YouTube TV Price Increasing to $40 for New Subscribers Starting Tomorrow

[MacRumors]

The price for Google's YouTube TV subscription service will be increasing to $40 per month for new subscribers starting tomorrow, up from the current price of $35 per month.

Google first warned potential subscribers about the new pricing for YouTube TV in February, and today is the last day to sign up at the current $35 per month price point. Existing subscribers will continue to be able to pay $35 per month for the service.

Introduced in April of 2017, YouTube TV is a live streaming television service designed to compete with services like Sling TV, Hulu with Live TV, DirecTV Now, and Playstation Vue.

YouTube TV provides subscribers with access to TV shows on more than 40 channels, with participating networks that include ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, the CW, Disney, ESPN, FX, USA, and dozens more.

As of early February, YouTube TV launched an Apple TV app, making the subscription service available on all Apple devices. YouTube TV is available in a wide range of locations across the United States.

Article Link: YouTube TV Price Increasing to $40 for New Subscribers Starting Tomorrow

 

[malcolmman89]

Hopefully price increases won't become routine for this. As the price inches higher, YouTube TV may lose appeal for cord cutters.

 

[AbblePC]

Hopefully price increases won't become routine for this. As the price inches higher, YouTube TV may lose appeal for cord cutters.

Notice how they advertise with mainly Apple products showing in the ad, we are the ones that can afford it at this point...for now.

 

[green94]

Left DTVNow after 1 year for YTV and couldn't be happier. Great service... enough relevant channels for my family, and it works! No buffering or compressed video either.

 

[Michael Scrip]

So if it's now $40 for 40 channels from Youtube... what does a similar channel lineup cost from the cable company?

Since you're probably getting your internet from the cable company anyway... they might offer more channels for the same $40 portion of your bill (or a smaller cheaper channel package)

Granted... you'll have a monthly fee for each DVR box from the cable company. So there's that to consider.

But it's interesting that you can get your internet from one company... and get channels from another company. Two bills from two separate companies.

I'm just wondering how it will all shake out.

 

[AppleMad98004]

Hopefully price increases won't become routine for this. As the price inches higher, YouTube TV may lose appeal for cord cutters.

Of course it will keep creeping up, especially if more users move from cable. The content companies will charge Google more, just like Comcast for example.

If you start taking you internet connection, add a couple of these IP only packages you will start to get into the cable bundling price range.
[doublepost=1520885972][/doublepost]

So if it's now $40 for 40 channels from Youtube... what does a similar channel lineup cost from the cable company?

Since you're probably getting your internet from the cable company anyway... they might offer more channels for the same $40 portion of your bill (or a smaller cheaper channel package)

Granted... you'll have a monthly fee for each DVR box from the cable company. So there's that to consider.

But it's interesting that you'll be getting your internet from one company... and getting channels from another company. Two bills from two separate companies.

I'm just wondering how it will all shake out.

The market will fragment but as someone who's been around some of the talk internally in the industry all the content companies care about it total revenue and price growth. As long as people are paying more over time (per consumer) even if it is from all sorts of different sources they will be happy.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It's obviously different for all, but where we are we have Cox or Directv to choose from and our basic Cox is missing most of these great sports channels on YTTV and is $89/mo before fees and charges per box, etc.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It's obviously different for all, but where we are we have Cox or Directv to choose from and our basic Cox is missing most of these great sports channels on YTTV and is $89/mo before fees and charges per box, etc.

Is that $89/mo with internet included? Or just for cable channels?

That's what I was asking earlier. You still need internet to use any of these online TV services.

I was just wondering if it's cheaper to get your channels from the same place you get your internet... or is it cheaper to get your channels from someone else like Youtube?

After some thought... this whole "cord cutting" thing might not be about saving money at all. It might be about control.

It might cost the same (or more) to get your internet and channels from different companies. But with the online services you get things like cloud DVR and the ability to watch TV on any device. (and no box rental per TV)

And no matter what you pay for channels... you still gotta pay for Netflix. Because Netflix.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Is that $89/mo with internet included? Or just for cable channels?

That's what I was asking earlier. You still need internet to use any of these online TV services.

I was just wondering if it's cheaper to get your channels from the same place you get your internet... or is it cheaper to get your channels from someone else like Youtube?

After some thought... this whole "cord cutting" thing might not be about saving money at all. It might be about control.

It might cost the same (or more) to get your internet and channels from different companies. But with the online services you get things like cloud DVR and the ability to watch TV on any device. (and no box rental per TV)

And no matter what you pay for channels... you still gotta pay for Netflix. Because Netflix.

