
YouTube TV - loisaidasam
https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/
======
kevincennis
Former Aereo engineer here.

First off, there are really two main reasons for someone not to have a cable
subscription:

1\. They don't care about the content

2\. Price sensitivity

At Aereo, we saw these sort of mix together to create hugely elastic demand.

For a while, we offered a $1 "day pass" that would give you access to live TV
for 24 hours at a time.

During the Super Bowl and various award shows, we had _crazy_ numbers of
people sign up for these day passes. We actually had to stop offering them,
because we literally couldn't build out the extra capacity in a cost-effective
way (remember, we needed distinct physical antennas and transcoders for every
user we served).

It was tough enough to get people to pay $8/month for access to live broadcast
TV and a cloud-based DVR. I have no idea how YouTube will convince anyone to
pay $35.

If they can work out the licenses, I'd imagine something like a day pass would
work well with consumers – but it's probably hard to get the economics of that
to work out.

~~~
kevincennis
Just to clarify a bit:

I do think OTT is going to win out in the long run. But that's really just the
underlying technology.

The tough part is getting rid of the bundle. I'm not so sure that'll happen,
although I really hope it does.

All of these giant media companies would much rather sell you 10 channels for
$20 than a single channel for $5.

If a la carte starts happening in a serious way, it's going to be a huge win
for consumers. But almost nobody on the other side really wants it. They're
going to fight tooth and nail to keep the bundles.

~~~
cloudwalking
Bundling is actually win-win in practice. The economics work pretty well,
which is why it's so persistent. It's a bit complex, take a look:
[http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-
sellers-a...](http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-and-
buyers/)

~~~
taneq
It's only a win for the consumer if the shows they're interested in are
subsidized enough by others being forced to pay for them that it offsets the
amount that the consumer is forced to pay for the shows they're not interested
in.

Basically it's a zero-sum game for the consumers amongst themselves while
being a win for the seller.

------
shaunol
This is a cool idea but it still falls very short by not serving users outside
of the US. To the point where the welcome page doesn't even acknowledge that
there may be global interest:
[https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/](https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/) (enter your
ZIP code, no country picker ... YouTube, you do realize you're on the
internet, right?)

Does YouTube care about getting content to the world? Or just getting as many
of their fingers in the pie as possible and abusing the current geo-restricted
licensing model while they can?

~~~
mikekchar
As someone who has lived in many different countries, I find this stuff so
frustrating. When I was living in England, my wife and I wanted to watch
Japanese anime (in Japanese). Luckily Crunchyroll exists and it has quite a
large amount of content for a very low price (I think we were paying 4 pounds
per month). But now that I'm back in Japan, we want to watch shows from BBC...
basically not possible legally. I really enjoyed watching cycling on
Eurosport. Good luck.

I really wonder who is going to pay $35 a month for US shows, while you are
already in the US. There are just so many other ways to get that content.

I hope one day before I die the media companies will realise that their old
idea of breaking up the world into pieces and sublicensing is a stupid one.

~~~
myrandomcomment
You can watch iPlayer via a VPN or DNS service like unblock.us (do not know if
they have service in Japan).

Note to the BBC - I would be to pay 3x the license fee to be able to watch on
the internet with a subscription from outside the U.K. I bet if you opened it
up world wide you would make more money then you do on the all the U.K license
fees.

~~~
mikekchar
Even the BBC isn't powerful enough to do this. I can't remember who it was but
one of the heads of the BBC said for a long time that content on BBC should be
available for free everywhere. He reasoned that it was already paid for. It's
one of the reason that they do so much free software development.

One of the shows that I want to watch is Match of the Day. Not sure what the
situation is like now, but when I was in the UK the BBC was having a huge
problem trying to negotiate the rights to put it on the iPlayer (strangely
MOTD2 was OK ???). It would be impossible if they needed international
distribution :-(

~~~
patrickk
For freeview UK channels, you can watch some of them on FilmOn[1]

I'm a rugby fan and it's possible to watch high quality, BBC or ITV coverage
of the Six Nations from abroad (BBC Scotland on Wales/Scotland has the higher
quality for free). I'm pretty sure that Americans can't watch it though
judging by comments on Reddit.

[1] [https://www.filmon.com/tv/bbc-news](https://www.filmon.com/tv/bbc-news)

~~~
stevekemp
I moved from Scotland to Finland, and one of the things I really missed was UK
TV. I'd love to have paid for it, but there aren't any really great options.

