YouTube TV raises subscription to $72.99, inching closer to cable pricing
theverge.com
theverge.com
That being said, as someone who helped family move off of cable in the last year, this is only inching closer to cable's headline pricing which is largely a fiction. All the big four providers of cable/satellite have the following pricing:
- Advertised discount price (12-24 month contract)
- Normal price
- Taxes & Fees
Sometimes you can keep threatening to cancel, take out a new 12-24 month contract, and keep the "discounted" price. But in my experience each discount is less and less generous relative to what they're advertising.
Then there are taxes & fees. The taxes are, well, taxes and also apply to streaming TV. But a lot of the "fees" have nothing at all to do with government. They're just unavoidable parts of the service's price that the cable/satellite vendors split off to misrepresent the costs.
These include, but not limited to:
- Equipment fee (main box cannot be avoided, additional boxes can be)
- Broadcast TV Fee + Regional Sports Fee (unavoidable)
- HD TV Fee (often if your equipment SUPPORTS HD then you are required to pay it)
- Administrative/Convenience Fees (rarely this can be reduced by jumping through hoops e.g. pay by paper check)
These can easily add $20 to your bill. If your contract doesn't allow monthly increases, that can sometimes not apply to fees (either increases to existing or new ones).
I worked for a Telco (that also did Cable TV).
The marketing team would literally sit around a conference table and discuss how they were going to raise quarterly revenue by $amount so they would get their bonuses. Someone would suggest a connection fee. Or a disconnection fee. Or a change service fee, increase existing fee, call out fee, paper bill fee, credit card change fee, new equipment fee,.....
They really would sit around and invent this stuff purely to increase revenue, because that was the goal.
In this line, I've been paying Fanatiz for a while and I absolutely vouch for their service. It was a godsend to me, since I live in a remote area and have no access to a good cable package. I can simply select the leagues I want to watch and pay only for those. It is an absolute delight to deal with their business model. I don't want to pay 100 bucks for every single league on every single country, I literally just want to watch 4 matches a month, why should I pay more than 20 bucks?
Paying $100+/yr for a channel I’ve never watched or cared about is a big reason why I cut the cord. They certainly aren’t “subsidizing” anything.
It’s only inelastic to the fraction of “subscribers” that watch it, the rest would drop it instantly if they could save the $10/month.
They're also making the sports fans subsidize the non-sports content.
While it's generally illegal to charge people for nothing, businesses always try to sell things that are as close as possible to nothing: Channels you don't want, mobile phone time you won't use, etc.
Every show feels the same. The actors seem interchangeable. There's such a limited subset of permitted stories and things that can be said that the whole thing is boring in its homogenization. For most of us, informational programming (the last bastion of decent TV) is now largely replaced with preachy documentaries and voyeuristic glimpses into the lives of shitty, but dramatic people. Our entertainment is an ouroboros constantly digesting itself.
Do something else! Play a videogame. Read a book. Go out and do something calming. Stop worshipping TV and movies and entertainment, and the talented but otherwise largely dumb and unqualified individuals playing all these derivative characters.
And for god sakes stop sucking off the teat of these stupid subscription plans! The least we can do to fight pack is to pirate it.
It truly is the boob tube.
I’ll watch TV for an hour or so a day before calling it a night and it gives my spouse and me a lot to talk about, something to bond over, build a corpus of inside jokes, be able to talk to other people who might have watched a particular show, etc.
Having to interact with a world is by definition more active than solely watching. Since GP is judging sedentary and passive content ingestion, then yes, it’s much better. Especially when the TV content is mindless reality TV.
(I’m not a gamer myself)
I also go to the gym and cycle outside, people are allowed to like things
But apples-to-apples, watching video is the only common activity that feels maximally passive.
I guess with the exception of listening to music? Not sure how this fits in
On the other hand, I've been a musician since I was three, so perhaps the way I'm processing music is different from normal. One facet might be that I usually don't find myself focusing much on lyrics (if any), which means it ends up as a semi-meditative activity in a way that TV can't.
If YOU don't, I would highly recommend considering it. Hell I'm pretty sure I got my COVID 19lbs because I couldn't go out and dance at parties when lockdown hit
Burning Man has been intertwined with tech culture for like...30 years?
But I do a run and lift weights regulatly
This is an issue of availability. There need to be more games with a broader appeal. I can certainly see why FPSs are not appealing to the feminine demographic. On the other hand, the Wii was popular with all genders and all ages.
People probably said the same about reading at several points in history. It's about how you use the technology, not the technology itself.
>Do something else! Play a videogame. Read a book. Go out and do something calming. Stop worshipping TV and movies and entertainment
Videogames and books are things you can't do with a partner. Going out is, but that takes a lot of time (travel time is a lot of overhead) and usually costs money unless you just go to the local park or something. Plus, it's restricted by the weather.
>And for god sakes stop sucking off the teat of these stupid subscription plans! The least we can do to fight pack is to pirate it.
