# YouTube TV



## dlt4 (Oct 4, 2006)

My bill is at the point where DIRECTV has lost its appeal to me, after 16+ years, so I’m giving YTTV a try. With a couple of minor exceptions, it has all the channels I'm interested in. A five day trial isn't very long, so I'm wondering if anyone that decided against YTTV had any comments about why you decided to stick with DIRECTV, or perhaps chose another service. I know I won't have DoublePlay, can't set YTTV to record only first run shows, can't go to a channel by entering numbers on the remote, etc., but I"m sure there are other things I haven't thought about or discovered yet. Some things might be made easier by using Alexa on the fire stick remote, but haven't dug into that yet.

Thanks.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

After a few days YTTV replaces the DVR version of shows, the ones you can FF through commercials, with the VOD version that you can't FF through commercials. The first time I tested YTTV it only did this for the CBS shows. In my latest testing it shows they also do this for ABC shows as well. A single 30 minute comedy made me sit through 11 commercials. Haven't tested NBC or Fox shows yet during this round of testing. I have a feeling this may become the norm with cloud DVR services.


----------



## dlt4 (Oct 4, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> After a few days YTTV replaces the DVR version of shows, the ones you can FF through commercials, with the VOD version that you can't FF through commercials. The first time I tested YTTV it only did this for the CBS shows. In my latest testing it shows they also do this for ABC shows as well. A single 30 minute comedy made me sit through 11 commercials. Haven't tested NBC or Fox shows yet during this round of testing. I have a feeling this may become the norm with cloud DVR services.


Thanks for the info. I was aware that there was no FF with on demand recordings, but I seldom watch anything on the networks, so hopefully it wouldn't be a major annoyance.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dlt4 said:


> My bill is at the point where DIRECTV has lost its appeal to me, after 16+ years, so I'm giving YTTV a try. With a couple of minor exceptions, it has all the channels I'm interested in. A five day trial isn't very long, so I'm wondering if anyone that decided against YTTV had any comments about why you decided to stick with DIRECTV, or perhaps chose another service. I know I won't have DoublePlay, can't set YTTV to record only first run shows, can't go to a channel by entering numbers on the remote, etc., but I"m sure there are other things I haven't thought about or discovered yet. Some things might be made easier by using Alexa on the fire stick remote, but haven't dug into that yet.
> 
> Thanks.


Things get a whole lot easier when you use a Fire TV Cube.

Rich


----------



## bobcnn (Nov 10, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> After a few days YTTV replaces the DVR version of shows, the ones you can FF through commercials, with the VOD version that you can't FF through commercials. The first time I tested YTTV it only did this for the CBS shows. In my latest testing it shows they also do this for ABC shows as well. A single 30 minute comedy made me sit through 11 commercials. Haven't tested NBC or Fox shows yet during this round of testing. I have a feeling this may become the norm with cloud DVR services.


I had Directv for more than 25 years. about a month ago I swapped when my bill went from $90 to $160. I really like YTTV. I also liked Playstation Vue, but I though YTTV was slightly better. I like it that you can take all of your channels (and DVR shows) anywhere you go. CBS primetime shows do go to on demand the day after they air, but not daytime shows, like The Price is Right. I know a couple of other channels also do that like I believer The Smithsonian Channel. But ABC has not on my account. I have month old ABC shows that are not on demand.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Why I will be switching when contract is up to YTTV and a OTA DVR for networks shows and save $50 or more a month.


----------



## dlt4 (Oct 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Things get a whole lot easier when you use a Fire TV Cube.
> 
> Rich


Heard of that but not familiar with it. Can you enlighten me?


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

dlt4 said:


> Thanks for the info. I was aware that there was no FF with on demand recordings, but I seldom watch anything on the networks, so hopefully it wouldn't be a major annoyance.


It only applies to certain networks (AFAIK 2) and I believe it's only certain locations, and it is a restriction placed on them (YTTV) by the networks. We use PSVue and haven't run into the issue with any show we watch but I don't think we watch anything on ABC or CBS.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I recorded several shows on ABC last week with YTTV. Bless this Mess, Stumptown, and the Rookie. When I went to watch them this weekend all had commercials that I can't FF through. And they are all labeled VOD instead of DVR. Same thing for all CBS shows on YTTV. Superstore on NBC from last Thursday is marked as VOD also and has a 15 second commercial at the front that I can't FF through.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> I recorded several shows on ABC last week with YTTV. Bless this Mess, Stumptown, and the Rookie. When I went to watch them this weekend all had commercials that I can't FF through.


The following link has a list of the 500-some local affiliates that Sony couldn't strike a deal with for DVR controls on PS Vue: Features | FAQ | PlayStation™Vue

I don't know of a similar list for YoutubeTV, but I'm wondering if you live in one of the areas with "problematic" affiliates?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

No idea. My locals are the locals from St. Louis, MO. which are not listed at that link.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> No idea. My locals are the locals from St. Louis, MO. which are not listed at that link.


Is your location registered as your "Home Area" for YoutubeTV? YouTube TV - Stream Live & Local TV

If that all looks good, I would contact support here: YouTube TV Help . They should be able to fix this pretty quickly, I would imagine.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Thanks for the link. Yes the St. Louis locals are my locals for YTTV also.


----------



## trufunk (Oct 9, 2014)

Switched and I’m not looking back. But if Fubo had ABC ESPN that would be the way to
Go for me. (I liked watching the TNF in 4K and the Series.)YTTV is great for what it gives you. I don’t see myself switching back anytime soon. There’s lots of streaming options .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Brian Hanasky (Feb 22, 2008)

b4pjoe said:


> After a few days YTTV replaces the DVR version of shows, the ones you can FF through commercials, with the VOD version that you can't FF through commercials. The first time I tested YTTV it only did this for the CBS shows. In my latest testing it shows they also do this for ABC shows as well. A single 30 minute comedy made me sit through 11 commercials. Haven't tested NBC or Fox shows yet during this round of testing. I have a feeling this may become the norm with cloud DVR services.


Not correct. CBS, CW, and other Viacom channels do this. So if you record Blue Bloods on CBS and watch it the same night or within lets say 4 hours then you can still FF through commercials. If you don't watch it by the next day then you will have the on-demand version. This if for VIACOM channels.

Other channels you can access the DVR version for weeks after it records in not months.


----------



## Brian Hanasky (Feb 22, 2008)

b4pjoe said:


> I recorded several shows on ABC last week with YTTV. Bless this Mess, Stumptown, and the Rookie. When I went to watch them this weekend all had commercials that I can't FF through. And they are all labeled VOD instead of DVR. Same thing for all CBS shows on YTTV. Superstore on NBC from last Thursday is marked as VOD also and has a 15 second commercial at the front that I can't FF through.


Go to Library and choose the show (not a VIACOM/CBS show). Once on the show select the episode and under it is a drop down list. Simply choose the DVR version not the VOD option. FF all you want as long as it's not a CBS owned network. Have used Youtube TV for almost a year now. Dropped Directv almost 2 years ago.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

trufunk said:


> (I liked watching the TNF in 4K and the Series.)


You can still watch those in 4K using the FOX Sports App on an AppleTV4K or Roku Ultra when you authenticate with a pay TV provider (including YouTubeTV).


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Brian Hanasky said:


> Go to Library and choose the show (not a VIACOM/CBS show). Once on the show select the episode and under it is a drop down list. Simply choose the DVR version not the VOD option. FF all you want as long as it's not a CBS owned network. Have used Youtube TV for almost a year now. Dropped Directv almost 2 years ago.


Thank you for this info. Never noticed the drop down list. The CBS shows have it too but it says CBS has restricted access to the DVR version.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

b4pjoe said:


> Thank you for this info. Never noticed the drop down list. The CBS shows have it too but it says CBS has restricted access to the DVR version.


I like the fact that they clearly identify the culprit.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

If I were a cord-cutter, I would choose Hulu+Live TV. Since I already have the ad-free Hulu, I would get all of the ABC, NBC, and Fox shows without ads, and I would only be paying about $38 a month more than I'm paying just for Hulu. And with the ad-free CBS All-Access for $9.99 a month, it would still only add up to about $50 a month. Everything except CW. And no FFing needed.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dlt4 said:


> Heard of that but not familiar with it. Can you enlighten me?


Here's the Amazon offering for the new Cubes: https://www.amazon.com/all-new-fire...d=1571759900&sprefix=fire+tv+c,aps,217&sr=8-5

Amazon bills these as entertainment hubs. They do everything a 4K Fire Stick will do. The do just about everything an Echo will do. They give you the option of controlling your TV, AVR or Soundbar by voice and that includes the Amazon app. You can scroll thru the menus by voice, select programming by voice and control the volume of your TV set, AVR or Soundbar. You can switch HDMI inputs with a simple voice command. I have spent evenings watching shows without picking up a remote. They are amazing devices. We use four of them on four of our 4K sets. I haven't had the opportunity to try one of the new Cubes but I know it's a helluva lot more powerful than the first generation Cubes we have. Those four older Cubes are gonna be given away as I replace them with the newer Cubes.

Buy one, try one. One of the most interesting new devices out there, I think.

Rich


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

Rich said:


> Here's the Amazon offering for the new Cubes: https://www.amazon.com/all-new-fire...d=1571759900&sprefix=fire+tv+c,aps,217&sr=8-5
> 
> Amazon bills these as entertainment hubs. They do everything a 4K Fire Stick will do. The do just about everything an Echo will do. They give you the option of controlling your TV, AVR or Soundbar by voice and that includes the Amazon app. You can scroll thru the menus by voice, select programming by voice and control the volume of your TV set, AVR or Soundbar. You can switch HDMI inputs with a simple voice command. I have spent evenings watching shows without picking up a remote. They are amazing devices. We use four of them on four of our 4K sets. I haven't had the opportunity to try one of the new Cubes but I know it's a helluva lot more powerful than the first generation Cubes we have. Those four older Cubes are gonna be given away as I replace them with the newer Cubes.
> 
> ...


Rich, if HD audio is a need, you may want to compare the 2nd Generation Cube with the 4K Stick.

The stick will do 24 bit audio but the cube won't. Came across the odd comparison in another forum. For some reason, Amazon has a history of later generations skipping audio features. This is one of those occasions.

Compare audio specs and be aware. Puzzling why Amazon would do this knowing HD and UHD audio was coming to Amazon music. Hmm.

