from Hacker News

YouTube TV

by loisaidasam on 2/28/17, 9:04 PM with 280 comments

  • by kevincennis on 2/28/17, 11:56 PM

    Former Aereo engineer here.

    First off, there are really two main reasons for someone not to have a cable subscription:

    1. They don't care about the content

    2. Price sensitivity

    At Aereo, we saw these sort of mix together to create hugely elastic demand.

    For a while, we offered a $1 "day pass" that would give you access to live TV for 24 hours at a time.

    During the Super Bowl and various award shows, we had crazy numbers of people sign up for these day passes. We actually had to stop offering them, because we literally couldn't build out the extra capacity in a cost-effective way (remember, we needed distinct physical antennas and transcoders for every user we served).

    It was tough enough to get people to pay $8/month for access to live broadcast TV and a cloud-based DVR. I have no idea how YouTube will convince anyone to pay $35.

    If they can work out the licenses, I'd imagine something like a day pass would work well with consumers – but it's probably hard to get the economics of that to work out.

  • by shaunol on 2/28/17, 10:33 PM

    This is a cool idea but it still falls very short by not serving users outside of the US. To the point where the welcome page doesn't even acknowledge that there may be global interest: https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ (enter your ZIP code, no country picker ... YouTube, you do realize you're on the internet, right?)

    Does YouTube care about getting content to the world? Or just getting as many of their fingers in the pie as possible and abusing the current geo-restricted licensing model while they can?

  • by halayli on 2/28/17, 9:42 PM

    Being asked for a zip code shows that not even youtube is able to change the old broadcasting business model.

    The day will come when TV streaming businesses takes over and removes the virtual location barriers set by the industry.

  • by youdontknowtho on 2/28/17, 11:14 PM

    I'm just not seeing 35$ a month worth of value. Sit coms? Get a grip, man. I feel like they should pay me to watch them. TV is a wasteland. Some cable channels are pretty good. SciFi, Comdey Central, sometimes FX. (I don't like giving money to Fox, but Always Sunny is the funniest thing ever made.)

    If they had a way to pick channels and only pay for those, that would be worth looking at.

    EDIT: Do you still have to watch commercials? I don't see anything about commercials. If there are commercials then not just "no", but "hell, f*ck you for asking, no".

  • by ravenstine on 3/1/17, 1:53 AM

    Um, no thanks.

    Most of that content is uninteresting, free with an antenna, and loaded with commercial breaks. I would rather spend that money for a season pass on Amazon, or to go out and see a movie once a month. If money weren't an issue, my time is still better spent on Netflix or watching lectures by smart people on YouTube. I guess its fine if they want to attract the geriatric crowd, but I cant imagine people in my generation paying that much for a vastly inferior experience. As others have said, a cheaper day pass would be better, as there still is a place for live content. Whether or not that should be a form of life support for the old guard corporate media empire, that's up to you.

  • by kristofferR on 2/28/17, 10:39 PM

    "Unlimited cloud DVR" seems really pointless. Why not just save everything, as it airs, in a central archive that the users can browse at their leisure instead? It also seems to mean that you can't rewind channels you weren't watching, that you manually have to record stuff yourself. Really backwards of Google if my assumptions are correct.

    It seems weird that Google aren't able to create/negotiate something relevant for today. All the things I talked about are becoming common for normal TV providers in Norway.

  • by ipozgaj on 3/1/17, 1:22 AM

    People commenting that $35 is too much for the content included - if you want an equivalent set of channels from Comcast/XFINITY, it will cost you almost 3x more. So it's a non brainer for me, and the fact I don't have to deal with Comcast is worth even more than saving ~60% of my monthly cable bill.

  • by colinbartlett on 2/28/17, 9:29 PM

    Is this similar to Direct TV Now[1]?

    Both of these services seem like an interesting step forward, but then, who really wants to watch live TV anymore, besides sports fans? The whole idea of watching something at a specific time that it's aired just seems unimaginable to me after years of on demand streaming. Not to mention commercial breaks.

    1. https://directvnow.com/

  • by vinylkey on 2/28/17, 9:45 PM

    > Stream ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC & more.

    What's included in "& more"? I can get the listed channels from an antenna.

  • by djhworld on 2/28/17, 9:20 PM

    Wonder how many commercial breaks you'll get the privilege of watching for your 35 bucks

  • by zeta0134 on 3/1/17, 1:50 AM

    In light grey on the bottom of the page, for me: "SHOWTIME® available for extra monthly charge"

    Yup, this is going to be exactly like Cable television, and it's no cheaper. No thank you, I cut that cord for a reason.

