YouTube TV hikes monthly fee to $55 to cover Apple App Store fees, Discovery programming

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
Effective immediately, the cost of YouTube TV is going up to $49.99 per month for new customers, or $54.99 for those subscribing through the App Store, reportedly because of the addition of several Discovery-owned channels.

Crikey It's the Irwins


Existing subscribers will see a billing change take effect after May 13, Variety said. People paying via in-app subscription on Apple platforms will have to spend $54.99 per month, compensating for Apple's 15 to 30 percent revenue cut.

The new networks include Discovery Channel, HGTV, Food Network, TLC, ID, Animal Planet, Travel Channel, and MotorTrend. Another, OWN, will join YouTube's lineup by the end of 2019.

Separately Epix is now available as an add-on, costing $3 per month.

YouTube TV has grown to include over 70 default channels. It still has gaps, namely Viacom networks like Comedy Central, and some other premium options -- most notably HBO.

The hike likely reflects the increasing cost of acquiring content and scaling services to meet demand. In February, Hulu raised the cost of its Live TV package to $44.99 per month. DirecTV Now followed suit in March, pushing subscriptions to at least $50.

YouTube TV started in 2016 as one of the least expensive live TV services, costing only $35. That fee grew to $40 in 2018.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,462member
    So much for the "promise" of a la carte channel subscriptions.
    bonobobflyingdpn2itivguygordoncomstockcurtis hannah
  • Reply 2 of 43
    ElCapitanElCapitan Posts: 213member
    That's what happens when you start to compete with your content providers. 

    Apple's board should stop AppleTV+ cold turkey, and direct the management to only provide an attractive platform for all content providers to offer the broadest possible selection to Apple customers. 
    curtis hannahtokyojimun2itivguydavgreg
  • Reply 3 of 43
    It is getting harder and harder to justify paying for this service. At $40 it was a stretch. Between accounts we have and ones we share how much more content do we really need? 
    curtis hannah
  • Reply 4 of 43
    AF_HittAF_Hitt Posts: 77member
    Hulu with Live TV with the no commercial option (on regular Hulu content) is the clear option in this space now, in my opinion. It has all the same channels and 50 hours of DVR (more than enough considering all the shows that you can watch on demand through regular Hulu) for $51. Since we have Hulu regardless, the equivalent live tv service equates to $39, compared to PSVue, YouTube TV, Directv Now, etc. all at the $50 price (minimum) and a much less robust on-demand section as Hulu’s.
    curtis hannah
  • Reply 5 of 43
    AF_Hitt said:
    Hulu with Live TV with the no commercial option (on regular Hulu content) is the clear option in this space now, in my opinion. It has all the same channels and 50 hours of DVR (more than enough considering all the shows that you can watch on demand through regular Hulu) for $51. Since we have Hulu regardless, the equivalent live tv service equates to $39, compared to PSVue, YouTube TV, Directv Now, etc. all at the $50 price (minimum) and a much less robust on-demand section as Hulu’s.
    Agreed that if I go for a service it would likely be the Hulu since there on demand library is so vast at the same cost (Youtube just promises ad free youtube videos on top right?).

    In general these live streaming TV services are losing their compel, at $35 a month for less channels made sense, now we're seeing $50 a month and climbing it's competing value is lost, as most full TV packages are around $100 while you can find the downgraded with similar channels and similar price before the price drop when bundling internet.
    bonobob
  • Reply 6 of 43
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,355member
    nope
  • Reply 7 of 43
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,268member
    eightzero said:
    nope
    Good Gawd is this what they’re calling a “Skinny Bundle” nowadays.  I can see where in some arms race where the answer to everything is yet another content provider with the resultant price hike.   Glad i’m Looking at other hobby efforts that don’t come with such volatile pricing structures. 
  • Reply 8 of 43
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,657member
    How's the "cutting of the cord" going?

    People were complaining about cable and now there are more subscription services than ever popping up everywhere.

    People didn't want to pay for channels that they weren't using on cable, and it seems like many of these internet subscription tv services are becoming the same thing as cable with their ever expanding bundles, higher prices and channels that people don't want.

    It seems that if somebody subscribes to a few of these many tv and movie streaming services that are available, then the bill is no cheaper than it was many years ago when only having cable.


    edited April 10 racoleman29larz2112ravnorodomtokyojimuflyingdpn2itivguy
  • Reply 9 of 43
    dougddougd Posts: 252member
    I wasn't a subscriber before, now I certainly won't be
    agilealtitudecurtis hannahaaronsullivan
  • Reply 10 of 43
    larz2112larz2112 Posts: 284member
    These streaming services are starting to develop a case of Cabelitis. That is when you start charging too much for your service like a typical cable company would do, and some of them are almost charging as much as the cable companies at this point.

