# YouTube TV - A New Streaming Regular TV Bundle



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

It's launching today in limited markets including New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Chicago and Philadelphia. Unless you're _really_ a fan of having the iTunes Store handle all your subscription billing, don't sign up for YouTube TV from an iOS device. The monthly price jumps to $39.99 (plus taxes and fees) if you do. Normally - if you sign up from Android or the web - it's $35 plus taxes and fees.

In addition to the following, AMC announced that YouTube TV will include AMC, BBC America, IFC, Sundance TV, WE tv, and BBC World News will be included in the service at the same price:










YouTube TV is still missing channels from several major networks, such as Turner, Discovery, and Viacom.

They offer an unlimited cloud DVR. And it includes YouTube Red's _content_ and original shows, but it doesn't remove ads from regular YouTube videos. To do that, you've still got to pay $9.99/month for YouTube Red.

Right now what they don't offer is an app on Roku, Apple TV, etc. Google is giving subscribers a free Chromecast dongle after they pay for one month of service. The Chromecast doesn't come with a remote and has been called "the most unnecessary hardware that Google has ever released." You can, however, watch football games and HD widescreen movies on your Android smartphone or Android TV.

A good article to read is 10 important things to know before signing up for YouTube TV.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Wow surprised there no replies to this thread, and here I was thinking that a lot of folks were eager for Google to release their streaming product. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Currently the only way to watch it on a full size screen is using chromecast....um, no thanks...LOL!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It's toast for me. If you DVR something you still won't be able to skip commercials on certain shows and if the show is available on demand you will be forced to watch that version and no fast forwarding at all. 

The problem with cloud DVRs and then controlling your viewing.


----------



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

That's a bummer, I'm afraid that is what D*Now's DRV function will be like also once it is unleashed.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It's what most will head too.


----------



## tylorert (Sep 7, 2016)

MY GOD! This took me by surprise! IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!
Reasoning?
1: Chromecasts, Mirroring, Google wanted to perfect this for their new TV thing
2: Fiber TV Ported to Youtube TV: Google already has Fiber TV, So, I think its a port
3: Youtube music, Youtube RED, Youtube (Normal), Youtube Kids, Youtube RED series (Originals like netfilx)
This is just me, All a big lead up to the Youtube TV platform, Im interested to see how this goes. Prices Seem fair? This is just my speculation. (Sorry for any kind of "spam') THE WORLD IS GOING GOOGLE! LOOK AT THE SIGNS!! 

Just having fun


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> The problem with cloud DVRs and then controlling your viewing.


Aren't regular DVRs the same, or at the very least capable of the same?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> It's toast for me. If you DVR something you still won't be able to skip commercials on certain shows and if the show is available on demand you will be forced to watch that version and no fast forwarding at all.
> 
> The problem with cloud DVRs and then controlling your viewing.


So far, based on what I read online about the streaming services cloud DVRs, I've pretty much given up on a cable TV type streaming bundle. It seems that the non-premium cable channels just won't make the move to a commercial-free viewing offer.

Without commercials and with reasonably decent Fast Forward and Back on my Roku:

Hulu gives me almost everything that's on ABC, Fox, and NBC plus originals.
CBS All Access gives me everything that's on CBS plus originals.
PBS gives me everything that's on PBS with one commercial before the show starts.
AcornTV, Amazon Prime, and Netflix give me originals plus other shows and movies.
HBO, Showtime, Starz and the other premium cable channels give me originals plus other shows and movies.
I'm not sure what FX, AMC, TNT, etc., are thinking, but people will pay to avoid losing 35-45% of their evening time to advertising. It's the 21st Century and the 1958 TV model is not going to survive IMHO.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Aren't regular DVRs the same, or at the very least capable of the same?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Capable? Eh sometimes. If you don't have internet and there fore no in demand with DIRECTV say, then no they couldn't even do this.

Understand what I read says that if you hit record today for a show on tomorrow and want to watch it the next day you won't necessarily be able to skip all the commercials. I don't know if a single DVR that has ever done this. Not something you just recorded live on your own DVR for latter viewing.

Add to that they also are saying if that show is available on demand then instead of getting to watch your recording you will be forced to watch the on demand version and no fast forwarding will be allowed at all on any of the program. While that may be how on demand works for some channels with a regular provider (say DIRECTV ) they don't force you to watch an on demand program without fast forward if you recorded the thing on your DVR live in the first place. This service will.

This is a new level of control. And it's another reason why I've always said streaming won't be the love feast everyone thinks.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> It's what most will head too.


I completely disagree. The DVR FF/commercial skipping was let out of the bottle a long time ago when the first TiVo appeared. That is not going back in the bottle anytime soon.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> Capable? Eh sometimes. If you don't have internet and there fore no in demand with DIRECTV say, then no they couldn't even do this.
> 
> Understand what I read says that if you hit record today for a show on tomorrow and want to watch it the next day you won't necessarily be able to skip all the commercials. I don't know if a single DVR that has ever done this. Not something you just recorded live on your own DVR for latter viewing.
> 
> ...