Device Specifications: Fire TV Cube | Amazon Fire TV

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

armchair said:


> Rich, if HD audio is a need, you may want to compare the 2nd Generation Cube with the 4K Stick.
> 
> The stick will do 24 bit audio but the cube won't. Came across the odd comparison in another forum. For some reason, Amazon has a history of later generations skipping audio features. This is one of those occasions.
> 
> ...


Much as I like what the Cubes can do I don't use them for watching programming. I think the PQ on my ATVs is just a bit better and I enjoy the ATV experience. Nothing wrong with the Cubes, I just like the ATVs. When I got the first Cube all I could think about was how wonderful these things would be for handicapped people.

Rich


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

Rich said:


> Much as I like what the Cubes can do I don't use them for watching programming. I think the PQ on my ATVs is just a bit better and I enjoy the ATV experience. Nothing wrong with the Cubes, I just like the ATVs. When I got the first Cube all I could think about was how wonderful these things would be for handicapped people.
> 
> Rich


Even my Fire TV 4K Stick is quirky. Exits app minutes after launching screensaver. I rarely use it. I wanted Amazon devices to see my ring cameras. Faster and less frustration just pulling out my phone! Have to keep disabling and reenabling the skill to get it to work. It's mostly just saying something went wrong.

I have the echo show 2nd generation and I cannot explain enough to Amazon why they need a volume slider for Alexa!! Adjust volume to hear and Alexa interaction is too loud! Tell her to turn the volume down and it's back to not hearing media. She needs a dedicated volume control. Alexa responses with a screen could be more like Siri on Apple TV (just text onscreen is very nice, even when Siri gets it wrong). I wish Amazon could get it together in a package that didn't frustrate.

I hear the cube only has the volume slider for Alexa interaction. Buy that one they say. No thanks! It's just baffling why Amazon stubbornly cannot improve echo show to have Alexa say less when the response is in text onscreen. No verbal shortcut to smart devices and smart commands cannot be added to routines. Where's the smartness and innovation? Not like they're not getting suggestions.

I have ATV4K. Finally setup HomeKit. Had to overcome the imposed iOS setup device necessity by borrowing my kid's iPod. I just wish HomeKit wasn't so limited and Apple TV isn't always my watched device.

Mostly yelling at Alexa. IMO, she challenges the aged, particularly the male A type personality. Alexa I want to unplug you; response: I don't have an opinion on that. Ok, unplug it is. What ever happened to thanks for your feedback? I tell her she's wrong but she refers me to the app to do it myself. And she really needs a skill that responds to "ASK GOOGLE IF YOU DON'T KNOW"! She still thinks J.P. Morgan is alive and therefore, 182 years old. Google knows.

A cube would may only be slightly better, IMO. Buyer beware.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian Hanasky (Feb 22, 2008)

b4pjoe said:


> Thank you for this info. Never noticed the drop down list. The CBS shows have it too but it says CBS has restricted access to the DVR version.


Yup CBS doesn't like customers. They like $.


----------



## trufunk (Oct 9, 2014)

espaeth said:


> You can still watch those in 4K using the FOX Sports App on an AppleTV4K or Roku Ultra when you authenticate with a pay TV provider (including YouTubeTV).


Ahh I did not know this, I'm gonna see if available on my Samsung tv if not might have to get a Roku Ultra. thanks

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## dlt4 (Oct 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Here's the Amazon offering for the new Cubes: https://www.amazon.com/all-new-fire-tv-cube-with-alexa-voice-remote/dp/B07KGVB6D6/ref=sr_1_5?crid=32JNG27NNISRY&keywords=fire+tv+cube+4k&qid=1571759900&sprefix=fire+tv+c,aps,217&sr=8-5
> 
> Amazon bills these as entertainment hubs. They do everything a 4K Fire Stick will do. The do just about everything an Echo will do. They give you the option of controlling your TV, AVR or Soundbar by voice and that includes the Amazon app. You can scroll thru the menus by voice, select programming by voice and control the volume of your TV set, AVR or Soundbar. You can switch HDMI inputs with a simple voice command. I have spent evenings watching shows without picking up a remote. They are amazing devices. We use four of them on four of our 4K sets. I haven't had the opportunity to try one of the new Cubes but I know it's a helluva lot more powerful than the first generation Cubes we have. Those four older Cubes are gonna be given away as I replace them with the newer Cubes.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

armchair said:


> Even my Fire TV 4K Stick is quirky. Exits app minutes after launching screensaver. I rarely use it. I wanted Amazon devices to see my ring cameras. Faster and less frustration just pulling out my phone! Have to keep disabling and reenabling the skill to get it to work. It's mostly just saying something went wrong.
> 
> I have the echo show 2nd generation and I cannot explain enough to Amazon why they need a volume slider for Alexa!! Adjust volume to hear and Alexa interaction is too loud! Tell her to turn the volume down and it's back to not hearing media. She needs a dedicated volume control. Alexa responses with a screen could be more like Siri on Apple TV (just text onscreen is very nice, even when Siri gets it wrong). I wish Amazon could get it together in a package that didn't frustrate.
> 
> ...


If you use: "Alexa lower the volume one level" the sound diminishes in steps of one. Same thing with raising the volume. That might help. Helped me.

I haven't had a chance to use the new and improved Cube. I do know the first generation Cubes have some issues. I'm hoping the new ones act more like an Echo.

You want a really smart assistant buy a Google Home. I just had an interesting conversation with mine this morning. You can't do that with an Echo device. But there are more things you can do with an Echo device that you can with a Google Home.

Rich


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

b4pjoe said:


> After a few days YTTV replaces the DVR version of shows, the ones you can FF through commercials, with the VOD version that you can't FF through commercials. The first time I tested YTTV it only did this for the CBS shows. In my latest testing it shows they also do this for ABC shows as well. A single 30 minute comedy made me sit through 11 commercials. Haven't tested NBC or Fox shows yet during this round of testing. I have a feeling this may become the norm with cloud DVR services.


I'm curious about that statement. CBS will not allow you to record to DVR, they want you to use the on demand copy. I have had no issues with ABC, I get the selection bar and can choose from the DVR version and the VOD version. The only Fox show I'm watching right now is 9-1-1 and it shows as the VOD version, however there are no commercials, the show starts and runs straight through.


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

Rich said:


> If you use: "Alexa lower the volume one level" the sound diminishes in steps of one. Same thing with raising the volume. That might help. Helped me.
> 
> I haven't had a chance to use the new and improved Cube. I do know the first generation Cubes have some issues. I'm hoping the new ones act more like an Echo.
> 
> ...


Increment the volume up and down all you like with echo but the issue is media requires a bump in audio. Alexa is too loud and media is too low.

There's no reason a user should have to bump the volume continually. A separate Alexa volume control could do that. I've suggested this months since I got the first echo. If you have a cube, you can do that but not with the echo devices. Can't do this with my 4K Stick either.

You can also say set volume level to desired level if that helps. Or even say you're too loud. My issue is with her being chatty, I keep her turned down low. When I actually want to hear, she's too low. I need a volume slider for Alexa responses only. Media should have its own slider rather than share one with Alexa.

I could go on but getting off topic. Only thing really taking off with smart assistants is the consumer money spent. But I agree Google is smarter.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian Hanasky (Feb 22, 2008)

crkeehn said:


> I'm curious about that statement. CBS will not allow you to record to DVR, they want you to use the on demand copy. I have had no issues with ABC, I get the selection bar and can choose from the DVR version and the VOD version. The only Fox show I'm watching right now is 9-1-1 and it shows as the VOD version, however there are no commercials, the show starts and runs straight through.


 CBS will allow you to record to DVR. If you watch before a certain amount of time passes you can watch the DVR version. So for instance if I record a football game at 1pm on CPS and try to watch it at 4pm I'm fine. If I record Blue Bloods at 10pm and watch it at 1am I'm fine. If i record Blue Bloods at 10pm and try to watch it at 8pm the next night I'm getting VOD version.


----------



## bobcnn (Nov 10, 2007)

Brian Hanasky said:


> CBS will allow you to record to DVR. If you watch before a certain amount of time passes you can watch the DVR version. So for instance if I record a football game at 1pm on CPS and try to watch it at 4pm I'm fine. If I record Blue Bloods at 10pm and watch it at 1am I'm fine. If i record Blue Bloods at 10pm and try to watch it at 8pm the next night I'm getting VOD version.


I think it might be just primetime shows. I record CBS Sunday Morning, and The Price is Right, and they are always the version off air, and never the on demand version, even weeks later.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

bobcnn said:


> I think it might be just primetime shows.


Yep!

Things like your local news or sporting events won't ever have a national VOD version, so the recording is never locked out. Once the VOD window expires (4-6 weeks after the broadcast day), you can actually watch the "commercial-skippable" recordings on CBS/CW/POP until they age out of the library after 9 months.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

crkeehn said:


> I'm curious about that statement. CBS will not allow you to record to DVR, they want you to use the on demand copy. I have had no issues with ABC, I get the selection bar and can choose from the DVR version and the VOD version. The only Fox show I'm watching right now is 9-1-1 and it shows as the VOD version, however there are no commercials, the show starts and runs straight through.


Yeah when I posted that I didn't know you could select between DVR and VOD recordings for non CBS channels.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich said:


> If you use: "Alexa lower the volume one level" the sound diminishes in steps of one. Same thing with raising the volume. That might help. Helped me.
> 
> Rich


My new SONOS Beam sounder does the same thing with Alexa or Google. Can tuen TV on or off, volume, etc. No matter what, I can't get it to control the HR54 or C61K


----------



## trufunk (Oct 9, 2014)

espaeth said:


> You can still watch those in 4K using the FOX Sports App on an AppleTV4K or Roku Ultra when you authenticate with a pay TV provider (including YouTubeTV).


So got a 4K Roku and on the Fox app, I don't see any option to select a 4K stream. Is this 4K?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

trufunk said:


> So got a 4K Roku and on the Fox app, I don't see any option to select a 4K stream. Is this 4K?


The NYY/HOU games that were on FS1 were in 4K, but looks like now that it's back to FOX locals they aren't in 4K anymore.

Tomorrow's Vikings/Redskins game will be 4K through the app.

