'YouTube TV' Streaming Service Launches in Five U.S. Cities

[HiRez]

Using 2 devices to watch TV gets old real fast.

Yes. Horrible experience. Tie up a device just to stream video while possibly draining the battery? No thanks. AirPlay tends to not be rock solid either. When I stream Prime Video off my iPhone or iPad, it drops the stream frequently enough to be annoying.

 

[budselectjr]

Should have not included ESPN and knocked off $7.

 

[jdillings]

Should have not included ESPN and knocked off $7.

They have no choice. Disney isn't going to give them ABC or the Disney Channel unless they also take ESPN.

 

[Cigsm]

That would make sense if google and Apple didn't charge just about the same prices for cloud storage

Well, I think we can all agree that even if Apple launched a service like this at some point in the future, there's no way in hell they would allow people to have unlimited DVR storage in the cloud. For the prices they're continuing to charge for cloud storage, they must be storing data on LaCie drives.

 

[Cigsm]

You really DONT want a la carte. HBO is $10 alone. Pick 5 channels and you're at $50.

I didn't cut the cord to get away from paying for bundled Shyte channels so I could sign up for a bundle of Shyte channels from YouTube or any other wanna-be cable replacement. Ala carte is the only thing that will attract me. Bundlers are no better than cable.

 

[Cigsm]

It's time to take your mess again, Mr Trump

$35 for a bundle of fake news. Bargain.

 

[Mtmspa]

At this point, I'm not sure Apple would be able to provide a better price point and selection of channels than some of the other services that are already on the market. I pay $35.00/month for 100 channels of live TV plus on demand stuff with DIRECTV Now. That original promo pricing is no longer available; but for those of us that hung in there while AT&T worked out the massive initial problems with the service, it was worth it, I think.

Even my wife (who had a ton of stuff on our old DIRECTV DVR) said the other day that she hasn't missed having the DVR because pretty much every show she watches is available on demand. She really likes the $80 we're saving each month compared to what we had been paying for standard DIRECTV.

And HBO is free.
[doublepost=1491454884][/doublepost]

let me correct you.

Apple Tv Fail.

Nope, your attempt at humor though...fail.

 

[Born Again]

And HBO is free.
[doublepost=1491454884][/doublepost]

Nope, your attempt at humor though...fail.

Reality isn't always humorous.

 

[avanpelt]

That would make sense if google and Apple didn't charge just about the same prices for cloud storage

No, they really don't when you factor in that photos and videos don't count against your storage space when you upload them to Google Photos (so long as you're ok with having your photos' max resolution being 16 MP and your videos' max resolution being 1080p).

Photo and video backup is the only reason I had to pay for the 200 GB tier of iCloud storage. I recently backed up my entire photo and video library to Google Photos and I am seriously considering ditching iCloud Photos and downgrading my iCloud storage.

 

[Jett0516]

How many people are going to pay $35/month just to watch this on their phone and NOT their TV or their Mac?

As Steve Jobs would say. this is like Blu Ray. It's a bag 'o hurt. It is cheaper than a $200/month cable TV bill, but the limitations of the service make it a disaster unless Mac to HDTV support is coming soon.

uh definitely a lot of ppl.

you know you can cast 4k youtube to your 4k HDTV right? Something apple tv can't do...

 

[avanpelt]

And HBO is free.

Well, for the next 11 months, yes. That was certainly a nice surprise. I will gladly pay $5.00 per month for HBO once the deal runs out (as I did before AT&T decided to give us early adopters 12 months of HBO for free). At $5.00/month for access to HBO's live and on demand content, it's a steal.

AT&T is not being very competitive in the wireless space right now, but they are killing it with their fiber service and DIRECTV Now. I'm fortunate to be able to utilize both of those services. I pay $70/month for gigabit fiber with no data cap and $35/month for 100 live TV channels. There's no contract BS, either. No cable ISPs in my area come anywhere close to offering a deal like that.

 

[allenvanhellen]

I want to dump cable but every time I try to cancel they lower my bill
[doublepost=1491413620][/doublepost]
you could just do airplay from the browser.

Yeah but this will kill your battery.

 

[littlecrossrace]

I use prime video for exclusive content like the man in the high castle.

Sneaky Pete is another good one.

 

[marty11]

Sling looks like a MUCH better deal. And you get MLB and NBA in most many markets.

 

[everdown]

I'm in LA. I saw this article and downloaded it. The 30-day trial has a nice. But one big problem, although the app offers the option to cast, tvs with chromecast are not supported, only tvs with the chromecast dongle. Cancelling tonight. What's the point of all this great tech and tvs paying licensing fees to get chromecasts built in if I can't use it?

YouTube TV, YouTube's streaming television service that was first announced in late February, is rolling out to five cities in the United States starting today.

Priced at $35, the service is available in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago.

Separate from YouTube Red, YouTube's premium service that features content from prominent YouTubers, YouTube TV is a standalone app that's focused on a mobile first experience. It features access to ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, CW, Disney, ESPN, FX, USA, and dozens of other major cable channels, alongside standard YouTube video content. Premium channels like Showtime are available for an additional fee.

YouTube TV is priced competitively with other streaming services like DirecTV Now, Sling TV, and PlayStation Vue, and its feature set includes cloud DVR options with unlimited storage space and an AI-powered recommendation system. Up to six people in a household can use a single YouTube TV subscription.

