[HN Gopher] YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than
cable" ads
Author : thunderbong
Score : 163 points
Date : 2023-10-12 16:48 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| adocomplete wrote:
| I was really hoping the tech giants would be able to transform
| live TV as opposed to offer the same experience for (now) the
| same price.
| ghaff wrote:
| Content is king. And you can't even neatly excise sports
| content from everything else. If you can live without most live
| content, you really do have good, albeit fragmented,
| alternatives. But it does require giving up live TV.
| izzydata wrote:
| This just made me realize I don't believe I've ever
| intentionally watched live TV my entire life.
| ghaff wrote:
| That is extremely rare above a certain age. It may be more
| common today, especially if you make a point of avoiding
| sports, but there are a ton of situations in which people
| gravitated to live TV until very recently (when some don't
| now have it).
| swatcoder wrote:
| It's because the shape was due to licensing and contracts by
| content producers, not the technology of distribution.
|
| Online distribution licenses were underpriced and differently
| packaged for a while because producers didn't know what revenue
| to anticipate or which horse would be the best to bet on. But
| as the industry matured, stuff evened out again and it's mostly
| back to normal.
|
| Many conveniences of the new technology are nice, though.
| chung8123 wrote:
| Netflix did transform TV. Cable subscriptions are shrinking.
| Many people have switch to a streaming on demand service vs a
| linear service. You can watch most TV without ads.
| nicce wrote:
| That used to be the case couple years back. Now they are
| bringing ads to these streaming services. And you have 10
| different streaming services what you need to buy separately.
| Soon there will be bundling streaming service and we are back
| to cable tv pricing and ads.
| chung8123 wrote:
| You can still buy non-ad services and the amount of content
| you can get at one time has increased incredibly. I would
| also say the new format has increased the quality of
| content. In my personal opinion, tech has really changed
| the industry and how we watch tv.
| anonymoose33282 wrote:
| Yeah we're definitely seeing a slow return to "this is on-
| demand cable". And all I see is that independent content
| (like YT videos) will continue to grow. I can definitely
| say that I watch probably one tenth as many shows and
| movies now as I did 7 or 8 years ago, simply due to how
| fragmented streaming services have become.
|
| I keep a Netflix subscription running for my parents, get
| the free few months of Apple TV every year or so from
| buying a new device, and beyond that I just watch more and
| more YouTube in my free time and go to the cinema maybe
| twice a year.
|
| Sure, YouTube doesn't really have any blockbuster/high-
| budget/studio-level content, but there's simply so much and
| so many niches that it keeps me entertained just as well as
| anything else, so I subscribe to YT premium and that's it.
| babypuncher wrote:
| which services have eliminated their ad-free options?
| ksherlock wrote:
| Ad-supported plans are more profitable per user than ad-
| free plans.
|
| "Disney, Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery have recently
| said the ad-supported versions of their streaming platforms
| generate more money per user than their ad-free
| counterparts, as the advertising revenue more than offsets
| the lower subscription cost." --
| https://www.wsj.com/business/media/netflix-price-increase-
| ac...
| tinus_hn wrote:
| What used to just be called tv is now 'linear tv'. It is no
| longer the default.
| jayknight wrote:
| I hope mlb.tv someday offers all games (without blackouts) and
| no commercial breaks. Just leave the cameras in the field and
| crowd between innings. I'd pay good money for that.
| pradn wrote:
| MLB could offer a super pricy option to skip all the ads, but
| they wouldn't because they can't tell advertisers that their
| richest customers aren't gonna be part of the audience.
| Advertising distorts the market for everyone.
| spike021 wrote:
| As soon as they do I'm dropping YTTV.
|
| Fortunately I pay 1/3 the YTTV cost by sharing with a friend
| so the cost isn't too bad. But it's too much content for my
| needs, and I don't prefer sharing access.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| Dude, this all day long. In this era to have blackouts is
| just ridiculous when consumers are willing to hand you wads
| of cash for your content.
| flenserboy wrote:
| Unless there is true change, both in delivery & content, most
| everything reverts back to the way it was. Music delivery seems
| (semi-)permanently changed, as it is nigh unimaginable for the
| album as it was known to make a comeback, market-wise. No
| similar change has happened or been allowed to happen on the
| TV-heritage side of things, & so we get new, shiner versions of
| the Old Ways.
| paxys wrote:
| Tech giants _have_ successfully transformed live TV, simply by
| killing it completely. No one under 35 subscribes to any kind
| of live TV service today other than to watch sports, and in
| another decade that will be fully online as well (look at the
| inroads Amazon and Apple are already making in that space).
| Some of the best new TV content is increasingly owned by
| Netflix, Amazon, Apple and the like. Cable TV and any kind of
| non-sports /special events broadcasting is going to disappear
| as a concept within our lifetimes.
| xwdv wrote:
| Cable TV will still be around for commercial settings.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| How much of comercial settings will be eaten up be online
| shopping? I can't remember the last time I went to a brick
| and mortar store to buy something.
| xwdv wrote:
| TVs in bars is a billion dollar industry.
| 13of40 wrote:
| Businesses still have landline telephones too, but I feel
| like they're just less agile, not that they'll never catch
| up with the times.
| rchaud wrote:
| 'Disruption' is a marketing tactic these days. Netflix keeps
| hiking prices even though they're not paying usurious amounts
| to license other networks' content. Uber now isn't any cheaper
| than the stodgy taxis they replaced.
| scoofy wrote:
| You're think of YouTube. The business model of television,
| especially live television, wasn't really ever going to cost
| significantly less than it did. The inverse relationship
| between advertising and number of outlets would necessitate
| higher costs to the consumer, not lower costs.
|
| Anyone willing to create content at extremely low cost has
| flourished under the YouTube paradigm.
| rednerrus wrote:
| YoutubeTV experience is WAY better.
| ghaff wrote:
| Cord-cutting (still get Internet from the cable company) has
| saved me a fair bit of money after I realized that I could go a
| month without watching a live broadcast or a show recorded on my
| TiVo. But you pretty much only get significant cost savings today
| if you're willing to do mostly without live TV 100% or jump
| through some hoops for a rare exception.
|
| In spite of the occasional annoyance, I'm fine with it but I
| realize a lot of people wouldn't be--especially for sports.
