News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:YouTube TV by halayli on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @04:42PM (#13758238)
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.

Re:YouTube TV by riskable on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @04:55PM (#13758413)
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."

Re:YouTube TV by untog on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:54PM (#13759016)
Judging by how much people currently pay for cable, there is more than $35/mo worth of programming there. Perhaps not to you, but that just means you aren't the customer for this product.

> 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!"

Legion is pretty good. Legion is on FX. FX is on YouTube TV. To be honest I'm struggling to come up with too many recent sci-fi shows that don't entirely suck, irrespective of where they're being made.

Re:YouTube TV by captainlego on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @10:31PM (#13760812)
> To be honest I'm struggling to come up with too many recent sci-fi shows that don't entirely suck, irrespective of where they're being made.

I'd have to disagree. Westworld, Rick and Morty, The 100, The Expanse, Black Mirror, Stranger Things, Outlander, and Sense8 come to mind as great recent Sci-Fi shows in active development. That's without mentioning the numerous high-caliber super hero shows recently released/coming soon.

Re:YouTube TV by snuxoll on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @06:33PM (#13759341)
PlayStation Vue has packages for $35/mo that include FOX, ABC, etc plus a healthy selection of channels not available OTA (including FX, etc).

YouTube's marketing here is pretty crappy, but if they're actually trying to just sell access to OTA network content for $35/mo they are insane.

Re:YouTube TV by untog on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @06:53PM (#13759492)
> if they're actually trying to just sell access to OTA network content for $35/mo they are insane.

Which they aren't. It includes (probably) the exact same "healthy selection of channels not available OTA (including FX, etc)" as PlayStation.

Re:YouTube TV by jonwachob91 on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @09:23PM (#13760403)
But we don't know that. All they've told us are the OTA channels.
Re:YouTube TV by tyrust on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @10:29PM (#13760801)
Re:YouTube TV by snuxoll on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @11:28PM (#13761111)
Cool, you would think they would advertise a larger channel lineup on their landing page instead of the rather spartan "Stream ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC & more." - it certainly didn't make me think "oh, let's go look at the YouTube blog to find out what else they may be including" nor was there any guidance to check.
Re:YouTube TV by camiller on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @12:33AM (#13761446)
thanks for that, confirming that BTN is offered will help me convince the wife, if she can't see her Nebraska Cornhusker Football it would be a non-starter.
Re:YouTube TV by VikingCoder on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:11PM (#13758626)
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...

Re:YouTube TV by mikelward on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @09:25PM (#13760414)
According to the blog [1], the DVR lasts 9 months. Which is much better than the competitors, but not "forever".

1. https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-... "we’ll store each of your recordings for nine months."

Re:YouTube TV by hysan on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:57PM (#13759049)
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.
Re:YouTube TV by dragonwriter on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @07:03PM (#13759567)
It's basic cable with unlimited DVR, but bring-your-own data pipe.
Re:YouTube TV by seanosaur on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:18PM (#13758686)
> and I can skip all ads...

Where are you seeing that? If it's anything like Sling or PS Vue you're not skipping ads, you're streaming live TV.

Re:YouTube TV by VikingCoder on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:19PM (#13758710)
The Verge confirms you can skip ads:

http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming...

And it's got an infinite DVR. I almost never get to actually watch TV live. Hell, even when I watch TV live, I prefer to pause, go to the bathroom, get something to drink, and then skip commercials.

I'm just saying - if I can skip commercials automatically, or without much pain, that'd be very nice.

Re:YouTube TV by majormajor on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @12:42AM (#13761491)
The ad skipping sounds just for the DVR. Which is fine for shows you don't need to see live, but you're not doing it for sports or first-run content (what would you even be skipping to?).
Re:YouTube TV by elif on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:54PM (#13759014)
AT&T's version of this, which coincidentally also costs $35/mo includes all the ads.
Re:YouTube TV by aanm1988 on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:17PM (#13758680)
> and I can skip all ads

For all $ > 0 the number of ads should already be zero.

Re:YouTube TV by grandalf on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:17PM (#13758682)
Does it say it will be ad-free? If it is that would be worth $35 to me.
Re:YouTube TV by VikingCoder on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:21PM (#13758724)
Sorry, I'm saying "IF". IF, then yes, it'd be worth it to me, too.

The Verge confirms you can skip ads:

http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14750894/youtube-streaming....

Re:YouTube TV by veridies on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @08:02PM (#13759971)
I know this is off topic, but I really disagree about the quality of broadcast TV. Hannibal and The Good Place are both beautifully shot, very distinctive, and highly ambitious, and both came out of NBC. Speechless is on ABC, and while it's a pretty by the book family sitcom, I still think it's funnier than anything else on right now.
Re:YouTube TV by flycaliguy on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:20PM (#13758714)
Maybe I'm odd but Jeopardy and local news without a TV would be worth $35.
Re:YouTube TV by atomicUpdate on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:23PM (#13758750)
At $35/mo, after 1 year you'll have spent $420. You can get a decent sized TV and an antenna for less than that, and enjoy free news/Jeopardy for many years afterwards.
Re:YouTube TV by jclardy on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:49PM (#13758977)
I think his point was being able to watch them without using a TV and antenna.

I don't see why you would pay $35 a month though when you could get something like an HDHomerun and plug an antenna up to it. Or use an antenna, digital tuner and capture card and wire up your own solution.

The only advantage I see of YTTV is ESPN, so for some people that is probably enough to justify it.