Since this article is about YouTube TV, I'd like to plug the excellent Android TV app "SmartTubeNext". If you have a Google/Android TV, you can install this app (it's a bit of a pain since Google won't allow it in the Play store, so you need a downloader app to install it directly from GitHub) and watch YouTube videos without ads or sponsor segments.
NewPipe is available on F-Droid and offers the same thing.
There are, in fact, many games that are playable by more than one person.
Secondly, I'm gay and my boyfriend and I play tons of video games together.
Third, even if I wasn't, I'd probably have the wherewithall to find a girlfriend that shares my interests or at least doesn't have a problem with them.
Amazingly, humans (yes, including women, perhaps shocking to you) are complex and nuanced creatures that find enjoyment across a wide range of activities. Women can absolutely enjoy video games, just not when they're forced to play with sexist creeps like you.
Or do you think after 12 years my wife and I should spend all of our time together looking lovingly into each others eyes talking about our relationship?
So instead “playing video games” is much more stimulating? You realize the previous generation also said video games were ruining children?
It’s also funny that your alternative was “playing video games” and not going outside for run, riding a bike, etc - anything that requires physical exertion or actually being around a group of other people.
Nor a reason to berate anyone else about their choice.
> Stop worshipping TV and movies and entertainment
Maybe I should have rephrased that to 'passive' entertainment.
Snark aside, I should note the flexibility in storytelling that all interactive fiction provides. Namely, as the author you get to use time travel without having it as a plot element. That way, you also avoid the overemphasis that long-running linear stories place on their singular endings.
Hmm...this has definitely been said on HN before in some thread related to the Netflix CYOAs. I wonder if a useful robot9000 is now feasible with modern language models, with aggregating and summarizing of perennial forum debates.
Putting charity to the claim, since you do have to interact with games, I could see how the thought could be that they are more mentally stimulating. Gambling, of course, gives the lie to that claim. Addictive does not mean productive, and all of that.
That said, why do so many folks obsess over productivity?
The Last of Us (game) is much better than MILF Manor lol
That said, I offered charity to the idea. Breaking Bad is entertaining. Is it mentally stimulating, though? Tetris is probably as mentally challenging. More, in many ways.
That said, even with that charity to the idea, I think it is misguided. Mentally stimulating can just be addicting with no growth.
And then further, I think the idea that you need growth is misguided. Being entertained is fine.
I was just using your own words to show you the 2 quoted statements you made are in direct opposition to each other. They are all entertainment. That's all.
Its simply a matter of time before the cancerous growth of capitalism gets its fingers into the media even deeper.
Mark my words. Gaming is trending towards subscription service, and advertising will only find its way deeper into the way content is delivered until your sessions are 20 minutes long with 5 minutes for ads.
Illegalize advertising.
One of the reasons I'm glad Stadia failed. I don't think that continuing costs can be avoided for online multiplayer where continuous support is necessary, but single-player offline games would likely get swept up in this tide as well.
I also play way less games nowadays, and mostly for Switch, for which I prefer the physical cartridges. I'm honestly not even sure if disks are still sold for the newest Xbox or Playstation.
Of course, PC/Steam vs console could keep things from completely sucking for consumers. Hopefully?
Let's put that into the BLS CPI Inflation Calculator (https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm).
Results: "$64.99 in June 2020 has the same buying power as $75.84 in February 2023".
So this doesn't quite keep up with inflation.
Most of it's not paying for the tech: It's paying for the licensing fees to the TV channels. And at least one of those licenses will always ask for more money, and none of them will ever ask for less money - Not unless TV & other streaming services are fully killed off and YouTube is literally the only place that people can watch TV.
Reductively: YouTube will have to be the sole broadcasting company for the entire world before these media companies will ever bend the knee.
When our streaming forefathers spoke of a la carte as the future, they should have specified each individual piece of content and not a la carte channels. It would have saved us all a lot of money.
I have no interest in paying for sports, so I do not buy sports. I can buy individual episodes, seasons, or month to month subscriptions within seconds now.
I now wait until all the episodes are out, and word of mouth from multiple sources has established quality of the content, to purchase it. I can then consume it within a month or few months, and cancel the subscription. Or rent the movie for a few dollars.
I probably pay $150 per year at most. Before a la carte steaming, that would have easily been $75+ per month with contracts and equipment fees or whatnot to Comcast. Mostly to pay for other people’s interest in sports.
(Liberty Mutual Insurance takes this to the limits of absurdity by advertising "insurance customized so you only pay for what you'll need to use".)
The current situation of having 10 streaming services exists because Netflix wouldn't raise their prices to become cable. Netflix's business model only worked because the people making the content undervalued streaming rights. When they started asking for real money, Netflix balked[0], so they pulled their shows to their own service so they could charge users directly.
[0] Because $9.99/mo is a more attractive price than $72.99/mo
The networks can’t achieve economies of scale with independent apps so they have to cave to price pressure too.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/genre/tv-shows/id32
Previously, this wasn't cheaper, you could get basically all the things with 2 subs, e.g. Netflix and Hulu Plus w/ Live.
