You highlighted the word ALL but not the word SUBSCRIBERS. All do not get 5.1, only subscribers.
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.
YouTube TV Gains Support for 4K Streaming and 5.1 Surround Sound
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Create & manage a shared YouTube TV membership, or family group - YouTube TV Help
Create a family group to share YouTube TV—and other Google apps and services—with up to 5 other members at no extra cost. How family groups work on YouTube TV If you purchase a YouTube TV members
support.google.com
"Family group members need to periodically use YouTube TV in your home location to keep access."
Google is the be-all, end-all for a lot of people, just like Apple is the be-all, end-all for their dedicated users. Both will find the price acceptable no matter what.
Too much, especially since the non-TV portion of YouScrewed doesn't even support Dolby Vision. Does the TV portion? Regardless, $20 extra for a handful of shows that will be offered in 4K isn't worth it. There are still a few cable companies, the last time I checked anyway, that charged extra for HD programming, and HD has been the standard for a lot of years now. Bottom line, getting TV programming these days equals paying a king's ransom regardless of whether you choose cable, satellite, or streaming.
$85 is bad, but don't worry it will go up to $100 in a couple months for no apparent reason.
Obviously the increased revenue will be used to buy more 4K content. I remember buying a $5000 HDTV just to watch one channel.
Xfinity doesn’t even charge extra for 4K. The fact that Google and Netflix still do it is frustrating.
Don’t worry I’m sure Comcast finds other ways to screw you. Lol. How about that internet cap. Tv fees. Sports fees. Etc.
I thought my $45 /mo for gigabit internet and 220 channels was expensive.
While I'd like to watch NFL and MLB in 4k with 5.1 on my home theater setup, even $65 is too much for the quality of the content that's available. $85 is just ridiculous -- that's more than Netflix (with Vision/Atmos), Amazon, and HBO subscriptions COMBINED.
I'd also be happy to pay for NFL or MLB directly (like I do for F1TV), but their services don't let you watch your own area's games because of how they set up the broadcasting contracts.
What we have here is what GabeN would call a service problem -- if they don't make it easy to access their content for a reasonable price, there is a more convenient alternative...
I'd also be happy to pay for NFL or MLB directly (like I do for F1TV), but their services don't let you watch your own area's games because of how they set up the broadcasting contracts.
What we have here is what GabeN would call a service problem -- if they don't make it easy to access their content for a reasonable price, there is a more convenient alternative...
Super annoying that they limited 4K support to the 2021 Apple TV model. No reason the original can’t handle a 4K stream.
I pay less than the $85 YTTV is charging, so 🤷♂️. You know all those fees are just hidden in the monthly fee that Google charges right?
It's kind of a cliche, but true:
Me 15 years ago: "Wouldn't it be great if you only had to pay for the stations/channels you wanted?"
Me as of today: "Wouldn't it be great if I could bundle my internet and all my TV stations into one convenient, monthly package with a single payment?"
I have stuck with cable through it all despite watching things mostly on demand and only having the TV tuned in to one channel regularly, because I get access to so many streaming platforms through my cable plan. And because my cable provider is the sole source of cable broadband... its just easier that way.
I wish there was a third party for a flat-fee, like $5 per month, would allow you to bundle all of your various monthly subscriptions into one charge per month. I'm surprised Apple doesn't allow you a way to have one monthly charge for all the subscriptions you pay through your Apple ID.
Me 15 years ago: "Wouldn't it be great if you only had to pay for the stations/channels you wanted?"
Me as of today: "Wouldn't it be great if I could bundle my internet and all my TV stations into one convenient, monthly package with a single payment?"
I have stuck with cable through it all despite watching things mostly on demand and only having the TV tuned in to one channel regularly, because I get access to so many streaming platforms through my cable plan. And because my cable provider is the sole source of cable broadband... its just easier that way.
I wish there was a third party for a flat-fee, like $5 per month, would allow you to bundle all of your various monthly subscriptions into one charge per month. I'm surprised Apple doesn't allow you a way to have one monthly charge for all the subscriptions you pay through your Apple ID.
YouTube TV, not YouTube.
It hasn't been for a while. Most things are at least semi professionally produced these days. Although this article is specifically talking about YouTube TV, not YouTube. Google took the YouTube brand and applied it to basically everything to do with entertainment content eg live TV, music, and gaming for a while though they killed that one.
What. The. Hell, Google? $20 a month for 6 channels of 4K content? Is ALL the content on those channels going to be 4K/5.1 or just some of it? This is a pricing #FAIL.
I remember thinking Youtube TV was a good idea when it came out. Now it's no different to cable or satellite TV except for bandwidth demands.
I couldn't imagine paying for TV, especially when the main channels are all available in HD OTA for free. I can't remember the last time I even watched live TV.
I couldn't imagine paying for TV, especially when the main channels are all available in HD OTA for free. I can't remember the last time I even watched live TV.
I have been a premium YouTube member for a few years, but I don't know what they mean by compatible 'top-set box.' If this means I still have to pay 'Spectrum' for their cable box/service, then I don't know who in their right mind would spend upwards of $300 a month for a service with features I already have. I realize I'm probably mistaken, but since the article lacks clarity, I understand.
Last edited:
Apple TV is a totally different product (no broadcast tv) so we do not have a base for any price comparison in this case.
Most likely they mean media streamers which are 4K capable. For example, not all Roku streamers can handle 4K.
This is for YouTube TV. There are no free subscribers. Why would he need to say “subscribers”. That’s the only way to get YouTube TV