| jes5199 wrote:
| do people still watch live TV? I'm only exposed it to when I
| stay in hotels and it seems to only be Seinfeld reruns and
| Shark Tank
| dylan604 wrote:
| There's a large population of people from a prior generation
| to you.
| swatcoder wrote:
| It's for sports and news (which both earn many many eyes and
| are most satisfying when watched live), not so much for
| reality or scripted productions. Even if you like channel
| surfing among the latter, you can do that in most service-
| specific streaming apps now.
| well_actulily wrote:
| At least for news, something like [PBS
| NewsHour](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/) is available free
| for cord cutters. Sports, you're mostly looking at illicit
| streams from dodgy sites.
| ericabiz wrote:
| Sports fans watch a lot of live TV.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Based on the couple times I have watched sports recently, I
| would have thought it was a series of gambling ads
| interspersed with sports.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That's because the TV system is going to collapse soon,
| and gambling and data neeed for gambling will replace
| that revenue.
| hanniabu wrote:
| It's great for when you don't want to choose something to
| watch
| ghaff wrote:
| A _lot_ of people including my brother do like to have TV
| as background. (Personally I hate it.)
|
| Way back when I would travel in groups and sometimes have a
| roommate one of the nails on chalkboard things for me was
| people who would turn on the TV the first thing when they
| walked into a room.
| legitster wrote:
| My guilty pleasure have been the Roku Digital Channels.
| They have channels that are just a 24 hour feed of MST3K,
| or Cook's Illustrated, or How It's Made, or Antiques
| Roadshow. Just to turn on some background while I am making
| dinner or working on a project has been enjoyable,
| commercials and all.
| bonton89 wrote:
| I was recently on vacation where they had a roku TV and
| watched these. I watched some old Unsolved Mysteries
| episodes, honestly there weren't really that many
| commercials on this at all compared to my parent's cable
| subscription.
|
| I recall that after well after I had cut the cord a lot
| of channels on cable had switched to just playing one
| show all day on some channels so the concept seemed to
| pre-date the roku setup.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Many of the smart TVs have similar (I think they're just
| repackaging what was already out there on Pluto etc;
| Sling also includes those same channels in their
| Freestream)
|
| I actually watch a ton of This Old House on my Samsung TV
| in my home office.
| rchaud wrote:
| Old people watch a lot of TV, so pretty much every commercial
| is targeted at them. Medications, retirement planning,
| predatory "manage your finances" apps, and of course
| commercials for thinly veiled clones of NCIS.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Don't forget you can still get a DTV OTA antenna and watch live
| TV with a much much better image quality and without cable's
| delay. Admittedly, in can take a bit of effort finding a
| location to place the antenna for best reception for your
| location, but so worth not paying for cable any longer.
|
| Sports is the primary reason for me messing with this, but it
| is definitely worth it.
| Goronmon wrote:
| Having to invest time and money into the antenna is
| definitely what's stopped me from using OTA up to this point.
| Especially given that our location is between multiple
| broadcast points so it's not as simple as pointing an antenna
| in one direction, it would have to be a multi-directional
| antenna. Last I looked a decent one of those wasn't cheap.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I have one of those little table top style ones that came
| with a pretty long cable. It is a bit of an annoyance in
| that in my location, there are different places I need to
| place the antenna for best reception for that channel.
| Luckily, I only use it for sports, and I know the best
| location for each channel. So I just move it as needed, and
| then place it back behind the TV when done. I look at it
| like being similar to grabbing a gaming controller and
| putting it back on the charger when done.
|
| Fun things happen with reception though. Just this weekend,
| I was watching a match and everything was coming through
| just fine. The UPS truck pulled up to deliver a package to
| my house, and the whole time the truck was parked, the
| signal was struggling. As soon as the truck pulled away,
| everything was fine again.
|
| As much "fun" as all of that is, it is much cheaper than me
| finding a sports bar to watch a match. Besides, at the time
| of the morning what I'm watching is on, I really am not in
| the mood to go some where.
| freedomben wrote:
| I'm in the same boat, and on-the-ground isn't even good
| enough. I'll have to mount a big antenna on top of my roof,
| which is a tall order. Not worth it to me so far.
| Goronmon wrote:
| Yup, the few more basic antennas I've tried effectively
| got no signal worth using on any channels.
| ghaff wrote:
| "You" can :-) But fair comment. For many people, OTA offers
| good enough live TV. I live at the base of a hill blocking me
| from the nearest major city about 40 miles away. I've never
| been able to pick up anything OTA even before digital
| signals; there was even a big "external" antenna in the attic
| installed by the previous owner to no avail before he just
| got a big C-band dish. Even a lot of radio is pretty bad.
|
| I was able to get cable TV before taking any extreme
| measures.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The irony here is that your specific situation was one of
| the driving factors of why cable was created
| ghaff wrote:
| Even leaving aside the cable-only stations (both premium
| and non-premium), even getting the basic networks and
| maybe some UHF channels was marginal for a _lot_ of
| people involving a lot of fiddling to get a usable
| signal.
|
| And pre-DirectTV, the alternatives were pretty much
| geeking out with a big Satellite dish which only worked
| out on your big country property and were willing to
| spend the money.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > even getting the basic networks and maybe some UHF
| channels was marginal
|
| <clears old timer's throat>
|
| In my day, we only had 3 networks and we liked it! You
| kids and your choices!
|
| But seriously, it is fascinating how in ~20 years of HDTV
| we've gone so far away from a small collection of
| channels with nothing worth watching to nothing worth
| watching available everywhere 24/7. Giving people their
| own agency in creating content has not increased the PSNR
| levels in the great vs dreck.
| yborg wrote:
| I'd question the better image quality part of this, almost
| all broadcast providers have chosen to use their bandwidth to
| ship the maximum number of 480p subchannels.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You can question, or you can do the A/B test yourself and
| no longer have it as a question. Sure, they've sub-divided
| their bandwidth, but their flagship station still receives
| much more bandwidth than your cable provider.
|
| Just do the Amazon rental for a weekend. If you don't like
| it, return it. You'll see the difference.
| plsmatt wrote:
| This is very much a regional thing.
|
| After the repack many markets have multiple HD channels
| sharing the bandwidth previously allocated for one OTA HD
| channel. In addition, as ATSC 3 is being deployed these
| channel sharing agreements are only becoming more common.
|
| In addition, some cable providers are taking this over-
| compressed feed and compressing it further.
