You might as well just pay for cable at this point. You can probably get a promotional rate from the cable company for less than this.
YouTube TV is actually much better than cable because there are no hidden fees and you can stream everything anywhere.
Google gives you 3 simultaneous streams and 6 profiles. You would need to pay $20 or $30 extra for an additional 2 cable STBs that are fixed to specific TV sets, not to mention additional taxes and fees. You can stream YouTube TV on as many devices as you have except 3 simultaneous streams and 6 profiles. The cable deals are never what they appear to be, they always have hidden fees and contracts.
I am an old AT&T TV Now grandfathered user so I pay $60 for 130+ channels but I only get 2 simultaneous streams and no free HBO. So Google is essentially matching AT&T and if they don't throw me a bone soon, I may switch to YouTube TV.
I don't believe that a single person is paying YouTube subscription, seems to be a promo hype.
There's 20million paying for Youtube Premium, tho put in perspective that's only about 1% of YouTube viewers. Youtube TV, the topic of this thread, had 2million paid subscribers and counting at the end of 2019.
Cable TV without the cable! What a brilliant idea! Except that the problem with cable was hardly limited to the cord.
Isn't this exactly what Apple was rejecting when they created the app driven AppleTV -- you buy only for what you want to watch?
App-driven TV devices (not just AppleTV, but Chromecast, Roku and many other streamboxes) are not the same thing. Each app has its own pricing and content. Some apps offer free content. Some make you pay for a subscription. Most stream stored content - very few offer live TV without a paid-up subscription.
Some TV networks offer live streaming via their web site, but there aren't many of those, and I don't know of any that will stream to an app-based device.
The whole idea behind YouTube TV (and Hulu+Live TV, and other similar services) is that you can get live broadcasts the way cable and satellite customers do, but without the high prices that go along with those services. But it appears that this is all amounting to a pipe dream. The live TV streaming services offer a very small selection of channels and those that don't are finding that they have to raise prices as high as cable companies charge.
I guess they figured out that the high cost of cable is actually the cost of paying all those hundreds of content providers and not some grand conspiracy to overcharge the world. Which is why "cord cutting" is proving to be no more economical than cable subscriptions, unless you stick with the cheapest bargain-basement service and are happy with the very small selection of channels they offer.
The ability to cherry-pick the 10-20 channels you really care about and only pay for them is proving to be far more difficult than originally imagined. Some channels want abusive amounts of money (e.g. CBS wants $6/mo for just their channel), many channels don't want to offer a-la-carte service, and many more will only permit streaming if bundled with their many affiliated networks. In other words, that vision is probably not going to be possible any time soon, and if it ever happens, it will probably cost as much as a cable subscription ($6 per channel for 20 channels is $120/mo - more than what you pay cable companies for hundreds of channels).
Cord cutting is a nice idea, but the reality is not living up to the vision.
Does everyone commenting realize that this article is about YouTubeTV? The cable replacement that allows you to watch TV and cable channels--not the premium YouTube subscription.
This is quite the hike but even Sony couldn't make a profit when they were charging $50 for their Playstation Vue service. I currently pay $100 per month for my 500mps WOW Internet service and YoutubeTV. That will go up to $115 when this is in place. That's still less than Comcast's closest package for internet plus cable that comes to around $150 after taxes and fees. I have faster internet and I'm not stuck with Comcast service. I'll stick with Youtube for now.
You might as well just pay for cable at this point. You can probably get a promotional rate from the cable company for less than this.
While $65 is close to the cable companies' advertised introductory prices, YouTube TV is less expensive.
The cable company will charge set top box fees, DVR fees, broadcast stations fees, regional sports network fees, etc. After that, those intro prices end up being $85 to $100.
If people are willing to pay that much for Youtube TV, imagine if Apple had a service at $65/month with all their iTunes content (20-30 movie viewings or 30 TV seasons per month) plus their original content. That would be a much better deal.
Take Seinfeld for example, that entire season is $99.99 to own. That equates to about $0.60 per episode to own. People aren't going to watch all 171 episodes at once so they can use credits from their subscription as they watch the episodes. Once they've watched an episode, they could own it and not have to use more rental credits just like if they'd bought the whole series but ownership wouldn't even be necessary.
