4 Mar 17 – YouTube is going to offer a TV bundle for $35/month
March 3, 2017 at 6:14 PM #5378
It’s not about the bundle; that’s pretty standard. It’s about all the other tools Google brings to the game – a proven network, a proven ad-injection system, and the best and most detailed analytics in the industry.March 3, 2017 at 6:47 PM #5380
I reviewed this particular new offering and submitted my e mail to them to get on the waiting list to be notified as to when it will be available in this area. I am pleasantly surprised that it offers **Most** networks that really interest me as well as local channels. And for $35 a month ??? How could you go wrong ? I enjoy auto racing (yes ! Racerbob likes racing, who would have thunk ? ) and FS1, FS2, and NBCSN carry a lot of racing coverage along with the regular broadcast networks and those are all going to be in this new service, as well as my go to cable news channel. And then you have the fact that you will be able to have 6 accounts viewing different things and DVR in the cloud …… I mean, this thing may be a real winner and certainly a very strong possibility to replace our current $125 a month (until November) DirecTV.
March 4, 2017 at 9:34 AM #5382
- This reply was modified 10 months, 3 weeks ago by Racerbob.
Haven’t tried the real stuff but I do like fictional auto racing, Days of Thunder, Top Gear, etc., and do my own work so I guess that makes me a bit of a gearhead 🙂
MLS puts their games on YouTube for free, or at least used to. Big stuff like the Superbowl and Olympics I can get over the air. Otherwise I’m fine with watching older stuff if it saves me money, Netflix, the library (surprisingly well stocked).
If I was gonna look at other services, I’d judge them based on how well they integrate into my existing setup. For example Dropbox has great Linux integration, iCloud not so much. For a video service, offering it as a Kodi add-on would be nice. I already have enough boxes under the TV 🙂March 4, 2017 at 10:58 AM #5383
The fact that this new service supposedly offers the local broadcast channels is a plus because other services such as Sling, do not. (Sometines receiving digital over the air signals can be a problem.) Or they only offer them here or there. And the other advantage is being able to have six accounts. I wonder if this means that my son who lives 6 miles away can also use one of the accounts, for example. I mean, $35 split 2 or 3 ways would really make it worth it. 🙂March 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM #5392
We cut cable a year ago and can view 20+ local channels over our directional antenna here in Caledonia. Yes, I’d like to have NatGeo, History, and maybe 4 or 5 other channels. Is their list of included channels available yet?March 4, 2017 at 2:31 PM #5401March 4, 2017 at 3:45 PM #5402
Thanks for the list. You’ve answered my question. There are still a lot of useless channels for me. Guess they are marketing to a different portion of the viewing audience.March 5, 2017 at 9:41 AM #5406
I wonder why that page and so many other Web pages covering the story are so reluctant to just list the channels, that they resort to tiny thumbnails of channels’ logos. At least one of them I can’t read because the print is so tiny, although it looks like there’s a CBS logo embedded in it.
I have to wonder if we’ll ever have a la carte. You never know when any particular network will have a break-out hit. I notice that YTTV lineup doesn’t have AMC, meaning I would miss “Breaking Bad” and “Halt and Catch Fire.” Granted, its episodes are available on other services (I missed recording one “Breaking Bad” over TWC, so I was able to buy the missed episode on Google Play), but that’s not the point. Many networks do not make the episodes available on these alternate services until some time has passed, and in that time you have your friends discussing what they saw before you get to see it. Some producers would happily let you watch their content on their Web site…*if* you have a cable subscription. And on that note, the authentication system of these networks sometimes did not list TWC as an option, even though TWC was carrying their channel!
The landscape of audiovisual entertainment is changing rapidly. Networks are losing their significance and they know it. Among the questions will be is if the Internet carriers will be up to the challenge of transiting all this content. I have to wonder if the load can be alleviated if “TV” as we know it today can be multicast so that it’s no longer individual streams.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.