    Maybe if it had no ads? But I'm sure it'll be live television with the ads. There's no point.

  • by rubicon33 on 2/28/17, 10:27 PM

    When am I going to be able to choose my channels on an individual, channel by channel basis, and then receive a total cost based on those channels?

    If I want ONLY the Science channel, then I should be able to purchase JUST the science channel for like, $5/mo.

  • by koolba on 2/28/17, 10:20 PM

    > $35/month

    That's a series chunk of coin for something that you can get for free with an antennae.

    I wonder how much of that is licensing. It's got to be a huge chunk of it.

    Also, who watches any of those crap channels anyway?!

  • by bitmapbrother on 2/28/17, 9:57 PM

  • by hcarvalhoalves on 2/28/17, 10:41 PM

    > Coming soon. Get on the list to find out when YouTube TV launches where you live.

    Why the f* internet content still depends on where I live in 2017.

  • by haubey on 2/28/17, 10:21 PM

    I'd just like to see when they start doing personalized ads for every different person. I know TV companies have started to do more targeted ads [1] but if there's a company that can do it, it's gotta be google. If there's enough ad revenue to go around, it could be a tipping point where the local channel rules cease to matter.

    [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-29/tv-ads-ar...

  • by jasikpark on 3/1/17, 2:15 AM

    I just think it's wonderful that this launched within hours of someone recommending twitter be turned around by being the go-to solution for interacting with and watching live tv.

  • by 127 on 3/1/17, 11:49 AM

    I don't really understand what's the point of this. YouTube is already my TV. With a little streamlining and a little bit more intelligence, I wouldn't have to even click the links and just switch on autoplay to stream all the interesting content I want to see for the day. That vision is not far away.

    Is Google purposefully sabotaging their subscription integration in order to leave space for paid services?

  • by bane on 3/1/17, 4:43 AM

    $35? What is this 1990?

    The fundamental problem I think is that this is yet another offering of packaged channels, 90% of which I don't want. Okay, maybe not 90%, but in their initial channel offering I count at least 25 of the 46 channels I'm not even remotely interested in.

    Once you drop sports, Spanish language content, kids content and some of the more useless news channels I'd be paying effectively paying $35/mo for local TV I can already get for free, USA, FX, Bravo, FX, Syfy and I guess...Youtube Red?

    If I were to pay $1/mo for each channel I might watch, I might pay $4 or $5/mo for this.

    Dump the live TV entirely, just put the shows up so I can binge watch the ones I want. The "cloud DVR" is a dumb gimmick, all the content is already sliced and diced and uploaded to some server somewhere anyway.

    Ugh..this offering is probably only really of interest to sportsball enthusiasts who are desperate to cut the cord but can't.

  • by krzyk on 2/28/17, 9:50 PM

    They ask for zip code but don't ask for country, should I assume (again) that they mean the default (USA) country?

  • by NeonVice on 2/28/17, 9:51 PM

    Is this the same as Aereo, the service that was shutdown by the supreme court, only with a valid rebroadcast license?

  • by Brendinooo on 2/28/17, 10:21 PM

    "NBA Basketball on Fox Sports Regional Networks" - Would this would be a bit of a coup for YouTube? My regional sports network doesn't have any streaming options; not sure if other markets are more liberal with this.

    Also, that wording...are they getting the whole regional network or just the NBA basketball?

  • by crispytx on 2/28/17, 10:53 PM

    Seems like a pretty steep price to watch network television. As a cord-cutter, I think its a great idea because you can't get the networks with SlingTV, and TV antennas suck. But yeah, I'm not going to pay $35 for network television. I'll just keep using my shitty antenna.

  • by bsimpson on 2/28/17, 10:07 PM

  • by itchyjunk on 3/1/17, 12:47 AM

    I asked my questions in a "dupe" thread so reposting here.

    From TV to internet to TV on internet to internet TV on any devices. One thing I wonder about is how people who purchase "bundles" traditionally will react. I'd imagine they are the biggest consumer of TV programs. (TV + INTERNET or TV + Phone + Internet style bundles). Will it end up costing the same when you break you bundle to only get internet from a provider and get "TV" from Youtube?

    Another question I have is about the "cloud DVR". How does it work? Is the content already in a server somewhere so when I hit the "DVR" it just tags that? It makes no sense saving the same content multiple time because multiple people tried to DVR the same episode right?

    Is lot of the modern TV already through internet? If not, won't this cause an increase in internet bandwidth used? Maybe it's no significant but i'm curious about it none the less.

    There was a talk on HN about cell phones and FM being enabled on it. Will a similar thing happen on TV, i.e my TV won't work without internet in the future?