|
| In many situations, streaming is the best option for
| picture quality now.
|
| I did some comparisons in the Philadelphia market:
| https://www.somesortofweatherexperiment.com/tags/tv-
| source-p...
|
| Even flagship events like the Super Bowl are not exempt
| to from low detail, compression artifact video in this
| market.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I haven't been near broadcast engineering since the DTV
| transition, but at one point in time, they wanted to have
| dial-a-yield type of abilities for the splitting of the
| bandwidth. For primetime, they wanted to to be able to
| give the main channel a larger portion of the bandwidth
| when people were watching, and then during the day
| provide more options for people to view alternate
| programming. Even if you gave each of the .2-.X channels
| 3Mbps, that's still a lot of bandwidth in comparison for
| the .1 channel. Of course any live realtime encoding of
| 3Mbps will never rival a 3Mbps encode from someone like
| Netflix, but a lot of that is just SD content anyways so
| meh it gets.
| extragood wrote:
| While the image quality is better (and the price difference
| is beyond compare), I've noticed that a lot of channels are
| still broadcast at 720p.
| legitster wrote:
| > live TV with a much much better image quality and without
| cable's delay
|
| Depends. In our area they have split the digital signal so
| many times to carve out additional subchannels
| (10.1,10.2,10.3, etc) that the effective bitrate is now
| pretty dang low.
|
| When watching football, the channel may only be delivering
| 720p, and with tons of compression artifacts to boot.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Way back in the late 90s, the place I was working had a
| subscription to a trade rag called TV Broadcasting News (or
| something like that). I remember reading an article on how
| Congress was upset at the networks for splitting the
| bandwidth. But being feckless like Congress is, they did
| nothing about it and just shrugged their shoulders.
|
| Fox was famous for choosing 720p as its broadcast format
| specifically to get 60fps for its sports programming while
| the other networks chose 1080i5994.
| drewg123 wrote:
| Note that they have added DRM to the ATSC 3.0 standard, and
| its being implemented quite widely. This means that you'll be
| unable to freely record time shift sports using applications
| like MythTV, etc.
| RF_Enthusiast wrote:
| This adds an uncertain future to OTA, but I don't think you
| can say it's implemented widely yet.
|
| Here's a list of current ATSC 3.0 channels, with an
| indicator for the encrypted ones:
| https://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=atsc3
|
| For now, most network affiliates that air an ATSC 3.0
| signal must simulcast the primary video programming stream
| in ATSC 1.0 format. So most primary channels are still
| available without DRM. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchap
| ter-C...
| drewg123 wrote:
| In my market (Miami) almost everything is encrypted on
| ATSC 3. Do you know how long ATSC 1 will be up?
| bb88 wrote:
| Usually after a sports event is over, it's worth a lot less
| than when it's being played live, too. E.g. The Super
| Bowl's value is only worth something when people don't know
| what's going to happen. After the game everyone pretty much
| knows what has happened.
| drewg123 wrote:
| To each his own. At least for American football, there
| are so many advertisements and so much dead time between
| plays, I will typically record a game and then start
| watching it about 90 minutes after the start. That
| usually works out so that I finish the game just as I
| catch up the real time in the recording.
| dylan604 wrote:
| "The National Advertising Division (NAD) previously ruled in
| Charter's favor"
|
| HaHa! Google got kicked in the NAD[s]! Imagine that. A company
| having to respect the "truth in advertising" concept. Calling a
| company out by name with out-dated (at best) or flat out
| inaccurate information is ballsy, for which they deserved to get
| kicked squarely in for flaunting the rules everyone else plays
| by.
| webXL wrote:
| "Charter contended the $600 figure was inaccurate, arguing that
| its Spectrum TV Select service in Los Angeles only cost around
| $219 a year more than Google's YouTube TV service," according to
| a MediaPost article in August.
|
| I always thought Select was considerably less than $73/mo, but
| just going to their site, I see that it's $59.99/mo (for 12 mos).
| So I guess it's jacked up after that first year.
|
| I would have settled for "$600 less than _most_ cable "
| ylhert wrote:
| It's wild to me how much Youtube TV costs and yet they still
| serve you tons of ads. Coming from youtube premium where
| occasionally I have to skip through a preroll ad, I forget how
| much you are bombarded with ads while watching traditional TV.
| The fact that you have to pay the princely sum of $73/month on
| top of that boggles my mind. I canceled when they raised the
| price from $35/month and I'll never go back at these prices...
| colechristensen wrote:
| Yup, cable TV is ridiculous.
|
| Streaming, however, is doing just fine catching up with costs
| and playing with "ad supported" pricing levels which is only
| expected to spread.
|
| We're in the "eternal September" of streaming, it's only going
| to get worse from here.
| daveidol wrote:
| > youtube premium where occasionally I have to skip through a
| preroll ad
|
| I thought YouTube Premium was ad-free?
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| It's free of ads from YouTube. Plenty of videos have baked in
| ads from the content creators themselves.
| _boffin_ wrote:
| Check out SponsorBlock.
| moelf wrote:
| that's why https://sponsor.ajay.app/ exists
| lapetitejort wrote:
| If you dislike them, check out the SponsorBlock extension,
| which will skip in-video ads. While you're at it, also get
| DeArrow, which chooses a random frame as the thumbnail and
| allows community written titles that accurately describe
| the videos.
| xdennis wrote:
| But at that point why not block all ads without paying?
| (That's what I do.)
| pertique wrote:
| I think you and the comment you replied to are talking
| about different things. The comment you replied to IS
| talking about skipping these inline ads without paying
| (SponsorBlock). If you aren't using it and are watching
| the same videos, you're also seeing these ads.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| xdennis is asking why bother paying for premium if you
| still need to use sponsorblock. Why not just use
| sponsorblock + (uBlock Origin, or yt-dl, or etc) to
| remove both forms of ads for free.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| Too bad sponsorblock will not work on tv((
| pmarreck wrote:
| I don't actually mind those, because at least you can skip
| past them manually; if they stop allowing THAT, though,
| THEN...
| duped wrote:
| Pretty much every streaming service with a "no ads" tier
| does this. I agree it's infuriating.
| bredren wrote:
| It goes deeper too. Original programming (film / tv)
| seems to contain paid product placement with no
| disclosure.
