Remove ads, unlock a dark mode theme, and get other perks by upgrading your account. Experience the website the way it's meant to be.

YouTube TV

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Melody Bot, Feb 28, 2017.

  1. Melody Bot

    Your friendly little forum bot. Staff Member

    This article has been imported from for discussion. All of the forum rules still apply.

    YouTube has announced their new live TV offering dubbed “YouTube TV”:

    Well, we’ve got some good news! We’re bringing the best of the YouTube experience to live TV. To do this, we’ve worked closely with our network and affiliate partners to evolve TV for the way we watch today.


    A YouTube TV membership is only $35 a month and there are no commitments—you can cancel anytime.


  2. Fletchaaa

    Trusted Supporter

    Seems like a high membership cost compared to Netflix or Hulu or something similar
    Kingjohn_654 and coleslawed like this.
  3. disambigujason

    Trusted Supporter

    this looks really promising but the thought of streaming all my tv still makes me cringe. i enjoy the crispness of real tv and lack of buffering too much.
    Brent and aniafc like this.
  4. yeahrightdude

    Trusted Prestigious

    This could be huge if adapted correctly.
  5. But about 1/2 of what a cable subscription with ESPN costs, which is what it would be replacing.
    suicidesaints and Colby Searcy like this.
  6. 1080 is really prevalent (and 4k is coming and already around). Streaming ESPN on the Apple TV in HD right now, zero buffering, as crisp as if I was using a box. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  7. chcougar1


    This is huge if they pull it off. I see my Comcast internet costs going way up to make up for the cable subscribers they will lose from this.

    I pay $140/mo for cable and internet now. This should drop me down to about $100/mo. That is until Comcast ups my internet price to $100 on its own. Then I'm almost the same price for less channels. Hmmm. Dang it.
    Mrplum5089 and Jason Tate like this.
  8. disambigujason

    Trusted Supporter

    ever have any problems with live big sporting events? i streamed NFL Sunday ticket on my laptop a couple years ago and the first few weeks were unwatchable. similar with watching MNF streams on xbox one, phases in and out of pixelation. though i guess that could be my new apartment's internet? i have no idea how to begin to diagnose these kinds of things.
  9. I don't watch much football, but I watch NBA league pass almost daily. Seems like a bandwidth issue maybe? Could be a slow internet issue? I'm a big fan of how easy it is. It's how I watch basically everything these days.
    js977 likes this.
  10. Haha, and of course they will.
  11. subplotofcrows

    A Grand Scene For A Color Film Prestigious

    Yeah, no thanks. There are options out there similar to this already: DirecTV Now, Sling, and PlayStation Vue. These options already offer all of those channels, and more, with more flexibility. And overall, this isn't really anything more other than "streamed TV." It's nothing revolutionary. This price even becomes less appealing when you can bundle cable/satellite with your internet.

    This looks like the competing model that Apple aimed for with its streaming service - basic package of channels. Could be really something great, but it doesn't really do anything that isn't already available. Maybe with Google's money and influence they can really make some waves, but this seems lackluster.
    Raku and coleslawed like this.
  12. SEANoftheDEAD


    It's truly perplexing and amusing to watch all of this new technology unfold. I feel like we'll hear from big time cable companies soon with a plan to combat this and keep on raking in the dollars.
  13. LuigiPeppercorn

    Trusted Prestigious

    I wonder if they end up including Red into the subscription cost to inflate those numbers a bit. This could be massive if they do this right, but there's a lot of competition in the space.
    coleslawed likes this.
  14. SEANoftheDEAD


  15. LuigiPeppercorn

    Trusted Prestigious

    Youtube Red, their originals service
    Colby Searcy and yeahrightdude like this.
  16. I Am Mick

    @gravebug Prestigious

    I honestly don't know so this is a genuine question, isn't ESPN totally meaningless to people who only watch their local teams (which I assume it a large majority of sports fans). I've always just treated it as a replay channel and I regularly hear that they're ratings are dismal
  17. Last I saw, it was by far the most profitable channel for bundles. It's the reason many people pay for cable.
    ESPN is the linchpin upon which cable television turns. It’s the sole reason many people have cable, and it’s insanely profitable. The vast majority of that profit comes from affiliate fees paid by cable companies on a per-subscriber basis (unless otherwise noted, all numbers are from this Forbes article that combines information from Disney’s annual report and data from SNL Kagan):

    ESPN FY12 Revenue: $9.4 billion

    Affiliate fees: $6.1 billion
    Ad revenues: $3.3 billion
    That’s about $508 million per month in affiliate fees alone, from about 100 million households.
    The Cord-Cutting Fantasy
    The Great Unbundling
  18. The goal, I would guess, is to reach the kids and teenagers that have never had a cable subscription but watch billions of hours of YouTube. Maximize how much $ you can get out of them, and convert them as they get older from Red to TV.
    These TV-lite packages offer many of the same enticements (they’re low-cost and mobile-friendly) now being touted by YouTube, yet none has gotten off to a particularly strong start. Sling TV, which launched in February 2015, recently topped 1 million subscribers, less than 1 percent of the 120 million U.S. households that currently have some form of TV. PlayStation Vue, which entered the market shortly after Sling, has attracted upward of 100,000 customers. In January, AT&T revealed that DirecTV Now drew about 200,000 customers during its first month of operation.

    No one is making much money, if any, says Dan Rayburn, an analyst at Frost & Sullivan Inc. The services, he says, are priced too low (usually $20 to $65 per month) to cover the costs of licensing premium programming from the networks. “I don’t buy it as a successful business model,” he says. “None of these services would be able to survive without the backing of their parent companies.”

    Kinda backs up that theory.
  20. ARo24


    I'm a big sports guy and the only time I really watch ESPN is for college bball/ football. Sportscenter has gotten so bad and is unwatchable most of the time. It's really not worth paying for to be honest but I think the average household isn't aware of the alternate options available these days.
  21. JRGComedy

    Trusted Supporter

    My only problem with streaming (and digital-exclusive content in general) is the preservation of it. As a film major, it astonishes me the things we have preserved on film for over 100 years.

    What happens in 75 years if a Netflix backup goes down and we lose hundreds of hours of original content?
  22. coleslawed

    Eat Pizza

    huh. that makes me wonder if any Netflix Original films (like Beasts of No Nation) could ever get the Criterion treatment.
    JRGComedy likes this.
  23. JRGComedy

    Trusted Supporter

    Wouldn't surprise me at all, and in fact I hope so.
    coleslawed likes this.
  24. Fucking Dustin

    Hey now we'll be okay Supporter

    As someone who watches a lot of NFL I will add that the NFL will never ever cater to their fans and it's likely their fault
    js977 and Jason Tate like this.
  25. chcougar1


    People who don’t think this could be a big deal have no idea how huge ESPN is.

    Is ESPN on ANY other of the “small package” offerings (Sling, Vue, etc?)