Initially I bought a NowTV subscription, with a home-made proxy setup. That
worked for a long time, but then they caught on, and most of the VPN-providers
became blacklisted too.

Nowadays I'm using FilmOn with a Roku box. I've slowly weaned myself off UK
TV, but there are afternoons where I just want to sit on a sofa and watch two
hours of "Come Dine With Me" for the snarking. I wish I could pay for it ..

------
halayli
Being asked for a zip code shows that not even youtube is able to change the
old broadcasting business model.

The day will come when TV streaming businesses takes over and removes the
virtual location barriers set by the industry.

~~~
riskable
No kidding. The moment I saw the zip code requirement I knew it was going to
be pointless.

Not only that but $35? Come on. There's not $35 worth of programming there.
It's just the same old dumbed down broadcast TV that has been in decline for
over a decade.

Compared to Netflix, Amazon, and even YouTube shows ABC, NBC, Fox et al just
plain suck. As proof, after watching an awesome trailer for some new sci-fi
show you may be totally pumped up to watch it until at the end when they
announce, "only on ABC!"

"Well shit. So much potential, ruined."

~~~
VikingCoder
At $35 per month, and since I can skip all ads... That might be something.
(The Verge confirms you can skip ads [1].)

And the DVR forever thing... That might be very nice, especially if they put
up tons of old stuff...

Plus, NOT paying my cable provider is worth a lot.

...and if this offers a way to Download content to my phone, to watch
offline...?

[1] [http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-
streaming...](http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming-tv-
service-announced-hd-live-cable-channels)

~~~
hysan
I kind of assumed that at $35/month, there were no ads. You have to skip them?
Seems to me that YouTube wants to have its cake and eat it too.

~~~
dragonwriter
It's basic cable with unlimited DVR, but bring-your-own data pipe.

------
youdontknowtho
I'm just not seeing 35$ a month worth of value. Sit coms? Get a grip, man. I
feel like they should pay me to watch them. TV is a wasteland. Some cable
channels are pretty good. SciFi, Comdey Central, sometimes FX. (I don't like
giving money to Fox, but Always Sunny is the funniest thing ever made.)

If they had a way to pick channels and only pay for those, that would be worth
looking at.

EDIT: Do you still have to watch commercials? I don't see anything about
commercials. If there are commercials then not just "no", but "hell, f*ck you
for asking, no".

~~~
andrewguenther
You can't bash on sitcoms and call SyFy "pretty good." In my opinion, half the
stuff in SyFy is worse than sitcoms.

~~~
chadgeidel
SyFy has really upped their game in the past year or so. The Expanse,
Killjoys, and The Magicians are good TV.

~~~
losvedir
I'm actually really enjoying The Expanse and The Magicians (to the point where
I bought one on Google Play and the other on iTunes). What's really cool is
that I bought the current season up front and then get to watch the new
episodes the day (or maybe day after?) they're released. I'm not sure if Syfy
is the only channel doing that, but before these shows I was used to only
being able to buy the season after it was released (e.g. Game of Thrones box
set).

I'll have to check out Killjoys, given that you've put it between the two
other shows that I enjoy. Thanks for the rec.

~~~
wmf
All networks are releasing shows the next day (except HBO has same day).

------
ravenstine
Um, no thanks.

Most of that content is uninteresting, free with an antenna, and loaded with
commercial breaks. I would rather spend that money for a season pass on
Amazon, or to go out and see a movie once a month. If money weren't an issue,
my time is still better spent on Netflix or watching lectures by smart people
on YouTube. I guess its fine if they want to attract the geriatric crowd, but
I cant imagine people in my generation paying that much for a vastly inferior
experience. As others have said, a cheaper day pass would be better, as there
still is a place for live content. Whether or not that should be a form of
life support for the old guard corporate media empire, that's up to you.

------
kristofferR
"Unlimited cloud DVR" seems really pointless. Why not just save everything, as
it airs, in a central archive that the users can browse at their leisure
instead? It also seems to mean that you can't rewind channels you weren't
watching, that you manually have to record stuff yourself. Really backwards of
Google if my assumptions are correct.

It seems weird that Google aren't able to create/negotiate something relevant
for today. All the things I talked about are becoming common for normal TV
providers in Norway.

~~~
snuxoll
Because the TV networks don't want that, see: many of them opting out of the
3-day replay functionality on Sling. I'm sure Google does keep one copy of
every show users have chosen to "record" instead of duplicating it, but
networks don't want people just being able to access an entire series without
effort (I'm guessing just because they are money-loving jackasses).

------
ipozgaj
People commenting that $35 is too much for the content included - if you want
an equivalent set of channels from Comcast/XFINITY, it will cost you almost 3x
more. So it's a non brainer for me, and the fact I don't have to deal with
Comcast is worth even more than saving ~60% of my monthly cable bill.