To access YouTube TV, customers will need to download the YouTube TV app for iOS or Android, both of which are available today. A one-month free trial is available, and YouTube is providing a free Chromecast with the first month's payment to allow customers to stream content to a television set.

YouTube TV can be downloaded from the App Store starting now. [Direct Link]

Article Link: 'YouTube TV' Streaming Service Launches in Five U.S. Cities

 

[tennisproha]

At this point, I'm not sure Apple would be able to provide a better price point and selection of channels than some of the other services that are already on the market. I pay $35.00/month for 100 channels of live TV plus on demand stuff with DIRECTV Now. That original promo pricing is no longer available; but for those of us that hung in there while AT&T worked out the massive initial problems with the service, it was worth it, I think.

Even my wife (who had a ton of stuff on our old DIRECTV DVR) said the other day that she hasn't missed having the DVR because pretty much every show she watches is available on demand. She really likes the $80 we're saving each month compared to what we had been paying for standard DIRECTV.

DIRECTV Now is useless. Every single show I watch is not available on-demand. The authentication apps are slim. Streaming is glitchy not to mention subpar quality compared to satellite.

 

[Teddy Napoleon]

Just buy boxed sets of the best TV shows and classic films and maybe they might, one day, get the message that quality TV is long dead even here in the UK.

 

[cardfan]

Oh look, another crap streaming service of crap channels with commercials. Yay. Hopefully Apple isn't aiming for this. I'm sure some of the unwashed are lined up for this, sling, or directvnow.

 

[Abazigal]

The more competition the better. Bring on all the streaming services.

In reality, you will probably just end up being subscribed to them all, because of some content that only that service offers.

 

[stanman64]

You'll never get ala carte channels because of how channels work in the first place. The reason we have 100 channels with a cable subscription is because of how the smaller channels are bundled with the bigger channels. Companies make a ton of money from advertising across all those channels. Economies of scale and whatnot.

You wouldn't want to pay for just one or two channels because it would likely cost as much as getting 100 channels.

And like you said.... live TV really sucks... so why would you want channels anyway?

Channels are just an odd grouping of programming that is broadcast in a linear fashion 24 hours a day.

What you really want is on-demand content... not something that is on a schedule (DVR helps... but still)

Your best bet is to buy exactly the shows you want from iTunes or whatever. Then you're only paying for what you watch.

Yeah basically exactly what you said - what I would love is TV in Netflix form. Every show you could ever want to watch available on a platform, and then you pick what you want access to and pay for that. No commercials, no paying for crap you don't watch.

The current problem with iTunes is that there isn't an option for subscription. If I wanted to watch S7 of The Walking Dead, for example, I would have to pay over $40 just to watch that season. That's 4 months' worth of Netflix where I can watch entire series of multiple shows. But, I suppose that's the price you pay for wanting it right away and not waiting for it to come to Netflix...

 

[Nebulance]

Sounds ideal, until you just don't. I have amazon prime and almost never watch prime video.

I'm the same way; though I think I'd be more inclined to watch Prime Video if it had an Apple TV app.

 

[mambodancer]

The issue of it being city by city and at best 'regional' is possibly why Apple hasn't released a service like this. As pointed out in this article this is only available in cities where the local channel is owned by the network. Most cities will have to be negotiated for city-by city, region by region I believe. A real nightmare. Imagine Apple trying to release a product - but only for people in 4 cities. The negative press would be huge - as the press loves to pinch Apple on anything. Apple really has to have single national solution. It might never arrive.

I don't think it's even necessary. If Apple wants to compete with Netflix, Hulu and Youtube, it's by offering original content. Apple could circumvent local/regional issues by having its own reporters in those areas and/or developing an app that could be customized by the user to consolidate the type of content you were interested in (local news, sports, events, etc). I've always hoped Apple would build a production studio to help fund independent film makers, musicians, artists to kickstart new content or make it possible for those creatives with good ideas to bring them to market or to offer the facilities so that good shows that don't make it past the pilot stage or that are cut after 1 season, may have a place to live where network Time Slots aren't a consideration. Imagine if this happened to a show like Firefly...

 

[QCassidy352]

Too expensive to make sense to me. I have to pay Comcast for internet service regardless. And once I have them for internet, adding cable is the same $35 as this, or less.

I get that the cable companies suck, but as long as we need them for broadband internet, bundling cable is usually a fine deal.

 

[co.ag.2005]

Yes. Horrible experience. Tie up a device just to stream video while possibly draining the battery? No thanks. AirPlay tends to not be rock solid either. When I stream Prime Video off my iPhone or iPad, it drops the stream frequently enough to be annoying.

Which Apple TV are you using? Apple seemed to have fixed a lot of Airplay issues with their new Apple TV. I watched the whole season of Grand Touring from Amazon Prime (from my iPhone) to my Apple TV and never had an issue. I could even use my apple remote to rewind/fast forward and use my phone to do other things during the show. It has improved greatly in my experience.

The same thing goes with Chromecast. Start the stream with your phone and then you don't have to touch the stream any more. Go about doing things on your phone that you would normally do.

Now, I do prefer a standalone Apple TV app because I don't want to have to start content on my phone first, but at least now with the new Apple TV and Chromecast, it is a "set it and forget it" type of system.

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

None of these services is perfect, but the more the merrier. It's progress and the competition will hopefully bring more choices and lower prices.

Now if we could just do something about our oligopic broadband ISP regime...