    Does privacy concerns increase with this? Is it easier to track users view patterns and what not with this as opposed to traditional tv? Will it be more likely that people will post the episodes or clips they watch to youtube or will it be less common as it will be even easier for youtube to recognize and flag stuff? (I wonder if youtube will provide a tool to post tiny clips directly from TV so people can have discussions and what not as well). Thanks in advance if anyone takes time to answer any of my question!

    Edit: https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...

    It's unlimited but for 9 months. So you'll have to Re-DVR it when/if air's again i guess?

    Makes more sense for people already paying for youtube red I guess? Creators on youtube red might get more traffic too possibly.

  • by nodesocket on 2/28/17, 10:42 PM

    Sports!!! All I need and care about for my $160 a month Xfinity cable bill is Sports. Unfortunately sports takes places on various channels (ESPN, ESPN2, FOX, CBS, CBS Sports, TNT, TBS, TruTV).

  • by JustSomeNobody on 3/1/17, 2:21 AM

    All this so that I can not have one of those unsightly antennas near my tv? Sign me up! /s

    No, really, this is too much money. And with data caps, I don't really think I'd get my $35 out of it.

    Besides, who know what Ajit Pai is going to let Comcast do? Won't be long and I'll have choices like:

    Basic internet - for reading email.

    Basic Plus Internet - Basic internet + Amazon shopping (but no streaming)

    Internet + streaming - Basic Plus Internet + Comcasts own streaming service.

    Internet Premium - Internet + streaming + Netflix, Amazon and YouTube streaming.

    etc...

  • by Corrado on 3/1/17, 10:50 AM

    OK, one question I have is how am I supposed to view this content on the various TVs throughout my house? Will this be a new Roku app? Will I just use the old Roku YouTube app? Will I have to stream it from my laptop/phone? I think the answer to this question will determine how much traction they get. My parents, my wife, nor any other non technical folks are going to stream anything from their phone. I can't see how this will win.

  • by faceyspacey on 3/1/17, 12:20 AM

    I really don't understand--those channels are free with an HD antenna. I don't know if this is possible anymore, but those channels used to be free through your cable cord, even without a cable box. ABC, fox, nbc, and cbs are free. Why pay $35 just to remove adds.

    Are they including, AMC, MTV, etc? I don't think so or they would say so.

    Ps. This is a serious question. Please someone help me understand how they are charging for free channels just to drop their ads (presumably)?

  • by VonGuard on 3/1/17, 4:33 PM

    Just as a personal anechdote: I have cable for one reason -- my local cable provider has a monopoly on the A's. I cannot watch the A's play babeball without a $75 per month Comcast subscription. It is not included with the $30 shit tier cable they offer.

    This fucking sucks, especially because baseball is as American as you can get. But then, charging people for stuff that used to be free is also as American as you can get.

  • by brokenmasonjars on 3/1/17, 4:45 AM

    I don't think I'd personally use it as I have tv. However I can see it being useful for cord cutters. It would be nice to see some sort of bundling. Pay x amount, get youtube premium stuff, with movie rentals, and streaming tv with other google features etc such as google play/music. However have it broken up is a good option too. I think both options could be useful.

  • by tombert on 2/28/17, 9:27 PM

    This is cool, though part of the reason I like things like Hulu Plus is that I don't have to worry about commercials, and it's literally a third of the price.

    I do find it interesting though; Youtube/Google is taking all the steps to be the next Time Warner or Comcast it seems. I wonder if this proves that that industry isn't impossible to break into.

  • by IanDrake on 2/28/17, 9:47 PM

    I don't see the value proposition here. Can anyone explain what I'm getting for $35 (over cheap or free alternatives)?

  • by soheil on 2/28/17, 9:53 PM

    The page is extremely void of any details, reminds me of Cable companies landing pages. This is odd because I noticed there has been a recent explosion of third party live CNN, FOX News, ... channels, not sure if this is because YT made their copyright detection algorithms more lenient as a segue to YT TV.

  • by caio1982 on 2/28/17, 10:45 PM

    Meanwhile, I am very happy with youtube.com/tv on my TV. No worldwide availability is ridiculous these days.

  • by hkmurakami on 3/1/17, 1:21 AM

    Initial reactions:

    1) Will it have ESPN? I only really care about ESPN on a daily basis for TV.

    2) "Never run out of DVR storage" -> Will I be able to easily save recordings of any show on Youtube TV? I value this a lot for particular sporting events and have years' worth of footage backed up.

  • by ganfortran on 2/28/17, 10:21 PM

    > $35/month.

    With Ads? Ouch, NO.

  • by wnevets on 2/28/17, 9:58 PM

    $35/month ouch.