~~~
myrandomcomment
This of course is only true if you pay for cable TV.

I have Netflix and Amazon and the reset of the internet. I had a HDHomeRun
hooked to an over the air but since I moved I have not hooked that up again
yet as I need a huge mast to get reception.

You can use a VPN like service to get world wide streams also.

I do pay Comcast for a business internet connection to keep away from the data
caps however.

------
colinbartlett
Is this similar to Direct TV Now[1]?

Both of these services seem like an interesting step forward, but then, who
really wants to watch live TV anymore, besides sports fans? The whole idea of
watching something at a specific time that it's aired just seems unimaginable
to me after years of on demand streaming. Not to mention commercial breaks.

1\. [https://directvnow.com/](https://directvnow.com/)

~~~
zaroth
Completely agree. Maybe 10 times a year I watch live TV, otherwise I want to
choose a show and binge on episodes on demand. Unfortunately, the legal
situation around licensing I think allows for "unlimited DVR" but not actually
just an on-demand episode list. You have to setup your "own" recording of the
episode, and your bits can be stored in the cloud for you. I'm not sure even
if de-duplicating the bits runs into trouble.

~~~
yurisagalov
last time I've had this conversation with cable execs, it was explained to me
that even just de-duping the bits does in fact run into trouble. They have to
store a complete copy for you, for your personal use.

~~~
carussell
Capitol v. MP3Tunes suggests deduplication is a-okay.

------
vinylkey
> Stream ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC & more.

What's included in "& more"? I can get the listed channels from an antenna.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
This really needs to beat PS Vue's selection to be competitive. SlingTV looks
good but the lack of a DVR function is a non-starter. I'm not even sure why
they bothered to even launch without that. Who watches live tv?

~~~
pvg
Sling's does have a DVR function, just not with most of the 'mainstream'
channels, for whatever annoying business reasons.

------
djhworld
Wonder how many commercial breaks you'll get the privilege of watching for
your 35 bucks

~~~
pas
I wonder if they'll insert their own commercials instead, maybe you'll get
some lower price at the end of the month.

~~~
gregmac
This would actually be one of the absolutely immense capabilities Google (the
advertising company) could bring.

I almost never watch cable/broadcast TV (don't have it at home, and haven't
for 12+ years) so one of the things I notice when I do watch it is there are
some commercials that are genuinely entertaining (well produced, funny, etc).

The issue is, after watching TV for an hour, when I see that 'entertaining'
commercial for the 3rd time it is no longer entertaining.

Google can actually track what they are showing, and have an idea of who's
watching. Don't show me the same commercial more than once per day (or every
few hours), and definitely don't repeat the same one in a single show. Don't
show me ads that are completely irrelevant. Track metrics on ads, and
eliminate genuinely bad ads.

I'm not sure I'd ever come to a service where I both paid and watched ads, but
this is basically the minimum necessary for me personally to watch content
with ads at all.

Of the companies that would be able to pull this off, Google is definitely at
the top of a very short list.

------
zeta0134
In light grey on the bottom of the page, for me: "SHOWTIME® available for
extra monthly charge"

Yup, this is going to be _exactly_ like Cable television, and it's no cheaper.
No thank you, I cut that cord for a reason.

Maybe if it had no ads? But I'm sure it'll be live television with the ads.
There's no point.

~~~
chipperyman573
>it's no cheaper.

It's $25/mo cheaper than a plan from xfinity that includes all those channels
(probably around $35-40 cheaper after the 12 month "trial" period, but they
don't list those prices on the landing page).

------
rubicon33
When am I going to be able to choose my channels on an individual, channel by
channel basis, and then receive a total cost based on those channels?

If I want ONLY the Science channel, then I should be able to purchase JUST the
science channel for like, $5/mo.

~~~
curun1r
The science channel will be a lot more than $5/mo if all the sports fans
aren't forced to subscribe to it just to get their ESPN.

It sounds reasonable that ala carte pricing should be cheaper because you
shouldn't have to subsidize channels you don't watch, but people forget that
others are also subsidizing the channels they watch. The reality is that
channels are already roughly priced according to their popularity and most
people won't save much, if any, money with ala carte pricing.

~~~
aninhumer
Except the relative viewer numbers will be taken into account in their
contracts with the cable companies.

If a channel attracts fewer customers to the package, it will get less money
in return for its inclusion, so nothing is really being "subsidised".

------
koolba
> $35/month

That's a series chunk of coin for something that you can get for free with an
antennae.

I wonder how much of that is licensing. It's got to be a huge chunk of it.

Also, who watches any of those crap channels anyway?!