Just cable

Internet is $79 alone for 50/5 - 1TB cap

Big savings to be had here with something like YTTV, especially since the $90 for cable doesn't even have a remotely attractive channel lineup for sports. For that the bill would be into the $110+ base price range (just for the cable)

 

[barkomatic]

I just don't see the value proposition here. You're only getting very basic channels for $35 and then $40 tomorrow.

I think Netflix, Hulu and HBO which in total would cost about the same as YouTube and you'd get far better content. The only thing missing is sports I guess but for me that's not an issue.

 

[lenard]

When it comes to streaming, considering the cost of internet should not be a factor because you had it with cable and would have it for other devices even if you where not streaming. No cable package can compare to a comparable streaming service because cable packages always include crazy taxes and unknown fees. One thing that I became aware of when I was changing over to streaming was the amount of channels I was paying for in the cable environment and not watching at all. In the last year I have save over $1200 since I have been streaming.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I just don't see the value proposition here. You're only getting very basic channels for $35 and then $40 tomorrow.

I think Netflix, Hulu and HBO which in total would cost about the same as YouTube and you'd get far better content. The only thing missing is sports I guess but for me that's not an issue.

YTTV is an amazing value for sports. Many of their channels are never offered in the lower tiers from cable companies.

The FS2, ESPNU, SEC, BIG type of networks I mean.

Very hard to get a pack with this unique set of sports offerings for $35

 

[oneMadRssn]

Maybe it's for some people, but for me, I don't see the appeal of YTTV or any of these online cable bundles (DirectTV Now, Hulu Live, Sling, Vue, etc.) It's just old fashioned cable, but now over internet.

From my perspective, the reason cable tv is bad isn't because it requires a cable box and wasn't available through app. If anything, having it be over a dedicated line is a benefit. The reason cable tv was bad was because the cost was high relative to the amount and quality of original content, balanced against the amount of commercials. In other words, I hated paying for mostly crap content that was 40% advertisements anyway.

These online cable bundles aren't any better. They're still $20-$40 per month for mostly crap content among way too many commercials. Except now, you also deal with the finickiness of an app and internet streaming.

 

[Outdoordude01]

YTTV is an amazing value for sports. Many of thier channels are never offered in the lower tiers from cable companies.

The FS2, ESPNU, SEC, BIG type of networks I mean.

Very hard to get a pack with this unique set of sports offerings for $35

Yep, it is a huge value. For example with Comcast, they put the following sports channels on the highest plan: FS2 (think about how many World Cup games will be on it this summer), SEC, MLB Network, ESPN U.
[doublepost=1520888462][/doublepost]

Maybe it's for some people, but for me, I don't see the appeal of YTTV or any of these online cable bundles (DirectTV Now, Hulu Live, Sling, Vue, etc.) It's just old fashioned cable, but now over internet.

From my perspective, the reason cable tv is bad isn't because it requires a cable box and wasn't available through app. If anything, having it be over a dedicated line is a benefit. The reason cable tv was bad was because the cost was high relative to the amount and quality of original content, balanced against the amount of commercials. In other words, I hated paying for mostly crap content that was 40% advertisements anyway.

These online cable bundles aren't any better. They're still $20-$40 per month for mostly crap content among way too many commercials. Except now, you also deal with the finickiness of an app and internet streaming.

The streaming providers do cut out a lot of the BS fees. For Comcast for example there is a DVR fee, HD fee!, Regional Sports fee, Broadcast TV fee, plus additional outlet fees if you use more than one TV. Those fees could end up totaling to over $40-50 alone!

 

[turbineseaplane]

Yep. On Cox at a vacation house our family pays $40/mo JUST for the boxes.

It's legalized robbery if you ask me, since they refuse to let you buy them or use a CableCard with anything but low end channel plans.

 

[497902]

YouTube TV is so utterly ridiculous and unnecessary.

 

[turbineseaplane]

YouTube TV is so utterly ridiculous and unnecessary.

C'mon man. You gotta qualify or explain that statement.

I vehemently disagree.
It's an amazing service and offering.

Are you thinking of YouTube red?

 

[D.T.]

After some thought... this whole "cord cutting" thing might not be about saving money at all. It might be about control.

That's definitely one of the factors for me. I like using my own devices, that are smaller, faster, updated more regularly, and more integrated with other home electronics. I like that I can click-and-bail on services in seconds, and for some programming that's very seasonal, easily add, watch, cancel over like a 30 day period without once having to talk to a customer service rep. I find debugging issues better when you don't have to wade through multiple types of overlapping services from the same company (i.e., do I have connectivity? Yes, then it's the programming provider's issue).


