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

[MadeTheSwitch]

I don't know what GPMAA is.

Google Play Music All Access...their music streaming service. Man, if they threw that in even as a discounted add on, they would have an edge no one else has.

They are offering local channels. That's the big difference here--nobody else has that! Complete game changer.

Not true. You can get local channels on other services. It depends on your market. I watch local channels on DIRECTVnow all the time.

Competition is good, but without CNN and Animal Planet, Google's service is a no go for me. Also they need an Apple TV app.

 

[gtg465x]

Well, it seems like i'm in the minority. lol.

This is a perfect cable replacement for me and I can't wait to see how this turns out. Come on, Apple! I would love to see what they would bring to the table. Soon we shall see.

I'm loving the killing of the cable boxes from all these companies.

Same, sounds good to me. A bunch of people in this thread have no clue what they're talking about or are just blind Apple fanboys that hate anything Google.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Lousy channel lineup and it's not even going to launch nationwide. It's only going to launch in markets where it can offer all major local channels.
[doublepost=1488326003][/doublepost]

Wow.

Somebody had to be first. For a long time it really seemed like it was going to be Apple.

Sling TV launched years ago.
[doublepost=1488326047][/doublepost]

So, $35. + upgrade you internet service to unlimited + $10-$15. and possibly adds... LOL, good luck, maybe 10-15 to start, maybe.....

I have DirecTV Now as my primary TV service and I used 25% of my data cap last month.
[doublepost=1488326079][/doublepost]

They are offering local channels. That's the big difference here--nobody else has that! Complete game changer.

They aren't launching nationwide. Read their website. They're only going to launch in the select few markets where they can offer all local channels.

 

[Tech198]

They can go to Youtube (and more cable channels) and Google claims 'streaming-victory', but when an independent like Apple approaches them, the networks slam the door in their face.

The price probably has allot to do with it.. But Apple was also offering about the same anyway. Wasn't it between $25 and $40 ?

 

[Boatboy24]

I guess it may go without saying, but since the article didn't specify (or I missed it), is this access to live TV, or archived stuff a la Hulu? Have to assume at that price that it's live, but ya never know...

 

[gtg465x]

"YouTube" = free.

They should already have known that from the failure of YouTube Red. DOA.

How is it a failure? I personally love YouTube Red. I pay $7.99 / month and that includes Google Play Music All Access (similar to Apple Music or Spotify) and YouTube Red (no ads, offline downloads, background playback, plus some original content that no one really cares about). As someone who watches YouTube a lot, just getting rid of all of the ads has been amazing, not to mention the great streaming music service and other features, all for less than Apple's streaming music service by itself.
[doublepost=1488326336][/doublepost]

I guess it may go without saying, but since the article didn't specify (or I missed it), is this access to live TV, or archived stuff a la Hulu? Have to assume at that price that it's live, but ya never know...

Live plus DVR features, so kind of like both.

 

[Tech198]

I guess it may go without saying, but since the article didn't specify (or I missed it), is this access to live TV, or archived stuff a la Hulu? Have to assume at that price that it's live, but ya never know...

I don't think it would really matter... 'Live' would get more attention, but Youtube stuff isn't live... its uploaded, currently, and look how many views u get.. Just a popular video of Foxtel ripping on some guy who uploaded a Pay-per-view fight to Facebook for re-streaming ., and u make u'r cost.

 

[Fancuku]

I don't see how it's any better than having cable TV (for me at least).
$35 a month for this service, plus at least $50 for good speed broadband internet and you are at $85 and that's without any taxes and you still don't have home phone.
A triple play bundle from Fios/Xfinity/AT&T or whatever other company makes more sense for me. I am paying $120 a month for all three and it's much more convenient with the DVR.

 

[samcraig]

Apple just got served. I'm sure Google was successful at negotiating because they were far more flexible and were willing to take less $ per subscriber.