Maybe it's just the content owners being stubborn about how people can access the media but I don't see why every episode of every classic TV show can't be viewable for under $1-2 and similar for movies. Even new movies are available for purchase at $14.99:
If someone is paying $65/month, that can show up in the library for viewing as soon as it comes out and it would just use more viewing credits than older content. If a credit is $0.10 and a $65/m subscription gives 650 credits, that movie can use 70 credits at launch. If it's watched 2-3 times, they can own the movie. The studio gets the same money and it's more accessible to people. The credits can rollover and be giftable. If it's just the content owners that's the issue, maybe Apple can do it behind the scenes like prepurchase 1,000 copies of a movie and just take the subscription credits from people as they watch them.
When there are special events on, Apple can pay the credits for movies on behalf of viewers and they just show up as credit-free for a limited time, until the prepayment is used up. They can market seasonal packages like Christmas movie bundles. The subscription can scale all the way down to a low monthly amount and allow for occasional topups when needed. For premium sports, they can do it like buying tickets to the game and giftable.
I was considering cutting the cord and was waiting for some additional channels. But for that price, it’s just not worth it. I’d rather just upgrade my Verizon FiOS equipment to wireless boxes and cloud DVR.
EVERY single streaming service has hiked prices. ATT, YouTube, Sling, etc. This “cord-cutter” future was all BS. And if you EVER thought you were going to pick channels for $1-$3 each you are a fool.
Only the streaming services that offer “live TV” have raised prices. And this is unsurprising because people who use these services are paying for (literally) hundreds of channels they have no interest in, and even the ones they do enjoy are stuffed so full of ads they’re no longer (IMO) tolerable. YouTubeTV, like Hulu, has become cable, and needs to make cable-like profits.
It is entirely possible to “cut the cord” on “regular” TV (cable or IPTV) and instead both a) watch less TV — most of it is crap, and b) support some streaming services that cater to your tastes, from DAZN to Curiosity Stream to Disney+ to AcornTV — most are somewhere between $5-8 dollars a month, with a few exceptions (Netflix, HBO Max). I cut the cord years ago when I realized I was paying nearly $100 a month to watch about five shows I actually liked, and ONE channel that consistently put on nothing but things I was likely to enjoy, commercial-free (TCM in my case).
In particular, I discovered a couple of really important things:
1. Reading news and analysis is far, far superior to watching any of that on television. It’s more thoughtful, more well-reasoned, better articulated, less error-prone, and regardless of your worldview there are some excellent publications out there that truly generate more light than heat. I really feel like I think better about issues and the news than I did when I watched news on TV.
2. Playing sports is great. Watching sports on TV regularly is (IMO) too much of a time suck, particularly with ads. I’d rather get out and do something myself most of the time — which is also healthier. Maybe I’ll feel differently about this when I’m old, but for now I have other activities I prioritize more.
Now I have four paid services that cater to my specific tastes with no ads, and my total streaming entertainment bill (not counting the cost of internet) is less than $300 **per year** (that’s an average of $7.50 per channel per annum, or $0.625 per month). I also rotate services, such as swapping out Netflix for Britbox for a year — because I can. I don’t need a DVR because these services have this content on demand (I do still rarely buy BR DVDs of films or shows I know will have a high rewatch content).
I really don’t think I’m missing anything important, I have far more content I want to watch than I have time for, and reducing my dependence on TV has been a liberating experience both financially and for productivity that gives me time for other things I enjoy more. YMMV of course, but I really think more people should investigate this route and see if it works for them.
As for YouTubeTV — thanks for committing slow suicide! Doubling your cost in just two years? Yeah, I don’t see a bright future ahead, to put it mildly.
Cable TV without the cable! What a brilliant idea! Except that the problem with cable was hardly limited to the cord.
Isn't this exactly what Apple was rejecting when they created the app driven AppleTV -- you buy only for what you want to watch?
Cord cutting is a nice idea, but the reality is not living up to the vision.
it does, you just can't expect to get all the stuff piecemeal for less than a bundle. I subscribe to very little, and it varies based on season. I also occasionally buy a season of a show. It is certainly much less expensive than paying for bundled cable.