| rchaud wrote:
| I bought an licensed VHS of Mission Impossible in '96,
| and had to FFW through trailers for other movies made by
| that studio.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Parent comment was comparing YouTube TV to YouTube Premium.
|
| Two different products. YouTube Premium removes the YouTube-
| inserted ads.
|
| YouTube TV is a different product. It tries to compete with
| cable and satellite TV (which also serve ads despite hefty
| monthly fees)
| secondcoming wrote:
| You still endured ads with YT Premium!? That's shocking if
| true.
| FanaHOVA wrote:
| He just means promos by creators, not YT ads.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| You won't have to go back, youtube premium will bring the
| enshitification to your door over the coming decade or so.
| solardev wrote:
| FWIW https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-
| for-y... is a crowdsourced way to skip past promos (by
| timestamp).
|
| Or some creators have moved to Nebula, which seems to have less
| of that crap but IMO a worse UI than YouTube.
| IntelMiner wrote:
| While I like Nebula on premise, it seems creators on it are
| getting 'lazier' and some of the people on the site are
| downright questionable ("TL;DR News" and "Therapist Reacts"
| being the biggest offenders for me)
|
| Like, why am I paying Nebula for this garbage?
| https://i.imgur.com/itiLYbK.png
| verall wrote:
| I think Little Joel is a treasure, personally
|
| He still does long-form well-researched videos if you're
| into that, too
| ravetcofx wrote:
| Yeah don't be dunking on little joel. He's
| Theizestooke wrote:
| What is questionable about TLDR News?
| KittenInABox wrote:
| Are you unfamiliar with Little Joel? Big Joel has actual
| deep analysis if you like, but Little Joel is just a silly
| side channel of his. You're paying for this, plus also
| multi-hour-long analysis of, say, media analysis
| contrasting with the role of Jewish people who were coerced
| to cooperate with the Nazis in concentration camps.
|
| Nebula is meant to serve a variety of videos. I'd probably
| feel the same of "I have to watch ads for this crap?" for
| YouTube, y'know?
| solardev wrote:
| Is that really Nebula's fault? YouTube, TikTok, etc. are
| full of garbage too.
|
| I don't really know their arrangement with creators (one
| would hope creators get a bigger cut there, otherwise why
| leave YouTube?), but my favorite creators* have the same
| videos on both, just a little earlier on Nebula usually.
|
| *Just engineering channels though, which is probably why
| they're not as spammy/shock-reaction-y.
|
| https://nebula.tv/practical-engineering
|
| https://nebula.tv/realengineering
|
| https://nebula.tv/the-efficient-engineer
|
| are all excellent
| chmod775 wrote:
| Never used them.
|
| The way they're marketing themselves I didn't think I
| would have to curate their content myself. How much do I
| need do I need to pay to not have to sift through brain-
| numbing clickbait diarrhea?
|
| At that point you might as well just kill your time on
| YouTube. Plenty of good channels there too - if you can
| stand the stench of the heap of trash they're buried
| under.
| solardev wrote:
| Oh, I never thought of Nebula as a curation service, just
| a hosting service that the creators I like seem to prefer
| (who knows why, maybe they get paid more there or have
| some promotion with them?). But I eventually moved back
| to YouTube too, for unrelated reasons (auto captions
| etc.)
|
| I don't think any video site these days can be easily
| "browsed" if you want to avoid the garbage :( It's all
| about picking and choosing specific channels/creators to
| follow and ignoring the crap... sadly.
| rchaud wrote:
| You may be paying Nebula, but like all UGC platforms, it
| can't show you what it doesn't have. Social media video is
| heavy on lazy "TLDR", and light on substance.
| addicted wrote:
| I don't pay Nebula for that "garbage" (although that
| creator has a very different, and possibly unique, style of
| videos).
|
| What you are paying for is all the other stuff that isn't
| garbage.
|
| The "garbage" adds negligible costs to the Nebula
| experience.
| mcast wrote:
| I _really_ appreciate creators who add chapters to their
| YouTube videos, especially their sponsorship advertisements,
| since you can easily skip over them.
| vishwajeetv wrote:
| I wish there was AI + crowdsourced extension as such.
| a_JIT_pie wrote:
| I enjoy this with the Youtube ReVanced app. It's an amazing
| feature on top of regular ad blocking. I can never go back to
| regular YouTube.
| paxys wrote:
| Compare it with a cable subscription, not YouTube Premium.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| Just because lots of people seem to be getting confused, "pre-
| roll ad" isn't the right term for this. Pre-roll is one of
| those ads YouTube forces you to watch 5-30 seconds of before
| you can skip it, and when they play before the video starts.
| Mid-roll ads are the same thing, but interrupting the middle of
| the video. And Post-roll are ones that play after the video is
| over.
|
| What you're referring to are usually called sponsored segments.
| They're ads, but they're just a part of the video file you're
| being served. They're not dynamically targeted or cycled out.
| So if a LTT video is sponsored by ASUS, every viewer will see
| the same sponsored bit about ASUS because as far as youtube
| knows, it's a genuine part of your video, not a slot for an ad
| bid.
|
| They're still annoying, but it's not a pre-roll ad. You don't
| get those with Premium.
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| Hopefully OP understands this, but I can confirm folks like
| my parents do not distinguish the difference. It's mind
| boggling
| mk89 wrote:
| That's an implementation detail leak: for the end user it's
| just an advertisement. Call it as you want, but when I pay
| premium and you write "no ads" I want no ads. That's it.
|
| I don't care that the content provider found a way to show
| ads. I have a contract with you - you have to figure it
| out.
| mk89 wrote:
| Ah right, I forgot: they don't want to do content
| moderation, because then they become gatekeepers etc.
|
| They just want our money. Twice.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| Youtube doesn't get any money from sponsored segments.
| It's a direct deal between the channel owner and the
| sponsor.
|
| The only way it gets YouTube additional money is because
| it lets those channels put out more frequent or higher
| budget videos, which usually leads to more views.
| mk89 wrote:
| When I said "they" I meant: content providers, service
| providers and so on.
|
| I frankly don't care at all, I will never buy Youtube TV.
| However, justifying this behavior is ludicrous, even if
| YouTube doesn't monetize on such content.
|
| It's just unfair - you pay for no ads, and ...well you do
| get them because "the file..."
