OT: More Cord-Cutting News - YouTube TV launches in 5 Cities
Google's answer to Sling TV and PlayStation Vue launched this week in five markets (Chicago, LA, New York, Philadelphia, SF Bay Area). At launch, their channel lineup includes ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, BTN, FS1, FS2, and the four major broadcast networks. There are apps for iOS, Android, and Android TV, as well as a web interface and Chromecast support. If you live in one of the launch markets, it might be worth checking out: https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/.
I would be interested to try this one out if / when it gets to the Detroit area. In the long term, having to bitch out Comcast every other year to get a new low "contract" rate plus whatever channels any threats might afford me for a modest discount (OK, last sessions lopped 40% off the bill and I got HBO and Starz for nothing)....well, it gets a little tiresome.
I guess I lucked out then, my wife only cares about HBO and AMC. In fact I was the Food Network fan, but stopped watching after Alton Brown sold out.
My wife is a die-hard Walking Dead fan.
Speaking of wives, what a travesty regarding Brad's. I mean, she worked at Cracker Barrel for 11 years! ELEVEN YEARS!
Yehehehehehaaaaaas!
We want an answer!!
Maybe someday, but not yet. Live in the Chicago market. Digital antenna gives me CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, PBS, WGN, and a couple other channels. All for free. The big hole is ESPN. However, I am not enough of a sports fan: I can go to a local bar several times a year when I really want to see a game that I don't have access to.
Meh, PS Vue offers more channels for the same price. They don't have CNN, HGTV, and AMC, which is a huge negative.
CNN has Anthony Bourdain now. His show and Bizarre Foods on the Travel Channel are shows I watch all the time (when not watching sports).
Out of those 3, I only watch AMC for TWD but those are 3 huge channels to be left off their list.
I'm always surprised they launch in limited markets for these things. I know broadcast channels make things difficult to launch nationwide, but given I live in fly-over country, I've pretty much ignore cable competitors until they show up as an Xbox app.
It's also a capacity and resources issue. Continuously transcoding and streaming live programming on-the-fly requires a ton of computing power and resources and robust dedicated infrastructure. It's a completely different animal from streaming on-demand content. Google has more muscle in that department than any other company, but this is a nascent space and a massive undertaking with a lot of moving parts so they probably want to be cautions.
can't be cable, probably not satellite. telephone? carrier pigeon?
broadband.
of a cable hook-up. correct?
Anyone know if this is going to include regional sports networks like FSD? That'd be a dealbreaker for me.
Is some company about to come out with an a la carte plan soon? I'd love to be able to hop on a provider's website, pick out the 30 or so specific channels I'd want to purchase, and have that be my monthly package.
I think Dish Network's new plans include some nontraditional a la carte options. The industry seems to be moving to a point where consumers will be able to create fully customized bundles (e.g., choose any 30 channels from this list for $30 a month), but the progress is slow because networks and MVPDs (i.e., cable and satellite companies) have gotten fat off the existing business model and have been hesitant to wean themselves off it.
With the advent of streaming and the continuous improvement of technology and data speeds to support the delivery of high-quality video with minimal buffering, there is no longer any real need for MVPDs. In a perfect world, I would be able to purchase individual channel subscriptions directly through the networks and choose only those channels that interest me. I would receive all non-live programming on-demand and streamed Netflix-style, and livestreams would be limited to programming that is actually live (i.e., sports, awards shows, news, etc). Technologically, there is no reason why that can't happen right now. But the problem is that the influence wielded by the MVPDs and the networks that were built on the MVPD business model is well-entrenched in the industry and the regulatory regimes that govern it. Because of that, I don't see TV fully transitioning to a Netflix-style model anytime soon. There may be more a la carte offerings and greater flexibility for consumers, but I don't expect to see a world in which MVPDs are no longer a thing. There are very few networks that could survive without the MVPDs, and none would be able to maintain their current size.
I always learn something in these threads as I get closer and closer to cutting the cord.
Cable will be extinct before you know it. They just can't compete anymore. As for me, I just have Hulu and Netflix. I don't have time to watch tv on their terms (when a new show comes on Monday nights at 7 etc). That's the way it was back in the day. If you missed your show, oh well. These days I can wait a few months for it to come out on netflix and binge watch on my terms. Saves a ton of $.
Before you know it? No. Way too many middle-older traditionalists that won't cut cable.
And that's fine with me. People can choose it however they want.
I've done streaming services before. I've had buffering at some of the worst moments you can imagine. No matter how popular it becomes, there's something to be said about a direct signal that you can rely on 99.99 percent of the time. Even in the worst storms, DTV rarely goes out. Buffering happens no matter if you have a 1 mb capacity or 100.
My son HAS to watch at least one episode of Micky Mouse or PJ Masks in the evenings. If they could add Nick/ Nick Jr (Me and my son spend non-football Saturday mornings watching Cartoons), it would have all of the sports I want, kids stuff my son wants, and all of the random assorted channels my wife wants. Add in the whole ChromeCast stuff... and this will be happening in 7 years when I can get it in Paducah.