All things equal in terms of monthly pricing, I'd still prefer to CC (and for us, it was cheaper, 4+ years without cable/sat service )

 

[brauntj]

When it comes to streaming, considering the cost of internet should not be a factor because you had it with cable and would have it for other devices even if you where not streaming. No cable package can compare to a comparable streaming service because cable packages always include crazy taxes and unknown fees. One thing that I became aware of when I was changing over to streaming was the amount of channels I was paying for in the cable environment and not watching at all. In the last year I have save over $1200 since I have been streaming.

Why shouldn't the cost be considered? At the end of the day, a quality internet connection is required for this service. So for example, using YTTV plus Xfinity internet would be $35 + $55 per month ($90 total). Then you have to consider the cost of data caps (1Tb for me) and going over that limit, which will most certainly happen in the not too distant future has 4k TV becomes commonplace. I can't just pay $35 for YTTV, I have to pay $90 for it.

Today I am able to enjoy 200+ channels (granted I only want like 3, but I have a wife and 2 kids to consider) with every sports and niche channel available for $130 per month. So is saving $40 per month worth it when I lose out on 2 of those channels I watch (NHL Network and Cooking Channel)? No. If I am going to lose out on what I like to watch, plus run the risk of going over my data caps and getting hit with additional fees, I might as well cut the cord completely and just do Netflix and/or Amazon Prime (which I do anyway) with an antenna for local channels.

Until these bundles can offer a truly complete selection of channels for <$40 per month and somehow avoid the data cap limits, these will continue to be niche players. Mainstream success is a long way off, and cable/internet providers and their monopolies will ensure that stays the case.

 

[497902]

C'mon man. You gotta qualify or explain that statement.

I vehemently disagree.
It's an amazing service and offering.

Are you thinking of YouTube red?

Good for you but I don't see it as a good value whatsoever. I'd rather subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO, CBS all together (which I don't except for Netflix and maybe Hulu at times) and be better off.

YouTube Red is an interesting offer if you're interested in Google Music (for whatever reason, I think it's inferior to Spotify and Apple Music), otherwise I don't see it as a good value either.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Good for you but I don't see it as a good value whatsoever. I'd rather subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO, CBS all together (which I don't except for Netflix and maybe Hulu at times) and be better off.

YouTube Red is an interesting offer if you're interested in Google Music (for whatever reason, I think it's inferior to Spotify and Apple Music), otherwise I don't see it as a good value either.

So it's not the right choice for you based upon content. That's perfectly fair!
Your statement calling it "ridiculous and unnecessary" was a bit much though.

For some usages it's an incredible offering.
[doublepost=1520890684][/doublepost]@brauntj just for clarity - how much is your current Comcast tv and internet and/or what's the breakdown there?

 

[oneMadRssn]

The streaming providers do cut out a lot of the BS fees. For Comcast for example there is a DVR fee, HD fee!, Regional Sports fee, Broadcast TV fee, plus additional outlet fees if you use more than one TV. Those fees could end up totaling to over $40-50 alone!

Yea, I'm not going to defend Comcast... ever. Also, I can see how this is saving money for some people.

My point is, I wouldn't pay $1/month for HGTV for example. Don't get me wrong, I actually like the channel and watch it often as background noise. But considering nearly 40% of the runtime is ads, and even within the shows it's 50% product placement, with the other 50% pointless banter. For that, it should be free (i.e., their compensation is my attention to their ads).

A large number of channels in these bundles are essentially the same. They're mostly ads masquerading as content. Even at $40, YTTV is a rip-off when compared to Netflix, Hulu Plus (ad-free), Amazon Prime, HBO Now, and the other similar on-demand streaming services.

Another way to look at it is this: If you had a recurring $40 monthly gift-card added to your iTunes account - would that be enough to buy all the episodes you'd like to watch? Right now, I'm watching new episodes of 4 shows, tops. At peak tv season, I watch maybe 6 new show at the very most. During the off-season, it could be none or one. Assuming there is a new episode every week, that's $12/month/show. The months I don't spend the whole $40 can rollover into the months I go over. Overall, I think I can make $40/month work, if supplemented with Netflix and HBONow and Prime.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Even at $40, YTTV is a rip-off when compared to Netflix, Hulu Plus (ad-free), Amazon Prime, HBO Now, and the other similar on-demand streaming services.

To my eye, YTTV is clearly targeting sports viewers with the channel mix and it's absolutely a great deal with the channels they put together at $35

 

[CrzyP]

I was just looking to sign up but it says I will be charged 39.99 once my free trial is up. So it looks like $35 is gone but not forgotten.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I was just looking to sign up but it says I will be charged 39.99 once my free trial is up. So it looks like $35 is gone but not forgotten.

Are you in a place with tax?
They charge tax