~~~
guiomie
"free with an antennae" ... You can get ESPN, ShowTime, FXX via antennae?

~~~
ashark
ShowTime is _extra_ on top of the $35, and I don't see any other channels on
the page that aren't OTA in my area (where'd you see ESPN?).

~~~
pgodzin
[https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-
made-...](https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-
you.html)

Includes a bunch of ESPN, Fox Sports channels

------
bitmapbrother
Networks available:

[https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-
XNVz76qkd...](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-
XNVz76qkd1MShms8X0Vj9MYsGBA7MZ5q_oADJjGFjalgzWwhKW9BtpKRu9RDjA8KihyEaVwPkufGhNwhU4qwFwQccYh4hHTlNYdiVbsGepAnYcFzETGv4RA)

~~~
js2
Just eye-balling but it looks pretty close to the PS Vue Access Slim package
which is $29.99/mo:

[https://www.playstation.com/en-
us/network/vue/channels/](https://www.playstation.com/en-
us/network/vue/channels/)

~~~
bitmapbrother
YouTube Live does have an unlimited DVR and works on 6 accounts. I wonder if
the service can be shared?

------
hcarvalhoalves
> Coming soon. Get on the list to find out when YouTube TV launches where you
> live.

Why the f __* internet content still depends on where I live in 2017.

~~~
camiller
Probably due to live sports blackout policies and such.

------
haubey
I'd just like to see when they start doing personalized ads for every
different person. I know TV companies have started to do more targeted ads [1]
but if there's a company that can do it, it's gotta be google. If there's
enough ad revenue to go around, it could be a tipping point where the local
channel rules cease to matter.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-29/tv-ads-
ar...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-29/tv-ads-are-about-to-
get-personal-with-new-targeting-tools)

~~~
jacquesm
That's the last thing I'd like to see.

------
jasikpark
I just think it's wonderful that this launched within hours of someone
recommending twitter be turned around by being the go-to solution for
interacting with and watching live tv.

------
127
I don't really understand what's the point of this. YouTube is already my TV.
With a little streamlining and a little bit more intelligence, I wouldn't have
to even click the links and just switch on autoplay to stream all the
interesting content I want to see for the day. That vision is not far away.

Is Google purposefully sabotaging their subscription integration in order to
leave space for paid services?

------
bane
$35? What is this 1990?

The fundamental problem I think is that this is yet another offering of
packaged channels, 90% of which I don't want. Okay, maybe not 90%, but in
their initial channel offering I count at least 25 of the 46 channels I'm not
even remotely interested in.

Once you drop sports, Spanish language content, kids content and some of the
more useless news channels I'd be paying effectively paying $35/mo for local
TV I can already get for free, USA, FX, Bravo, FX, Syfy and I guess...Youtube
Red?

If I were to pay $1/mo for each channel I might watch, I might pay $4 or $5/mo
for this.

Dump the live TV entirely, just put the shows up so I can binge watch the ones
I want. The "cloud DVR" is a dumb gimmick, all the content is already sliced
and diced and uploaded to some server somewhere anyway.

Ugh..this offering is probably only really of interest to sportsball
enthusiasts who are desperate to cut the cord but can't.

~~~
camiller
You omitted AMC from your list, or are you not a fan of The Walking Dead and
Into The Badlands?

Regardless, yeah, my wife likes Nebraska Football and I like Purdue Basketball
so a service without BTN would be a deal breaker. And If I dropped my 200+
channel cable package (smallest I could get and get all of the things we both
watch) and picked up either this or the $35 tier of Playstation Vue I'd save
about $100 a month. We already have Netflix and Amazon Prime and I'd probably
have to subscribe to HBO now for GoT and Westworld. I'd still save close to
$100 a month AND get my sportsball!

~~~
bane
Was AMC on the list? I must have lost it in the disinterest cloud that
surrounded the four ESPNs.

In all seriousness, I believe that we may be approaching a tipping point where
sports franchises are going to have to come to terms about offering other ways
to watch their games. Lots of people I know who _do_ watch sports grumble
about having to pay for 400 other channels they don't watch. So I know the
feeling is mutual in some ways.

