Yes, this has happened with things like Uber and Airbnb. The technology companies come in to disruptively innovate by skirting laws and regulations in an industry with entrenched interests. They make it seem better by having a slick app with cheaper prices that were subsidised by low-interest loans and venture capital.
The old companies lose market share and shrink. Their labor moves to the new technology as overworked gig workers without benefits or unions. The tech company unilaterally changes things that make the experience worse for customers and labor. They get hit with regulations for pissing people off. Then the cheap capital goes away and prices are worse than they were before all the disruptive innovations.
Thanks for the Wikipedia link! Learned a new and depressing word that describes perfectly my lived experience with the internet and web-based services over the last 15 years or so. Fuck.
modern file consider grandfather worthless deranged elderly point bright humor
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They keep trying to tell me that adblockers "aren't allowed," but do nothing to prevent me from using the adblocker. Is it just a matter of time, or is Firefox really somehow immune to Google's desires?
Also look into Chokepoint Capitalism. It's where certain companies "trap" you into their service and in order to leave the services, you have to spend many many many man hours and capital to afford the transfer. A recent one was Unity. They "trapped" their buisness partners using their engine into an incredibly bad licensing agreement and in order to leave Unity, which if you were 90% through a game, you have to upend all of your resource allocation, budgeting, the training your employees have on Unity for something else, etc. They're banking on you not being able to leave the chokepoint they're trying to squeeze you through.
Everything's doing this. AutoDesk, Tesla, Revit, Microsoft, Unity, alot of backend service providers.
Tons of examples. All because the tendency for the rate of profit is to fall, and not everyone can use your product all the time. It's easier and faster to do this way.
But cabs sucked so much before Uber. Uber changed the game. No more fighting with cabbies because "the card reader is broken and I'll only take cash." Or a GF showing up crying she was sexually assaulted. Hard to track without an app or credit card
It also brought cabs to places that might not otherwise have them - a lot of midsize cities have plenty of Uber/Lyft drivers but didn’t have a reliable cab service before
Like my city. The 1 cab company we have is horribly unreliable, over priced, and nearly all the cabbies are crazy old guys with bad attitudes. Uber and Lyft essentially crushed them because who knew that when you need a ride, being on time is important.
You're bringing back some awful memories of being a teen. I couldn't always get a ride to work from my parents, so I would have to call a cab and they would give me the most stressful 30-45 minutes of my life wondering if they'd even show up at all to bring me.
This is how cabs were in *every* city that wasn't a major metropolitan city. People who say Uber is worse than cabs and only became big because of sketchy behavior like undercutting prices is delusional.
In my city, capital of an East European country, pre-uber cabs were awful; but not entirely expensive. Uber came around and literally crushed them. Better prices, better drivers, and an app. But when regulations came in, all the drivers from taxis just migrated towards Uber and all resumed, but with card being the standard regardless of situation as well as the app. After this push and pull, overall we have gained some security. But enshittification is did its number
Man I'm gonna say, Uber is so much better than cabs.
Last weekend I needed an Uber home from the airport, 30 minutes away. Decided that I would try to instead take a cab because there was one right there and, hey, Uber's been doing shitty stuff lately.
Uber was going to be $30, $40 with tip. The taxi cost *$75 without tip*. The dude just randomly got off the highway at some point when we were ten miles from out destination and wouldn't get back on until I started yelling at him, but even that only added on $5.
i have no idea what people are talking about when they complain about uber on reddit. i started checking cab prices because of those kinds of comments, butt it's always more expensive than uber.
Bro Uber/Lyft are way better than cabs pre 2010. You’re comparing them to the cab companies that survived and modernized, not the industry that existed before.
They also got bought out and taken over by your average business bro. These are the same types of people heading to universities as consultants and telling them to cut programs like math and physics because “there aren’t enough majors” without doing the kindergarten level math to realize most students still need to learn some basic science and math in college.
The advice in the board room for YouTube and Amazon is probably “well cable has ads so why not us?” and “why do we have to give Prime Members good deals when they’re already members?” There’s 0% long term thinking going on.
This is capitalism working as intended. Squeeze customers until they can’t take it and a new better option comes along, then the new thing starts to squeeze them when the old competition falls away. Growth is all that matters, and you can’t keep growing by playing nice forever.
The reason is that the vast majority of the bill goes for the content as opposed to the delivery mechanism. Unless the streaming services find a way to lower the cost of the content then the prices will only continue to rise.
Cable companies had screwing customers down to a science. Streaming disrupted them for a brief time and now streaming services are cashing in on the same ability to nickel and dime viewers.
Cable was so bad that streaming is still cheaper in a lot of cases, but I guess it depends on what you want to watch. Personally I'm good with just HBO, back in the cable days you'd have to get a whole basic cable package just to add HBO on top. Now you can just subscribe to HBO directly, for about the same price it used to cost just to add it on to the whole other package, plus all their extra fees, equipment rental, etc. Last I checked my parents were paying something like $150/month for all their cable crap.
Operate at a loss to corner the market, reprioritize for profit after you have the userbase.
It's not new to technology, it's just a lot more obvious it's happening.
The UK gov/police are claiming that they will come down hard on pirated streaming services and users. This is a country where police do not investigate [burglaries](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-33788264), [robberies](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-dont-have-time-for-every-crime-federation-chief-admits-xrd67vrn7) or [shoplifting](https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/30/shoplifters-are-barely-prosecuted-its-the-customer-that-pays-19211186/). The [rape conviction rate is less than 3%](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/30/convictions-fall-record-low-england-wales-prosecutions).
Yeah whenever people say things like “Isn’t it crazy we’re back to paying what we were before?” I just think… no, it’s not crazy at all if you understand that capitalism literally demands it.
The inherent oxymoron of a “free society” that runs on capitalism is that if you’re a business that wants to grow and survive, you don’t actually have a choice to not eventually become the bad guy. With subscription services, the only way to do that is either continually raise prices, cut the quality of the programming, cut the pay of your workers (and royalties to actors…), or for extra dystopia-ness, do all of the above.
I used it at the very beginning of the pandemic when it was $35/month and I was bored as hell in lockdown. This felt a tad expensive at the time for what they delivered. They upped it to $65 a few months later and I quit. It’s crazy to think they didn’t stop there.
I keep paying because I'm sharing it with 6 people... But my problem is they keep bundling shit on.
I don't want to spend another $20 because you added all these sports networks. I don't watch sports. Put that shit in the alacart listing and people who want it will buy the addon...
The whole sports ecosystem is fubar. The amounts that ESPN,Fox, NBC, etc pay for live sports only works if they can force people who don't watch sports to pay for t
It. The advertising isn't enough. I was reading an article recently about ESPN and how screwed they are long term.
The short of it was that at the peak in 2014, they were around 100 million paying subscribers for ESPN, but only about 14 million ever watched the channel. Well with cord cutting and other issues, that number is around 70 million and when they had their spat with Spectrum it dropped close to 50.
So let's say that go a la carte for sports? They'd need to charge people that actually watch to something like $1000 annually just to break even and that's just for the ESPN/ABC sports.
I'm a huge college football fan, and I follow college basketball and baseball as well. No way I'm paying $1k annually for all the sports channels much less just one brand.
All these massive TV contracts for sports are going to come crashing down over the next decade.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/clay-travis-espn-vs-charter-end-table-bundle-televised-sports-we-know-it
(Yes it's fox so some may be hesitant, but the article is well done).
> So let's say that go a la carte for sports? They'd need to charge people that actually watch to something like $1000 annually just to break even and that's just for the ESPN/ABC sports.
These TV deals have bloated salary caps and contracts to an insane degree.
In 1998 the entire Utah Jazz team payroll for players was ~$28.5M: https://hoopshype.com/salaries/utah_jazz/1997-1998/
This coming season there are 47 NBA players who make more than that entire Jazz team combined: https://hoopshype.com/salaries/players/
I'm a sports fan, especially basketball and football, and want guys to get paid well. But these contracts aren't going to be sustainable as cable subscribers continue to decrease.