There are only a handful of 4K capable production trucks in North America right now, so the coverage is pretty sparse.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

trufunk said:


> So got a 4K Roku and on the Fox app, I don't see any option to select a 4K stream. Is this 4K?
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Check shortly before a 4K broadcast like Thursday Night Football or the Saturday NCAA football on FS1. Click on the icon. I tried clicking in the Fox Sports Aop guide during pregame for the ALCS and did not get the 4K feed when the game starred. A couple of times I've gotten a You Tube TV blackout message while trying to watch a Fox 4K broadcast using Roku. No issue with the Amazon Fire Stick 4K. Some people have suggested logging out and in to clear the blackout issue.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

TV_Guy said:


> Check shortly before a 4K broadcast like Thursday Night Football or the Saturday NCAA football on FS1. Click on the icon. I tried clicking in the Fox Sports Aop guide during pregame for the ALCS and did not get the 4K feed when the game starred. A couple of times I've gotten a You Tube TV blackout message while trying to watch a Fox 4K broadcast using Roku. No issue with the Amazon Fire Stick 4K. Some people have suggested logging out and in to clear the blackout issue.


The Fox Sports app is pretty quirky when it comes to 4k. As an example, none of the pregame shows (MLB or NFL) are in 4k. If you tune-in to the pregame show, when the game coverage starts it will not switch to 4k. You need to either exit the app and start it again or tune to another channel and then back to the game to get 4k.


----------



## phodg (Jan 20, 2007)

Cancelled my DirecTV last week after 25 or so years. Switched to a combo of YouTubeTV and Sling Blue with sports (for A&E, Comedy Central, NFL Network and Red Zone). Love it so far. And my bill has gone from $189/month to $85. I'll subscribe to HBO in a few weeks for a month or two and binge the stuff I've missed.


----------



## dlt4 (Oct 4, 2006)

Pretty sure I’m going to switch to YTTV, but not till after NFL season so I can enjoy my free Sunday Ticket.


----------



## trufunk (Oct 9, 2014)

Watched the game last night on the FOX sports app 4K looked really good.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

My understanding in reference to Thursday Night Football on the Fox Sports app, was that they were taking the 1080p signal and upconverting it to 4k, rather than a native 4k signal. As my Sony does about the same thing and does it well, I don't seem much difference in the image.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

crkeehn said:


> My understanding in reference to Thursday Night Football on the Fox Sports app, was that they were taking the 1080p signal and upconverting it to 4k, rather than a native 4k signal. As my Sony does about the same thing and does it well, I don't seem much difference in the image.


Yes, it is upscaled 1080p, it's been widely reported. I have been watching it on a 4k projector (UHZ65 on a 102" diagonal screen) and a 65" direct view (LG OLED65B7). While IMO it's not "knock your sock off" I can definitely tell the difference. Particularly on long shots looking at the grass on the field. Switching back and forth it is very obvious.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

The FOX broadcast on the normal channel is 720p, so you're still coming out ahead even with upscaled 1080p.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

espaeth said:


> The FOX broadcast on the normal channel is 720p, so you're still coming out ahead even with upscaled 1080p.


95% of that "coming out ahead" is the massively improved bandwidth. If they devoted that level of bandwidth to 720p it would look way way better than 1080p at current HD bandwidths.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trufunk said:


> Watched the game last night on the FOX sports app 4K looked really good.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Did you watch it live? Or did you use the DVR option? I have no doubt you are gonna see a better picture but I'm really interested in how that DVR function works compared to a D* DVR. I watched the game last night using the recordings on a couple HRs. Can you do everything with the DVR function that you can do with an HR?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

crkeehn said:


> My understanding in reference to Thursday Night Football on the Fox Sports app, was that they were taking the 1080p signal and upconverting it to 4k, rather than a native 4k signal. As my Sony does about the same thing and does it well, I don't seem much difference in the image.


If you compare a 720p-1080i upscaled picture to a 1080p upscaled picture you should certainly see a noticeable difference. I do.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Yes, it is upscaled 1080p, it's been widely reported. I have been watching it on a 4k projector (UHZ65 on a 102" diagonal screen) and a 65" direct view (LG OLED65B7). While IMO it's not "knock your sock off" I can definitely tell the difference. Particularly on long shots looking at the grass on the field. Switching back and forth it is very obvious.


When you look at the long shots can you clearly read the names on the uniforms? Most of time? I realize there are times when the shot is so long you'd need a telescope to read the names.

"Knock your socks off" picture quality such as we saw when switching from SD to HD (and wasn't that a trip!) is never gonna happen is this case. Just a slightly better, sharper picture.

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> When you look at the long shots can you clearly read the names on the uniforms? Most of time? I realize there are times when the shot is so long you'd need a telescope to read the names.
> 
> "Knock your socks off" picture quality such as we saw when switching from SD to HD (and wasn't that a trip!) is never gonna happen is this case. Just a slightly better, sharper picture.
> 
> Rich


 I don't recall but I'll look this Thursday.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Did you watch it live? Or did you use the DVR option? I have no doubt you are gonna see a better picture but I'm really interested in how that DVR function works compared to a D* DVR. I watched the game last night using the recordings on a couple HRs. Can you do everything with the DVR function that you can do with an HR?
> 
> Rich


AFAIK the Fox Sports app doesn't have a DVR function. If you tune into something in progress it does have a "Restart" option but if you select that it does not allow FF/REW so it's something I have never bothered with.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Brian Hanasky said:


> Go to Library and choose the show (not a VIACOM/CBS show). Once on the show select the episode and under it is a drop down list. Simply choose the DVR version not the VOD option. FF all you want as long as it's not a CBS owned network. Have used Youtube TV for almost a year now. Dropped Directv almost 2 years ago.


OK tonight I tried the watch The Blacklist recorded on 10/18 (8 days ago) and the drop down list to select VOD or DVR was not there for this episode (or earlier episodes). It was there for the one recorded on 10/25 (one day ago). So I checked some ABC shows and it had the same thing. It seems any show older than 7 days on both NBC and ABC forces you to watch the VOD version with commercials you can't skip through. I don't watch anything on Fox until Last Man Standing comes back so I don't know if it happens with their content or not. I record a lot of shows through the week while at work but I don't always get them watched within 7 days of them airing. Heck it could be a month or more before I watch some things I record so YTTV isn't going to work for me it appears.

Can anyone that uses PS Vue‎ tell me if their DVR does this? Does anyone know how the AT&T TV DVR that is in the testing phase work in regard to this?


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> It seems any show older than 7 days on both NBC and ABC forces you to watch the VOD version with commercials you can't skip through.


The DVR versions will only start when you add the item to your library going forward. Anything prior to that will be the VOD version only.

I just confirmed I have VOD and DVR versions of shows I have added from NBC and ABC that go back well over a month.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

OK thanks for the reply. I really thought I had added them to my Library before those episodes aired. I'll test some more.


----------



## dminches (Oct 1, 2006)

Other than the lack of sports programming, my biggest issue with all the streaming alternatives is that it is too difficult and time consuming to switch between 2 programs on the fly. If I am watching a game and it goes to commercial and I want to flip to something else it is almost instant on DirecTV. With my Apple TV it takes too many “keystrokes” and too much time. I do watch all the HBO and Showtime shows on the ATV.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

Since this topic of YouTubeTV seems a bit misplaced on a DirecTV site I'll ad a new fly in the ointment. Disney Plus bundled with HULU Live. For a max of $52 (probably less) you will get some 4K stuff via the Disney Plus portion of the package.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> AFAIK the Fox Sports app doesn't have a DVR function. If you tune into something in progress it does have a "Restart" option but if you select that it does not allow FF/REW so it's something I have never bothered with.


That's why I never watch those games. I can't sit thru all the commercials. Maybe I'll take a look this coming Thursday. Just long enough to see the names, if I can.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dminches said:


> Other than the lack of sports programming, my biggest issue with all the streaming alternatives is that it is too difficult and time consuming to switch between 2 programs on the fly. If I am watching a game and it goes to commercial and I want to flip to something else it is almost instant on DirecTV. With my Apple TV it takes too many "keystrokes" and too much time. I do watch all the HBO and Showtime shows on the ATV.


I haven't found any way to watch sports in the manner you describe that works as well as D*.

Rich


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Disney Plus bundled with HULU Live.


Hulu with Live TV is a bit of a disaster. We subscribe to Hulu not-live with no commercials for $12/mo, and we gave the Live TV add-on a try.

1) The base DVR sucks. It's 50 hours shared across all profiles, and you can't fast forward through commercials. You can fast forward through portions of the show, but once you hit the commercial breaks you have to stop and watch them all.
2) For $10/mo you can bump the DVR to 200 hours and get the ability to skip commercials _except_ if you pause live TV. If you pause something you were watching live, you're forced to watch the commercial breaks. It's only from the DVR past recordings that you can skip commercials.
3) Even though the DVR is hour-limited, there is no way to view upcoming recordings to gauge what consumption will be. You have to click through all of the shows in each of the profiles to survey the recording settings.

One of the best parts of Hulu (not-live, no commercials) is that you can watch most network shows the next day completely commercial free. When you add Live TV to your Hulu plan, you open up 2 additional catalog items: DVR and Network On-Demand. So say you want to "Save" a network show like Stumptown -- that would already be in the Hulu catalog, but it will add it to your DVR (thus eating into your limited hours), and when you select it out of "My Stuff" it tends to default to the Network VOD version with forced commercials - basically the worst option of the 3 catalog choices.

It's a weird Jekyll and Hyde service. Their Netflix-like $12/mo commercial-free plan is fantastic, but their Live TV add-on not only underwhelms, but makes the base product worse.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

espaeth said:


> Hulu with Live TV is a bit of a disaster. We subscribe to Hulu not-live with no commercials for $12/mo, and we gave the Live TV add-on a try.
> 
> 1) The base DVR sucks. It's 50 hours shared across all profiles, and you can't fast forward through commercials. You can fast forward through portions of the show, but once you hit the commercial breaks you have to stop and watch them all.
> 2) For $10/mo you can bump the DVR to 200 hours and get the ability to skip commercials _except_ if you pause live TV. If you pause something you were watching live, you're forced to watch the commercial breaks. It's only from the DVR past recordings that you can skip commercials.
> ...


awakened. New Disney Plus @ $7 mo can be upped to include the basic HULU and ESPN+ for a total of $13mo.


