Overall this is a major move for Google. If they could pick up a few more major channels they could most likely dominate the cord cutter market. You’re now talking about one provider with locals in nearly every market in the USA.
The YouTube TV Thread
- Thread starter IcEWoLF
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 156K
It is folly to assume that all cord cutters are out to avoid sports channels and some of the other genres that YTTV doesn't do as well with.
Based on channels alone, I much prefer Fubo.
YTTV does great with sports channels, aside from sports that are not that popular in the US. For that there are other/better options.
For what it does offer, and at the price and simplicity, I could easily see YTTV becoming the dominant player in the market.
Consider that for more than a few, SEC and BIG 10 don't cover it all. Not everyone is limited to the big three US sports (baseball, basketball and US football) and Fubo does a much better job there with great soccer coverage and especially women's sports.
Every service supports the mainstream at some level but to distinguish a service above the others, they need something more than the same stuff everyone else carries. Hiding behind loss-leader prices won't last forever.
And fubu is one of those that’s better at covering the less popular sports, just like I said above.
Soccer, women’s sports, ect are niche sports in the USA Today. Soccer is growing , sure, but outside of the World Cup it barely pushes the ratings meter compared to the sports that YouTube (and others) does have covered.
Aside from the pac 12 network which isn’t all that widely distributed, YTTV has what most would want in a sports OTT provider (as do several of the other competitors).
YTTV still doesn't work on Amazon Fire devices, either, so that makes it a non-starter for people heavily invested in the Amazon ecosystem.
If you feel that you must put labels on things, go ahead and label yourself as a labeler, but there's more than a little interest is all kinds of sports (except maybe cricket) among many in the US (and not just immigrants). Teens in my area are just as likely to be fans of soccer, lacrosse, softball and vollyball and they are the first generation to have the option of OTT.
That's kind of like DIRECTV declaring themselves the "Sports Leader" yet they don't carry two of the three RSNs in my market (they carry only ROOT NW to the exclusion of NBC Sports NW and Pac12). The only hockey they offer in my market is through the local CW affiliate (KRCW) and the occasional match on a lower-tier sports channel. DISH carries ROOT and Pac12 and Comcast carries all three.
There's a bit of a pushback right now with respect to US professional sports and what a monster it (and some of its stars) have become. This used to boil in and around strikes, but now there doesn't even have to be a strike to hear people whine about how bad things are (including the state of officiating).
Some who dislike mainstream sports do so only because it feeds the ESPN pig, not because they don't want to watch an occasional contest so it goes both ways, but if you're going to offer something less than everything, it should arguably broader (like ABC's Wide World of Sports) rather than football and Texas Hold-em.
Yes, tractor pulling is a sport.
That would have made a lot more sense if you needed a FireTV device to use their Amazon's services. As it is, your argument is pretty far from reality.
If Amazon throws their hat into the live OTT ring, you can pretty much bet they still won't require a FireTV. Apple is in the process of broadening their offering to non-Apple hardware (some LG and Samsung TVs now come with iTunes apps) and it will surely have a huge impact on iTunes' popularity (assuming the experience doesn't suck).
I don't think it is. My parents have all Amazon devices: a Fire TV and a Fire Stick. Due to this, I wouldn't have been able to even suggest YTTV as a possibility for them.
You can’t include EVERYTHING for EVERYONE, but you can within reason include the stuff that majority of your potential customers watch.
When it comes to sports that’s what’s broadcast on the major local channels, the espn channels, and to a lesser extent the fox sports channels and RSNs
While other sports may be gaining in popularity they are still mostly niche sports in comparison.
I’m sure when they grow to rival the broadcast ratings of the more popular sports they will gain more coverage on mainstream channels or the channels they are covered on will be picked up by more providers.
Until then, again, There are options for those sports. Fubu is one. How many subs do they have these days ?
When it comes to sports that’s what’s broadcast on the major local channels, the espn channels, and to a lesser extent the fox sports channels and RSNs
While other sports may be gaining in popularity they are still mostly niche sports in comparison.
I’m sure when they grow to rival the broadcast ratings of the more popular sports they will gain more coverage on mainstream channels or the channels they are covered on will be picked up by more providers.
Until then, again, There are options for those sports. Fubu is one. How many subs do they have these days ?