------
krzyk
They ask for zip code but don't ask for country, should I assume (again) that
they mean the default (USA) country?

~~~
dragonwriter
You should probably assume that if they ask for only a ZIP code (not a generic
postal code) and don't ask for anything else that, yes, they are talking about
the one country which uses ZIP codes.

------
NeonVice
Is this the same as Aereo, the service that was shutdown by the supreme court,
only with a valid rebroadcast license?

~~~
kevincennis
From a consumer standpoint, yes – except 4x more expensive. From a technology
standpoint, definitely not.

Disclosure: I'm a former Aereo engineer

------
Brendinooo
"NBA Basketball on Fox Sports Regional Networks" \- Would this would be a bit
of a coup for YouTube? My regional sports network doesn't have any streaming
options; not sure if other markets are more liberal with this.

Also, that wording...are they getting the whole regional network or just the
NBA basketball?

~~~
aesthetics1
If this gets around the blackouts, sign me up. Something legal and
convenient... This is the way to gain back lost ground on the cord-cutters,
and the reason we left Dish/Comcast/etc in droves in the first place. It is
simply too complicated or inconvenient to legally get to the different types
of entertainment I am interested in viewing.

On the contrary, I can see this going down the path where I am back up to
$100/month for entertainment between Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV, etc.

------
crispytx
Seems like a pretty steep price to watch network television. As a cord-cutter,
I think its a great idea because you can't get the networks with SlingTV, and
TV antennas suck. But yeah, I'm not going to pay $35 for network television.
I'll just keep using my shitty antenna.

~~~
ilaksh
SlingTV has some local networks in some areas. And it costs at least $10 less
than youtube and has more channels.

------
bsimpson
Context: [http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-
streaming...](http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming-tv-
service-announced-hd-live-cable-channels)

------
itchyjunk
I asked my questions in a "dupe" thread so reposting here.

From TV to internet to TV on internet to internet TV on any devices. One thing
I wonder about is how people who purchase "bundles" traditionally will react.
I'd imagine they are the biggest consumer of TV programs. (TV + INTERNET or TV
+ Phone + Internet style bundles). Will it end up costing the same when you
break you bundle to only get internet from a provider and get "TV" from
Youtube?

Another question I have is about the "cloud DVR". How does it work? Is the
content already in a server somewhere so when I hit the "DVR" it just tags
that? It makes no sense saving the same content multiple time because multiple
people tried to DVR the same episode right?

Is lot of the modern TV already through internet? If not, won't this cause an
increase in internet bandwidth used? Maybe it's no significant but i'm curious
about it none the less.

There was a talk on HN about cell phones and FM being enabled on it. Will a
similar thing happen on TV, i.e my TV won't work without internet in the
future?

Does privacy concerns increase with this? Is it easier to track users view
patterns and what not with this as opposed to traditional tv? Will it be more
likely that people will post the episodes or clips they watch to youtube or
will it be less common as it will be even easier for youtube to recognize and
flag stuff? (I wonder if youtube will provide a tool to post tiny clips
directly from TV so people can have discussions and what not as well). Thanks
in advance if anyone takes time to answer any of my question!

Edit: [https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-
made-...](https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-
you.html)

It's unlimited but for 9 months. So you'll have to Re-DVR it when/if air's
again i guess?

Makes more sense for people already paying for youtube red I guess? Creators
on youtube red might get more traffic too possibly.

~~~
wmf
_Will it end up costing the same when you break you bundle to only get
internet from a provider and get "TV" from Youtube?_

Yes, resistance is futile. ESPN won't accept less money per viewer "because
Internet".

 _It makes no sense saving the same content multiple time because multiple
people tried to DVR the same episode right?_

There are some convoluted and non-intuitive legal precedents about this topic,
but yeah, Google is probably only keeping one copy.

 _won 't this cause an increase in internet bandwidth used?_

Yes, bandwidth usage has increased significantly in recent years, probably
faster than Moore's Law.

------
nodesocket
Sports!!! All I need and care about for my $160 a month Xfinity cable bill is
Sports. Unfortunately sports takes places on various channels (ESPN, ESPN2,
FOX, CBS, CBS Sports, TNT, TBS, TruTV).

------
JustSomeNobody
All this so that I can not have one of those unsightly antennas near my tv?
Sign me up! /s

No, really, this is too much money. And with data caps, I don't really think
I'd get my $35 out of it.

Besides, who know what Ajit Pai is going to let Comcast do? Won't be long and
I'll have choices like:

Basic internet - for reading email.

Basic Plus Internet - Basic internet + Amazon shopping (but no streaming)

Internet + streaming - Basic Plus Internet + Comcasts own streaming service.

Internet Premium - Internet + streaming + Netflix, Amazon and YouTube
streaming.

etc...

------
Corrado
OK, one question I have is how am I supposed to view this content on the
various TVs throughout my house? Will this be a new Roku app? Will I just use
the old Roku YouTube app? Will I have to stream it from my laptop/phone? I
think the answer to this question will determine how much traction they get.
My parents, my wife, nor any other non technical folks are going to stream
anything from their phone. I can't see how this will win.

------
faceyspacey
I really don't understand--those channels are free with an HD antenna. I don't
know if this is possible anymore, but those channels used to be free through
your cable cord, even without a cable box. ABC, fox, nbc, and cbs are free.
Why pay $35 just to remove adds.

Are they including, AMC, MTV, etc? I don't think so or they would say so.

Ps. This is a serious question. Please someone help me understand how they are
charging for free channels just to drop their ads (presumably)?