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

espaeth said:


> Hulu with Live TV is a bit of a disaster. We subscribe to Hulu not-live with no commercials for $12/mo, and we gave the Live TV add-on a try.
> 
> 1) The base DVR sucks. It's 50 hours shared across all profiles, and you can't fast forward through commercials. You can fast forward through portions of the show, but once you hit the commercial breaks you have to stop and watch them all.
> 2) For $10/mo you can bump the DVR to 200 hours and get the ability to skip commercials _except_ if you pause live TV. If you pause something you were watching live, you're forced to watch the commercial breaks. It's only from the DVR past recordings that you can skip commercials.
> ...


I found Hulu much the same frustrating and confusing mess with Live TV added to no commercial on-demand option. I've also read that Hulu CEO brags about revenue potential opportunities (ads=revenue). It's likely confusing and less convenient by design. I complained plenty about these and made suggestions. Nothing come of that but one suggestion was removed to a "private forum" and I was not invited! At least that's what I was told when it was removed. I call it censoring. But now I hear recordings in progress can be found in my stuff DVR tab.

The Hulu move option with Live TV was inconvenient too. One vacation equals 2 moves? Limit 4 per year? That was the last straw for me though the cost was discounted well beyond my trial for recording issues I kept complaining about but about to become an issue at full price. We've gone back to Hulu on-demand no ads option only as well. Much simpler; less confusing, less frustrating.

I've told Disney and Hulu both they could be more competitive with changes. Told them everything I didn't like and what channels needed to be added. But adding Disney+ bundles isn't to get me all-in on TV. Not even close.

We did pickup the 3 year promo for Disney+ though. But see no incentive to keep ESPN+ all year. I don't like the Disney+ bundles.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> I haven't found any way to watch sports in the manner you describe that works as well as D*.
> 
> Rich


PSVue multiview on a ATV 4k. Up to 4 channels on the screen at once and switching between them is almost instantaneous. If your not using Multiview you can also easily switch between multiple previously watched channels with just a few key taps. It is also almost instantaneous.


----------



## trufunk (Oct 9, 2014)

Rich said:


> Did you watch it live? Or did you use the DVR option? I have no doubt you are gonna see a better picture but I'm really interested in how that DVR function works compared to a D* DVR. I watched the game last night using the recordings on a couple HRs. Can you do everything with the DVR function that you can do with an HR?
> 
> Rich


Live

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

espaeth said:


> Their Netflix-like $12/mo commercial-free plan is fantastic, but their Live TV add-on not only underwhelms, but makes the base product worse.


I use that plan a lot and it drives me crazy. It's like they tried to make it difficult to use, especially with ATVs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> PSVue multiview on a ATV 4k. Up to 4 channels on the screen at once and switching between them is almost instantaneous. If your not using Multiview you can also easily switch between multiple previously watched channels with just a few key taps. It is also almost instantaneous.


Just got thru reading an online article about Sony putting up PS Vue for sale. Did you read that? I tried using the PIP option on my 44 last Sunday to watch the Jet and Giants at the same time. Did not enjoy the experience.

Rich


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Rich said:


> I use that plan a lot and it drives me crazy. It's like they tried to make it difficult to use, especially with ATVs.


Integration with the TV app helps, at least for being able to easily get to series that you're watching in the "Up Next" section.

I definitely agree the Hulu app menu system leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

espaeth said:


> Integration with the TV app helps, at least for being able to easily get to series that you're watching in the "Up Next" section.
> 
> I definitely agree the Hulu app menu system leaves a lot to be desired.


I should clarify this. The problems I have with Hulu are caused by using it with an ATV. I can deal with the menu system, been using it since Hulu arrived. Don't like it but it is what it is. I can see where folks that are just getting into streaming would be confused and frustrated by the UI. There are worse sites.

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Just got thru reading an online article about Sony putting up PS Vue for sale. Did you read that? I tried using the PIP option on my 44 last Sunday to watch the Jet and Giants at the same time. Did not enjoy the experience.
> 
> Rich


I always found most PIP implementations lacking. I have found PSVue multiview to be rather well done and easy to use on a ATV 4k. Yes I've read a few articles about the possible sale. Time will tell...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I always found most PIP implementations lacking. I have found PSVue multiview to be rather well done and easy to use on a ATV 4k. Yes I've read a few articles about the possible sale. Time will tell...


Sony certainly fails to do some things well. Just assumed anyone in their right mind would buy the Beta Max recorder just because it was the best thing out there at the time and now this.

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Sony certainly fails to do some things well. Just assumed anyone in their right mind would buy the Beta Max recorder just because it was the best thing out there at the time and now this.
> 
> Rich


The fact that they never changed the name is mind boggling. Literally every time I talk to anyone about PSVue the first thing they say is..."but I don't have a PlayStation."


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> The fact that they never changed the name is mind boggling. Literally every time I talk to anyone about PSVue the first thing they say is..."but I don't have a PlayStation."


Sony seems to be stubborn at times. Always thought the service would have taken off without being burdened by the name. Sony was stubborn about the Beta Max recorders too.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Sony just announced they are shutting down PS Vue next year. Maybe they should have noticed how 100% of people were surprising when (I mean IF) they learned you could get it without a Playstation!


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Sony just announced they are shutting down PS Vue next year. Maybe they should have noticed how 100% of people were surprising when (I mean IF) they learned you could get it without a Playstation!


People love to blame the name for it's lack of popularity, but that was only part of it.

People figured out that YoutubeTV was different than the Youtube app on a smart TV.

People also figured out that DIRECTV NOW didn't need a satellite, and ATT managed to get almost 2 million people to sign up at one point.

Vue had other issues like the battle over locking "home" access down to the IP you joined from. They have 500-some local markets where you couldn't DVR your local channels because they couldn't secure the necessary contracts. They had the whole mess over the slim packages, and years of missing RSN alternate channels (that are still screwed up with FSGO today. I get FS North and FS Detroit instead of FSN+ when I sign up). There's also the "in progress" game DVR glitch that "Start from the beginning" jumps to live 7 times out of 10.

If you needed a channel that only Vue carried, you lived with these things. I think a lot of people weren't confused with the name, they just moved on to other services.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Sony just announced they are shutting down PS Vue next year. Maybe they should have noticed how 100% of people were surprising when (I mean IF) they learned you could get it without a Playstation!


Worst product name ever!...LOL


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

espaeth said:


> People love to blame the name for it's lack of popularity, but that was only part of it.
> 
> People figured out that YoutubeTV was different than the Youtube app on a smart TV.
> 
> ...


Anecdotal for sure but literally every single conversation I have ever had about PSVue started with the other person saying some form of "but I don't have a PlayStation". Many of those conversations ended with them subscribing at some point after I explained to them and showed them the service. I have tried almost all the other major OTT providers over the last few years. IMO the only service that came close in terms of user experience is YTTV. I will personally be switching to YTTV once PSVue goes dark.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Youtube TV isn't the best choice either, but at least no one will immediately assume they can't use it because they "don't have a youtube".


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Youtube TV isn't the best choice either, but at least no one will immediately assume they can't use it because they "don't have a youtube".


Yeah, they probably need a better name but the service is really pretty good. In many ways I prefer the user experience of YTTV over PSVue. Honestly if YTTV would have had the NFL Network and the RedZone Channel I would have switched as soon as they delivered their app on the FireTV platform. So yeah, I'll be switching to YTTV once PSVue goes dark. Hopefully by the time the next NFL season starts either YTTV will have some options that include NFL Network and RedZone or maybe the NFL will have some good stand alone options.


----------



## trufunk (Oct 9, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Yeah, they probably need a better name but the service is really pretty good. In many ways I prefer the user experience of YTTV over PSVue. Honestly if YTTV would have had the NFL Network and the RedZone Channel I would have switched as soon as they delivered their app on the FireTV platform. So yeah, I'll be switching to YTTV once PSVue goes dark. Hopefully by the time the next NFL season starts either YTTV will have some options that include NFL Network and RedZone or maybe the NFL will have some good stand alone options.


It would be perfect if it had NFL network and Redzone.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

While Google obviously has the resources to keep losing money on Youtube TV forever, I wouldn't be surprised to see them throw in the towel as well. Why do they want to be in the business of delivering TV?

Why would they want to offer a set top software platform to MVPDs AND directly compete with them, especially given that Android TV will give them access to all the same juicy data they collect from Youtube TV customers anyway?


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Why do they want to be in the business of delivering TV?


Are you asking why they would want more widely-desired content that is crafted by design to have commercials inserted?

I mean, even if they just break even on the content costs, they still come out way ahead because more people watch TV longer (and more regularly) than they surf Youtube clips.

*Edit: *My point here is that regular Youtube ads generate enough revenue to fund the infrastructure, give money to people who upload content, and still profit handsomely. In the YoutubeTV model the subscribers cover the content costs, so that same ad revenue can be split between infrastructure spending and Alphabet profits.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

So they can insert a minute or so of ads per hour, how's that different than what cable/satellite does? And don't they let people skip ads? Doesn't that defeat the purpose??

Google isn't exactly hurting for places to shove ads in your face, if you want to argue they are looking for more slots why should they be an MVPD when they could be like other pure OTT streamers and develop original content? Then they have ALL the ad slots instead of just a minute an hour.

Since Google has so much more personal information about people I'm sure one of the selling points for Android TV as far as cable/satellite operators go is that they can do the ad insertion for you using their personalized data, and get higher ad rates than what cable/satellite companies could (because they have only a fraction of the huge volumes of personal information that Google snarfs up from Gmail users, Android users, Chrome users, etc. that they can easily correlate to the person watching TV from the name/address info provided by the cable/satellite company. It seems short sighted of them to want to compete with the same companies they are trying to sell Android TV to - they will probably get more revenue from AT&T using Android TV for AT&T TV than they ever will from the ads they run on Youtube TV.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> So they can insert a minute or so of ads per hour, how's that different than what cable/satellite does? And don't they let people skip ads? Doesn't that defeat the purpose??


The DVR is the "door buster" to this service, they're giving that away to get the viewing that is inherently live: news, sports, shows on the networks that have voting / watch party following. On channels like regional sports networks, they're getting more than a minute or two of ads per hour.



slice1900 said:


> Google isn't exactly hurting for places to shove ads in your face, if you want to argue they are looking for more slots why should they be an MVPD when they could be like other pure OTT streamers and develop original content? Then they have ALL the ad slots instead of just a minute an hour.