Exactly. It was already more than cable before, and now it's just ridiculous. 30% increase!?! Who would be interested in this? People with money to burn...
It can depend heavily on what’s available in your area. The ONLY cable option to our home is Comcast.
The cheapest package I can seem to get from Comcast is $80 once you add in hidden fees for HD content and local sports broadcast fees. This is literally double their advertised price.
YT TV isn’t what any of us hoped Internet TV would be, but it’s still 20% cheaper than Comcast for a significantly better lineup and features that would raise the price of a Comcast package even higher.
Is it cheaper than Comcast? You need to factor in ISP cost. They all suck!!!
Comments
Google gives you 3 simultaneous streams and 6 profiles.
You would need to pay $20 or $30 extra for an additional 2 cable STBs that are fixed to specific TV sets, not to mention additional taxes and fees.
You can stream YouTube TV on as many devices as you have except 3 simultaneous streams and 6 profiles.
The cable deals are never what they appear to be, they always have hidden fees and contracts.
I am an old AT&T TV Now grandfathered user so I pay $60 for 130+ channels but I only get 2 simultaneous streams and no free HBO. So Google is essentially matching AT&T and if they don't throw me a bone soon, I may switch to YouTube TV.
This is quite the hike but even Sony couldn't make a profit when they were charging $50 for their Playstation Vue service. I currently pay $100 per month for my 500mps WOW Internet service and YoutubeTV. That will go up to $115 when this is in place. That's still less than Comcast's closest package for internet plus cable that comes to around $150 after taxes and fees. I have faster internet and I'm not stuck with Comcast service. I'll stick with Youtube for now.
The cable company will charge set top box fees, DVR fees, broadcast stations fees, regional sports network fees, etc. After that, those intro prices end up being $85 to $100.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/seinfeld-the-complete-series/id1295372198
https://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/friends-season-1/id168262075
Take Seinfeld for example, that entire season is $99.99 to own. That equates to about $0.60 per episode to own. People aren't going to watch all 171 episodes at once so they can use credits from their subscription as they watch the episodes. Once they've watched an episode, they could own it and not have to use more rental credits just like if they'd bought the whole series but ownership wouldn't even be necessary.
Maybe it's just the content owners being stubborn about how people can access the media but I don't see why every episode of every classic TV show can't be viewable for under $1-2 and similar for movies. Even new movies are available for purchase at $14.99:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood/id1473165316
If someone is paying $65/month, that can show up in the library for viewing as soon as it comes out and it would just use more viewing credits than older content. If a credit is $0.10 and a $65/m subscription gives 650 credits, that movie can use 70 credits at launch. If it's watched 2-3 times, they can own the movie. The studio gets the same money and it's more accessible to people. The credits can rollover and be giftable. If it's just the content owners that's the issue, maybe Apple can do it behind the scenes like prepurchase 1,000 copies of a movie and just take the subscription credits from people as they watch them.
When there are special events on, Apple can pay the credits for movies on behalf of viewers and they just show up as credit-free for a limited time, until the prepayment is used up. They can market seasonal packages like Christmas movie bundles. The subscription can scale all the way down to a low monthly amount and allow for occasional topups when needed. For premium sports, they can do it like buying tickets to the game and giftable.
It is entirely possible to “cut the cord” on “regular” TV (cable or IPTV) and instead both a) watch less TV — most of it is crap, and b) support some streaming services that cater to your tastes, from DAZN to Curiosity Stream to Disney+ to AcornTV — most are somewhere between $5-8 dollars a month, with a few exceptions (Netflix, HBO Max). I cut the cord years ago when I realized I was paying nearly $100 a month to watch about five shows I actually liked, and ONE channel that consistently put on nothing but things I was likely to enjoy, commercial-free (TCM in my case).
Now I have four paid services that cater to my specific tastes with no ads, and my total streaming entertainment bill (not counting the cost of internet) is less than $300 **per year** (that’s an average of $7.50 per channel per annum, or $0.625 per month). I also rotate services, such as swapping out Netflix for Britbox for a year — because I can. I don’t need a DVR because these services have this content on demand (I do still rarely buy BR DVDs of films or shows I know will have a high rewatch content).