  • by smilbandit on 3/1/17, 1:43 AM

    I'd be cooler if I didn't have this shiny new 1tb data cap on my internet now.

  • by overcast on 2/28/17, 9:56 PM

    So $35 to stream what is already available free over the air in HD, with a $20 antenna?

  • by geodel on 2/28/17, 11:55 PM

    With $35/mo, it looks like another half-ass effort like Google phone hardware business. For 10 dollars extra over internet charges per month I get all the channels that this post explicitly mentions + some more I never watched.

  • by sachinag on 2/28/17, 9:40 PM

    You announce this on February 28 without TBS, TNT, or truTV? I get that Turner had you, but come on. Wait until April to announce if you're not gonna have them. Or even until June, when the NBA conference finals are over.

  • by rajathagasthya on 2/28/17, 9:27 PM

    Very interesting. It's a shame Apple shied away from providing TV streaming.

  • by cgranier on 3/1/17, 4:03 AM

    Nice... Only took them 11 years (http://red66.com/2006/04/google-media/)

  • by silveira on 3/1/17, 3:33 AM

    I have cable TV even tough I pretty much never watch it. I don't want it, but to remove it is more expensive than to keep it. I don't have a good incentive to pay more to have more TV.

  • by shirro on 2/28/17, 10:54 PM

    Why would anyone want to pay $35 per month to access tired old ad supported programming when they can get subscriptions from 3 streaming services for that price.

  • by divbit on 2/28/17, 11:59 PM

    Wow - good job. Literally people (myself included) were commenting this morning in the saving twitter thread about how something like this is really needed.

  • by i336_ on 2/28/17, 11:30 PM

    What about http://youtube.com/tv/ ? Is this a different thing?

  • by alistproducer2 on 3/1/17, 1:41 PM

    Why would I do this when a dtv antenna is a one-time charge of $35? Kodi + prime + dtv = never paying for TV again. Ever.

  • by rco8786 on 2/28/17, 9:58 PM

    What does "6 accounts, 1 price" mean?

  • by rocky1138 on 3/1/17, 3:29 AM

    Sorry, this is TheirTube, not YouTube. The whole point of YouTube is democratization and sharing of personal videos.

  • by bubblethink on 3/1/17, 1:04 AM

    It's quite tragic to see cable reinvented piece by piece. Piracy still remains the only unifying force.

  • by koolba on 2/28/17, 10:39 PM

    I'm guessing there's no way to sign up for this and not have Google keep track of my TV habits.

  • by katehall on 3/1/17, 12:30 AM

    Who gonna pay $35/month? It does not make sense when you can get TV subscription for $10/month

  • by bbcbasic on 3/1/17, 9:57 AM

    $35/month. Even from the perspective of living in ripoff Australia, that seems expensive.

  • by viseztrance on 2/28/17, 11:49 PM

    Any thoughts on why they've chosen tv.youtube.com over youtube.tv?

    (youtube.tv redirects to .com)

  • by ilaksh on 3/1/17, 6:42 PM

    So just like Sling except fewer channels and more expensive?

  • by timsayshey on 3/1/17, 2:13 PM

    um, sorry youtube, that already exists and cheaper: https://www.playon.tv/cloud

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • by uladzislau on 2/28/17, 11:06 PM

    Is Google launching something that Apple passed on a while ago?

  • by Cub3 on 3/1/17, 2:05 AM

    They would have to strip advertising for this to be worth it

  • by shmerl on 3/1/17, 1:17 AM

    Is it DRM-free HTML5, or it's using DRM blobs and EME?

  • by Jyefet on 3/1/17, 1:42 PM

    Cant you get all those channels with a digital antenna?

  • by reitanqild on 3/1/17, 3:28 PM

    Zip code.

    As usual only for Americans.

    This time they didn't even pretend otherwise.

  • by dilipray on 3/1/17, 1:05 PM

    I don't have any hopes of it coming India.

  • by Animats on 3/1/17, 12:51 AM

    $420 a year to watch broadcast TV?

  • by facepalm on 3/1/17, 9:07 AM

    Why would anybody pay 35$ for crappy TV if Netflix is only 10$?

  • by mmanfrin on 2/28/17, 10:07 PM

    $35 to get the channels you get OTA...

  • by WayneBro on 2/28/17, 9:22 PM

    Wow, so is this the official beginning of the age of decentralized cable-companies?

    As a cable cutter, one thing I am really looking forward to is the day that I can flip channels again very easily, without having to think about what I am doing.

  • by tehabe on 2/28/17, 10:20 PM

    April 1st is early this year, isn't it?