Native YouTube TV app coming to Apple TV 'very soon'

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
People wanting to watch Google's YouTube TV on an Apple TV will soon be able to do so natively, without AirPlay, a YouTube representative said on Thursday.




A promised tvOS app is "coming very soon," the representative explained to CNET. Today marks the launch of a native Roku app, with access to standard features such as recommendations, a program guide, and cloud DVR functions.

Google was originally aiming at a 2017 Apple TV launch, but in December admitted that it would miss that window.

A native Apple TV client should provide a true "lean back" experience, whereas AirPlay requires that people push content from their iOS device.

Unlike the regular version of YouTube, YouTube TV is a live, U.S.-only TV service costing $35 per month. It was initially available on just a handful of platforms, but can now be watched via options ranging from iOS and Android through to the Xbox One and some LG, Sony, and Samsung TVs.

The service's channel bundle is mostly focused on the major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox -- as well as their associated offerings. It continues to lack content from Turner and Viacom, such as CNN and the Cartoon Network/Adult Swim.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    Wish they’d just give us a better version of the regular YouTube, the current app is poor, much much better on Playstation.
    curtis hannah
  • Reply 2 of 8
    tmaytmay Posts: 2,755member
    I'm curious if this will support h.265 4k streaming, though in all honesty, this isn'a a service that I would be interested in anyway.
    Soli
  • Reply 3 of 8
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,013member
    Competition is good. $35 is too much. YMMV. 
    StrangeDaysAirunJae
  • Reply 4 of 8
    eightzero said:
    Competition is good. $35 is too much. YMMV. 
    Compared to what? Over the air? It's not expensive if you are comparing it to other options in the current market. I have issues with YouTube TV, but price is not one of them. In fact, price is probably the most attractive part of it. When I tried YTTV the main issue I had was the sparse channel lineup and poor streaming quality. IMO, DirecTV Now and PS Vue both offer a superior experience, for now. Having local channels in all their markets is a plus for YTTV, however, I need to see CNN and a handful of other channels added, which are all standard on the competition's similar priced plans. YTTV is a good start; hopefully Google continue to build it out.
    peterhartAirunJae
  • Reply 5 of 8
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,678member
    tmay said:
    I'm curious if this will support h.265 4k streaming, though in all honesty, this isn'a a service that I would be interested in anyway.
    I would be nice but I think that’s doubtful.
  • Reply 6 of 8
    I have YouTube TV and love it.  I have no issue with the $35 price; for that amount I get 95% of the channels I cared about, and it’s $55 per month cheaper than I was paying AT&T.  My only gripe is having to use AirPlay though; that makes the experience less than ideal.  Can’t wait for the native Apple TV app!
    edited February 1 AirunJaechristophb
  • Reply 7 of 8
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,013member
    eightzero said:
    Competition is good. $35 is too much. YMMV. 
    Compared to what? Over the air? It's not expensive if you are comparing it to other options in the current market. I have issues with YouTube TV, but price is not one of them. In fact, price is probably the most attractive part of it. When I tried YTTV the main issue I had was the sparse channel lineup and poor streaming quality. IMO, DirecTV Now and PS Vue both offer a superior experience, for now. Having local channels in all their markets is a plus for YTTV, however, I need to see CNN and a handful of other channels added, which are all standard on the competition's similar priced plans. YTTV is a good start; hopefully Google continue to build it out.
    Yep. Most of my TV is OTA and free. I live in a metro area, and have that option. But if I didn't, a bundle of TV with my current $50/internet service provider would rival this price. For me. I don't consume much tv, so I am not the target consumer. 

    It is too much for me. Hence the YMMV.  

    I would really like to have pay per game sports. $.99 for a hockey game, or a out of market football game? Sure. 

    I'm also sort of waiting for a steaming service with customizable ads. Put the game on, and with some settings and opt in, you get ads you are interested in during the built-in breaks. I would think advertisers would happily pay the viewer for that. Maybe$.01 per ad to some account you can control for perks or cash? Or maybe you can set your tv processor to mine bitcoin? I dunno. Seems like someone smart would come up with a model. 
    AirunJae
  • Reply 8 of 8
    eightzero said:
    Competition is good. $35 is too much. YMMV. 
    Everything Google makes, if it’s cost more than free I’ll say it’s too much. YMMV. 
    edited February 2
Sign In or Register to comment.