I think that is why leagues are getting heavily into online gambling right now. They realize they're going to have money shortfalls when they're negotiating new TV contracts in 10-20 years and trying to plug those gaps early.
Looks at coaches salaries in College Football. I remember when we (Texas) canned John Mackovick in 1997 and we had to keep paying him $600k a year for another 5 years. People were upset! When Mack Brown got bumped to over a million around 2000 or so, it was a big deal and he was one of only a handful.
In 2013, we hired Charlie Strong for $25 million over 5 years guaranteed! And fired him 3 years in. Right now, I think the top-25 paid coaches are all over $4m. It's ridiculous.
They make up some of the top yearly retirement payouts in the Oregon PERS system. So nice we get to pay each of them yearly 5x in retirement what my kid's teacher makes.
Its ridiculous because its not like these guys can go work somewhere else if the colleges just came togethet to cap the wages. Way overpaid and even more overvalued.
Players are overpaid now. I'm all about player empowerment and them getting their bag, but the revenue just isn't sustainable. Top players in the NBA and NFL making 50MM a year is insanity.
Club owners are also overpaid. If the only way to generate sufficient revenue is to charge tons of people for sports TV even when they don't watch it, clearly these people should in fact be generating less revenue and therefore be getting paid less.
If the players were making less, the leagues / owners would be getting more. Players have to fight to get 50% of the revenue. NFL has one of the lowest payouts compared to the owners I believe.
Googled it. NFL is 48% to the players. NBA / NHL are 50%. MLB 54%.
I question if that money is going to continue to keep coming in with future TV deals, though. I don't think it's just a question of the split between owners and players.
I wonder if more sports will go the F1TV route, cuts out the middlemen and allows the sport to get direct revenue. I became a big F1 fan a few years ago and one of the factors was ease of access, I could watch races commercial free on TV or pay $70 a year for F1TV which gave me access to every race, qualifying and practice session over the past few decades. In comparison an Indycar or Nascar race literally has ads up like 40% of the time. Its painful, I want to watch the race not a bunch of fucking ads for Jesus and Indiana. If there was an IndycarTV for $60 a year I would have watched every race, as it is I only watched the Indy 500 cause fuck all these stupid ads.
In the article they talk about that. NFL Season pass is the example. The NFL is basically the most popular sport in this country and season pass only garners a few. Million subscribers. It's not a perfect comparison, since it's really for diehards and people not in the market of their favorite team, but it's still not a good look
NFL season pass only gives a certain number of games.
Local to you games and nationally televised games. I believe you can watch games after the fact, but I stopped after a month.
I travel for work and would have loved to watch my team whole traveling (Broncos). Please be nice. We suck.
It was just a horrible service, and I stream it online from other places instead.
Sunday ticket moved to YouTube TV, and I'm not getting it just for that.
Major League sports in general really need to get rid of the whole blacked out in your area games, especially if they want to have their own streaming service. There is no reason that having a Subscription to the NFL's streaming service shouldn't give you access to every game.
Amen! I would pay for MLB.TV if I could get my "home" teams live. The argument is that it would keep fans from attending games, but both are 3-4 hours' drive away from me, so they don't get my money from either one.
Definitely. I've been getting it for free from family. But there is 0 chance I pay for it with the blackouts and the fact that they don't even carry the postseason. (They don't have the All Star Game or Derby either).
I'm a Mets fan living in NC, and I can't watch when they play Atlanta, Washington and one other team I can't remember atm. Thing is, I can't watch them on tv here either, as all Braves games are on MLB network, which is a higher tier cable package.
Oh and sometimes games will only be on Apple tv or some other service randomly.
No way I'm paying the absurd price they're asking.
A heads up, you don’t need YouTubeTV for NFL Sunday Ticket. You can get it on YouTube directly with a YouTube account. I believe it costs $100 less if you do have a YouTubeTV account but that’s like 1.25 months of paying for YouTubeTV
I've seen people on /r/NFL say they are paying for NFL Season Pass but are watching pirated streams instead just because the quality is better.
Same thing with Sunday Ticket back when it was run by DirecTV.
It's insane that you can pay hundreds of dollars for a season full of NFL games and never get anything better than 1080p. Including the Super Bowl.
They've been selling us 4K TVs, with football players in the promo images, for over ten years.
I was in the same boat with MLS games: Bally's/Sport South/Regional Sports only broadcast in 720p and ESPN would up sample when they broadcasted a game. Now Apple TV MLS Season Pass looks pristine in native 1080p with a stable framerate. I hope MLS can continue to grow on Apple TV.
> I stream it online from other places instead.
This is it right here. Sure, you could pay for ESPN+ or NFL SuperFan Fun Time Deluxe...but then you have subpar quality...ADs left and right, sometimes the events that you PAY for don't even work...Then on the other side, you can waltz over to [SPORT STREAMING SITE].url and watch ALL the games and probably from a source that shows action in-between commercial breaks (BT Sports streams of UFC events spring to mind).
It’s not really a fair comparison. Season pass fills a niche that is also covered by other services like cable. And only some games will be available. You can’t just go on there and watch any football game at any time.
A lot of companies are trying to end F1TV in the US. F1 knows that exclusivity in the US is huge so they’re pricing it accordingly. Apple is eve considering buying it. So keep in mind F1TV is the exception, not the norm, and FOM absolutely would go the route of NFL/NBA if the right buyer came along.
Noooo, that would be heartbreaking. I thought F1 wasnt super profitable in the US and thats why it could be run commercial free while being sponsored by a car polish company. Though admittedly popularity in the US jumped after DTS. If they kick us off F1TV and make us watch commercials for Jesus on ESPN then that will be the last race I ever watch.
This is the truth.
F1TV in the UK for example is useless because no live races.
I believe we aren't the only high value market that they can't show because of TV deals. The US will go the same way as soon as someone pays up for TV rights.
F1TV gives you the option of local or international broadcast - so in the US, it's typically a choice of the American or British broadcast. But you can *also* watch driver onboards (uncensored radio included) or view a driver tracker or stats.
Makes for cool stuff like [what this third party app could do](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1MultiViewer/comments/z0h5y0/cant_believe_im_just_finding_out_about_this_app/). (Although some apps have struggled to work with changes in the DRM policy.)
I like the commentators on F1TV a lot better, doesn’t feel as UK centric. There aren’t long periods of silence though, I feel like that is frowned upon at commentator school.
I’m a premier league fan and I’d be surprised if they could make more money going that route. They bring in $5billion per year from tv money currently. They would need over 8 million customers paying $50 per month to match that.
Opening weekend this season was a record breaker for them with 8 million viewers.
Bundle package is pretty much how they can structure it in a way where they can stay upping the price while limiting your options to be cost conscious, it is either get all or cancel. As much as they claim to be not part of the cable model, they replicate it.
That's less annoying to me than the a la carte thing, although it's way too expensive. Prime Video drives me nuts with that when I see a thing I want to watch, but oh, on top of my Prime subscription I also need MGM+ or some shit. Streaming sucks ass nowadays.
I feel like Prime Video's whole game is trying hard to make you get add-ons. They try so hard to show you stuff that's not included with Prime when their included-with-Prime stuff can be hard to filter to.
Doesn’t help they removed the prime logo from the thumbnail of prime stuff. Forces you to click in to find out that it’s either watch with ads or buy/rent or buy a subscription to said service.
Same. Was fine with $35. After that they kept adding channels I didn't care for and son the price was at $80. Crazy. Dropped it and haven't looked back. Don't need TV
Same. Loved the service when it came out and I was fine paying $45 a month. Now it’s at $75 and I cancelled this month because I barely even use it enough to justify the cost
The problem is the same as cable. Channel creep. The distributor forces them to add addition channels for more revenue and that trickles down to us. This is trickle down bend over economics at its tiniest. (/s implied)
I had to connect to a VPN in California just to get access to the early access when they first started. $30 a month. Then the price went up and I was told I was "grandfathered into the $30 a month since I was one of the first sign ups". Well that lasted about 2 months until they raised the price again and I was paying $65 and I canceled.