    I just canceled my DirecTV Now account a few weeks ago because they kept raising the price. After I canceled AT&T asked me to fill out a survey. I did, and I explained that my primary objective is to keep the cost as low as possible, and my monthly threshold was $30-35/month or less. They exceeded that, so I canceled. I plan to sign up with Sling TV for $25/month ($15/month for first 3 months). And if they raise their prices I will cancel their service, and maybe try Philo. Bottom line, if these streaming services can't deliver for $30-35/month or less, I'm fine with just the local network stations and 20 or so oddball channels I get on my HD antenna for zero dollars a month.
    racoleman29ravnorodomtenchi211
  • Reply 11 of 43
    cpsro said:
    So much for the "promise" of a la carte channel subscriptions.
    I wonder who are the people who actually thought a la carte was going to be a viable option?  No one is really that naive.   This was always going to turn into a situation with lots of different services vying for the same few customers.  The value of content was always going to increase due to service exclusivity.  Prices were always going to go up and people were still not going to get content the way the want it.  We just traded one big bundle priced at X for a lot of little bundles priced equivalently at Y... where Y is ~X.

    The fun is really going to happen when consolidation takes place.  The failed services are going to get absorbed by the successful and we'll probably end up right back where we were: big bundles priced at X.
    edited April 10 dkhaley
  • Reply 12 of 43
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,618member
    AF_Hitt said:
    Hulu with Live TV with the no commercial option (on regular Hulu content) is the clear option in this space now, in my opinion. It has all the same channels and 50 hours of DVR (more than enough considering all the shows that you can watch on demand through regular Hulu) for $51. Since we have Hulu regardless, the equivalent live tv service equates to $39, compared to PSVue, YouTube TV, Directv Now, etc. all at the $50 price (minimum) and a much less robust on-demand section as Hulu’s.
    Agreed that if I go for a service it would likely be the Hulu since there on demand library is so vast at the same cost (Youtube just promises ad free youtube videos on top right?).
    YouTube TV is more Hulu-like than not. On-demand previously-aired episodes are viewable, and DVR is unlimited rather than 50 hours. You should also be sure Hulu's 2 streams are sufficient. AFAIK each additional is another $15. I think YouTube TV includes 6 streams. 

    TBH I'd just as soon do with fewer channels and keep pricing the same. The newly-added channels really are not necessary IMO and I actually prefer a trim lineup. I'm still hoping the new streaming services do not go overboard with channel lineups that eventually lead to subscription creep. 

    Raising the App Store price to account for what Apple takes does make sense tho. it's easy enough to sign up directly and save a few dollars but some iOS users would not mind paying Apple something extra for making it simple and direct and thus prefer the added convenience fee. 
    edited April 10 n2itivguycurtis hannah
  • Reply 13 of 43
    LordZeddLordZedd Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    Just torrent shows. No ads, watch them anywhere, $0/month.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,135member
    larz2112 said:
    These streaming services are starting to develop a case of Cabelitis. That is when you start charging too much for your service like a typical cable company would do, and some of them are almost charging as much as the cable companies at this point.

    I just canceled my DirecTV Now account a few weeks ago because they kept raising the price. After I canceled AT&T asked me to fill out a survey. I did, and I explained that my primary objective is to keep the cost as low as possible, and my monthly threshold was $30-35/month or less. They exceeded that, so I canceled. I plan to sign up with Sling TV for $25/month ($15/month for first 3 months). And if they raise their prices I will cancel their service, and maybe try Philo. Bottom line, if these streaming services can't deliver for $30-35/month or less, I'm fine with just the local network stations and 20 or so oddball channels I get on my HD antenna for zero dollars a month.
    I like my current provider: Over-the-air digital TV for free, with commercials.
  • Reply 15 of 43
    ElCapitan said:
    That's what happens when you start to compete with your content providers. 

    Apple's board should stop AppleTV+ cold turkey, and direct the management to only provide an attractive platform for all content providers to offer the broadest possible selection to Apple customers. 
    You want Roku...