 

[smoking monkey]

1 billion hours of videos a day... and yet not one single ad I've ever been forced to watch (or mute or even just give up and click the tab off) has ever been interesting to me. All it does is make me never want to give money to that company in the future. The ads you can skip after 4 seconds are okay, but the ones that are 30 seconds long are on the naughty list.

I'm sure this service will be Geo-blocked as well. It's a pity those in control still cling to the old ways. And they wonder why people pirate...

In saying that... Youtube is awesome in so many ways for Education... and member berries.

 

[chr1s60]

And yet another area where Apple said they nailed it. The reality however... everyone is delivering and overhauling Apple. But but... I hear some people say... Apple makes the most profits from them all. My question to those is: how do you benefit as a customer from that (why does it make you proud)? And my second question: how long can those exorbitant high (shameful high) profits sustain if they keep delivering next to nothing at this pace?

When did Apple claim they nailed it as a streaming tv content provider? They may have claimed they nailed making a device capable of providing that, which they have, but I don't recall them ever saying they were entering the steaming market outside of iTunes movies and tv.

 

[9081094]

When did Apple claim they nailed it as a streaming tv content provider? They may have claimed they nailed making a device capable of providing that, which they have, but I don't recall them ever saying they were entering the steaming market outside of iTunes movies and tv.

I've read it in Steve jobs biography. But it's not an official statement by Apple. They're still treating it as a hobby.

 

[gtg465x]

$35 is the price of Netflix, Hulu (ad free) and Amazon combined. All to watch shows interrupted by ads and made highly inconvenient through linear delivery. These services are a last desperate attempt by channels to remain relevant. They are all doomed to fail.

Well if you like watching sports or any other type of live programming, Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon ain't gonna cut it. This service is more of a replacement for Comcast, DirectTV, Time Warner, etc. cable bundles. And on the bright side, you could probably dump at least Hulu and Amazon if you had this. Maybe not Netflix because they have some good original stuff now.

BTW, here's a nice graphic with the 40ish channels you'll get with YouTube TV. Hadn't seen anyone post it:

 

[Abazigal]

And yet another area where Apple said they nailed it. The reality however... everyone is delivering and overhauling Apple. But but... I hear some people say... Apple makes the most profits from them all. My question to those is: how do you benefit as a customer from that (why does it make you proud)? And my second question: how long can those exorbitant high (shameful high) profits sustain if they keep delivering next to nothing at this pace?

My answer to you in a nutshell - forever. Just forever.

I find it comically ironic when people say Apple "needs to" do something like this or it’s "not innovating anymore" but then it turns out the result isn’t something most people end wanting, like Netbooks, or 3D, or phone keyboards.

As for profits, you have it backwards. I am not proud of Apple just because it makes a ton of profits. Rather, Apple's immense profitability directly contradicts your last point, that they are delivering nothing.

Apple is in the business of selling hardware. Just last year, I bought the 9.7" iPad Pro, Apple Pencil, Apple Watch, and Airpods. Plus I am also subscribed to iCloud and Apple Music. So Apple is clearly doing something very right for me.

If anything, their profits are proof that they are doing something very right. Maybe you don't think much of their efforts thus far, but I don't think you get to speak for every other Apple customer out there.

Apple just got served. I'm sure Google was successful at negotiating because they were far more flexible and were willing to take less $ per subscriber.

Well, in all fairness, Google certainly wrote the playbook when it comes to garnering market share at the expense of profitability.

 

[jklps]

Here are the requirements for a service like this to not get complaints:

1. free
2. on any device
3. on demand to watch whenever/however
4. has a catalog of any tv and movie produced in the history of the world.

Until then, some people(not me) will complain no matter what.

And when that happens, nobody will make shows anymore.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Well if you like watching sports or any other type of live programming, Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon ain't gonna cut it. This service is more of a replacement for Comcast, DirectTV, Time Warner, etc. cable bundles. And on the bright side, you could probably dump at least Hulu and Amazon if you had this.

BTW, here's a nice graphic with the 40ish channels you'll get with YouTube TV. Hadn't seen anyone post it:

That's not a bad line up for those that don't watch much TV. But I bet most of the money(besides profit) is going towards ESPN and Disney. To bad they don't have AMC, there goes the Walking Dead fans.