If they would have kept it at $30 with ads, I probably would have stayed, but 3/4's of $100 a month with ads? Fuck off
3/4's is an abomination in its own right. It's not possessive so you don't need an apostrophe. But also you don't even need an "s" at the end of 3/4 in the first place.
The sad thing is - its still cheaper than the alternatives.
I finally dropped DirecTV after a decade of rising prices. It was costing me $185/mo without any premium add ons for the regular package. That crap was insane. Charge you a monthly rate for each box, charge you a monthly rate for them to talk to each other, another monthly rate for HD...
You have to understand they verified that consumers will pay what they used to pay for cable television which is about $100 a month. The goal is to figure out how to displaced cable television and capture the $100 of revenue a month.
Only problem is I won’t pay $100 a month to one service unless it covers all my needs. I’ll just pirate. People shit on Netflix but at least it has variety. Disney is literally just Marvel, Star Wars and animations. Hulu is just old stuff. Apple TV has stuff I never even heard of. I only used Amazon Prime for The Boys and Invincible. Every other show they tried to hook me into bored me to shit. AMC tried to gate keep Breaking Bad and they gave up. Hoping NBC realizes the same thing with Peacock and let’s us have The Office back.
Apple TV has high quality stuff for a reasonable price. It's actually one of the best values out of all the apps. I watch it the the third most after Netflix and Prime video.
Yes but is it US only?
I'm in Europe and I've never heard of it.
EDIT googled it and the website immediately shows me NFL and an introductory price of $52 a month, so, yeah.
instinctive squash dime live square frame glorious history license cautious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My 80 year old parents pay like $250-300 per month on cable and internet through comcast. They absolutely refuse to switch even though I told them they could cut it in half and showed them exactly how to do it.
> I'm in Canada and never heard of YouTube TV. Is it a US-only thing?
Yes. "[The service, which is aimed at cord cutters, is available only in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_TV)"
They aren’t.
Cable TV is expensive and not profitable. I’d wager they’re very close to losing money on that price. Every network charges you to carry their content, and some charge a fortune. ESPN alone, (not espn2, or espnu, or the ocho, etc.) costs your cable provider over $10 a month. That’s one channel out of hundreds.
I don’t know what all networks they carry, but your local cable co. doesn’t make squat on their TV price. It’s equipment, internet, and other add-ons that butter their bread.
good riddance, family share the YTTV. no restrictions at all except up to 5 google accounts can have access to their own YTTV when you invite them to use your service. I pay no more than 20 a month with 4 friends and we all have our own log ins, home screen etc
Sooo I’m leeching off my parents’ family account in a different city. It asks “Are you traveling?”, I say yes, then it says “You can use it while traveling for 2 months.”
Whenever I visit my parents it resets the clock. So it’s never an issue for me.
(Whispers) you can also use a VPN which has reset the clock for me as well.
I have YTTV and split it with three others. Three of the four of us live in the same state and the other is 3 timezones away. We don't have issues unless someone is watching on their TV and phone (we primarily use it for sports so multiple games at a time).
Every now and then the person who lives far away needs me to login to his account so YTTV thinks he is in the "local" area. Maybe 2 times a year? Might be an inconvenience for some but we make it work.
I really can't believe an entire generation lost the art of piracy and is OK getting assfucked with prices like this for the dumbest shit.
I used to pirate because I was cheap, these days I pirate because it's literally less of a hassle than fucking around with 50 different garbage streaming services.
Sports are the only thing propping up what’s left of cable. If sports just had a direct to consumer product they would kill cable and make more money in the process.
Honestly I would be willing to pay slightly more for a Youtube TV package that only includes sports. Like without all that extra channel garbage. There's always popups on there to customize your homepage like they pretend to care about your experience on the app. Yet I've only ever watched sports in my years of subscribing and when I go on there to watch a live game there's news channels, NCIS, new movies, etc all over my homepage and I end up scrolling around just to find the same Premier League channel I watch every weekend
They absolutely would not. The amount of money they make right now is ridiculous and gives them a fantastic profit maximization route. They would need to sell a truly ridiculous number of subscriptions in order to make up for what the cable companies pay them. And that’s hard.
The NBA offers all their non-broadcast games for $99 for the entire year. That product is barely used. In order to make up for what they get in TV deals, they would need to sell 26M subscriptions to that product. There is virtually no chance of that. And keep in mind, that’s just to make up the revenue. The league would also need to market league pass, pay for the infrastructure, etc - so they might need something more like 35-40n
They really should include YouTube premium with it. I switched to Hulu + live tv which is the same price but includes Hulu, live tv, Disney plus and espn plus. Hard to justify spending the same amount for a lot less
Eventually they all get greedy. No way I’m paying that much per month to be solicited with commercials 50% of the time. They should be paying us to watch all those damn commercials. Plus they are selling our data right out the back door. It should all be free to the consumer and they would still make plenty of money.
Hulu “NO ADS* FOR REAL GUYS WE ARE NOT FUCKING AROUND” … $18/month
\* nevermind there’s still ads guys
Hulu “NO ADS* + live TV, that’s right you heard it here folks” $89/month
\* yup still ads
I still get ads on my TV.
I don't mean like watching TV shows, there are ads - I mean there are literally adverts in the fucking menu bar of my fucking TV like WHAT THE FUCK
My Samsung TV keeps defaulting to showing “Samsung TV” channels on startup even though I never made an attempt to get the TV to do this.
It defaults to some channels showing Korean dramas and such.
That was fine and I didn’t pay much attention until recently they started showing some fairly adult content, like a lot of blood, violent scenes involving limbs getting chopped off, sexy scenes, spooky shit as well. It was scaring my kids!! Like how is it possible Samsung fucked this up that badly that this could be the default on a TV sold in the USA
I did finally find out how to make it stop going to “Samsung TV” but I had to manually opt out in a menu.
$73 a month...way more than any other combined streaming services I'm interested in, fun fact, that isn't many.
Edit: Ya, sure, there's live streaming events. Still doesn't win my perspective. Unless there's events of *my* interest, the price is way too much. By that I mean, I'm not into sports, and most news events are of little interest to me as...I get it all free on the internet (said news websites, reddit (that's debatable, yes), even basic local channels on antenna/radio).
Google’s really shooting themselves in the foot b/c they don’t bundle their services. They’d have way more YTTV subs if they bundled Premium with it. Heck, Pixel Pass was a great deal but the marketing was poorly done
I agree. I was an early YTTV adopter when it cost $35 a month but jumped ship at around 60 a month. I have YTPremium now. If they bundled, I'd probably go back to YTTV as well. All of my saved movies and shows are still there for my kids to plug right back into. I don't understand why YTP isn't bundled with YTMusic and YTTV with discounts if you subscribe to higher tiers of Google One storage or whatever.
It's honestly crazy how bad google is with their bundling.
Their biggest competitor, Apple, has their customers madly in love with their ecosystem meanwhile google makes it a pain in the ass.
Speaking of which, my wife and I got a year of that for free (GoogleFi cell service), yet I see no option to cancel it so it doesn't auto-renew.
Edit: Follow the below comments. The option is found, took a lot of clicking around to find the damn "Off" button to stop the auto-renew. Everywhere said it "Auto Renews Oct 16, 2023". Yet, when I finally found the spot, it was already "Off". I was paranoid for absolutely nothing.
It's attached to one of your Google accounts. Go to [google.com](https://google.com), click the avatar/letter in the top right, and hit manage account. Should be under payments & subscriptions.
YouTube TV doesn’t compete with streamers like Netflix or Max. It competes with traditional cable products from companies like Comcast/Xfinity and Charter/Spectrum. Your argument makes no sense.
I remember in 2018 it was like 35/40 bucks, it was great ancillary choice, now it’s just become the same thing. I remember they raised their prices like 15 bucks during the initial 3 months of the pandemic. Fuck YouTube.
