YouTube TV Ending Support for App Store Subscriptions in March

Varking

macrumors member
Jan 12, 2010
83
41
Not if you only have a 10% margin it isn't.

It's literally losing money on every transaction and hoping to make it up in scale.
- - Post merged: - -



No they weren't. You're specifically prohibited from doing this by the App Store terms.
Read the follow up posts. We have cited multiple sources and sites that verified that they indeed did this.

Here is MacRumors talking about it on this very site: https://www.macrumors.com/2019/04/10/youtube-tv-increases/

@Phazer
 
Last edited:

Plutonius

macrumors G3
Feb 22, 2003
8,244
6,951
New Hampshire, USA
YouTube charged $54.99 for in-app and $49.99 on their website. There are no rules against this.
My prediction only but I think YouTube TV probably made this decision because they plan on raising their monthly cost in the near future so they thought that it it might be a good time to end the dual rates.

I would not be surprised if they made their rate $54.99 / month for everyone.
 
Last edited:

deeddawg

macrumors G3
Jun 14, 2010
8,398
2,277
US
My prediction only but I think YouTube TV probably made this decision because they plan on raising their monthly cost in the near future so they thought that it it might be a good time to end the dual rates.

I would not be surprised if they made their rate $54.99 / month for everyone.
I could be wrong but seem to remember the split pricing came when YTTV added the additional channels and raised the price in April 2019?

We hadn't really considered YTTV until that point due to them missing the Discovery channels and not wanting to split between YTTV & Philo.

It'll be interesting to see how your prediction pans out. I'm sure they'll raise prices again at some point, the question being whether they add anything of value when doing so. I'm a bit less price sensitive since I'm using one YTTV subscription to avoid two cable-tv bills, but can see where the price advantage is getting less for folks just avoiding one cable tv bill.
 

Varking

macrumors member
Jan 12, 2010
83
41
I could be wrong but seem to remember the split pricing came when YTTV added the additional channels and raised the price in April 2019?

We hadn't really considered YTTV until that point due to them missing the Discovery channels and not wanting to split between YTTV & Philo.

It'll be interesting to see how your prediction pans out. I'm sure they'll raise prices again at some point, the question being whether they add anything of value when doing so. I'm a bit less price sensitive since I'm using one YTTV subscription to avoid two cable-tv bills, but can see where the price advantage is getting less for folks just avoiding one cable tv bill.
Those of us who were testers believed they raised the prices to account for the upcoming content, not just the content that was already there.
 

deeddawg

macrumors G3
Jun 14, 2010
8,398
2,277
US
Those of us who were testers believed they raised the prices to account for the upcoming content, not just the content that was already there.
Either I'm misunderstanding your post or perhaps I wasn't clear, or perhaps we're just saying the same thing differently.

The April 2019 price jump definitely coincided with additional channels/content - they added the Discovery block of channels including Food, HGTV, and others. I remember this because I'd been looking to exit the shtshow DirecTVNow had become, but really wanted to retain those Discovery networks.

It is also when they implemented the split pricing -- for direct subscriptions it went from $40 to $50, and for app-store subscriptions it went from $40 to $55.
 

Varking

macrumors member
Jan 12, 2010
83
41
Either I'm misunderstanding your post or perhaps I wasn't clear, or perhaps we're just saying the same thing differently.

The April 2019 price jump definitely coincided with additional channels/content - they added the Discovery block of channels including Food, HGTV, and others. I remember this because I'd been looking to exit the shtshow DirecTVNow had become, but really wanted to retain those Discovery networks.

It is also when they implemented the split pricing -- for direct subscriptions it went from $40 to $50, and for app-store subscriptions it went from $40 to $55.
On the old tester forums somebody made a thread about how the price of the content added at that time when we got the second price hike didn't justify the cost increase. It was then suggested that Google/YouTube TV Team were in talks with additional networks about coming on board and the current ( second ) price hike was with those networks in mind, coming on board.

