YouTube TV

[JimDogRock]

Streaming is getting ripe for a market disruptor.

As long as consumers continue to subscribe I think we keep seeing more fragmentation of streaming services and prices going up.

I know I participated for a little bit when I caved during the basketball season to get ESPN+ and thought "why not" as I upped the package to have Disney and Hulu. And then didn't bother to cancel it for at least a couple extra months then I originally planned.

Many folks have had Netflix, Hulu, or some on-demand streaming for awhile and a big chunk of them have then cut cable or satellite and went for Youtube, Hulu, Fubo, or some option for live TV streaming.

You know there are some people carrying 4 or more streaming services.
And the infrastructure to store and deliver the content to the consumer is relatively cheaper for these streaming services compared to cable or satellite because they pass that on to whatever internet service provider the consumer has.

Point being - I think streaming services are going to grow and ride this as long as they can.
And if I knew what the next market disrupter was then I would be trying to cash in on that and not blabbing on this message board

 

[Stewo]

More expensive or not, I'm definitely going with YTTV over Hulu Live going forward. The DVR feature on HL is the very definition of trash. It's so, so bad.

 

[cycloneG]

More expensive or not, I'm definitely going with YTTV over Hulu Live going forward. The DVR feature on HL is the very definition of trash. It's so, so bad.

I've had both services but never used the DVR on either. I'm actually looking forward to going back to Hulu Live for the extra content.

 

[shagcarpetjesus]

I don’t disagree that YTTV is a better deal than Fubo under it’s previous pricing structure. I just threw Fubo out as a possible option that might be $5 cheaper a month depending on the ESPN add.

I think what you’re seeing is that sports fans are going to have to assume the cost of that programming on streaming services. You can get something like Philo for $20 a month that doesn’t have any of the sports channels. If you want sports though, it seems like it’s going to cost you something in the $60+ range. Sports fans have been spoiled for years by all cable subscribers basically subsidizing the cost of sports programming when only a percentage of people care about sports. I think we’re seeing streaming platforms start to take the stance of “you want to watch sports, then you are going to have to pay for it.”

 

[Clonehomer]

I don’t disagree that YTTV is a better deal than Fubo under it’s previous pricing structure. I just threw Fubo out as a possible option that might be $5 cheaper a month depending on the ESPN add.

I think what you’re seeing is that sports fans are going to have to assume the cost of that programming on streaming services. You can get something like Philo for $20 a month that doesn’t have any of the sports channels. If you want sports though, it seems like it’s going to cost you something in the $60+ range. Sports fans have been spoiled for years by all cable subscribers basically subsidizing the cost of sports programming when only a percentage of people care about sports. I think we’re seeing streaming platforms start to take the stance of “you want to watch sports, then you are going to have to pay for it.”

The issue is that we see streaming platforms with a medium number of channels for $35 when they started. Now, they're $65 to offer a lot of channels that no one watches. There's nothing left between Philo and YTTV/Hulu.

 

[isuno1fan]

Happy with the new channels and still happy with the price.

 

[STATE12]

I don’t disagree that YTTV is a better deal than Fubo under it’s previous pricing structure. I just threw Fubo out as a possible option that might be $5 cheaper a month depending on the ESPN add.

I think what you’re seeing is that sports fans are going to have to assume the cost of that programming on streaming services. You can get something like Philo for $20 a month that doesn’t have any of the sports channels. If you want sports though, it seems like it’s going to cost you something in the $60+ range. Sports fans have been spoiled for years by all cable subscribers basically subsidizing the cost of sports programming when only a percentage of people care about sports. I think we’re seeing streaming platforms start to take the stance of “you want to watch sports, then you are going to have to pay for it.”

Yep I agree that the sports drives the cost of packages up (necessary for me).