~~~
camiller
Yes, they are including AMC, BTN, SYFY, ESPN etc.

[https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-
made-...](https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-
you.html)

------
VonGuard
Just as a personal anechdote: I have cable for one reason -- my local cable
provider has a monopoly on the A's. I cannot watch the A's play babeball
without a $75 per month Comcast subscription. It is not included with the $30
shit tier cable they offer.

This fucking sucks, especially because baseball is as American as you can get.
But then, charging people for stuff that used to be free is also as American
as you can get.

------
brokenmasonjars
I don't think I'd personally use it as I have tv. However I can see it being
useful for cord cutters. It would be nice to see some sort of bundling. Pay x
amount, get youtube premium stuff, with movie rentals, and streaming tv with
other google features etc such as google play/music. However have it broken up
is a good option too. I think both options could be useful.

------
tombert
This is cool, though part of the reason I like things like Hulu Plus is that I
don't have to worry about commercials, and it's literally a third of the
price.

I do find it interesting though; Youtube/Google is taking all the steps to be
the next Time Warner or Comcast it seems. I wonder if this proves that that
industry isn't impossible to break into.

~~~
harigov
The biggest problem with Google is their branding. They launched so many
services - Google Music, Youtube Red, Youtube TV, Youtube Live, Hangouts Live,
etc., it's just impossible to keep up on what they are actually trying to do.
I am sure they have far less number of customers on any of these individual
services than if they would have had if these were independent companies. They
do everything and nothing they do recently is up to the mark.

~~~
joshuamorton
(am googler, but don't work with any of the mentioned products)

Keep in mind that all of these products in many cases compete with other
companies (music -> spotify, apple, ytr -> netflix/hulu originals, kinda, YTL
-> twitch, YTTV -> cable providers). I, as a consumer, wouldn't want these
things to all be bundled. I use spotify for my music, and I don't want to have
to pay for Play Music or youtube red unless I use those services.

I can't even imagine how some kind of "unified google media" thing would work.

~~~
mynameisvlad
> I can't even imagine how some kind of "unified google media" thing would
> work.

It's quite simple. Pay more than a few services (but not as much as all of
them together) and get access to all of them. The concept isn't really hard at
all. You can go a step further and give increasing discounts the more services
you add if you don't want one package deal.

You guys already do it for Youtube Red/Google Play Music. It's not mindblowing
to imagine it being expanded from there. There's a common account for all the
services anyway, so from a technical perspective you'd have a common place to
store subscription information if that's not already done.

~~~
joshuamorton
Right, but from my perspective as a consumer, at least right now, the only
service I'm even remotely interested in is YTTV, and the reverse would be even
worse. If I didn't want the YTTV package, there's no way I'd pay $40/mo for
play music or whatever. A la carte models are a lot more efficient, the reason
I don't like cable (and comcast) is because of bundled services, why on earth
would I want to move to another, even more bundled, service?

Plus you've only handled the subscription portion, even if somehow we fix
that. Where do I view this content? Is there a unified media dashboard that
connects to 3 parts of youtube, play, and such?