Then there was a sort of golden age where Apple TV or Amazon Prime offered brand umbrellas as individual channel subscriptions. You could even add/cancel them right in the iPhone's subscription list (a few are still there).
Now most shows are congregating back under brands, each wanting full freight as if they had it all, the combination adds up.
Doing the math, if you watch specific named shows instead of background TV, it's to where season purchases might again make sense for individuals or DINK type households that only watch prestige TV.
Then it got even better, we could download or stream our content over the internet so we didn't need to pay $100 a month for cable and $50 for internet, we could just do the $50 for internet.
Now that those small startups sold their businesses to the giant media companies, we're all back to being literally forced to watch commercials, pay $100 to some big media company on top of our isp costs, and we can't record content locally perpetually and "own" it, even if we "buy" it.
Except for those of us who don't watch television and buy blurays of the content we want
In the last few years there has been a fairly consistent drama of "Will they or won't they" related to channels. Seems like Google likes to play hardball with the channel providers and just causes a headache for the subscribers.
I'm not going to say this price hike is the straw that broke the camels back, because our house really didn't use YouTube TV regularly enough to warrant the price previously. But it was a good reminder to cancel the service, so I have.
Right now I can upgrade my cable internet provider (sadly the only high speed option right now) to add "Preferred TV" (aka ALL the channels) for only an additional $63/mo more than what I'm currently paying for just internet.
So yes, YouTube TV is more expensive than cable now.
I'm sick of ads on YouTube so I was thinking of subscribing.
But it's USD$73 A MONTH? That's like more than AUD$100 a month.
What am I missing? That's about 4 X ridiculous.
You're missing "TV". YouTube and YouTube TV are different products.
Yes, the brands are pretty confusing.
Otherwise as a potential new customer, Youtube TV seems to be one of just many offerings with no real advantage.
i think youtube layed off even the goldfish in a bowl they had developing the app.
Until I read your comment. wow.
The thing that you get when you click on Music in the left sidebar of YouTube.
"It's a good change..."
Meanwhile YouTube TV on the Apple TV is a shit show, with non-native controls that lag, search that barely works and no integration with system services so searching for a channel by voice doesn’t work. And it still doesn’t free me from having to pay for Fox News!
Unless the software stops being the moral equivalent of electron on the TV, I’ll be moving back to cable when I next move house.
He had to get up every 5 minutes to refresh Chrome on his laptop he had connected to the TV or find a new stream because they get taken down so quickly.
70$ a month is well worth ever dealing with that shit
I've been streaming sports illegally almost 20 years now. I'm fine dealing with the ad-infested websites and constant refreshing of streams taken down for once a month events like UFC fights.
But for every day? I'll gladly pay the $1-2 a day to never deal with that.
At the end of the day if I wanted to watch sports I'd just throw enough money at the problem to watch them legally. When it comes to TV/Movies, on the other hand, you cannot pay for the best experience (legally) which is really sad.
What I want is the main Sports Networks (FS1, FS2, ESPN, ESPN2), my Regional Sports Network (but that's a Bally channel now -- and that's kind of a bit of a mess at the moment), and MLB TV (the cable channel, not their own MLB service).
I also want "DVR" for everything, and I want to be able to skip the ads (ideally with a +30s button).
I typically watch my games delayed so I can skip the ads, or even just plain "later". We DVR everything else.
Will YT TV let me do that?
In 1996, the FCC adopted the Over the Air Reception Device Rule, or (the unfortunately named) OTARD rule. In short, the OTARD rule prohibits homeowners' associations and condominium associations from placing restrictions on residents which impede the installation, maintenance, or use of satellite dishes, TV antennas, or wireless cable antennas.
I happily paid $10 a month for Locast. All I want is the locals and whatever they piggyback on. I can't get it for less than $40.
I continue to do without. Don't tell me about antennas. I live too far away for my "locals" to be picked up with an antenna.
I bitterly resent the graft that allowed the major networks to get a 90+ year old judge out of retirement to specifically rule in their favor.
Local TV is rarely worth the effort, but it can be a cheap way to watch the Olympics or your local sports team etc.
Eg. Last time I looked the annual option which saves money over the monthly wasn't available in the UK and the monthly was the same number despite the currency differences. ie $11.99 per month against £11.99. Outrageous.
I was on a cheap trial but cancelled on principle when I checked to extend.
Also:
>>and the monthly was the same number despite the currency differences. ie $11.99 per month against £11.99. Outrageous.
No, you're forgetting that the British price includes 20% VAT and the American one doesn't include taxes. The cost is literally the same once you add the VAT(12 usd = 10GBP, add 20% vat = 12GBP)
It seems like right now they are actually pretty far in the opposite direction, with the subscription covering a Google family group of up to 5 accounts.
$70 / 5 = $14, back to bearable apart from having to explain your watch history to relatives (if it is visible, I don't know for sure).