Re:YouTube TV by chadgeidel on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @07:02PM (#13759565)
They say "no need for a DVR" so I assume that you will get time-shifted content. That's not free. Also, watching 3 shows simultaneously (on devices I already own) is useful.

And for those of us cord-cutters who have been missing live sports this is a nice option.

[EDIT: 3 simultaneous streams, not 6]

Re:YouTube TV by ryan-allen on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @08:03PM (#13759978)
Or a usb TV receiver for less than $100, watch it on ya 'pooter!
Re:YouTube TV by untog on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:55PM (#13759025)
Everyone always talks about antenna, but it's not for everyone. Living in an apartment in NYC, I never, ever got decent coverage with an antenna.
Re:YouTube TV by Groxx on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @06:03PM (#13759106)
FWIW you can buy TV antennas / tuner cards for not-too-expensive (especially after comparing that monthly cost after a few months / a year). Though that is one more peripheral to carry around if you want to be mobile, so it's not exactly equivalent :)
Re:YouTube TV by mikelward on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @09:22PM (#13760400)
That's exactly why I gave in and paid for basic cable. Which ends up costing $17.76 ($10 HD fee, $5 broadcast TV fee, $2.76 taxes and fees). For access to free content.

I also bought a good indoor broadcast TV antenna. A winegard one, I think. And it normally works great, but it's only 90% reliable.

I wouldn't pay the extra $17.24 for nothing, but I'd like to watch some sports too.

Re:YouTube TV by staticelf on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @03:57AM (#13762341)
I don't understand, you can just torrent it for free?
Re:YouTube TV by thewhitetulip on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @04:20AM (#13762436)
Because torrents are illegal?
Re:YouTube TV by cjg on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @04:30AM (#13762490)
Can you get arrested for torrenting?
Re:YouTube TV by narrowrail on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @04:49AM (#13762557)
In the US it's a civil offense, not criminal. So, the answer is it depends on where you are.
Re:YouTube TV by atonse on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:07PM (#13758577)
Why would I pay $35 a month to stream broadcast channels that are freely available in HD over the air in my area?

It's one thing if they provided something like Netflix. But it's absolutely bonkers that they're selling what is already a free resource. What's the value-add?

Re:YouTube TV by jwcooper on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:11PM (#13758619)
They're adding a lot more than just over the air broadcast channels. For someone that likes watching live sports on occasion, this is a decent offering (the omission of TNT and TBS is odd though).

Channels offered: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wZJuVdp0HaH4GQiB-XNVz76qkd...

Re:YouTube TV by josh_carterPDX on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:08PM (#13758593)
"It's one thing if they provided something like Netflix. But it's absolutely bonkers that they're selling what is already a free resource. What's the value-add?"

• 6 users can watch on their own devices simultaneously. • Unlimited Cloud DVR.

^^ value add

Re:YouTube TV by elif on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:57PM (#13759045)
ah, 6 users means the service costs as little as $5.83 if you do it right.
Re:YouTube TV by majormajor on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @12:44AM (#13761496)
Doubtful, outside of single-household sharing; I'd be very surprised if they got to avoid the contractual terms that limit your ability to share a PS Vue account in the same way - you have to activate a "home device" to anchor the account and regularly using six different devices in different locations would probably trigger some sort of fraud check.
Re:YouTube TV by camiller on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @12:37AM (#13761471)
You can have 6 user "accounts", but only three simultaneous streams.
Re:YouTube TV by accountface on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:08PM (#13758589)
DVR functionality? Thinking this is more of a Hulu competitor with live events rather than simply an antenna... probably more of a viable alternative for local sports fans who want to ditch cable?
Re:YouTube TV by dannyr on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:31PM (#13758827)
Maybe read the blog post first before commenting?

https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-...

Re:YouTube TV by burkemw3 on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:10PM (#13758614)
As one example, I predict the [NFL TV Blackout Policies][] are partially driving the zip code requirement. YouTube is certainly big, but so are the pro sports leagues.

[NFL TV Blackout Policies]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_telev...

Re:YouTube TV by Tiksi on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:49PM (#13758978)
My guess is they're asking for a zip code to see in which areas there's enough demand to negotiate with local news stations. I know a few people that only keep cable because of the local news stations.
Re:YouTube TV by kgermino on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @06:19PM (#13759237)
Why would you keep cable just for local news? Just hook up an antenna and your done for $20 one time.
Re:YouTube TV by Tiksi on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @06:28PM (#13759305)
That works if you're close enough to pick anything up. Where I live, I can get OTA hdtv no problem, with a piece of wire for an antenna indoors. Where my parents live they can pick up a single channel with a directional Yagi mounted on the roof. (Not an exaggeration, we tried)
Re:YouTube TV by turnip123942 on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @04:48PM (#13758320)
It could be to gather data to be able to negotiate deals with local TV providers. Get an idea of what the demand in a market is and go from there.
Re:YouTube TV by VikingCoder on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @05:08PM (#13758595)
Hmmm... Some people like local news, local commercials... And this is probably necessary to respect black-outs for sports.
Re:YouTube TV by notheguyouthink on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @09:57AM (#13764111)
I'd bet that's simply due to advertising. Advertising within TV is insanely tied to location, and we're just now starting to figure out online advertising. TV has country, local, regional, etc ratings and reach to judge ads and prices by.. i'm not sure how much, if any of that, is standardized by advertising.

It's written in the law too, mind you, so i'd be curious if online advertising ends up with some standards that providers have to adhere to. Ie, allowing regional ads, knowing the reach, etc.