They have been developing content for a while, see YouTube Originals

The reason to bring in other people's content is you need a draw to create the bridge to other content you'd like to show. Netflix had shows like Friends and the Office because you need something familiar to get people in the door, then you can start pitching them your new content. News and sports give people a reason to keep signing into your service with regularity, and it presents the best opportunity gain viewership in other categories. Searching in YoutubeTV will not only bring up channel-specific clips or shows, but also has a section to show related content in standard Youtube.



slice1900 said:


> It seems short sighted of them to want to compete with the same companies they are trying to sell Android TV to - they will probably get more revenue from AT&T using Android TV for AT&T TV than they ever will from the ads they run on Youtube TV.


Android is almost exclusively open source; you pay to license Google-specific apps and functions like the Play store, Google Pay, and push notification services. Companies like Amazon have forked Android and created their own app store, resulting in Google getting no money out of the deal. Advertising is where nearly all their revenue is generated. In Q3 alone, advertising was $33.9bn out of the $40.5bn in total revenue.

Android TV isn't really a huge deal for Google. YoutubeTV didn't even have an Android TV app until almost a year after it launched.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

espaeth said:


> Android is almost exclusively open source; you pay to license Google-specific apps and functions like the Play store, Google Pay, and push notification services. Companies like Amazon have forked Android and created their own app store, resulting in Google getting no money out of the deal. Advertising is where nearly all their revenue is generated. In Q3 alone, advertising was $33.9bn out of the $40.5bn in total revenue.
> 
> Android TV isn't really a huge deal for Google. YoutubeTV didn't even have an Android TV app until almost a year after it launched.


The ONLY reason why an MVPD would choose Android TV is to get access to Google Play apps the million streaming things people want. If they rip out the Google parts and just use the open source, they don't get any of that. Which makes using Android TV utterly pointless.

Given the huge number of products/projects Google has killed over the years (see Google's graveyard at Killed by Google) my money is still on Youtube TV going away sometime in the next couple years.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The ONLY reason why an MVPD would choose Android TV is to get access to Google Play apps the million streaming things people want.


The main reason to use Android TV is you have a pool of already existing Android app developers and functional APIs to call on rather than having to bootstrap a box from scratch. Since it's open source, you can write your own launcher UI to the base OS to do things like launch live TV as soon as the box is turned on like ATT is doing. This works in pretty much the same way that Samsung replaces the stock Android UI with TouchWiz on their phones. Since you have control over the OS, you can also do things like create custom drivers for things like the remote control that ATT is shipping with the Osprey boxes.



slice1900 said:


> If they rip out the Google parts and just use the open source, they don't get any of that. Which makes using Android TV utterly pointless.


Any company building on an Android OS box can just install the package APKs as part of their base image from the start. End users do this all the time, just search for "Firestick side loading."



slice1900 said:


> Given the huge number of products/projects Google has killed over the years (see Google's graveyard at Killed by Google) my money is still on Youtube TV going away sometime in the next couple years.


I've posted that link before as well, and had someone point out to me a very important part of that list. Look it over, and then look at how many of those projects just had features that were absorbed by other Google products.

Examples:
Works with Nest API is being absorbed into the standard Google API framework.
Snooze and Reminders in Inbox were incorporated as base features of Gmail
Google Talk, Allo, and Hangouts will all become Messages
Google Nexus phones became Google Pixel
Google Googles functionality was migrated to the Google Lens app
Songza was shutdown after 100% of the features were rolled into Google Play Music

Youtube makes a crazy amount of money for Google, and it gives them the existing storage, server, and network capacity to make layering on paid streaming content be very cost effective. They also have a functional ad marketplace that works right now, at full rollout scale, with advertisers actively using it.

If we're going to talk shutdown risk, it's going to be for companies like FuboTV that are 3rd party sourcing 98% of their content (They have some stuff like Fubo Cycling), still working on their ad marketplace, and outsourcing 100% of their content delivery infrastructure.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Based on the admittedly purely anecdotal evidence that I have seen, the biggest beneficiary of the demise of PSVue is going to be YTTV.


----------



## bobcnn (Nov 10, 2007)

Rich said:


> Just got thru reading an online article about Sony putting up PS Vue for sale. Did you read that? I tried using the PIP option on my 44 last Sunday to watch the Jet and Giants at the same time. Did not enjoy the experience.
> 
> Rich


It wouldn't be the big screen TV experience, but you could watch one game on TV, the other on a laptop or tablet. If one game is better than the other, you can just swap the best game to your TV


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

mjwagner said:


> Based on the admittedly purely anecdotal evidence that I have seen, the biggest beneficiary of the demise of PSVue is going to be YTTV.


Didn't know PSVue was discontinuing service. I tried them this year, mainly to get NFLN during the NFL Preseason and watch the games.

I have DirecTV from mid Aug to Feb and then suspend from Mid Feb thru mid Aug. I had YouTube TV during from Feb thru July and then PSVue in August. PSVue had a lot of channels, but was much cruder than YouTube TV. Although just before I cancelled, an upgrade made it better.


----------



## trufunk (Oct 9, 2014)

MNF sure looks good tonite.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trufunk said:


> MNF sure looks good tonite.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Not sure how you viewed it but on D* it did look better than normal.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Based on the admittedly purely anecdotal evidence that I have seen, the biggest beneficiary of the demise of PSVue is going to be YTTV.


The future of streaming cable TV services belongs to YTTV (if they scale it up to profitability and stick with it), Hulu, and AT&T/HBO Max. I'm betting that Comcast/Peacock will get in on it too. It's questionable whether anyone else beyond those four has both the ability and desire to play in that arena. At the moment, YTTV seems to be emerging as the crowd favorite. Will be interesting to see if they strike more distribution deals with broadband operators beyond the one they put in place with Verizon.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

Don't overlook Disney + If they bundle HULU Live for a great price, like say $35. Disney owns a lot of companies and they are pulling most of their product off the other streaming services.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> The future of streaming cable TV services belongs to YTTV (if they scale it up to profitability and stick with it), Hulu, and AT&T/HBO Max. I'm betting that Comcast/Peacock will get in on it too. It's questionable whether anyone else beyond those four has both the ability and desire to play in that arena. At the moment, YTTV seems to be emerging as the crowd favorite. Will be interesting to see if they strike more distribution deals with broadband operators beyond the one they put in place with Verizon.


Lawl


----------



## Gordon Shumway (Jul 25, 2013)

I just started using YTTV in the last week, and I'll admit I was a little worried about how easy it would be to FF through commercials on DVR 'd shows, or the ability to FF at all. So far the answer has been pretty favorable. On the few shows I've watched FF speed hasn't been an issue because every commercial has already been clipped out. Even on the OTA broadcast networks. Just watched the latest episode of NCIS Los Angeles from Sunday night, and every commercial was removed. There was just a very short pause between scenes where the commercials used to be. 

I'm sure there will be some roadblocks on some shows, but certainly no complaints yet.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Gordon Shumway said:


> I just started using YTTV in the last week, and I'll admit I was a little worried about how easy it would be to FF through commercials on DVR 'd shows, or the ability to FF at all. So far the answer has been pretty favorable. On the few shows I've watched FF speed hasn't been an issue because every commercial has already been clipped out. Even on the OTA broadcast networks. Just watched the latest episode of NCIS Los Angeles from Sunday night, and every commercial was removed. There was just a very short pause between scenes where the commercials used to be.
> 
> I'm sure there will be some roadblocks on some shows, but certainly no complaints yet.


Thats because you are watching the on demand version


----------



## Gordon Shumway (Jul 25, 2013)

compnurd said:


> Thats because you are watching the on demand version


I understand that the DVR function will point to on-demand versions if they are available, but that's a pretty great feature for the most part.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Gordon Shumway said:


> I understand that the DVR function will point to on-demand versions if they are available, but that's a pretty great feature for the most part.


Of Course it is. If is one less thing Google has to provide storage for


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Well the YTTV OnDemand version I have seen always has commercials that you can't fast forward through. The DVR versions I have seen has commercials that you can fast forward through. I've never seen either version with the commercials stripped out of it. I do see that with CBS All Access commercial free version but not YTTV.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

can I get my local fox sports channel on you tube tv? and will it have my local team since I am on a boarder between two teams..


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

bjlc said:


> can I get my local fox sports channel on you tube tv? and will it have my local team since I am on a boarder between two teams..


You can click here, scroll down a little, and enter your zip code to see what local/RSN's are available in your market: YouTube TV - Watch & DVR Live Sports, Shows & News


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

You can't record a single show only series, no Dolby Digital 5.1 and no A&E and History channels. Sometimes I watch Science Channel and they don't have that either. Does YouTube upconvert its channels to 1080p like AT&T TV does?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Well the YTTV OnDemand version I have seen always has commercials that you can't fast forward through. The DVR versions I have seen has commercials that you can fast forward through. I've never seen either version with the commercials stripped out of it. I do see that with CBS All Access commercial free version but not YTTV.


Yes, like pretty much all on-demand platforms from cable TV providers, it has unskippable ads. But if you record something to cloud DVR on YTTV, you can FF through the ads. The exception to that is some shows recorded from CBS (and maybe Pop and The CW, which are owned or co-owned by CBS), where the cloud DVR recordings won't let you FF through the ads (or they're replaced with the VOD version, same difference really).


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> Does YouTube upconvert its channels to 1080p like AT&T TV does?


The 1080i channels get de-interlaced into a 1080p60 stream, but the 720p channels get passed through in native resolution as 720p60.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Rich said:


> I should clarify this. The problems I have with Hulu are caused by using it with an ATV. I can deal with the menu system, been using it since Hulu arrived. Don't like it but it is what it is. I can see where folks that are just getting into streaming would be confused and frustrated by the UI. There are worse sites.
> 
> Rich


I just started a trial of Hulu + Live TV using an Apple TV. I had to go into the web site to select favorite networks for the guide. I wasn't sure how to do it on the Apple TV app. Getting to the guide is real easy... swipe up. Then scroll the guide. Watching a show from the guide requires two clicks... one to select the channel and the second to watch the shpw. It took about 10 to 15 minutes for me to become comfortable with the UI. It will be interesting to see how my wife does with it.

I would like to try You Tube TV before deciding on a provider. I am going to drop AT&T Now, and need a replacement. I also plan to get Disney+, and have ESPN+, so bundling makes sense.