I guess my basic point is that these services seem useful for entirely
different groups of people. Why would consumers want them bundled, either
technically or economically, and similarly, why would Google?

~~~
fryguy
Think about it this way. Netflix wanted to separate their DVD and streaming
into separate companies, so there would be different websites for each.
Consumers complained about that so much that they changed their mind and
stayed with one. If Google/YouTube started with a single product and broken it
out like it is now, people I think would rightly complain.

I think the most egregious thing is music, rather than YouTube Red or this
service itself. There's Google Play where you can buy music, Google Play Music
where you can subscribe like Spotify, and YouTube Red also includes unlimited
music on top of the shows on Red but is somehow different than Google Play
Music. I guess what I would suggest if I had any say in things is just killing
the Google Play Music and Google Play Movie/TV brands, and moving the content
to YouTube and maybe integrating YouTube into the Google Play app on phones.
YouTube already has movies, so it would just be a matter of making the music
and live streaming part of it more visible on the home page. I don't see any
links to them on my front page.

~~~
harigov
I would say - just brand them as completely different services unless they are
totally dependent. Just because movies are served on top of YouTube doesn't
necessarily mean that they literally have to be part of YouTube website. Why
not a website like "MovieTube" with its own website and brand? It makes
YouTube a single focused website intended to find any/all random videos on
internet and people understand when they hear "MovieTube". With YouTube Red,
YouTube TV, YouTube Live, YouTube Movies, etc., it is hard to remember which
is what.

------
IanDrake
I don't see the value proposition here. Can anyone explain what I'm getting
for $35 (over cheap or free alternatives)?

~~~
bitmapbrother
1\. Cable only channels in addition to OTA channels

2\. Unlimited DVR

3\. 6 accounts to possibly share.

~~~
IanDrake
Thanks. I missed point 1 and 3. Point 2 has almost no value these days unless
you don't have Hulu/Amazon/Netflix, which I guess some people don't.

I watched commercial TV for the first time in a few years the other day and
lost interest in what I was watching because of it. I don't think I can go
back now.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Point 2 has almost no value these days unless you don't have
> Hulu/Amazon/Netflix, which I guess some people don't.

A lot of their content is from sources that aren't on Hulu, Amazon, or Netflix
(or which are on one or more of those with a significant delay), so DVR is
still valuable.

------
soheil
The page is extremely void of any details, reminds me of Cable companies
landing pages. This is odd because I noticed there has been a recent explosion
of third party live CNN, FOX News, ... channels, not sure if this is because
YT made their copyright detection algorithms more lenient as a segue to YT TV.

------
caio1982
Meanwhile, I am very happy with youtube.com/tv on my TV. No worldwide
availability is ridiculous these days.

------
hkmurakami
Initial reactions:

1) Will it have ESPN? I only really care about ESPN on a daily basis for TV.

2) _" Never run out of DVR storage"_ -> Will I be able to easily save
recordings of any show on Youtube TV? I value this a lot for particular
sporting events and have years' worth of footage backed up.

~~~
GFischer
Yep, it has ESPN, ESPN2 and 3 too. Some posters referred to the channel list:

[https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-
XNVz76qkd...](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-
XNVz76qkd1MShms8X0Vj9MYsGBA7MZ5q_oADJjGFjalgzWwhKW9BtpKRu9RDjA8KihyEaVwPkufGhNwhU4qwFwQccYh4hHTlNYdiVbsGepAnYcFzETGv4RA)

and the blog post

[https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-
made-...](https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-
you.html)

------
ganfortran
> $35/month.

With Ads? Ouch, NO.

------
wnevets
$35/month ouch.

~~~
jwcooper
This is priced about the same as Playstation Vue, DirecTV Now, and Sling for
the channels offered. Looks like they're trying to win people over with
features (DVR, 6 account profiles, etc).

------
smilbandit
I'd be cooler if I didn't have this shiny new 1tb data cap on my internet now.

~~~
srssays
Assuming a bitrate of 10Mbps and a solid 7 hours of sleep per night, you'd
have to spend 43% of your waking hours watching TV to hit the cap.

------
overcast
So $35 to stream what is already available free over the air in HD, with a $20
antenna?

~~~
toxican
For what it's worth, not everyone can pick up all of those channels with a $20
antenna. I can pick up NBC, PBS, and a few odd local channels with no national
affiliation. I'd imagine those in cities and metro areas would probably have
more luck. But anyway, the blog post [1] has a full(er) list of channels. But
even then it doesn't look price-competitive with Sling for some reason.

[1] - [https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-
made-...](https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-
you.html)

------
geodel
With $35/mo, it looks like another half-ass effort like Google phone hardware
business. For 10 dollars extra over internet charges per month I get all the
channels that this post explicitly mentions + some more I never watched.