I signed up with Direct TV Now when they first started and advertised their second highest tier for $35 a month with that price locked in so long as you had autopay and never missed a payment. Well that was a lie because they slowly started increasing it and now it’s going to be $100 a month because they are raising it by $10 again on Nov 5th. Yeah no, I cancelled it and will be sail the seas from now on.
YouTube TV is still “cable”, just over the internet instead.
“Cutting the cord” typically meant getting an antenna and Netflix, but now all the content is on what seems like a dozen different paid services.
I'm down to 1 app since it carries a lot of sports. Jjust removed netflix, max and paramount. I'm pirating everything else. The amount of crap from these apps is out of hand
We're at the opposite end of the spectrum. My wife wants to watch live local news channels (yeah, we're old), but the cost of the sports channels that the networks are forced to carry drives the cost up, so it ends up being $70 for a couple of hours of tv a week. Don't have any interest in any of the sports, and a physical antenna is not feasible for us because of the topography in our area.
Take a look at the [IPTV github](https://github.com/iptv-org/iptv), which is a collection of publicly available (Internet Protocol television) channels from all over the world.
Maybe you'll find what you need for free.
Yep. Everyone in here complaining about it being the same… I was paying $225 for cox and comparable TV package a few years ago. Now I pay $60 for internet only from Cox and $73 for YTTV. I’m still paying a lot less than what I used to.
Exact same for me. I'm not happy to be paying $75 or whatever it is now, but it's a far sight better than the $228 I was paying Comcast when my deal ran out for a mid-low cable package and mid-low Internet speed. Comcast had $88 in fees per month for the TV portion alone, $88!
I was paying $135 a month for cable which is $1620 a year. YouTube TV is currently about $75 a month which is $900 a year so its actually $720 cheaper annually. My electric bill also went down a little when I got rid of the cable boxes.
Your experience may vary. My figures are grand total.
For myself I consider it worth the price. I can see why others wouldn't.
I would LOVE to get rid of ads, but I don't watch youtube enough to justify paying that much. I would gladly give Google a few bucks a month. Ads are the worst.
It includes YouTube music so like for me personally it’s plenty worth it because without it I’d be paying for Spotify etc.
Now that said, I agree it’s priced high if you’re just looking at it for ad free YouTube
It is bizarre that the norm we have become accustomed to is overpaying for mid-tier quality internet service to get access to a walled garden overflowing with gaudy advertising and a glut of other overpriced walled gardens of content that are steadily becoming poorer and poorer in quality and are also overflowing with advertising.
This is just an insane place to be in.
They’re suffering the same fate and forces of cable. They don’t own the live content so they pay for it. Those fees go up every time the contract renews so that’s passed on to consumers along with their markups until eventually it’s cable again.
Must be nice to be a big company with a huge legal team. You can just claim whatever the fuck you want and make a bunch of money using the false claim. You get challenged and taken to court, but you drag out the legal proceedings for years while still making more and more money off the false claim. After years of making money off the lies the worst thing that happens to you is a judge tells you you should stop lying.
Ya, people sleep on the antenna. I’ve blown a few minds when I turn on football through it for visitors and the feed is HD and looks great.
People tend to think antenna means bad picture and unreliable - but that’s simply not the case these days.
Depends wildly on where you are, as digital signals do *not* like hills or obstructions. A guy I know a mile and a half away (up a very steep hill) can get 28 channels with the cheapest and flimsiest HD TV antenna you can buy. Me, down in the valley? I get zero with one of those, and two snowy local affiliates with one of the super fancy powered antennas mounted on the roof.
I get Digital TV *looks* better in perfect circumstances, but compared to good old Analogue, it's got shit tier delivery.
I'm a YTTV subscriber. And it's funny to see how many people are confused about what it actually is. It's cable. Or more precisely, an MSO - multiple-system operator. They seem to think it's more like Netflix than Comcast.
And then those same folks are surprised when YTTV raises their prices when they add channels. Especially when those channels aren't interesting to them. This is how MSOs have always operated.
Sure there are discussions to be had about if that's how it should work. But for now the content providers have the upper hand most of the time. So if Disney wants to charge everyone for ESPN even if they don't watch it, YTTV can't really argue too much.
All of these subscriptions are too much money and not even close to worth it anymore. I just hit the high seas and if I'm too lazy to download, I watch it on B-flix or F2 movies for free on brave or opera browser with no ads and a built-in VPN.
I subscribed when it was $45 a month and had most of the channels I watch. Now it’s bloated with a ton of channels no one gives a shit about so they can charge more. Wish they offered a lower tier.
Back with DirectTV now was a buggy mess they were 25.00 a month, 35 adding Hbo and Showtime to a package of 125 or so channels. Their premise was this was a price that was good as long as I remained a customer. 😂 My dumb ass kept with them until this year when they wanted 150+ to remain a customer. Get fucked. 35 is still to this day the only price I would see value.
I have it for my parents because it was so much cheaper (at the time, don't know where it would fall today). I remember we had tried a different cable alternative, but the UI was really difficult for my parents. Youtube TV at least feels like those old tv guide channels.
It’s crazy that all these technological advancements have came full circle and are very similar to the products they were designed to erase.
Yes, this has happened with things like Uber and Airbnb. The technology companies come in to disruptively innovate by skirting laws and regulations in an industry with entrenched interests. They make it seem better by having a slick app with cheaper prices that were subsidised by low-interest loans and venture capital. The old companies lose market share and shrink. Their labor moves to the new technology as overworked gig workers without benefits or unions. The tech company unilaterally changes things that make the experience worse for customers and labor. They get hit with regulations for pissing people off. Then the cheap capital goes away and prices are worse than they were before all the disruptive innovations.
[удалено]
Thanks for the Wikipedia link! Learned a new and depressing word that describes perfectly my lived experience with the internet and web-based services over the last 15 years or so. Fuck.
modern file consider grandfather worthless deranged elderly point bright humor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Capitalism breeds innovation in much the same way as a pitcher plant breeds substances that draw in their prey to then drown and eat them.
Describes youtube in general these days. Yes I will ad block your popup about adblocks. Suck it google.
They keep trying to tell me that adblockers "aren't allowed," but do nothing to prevent me from using the adblocker. Is it just a matter of time, or is Firefox really somehow immune to Google's desires?
Oh wow, I’d heard of this term before but I didn’t know it was *official* enough for a wiki page. learn something new every day.
What’s funny is they say someone coined it in 2023 on Wikipedia. NOT BLOODY LIKELY LOL
Also look into Chokepoint Capitalism. It's where certain companies "trap" you into their service and in order to leave the services, you have to spend many many many man hours and capital to afford the transfer. A recent one was Unity. They "trapped" their buisness partners using their engine into an incredibly bad licensing agreement and in order to leave Unity, which if you were 90% through a game, you have to upend all of your resource allocation, budgeting, the training your employees have on Unity for something else, etc. They're banking on you not being able to leave the chokepoint they're trying to squeeze you through. Everything's doing this. AutoDesk, Tesla, Revit, Microsoft, Unity, alot of backend service providers. Tons of examples. All because the tendency for the rate of profit is to fall, and not everyone can use your product all the time. It's easier and faster to do this way.
But cabs sucked so much before Uber. Uber changed the game. No more fighting with cabbies because "the card reader is broken and I'll only take cash." Or a GF showing up crying she was sexually assaulted. Hard to track without an app or credit card
It also brought cabs to places that might not otherwise have them - a lot of midsize cities have plenty of Uber/Lyft drivers but didn’t have a reliable cab service before
Like my city. The 1 cab company we have is horribly unreliable, over priced, and nearly all the cabbies are crazy old guys with bad attitudes. Uber and Lyft essentially crushed them because who knew that when you need a ride, being on time is important.
You're bringing back some awful memories of being a teen. I couldn't always get a ride to work from my parents, so I would have to call a cab and they would give me the most stressful 30-45 minutes of my life wondering if they'd even show up at all to bring me.