As a side note, I have a couple of RC73 remotes D* didn't want back, and you can program the Apple TV to use them. My wife prefers the RC73 to the Apple Remote, which is good because you can only pair one Apple Remote with an Apple TV.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

wmb said:


> I just started a trial of Hulu + Live TV using an Apple TV. I had to go into the web site to select favorite networks for the guide. I wasn't sure how to do it on the Apple TV app. Getting to the guide is real easy... swipe up. Then scroll the guide. Watching a show from the guide requires two clicks... one to select the channel and the second to watch the shpw. It took about 10 to 15 minutes for me to become comfortable with the UI. It will be interesting to see how my wife does with it.
> 
> I would like to try You Tube TV before deciding on a provider. I am going to drop AT&T Now, and need a replacement. I also plan to get Disney+, and have ESPN+, so bundling makes sense.
> 
> As a side note, I have a couple of RC73 remotes D* didn't want back, and you can program the Apple TV to use them. My wife prefers the RC73 to the Apple Remote, which is good because you can only pair one Apple Remote with an Apple TV.


Another clarification: I don't use Hulu for live TV. We just have the commercial free version. Have no use for a cable replacement service at the moment.

Rich


----------



## jamieh1 (May 1, 2003)

wmb said:


> I just started a trial of Hulu + Live TV using an Apple TV. I had to go into the web site to select favorite networks for the guide. I wasn't sure how to do it on the Apple TV app. Getting to the guide is real easy... swipe up. Then scroll the guide. Watching a show from the guide requires two clicks... one to select the channel and the second to watch the shpw. It took about 10 to 15 minutes for me to become comfortable with the UI. It will be interesting to see how my wife does with it.
> 
> I would like to try You Tube TV before deciding on a provider. I am going to drop AT&T Now, and need a replacement. I also plan to get Disney+, and have ESPN+, so bundling makes sense.
> 
> As a side note, I have a couple of RC73 remotes D* didn't want back, and you can program the Apple TV to use them. My wife prefers the RC73 to the Apple Remote, which is good because you can only pair one Apple Remote with an Apple TV.


I believe you can bundle ESPN+ and Disney + for about $12


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

wmb said:


> I just started a trial of Hulu + Live TV using an Apple TV. I had to go into the web site to select favorite networks for the guide. I wasn't sure how to do it on the Apple TV app. Getting to the guide is real easy... swipe up. Then scroll the guide. Watching a show from the guide requires two clicks... one to select the channel and the second to watch the shpw. It took about 10 to 15 minutes for me to become comfortable with the UI. It will be interesting to see how my wife does with it.
> 
> I would like to try You Tube TV before deciding on a provider. I am going to drop AT&T Now, and need a replacement. I also plan to get Disney+, and have ESPN+, so bundling makes sense.
> 
> As a side note, I have a couple of RC73 remotes D* didn't want back, and you can program the Apple TV to use them. My wife prefers the RC73 to the Apple Remote, which is good because you can only pair one Apple Remote with an Apple TV.


I love YTV over Hulu myself. Added philo for missing channels.

How did you use the DIRECTV remote for Apple TV?


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

gio12 said:


> I love YTV over Hulu myself. Added philo for missing channels.
> 
> How did you use the DIRECTV remote for Apple TV?


I prefer YTTV and will go that way at the end of the month, when the AT&T service month ends.

For the remote... set the remote to IR. The Apple TV allows you to program a IR remotes. I don't remember the exact menu sequence, but there is a remotes menu item and an option to program. Follow the sequence programming the buttons. They went through the arrows, menu, playback controls, etc. The only thing missing is Siri.

Here is a step-by-step from iMore...

How to use a universal remote with Apple TV

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

I'll add one other thing... With You Tube TV, ESPN, Disney+, Hulu, Netflix, etc. apps on my smart TV, I'm starting to question the need for the Apple TV. 

I think Apple is too. I have an Apple TV 4k, which apple released on 2017. They haven't released an hardware update since. But, there have been like three iPhone updates.

It will be interesting to see how smart TV operating systems shake out. Seems a missed opportunity for M$ and Apple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

A couple things about the apps for smart TVs.

1. In most cases audio will be restricted to Dolby 5.1. Not an issue for some but for those with better audio equipment and think that the audio in a movie is as important as the video, it is an issue to be considered.

2. App updates. Streaming boxes from Apple, Roku and others tend to get updates quicker. Smart TVs not so much, and not so often as new streaming services come to the fore.

So if something I need comes along that my smart tv doesn’t have now, it probably won’t get it. And replacing the tv to have the latest and greatest of the streaming apps is much more expensive than possibly replacing a streaming box.

For me, other than the OTA channels, the TV is just a big monitor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

wmb said:


> I'll add one other thing... With You Tube TV, ESPN, Disney+, Hulu, Netflix, etc. apps on my smart TV, I'm starting to question the need for the Apple TV.
> 
> I think Apple is too. I have an Apple TV 4k, which apple released on 2017. They haven't released an hardware update since. But, there have been like three iPhone updates.
> 
> ...


The ATV4K doesnt need updated... It would be a complete waste of money to update it more then it needs. It supports all HDR Formats and is very fast


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> A couple things about the apps for smart TVs.
> 
> 2. App updates. Streaming boxes from Apple, Roku and others tend to get updates quicker. Smart TVs not so much, and not so often as new streaming services come to the fore.
> 
> ...


I share the concern about smart TV apps, but last night, I logged into the Hulu, You Tube TV and Netflix app on my 3 year old LG TV last night. All had recent updates. I will try with my Samsung of the same age (both were bought black Friday 3 years ago...) in a few days. I looked for an AT&T Now app on the Sammy a month or two ago, and didn't find one, but it had Netflix and Hulu.

I know both are getting OS updates.

The LG had a Disney+ app just sitting there, waiting for me to download it. That will probably happen over Thanksgiving. But, of course, the point is, that Disney+ wasn't even considered by Disney when I bought the TV.

Smart TV manufactures have a stake in making sure their TVS can be updated for a number of years into the future... What is the useful life of a new TV? 10 to 15 years?

So, just like the Apple TV, a modern smart TV with recent ARM processor will a fairly long update cycle.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

There is no reason that a modern smart tv could be updated regularly but historically they haven’t been very well. We’ll see going forward.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

wmb said:


> I share the concern about smart TV apps, but last night, I logged into the Hulu, You Tube TV and Netflix app on my 3 year old LG TV last night. All had recent updates. I will try with my Samsung of the same age (both were bought black Friday 3 years ago...) in a few days. I looked for an AT&T Now app on the Sammy a month or two ago, and didn't find one, but it had Netflix and Hulu.
> 
> I know both are getting OS updates.
> 
> ...


They have no stake. They want you to keep buying a new one.. The Average update period right now is 3-4 years.. Most companies stop major OS updates 2 years after release


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

compnurd said:


> They have no stake. They want you to keep buying a new one.. The Average update period right now is 3-4 years.. Most companies stop major OS updates 2 years after release


Product take back requirements in global product stewardship rules make them stakeholders.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

wmb said:


> I share the concern about smart TV apps, but last night, I logged into the Hulu, You Tube TV and Netflix app on my 3 year old LG TV last night. All had recent updates. I will try with my Samsung of the same age (both were bought black Friday 3 years ago...) in a few days. I looked for an AT&T Now app on the Sammy a month or two ago, and didn't find one, but it had Netflix and Hulu.
> 
> I know both are getting OS updates.
> 
> ...


I can't imagine using my TVs for streaming...again. Yes, I have tried. I would not give up my ATVs for a "smart" TV. You want "smart"? Use an ATV. Just my opinion.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> They have no stake. They want you to keep buying a new one.. The Average update period right now is 3-4 years.. Most companies stop major OS updates 2 years after release


I get updates on my ATVs frequently. Just got one the other day...or the other month.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

wmb said:


> I'll add one other thing... With You Tube TV, ESPN, Disney+, Hulu, Netflix, etc. apps on my smart TV, I'm starting to question the need for the Apple TV.
> 
> I think Apple is too. I have an Apple TV 4k, which apple released on 2017. They haven't released an hardware update since. But, there have been like three iPhone updates.


Relying on a smart TV is a crapshoot since you have no way of knowing before buying how long it will be supported with updates, or the quality of those updates. But one thing is for sure, the panel will outlive the "apps" for a long time, unless you bought a lemon and the panel dies an early death.

If the smart TV does what you need today you don't have any reason to buy a set top now, but someday you'll have to abandon its "smart" functions because it is inevitable that updates will cease and things will stop working long before the TV needs replacement. Even if everything works you don't necessary get the same quality of app - my Tivo has apps for all that stuff but for example the Amazon Prime app is limited compared to what it can do on set tops. I'm sure the situation is similar with some smart TVs.

As far as Apple not releasing a hardware update for the Apple TV...what exactly are they going to add to it? It still has the fastest CPU in any set top you can buy, it supports 4K and multiple types of HDR, it gets updates all the time and will for years to come - heck the gen 3 Apple TV released back in 2013 is still getting OS updates, and app updates continue long after the OS updates are done. Phones get updated more frequently because that is a WAY more competitive market, and since they have a lot more technology inside them there is a lot that can be improved that don't exist on a set top like camera, battery, display, cellular radio and so forth.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

I guess that depends on the definition of "need". Mine gets updated frequently.

And for what it's worth, I just replaced my daughter's Apple TV, because it is not compatible with the Apple store. I suspect when I bought it, I never thought that would be an issue. So I guess whether that will hold true with the 4K model, remains to be seen for years to come.



compnurd said:


> The ATV4K doesnt need updated... It would be a complete waste of money to update it more then it needs. It supports all HDR Formats and is very fast


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

raott said:


> I guess that depends on the definition of "need". Mine gets updated frequently.
> 
> And for what it's worth, I just replaced my daughter's Apple TV, because it is not compatible with the Apple store. I suspect when I bought it, I never thought that would be an issue. So I guess whether that will hold true with the 4K model, remains to be seen for years to come.


We seem to be talking about hardware updates and software updates and mixing the two types up. I get software updates frequently and don't see the need for a hardware update...but it would be interesting to see what a new model of the ATVs would bring to the table. I'll agree with *compnurd *on this.

Rich


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

I suspect he's right. I have the 4K version in one room. I guess my point was you just never know. I'm fairly certain when I bought the model my daughter has (years ago) that I'd need to upgrade.

I upgraded hers the other day because we tried to download the Disney plus app and I couldn't find the App Store.

But to your point...I suspect he is right and the 4K model should last for years to come.