| eviks wrote:
| Yeah, but life has never been that simple
| mk89 wrote:
| I am more of the opinion that things were actually
| simpler before, even with analog TV. You knew what to
| expect. Now you pay 70$ per month, but hey, the file (?)
| you are streaming (?) contains an advertisement. Who
| cares?
|
| I just want to watch a show. Without ads, because I paid
| to have no ads.
|
| But hey we're a young generation, so we understand that
| it's not Youtube's fault... (?). Sorry, but no way! You
| are the service provider - you choose what goes through
| your platform. When I pay, you can't treat me like
| "you're (still) the product, sorry". That's for me
| unacceptable.
| tedunangst wrote:
| So if you pay for premium you're blocked from watching
| movie trailers?
| mk89 wrote:
| Movie trailers are a bit different than coca cola ads,
| come on...
|
| Plus, offer the chance to choose: with the amount of
| metadata flying through our networks, they are even able
| to guess what I ate for lunch, ... can't they really
| offer a checkbox like "show/don't show movie trailers"?
|
| They are Youtube, not random startup run by a guy working
| on it over the weekends...
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| Where it gets really confusing is podcast networks (like
| Spotify exclusives, but also others) offer the ability to
| cycle out the sponsored segment. So you may be listening to
| a Conan O'Briend podcast episode from 2016 and hear an ad
| break of Conan recommending you check out some tv show
| airing this Saturday, October 16 2023.
|
| But YouTube doesn't let video makes swap out parts of a
| video without re-uploading the whole thing and losing your
| viewcount. From what I've heard they have let some very big
| channels swap out things without it being considered a new
| video. But that's for the sake of avoiding copyright or
| fixing a dangerous error. Not for sponsorships.
| bagels wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying. I was worried that the parent was
| actually seeing real pre-roll ads with the subscription that
| would eventually get rolled out to everyone.
| TrinaryWorksToo wrote:
| You can use SponsorBlock to skip those.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Will get more and more difficult. This morning Youtube
| kicked me out because I was using adblock origin. And
| update fixed it, but if they start putting DRM...
| parthdesai wrote:
| That and you can also see certain youtubers chopping off
| sponsored ads block into multiple parts and integrating
| it with their video
| TrinaryWorksToo wrote:
| SponsorBlock helps with this also, even when it's
| incorporated into the video (via muting the audio).
| choppaface wrote:
| Doesn't matter how the pre-roll ad is served or who is
| serving it. The customer wants to pay for no ads, and that
| includes removing ads otherwise embedded into the video. The
| fact that ads people see this as out-of-scope demonstrates
| how little ads people want to make a product that users want.
| It's all about burning the dumb money of advertisers and
| abusing the users along the way.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| If you had just said ad, I would agree with you. But a pre-
| roll ad is a specific type of youtube that many people are
| familiar with but don't know the proper name of. That's my
| point. The OP comment does not get pre-roll ads with
| premium. But they still get sponsor segment ads.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| I was a Google Music All Access member since day 1 or whatever,
| they grandfathered me into YouTube Premium ('Red' at the time)
| and I was okay with that. Then my card expired, they cancelled
| my Music All Access, and when I re-enabled it, I no longer had
| YouTube Premium, I had to all of a sudden go out of my way to
| pay an extra $9 a month for it. I went with Apple Music as soon
| as I went iPhone and have not bothered to pay Google anymore.
| All Music Access was amazing, forcing me to YouTube is a poor
| choice that had they not gone that route I would still be on
| All Music Access. Apple One is superior in many ways anyway. I
| rather not be with a company that re-brands existing services
| then axes them when there's zero need to do so.
| altdataseller wrote:
| Plus they always seem to be taking away channels too. Here in
| NY, they removed SNY. It's like ok if you're raising prices,
| make sure you aren't taking things away!
| NegativeK wrote:
| My significant other watches sports, so the comparison to YT
| Premium doesn't count for us. It was either be subjected to ads
| and pay a lot of money or be subjected to ads and pay a medium-
| small amount of money.
|
| But as someone who has never paid for cable TV before, I agree
| that it's jarring. Our trick is to only watch things we've
| marked to be recorded, which allows ad skipping. (On demand and
| live don't allow skipping. Starting a sportsball game an hour
| late gives plenty of buffer.)
| redeeman wrote:
| install yourself an adblocker and see no ads :)
| xnx wrote:
| I subscribe to YouTube TV but watch it less than 1/month (it's
| for my parents). It blows my mind that it's $60/month and still
| contains ads. There is nothing on TV worth sitting through ads
| for.
| colechristensen wrote:
| On Adult Swim, the ads are weird enough that I actually don't
| really mind.
|
| That's it though.
|
| I want / would use a tenth of what YouTube TV or any cable
| provider sells. I don't really want to spend 70 dollars a month
| for it.
| solardev wrote:
| I really wonder how much of this effect is a generation gap. I
| see one commercial and it drives me nuts, but my parents don't
| even seem to notice them. Then again I have dev coworkers
| who're younger than me and go like "I should really get adblock
| at some point" while staring down pages full of pop-ups and
| animated crap. Guess you really can develop banner blindness by
| attrition lol.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I mean that's why the ad revenue goes down over time. People
| get used to clicking the right X's and ignoring the garbage
| on the sides and in the margins, and between the actual
| content. Less attention. The sites respond by making the ads
| more egregious, more numerous and even more aggressively
| placed but that just trains users to click out of the new
| ads. Just in my lifetime I've seen the amount of ads on
| television increase dramatically as TV dies it's own similar
| death.
|
| Techy people will just install blockers which is arguably
| _better_ for the advertisers, since they 're at least stating
| outright (forcefully) that they don't want ads. That means we
| don't download the ads and the ads don't register an
| impression for us because most good adblockers also block
| trackers. But these people who just raw dog the internet and
| just walk right by? They're the ones truly decimating the
| value of advertising, and bless em for it.
|
| There is no win condition for the advertisers in this. None.
| And that's shown by how aggressive and desperate they've
| become for even an ounce of attention. The entire pivot to
| video fiasco happened because advertisers wanted video ads,
| because making loud, stupid, brightly colored bullshit is the
| only tried and true way to get attention anymore.
|
| And I'm sorry but anyone still paying for television at this
| point, YouTube or otherwise, is a sucker. You are paying for
| (probably) the largest display available in your home to at
| best, 2/5 of the time bombard your senses with an assault of
| garbage, between entertainment. Entertainment that can be had
| much cheaper, without the assault elsewhere with basic
| technology. And if that's fine with you then by all means, it
| ain't my money, enjoy yourself but I cannot put myself in
| your shoes and make it make sense to me.