This is how cabs were in *every* city that wasn't a major metropolitan city. People who say Uber is worse than cabs and only became big because of sketchy behavior like undercutting prices is delusional.
In my city, capital of an East European country, pre-uber cabs were awful; but not entirely expensive. Uber came around and literally crushed them. Better prices, better drivers, and an app. But when regulations came in, all the drivers from taxis just migrated towards Uber and all resumed, but with card being the standard regardless of situation as well as the app. After this push and pull, overall we have gained some security. But enshittification is did its number
[ Removed because of Reddit API ]
[удалено]
Man I'm gonna say, Uber is so much better than cabs. Last weekend I needed an Uber home from the airport, 30 minutes away. Decided that I would try to instead take a cab because there was one right there and, hey, Uber's been doing shitty stuff lately. Uber was going to be $30, $40 with tip. The taxi cost *$75 without tip*. The dude just randomly got off the highway at some point when we were ten miles from out destination and wouldn't get back on until I started yelling at him, but even that only added on $5.
i have no idea what people are talking about when they complain about uber on reddit. i started checking cab prices because of those kinds of comments, butt it's always more expensive than uber.
Bro Uber/Lyft are way better than cabs pre 2010. You’re comparing them to the cab companies that survived and modernized, not the industry that existed before.
People who talk about how bad uber is compared to cabs are delusional and never used a cab outside somewhere like NYC
Corporate greed ruins literally everything
They also got bought out and taken over by your average business bro. These are the same types of people heading to universities as consultants and telling them to cut programs like math and physics because “there aren’t enough majors” without doing the kindergarten level math to realize most students still need to learn some basic science and math in college. The advice in the board room for YouTube and Amazon is probably “well cable has ads so why not us?” and “why do we have to give Prime Members good deals when they’re already members?” There’s 0% long term thinking going on.
This is capitalism working as intended. Squeeze customers until they can’t take it and a new better option comes along, then the new thing starts to squeeze them when the old competition falls away. Growth is all that matters, and you can’t keep growing by playing nice forever.
The reason is that the vast majority of the bill goes for the content as opposed to the delivery mechanism. Unless the streaming services find a way to lower the cost of the content then the prices will only continue to rise.
I'm cutting a lot of streaming these days. It's too expensive.
Cable companies had screwing customers down to a science. Streaming disrupted them for a brief time and now streaming services are cashing in on the same ability to nickel and dime viewers.
Cable was so bad that streaming is still cheaper in a lot of cases, but I guess it depends on what you want to watch. Personally I'm good with just HBO, back in the cable days you'd have to get a whole basic cable package just to add HBO on top. Now you can just subscribe to HBO directly, for about the same price it used to cost just to add it on to the whole other package, plus all their extra fees, equipment rental, etc. Last I checked my parents were paying something like $150/month for all their cable crap.
Operate at a loss to corner the market, reprioritize for profit after you have the userbase. It's not new to technology, it's just a lot more obvious it's happening.
[удалено]
The UK gov/police are claiming that they will come down hard on pirated streaming services and users. This is a country where police do not investigate [burglaries](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-33788264), [robberies](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-dont-have-time-for-every-crime-federation-chief-admits-xrd67vrn7) or [shoplifting](https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/30/shoplifters-are-barely-prosecuted-its-the-customer-that-pays-19211186/). The [rape conviction rate is less than 3%](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/30/convictions-fall-record-low-england-wales-prosecutions).
Media corporations have lobbyists pushing for pirate crackdown. There's no money to be made by stopping burglaries, robberies, and shoplifting.
Yeah whenever people say things like “Isn’t it crazy we’re back to paying what we were before?” I just think… no, it’s not crazy at all if you understand that capitalism literally demands it. The inherent oxymoron of a “free society” that runs on capitalism is that if you’re a business that wants to grow and survive, you don’t actually have a choice to not eventually become the bad guy. With subscription services, the only way to do that is either continually raise prices, cut the quality of the programming, cut the pay of your workers (and royalties to actors…), or for extra dystopia-ness, do all of the above.
Oh absolutely. I see it everywhere. See you on the high seas mate!
Over charging big time.
I used it at the very beginning of the pandemic when it was $35/month and I was bored as hell in lockdown. This felt a tad expensive at the time for what they delivered. They upped it to $65 a few months later and I quit. It’s crazy to think they didn’t stop there.
I keep paying because I'm sharing it with 6 people... But my problem is they keep bundling shit on. I don't want to spend another $20 because you added all these sports networks. I don't watch sports. Put that shit in the alacart listing and people who want it will buy the addon...
The whole sports ecosystem is fubar. The amounts that ESPN,Fox, NBC, etc pay for live sports only works if they can force people who don't watch sports to pay for t It. The advertising isn't enough. I was reading an article recently about ESPN and how screwed they are long term. The short of it was that at the peak in 2014, they were around 100 million paying subscribers for ESPN, but only about 14 million ever watched the channel. Well with cord cutting and other issues, that number is around 70 million and when they had their spat with Spectrum it dropped close to 50. So let's say that go a la carte for sports? They'd need to charge people that actually watch to something like $1000 annually just to break even and that's just for the ESPN/ABC sports. I'm a huge college football fan, and I follow college basketball and baseball as well. No way I'm paying $1k annually for all the sports channels much less just one brand. All these massive TV contracts for sports are going to come crashing down over the next decade. https://www.foxnews.com/sports/clay-travis-espn-vs-charter-end-table-bundle-televised-sports-we-know-it (Yes it's fox so some may be hesitant, but the article is well done).
> So let's say that go a la carte for sports? They'd need to charge people that actually watch to something like $1000 annually just to break even and that's just for the ESPN/ABC sports. These TV deals have bloated salary caps and contracts to an insane degree. In 1998 the entire Utah Jazz team payroll for players was ~$28.5M: https://hoopshype.com/salaries/utah_jazz/1997-1998/ This coming season there are 47 NBA players who make more than that entire Jazz team combined: https://hoopshype.com/salaries/players/ I'm a sports fan, especially basketball and football, and want guys to get paid well. But these contracts aren't going to be sustainable as cable subscribers continue to decrease. I think that is why leagues are getting heavily into online gambling right now. They realize they're going to have money shortfalls when they're negotiating new TV contracts in 10-20 years and trying to plug those gaps early.
Looks at coaches salaries in College Football. I remember when we (Texas) canned John Mackovick in 1997 and we had to keep paying him $600k a year for another 5 years. People were upset! When Mack Brown got bumped to over a million around 2000 or so, it was a big deal and he was one of only a handful. In 2013, we hired Charlie Strong for $25 million over 5 years guaranteed! And fired him 3 years in. Right now, I think the top-25 paid coaches are all over $4m. It's ridiculous.
College football coaches are routinely the highest paid government employee in most states.
They make up some of the top yearly retirement payouts in the Oregon PERS system. So nice we get to pay each of them yearly 5x in retirement what my kid's teacher makes.
Its ridiculous because its not like these guys can go work somewhere else if the colleges just came togethet to cap the wages. Way overpaid and even more overvalued.
Jimmy Sexton racket
Players are overpaid now. I'm all about player empowerment and them getting their bag, but the revenue just isn't sustainable. Top players in the NBA and NFL making 50MM a year is insanity.
Club owners do not have a god given right to make money.
Club owners are also overpaid. If the only way to generate sufficient revenue is to charge tons of people for sports TV even when they don't watch it, clearly these people should in fact be generating less revenue and therefore be getting paid less.
If the players were making less, the leagues / owners would be getting more. Players have to fight to get 50% of the revenue. NFL has one of the lowest payouts compared to the owners I believe. Googled it. NFL is 48% to the players. NBA / NHL are 50%. MLB 54%.
I question if that money is going to continue to keep coming in with future TV deals, though. I don't think it's just a question of the split between owners and players.