Rich said:


> We seem to be talking about hardware updates and software updates and mixing the two types up. I get software updates frequently and don't see the need for a hardware update...but it would be interesting to see what a new model of the ATVs would bring to the table. I'll agree with *compnurd *on this.
> 
> Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

raott said:


> I suspect he's right. I have the 4K version in one room. I guess my point was you just never know. I'm fairly certain when I bought the model my daughter has (years ago) that I'd need to upgrade.
> 
> I upgraded hers the other day because we tried to download the Disney plus app and I couldn't find the App Store.
> 
> But to your point...I suspect he is right and the 4K model should last for years to come.


I'd be thrilled if Apple came out with a newer, better model. Not thrilled about having to buy new units if that happens. Yeah, we should be good for the foreseeable future.

Rich


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

wmb said:


> I'll add one other thing... With You Tube TV, ESPN, Disney+, Hulu, Netflix, etc. apps on my smart TV, I'm starting to question the need for the Apple TV.
> 
> I think Apple is too. I have an Apple TV 4k, which apple released on 2017. They haven't released an hardware update since. But, there have been like three iPhone updates.
> 
> ...


 Thanks on remote. I have a LG OLED smart TV and prefer using my Apple TV 4K over built in apps. App quality and performance is better as is picture and sound. When i bought the LG TV, told the guy at BB that I guess I did not need an Apple TV. We was right, the ATV4K is better in my experience as well.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

wmb said:


> I share the concern about smart TV apps, but last night, I logged into the Hulu, You Tube TV and Netflix app on my 3 year old LG TV last night. All had recent updates. I will try with my Samsung of the same age (both were bought black Friday 3 years ago...) in a few days. I looked for an AT&T Now app on the Sammy a month or two ago, and didn't find one, but it had Netflix and Hulu.
> 
> I know both are getting OS updates.
> 
> ...


No philo on LG TVs


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich said:


> I'd be thrilled if Apple came out with a newer, better model. Not thrilled about having to buy new units if that happens. Yeah, we should be good for the foreseeable future.
> 
> Rich


No NEED for a better ATV4K yet. Maybe next year but why?


----------



## scottb8888 (Mar 28, 2007)

Switched to YTTV from DTV about 3 weeks ago. I didn't pay attention but I really miss the surround Sound on live programs on YTTV. Hope they get that option soon!


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> I get updates on my ATVs frequently. Just got one the other day...or the other month.
> 
> Rich


I should have clarified saying TV's not the ATV


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Thanks on remote. I have a LG OLED smart TV and prefer using my Apple TV 4K over built in apps. App quality and performance is better as is picture and sound. When i bought the LG TV, told the guy at BB that I guess I did not need an Apple TV. We was right, the ATV4K is better in my experience as well.


Yup, a bunch of smart TV sets we have and none of the TV apps are used on any of them. All have ATVs and Cubes on them.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> No NEED for a better ATV4K yet. Maybe next year but why?


Why? No idea how they could make the ATVs better. But it's an Apple product and you never know what they are gonna come up with. If the 8K sets ever start taking off I think that will trigger a new ATV8K. Perhaps 2 or 3 years up the road?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

scottb8888 said:


> Switched to YTTV from DTV about 3 weeks ago. I didn't pay attention but I really miss the surround Sound on live programs on YTTV. Hope they get that option soon!


We complained about that when the Amazon Prime app hit the ATVs, that was fixed. This is a Google problem, I think that will be corrected.

Rich


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Rich said:


> This is a Google problem, I think that will be corrected.


I think it might be more of a live streaming industry problem.

ATT is the only service to offer this on live channels, and I think it's because they're doing their own content encoding from traditional channel sources. This is part of why they're offering encodes at a higher bitrate than most of the other channel providers.

Hulu gave a talk at an AWS re:Invent conference couple years back about how they've built their pipeline. They're sourcing already-produced HLS streams from the networks and then handling the metadata and content distribution within their system. Based on some of the comments that YTTV engineers have made on Reddit, I believe they're following the same architecture. I think the networks that are self-encoding are currently not producing a 5.1 audio track for network distribution.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> Why? No idea how they could make the ATVs better. But it's an Apple product and you never know what they are gonna come up with. If the 8K sets ever start taking off I think that will trigger a new ATV8K. Perhaps 2 or 3 years up the road?
> 
> Rich


Where would the content come from? Nobody is producing movies or TV shows in 8K, and I'm skeptical anyone will bother producing much of anything in 8K due to diminishing returns. You've already said you don't feel the improvement in PQ between upscaled 1080p and real 4K is all that much, imagine how tiny the improvement between upscaled 4K and real 8K would be.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Where would the content come from? Nobody is producing movies or TV shows in 8K, and I'm skeptical anyone will bother producing much of anything in 8K due to diminishing returns. You've already said you don't feel the improvement in PQ between upscaled 1080p and real 4K is all that much, imagine how tiny the improvement between upscaled 4K and real 8K would be.


I think the real benefit of 8K is TV's over 75" which are becoming common. a 4K picture on a OLED 100" screen will need it. I will pass and wait. 16K should be around soon and a game changer.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

gio12 said:


> I think the real benefit of 8K is TV's over 75" which are becoming common. a 4K picture on a OLED 100" screen will need it. I will pass and wait. 16K should be around soon and a game changer.


Why will 16K "be a game changer"? I am willing to bet any amount of money you wish that we will never see 16K content.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Rich said:


> Yup, a bunch of smart TV sets we have and none of the TV apps are used on any of them. All have ATVs and Cubes on them.
> 
> Rich


Jumping back in on devices...

I have Apple TVs on both if my TVs. We got them two years ago, bought one, DirecTV Now gave me the second one and the one that I got my daughter for Christmas...

At this point, the Apple TVs will continue to be used. But, if one dies, I won't run out and get a replacement. This week, I tried using the built-in apps, and they seem fine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Why will 16K "be a game changer"? I am willing to bet any amount of money you wish that we will never see 16K content.


Its a joke. We won't stop at 8K though


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

wmb said:


> Jumping back in on devices...
> 
> I have Apple TVs on both if my TVs. We got them two years ago, bought one, DirecTV Now gave me the second one and the one that I got my daughter for Christmas...
> 
> ...


They are fine. But on my LG, I get more buffering and freezing issues than the ATV ones (NF, Prime and YTTV). TV is more convenient though.


----------



## steve053 (May 11, 2007)

gio12 said:


> I think the real benefit of 8K is *TV's over 75" which are becoming common*. a 4K picture on a OLED 100" screen will need it. I will pass and wait. 16K should be around soon and a game changer.


The crowd I hang out with don't have +75" televisions, most have one or more 55-65" tvs; and none I know have a 75" tv. I agree that we're seeing 75" and above screens for sale, but I don't know that most homes have a space for a 75" tv, let alone an 85" tv. Yes I understand the people have home theaters and rec rooms, but that's not the majority. Can't imagine trying to convince the wife to hang an 85" tv over the fireplace...lol


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

gio12 said:


> Its a joke. We won't stop at 8K though


Possibly - we might end up with TVs that display a higher resolution than the TV's input is capable of receiving, if some future display technology ends up being less expensive to make with smaller pixels. That's why LCD/LED TVs at 65" or larger went 4K overnight - it was more expensive to make them with bigger pixels sized for 1080p than it was with pixels sized for 4K.

There are several competing types of "micro LED" technology, one of which is pretty much impossible to manufacture at less than 300 dpi or so. You want that resolution (actually a bit more) for stuff like phones, but it would be stupid for a TV. But if that technology became overall cheaper to build than competitive technologies (i.e. OLED, it wouldn't matter of LCD/LED TVs were cheaper) then you might see TVs made with it, though you wouldn't actually be able to 'use' all those pixels.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

steve053 said:


> The crowd I hang out with don't have +75" televisions, most have one or more 55-65" tvs; and none I know have a 75" tv. I agree that we're seeing 75" and above screens for sale, but I don't know that most homes have a space for a 75" tv, let alone an 85" tv. Yes I understand the people have home theaters and rec rooms, but that's not the majority. Can't imagine trying to convince the wife to hang an 85" tv over the fireplace...lol


I don't either but want to be the first one, LOL (65" now). Well will wait until the OLED ones come down in price. The LED are affordable but....
Yes, I have the wall space for 10 more inches and no wife to worry about anymore. She originally threw a fit at 65".


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

gio12 said:


> and no wife to worry about anymore. She originally threw a fit at 65".


Women are against anything that comes natural for a man.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Where would the content come from? Nobody is producing movies or TV shows in 8K, and I'm skeptical anyone will bother producing much of anything in 8K due to diminishing returns. You've already said you don't feel the improvement in PQ between upscaled 1080p and real 4K is all that much, imagine how tiny the improvement between upscaled 4K and real 8K would be.


The content would come from the same place the 4K content came from when 4K became a thing. Everybody was skeptical about 4K, let's not forget that. What I have said is the difference between 1080p and 2160p is not the same as SD to HD was. I think the difference between 1080p and 2160p is quite noticeable. I didn't run out and buy all these 4K sets and dump all my plasmas because of a _slight _difference.

5 years ago I had no idea what 4K was gonna be like. I have no idea what 8K will be like. I have to see it. I have looked a 8K sets and they are far too expensive at this point or I'd buy one.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

wmb said:


> Jumping back in on devices...
> 
> I have Apple TVs on both if my TVs. We got them two years ago, bought one, DirecTV Now gave me the second one and the one that I got my daughter for Christmas...
> 
> ...


This is another subjective argument. I'd stick with the apps on my sets if I thought they were better than what my ATVs bring to the table, but I don't think they are. YMMV.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Its a joke. We won't stop at 8K though


The prices on the larger 8K sets are heart stopping at this point...stopped me in my tracks.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Women are against anything that comes natural for a man.


Yup, my wife argued about buying the 4K sets now I can't get her off them. I do like the 65" form a lot. Also like the 55" sets.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Yeah my wife hated when we got DirecTV DVR's and I took away her VCR. Now she would shoot me if I took her DVR away.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

Once you watch a larger screen it really is difficult to go back to a smaller screen. In the last few years I've gone from 65 to 70 to 75 to 82.