| zem wrote:
| Cory Doctorow had a superb piece on our "immune system" for
| ads: https://locusmag.com/2018/01/cory-doctorow-persuasion-
| adapta...
| jowea wrote:
| Is my memory fooling me but weren't the first ads already
| highly obnoxious? Like ads that popup a new window or were
| flashing and stuff?,
| freedomben wrote:
| I'm ~40 and was inundated with ads most of my life, but I
| still _hate_ seeing ads. I 'm more tolerant on a sports game
| or something for some reason, but still hate it with a
| passion. I pay for lots of things so I don't have to see ads.
| Paramount Plus started showing me ads when I paid for
| premium, so I cut them off. Meanwhile many people younger are
| a lot more tolerant. I think it really comes down to your
| personality and personal mental state, and maybe what you're
| used to already (which can change in the short term).
| amerkhalid wrote:
| It has been so long since last I saw any ad on TV/videos that
| when I subscribed to YouTube TV a few months ago, watching
| ads made me nostalgic. I told my wife that I was really
| enjoying these ads.
|
| But after about a week it got really annoying. Now debating
| if it is worth keeping.
| solardev wrote:
| Lol, you're every marketer's dream! Or were, anyway.
| zem wrote:
| I'm in my 40s but I grew up in Dubai, where the tv station
| (there was only one each for English and Arabic content!)
| only showed ads between shows. I basically gave up on tv
| after coming to the US - there is no way I can ever get used
| to ads in the middle of a show.
| DoesntMatter22 wrote:
| I'm 41 and watch the nfl with my dad. I try to explain that
| we can just record it and wait 40 minutes and watch the whole
| thing with no commercials.
|
| Nope. He wants to look up game stats without getting spoiled
| and needs frequent smoke breaks.
|
| It's nearly unbearable for me. I only stick it out because
| he's 76
| pests wrote:
| I agree with your dad.
|
| Ever have a favorite TV show release an episode and then
| you have to avoid Facebook and Twitter so you don't get
| spoiled?
| DoesntMatter22 wrote:
| It's not so much that it's that he wants to follow the
| game as it goes as far as stats go. How many completions,
| ints, etc.
|
| For me I don't care so I just don't watch the game for 30
| minutes or so and that's perfect. But there is no way to
| do what he wants without watching in real time.
|
| Miserable though for me.
| icelancer wrote:
| It blows my mind how many of my employees and co-workers
| don't have uBlock Origin or even ABP installed. I'm 40 years
| old and have had an adblocker installed for as long as
| they've been around, and I'd guess over half of the mid-20
| year old developers, analysts, content creators, and customer
| service people who work for me have never heard of it or used
| an adblocker.
|
| Not sure how you survive the Internet these days without one.
| paxys wrote:
| Sports. That has always been and will always be the answer to
| this.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| I'm not so sure about "always", at least not in its current
| structure. The likes of ESPN (And DIS by extension) are
| facing a reckoning because of cord cutting. Sports has
| enjoyed a privileged position where people were paying
| ~$10/mo in their cable bundle regardless of them caring about
| sports or not, but that's becoming less and less viable with
| cord cutting.
|
| Eventually sports fans are going to have to pay their own
| way, and it may turn out to be a lot more expensive than it
| is now, or they'll have to restructure to pin down costs
| significantly.
| hrunt wrote:
| YTTV does not really have the ability to not show ads. Those
| are put in the streams they are carrying. Could they negotiate
| with the channels to not show ads? Maybe, but no channel is
| going to allow that.
|
| A different way to think of this is to consider how many ads
| you would see on TV if YTTV (and every other bundled TV
| provider) did not have to pay carriage fees to the channels.
| How many ads would they have to sell to make up that lost
| revenue?
| jordanmorgan10 wrote:
| I'm subscribed to them for the same reason I was subscribed to
| DirecTV for a decade - they have a monopoly on Sunday Ticket.
|
| Oh, how I yearn for Sunday Ticket to just be its own entity so I
| didn't have to buy another service.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| I know not exactly what you're looking for but I bought RedZone
| for the first time through the NFL+ app this year and it's so
| nice to just have that and not fuss with any other service.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Sunday Ticket is different than RedZone. RedZone is a single
| channel that jumps between games; Sunday Ticket gives you
| unfettered access to all games.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Even Sunday Ticket does not give you access to all the
| games.
|
| https://tv.youtube.com/learn/nflsundayticket/
|
| >NFL Sunday Ticket: Every out-of-market Sunday game[1]
|
| >[1] Locally broadcast Fox and CBS games, Sunday Night
| Football on NBC, select digital-only games and
| international games excluded
| bdcravens wrote:
| Sure, but it does give you the lion's share, whereas Red
| Zone is really just one show, six hours on Sundays (and
| occasionally Saturday)
| jpollock wrote:
| You can subscribe to Sunday Ticket without signing up for
| YouTube TV.
|
| See "NFL Sunday Ticket on YouTube" or "NFL Sunday Ticket + NFL
| RedZone on YouTube"
| andrewgioia wrote:
| While technically true this is hardly an option... Both of
| those "alternative" plans exclude YouTube TV while charging
| considerably more. How many users who enjoy paying more for
| less did they sell to here?
|
| $350/year for Sunday Ticket with YouTube TV included vs.
| $450/year for just Sunday Ticket, delivered via regular
| YouTube it seems.
|
| Their pricing page:
| https://tv.youtube.com/learn/nflsundayticket/#id-plan-matrix
|
| Image if you can't access it: https://i.imgur.com/0nsQZxA.png
| dpifke wrote:
| _$350 /year for Sunday Ticket with YouTube TV included vs.
| $450/year for just Sunday Ticket, delivered via regular
| YouTube it seems._
|
| YouTube TV is required--not included--with the $350/year
| plan.
|
| So it's either $350/year + $73/month (with), or $450/year
| (without).
|
| Assuming you only keep YouTube TV for the September-January
| football season, that's $715/season with YouTube TV, vs.
| $450/season without. If you don't get any value from
| YouTube TV (e.g. if you already have cable or satellite),
| it's cheaper without.
|
| (Sunday Ticket doesn't show locally or nationally broadcast
| games such as Monday Night Football, so you kinda need
| access to broadcast TV alongside it.)
|
| When DirecTV had the Sunday Ticket monopoly, you had to
| sign a two-year contract to be allowed to purchase it. At
| least with Google, you can cancel YouTube TV as soon as the
| season is over.
|
| In my family's case, we weighed the cost against what we
| spent last football season on food + drinks at sports bars,
| and decided it was a better deal. ($715 over 18 weeks =
| $40/weekend. If we go out half as frequently, we come out
| ahead.)