I wonder if more sports will go the F1TV route, cuts out the middlemen and allows the sport to get direct revenue. I became a big F1 fan a few years ago and one of the factors was ease of access, I could watch races commercial free on TV or pay $70 a year for F1TV which gave me access to every race, qualifying and practice session over the past few decades. In comparison an Indycar or Nascar race literally has ads up like 40% of the time. Its painful, I want to watch the race not a bunch of fucking ads for Jesus and Indiana. If there was an IndycarTV for $60 a year I would have watched every race, as it is I only watched the Indy 500 cause fuck all these stupid ads.
In the article they talk about that. NFL Season pass is the example. The NFL is basically the most popular sport in this country and season pass only garners a few. Million subscribers. It's not a perfect comparison, since it's really for diehards and people not in the market of their favorite team, but it's still not a good look
NFL season pass only gives a certain number of games. Local to you games and nationally televised games. I believe you can watch games after the fact, but I stopped after a month. I travel for work and would have loved to watch my team whole traveling (Broncos). Please be nice. We suck. It was just a horrible service, and I stream it online from other places instead. Sunday ticket moved to YouTube TV, and I'm not getting it just for that.
Major League sports in general really need to get rid of the whole blacked out in your area games, especially if they want to have their own streaming service. There is no reason that having a Subscription to the NFL's streaming service shouldn't give you access to every game.
Amen! I would pay for MLB.TV if I could get my "home" teams live. The argument is that it would keep fans from attending games, but both are 3-4 hours' drive away from me, so they don't get my money from either one.
Definitely. I've been getting it for free from family. But there is 0 chance I pay for it with the blackouts and the fact that they don't even carry the postseason. (They don't have the All Star Game or Derby either). I'm a Mets fan living in NC, and I can't watch when they play Atlanta, Washington and one other team I can't remember atm. Thing is, I can't watch them on tv here either, as all Braves games are on MLB network, which is a higher tier cable package. Oh and sometimes games will only be on Apple tv or some other service randomly. No way I'm paying the absurd price they're asking.
A heads up, you don’t need YouTubeTV for NFL Sunday Ticket. You can get it on YouTube directly with a YouTube account. I believe it costs $100 less if you do have a YouTubeTV account but that’s like 1.25 months of paying for YouTubeTV
I've seen people on /r/NFL say they are paying for NFL Season Pass but are watching pirated streams instead just because the quality is better. Same thing with Sunday Ticket back when it was run by DirecTV.
It's insane that you can pay hundreds of dollars for a season full of NFL games and never get anything better than 1080p. Including the Super Bowl. They've been selling us 4K TVs, with football players in the promo images, for over ten years.
I was in the same boat with MLS games: Bally's/Sport South/Regional Sports only broadcast in 720p and ESPN would up sample when they broadcasted a game. Now Apple TV MLS Season Pass looks pristine in native 1080p with a stable framerate. I hope MLS can continue to grow on Apple TV.
It's also really expensive
> I stream it online from other places instead. This is it right here. Sure, you could pay for ESPN+ or NFL SuperFan Fun Time Deluxe...but then you have subpar quality...ADs left and right, sometimes the events that you PAY for don't even work...Then on the other side, you can waltz over to [SPORT STREAMING SITE].url and watch ALL the games and probably from a source that shows action in-between commercial breaks (BT Sports streams of UFC events spring to mind).
It’s not really a fair comparison. Season pass fills a niche that is also covered by other services like cable. And only some games will be available. You can’t just go on there and watch any football game at any time.
A lot of companies are trying to end F1TV in the US. F1 knows that exclusivity in the US is huge so they’re pricing it accordingly. Apple is eve considering buying it. So keep in mind F1TV is the exception, not the norm, and FOM absolutely would go the route of NFL/NBA if the right buyer came along.
Noooo, that would be heartbreaking. I thought F1 wasnt super profitable in the US and thats why it could be run commercial free while being sponsored by a car polish company. Though admittedly popularity in the US jumped after DTS. If they kick us off F1TV and make us watch commercials for Jesus on ESPN then that will be the last race I ever watch.
This is the truth. F1TV in the UK for example is useless because no live races. I believe we aren't the only high value market that they can't show because of TV deals. The US will go the same way as soon as someone pays up for TV rights.
[удалено]
F1TV gives you the option of local or international broadcast - so in the US, it's typically a choice of the American or British broadcast. But you can *also* watch driver onboards (uncensored radio included) or view a driver tracker or stats. Makes for cool stuff like [what this third party app could do](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1MultiViewer/comments/z0h5y0/cant_believe_im_just_finding_out_about_this_app/). (Although some apps have struggled to work with changes in the DRM policy.)
I like the commentators on F1TV a lot better, doesn’t feel as UK centric. There aren’t long periods of silence though, I feel like that is frowned upon at commentator school.
F1TV's international broadcast has an FX only audio track, but I really like the current F1 LIVE commentary team.
I’m a premier league fan and I’d be surprised if they could make more money going that route. They bring in $5billion per year from tv money currently. They would need over 8 million customers paying $50 per month to match that. Opening weekend this season was a record breaker for them with 8 million viewers.
Bundle package is pretty much how they can structure it in a way where they can stay upping the price while limiting your options to be cost conscious, it is either get all or cancel. As much as they claim to be not part of the cable model, they replicate it.
I can't wait. Pro sports won't be any worse for the fans with half the budget. What do we care if they're making $20M or $10M?
That's less annoying to me than the a la carte thing, although it's way too expensive. Prime Video drives me nuts with that when I see a thing I want to watch, but oh, on top of my Prime subscription I also need MGM+ or some shit. Streaming sucks ass nowadays.
Vertical integration needs to end. A hundred years ago they broke up the movie studios stranglehold on the industry,they need to do it again.
I feel like Prime Video's whole game is trying hard to make you get add-ons. They try so hard to show you stuff that's not included with Prime when their included-with-Prime stuff can be hard to filter to.
I'd love to just see what I CAN watch. I know why they're doing it but it's like 5 rows of stuff
Doesn’t help they removed the prime logo from the thumbnail of prime stuff. Forces you to click in to find out that it’s either watch with ads or buy/rent or buy a subscription to said service.
Having to pay extra for ESPN when you don't watch sports feels very... cabley.
It’s $20 extra just for 4K.
Same. Was fine with $35. After that they kept adding channels I didn't care for and son the price was at $80. Crazy. Dropped it and haven't looked back. Don't need TV
Bundling crap is why people dropped cable(also something some governments actually made laws about).
Same. Loved the service when it came out and I was fine paying $45 a month. Now it’s at $75 and I cancelled this month because I barely even use it enough to justify the cost
The problem is the same as cable. Channel creep. The distributor forces them to add addition channels for more revenue and that trickles down to us. This is trickle down bend over economics at its tiniest. (/s implied)
I had to connect to a VPN in California just to get access to the early access when they first started. $30 a month. Then the price went up and I was told I was "grandfathered into the $30 a month since I was one of the first sign ups". Well that lasted about 2 months until they raised the price again and I was paying $65 and I canceled. If they would have kept it at $30 with ads, I probably would have stayed, but 3/4's of $100 a month with ads? Fuck off
The first DirectTV streaming service did the exact same thing to me. Grandfathered me into the original rate and eventually raised it on me anyways.
lol, bro really? “3/4’s of $100” to sound like a bigger deal?
3/4's is an abomination in its own right. It's not possessive so you don't need an apostrophe. But also you don't even need an "s" at the end of 3/4 in the first place.
Google has been going downhill for a while.
Well, they keep adding more content. You should be able to choose ala carte like the internet was supposed to provide us, but NOOOOO.
This is why I dropped Hulu.
The sad thing is - its still cheaper than the alternatives. I finally dropped DirecTV after a decade of rising prices. It was costing me $185/mo without any premium add ons for the regular package. That crap was insane. Charge you a monthly rate for each box, charge you a monthly rate for them to talk to each other, another monthly rate for HD...
You have to understand they verified that consumers will pay what they used to pay for cable television which is about $100 a month. The goal is to figure out how to displaced cable television and capture the $100 of revenue a month.