It's similar to a cable setup now more than it was when it first started up, but the freedom of month to month payment, not locking into a multi year commitment with a price hike year 2, not having to use their equipment, not having to talk to 5 different representatives when their equipment isn't working correctly, not getting an invoice (jump to $130 at the time) for the next month after cancelling my service two weeks prior and calling to chew on them only to be told they didn't have record of my conversation with a representative to cancel (???), or telling 3 different customer retention representatives that no I don't have any interest in options they have or for their service in the future is well worth it to me.

I already have the cost of internet anyway. So it would take a really heavy increase to touch where we were previously on the money side alone, plus don't have to deal with their runaround service. I'll deal with sports driving a bigger portion of the cost, but it's great non-sports fans can now look into services as you mentioned to avoid the elevated cost from the sports channels.

 

[cykadelic2]

I think we’re seeing streaming platforms start to take the stance of “you want to watch sports, then you are going to have to pay for it.”

It has been trending that way for some time now, it is the only way streaming and cable bundlers can make any money off of premium live sports content. And with the likelihood of new TV deals again significantly increasing for the NFL, College FB and NBA, bundles including live sports programming are going to increase even more and the number of marketed bundles without any premium live sports will likely increase.

 

[Stewo]

I've had both services but never used the DVR on either. I'm actually looking forward to going back to Hulu Live for the extra content.

If you enjoy not being able to fast forward through commercials on recorded ESPN shows/games, and simply having a terribly performing dvr, you'll love Hulu Live.

 

[stuclone]

I have YTTV currently, but considering switching to Hulu. Hulu also has the Fox sports regional channels which YTTV no longer has..

 

[cycloneG]

If you enjoy not being able to fast forward through commercials on recorded ESPN shows/games, and simply having a terribly performing dvr, you'll love Hulu Live.

As I said I don't use the DVR, the only difference between the two from my point of view is the price and the extra content on Hulu Live.

 

[Stewo]

As I said I don't use the DVR, the only difference between the two from my point of view is the price and the extra content on Hulu Live.

Oh, I missed that. Hulu is really good for watching full series though. If they'd correct their ****** dvr service, they'd be a one stop shop.

 

[cycloneG]

Oh, I missed that. Hulu is really good for watching full series though. If they'd correct their ****** dvr service, they'd be a one stop shop.

It's nice that they finally allow you to bundle Hulu Live with Disney+ and ESPN+. $62/month for all three.

 

[Tom Buch]

Extremely satisfied with YouTube TV

 

[06_CY]

I love YTTV. Not thrilled about the increase, but it's really just one less trip to Pancheros for a steak burrito with an order of chips and queso.

 

[coolerifyoudid]

It's nice that they finally allow you to bundle Hulu Live with Disney+ and ESPN+. $62/month for all three.

I'm a late cord-cutter because Spectrum had been very comparable for years for us. Recently, they pushed us over the limit by re-bundling channels and jacking up prices without any promotional offers (doing those consistently was a pain, but it often saved us $50-$60/mo)

We are looking at this Hulu Live/Disney/ESPN bundle and upgrading to Google Fiber's gigabit option. We'll lose a few things, but I'm having a hard time thinking we'll be missing anything in the long run.

 

[dawgpound]

It's nice that they finally allow you to bundle Hulu Live with Disney+ and ESPN+. $62/month for all three.

Bingo this is why I go with Hulu. Plus, you get all the back catalog of a ton of stuff (mainly Always Sunny for me). Best bang for your buck. And I never use the DVR because almost every show is on demand pretty close to immediately. Also if you sign into ESPN you can rewatch games on replay if you like. I do miss NFL network though.

 

[ruxCYtable]

I love YTTV but this is a huge price increase. I saw most people online predicting a $5 monthly increase.

 

[Trice]

That’s where I’m at too. Definitely time to shop around again. Amazon needs to get in the live TV game. That’s still a beautiful thing that you can just up and leave and find something new without calling anyone, without dealing with a contract of asset retention bull crap.

Ask and ye shall receive. Maybe.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/23/21300940/amazon-prime-video-live-linear-tv

 

[IcSyU]

I have no complaints about YTTV. $65 is still a fraction of my DTV bills of the past.