Remember when it was $35/month? Dropped them like a bad habbit when it went to $60 something. No ala carte and adding channels I never wanted were also contributing factors.
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
646 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59708 readers
3055 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nit: It's "à la carte" meaning "by the card" or "according to the menu". Often the accent is dropped in English writing, but it's always written as three words.
This is just a stupid, meaningless nit-pick. I totally understood what you were saying, so it's really not important. It's just, the more you know, ya know?
by the card
G: yeah, we are charging you by the (payment) card, what is the issue here? Can't please anyone these days...
load more comments
(1 replies)
Same. I moved my parents from directv to ytv, saving them like $150+ a month (maybe more, it was a huge deal). When ytv was like 'puts on the proctology gloves' with that first price hike, I pitched an ota antenna + TV tuner, hooked up to my already-paid plex server running on my nas. We dropped ytv a few days later and now pay $0.
Smart move, G. Helping my family save so much money <3
I dropped around the same time. I really only had it for local channels, but the stuff I was watching ended up on other streaming apps day or two later anyway.
It was a great delivery mechanism for live sports for me. I went back to sling and put up a TV antenna. Too bad none of my local channels come in great past 15 miles, but I'd be a fool to pay that premium for locals.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Holy crap. I had no idea it was $73 a month. I'm a little shocked that is a viable price point.
Is cable cheaper? I haven't used it for 15+ years so I have no comparison.
My Comcast is $78 for their highest tier channel lineup and DVR with no premium channels.
So kinda samesy except you can share the YTTV with five family members.
My Spectrum cable TV bill was around $85, but they also charged a $22 “broadcasting fee” on top of that. YTTV doesn’t have any added hidden fees (yet.) Spectrum makes a big deal advertising “no hidden fees,” so fuck them and their hidden fees. Their TV app was also horrible, constantly losing audio sync.
I currently pay $130 for cable and internet with Verizon (was $115 but they raised it recently). Cable package is comparable to youtube tv and the internet is 90 up/down.
But I'm moving and if I want useful upload speeds from Comcast at the new place I need a package that's something like $200+ per month. I'm going with tmobile internet and YouTube tv since it's about $70 cheaper.
Personally, I'd love to just diitch cable. I only want it for hockey and I can get that with ESPN+ and a VPN. But my wife watches it quite bit. She's got a dozen shows on different cable channels she watches religiously.
load more comments
(11 replies)
I went to YouTubeTV earlier this year and it's definitely cheaper than RCN, which recently bought WOW. I have Comcast as a choice but they aren't better. The base rate for RCN that they advertise is $59, but they add four different fees that you don't see until your first bill: Sports Surcharge, Broadcast TV surcharge, franchise fees, and Entertainment Networks Surcharge. After those add-ons it was $115, so I'm saving money because the YouTubeTV price is actually advertised properly, without these ridiculous add ons.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Holy shiiii. I had no idea they got that brave to raise those costs to that level.
"It's just the price of your daily coffee"
I self brew my own value pack coffee because I'm poor. I even have a reusable metal mesh coffee filter insert so I don't have to buy coffee filters, that's how cheap I am.
Bruh, you're not being poor, just responsible. Dafuq.
Is this another one of those Silicon Valley syndrome where paying for an overpriced latte/chai/kombucha every day is the expected routine?
Yes.
It's sad how much we've normalized overpaying for brown shitwater so we can work harder for peanuts.
Just use normal coffee filters, they are better for your health and are cheap af. The paper filters block some carcinogens that the metal ones do not. Your call, cheers
load more comments
(13 replies)
I too drink coffee laced with platinum and gold, sprinkled with diamonds
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
I canceled that shit and got a homerun for football. If you’re going to just make me stream cable for the price of cable, you can go suck on a tailpipe if you think I’m paying over 850 a year. Fuck google. Fuck cable companies. And fuck these studios for thinking they can keep doing this to people.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
$73 A MONTH?
Hey, if suckers will pay it that's what they'll charge.
You know, that'd a damn good point. We can judge the price all we want, but Alphabet has all the tools and analytics to say "lmfao guys watch, we can double the cost and we lose one out of 230 subscribers "
I still cannot understand how anyone decides to have 30% of their programming to be ads AND decide to pay for it.
Boiling frog effect mostly.
load more comments
(4 replies)
So what is the next step for Google? Raising YT TV to $100/month? $200/month? Raising Youtube Premium to $30/month? Google one to $200/month? Laying off employees?
I mean they gotta keep hitting that 5% growth every year, right? When does it stop? When there's nobody else at the company? When people can't afford anything anymore and go bankrupt?
When are companies gonna understand that growth for the sake of growth every year is just not feasable?