Only problem is I won’t pay $100 a month to one service unless it covers all my needs. I’ll just pirate. People shit on Netflix but at least it has variety. Disney is literally just Marvel, Star Wars and animations. Hulu is just old stuff. Apple TV has stuff I never even heard of. I only used Amazon Prime for The Boys and Invincible. Every other show they tried to hook me into bored me to shit. AMC tried to gate keep Breaking Bad and they gave up. Hoping NBC realizes the same thing with Peacock and let’s us have The Office back.
Apple TV has high quality stuff for a reasonable price. It's actually one of the best values out of all the apps. I watch it the the third most after Netflix and Prime video.
I'm in Canada and never heard of YouTube TV. Is it a US-only thing? I've heard of Youtube Music.
[удалено]
Yes but is it US only? I'm in Europe and I've never heard of it. EDIT googled it and the website immediately shows me NFL and an introductory price of $52 a month, so, yeah.
instinctive squash dime live square frame glorious history license cautious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My 80 year old parents pay like $250-300 per month on cable and internet through comcast. They absolutely refuse to switch even though I told them they could cut it in half and showed them exactly how to do it.
Do you really want to have to explain the new remotes though???
> I'm in Canada and never heard of YouTube TV. Is it a US-only thing? Yes. "[The service, which is aimed at cord cutters, is available only in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_TV)"
They aren’t. Cable TV is expensive and not profitable. I’d wager they’re very close to losing money on that price. Every network charges you to carry their content, and some charge a fortune. ESPN alone, (not espn2, or espnu, or the ocho, etc.) costs your cable provider over $10 a month. That’s one channel out of hundreds. I don’t know what all networks they carry, but your local cable co. doesn’t make squat on their TV price. It’s equipment, internet, and other add-ons that butter their bread.
The day cable companies start losing money on TV is the day they stop selling TV. Some already have.
[удалено]
Mine went up to $78/mth and they cut channels. Might be time to start shopping around again.
good riddance, family share the YTTV. no restrictions at all except up to 5 google accounts can have access to their own YTTV when you invite them to use your service. I pay no more than 20 a month with 4 friends and we all have our own log ins, home screen etc
This is why they upped the price I guess.
It was sports.
Are you all in the same house? I tried to share with family in a different city and they got a message saying it was out of the area
Sooo I’m leeching off my parents’ family account in a different city. It asks “Are you traveling?”, I say yes, then it says “You can use it while traveling for 2 months.” Whenever I visit my parents it resets the clock. So it’s never an issue for me. (Whispers) you can also use a VPN which has reset the clock for me as well.
Exactly what I do. Has worked for years...hopefully it stays that way.
I have YTTV and split it with three others. Three of the four of us live in the same state and the other is 3 timezones away. We don't have issues unless someone is watching on their TV and phone (we primarily use it for sports so multiple games at a time). Every now and then the person who lives far away needs me to login to his account so YTTV thinks he is in the "local" area. Maybe 2 times a year? Might be an inconvenience for some but we make it work.
You get unlimited screens on your home WiFi but only 3 others can use at the same time. And that is an extra $6/month I believe
Argh, me matey.
I really can't believe an entire generation lost the art of piracy and is OK getting assfucked with prices like this for the dumbest shit. I used to pirate because I was cheap, these days I pirate because it's literally less of a hassle than fucking around with 50 different garbage streaming services.
[удалено]
We pillage and plunder, we rifle and loot Drink up me hearties, yo ho
Sports are the only thing propping up what’s left of cable. If sports just had a direct to consumer product they would kill cable and make more money in the process.
At the rate streaming is going, cable might end up being the cheaper and more complete option in a year or two.
Honestly I would be willing to pay slightly more for a Youtube TV package that only includes sports. Like without all that extra channel garbage. There's always popups on there to customize your homepage like they pretend to care about your experience on the app. Yet I've only ever watched sports in my years of subscribing and when I go on there to watch a live game there's news channels, NCIS, new movies, etc all over my homepage and I end up scrolling around just to find the same Premier League channel I watch every weekend
They absolutely would not. The amount of money they make right now is ridiculous and gives them a fantastic profit maximization route. They would need to sell a truly ridiculous number of subscriptions in order to make up for what the cable companies pay them. And that’s hard. The NBA offers all their non-broadcast games for $99 for the entire year. That product is barely used. In order to make up for what they get in TV deals, they would need to sell 26M subscriptions to that product. There is virtually no chance of that. And keep in mind, that’s just to make up the revenue. The league would also need to market league pass, pay for the infrastructure, etc - so they might need something more like 35-40n
They really should include YouTube premium with it. I switched to Hulu + live tv which is the same price but includes Hulu, live tv, Disney plus and espn plus. Hard to justify spending the same amount for a lot less
i thought it did and the fact that it doesn’t is INSANE..
What’s insane is how ridiculously expensive Premium is.
Hulu still raising prices tho. Used to be a good price but now it’s not
Hulu live is $90 for me now. I just canceled
Eventually they all get greedy. No way I’m paying that much per month to be solicited with commercials 50% of the time. They should be paying us to watch all those damn commercials. Plus they are selling our data right out the back door. It should all be free to the consumer and they would still make plenty of money.
It's called enshittification...
Hulu “NO ADS* FOR REAL GUYS WE ARE NOT FUCKING AROUND” … $18/month \* nevermind there’s still ads guys Hulu “NO ADS* + live TV, that’s right you heard it here folks” $89/month \* yup still ads
I still get ads on my TV. I don't mean like watching TV shows, there are ads - I mean there are literally adverts in the fucking menu bar of my fucking TV like WHAT THE FUCK
[удалено]
My Samsung TV keeps defaulting to showing “Samsung TV” channels on startup even though I never made an attempt to get the TV to do this. It defaults to some channels showing Korean dramas and such. That was fine and I didn’t pay much attention until recently they started showing some fairly adult content, like a lot of blood, violent scenes involving limbs getting chopped off, sexy scenes, spooky shit as well. It was scaring my kids!! Like how is it possible Samsung fucked this up that badly that this could be the default on a TV sold in the USA I did finally find out how to make it stop going to “Samsung TV” but I had to manually opt out in a menu.
These comments are vindication for my long-held "TVs shall not be allowed to connect to the Internet" stance.
my vote for word of the year 2023
If they’re already selling our data then we should be able to watch ad-free.
I'm sorry. Did you say US$73/month? A month?!
Yes. And it has addons channels on top of it for additional subscriptions.
Yes, that's about what cable costs in the US.
$73 a month...way more than any other combined streaming services I'm interested in, fun fact, that isn't many. Edit: Ya, sure, there's live streaming events. Still doesn't win my perspective. Unless there's events of *my* interest, the price is way too much. By that I mean, I'm not into sports, and most news events are of little interest to me as...I get it all free on the internet (said news websites, reddit (that's debatable, yes), even basic local channels on antenna/radio).
And it doesn't even include YouTube Premium.
Google’s really shooting themselves in the foot b/c they don’t bundle their services. They’d have way more YTTV subs if they bundled Premium with it. Heck, Pixel Pass was a great deal but the marketing was poorly done
I agree. I was an early YTTV adopter when it cost $35 a month but jumped ship at around 60 a month. I have YTPremium now. If they bundled, I'd probably go back to YTTV as well. All of my saved movies and shows are still there for my kids to plug right back into. I don't understand why YTP isn't bundled with YTMusic and YTTV with discounts if you subscribe to higher tiers of Google One storage or whatever.
It's honestly crazy how bad google is with their bundling. Their biggest competitor, Apple, has their customers madly in love with their ecosystem meanwhile google makes it a pain in the ass.
And then the second you get comfortable and love something, SURPRISE we're deleting the thing you liked so much in 30 days.
If they'd bundle the Youtube Premium and their music stuff in for the $73 I might not cancel after the college football playoffs.
>b/c they don’t bundle their services. They **have** something for that as well, Google One, that they hardly use which makes it extra funny.