Originally the service was super cheap when it went live and got a bump up. Those who were around from day 1 didn't get their bills increased and there were now two different prices for YTTV. After a few more months or so we got a second price hike to the current rate. At this point even those of us on the grandfathered plan got bumped up to the new rates. This current rate leaves wiggle room to add other major networks without needing to have another increase.
 

deeddawg

macrumors G3
Jun 14, 2010
8,398
2,277
US
On the old tester forums somebody made a thread about how the price of the content added at that time when we got the second price hike didn't justify the cost increase. It was then suggested that Google/YouTube TV Team were in talks with additional networks about coming on board and the current ( second ) price hike was with those networks in mind, coming on board.

Originally the service was super cheap when it went live and got a bump up. Those who were around from day 1 didn't get their bills increased and there were now two different prices for YTTV. After a few more months or so we got a second price hike to the current rate. At this point even those of us on the grandfathered plan got bumped up to the new rates. This current rate leaves wiggle room to add other major networks without needing to have another increase.
Ah okay, thanks for the detailed explanation. I understand now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brucemr

Plutonius

macrumors G3
Feb 22, 2003
8,244
6,951
New Hampshire, USA
It'll be interesting to see how your prediction pans out. I'm sure they'll raise prices again at some point, the question being whether they add anything of value when doing so.
It depends what people are considering when they say value.

I'm sure there will be additional content but the major part of the increase will probably go to the content providers (i.e. only a small portion of the increase will go towards additional content).

If they raised prices last April, I can see price increases soon after April 2020 (they would not want two price increases within one year).
 

mi7chy

macrumors 603
Oct 24, 2014
6,152
7,143
Apple devices would be even more useless as media consumption devices without YouTube so Apple should be paying a commission to YouTube considering it has 70%+ marketshare for media streaming.
 

alent1234

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2009
5,661
136
My prediction only but I think YouTube TV probably made this decision because they plan on raising their monthly cost in the near future so they thought that it it might be a good time to end the dual rates.

I would not be surprised if they made their rate $54.99 / month for everyone.

programming costs are growing at double digit rates a year

wouldn't surprise me if they go to $60 this year unless they make money off the ads
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plutonius

Tzuten

macrumors 6502
Sep 20, 2011
331
107
15% cut just to facilitate billing is ridiculous.
It's 30.. And that is the typical platform fee. Steam charges 30%, thus why a lot of large developers (Activision & EA for one) are leaving Steam and using their own. It really hurts Indie devs..
 

Abazigal

macrumors G5
Jul 18, 2011
12,229
10,094
Singapore
Apple devices would be even more useless as media consumption devices without YouTube so Apple should be paying a commission to YouTube considering it has 70%+ marketshare for media streaming.
Try removing YouTube from Apple devices, and we will see how much google enjoys losing access to the most lucrative segment of the user market.

The fact that google pays Apple to make their search engine default on safari says it all. Google needs Apple more than Apple needs google.
 

Varking

macrumors member
Jan 12, 2010
83
41
Try removing YouTube from Apple devices, and we will see how much google enjoys losing access to the most lucrative segment of the user market.

The fact that google pays Apple to make their search engine default on safari says it all. Google needs Apple more than Apple needs google.
I don't think they need each other. Google has tons of disposable income. Why not be the default search engine on both Android and iOS?
 

Abazigal

macrumors G5
Jul 18, 2011
12,229
10,094
Singapore
I don't think they need each other. Google has tons of disposable income. Why not be the default search engine on both Android and iOS?
It think it’s more the point that google even needs to pay Apple to do so. You would think that most users would automatically default to Google search, but Apple evidently holds enough leverage in this relationship that Google feels compelled to do so.

Google withheld turn by turn on Google maps for the iphone in an attempt to squeeze more data out of Apple, so Apple excised their maps app with iOS 6 and brought in their own mapping solution.

What I see is Apple guarding its lucrative user base more possessively than ever, with companies like Google looking inwards from the barriers, and having to pay ever increasing sums of money to access them.