----------



## lovswr (Jan 13, 2004)

B. Shoe said:


> You can click here, scroll down a little, and enter your zip code to see what local/RSN's are available in your market: YouTube TV - Watch & DVR Live Sports, Shows & News


Thanks for the link. After about 17 years of D* I switched to DirecTV Now. Just switched to PSVUE right before the start of the NFL regular season, manly for REDZone & NFL Network. My last 3 years of D* I had Sunday Ticket & watched the games on 3 4K sets in my home "sports" bar. After the NFL season I switched back to just one box, but it just got too expensive. PSVUE Multiview (even without the selection of Sunday Ticket) is an acceptable alternative. I'll probably switch to YTTV & will miss the PIP functions. Hopefully as others have stated above, YTTV will have REDZone & NFL Network by next season. The killer "app" will be if/when the NFL offers Sunday Ticket (in 4K!) unbundled from D*. Frankly I hope that AT&T will not put up the money that the NFL will want for exclusivity when the current contract comes up for negotiations.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah my wife hated when we got DirecTV DVR's and I took away her VCR. Now she would shoot me if I took her DVR away.


Oh yeah, I remember going thru the same thing. And I'm going thru it again.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lovswr said:


> Thanks for the link. After about 17 years of D* I switched to DirecTV Now. Just switched to PSVUE right before the start of the NFL regular season, manly for REDZone & NFL Network. My last 3 years of D* I had Sunday Ticket & watched the games on 3 4K sets in my home "sports" bar. After the NFL season I switched back to just one box, but it just got too expensive. PSVUE Multiview (even without the selection of Sunday Ticket) is an acceptable alternative. I'll probably switch to YTTV & will miss the PIP functions. Hopefully as others have stated above, YTTV will have REDZone & NFL Network by next season. The killer "app" will be if/when the NFL offers Sunday Ticket (in 4K!) unbundled from D*. *Frankly I hope that AT&T will not put up the money that the NFL will want for exclusivity when the current contract comes up for negotiations.*


Would be great if that opened the door for many sites to carry the ST. I will hope along with you.

Rich[/QUOTE]


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Would be great if that opened the door for many sites to carry the ST. I will hope along with you.
> 
> Rich


This doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I found it interesting that the new AT&T TV is giving away NBA League Pass Premium for the upcoming season to new subscribers. Perhaps this is an indication that AT&T will switch from a free NFL package to a (less expensive for them) free NBA package as a bonus to entice new subs to both AT&T TV and DTV?

AT&T offers ad-free NBA games for people who switch to AT&T TV


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> This doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I found it interesting that the new AT&T TV is giving away NBA League Pass Premium for the upcoming season to new subscribers. Perhaps this is an indication that AT&T will switch from a free NFL package to a (less expensive for them) free NBA package as a bonus to entice new subs to both AT&T TV and DTV?
> 
> AT&T offers ad-free NBA games for people who switch to AT&T TV


BB is a sport I don't follow. Is it popular enough to make a difference in this instance? Give up the NFL ST for it?

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> BB is a sport I don't follow. Is it popular enough to make a difference in this instance? Give up the NFL ST for it?
> 
> Rich


No


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah my wife hated when we got DirecTV DVR's and I took away her VCR. Now she would shoot me if I took her DVR away.


We had a VCR, never used it to record live TV. Programming it was a pain. Finding the start of an episode was a pain.

We had a DVR loaded with content we never watched. We did occasionally watch a missed episode of a show once in a while.

With streaming providers, we have used on-demand to watch the occasional missed episode. It makes time shifting much easier because we don't have to worry about DVR capacity, tuner availability, or making sure the recording was set to program. We have gone to Netflix and Hulu and have watched series from there.

Right now, was are transitioning from the AT&T Now UI to the You Tube TV UI. Its not without a learning curve, but shouldn't be much of a problem. Hopefully it will be less troublesome that the transition from DirecTV to DirecTV Now.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

compnurd said:


> No


Tad more succinct than I had hoped for, but I guess that does answer my question.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> This doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I found it interesting that the new AT&T TV is giving away NBA League Pass Premium for the upcoming season to new subscribers. Perhaps this is an indication that AT&T will switch from a free NFL package to a (less expensive for them) free NBA package as a bonus to entice new subs to both AT&T TV and DTV?
> 
> AT&T offers ad-free NBA games for people who switch to AT&T TV


It is actually less expensive for AT&T to offer free NFL, because they pay a flat rate so giving away additional packages costs them nothing. AFAIK that is not the case for the NBA, or it could be something they're doing in partnership with the NBA so this might not cost them anything either - trying to hook people into paying for it next year.

I wouldn't read anything into it other than that the NFL regular season is over half done and the NBA season is just getting started.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> It is actually less expensive for AT&T to offer free NFL, because they pay a flat rate so giving away additional packages costs them nothing.


AT&T obviously pays the NFL a LOT of money to exclusively offer NFLST and, from what I've read, it doesn't sound like they recoup that cost via selling it for $300-400. If that's true, then they're essentially paying money to be able to offer NFLST as a reason to sign up for or stay subscribed to the core DTV service. If they walked away from that deal and chose instead to give away NBA League Pass Premium as a free bonus to new TV subscribers, that may well save AT&T money, especially if AT&T wasn't the exclusive distributor of that service, the way they are with NFLST. (That would obviously depend on the relative costs involved. I do know that NBALPP costs $250 for the entire season, which is less than NFLST.)


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T obviously pays the NFL a LOT of money to exclusively offer NFLST and, from what I've read, it doesn't sound like they recoup that cost via selling it for $300-400. If that's true, then they're essentially paying money to be able to offer NFLST as a reason to sign up for or stay subscribed to the core DTV service. If they walked away from that deal and chose instead to give away NBA League Pass Premium as a free bonus to new TV subscribers, that may well save AT&T money, especially if AT&T wasn't the exclusive distributor of that service, the way they are with NFLST. (That would obviously depend on the relative costs involved. I do know that NBALPP costs $250 for the entire season, which is less than NFLST.)


How much interest could there be for an NBA season pass? Have any idea? I can't believe that could take the place of the ST and have any hope of being as popular.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T obviously pays the NFL a LOT of money to exclusively offer NFLST and, from what I've read, it doesn't sound like they recoup that cost via selling it for $300-400. If that's true, then they're essentially paying money to be able to offer NFLST as a reason to sign up for or stay subscribed to the core DTV service. If they walked away from that deal and chose instead to give away NBA League Pass Premium as a free bonus to new TV subscribers, that may well save AT&T money, especially if AT&T wasn't the exclusive distributor of that service, the way they are with NFLST. (That would obviously depend on the relative costs involved. I do know that NBALPP costs $250 for the entire season, which is less than NFLST.)


The point is NFLST is a sunk cost through the 2022 season, so adding one more person to it doesn't cost them a penny more. It is free for them to offer to subscribers as a come on. Unless the NBA gives them the same deal, every customer they give it away to is money out of their pocket.

The reason Directv pays for NFLST has more to do with having a near monopoly in the commercial public viewing space than it does offering it to residential customers. But as long as they have it, giving it away to obtain/retain residential customers is an option.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> The point is NFLST is a sunk cost through the 2022 season, so adding one more person to it doesn't cost them a penny more. It is free for them to offer to subscribers as a come on. Unless the NBA gives them the same deal, every customer they give it away to is money out of their pocket.
> 
> The reason Directv pays for NFLST has more to do with having a near monopoly in the commercial public viewing space than it does offering it to residential customers. But as long as they have it, giving it away to obtain/retain residential customers is an option.


Saw an article this morning that speculated MLB will put a stop to the local teams being blacked out. They want to get the MLB app on as many platforms as they can. Article said that might happen next season (2020). That would solve my problem to some extent.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> How much interest could there be for an NBA season pass? Have any idea? I can't believe that could take the place of the ST and have any hope of being as popular.


I don't know. But apparently AT&T thinks there's enough interest there to offer it, as opposed to NFLST, as the freebie add-on for new subscribers to AT&T TV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> The point is NFLST is a sunk cost through the 2022 season, so adding one more person to it doesn't cost them a penny more. It is free for them to offer to subscribers as a come on. Unless the NBA gives them the same deal, every customer they give it away to is money out of their pocket.


AT&T clearly has the rights to sell NFLST as a streaming package, because they do so for customers who demonstrably cannot receive DTV satellite service at their location. Given that, what's your explanation as to why they're choosing to offer free NBALP rather than free NFLST to new subscribers to AT&T TV? If it wouldn't cost them an extra penny to throw in free NFLST to those subs, then why not do so?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Saw an article this morning that speculated MLB will put a stop to the local teams being blacked out. They want to get the MLB app on as many platforms as they can. Article said that might happen next season (2020). That would solve my problem to some extent.


It may take several more years to get there, but the logical end point for distribution of all major sports is a direct-to-consumer streaming package for the entire season, offered by the league or the individual team. Cut out the middle man. (Same phenomenon that's happening on the entertainment side as studios go direct-to-consumer with their own services like Disney+, HBO Max, Peacock, etc.) Doesn't mean that those same games won't also be available via services like ESPN that commingle lots of different sports too, though.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T clearly has the rights to sell NFLST as a streaming package, because they do so for customers who demonstrably cannot receive DTV satellite service at their location. Given that, what's your explanation as to why they're choosing to offer free NBALP rather than free NFLST to new subscribers to AT&T TV? If it wouldn't cost them an extra penny to throw in free NFLST to those subs, then why not do so?


I think they probably have the rights to sell it only in places where people can't get Directv. There is no indication that they have the rights to sell it on streaming to whomever they want, or they would have offered it on Uverse TV and Directv Now several years ago. If there was any concern over people leaving Directv satellite to go to the cheaper Directv Now, they could alleviate it by simply charging Directv Now customers more for NFLST to balance things out.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I don't know. But apparently AT&T thinks there's enough interest there to offer it, as opposed to NFLST, as the freebie add-on for new subscribers to AT&T TV.


Guess I just don't get it. Seems like ATT is flailing about looking for answers. I don't think BB will ever be as popular as the NFL. But, if they lose the ST, I guess it's better than nothing. Don't have anything against BB, just one of the sports I never played.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DIRECTV seems to like giving hundreds of dollars of discounts each year to selected customers. Giving away programming (where they are only losing the price paid to the NBA per subscriber) would be cheaper than giving the dollar amount a subscriber would pay for that programming. They may also be trying to inflate the number of subscribers to NBA LP.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> They may also be trying to inflate the number of subscribers to NBA LP.


That's another possibility - maybe they have a contract that if they have a certain number of subscribers they get a lower rate and are trying to push over that threshold.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Or the NBA is doing it to inflate viewership


----------