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| I agree with your math, but the whole thing is offensive
| and abusive no matter how you cut it. $450/year (minimum)
| just to get football games. We've been evaluating our
| different options overall, given that Netflix price-to-
| value continues to weaken, as does Sling and Hulu, but I
| can't find any reason apart from NFL games why I would
| subscribe to YouTubeTv.
| spike021 wrote:
| As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, if mlb tv could release a
| subscription without blackouts I would no longer need YouTube
| tv. Same kind of problem.
| simpaticoder wrote:
| Subscription cost for entertainment is so high, and the quality
| of entertainment is so low, I can't help but think that most
| people keep these subscriptions purely out of habit and a BIG
| shift in consumption patterns is bound to occur. The shift will
| be to offline, generative software, or offline physical media.
| Online consumption will be limited to periodic cheap/free options
| like PBS Newshour, PBS Kids, newsletters, podcasts, and similar.
| Ideally we'd even see a re-uptake of media like a daily local or
| regional paper.
|
| Personally, I think this shift could really improve society, the
| state of people's minds, and encourage more offline time without
| some draconian top-down time-limit. And all thanks to increasing
| the price and decreasing the quality of streaming content until
| you break the relationship. Cool!
| pythonguython wrote:
| Just because it's expensive and low quality doesn't mean people
| will stop using it - even if they recognize that. Based on the
| trends in entertainment over the last 70 years, I'd wager that
| entertainment will only be filled with more ads will be less
| substantive. I also think offline generative content will never
| happen. Will everyone have a gpu cluster in their home to run
| it? Generative content is certainly coming, but it will come
| though YouTube, Instagram, and whatever openAI has planned
| lapetitejort wrote:
| This is a reminder to check out your local library. Not only do
| they have tons of physical media (in some cases current movies
| and TV shows in disc format) but you may also get access to
| Hoopla, Libby, and/or Kanopy which are free apps where you can
| borrow all sorts of digital items.
|
| Some libraries also have a Library of Things, which lend out a
| random assortment of objects. I've seen musical instruments,
| baby monitors, cake tins, etc.
| stuaxo wrote:
| How much a month?
|
| That is insane.
| lionkor wrote:
| U+1F3F4 U+200D U+2620 U+FE0F
| bentt wrote:
| I pay $73 a month to watch 1 Liverpool game a week (max), 1
| Buffalo Bills game per week (maybe), and a smattering of NBA
| games. I'd so much rather just give the money directly to the
| teams and/or leagues.
| hellogoodbye wrote:
| To watch your EPL team you need Youtube TV, Peacock Premium,
| Paramount Plus (UCL/UEL) and ESPN plus (domestic cups) :/
|
| Youtube TV is the most expensive of the bunch, going to see if
| there are any other options like IPTV
| bb88 wrote:
| At least they don't have blackouts in the states....
| s17n wrote:
| It would be nice if they offered pay per view access for those of
| us who only want to watch live tv maybe a couple times a year. I
| can see why they don't bother though (obviously no real money in
| it).
| daft_pink wrote:
| They contest Youtube's non-transparency, but their total non-
| transparency on not disclosing fees, totally fine.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > "Charter contended the $600 figure was inaccurate, arguing that
| its Spectrum TV Select service in Los Angeles only cost around
| $219 a year more than Google's YouTube TV service," according to
| a MediaPost article in August.
|
| Google should have just agreed to do a find and replace in their
| ad copy.
| Aaronstotle wrote:
| I will cancel Youtube TV after the superbowl
| jayknight wrote:
| I signed up for sling for October to watch the baseball
| postseason, it's gone after that.
| babypuncher wrote:
| YouTube TV is still cable, just delivered differently.
|
| For that reason, it was DOA in my eyes. My problem with cable was
| never necessarily the price (though that was a big factor), but
| the linear, scheduled nature of the whole thing. I don't know why
| some companies keep clinging to this dated distribution model
| well more than a decade after Netflix showed everyone how to do
| it better.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Because there's enough people like me to make it profitable. I
| don't want to feel committed every time I turn on the TV.
| Sometimes I just like to watch whatever's on, carefree.
| Different strokes, all equally valid.
| charlesray wrote:
| Baffled by the number of people itt saying "I can't believe it
| costs that much and still has ads." It can't not have ads. It's
| cable TV, YouTube has zero control over whether or not it has
| ads. They can't broadcast the USA network without ads. Cable has
| had ads for like 40 years, and traditional cable providers are
| much more expensive than this. Are y'all 14 years old? idgi
| superjared wrote:
| YouTube TV injects ads on certain content. I know it's there
| for on-demand TV shows, and some live sports. It's literally
| overlaid on top of the channel's ads in the live example.
|
| I think years ago when I first subscribed one of the major
| benefits was the ability to skip through these ads just like
| DVR, but you can no longer do that.
| mucle6 wrote:
| I thought you could skip ads in dvr?
| rchaud wrote:
| You can, but not while watching live TV.
| charlesray wrote:
| Cable TV broadcasts include both the network's ads and slots
| for the carrier to run their own ads. They're not inserting
| bonus ads on top of the actual content. Again, this is
| exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked.
| superjared wrote:
| > Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has
| always worked.
|
| Arguably we don't _want_ the same as any cable provider has
| always worked.
| hx8 wrote:
| You're not wrong. It's just that YouTube TV needs to be
| in time sync with Cable TV.
| hx8 wrote:
| Over the last 15 years the expectation from online content has
| been "If I pay money ($10-20/mo), I shouldn't have to see ads."
| There's been a lot of pushback on this expectation, with
| sponsored content and tired services. This is the strongest
| pushback on that expectation.
