Is this finally the first real crack in the cable/satellite armor? The inclusion of ESPN is huge. http://www.recode.net/2017/2/28/14761348/youtube-pay-mobile-tv-35-dollars-launch YouTube, the world’s biggest video site, wants to sell you TV for $35 a month Meet YouTube TV. BY PETER KAFKA FEB 28, 2017, 3:49PM EST YouTube YouTube used to be the place you could watch almost anything you wanted, for free. Now YouTube wants to be the place that sells you TV. Google’s video site is taking the wraps off YouTube TV, its new $35-a-month TV service that will package a bundle of channels from the broadcast networks and some cable networks. YouTube says the service, which will sit in a new, standalone app, will launch later this spring. It’s separate from YouTube Red, the ad-free subscription service the company launched last year, which hasn’t had much success. YouTube TV is supposed to be “mobile first” — that is, YouTube expects that subscribers will spend most of their time watching on phones, though they’ll also be able to watch on devices like laptops and traditional TVs, via Google’s Chromecast devices. YouTube Like other new digital TV services, YouTube TV won’t offer every network that cable TV services provide; instead it will feature a “skinny bundle,” composed of the four broadcast networks — Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC — along with some of the cable channels related to the broadcasters. Which means you’ll also get networks like Fox News, ESPN and Bravo; YouTube execs say the base package will include about three dozen channels. YouTube TV will compete with digital TV services launched in the last few years by Dish Networks, Sony and AT&T. Hulu, which is jointly owned by Disney, 21st Century Fox, Comcast* and Time Warner, will launch its own pay TV bundle this spring. One thing that distinguishes YouTube TV from its competitors is that while it will feature cable networks owned by companies that also own broadcast networks — so it will offer both ESPN and ABC, both owned by Disney — it doesn’t feature any networks owned by programmers that operate exclusively on pay TV, like Viacom, AMC or Time Warner. YouTube isn’t ruling out working with those programmers down the line. For instance, it would like to find a way to work with Time Warner so that it could offer HBO, but Time Warner execs say that won’t happen until YouTube cuts a deal with its Turner networks like CNN. But it is also suggesting that YouTube watchers will be fine without most cable channels, since YouTube already has so much free stuff. What YouTube is really pushing, though, is the notion that while it may have the same programming as its competitors, it will have a better service. YouTube product chief Neal Mohan says the company has been working on YouTube TV for two years; he promises that you’ll see the results when you actually get to play with it. Since you can’t do that yet, here are some of the features Mohan has talked up: A cloud DVR with unlimited storage space, included in the base package. (That’s a feature Hulu has been talking about selling as an add-on to its base package.) A recommendation system powered by Google’s AI. “Reliability and scalability” — a not-veiled reminder that other digital TV services have had technical struggles when they first launched. YouTube TV’s $35 base price puts it squarely in the same bracket as its competitors — AT&T’s DirectTV Now, for instance, also launched with a $35-per-month offer. Figuring out which one of these makes sense for you will require substantial work on your part as you figure out what kind of programming you really want and what the various services offer: DirecTV Now, for instance, includes cables channels that YouTube TV doesn’t have, like MTV, AMC and CNN, but it doesn’t have CBS. Also be aware that all of the digital TV services still have gaps in their coverage, usually around pro football: Deals — or lack of them — with local affiliates may affect your ability to watch your local NFL team play next fall. And none of the streaming TV services will let you watch football on your phone, because those rights, for now, are exclusive to Verizon. YouTube TV’s pricing will make it hard/impossible for YouTube to turn a profit, given the carriage fees it has to shell out for the four big networks, but YouTube doesn’t seem concerned about that: Right now it wants to work on turning some of its billion-plus users into paying subscribers. There’s a bit of full-circle going on here: YouTube first broke through the popular consciousness as an anything-goes video repository where you could watch unauthorized versions of TV clips like “Saturday Night Live’s” “Lazy Sunday.” YouTube and Google spent years in a cold war with the TV guys, and the site’s existence spurred them to create Hulu as a sort of anti-YouTube; now the two services are about to compete directly again, this time selling the kind of pay TV services that were supposed to die off years ago.
Google has been trying to find ways to make money off of YouTube for years. They might have finally found something profitable.
Why would it be? Every other online service offers ESPN as well. But I do expect it to have the smoothest rollout, and YouTube's name recognition when it comes to video streaming will definitely help as well.
The unlimited DVR thing is really the only major differentiating point for me. Which brings me to a comment about that -if you are offering unlimited DVR'ing, then you might as well offer something like basically On Demand of any show on any of the channels you offer. It's outlandish, but effectively I can sign up for this service, and then just choose to record every channel, at all times, and that's the same thing. Because the only thing I "really" need to watch live as it happens is sports and maybe some major news stuff. Otherwise, I'm still sticking with cable (I use Dish)... because streaming just isn't there from a comparability or streaming reliability and speed perspective for now. Honestly, I think the watch anything at anytime path (the everything On Demand as noted above) is a feature set that the traditional guys will have to offer sooner rather than later to fight off cord cutters. Eventually the streaming sites will get fast enough, reliable enough, and have a big enough selection.
Whoever will offer the Rockets or Root Sports Southwest first at that price point will have my business
Looks like Astros are on their way to in market streaming. And according to this it seems like the Rockets should've happened already. Seems to me that Root Sports is what's causing the hold up as Houston is among one of the only markets whose NBA and MLB teams' games aren't streaming online locally. And Root is also the culprit in some of the other markets as well. I have no doubt that once Root starts making the games available, all the streaming services that offer RSNs will offer it. Once again the local Houston sports networks are screwing us over.
If the unlimited DVR happens, I may finally cut the cord and save $100 a month. Is it based off the ISP? If I had a Chromecast in every room, is TV one monthly bill for all my TV's, and could I watch multiple TV's at once? Those answers would be paramount in whether I used their service or not. TV shouldn't be so expensive.
If true, I'm there. It'd cost me $150 to do that on satellite, and I hardly watch TV. Sick of paying $120.
I'm loving the direction we're headed....this might not be enough for me. But like others have said....having root sports would be a game changer....like the FSSW or FSN days.....
Is the reason most of the people in this thread still keep cable is for local sports and/or DVR-ing? I haven't had cable in nearly 8 years, but I also haven't cared for the "local" teams living outside of Houston during that entire time.
I don't even have it for local sports as I'm not local. I guess I have it for DVR. Which I don't technically need.
I believe Playstation Vue has DVR capabilities. I've been using Sling TV with a Roku in each room and it really works well. I'm a little more adventurous with accessing live sports or TV shows online if I miss them. When I discovered my mom paid $200 for cable and internet, I almost died. I helped her cut that to $80 by switching to Sling TV and internet only. Cable companies are the worst, and I find the whole pricing model and customer service to be deplorable.
It's terrible. I pay about $180 a month for the two, have terrible service, and what I feel is throttled internet. I should cut that cord.
I havent had cable or any stream services in years. I can get behind this, and I don't even watch much TV. Youtube is that much a 1-stop shop of everything video. As long as the networks dont overreach into censoring regular Youtube, its a go. No matter how much people complain about lack of "quality" programming and Big Cable, people ARE NOT tired of entertainment productions, thats bull. Its mostly RESENTMENT stemming from COST of service and so much effort involved to work around it, not level of quality. Give it to people cheap, convenient & legal and they'll love TV/cable like the new Golden Age
You're right. That's why no one pirates music anymore. Build it cheap, easy, and legal and they will come.
It's live in Houston now apparently. Desperately want to make the switch but I'm having trouble pulling the trigger to lose Root Sports.
