it is a contradiction but if that is the only way some people will watch TV over the internet these days then you have to work with what you got. People have been spoiled on skipping commercials for a long long time. It doesn't help when a lot of internet services stream the same commercial over and over again with little to no diversity. Who wouldn't want to get rid of that problem?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyr6
MadeTheSwitch said:
Ah, but what if everyone had that same attitude and no one paid? What if that mindset spread?
Click to expand...

Indeed it would be bad if everyone had that same attitude. But not all bad things are theft, do you agree? When a restaurant serves someone spoiled food and that person gets sick, it's bad. But it would be silly to say the restaurant stole that person's health, right? It's a different kind of harm.

One possible economic model for the concert venue without physics would be to say the concert does not happen unless we sell a minimum of 1,000 tickets, but we won't tell you how many tickets have been sold until the day before the show. Thus if everyone sneaks in, there is no show. If you truly want to see the show, you pay. If you don't care either way, you plan to sneak in. If you weren't planning on seeing the show, but you hear they sold more than the minimum amount of tickets, you can go sneak in to check it out and maybe become a fan to pay for the next show.

A small number of indie musicians have essentially used this business model for album releases on crowdfunding websites like IndieGoGo - until a minimum number of buyers raise their hand and commit money, nobody gets to listen to the music. Then later, it's available on Spotify for all.
 
oneMadRssn said:
When a restaurant serves someone spoiled food and that person gets sick, it's bad. But it would be silly to say the restaurant stole that person's health, right? It's a different kind of harm.
Click to expand...

A restaurant is not a very good analogy for this topic, but the answer to your question is variable. If for example the restaurant harmed the person's health in such a way that they could not earn an income for a long time, or made them permanently harmed in some way, you'd be able to say a bit of life was stolen from them. Much as if a drunk driver cripples someone permanently and people say part of their life was robbed from them.
 
MadeTheSwitch said:
A restaurant is not a very good analogy for this topic, but the answer to your question is variable. If for example the restaurant harmed the person's health in such a way that they could not earn an income for a long time, or made them permanently harmed in some way, you'd be able to say a bit of life was stolen from them. Much as if a drunk driver cripples someone permanently and people say part of their life was robbed from them.
Click to expand...

Agreed. These are poetic analogies, but do they get you any closer to solving food poisoning and drunk driving?
 
billybobthornton said:
This is not going to work. Nobody wants to pay YouTube any money.
Click to expand...

I want to pay YouTube for YouTube Red so I don't have to watch any ads, but its not available in my country.
[doublepost=1488501445][/doublepost]
GQB said:
Will people please give up on this 'commercial free' delusion? Subscription-only can never pay the production costs for everything. Look at apps and their migration from pay to ad-based.
Commercials will be with us until the zombie apocalypse.
Click to expand...

The BBC is 94 years old. No ads yet.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, I'd say the ESPNs could be a big draw, but I hear like with many of the other extended cable channels (Comedy Central, History Channel, MTV, etc.), they've gone down the crapper in recent years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyr6
Once you go on-demand you can never go back to live viewing. Even with music I remember back in the dark ages the 90's I had to listen to the radio and hope they played my favorite song. Now with AM I can just listen to that song on-demand anytime I want.

Waiting for a program to come on at 8PM when you can watch something at anytime is much more convenience. Also being forced to watch ads is why I DVR anything I have to watch at a schedule.
 
cardfan said:
I'm not sure I'd watch this crap if it was free much less pay for it. Too many commercials, can't forward through them. That will always be a dealbreaker for me.

I'll probably drop directv in favor of just buying whatever season on itunes, netflix and amazon, and doing without live tv. I never watch live tv anyways.
Click to expand...


Ahh, remember the first few years of TiVo before it was hobbled?
[doublepost=1488610295][/doublepost]
tonyr6 said:
Once you go on-demand you can never go back to live viewing. Even with music I remember back in the dark ages the 90's I had to listen to the radio and hope they played my favorite song. Now with AM I can just listen to that song on-demand anytime I want.

Waiting for a program to come on at 8PM when you can watch something at anytime is much more convenience. Also being forced to watch ads is why I DVR anything I have to watch at a schedule.
Click to expand...

I do miss DirectTV. Great picture quality and I never had an outage -maybe that was due to a solar minimum. Anyway, it was just too expensive. 5 trillion channels doesn't matter when the stuff you want to see kept appearing only on about 5 channels. Trying Amazon Prime now, but it's mostly an upgraded version of Hoopla. So, yeeeeaaaaaaah...
 
WAM2 said:
What are you going on about? Why would you need to stream to your device and restream it? You can just airplay off your Mac natively or Windows Machine with an Application, OR Stream straight from an iOS Device. You seem to be making something more complicated then it needs to be.

Airplay doesn't lag and uses hardware acceleration, it's works amazingly well.
Click to expand...
You need to restream because most content is not on your computer or iOS device. To be clear, Airplay makes the device you're using to initiate playback is a required hop during the entire length of playback.

This is not the case with Chromecast, which gets the steam direct from the source with a small handoff. Your original device can run out of battery, leave the house, get used for something else without impact to playback. Great stuff.

As for hardware acceleration, I'm not sure what that's in comparison to. Are you talking about streaming your entire computer screen? If so, I'll be honest, I personally don't use that use case.
 
Oh great. Another overpriced online TV service that doesn't give people what they actually want. It's like none of these companies understand why people are cutting the cord.
 
$35 is kinda steep compared to other streaming services like Netflix and Hulu.
 
tonyr6 said:
Once you go on-demand you can never go back to live viewing. Even with music I remember back in the dark ages the 90's I had to listen to the radio and hope they played my favorite song. Now with AM I can just listen to that song on-demand anytime I want.

Waiting for a program to come on at 8PM when you can watch something at anytime is much more convenience. Also being forced to watch ads is why I DVR anything I have to watch at a schedule.
Click to expand...
I am the same way. I don't even watch most sports events live. Record it, pick it up about an hour or so in and skip commercials, free throws and other static parts of the game (30 second skip works for most football huddles) and get through a game a whole lot faster.

As for this deal, I don't necessarily think it is bad, but too many channels missing and it isn't that much cheaper than a Comcast Bundle. It would not work for me, but it is getting a lot closer to what I would want in this type of service.
 
I forgot about pausing live sports a 1/2 hour. Something that you can't do or is very limited with the streaming live services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back