Personally for me, if I had no cable. I would just use a HD Antenna for local channels, and Netflix.

 

[DoctorDoctor]

Wow.

Somebody had to be first. For a long time it really seemed like it was going to be Apple.

They are not the first. Other streaming services from other companies before Google.

 

[elistan]

So now there's four companies offering this sort of live TV over an Internet connection...? DTV Now, Sling TV, PS Vue, and now YouTube TV. They all seem to have different channel lineups, different price points, and different ways of handling local channels, VOD and DVR. It's great to get more competition in this space. I cancelled my traditional cable a few years ago, but these new $30-ish price points are much more appealing to me. I wonder if Apple or Amazon will ever offer something like this.

 

[gtg465x]

I don't see how it's any better than having cable TV (for me at least).
$35 a month for this service, plus at least $50 for good speed broadband internet and you are at $85 and that's without any taxes and you still don't have home phone.
A triple play bundle from Fios/Xfinity/AT&T or whatever other company makes more sense for me. I am paying $120 a month for all three and it's much more convenient with the DVR.

1) Home phone?
2) Because I hate Comcast. They constantly mess up my bill, charging me for extra cable boxes that I don't have, etc.
3) I have a $30 / month (comparable in price) cable package from Comcast (only because it was free for a year with internet bundle), but it's missing some key TV channels like ESPN that YouTube TV includes, not to mention the cable box is huge, slow, buggy, and doesn't have any DVR features. For better channels and a better cable box with DVR, I'm sure Comcast would charge $60-$100, which is then priced much higher than YouTube TV and not comparable.
4) From your own math, $50 for internet plus $35 for YouTube TV is a heck of a lot cheaper than the $120 you're paying. Seriously, lose the land line and free yourself from overpriced 3 in 1 bundles.
5) Did I mention Comcast is terrible? Seriously, I would rather give my money to any other company. Comcast is the worst company in America, and AT&T and Verizon aren't far behind.

When my free year of Comcast cable TV is up, I'm dropping to internet only (they are the only option I have) and might pick up some service like YouTube TV.

 

[gim]

And you would want to watch all the daily crap and not just the shows you like and whenever you like on demand because .... ?

Thats like paying 20$ to listen to radio stations instead of 10$ for every song you want at your disposal at any time through Spotify and the like

Stupid comparison. Spotify maybe has almost all important new songs, but there is no video streaming service that has all TV series that are important and popular right now.

 

[chr1s60]

Not true. You can get local channels on other services. It depends on your market. I watch local channels on DIRECTVnow all the time.

Competition is good, but without CNN and Animal Planet, Google's service is a no go for me. Also they need an Apple TV app.

YouTube appears to have all the major networks where as DTV Now is lacking CBS, FOX and NBC. Lacking 3 of the 4 major networks is exactly why I canceled my DTV Now subscription.

 

[robert207]

Years after Jobs' death, no native TV streaming for AppleTV customers. Something tells me he would have played harder ball with the channels than Eddie Cue is failing at.

 

[Defthand]

The phone and tech companies may as well admit that they can’t re-invent television without the cooperation of the players who created the latter. The status quo has no interest in disrupting their money cow. Meanwhile, it’s ludicrous to think that any of the so-called cord-cutting solutions that re-package cable tv are any different than cable tv. Alternatives, like Netflix, are the only real competition.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Wait until Apple starts TimTube. People will be lining up.

 

[bbplayer5]

Well if you like watching sports or any other type of live programming, Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon ain't gonna cut it. This service is more of a replacement for Comcast, DirectTV, Time Warner, etc. cable bundles. And on the bright side, you could probably dump at least Hulu and Amazon if you had this. Maybe not Netflix because they have some good original stuff now.

BTW, here's a nice graphic with the 40ish channels you'll get with YouTube TV. Hadn't seen anyone post it:

CW?! The other services can't get that...