I have been using PSVue for some time now and have been happily FF'ing thru all commercials, just like I used to with my home based DVR's. I actually prefer the cloud based DVR. I no longer have to worry about or manage conflicts or capacity. 
It is understandable why DirecTV Now or Hulu (Dish) want to hobble their cloud DVR's, they have their cash cow services to protect. Unfortunately for them their are OTT providers that will be glad to provide the service that people want at a lower overall price point.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I have been using PSVue for some time now and have been happily FF'ing thru all commercials, just like I used to with my home based DVR's. I actually prefer the cloud based DVR. I no longer have to worry about or manage conflicts or capacity.
> It is understandable why DirecTV Now or Hulu (Dish) want to hobble their cloud DVR's, they have their cash cow services to protect. Unfortunately for them their are OTT providers that will be glad to provide the service that people want at a lower overall price point.


What device are you using with PSVue? Has the cloud DVR FF function been available for everything?

My understanding is that with PSVue there is a limitation of saving shows for only 28 days. Sling TV's timeframe is infinite but you can only store 50 hours of programming.

Apparently YouTube TV offers unlimited hours of recording but does have a 9 month limit - not sure why they picked 9 months.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

phrelin said:


> What device are you using with PSVue? Has the cloud DVR FF function been available for everything?
> 
> My understanding is that with PSVue there is a limitation of saving shows for only 28 days. Sling TV's timeframe is infinite but you can only store 50 hours of programming.
> 
> Apparently YouTube TV offers unlimited hours of recording but does have a 9 month limit - not sure why they picked 9 months.


I use Amazon FireTV boxes. Yes, FF is available for anything in the cloud DVR. Retention on the cloud DVR is stated at 28 days. I have not found the retention limit as an issue but others certainly may.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> I completely disagree. The DVR FF/commercial skipping was let out of the bottle a long time ago when the first TiVo appeared. That is not going back in the bottle anytime soon.


For DVRs in the home sure. For streaming services? Skipping commercials is doomed.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> I have been using PSVue for some time now and have been happily FF'ing thru all commercials, just like I used to with my home based DVR's. I actually prefer the cloud based DVR. I no longer have to worry about or manage conflicts or capacity.
> It is understandable why DirecTV Now or Hulu (Dish) want to hobble their cloud DVR's, they have their cash cow services to protect. Unfortunately for them their are OTT providers that will be glad to provide the service that people want at a lower overall price point.


You realize the first to jump in is Google on the killing fast forwarding? Talk about cash cows. And the broadcasters are who will make this happen. It will help them protect their precious ad dollars. Which is why watching it on Netflix 9 months after it first streams on a "live channel" will still be preferred by many.

And talk to me in five years and let's see how much more expensive streaming is than legacy providers. The prices will Skyrocket in time. And not a lot of time. The only reason they can float lower costs is they are backed by traditional systems. Once that losses enough subs the streaming will dramatically increase to make up for it. And no one coming in is small cheese. Name one over the top provider who doesn't have a massive bankroll behind it. And Netflix does not count, (and they don't have that big a library streaming for current shows if you take out Disney stuff) they are a premium station like hbo and act that way. They aren't a streaming service like Hulu etc...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> I use Amazon FireTV boxes. Yes, FF is available for anything in the cloud DVR. Retention on the cloud DVR is stated at 28 days. I have not found the retention limit as an issue but others certainly may.


Hence you have already found some of the limits vs a DVR in your home.

It's great that it works fine for you. I think streaming has a place for sure but to think it won't cost as much or bring more control over you than traditional means is missing why channels are interested in streaming. They aren't going to go to a service they can't make more money on somehow.

And just wait till all these channels start the next round of negotiations and say hey YouTube let us kill skipping so now it's your turn or massive increases. Which do you prefer?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> And just wait till all these channels start the next round of negotiations and say hey YouTube let us kill skipping so now it's your turn or massive increases. Which do you prefer?


I often get a notice when watching on demand content on my DISH receiver that features such as fast forward may be disabled for a particular program. It does not seem to be enforced (although most of what I watch on demand does not have commercials to skip - and skipping content doesn't bother the content providers as much as skipping commercials).

I would not want to be the first traditional provider (cable or satellite) to disable skipping on linear services.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I use Amazon FireTV boxes. Yes, FF is available for anything in the cloud DVR. Retention on the cloud DVR is stated at 28 days. I have not found the retention limit as an issue but others certainly may.


Which tier do you use? I see YES on the Core tier. If I can DVR that and use my FTV1 boxes I can see a way out D*. The Elite tier looks even better.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> I often get a notice when watching on demand content on my DISH receiver that features such as fast forward may be disabled for a particular program. It does not seem to be enforced (although most of what I watch on demand does not have commercials to skip - and skipping content doesn't bother the content providers as much as skipping commercials).
> 
> I would not want to be the first traditional provider (cable or satellite) to disable skipping on linear services.