------
sachinag
You announce this on February 28 without TBS, TNT, or truTV? I get that Turner
had you, but come on. Wait until April to announce if you're not gonna have
them. Or even until June, when the NBA conference finals are over.

~~~
mynameisvlad
Have you found a source for the "& more" to definitively say that those are
not included? Because as far as I could see, all we know is that the big ones
are included and that there's _others_ but what those are isn't very clear.

------
rajathagasthya
Very interesting. It's a shame Apple shied away from providing TV streaming.

~~~
Eridrus
I don't think Apple shied away from it so much as they assumed their weight in
the consumer space would be important and acted like dicks.

------
cgranier
Nice... Only took them 11 years ([http://red66.com/2006/04/google-
media/](http://red66.com/2006/04/google-media/))

------
silveira
I have cable TV even tough I pretty much never watch it. I don't want it, but
to remove it is more expensive than to keep it. I don't have a good incentive
to pay more to have more TV.

------
shirro
Why would anyone want to pay $35 per month to access tired old ad supported
programming when they can get subscriptions from 3 streaming services for that
price.

~~~
chadgeidel
I would - just for sports. My family subscribes to Netflix, HBO, Hulu (with
Showtime), and YouTube Red and I still don't get live sports. I'd drop
Hulu+Showtime (~$17) and YouTube Red (~$10). I'll be paying more, but then
I'll get all NBCSN and Fox Sports which covers most of the motorsports I'm
interested in.

------
divbit
Wow - good job. Literally people (myself included) were commenting this
morning in the saving twitter thread about how something like this is really
needed.

------
i336_
What about [http://youtube.com/tv/](http://youtube.com/tv/) ? Is this a
different thing?

------
alistproducer2
Why would I do this when a dtv antenna is a one-time charge of $35? Kodi +
prime + dtv = never paying for TV again. Ever.

~~~
jdalgetty
because many if not most people live in an area without good OTA coverage

~~~
alistproducer2
I didn't think of this. Wouldn't that be a matter of purchasing a better,
stronger antenna?

~~~
jdalgetty
Always an option but you are still limited by what's available to you. -
[http://www.tvfool.com](http://www.tvfool.com)

------
rco8786
What does "6 accounts, 1 price" mean?

~~~
jwcooper
From the blog post (for what it's worth, I think it's a good idea):

>Six accounts, one price. Every YouTube TV membership comes with six accounts,
each with its own unique recommendations and personal DVR with no storage
limits. You can watch up to three concurrent streams at a time.

[https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-
made-...](https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-
you.html)

------
rocky1138
Sorry, this is TheirTube, not YouTube. The whole point of YouTube is
democratization and sharing of personal videos.

------
bubblethink
It's quite tragic to see cable reinvented piece by piece. Piracy still remains
the only unifying force.

------
koolba
I'm guessing there's no way to sign up for this and not have Google keep track
of my TV habits.

------
katehall
Who gonna pay $35/month? It does not make sense when you can get TV
subscription for $10/month

------
bbcbasic
$35/month. Even from the perspective of living in ripoff Australia, that seems
expensive.

------
viseztrance
Any thoughts on why they've chosen tv.youtube.com over youtube.tv?

(youtube.tv redirects to .com)

------
ilaksh
So just like Sling except fewer channels and more expensive?

------
timsayshey
um, sorry youtube, that already exists and cheaper:
[https://www.playon.tv/cloud](https://www.playon.tv/cloud)

¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

------
uladzislau
Is Google launching something that Apple passed on a while ago?

------
Cub3
They would have to strip advertising for this to be worth it

------
shmerl
Is it DRM-free HTML5, or it's using DRM blobs and EME?

------
Jyefet
Cant you get all those channels with a digital antenna?

------
reitanqild
Zip code.

As usual only for Americans.

This time they didn't even pretend otherwise.

------
dilipray
I don't have any hopes of it coming India.

------
Animats
$420 a year to watch broadcast TV?

------
facepalm
Why would anybody pay 35$ for crappy TV if Netflix is only 10$?

------
mmanfrin
$35 to get the channels you get OTA...

------
WayneBro
Wow, so is this the official beginning of the age of decentralized cable-
companies?

As a cable cutter, one thing I am really looking forward to is the day that I
can flip channels again very easily, without having to think about what I am
doing.

~~~
toxican
This doesn't seem like anything more than what Sling has been offering for
years....Am I missing something?

~~~
WayneBro
I never used Sling and I practically forgot about it since I learned of it
long time ago. I think it one point I heard some rumors that it was dead.

Anyway, can you just flip channels with it, like cable? Perhaps I will check
it out.

------
tehabe
April 1st is early this year, isn't it?