I am in your corner. If I were to go all stream, I would have at least 2 services and Fubo would be one of them for sure because they have sports channels that are important to me and are not available elsewhere.
This isn't so much an indictment of Amazon and the FireTV devices as it is of YTTV and their failure to work out a FireTV app. Apple, on the other hand, is fully at fault for denying access to pretty much everyone else iTunes up to now.
It's both Amazon and Google who are at fault, as they won't sell each other's products (or at least they didn't; I haven't checked recently).
You also have the option of offering a little for everyone.
I don't know that they've made that information available recently, but I suspect that they may be behind some of the other OTT offerings sold under other names. In October, they counted over 250,000 subscribers.
The channels they offer do have some soccer as well as many women’s sports covered. I see women’s basketball, gymnastics, softball, even cheerleading competitions on there at times.
Obviously not as much as what’s offered on channels that cover those sports more in depth. But it still is a little, and since every sub gets those channels in the subscription, wouldn’t that be a little for everyone ?
Again, once the demand for the channels reaches a point, no doubt other ott services will offer them. Little point as of now and you already cover the main sports people watch in depth. Which is where the sports watching demand is today.
That sub count sounds about right. However, I don’t see it growing nearly as fast as the others just because it doesn’t offer some of the major sports channels. Probably the reason fubu and Philo have a far lower sub number than the competition that do offer the channels that cover the major American sports.
I left cable because they were trying to be all things to all customers and charging accordingly for scores of niche channels I never asked for. In my case, Cox was mixing more mainstream channels with niche channels in add-on tiers and charging an extra $10/mo for each tier (it used to be $10/mo. for ALL add-on tiers, including the EPIX family of movie channels). So if I wanted IFC (EPIX Movie Tier), Tennis Channel and ESPNU (Sports Extra Tier), and BBCA (Variety Tier), I needed to pay $30/mo. extra to my cable company.
Now it just so happens, almost all my priority channels are included in YouTube TV's basic $40/mo. package. Sure it would be nice to have Pac-12 and NFL Network, but there's no way I can justify paying $60+/mo. more than I pay now for YTTV to go back to cable just for those two channels and a few others it would be nice to have but found I can easily live without.
Everyone's needs are different and I feel very fortuante that one of the best OTT live TV platforms meets my must-have channel needs.
Now it just so happens, almost all my priority channels are included in YouTube TV's basic $40/mo. package. Sure it would be nice to have Pac-12 and NFL Network, but there's no way I can justify paying $60+/mo. more than I pay now for YTTV to go back to cable just for those two channels and a few others it would be nice to have but found I can easily live without.
Everyone's needs are different and I feel very fortuante that one of the best OTT live TV platforms meets my must-have channel needs.
Which surely makes Roku a better choice if you're going to cultivate an ecosystem.
The only reason I have a FireTV is because of the DISH connection. My daily driver is a Roku.
I agree, and if they hadn't already bought their Amazon devices, I would have steered them that direction.
The problem I have with Roku is the Prime Video lip sync issue. And I subscribe to HBO Now through Prime. It's not there on the Nvidia Shield or Firetv. None of the streaming devices have it all, the Shield is missing Hulu live, FireTV missing YTTV.
I was misled by several inaccurate reviews the Shield had everything but Apple products but it doesn't. Hulu Live has no intention of being Shield (Android TV) compatible either. Currently, I'm happy with the TYTV with main concern sports availability compared to others.
Only PSVUE offers more channels of what I want with NFL TV at a substantial increase in cost and not near as smooth UI with lots of buffering.
Going on 3 months have never experienced buffering with YTTV, unlike others which was hourly.
I was misled by several inaccurate reviews the Shield had everything but Apple products but it doesn't. Hulu Live has no intention of being Shield (Android TV) compatible either. Currently, I'm happy with the TYTV with main concern sports availability compared to others.
Only PSVUE offers more channels of what I want with NFL TV at a substantial increase in cost and not near as smooth UI with lots of buffering.
Going on 3 months have never experienced buffering with YTTV, unlike others which was hourly.
Last edited:
I've heard this mentioned by at least two users but I've never noticed it. I have a Roku 3 attached to an Onkyo upper-midline AVR.
