Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wonder what a 40 channel package would cost from a cable company?
Though with bundled internet and TV today... it's difficult to know what each costs separately. And you usually get at least 70 channels with cable bundles.
What sucks is... the cable providers will start raising prices for internet-only plans.
Imagine internet was $70 a month... but you could get internet and TV for $90. Or something like that.
The cable companies are gonna try their hardest to get you to get TV channels from them instead of YT, PSVue, DTVN, SlingTV, etc.
The good thing with these "over-the-top" services is you don't need a crappy cable box. So you can actually save some money depending on how many boxes you don't need anymore.
But without knowing how much just the TV channels cost from a cable company... it's difficult to say whether YouTube's 40 channels for $35 is expensive or not.
I'd love to hear what people pay for TV from their cable companies (if they can itemize TV and internet)
Yeah, I suppose you're right. I was initially comparing with the likes of Netflix, but yeah, they're not probably not strictly comparable.
Please when reporting these stories could you remember your international audience and put something like "This was launched only for the USA: There is no current information about roll out in other countries/ 6 more countries..:". Or put a link to the international information please. You have an international readership!
Oh, come on. It's not. Streaming to your device, only to restream to your Airplay receiver, draining your device all the while? That's not better.
Ahhhh... yeah... I wasn't even thinking about Netflix, Hulu, etc...
Good point.
$10 a month for a seemingly endless supply of content.... on-demand too!
But yeah... it's a different kind of service compared to linear TV channels.
The world spins and doesn't wait for Apple. The moment MS acquires some taste and Google improves their strategy to have a consistent OS across devices, more people will realize how limited, boring and for some reason expense the Apple ecosystem is. Everyday you can see other hardware manufactures innovating in hardware and design only to be restricted by ugly, buggy and slow software. The only difference is that the majority of people believes Apple´s UI looks better, and I agree with that, for now. I still remember how Apple's keynotes were considered the best around the companies, even books were written about S.J. presentation styles, and look how boring, uncompelling and repetitive the presentations are, or when was the last time an Apple ad went viral?. Apples is behind in so many things and now is clear that they are ending the personal computer revolution that they ignited on 1970. Apple is not dead or doomed, is just boring.
simple solution: swipe a list to checkmark all of the shows that you want to record. ask user to update periodically.
[doublepost=1488342938][/doublepost]
present a list to the user with all of the shows. swipe on the apple tv remote to select all. then you can only access all shows since you checkmarked the list of shows. ask user to update periodically.
eventually lawmakers will see this and either fight it to put more restrictions or to set it free with a tax or something.
Incorrect. DTVN has Fox, and NBC shows, just perhaps not live local TV in your market. Guess what? Google won't either. Which is why it is only rolling out by area, hence the "we'll let you know when it's in your area" message on their email sign up page. Why? Because like all the other services, it's easy to include local TV stations that are owned by the network itself but if you try and include content from other stations not owned by the networks themselves, that requires a very slow time intensive negotiation with each and every local station one by one by one which takes a very long time.
You say it's a wasteland, even though it has all the channels you want. Interesting. I say, just pay for it and have everything you want.
Same here. I gave up cable TV about 4 years ago and have never once regretted it. $10 / month for Netflix, plus free movies with Amazon Prime on my Fire TV and iTunes on my Apple TV and I have everything I need for a fraction of what I used to pay per month for 100+ channels that I rarely watched.
Also, the major TV networks will charge Youtube too much (roughly $9.00/month wholesale for ESPN, $3/month for regional sports, $1-$2/month for each broadcaster, etc.) and that makes it difficult to offer consumers a $35 package that is profitable while still including all of the major networks.
I dunno. On demand is cool. But sometimes it's nice to just turn on the tube and watch. Flip around, etc. Just feels like less work.
My preference is to have TV channels with a schedule of programming, but everything available as demand as well. Best of both worlds, just two different interfaces.
I wonder if Google will finally be able to work out how to make picture-in-picture work on the iPad with this app? Somehow I doubt it! I hate the way there's no on-screen volume control in the YouTube app too, forcing me to fumble on the side of the device for the physical buttons.
Does Chromecast really do everything Apple TV does? How can that be, hard drive and processor-wise?
My only complaints about Apple TV are the lack of an Amazon app, the fact that Xfinity doesn't participate in single sign-on yet, and that Netflix and Amazon don't work with the new TV app and it's great "up next" feature.
[doublepost=1488350372][/doublepost]Everyone who keeps bitching about "these awful cable boxes" likely doesn't have the Comcast/Xfinity X1 box, which is a fantastic device and a TV lover's dream. I love my Apple TV, but this X1 box is pretty great too. Definitely raised the standard in the category.
Last edited:
My "internet-only" bill (25/5) from Comcast is up to $85 already... So start adding in this $35/month for YouTube service alongside Netflix, iTunes rentals, etc. and suddenly that huge cable sub bill won't start looking so bad after all.
No thanks - I'll pass.
Your getting rip off.. I get Comcast only internet at 150/20 for $89.99...
I suspect it's the latter, and not the former. Apple probably tried hard enough, but are perhaps too inflexible on pricing, and without a master negotiator replete with RDF à la SJ, their plans weren't going anywhere.
Whatever ensues, if we could just only get around those pesky cable Cos, who'll still have us..... you know where, with their bandwidth charges, which are sure to go up once their cable tv revenue starts to decline.
How would this service work?
Is it like Hulu? I sign up and I can watch the content, no matter where I am in the US?
Or is it like the services, where I must put my home cable thingy code in my sign up?
Is it like Hulu? I sign up and I can watch the content, no matter where I am in the US?
Or is it like the services, where I must put my home cable thingy code in my sign up?
And it will continue to suck. It's almost technologically impossible to have a live stream as reliable as TV. You have the huge delays (30-40-50 seconds is quite a bit with live sport), you have inconsistent internet connections, and of course no one willing to stream at 30mbps to give you the same picture quality.
There's a service here in Germany that owns the rights to Premier League football etc. and while nice to be able to choose stuff, quality isn't like TV at all. 25fps, lower bitrate, inconsistent servers and sometimes crappy home internet make for a worse experience.