It's not a matter of understanding the failure is systemic.
Shareholders only buy shares for the expected growth, not so much for the dividends. Dividends are literally pennies on the hundred dollar costs. Single digits percent annually.
load more comments
(3 replies)
When are companies gonna understand that growth for the sake of growth every year is just not feasable?
Depends when we actually enforce and support the SECs market reforms instead of defending them. As it sits once, that 5% target is no longer consistently hitable the naked shorts will start to come from maket makers and hedge funds allowing wall street to make just as much money in the growth stage as in the desth stage of a company plus when Google eventually gets to that point they can buy up all the IP during the bankruptcy process for their next unlimited growth candidate to usurp. Shit is absolutely fucked, plus congress has basically called out in their deals to keep the government running that the SEC can't use any of the budget to further market reform, so your gonna need to vote in candidates who support Markey reform, and proper reform at that sense baring indivual household shareholders from being able to participate and get accurate disclosures on off market trade data, equity swap data, or just widening the gap between wall street and retail investors access to data is also considered market reform by those corrupt individuals supporting wall streets mess.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You can stream pretty much anything for free here: https://fmoviesz.to/
Just make sure you have uBlock Origin installed.
If you have any issues, try searching 'free streaming sites reddit' and go from there.
Your wallets will thank me later.
I've never heard of this site before and you can bet I'll be adding it to my bookmarks uhh I mean block list right away!
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
The fuck? What's the point of it can't be cheaper.
Well, you need a router or access points instead of a cable box. And you can stream it over Wi-Fi. Yeah, you can stream it over Wi-Fi. That's why this is vaguely better than regular cable TV.
So, it costs more because it requires less dedicated hardware?
Of course, how did I not see it before
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I used YouTube TV early on when it was a legit alternative to cable. It costs just as much so there is no benefit. I cancelled when the prices were raised to 45 a month. They can fuck straight off at 73 a month
Next advertising campaign: Cable companies sued to keep us from telling you how much money you'd save by switching to YouTube TV. Find out the numbers for yourself at calculate your savings link
Relevant bits
YouTube TV launched in 2017 for $35 a month, but the base package is $72.99 after the latest price hike in March 2023. Google's "$600 less than cable" claim was challenged by Charter, which uses the brand name Spectrum and is the second-biggest cable company after Comcast. The National Advertising Division (NAD) previously ruled in Charter's favor but Google appealed the decision to the NARB in August.
"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.
A Google ad claimed that YouTube TV provided $600 in "annual average savings" compared to cable as of January 2023. A disclosure on the ad said the price was for "new users only" and that the $600 annual savings was "based on a study by SmithGeiger of the published cost of comparable standalone cable in the top 50 Nielsen DMAs, including all fees, taxes, promotion pricing, DVR box rental and service fees, and a 2nd cable box."
I feel sorry for those that don't use newsgroups and automation.
(Let's see if I can get the markdown right on first try)
Not just YouTube TV. I was thinking about switching from the Spotify family plan to the YouTube family plan, but the Spotify family plan is $16.99/mo and the YouTube family plan is $22.99/mo. That does include YouTube with no ads, but it's still too expensive for me. It's just not worth an additional $6. Especially not while my adblocker still works. It does mean I can't cast ad-free YouTube to my Chromecast because Google would not allow that, but I can live with it.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I had no idea YouTube TV costs that much, or that there were people paying that much.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Lol. My retired parents just switched to this because cable was too expensive.
OTA antenna + Plex is the best combination for me. Any content with no subscription fees.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don't get it I thought I pay like $5 a month for my 1/6 portion of YouTube premium family account which included YouTube TV (which i never use)
Its not normal for youtube premium to include YouTube TV.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Google has agreed to stop advertising YouTube TV as "$600 less than cable" after losing an appeal of a previous ruling that went against the company.
The National Advertising Review Board (NARB) announced today that it rejected Google's appeal and recommended that the company discontinue the YouTube TV claim.
The National Advertising Division (NAD) previously ruled in Charter's favor but Google appealed the decision to the NARB in August.
A disclosure on the ad said the price was for "new users only" and that the $600 annual savings was "based on a study by SmithGeiger of the published cost of comparable standalone cable in the top 50 Nielsen DMAs, including all fees, taxes, promotion pricing, DVR box rental and service fees, and a 2nd cable box."
Agreeing with the NAD decision, an NARB panel found that the price comparison provided by Google did not justify the "$600 less" claim.
Google said it "disagrees with NARB's determination that people watching the challenged commercials will somehow understand 'cable' to mean something other than traditional cable television," but "intends to modify or cease the disputed advertising claim."
The original article contains 443 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›