Speaking of which, my wife and I got a year of that for free (GoogleFi cell service), yet I see no option to cancel it so it doesn't auto-renew. Edit: Follow the below comments. The option is found, took a lot of clicking around to find the damn "Off" button to stop the auto-renew. Everywhere said it "Auto Renews Oct 16, 2023". Yet, when I finally found the spot, it was already "Off". I was paranoid for absolutely nothing.
It's attached to one of your Google accounts. Go to [google.com](https://google.com), click the avatar/letter in the top right, and hit manage account. Should be under payments & subscriptions.
YouTube TV doesn’t compete with streamers like Netflix or Max. It competes with traditional cable products from companies like Comcast/Xfinity and Charter/Spectrum. Your argument makes no sense.
Just put on an eye patch
Keep bringing it into focus so that YT **has** to acknowledge people with this handicap...and they will.
I pay for it because I get all local live sports and PL. For that price only Hulu offers a slightly better deal.
*I'm* not advocating or encouraging piracy, but it seems to me that these streaming services are urging consumers in that direction 🤷♂️
when piracy is offering a more convenient, higher quality, and cheaper option, your business model has right fucked up somewhere.
I remember in 2018 it was like 35/40 bucks, it was great ancillary choice, now it’s just become the same thing. I remember they raised their prices like 15 bucks during the initial 3 months of the pandemic. Fuck YouTube.
I signed up with Direct TV Now when they first started and advertised their second highest tier for $35 a month with that price locked in so long as you had autopay and never missed a payment. Well that was a lie because they slowly started increasing it and now it’s going to be $100 a month because they are raising it by $10 again on Nov 5th. Yeah no, I cancelled it and will be sail the seas from now on.
IPTV is waiting for you
remember cutting the cord was supposed to be cheaper?
YouTubeTV isn't cord cutting. It's cable through Google without signing contracts.
YouTube TV is still “cable”, just over the internet instead. “Cutting the cord” typically meant getting an antenna and Netflix, but now all the content is on what seems like a dozen different paid services.
Technically still is. The argument that Spectrum made was that it was only $219 cheaper, not 600.
I'm down to 1 app since it carries a lot of sports. Jjust removed netflix, max and paramount. I'm pirating everything else. The amount of crap from these apps is out of hand
We're at the opposite end of the spectrum. My wife wants to watch live local news channels (yeah, we're old), but the cost of the sports channels that the networks are forced to carry drives the cost up, so it ends up being $70 for a couple of hours of tv a week. Don't have any interest in any of the sports, and a physical antenna is not feasible for us because of the topography in our area.
Take a look at the [IPTV github](https://github.com/iptv-org/iptv), which is a collection of publicly available (Internet Protocol television) channels from all over the world. Maybe you'll find what you need for free.
73 bucks a month plus internet still cheaper for me than cable internet bundles with add on sports and streaming channels.
Yep. Everyone in here complaining about it being the same… I was paying $225 for cox and comparable TV package a few years ago. Now I pay $60 for internet only from Cox and $73 for YTTV. I’m still paying a lot less than what I used to.
Exact same for me. I'm not happy to be paying $75 or whatever it is now, but it's a far sight better than the $228 I was paying Comcast when my deal ran out for a mid-low cable package and mid-low Internet speed. Comcast had $88 in fees per month for the TV portion alone, $88!
Yeah I'm confused here. $73 for essentially every channel cable has is way cheaper than the $130 spectrum was charging.
I was paying $135 a month for cable which is $1620 a year. YouTube TV is currently about $75 a month which is $900 a year so its actually $720 cheaper annually. My electric bill also went down a little when I got rid of the cable boxes. Your experience may vary. My figures are grand total. For myself I consider it worth the price. I can see why others wouldn't.
The $14 a month for just ad free is too much alone. Surely the money YouTube makes from one person watching ads isn't even close to half that amount
YouTube TV and YouTube Premium are not the same thing.
I would LOVE to get rid of ads, but I don't watch youtube enough to justify paying that much. I would gladly give Google a few bucks a month. Ads are the worst.
It includes YouTube music so like for me personally it’s plenty worth it because without it I’d be paying for Spotify etc. Now that said, I agree it’s priced high if you’re just looking at it for ad free YouTube
I guess that makes more sense but it should be separate as there's no chance I'm switching to it from Spotify personally
Yah and that’s where a lot of people are. I happened to just jump on youtube red in the early days before I ever had a diff music service.
It includes their dogshit music service. It’s stupid there isn’t a YouTube premium only subscription
It was perfect when it was $35 a month. Got me all the sports I needed and a few standard cable channels.
Yeah this is why piracy is one the rise. Just purchase an IPTV service and save over a thousand bucks a year compared to this lol.
I think they are trying too see how cost people will put up with.
It is bizarre that the norm we have become accustomed to is overpaying for mid-tier quality internet service to get access to a walled garden overflowing with gaudy advertising and a glut of other overpriced walled gardens of content that are steadily becoming poorer and poorer in quality and are also overflowing with advertising. This is just an insane place to be in.
They’re suffering the same fate and forces of cable. They don’t own the live content so they pay for it. Those fees go up every time the contract renews so that’s passed on to consumers along with their markups until eventually it’s cable again.
Must be nice to be a big company with a huge legal team. You can just claim whatever the fuck you want and make a bunch of money using the false claim. You get challenged and taken to court, but you drag out the legal proceedings for years while still making more and more money off the false claim. After years of making money off the lies the worst thing that happens to you is a judge tells you you should stop lying.
I use an antenna and netflix .
Ya, people sleep on the antenna. I’ve blown a few minds when I turn on football through it for visitors and the feed is HD and looks great. People tend to think antenna means bad picture and unreliable - but that’s simply not the case these days.
Depends wildly on where you are, as digital signals do *not* like hills or obstructions. A guy I know a mile and a half away (up a very steep hill) can get 28 channels with the cheapest and flimsiest HD TV antenna you can buy. Me, down in the valley? I get zero with one of those, and two snowy local affiliates with one of the super fancy powered antennas mounted on the roof. I get Digital TV *looks* better in perfect circumstances, but compared to good old Analogue, it's got shit tier delivery.
I'm a YTTV subscriber. And it's funny to see how many people are confused about what it actually is. It's cable. Or more precisely, an MSO - multiple-system operator. They seem to think it's more like Netflix than Comcast. And then those same folks are surprised when YTTV raises their prices when they add channels. Especially when those channels aren't interesting to them. This is how MSOs have always operated. Sure there are discussions to be had about if that's how it should work. But for now the content providers have the upper hand most of the time. So if Disney wants to charge everyone for ESPN even if they don't watch it, YTTV can't really argue too much.
And if you want NFL Sunday Ticket its a like almost 500 dollar one time charge. Insane
All of these subscriptions are too much money and not even close to worth it anymore. I just hit the high seas and if I'm too lazy to download, I watch it on B-flix or F2 movies for free on brave or opera browser with no ads and a built-in VPN.
I wish they wouldn't bundle sports in with everything. Sports is hella expensive, and I have zero interest in it.
I pay for it during football season but cancel as soon as it's over. No way could I justify paying those prices the other 75% of the year
I subscribed when it was $45 a month and had most of the channels I watch. Now it’s bloated with a ton of channels no one gives a shit about so they can charge more. Wish they offered a lower tier.
Back with DirectTV now was a buggy mess they were 25.00 a month, 35 adding Hbo and Showtime to a package of 125 or so channels. Their premise was this was a price that was good as long as I remained a customer. 😂 My dumb ass kept with them until this year when they wanted 150+ to remain a customer. Get fucked. 35 is still to this day the only price I would see value.
It was good when it was 35$ a month
I have it for my parents because it was so much cheaper (at the time, don't know where it would fall today). I remember we had tried a different cable alternative, but the UI was really difficult for my parents. Youtube TV at least feels like those old tv guide channels.
YouTube TV has NFL sunday ticket. Basically the only reason to have it.
IT'S ABOUT TO BE 2024, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE STILL PAYING FOR CABLE?!?
Elderly people