    Apple wants $$$
  • Reply 16 of 43
    napmannapman Posts: 23member
    AF_Hitt said:
    Hulu with Live TV with the no commercial option (on regular Hulu content) is the clear option in this space now, in my opinion. It has all the same channels and 50 hours of DVR (more than enough considering all the shows that you can watch on demand through regular Hulu) for $51. Since we have Hulu regardless, the equivalent live tv service equates to $39, compared to PSVue, YouTube TV, Directv Now, etc. all at the $50 price (minimum) and a much less robust on-demand section as Hulu’s.
    Unfortunately Hulu is missing AMC, which is a big one.
  • Reply 17 of 43
    larz2112larz2112 Posts: 284member
    gatorguy said:
    AF_Hitt said:
    Hulu with Live TV with the no commercial option (on regular Hulu content) is the clear option in this space now, in my opinion. It has all the same channels and 50 hours of DVR (more than enough considering all the shows that you can watch on demand through regular Hulu) for $51. Since we have Hulu regardless, the equivalent live tv service equates to $39, compared to PSVue, YouTube TV, Directv Now, etc. all at the $50 price (minimum) and a much less robust on-demand section as Hulu’s.
    Agreed that if I go for a service it would likely be the Hulu since there on demand library is so vast at the same cost (Youtube just promises ad free youtube videos on top right?).
    YouTube TV is more Hulu-like than not. On-demand previously-aired episodes are viewable, and DVR is unlimited rather than 50 hours. You should also be sure Hulu's 2 streams are sufficient. AFAIK each additional is another $15. I think YouTube TV includes 6 streams. 

    TBH I'd just as soon do with fewer channels and keep pricing the same. The newly-added channels really are not necessary IMO and I actually prefer a trim lineup. I'm still hoping the new streaming services do not go overboard with channel lineups that eventually lead to subscription creep. 
    The ironic thing is that Spectrum, a cable company, is currently one of the only providers that is actually offering an a-la-carte live TV streaming service at a somewhat reasonable price. It is called TV Choice and is $25/month. It includes local network channels, plus you can chose 10 channels from a list of 65 channels to create your own custom channel lineup. It's a pretty good mix of channels to choose from. No DVR capability unless you rent a cable box for an extra $20/month, or for those like me who have a Tivo box, you can rent a cable card for $2/month and use the Tivo for DVR. I think the price increases to $30/month after the first year, but my primary point is the irony in that all these streaming services are becoming more like cable, and the cable company is one of the only providers actually offering a truly a-la-carte live TV streaming service.
    davgreg
  • Reply 18 of 43
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,618member
    larz2112 said:
    gatorguy said:
    AF_Hitt said:
    Hulu with Live TV with the no commercial option (on regular Hulu content) is the clear option in this space now, in my opinion. It has all the same channels and 50 hours of DVR (more than enough considering all the shows that you can watch on demand through regular Hulu) for $51. Since we have Hulu regardless, the equivalent live tv service equates to $39, compared to PSVue, YouTube TV, Directv Now, etc. all at the $50 price (minimum) and a much less robust on-demand section as Hulu’s.
    Agreed that if I go for a service it would likely be the Hulu since there on demand library is so vast at the same cost (Youtube just promises ad free youtube videos on top right?).
    YouTube TV is more Hulu-like than not. On-demand previously-aired episodes are viewable, and DVR is unlimited rather than 50 hours. You should also be sure Hulu's 2 streams are sufficient. AFAIK each additional is another $15. I think YouTube TV includes 6 streams. 

    TBH I'd just as soon do with fewer channels and keep pricing the same. The newly-added channels really are not necessary IMO and I actually prefer a trim lineup. I'm still hoping the new streaming services do not go overboard with channel lineups that eventually lead to subscription creep. 
    The ironic thing is that Spectrum, a cable company, is currently one of the only providers that is actually offering an a-la-carte live TV streaming service at a somewhat reasonable price. It is called TV Choice and is $25/month. It includes local network channels, plus you can chose 10 channels from a list of 65 channels to create your own custom channel lineup. It's a pretty good mix of channels to choose from. No DVR capability unless you rent a cable box for an extra $20/month, or for those like me who have a Tivo box, you can rent a cable card for $2/month and use the Tivo for DVR. I think the price increases to $30/month after the first year, but my primary point is the irony in that all these streaming services are becoming more like cable, and the cable company is one of the only providers actually offering a truly a-la-carte live TV streaming service.
    +1
  • Reply 19 of 43
    rbc-4rbc-4 Posts: 2member
    I returned to cable 2 months ago. 118 for phone, internet and cable (HBO, Starz, Showtime, DVR etc included) Unbundled internet + DirecTV now was pushing me over 120 so it made sense. The promise of cheap skinny bundles is basically gone now. And together with the stranglehold of price hiked unbundled broadband internet, cable bundles seem to be a better option again.
  • Reply 20 of 43
    Pretty neat little scam these companies (Netflix, Hulu...even Prime) have going.  Skinny packages that convince you to “cut cable,” but randomly jack up prices.  

    At least with directv (and most cable companies), they lock you in at a nice rate for two years, and you know exactly when it’s going up.  
    StrangeDayshmurchison
Sign In or Register to comment.