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
This should be superfluous, no? Music and TV content has been geographically restricted due to licensing for decades now. The default should be to assume that all such news articles are local to the currency quoted. Apart from that, there are varying restrictions in advertising content on a country by country basis. Trying to launch a global channel with advertising would be a legal minefield.
I highly doubt that, the copyright on these thins is to complicated to give Youtube a blanked worldwide licence. Maybe a slimmed down package for a lower price.
The fact that you personally love it (and I perfectly understand why, as vanilla YouTube is ad hell) doesn't make it less of a failure, with only 1.5M subscribers out of several billions users.
And once again we have yet another example of Google launching a service that only serves America - I do hope Google realises that the internet is a global platform and it is rather stupid to launch a service, in this day and age, that is America only. Netflix and Apple have a global vision for what they want to do and they're fighting tooth and nail to make it possible but the likes of Amazon and Google are hell bent on sticking to their US centric bubble - having an executive team that is US centric doesn't help the situation either.
1.5M is pretty low - I wouldn't have thought it would be a lot higher but then again when ever I'm offered it I have a look at what if offers me and the so-called 'original content' and I ask why would I pay that when I can Netflix for the same price and a greater selection of decent content. If Google want to do something then they should roll together YouTube Red, their music service and their streaming television service all into a single package for $29.95 per month which would be a lot more compelling then make it global rather than the BS situation today where only certain countries are catered for.
1.5M is pretty low - I wouldn't have thought it would be a lot higher but then again when ever I'm offered it I have a look at what if offers me and the so-called 'original content' and I ask why would I pay that when I can Netflix for the same price and a greater selection of decent content. If Google want to do something then they should roll together YouTube Red, their music service and their streaming television service all into a single package for $29.95 per month which would be a lot more compelling then make it global rather than the BS situation today where only certain countries are catered for.
Last edited:
Hmm, OP isn't wrong, without Napster Apple would have never had the chance to strike the needed deals so early.
So yes, whilst Napster executed the illegal digital download revolution (maybe even started it, not sure, I used WinMX back then), they certainly STARTED the legal revolution.
Apple was the first to execute said legal revolution.
Glassed Silver:mac
I think it has to do with Google being an American company... thus they're building a "US television system"
But let's think about this for a second: how could Google build a "global television system" anyway? And would it even work?
Wouldn't folks in India want Indian news channels, and Indian comedy channels, and Indian cooking channels?
What about China? Brazil? Indonesia?
I don't think that's Google's job. Nor do I think they would be good at it.
I hear you... global internet services are better than single-country internet services.
But in this case... I don't think "global television" is very practical.
I guess the challenge is getting people to pay for something they are accustomed to getting for free. If you want to skip ads, there are a ton of options from adblockers to using third party youtube clients.
So far none of the content subscription services offers 'everything', so we end up with multiple subscriptions just to get the things we want and pay more for it than ever before. We ditched traditional cable TV years ago, so obviously I would not pay 35$ for something like this, esp. not if Google is collecting the data.
I'd like to see the source for 1.5m Youtube Red subscribers. I'm not being snarky, just curious, and can't find any data on their current subscriber base.
Edit: Also, does that number differentiate from Play Music subscribers who also get Youtube Red?
Edit: Also, does that number differentiate from Play Music subscribers who also get Youtube Red?
Again, this does not solve the fact that I'm paying for internet and basic cable with those channels for double the price Google is asking for...Solve the damn last mile problem first!
I said it's not "optimum". I didn't say it didn't work, although at times I almost feel as though Comcast throttles internet speeds. I have the fastest internet Comcast offers: xfinity blast.
I know, which is one reason we have DirecTV Now. I signed up for it on launch day and got a free Apple TV 4 and everything, even though I still haven't unboxed it. Our downstairs TV is an early HDTV which component so I need to figure out a way to hook it up, or buy a newer TV.
They should definitely Bundle in Youtube Red and Google Music with this and they'd have a winner, that being said after Using Direct TV Now and and PS Vue and Sling, I went back to using my Dish Network Hopper, as I found the Streaming services incosistant enough with streaming that it was'nt worth the little i saved as it was'nt much more to go with dish over the streaming service, I'm still waiting on Hulu , my committment to Dish ends in December and I'll decide then. One other consideration i have an Xbox One S and the dish intergration with Oneguide works real well
[doublepost=1488383505][/doublepost]Yeah Direct TV now isn't fantastic but it's only $10 if you go with AT&T Unlimited
[doublepost=1488383505][/doublepost]Yeah Direct TV now isn't fantastic but it's only $10 if you go with AT&T Unlimited
Comcast has a monopoly in our area. No fibre or other real competitors (just DSL with a max .8 Mbps upload speed). The "25/5 Performance Plan" here is $75 + $10 modem fee. "Performance Pro" is $85 (+$10 modem) = $95. I've looked into it and the real world speed differences between the plans are negligible. (Upload speeds are the same, I believe.)
Anyway, the point is, once you consider your monthly high speed internet access fee, adding on a bunch of subscription packages on top of it makes little financial sense.
I don't get the appeal to these services. Where's the market? I assume there aren't a lot of people who don't have cable but are also willing to spend 35 dollars on a cable-like plan. Might as well just give that money to your cable provider you get your internet from, you'll probably get more content with all the bundling they do.
You'd "prefer" to watch their shows legally, but since television is a 'life necessity', as soon as it's not offered in the way that you want it, you'll gladly jettison your 'preference'?
Out of curiosity, when steak costs too much at the grocery store, do you just stuff it in your jacket, too?
Correct. I'm stubborn like that. I'll buy the service if it's sold on terms I can agree with. If not, I'll get in other ways to the extent the other ways aren't too bothersome or onerous.You'd "prefer" to watch their shows legally, but since television is a 'life necessity', as soon as it's not offered in the way that you want it, you'll gladly jettison your 'preference'?
No, because that is stealing. Taking a steak without paying for it would reduce the number of steaks at the store available to future patrons, and it would deprive the store owner of a sale. Neither are true when copying digital media.
If someone would just come out with a true a la carte service. $1-2 per channel you want. The only reason I pay for Sling is for two news channels, vice and Disney and nick jr. for the kiddo. The ironic thing is that even with all of these choices popping up, it's still more reliable and less glitchy to torrent the shows you want to watch. I spent 20 minutes the other night just trying to get a legitimate stream of a dumb ABC sitcom on 3 different apps to work. I gave up.
Digital media? Like songs and movies? You don't think you are depriving an artist of a sale? You are most assuredly wrong, if that's what you think.
What is "depriving a sale?"
There is no data to support the assertion that an illegal copy would have been a sale but for the illegal download. There is a ton of data that shows the opposite, actually. Thus, the deprived sale must be someone else's future sale.
If a store has 3 widgets and individuals A, B, and C want to buy those widgets, then the store has 3 sales. If Z comes in first and takes 1 widget without paying, A and B buy the remaining widgets but C cannot, thus the store is deprived of a sale and C is deprived of a widget.
If a digital store sells digital files and individuals A, B, and C want to buy a file, then the digital store has 3 sales. If Z comes in first and illegally downloads the file without paying, A, B, and C can still buy the file, thus the store is not deprived of any sale and no individual is deprived for the file.
As said above, there is no evidence that Z would have paid for the widget or the file had it been impossible to illegally download or take without paying.