How the tables have turned.
 

Varking

macrumors member
Jan 12, 2010
83
41
I think if it were up to Apple they wouldn't even bother with Google and go for something more privacy oriented. Instead they sold out to Google allowing them to harvest more data on iOS. Both companies have way too much money and not know what to do with it. That is why Google doesn't mind spending to be the main search engine on every platform.
 

rikscha

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2010
676
263
London
It is just the smart thing to do, it is insane to give away 15% (sometimes 30%) cut of my business to a billing service. I guess people can still subscribe to the service and just log-in in their Apple device as usual.

P.D.: I do not use YouTube TV and I do not plan to subscribe.
- - Post merged: - -



Hahaha you are so innocent, you think because you pay 15% extra YouTube (or Apple) don't know anything about you.
just that it isn’t only a billing service .. tiring.
 

ThatGuyInLa

macrumors 6502
Oct 26, 2012
490
519
Glendale, Ca.
85% of the "TV" I watch are YouTube channels on my AppleTV. Yes, even though I am stuck at 1080p while they all offer 4k. (FU Apple) I pay for YouTube Red, since on ATV there's no "ad blocker" and I don't want ads. Also, I like using YouTube Music in my car via CarPlay and I like the download options for videos. Also, the keep playing while minimized option (iOS), is super cool. YouTube Red is actually a great service for YouTube enthusiasts. I have a concern. Time to get a Google dongle for my TV? Apple's failure to recognize YouTube as a legit "network" is a huge oversight.
 

Varking

macrumors member
Jan 12, 2010
83
41
85% of the "TV" I watch are YouTube channels on my AppleTV. Yes, even though I am stuck at 1080p while they all offer 4k. (FU Apple) I pay for YouTube Red, since on ATV there's no "ad blocker" and I don't want ads. Also, I like using YouTube Music in my car via CarPlay and I like the download options for videos. Also, the keep playing while minimized option (iOS), is super cool. YouTube Red is actually a great service for YouTube enthusiasts. I have a concern. Time to get a Google dongle for my TV? Apple's failure to recognize YouTube as a legit "network" is a huge oversight.
This thread isn't about YouTube. Its about the actual service of YouTube TV.

 

farewelwilliams

macrumors 68020
Jun 18, 2014
2,450
10,603
That is how my app was working as well. People had to create subscriptions outside of my app via an email they were sent (or log into the website). They made me quit doing that, because I'm not YouTube, Netflix, etc.
this still works for every developer.

it’s likely you had wording in the app that tells the user to sign up outside the app. that’s against the guidelines.
 

smorrissey

macrumors 65816
Mar 12, 2015
1,244
476
Wonder if the YouTube Ads will be blocked if watching in Safari with an AdBlocker instead of the native YT app for iOS?
Then why don't you give it a try? Don't be shy.

Personally i have 0 interest on that kind of "solutions", my battery drain is already bad with the youtube app (updated) to try an even worst scenario like Safari+adblocker.

We are talking about an iphone SE here, FGS!.
 
Last edited:

Swift

macrumors 68000
Feb 18, 2003
1,732
898
Los Angeles
YouTube, Netflix, Spotify, etc. don't allow you to subscribe in the app at all, or even give you a link for where you can sign up. Thems the rules.
Well, you could have marketed independently. But everybody knows google/YouTube already. It's good for a small developer to be in the App Store. He gets seen, the search now works well enough that you can type a search and find your program. You also don't have to pay for a website, for what can be hundreds or thousands of downloads-- If you're on the Mac, you can run your business from a website, but there are costs in that, too. So... you're an independent business. Find a lower-cost way to do it.
- - Post merged: - -

Then why don't you give it a try? Don't be shy.

Personally i have 0 interest on that kind of "solutions", my battery drain is already bad with the youtube app (updated) to try an even worst scenario like Safari+adblocker.

We are talking about an iphone SE here, FGS!.
They want money to remove ads. So if you don't want to pay, you get hundreds of "Wanna block the ads"?