|
| Of course we cannot get around the limitation of a streaming
| content provider displaying ads as part of their stream. It's
| just that $73 buys a lot of entertaining content on the
| internet that won't have that issue. It doubly feels like a bad
| deal because the content on cable TV is almost always not the
| highest quality content available. They are charging premium
| prices for standard content with long ad breaks.
|
| I wouldn't say "I can't believe it costs that much and still
| has ads" but I would say "I can't believe that people see
| enough value to spend that kind of money for that content with
| those ads." In my adult life I have never paid for cable or
| satellite tv. My parents still do.
| I_Am_Nous wrote:
| For a lot of people I imagine they are only used to ads on free
| stuff, like Pandora, while paying for the service removes ads.
| It's just an old world vs new world disparity, where old-
| worlders (pre-internet or slow moving area residents) are used
| to things like ads on cable and broadcast radio, while new-
| worlders (people who mostly grew up on the modern internet)
| didn't experience the same world at all.
| schnable wrote:
| The in-program ad revenue is a huge part of YTTV and Google's
| business model. The sub costs mostly go to purchase the
| content.
| mucle6 wrote:
| Even if they didn't profit from the ads, could they get rid
| of them?
| charlesray wrote:
| No.
| RF_Enthusiast wrote:
| Does YouTubeTV carry public television stations? Aside from
| underwriting sponsor mentions at the beginning and end of a
| program, they're prohibited from mentioning sponsors [1].
|
| [1] 47 CFR 73.621(e)
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621...
| charlesray wrote:
| Yes, and YouTube TV does not insert ads into those
| broadcasts. There's no ads in YouTube TV beyond what you
| would see on any other cable carrier.
| RF_Enthusiast wrote:
| Yeah, it sounds like there's a considerable
| misunderstanding of the service YouTubeTV provides.
| charlesray wrote:
| I think the confusion arises because people view "cable"
| as something that requires coax and a set top box, and
| they view "streaming" as anything that goes over the
| internet, therefore they mistakenly view YouTube TV as
| streaming, when it's actually just cable. The US
| government uses the term "multichannel video programming
| distributor" for platforms like this, which is a
| mouthful, but at least defines the concept separately
| from the distribution method.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Use AdGuard and SponsorBlock on macOS. It's really increased my
| YouTube browsing quality of life.
| carleton wrote:
| This doesn't have anything to do with YouTube TV. SponsorBlock
| and AdGuard have no effect on YTTV, only regular YouTube.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Playstation Vue was a great service. Since then streaming "TV"
| has become less of a value.
|
| Currently we get sling, which is $45 for the typical mainstream
| cable channels and 2 local channels (ABC and Fox). HuluTV is ok,
| since it includes Disney+, but about the same price as YouTubeTV.
| DirectTV Stream is a very complete offering, but barely cheaper
| than cable (and only because of the lack of equipment fees and
| taxes)
| paxys wrote:
| Are people here really so young that they never had to deal with
| traditional cable subscriptions? Let me tell you what it was
| like. You signed up for Comcast, paid a $50+ installation fee,
| prayed that the technician would even show up in the allotted
| window, paid $100-150 month for basic service, paid for a cable
| box/modem rental, paid for HD, paid for DVR, paid for each extra
| TV in your house, paid for premium channels, paid for on-demand,
| paid for sports packages, and then watched a shit load of ads to
| cap it all off. Complaining that YouTube TV is too pricey or is
| making things worse just shows that you don't know of the media
| world outside of YouTube and Netflix.
| NegativeK wrote:
| We were paying about $350 for internet + the full package to
| get sports.
|
| Now it's $60 for faster internet and $73 for TV. The ads are
| infuriating, but it's less than half the cost for pretty much
| the same TV experience. This is a very clear upgrade.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Correct, but there are cheaper options. Additionally, you can
| self-install cable these days in many places.
|
| With streaming services you still have to pay for certain
| sports packages and premiums.
|
| Most people who stream are still paying the Internet fees and
| modem rental.
|
| Some streaming services will sell you equipment (for instance,
| DirecTV Stream has a set-top box that isn't required, but
| actually behaves more like traditional cable instead of having
| to navigate to a separate app)
| maest wrote:
| ...in the US.
| antisthenes wrote:
| I just don't understand the value prop of YT TV.
|
| It seems like the exact cable TV model that all the streaming
| services were supposed to disrupt and put in the ground
| (eventually).
|
| But then again, I'm probably not the primary user of the service
| anyway.
| dumbfounder wrote:
| I was an early cord cutter, maybe 10 years ago. Then I cut linear
| because we rarely watched it, and the promotion I had for directv
| streaming expired (was getting an amazing deal at $10 for directv
| stream, + hbo with the at&t unlimited mobile plan). I now only
| want linear tv for NFL, but I tried every which way to see how I
| could spend as little as possible, but I can't get it any cheaper
| than about $60/month. I am not spending that just to watch
| football. And then you also need prime for thursday. And
| something else for red zone. And you need to make sure you get
| ESPN. But not ESPN+ because that's worthless. And not NFL+, what
| the heck is that? It's all absurd and I hate it. I now use some
| free iptv sources to watch games. Quality isn't awesome, but the
| price is right. The way I see it, they have driven me to it.
| DonnyV wrote:
| I think the best hack I've found is get cable and a TiVo with a
| life time subscription. Now I get the same or more content then
| YouTube and no commercials because TiVo has a commercial skip
| feature. I also don't have to pay for hardware for my cable
| connection because they have to give me 1 free cable card by law.
| I just insert that into my TiVo.
| simonsarris wrote:
| I strongly recommend cancelling all your subscription services
| and seeing how long you can go without renewing any of them. Try
| no TV, really none at all, for a month and see how it feels. Ask
| yourself at the end: How did you spend your time differently?
| slothtrop wrote:
| With habit-forming I think it helps to first start by adding
| other activities in rotation rather than just eliminating one.
|
| I can already answer this one: it would be internet-use. My
| sedentary time is still going to be sedentary time, that's how
| I want it. I'm not going to chase productivity and socializing
| for all the leisure time I can spare.
| Minor49er wrote:
| Or at least the in-between option: Use the savings from cutting
| the subscription services to run your own NAS at home and
| locally stream whatever movies or shows you own
| Moldoteck wrote:
| Imo the only subscription worth it for me is yt premium with
| sponsorblock combo. And yt music is a nice addition, ofc not
| Spotify's lvl, but i don't really listen to that much new music
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-12 21:02 UTC)