I get similar warnings on my D* equipment. Never happens.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> You realize the first to jump in is Google on the killing fast forwarding? Talk about cash cows. And the broadcasters are who will make this happen. It will help them protect their precious ad dollars. Which is why watching it on Netflix 9 months after it first streams on a "live channel" will still be preferred by many.
> 
> And talk to me in five years and let's see how much more expensive streaming is than legacy providers. The prices will Skyrocket in time. And not a lot of time. The only reason they can float lower costs is they are backed by traditional systems. Once that losses enough subs the streaming will dramatically increase to make up for it. And no one coming in is small cheese. Name one over the top provider who doesn't have a massive bankroll behind it. *And Netflix does not count, (and they don't have that big a library streaming for current shows if you take out Disney stuff) they are a premium station like hbo and act that way. They aren't a streaming service like Hulu etc...*


This morning I used my present monthly cost of $160 and figured out what I would have spent on D* content and equipment over the last 15 years using that incorrect figure. I dropped my bill to that figure about a year or so ago. Got rid of the top tier movie package that was just about useless and took a bunch of credits to get the bill LOWERED to $160. So the figure I came up with is a lot less than what I actually paid over 15 years. A bit more than $28,000. Factor in what I actually paid and it's well over $30,000.

What I highlighted above, what...how...are you okay? Why would you write that? Do you use NF? Have you gone over to the dark side???? 

Rich


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> For DVRs in the home sure. For streaming services? Skipping commercials is doomed.


That is of course your opinion. I respect your opinion but disagree. Time will tell.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> You realize the first to jump in is Google on the killing fast forwarding? Talk about cash cows. And the broadcasters are who will make this happen. It will help them protect their precious ad dollars. Which is why watching it on Netflix 9 months after it first streams on a "live channel" will still be preferred by many.
> 
> And talk to me in five years and let's see how much more expensive streaming is than legacy providers. The prices will Skyrocket in time. And not a lot of time. The only reason they can float lower costs is they are backed by traditional systems. Once that losses enough subs the streaming will dramatically increase to make up for it. And no one coming in is small cheese. Name one over the top provider who doesn't have a massive bankroll behind it. And Netflix does not count, (and they don't have that big a library streaming for current shows if you take out Disney stuff) they are a premium station like hbo and act that way. They aren't a streaming service like Hulu etc...


Clearly our analysis diverges...; - ) Along with the increased competition represented by the OTT providers, I believe that we will see a continued downward pressure on prices. This market is not somehow different than other markets. Increased competition, and the virtual elimination of switching costs/hassle for the consumer, will drive prices down and feature/function/quality up, just like it does everywhere else.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Which tier do you use? I see YES on the Core tier. If I can DVR that and use my FTV1 boxes I can see a way out D*. The Elite tier looks even better.
> 
> Rich


I'm on the Access tier. Why don't you just sign-up for the 7 day free trial and try it out on your FireTV box.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I'm on the Access tier. Why don't you just sign-up for the 7 day free trial and try it out on your FireTV box.


I'd rather listen to someone here tell me how the system works before doing that. I'm not ready to make the switch right now, gotta get approval from the boss. Would be a lot easier to get that approval if it had the Hallmark channel (I have no interest in that channel, but my wife does). Seems like it's reasonably priced and has YES and a DVR feature. I'd like to know about the resolutions I'd be seeing. Having YES and the Yankees in something other than 720p would make me happy.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> Clearly our analysis diverges...; - ) Along with the increased competition represented by the OTT providers, I believe that we will see a continued downward pressure on prices. This market is not somehow different than other markets. Increased competition, and the virtual elimination of switching costs/hassle for the consumer, will drive prices down and feature/function/quality up, just like it does everywhere else.


Awh, see here is where we differ most. You think this market is the same as any other. It's not. The broadcasters are who set the prices not the providers. Providers just add a little for profit. If they bleed customers to bad. That can't lower prices like other industries. Right now they add very little to streaming because they already have a massive infrastructure in place because of traditional tv anywhere platforms. At some point they will have to spend more to make that infrastructure a lot more robust and that will drive the provider costs through the roof. Or a lot of the costs from the traditional side will fall and be moved to the streaming side. I doubt that will happen but it's possible.

You won't see broadcasters take less money for shows on a streaming platform over a traditional one, except while it's a carrot where they can create a system to hook you on that allows them more info to sell better targeted ads. But once a balance is there (and we are years away from streaming being truly as popular as traditional) the costs will be the same or more.

I just don't understand why anyone thinks a broadcaster in the long run will take less money because it's streaming instead of from a traditional provider?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> This morning I used my present monthly cost of $160 and figured out what I would have spent on D* content and equipment over the last 15 years using that incorrect figure. I dropped my bill to that figure about a year or so ago. Got rid of the top tier movie package that was just about useless and took a bunch of credits to get the bill LOWERED to $160. So the figure I came up with is a lot less than what I actually paid over 15 years. A bit more than $28,000. Factor in what I actually paid and it's well over $30,000.
> 
> What I highlighted above, what...how...are you okay? Why would you write that? Do you use NF? Have you gone over to the dark side????
> 
> Rich


Haha! I'm pointing out there are no super cheap streaming solutions. It's a myth to say any offer anywhere close to your traditional providers. You need multiple ones to get everything you can get and internet access.

In fact anyone without internet today if they wanted the equivalents of extra in DIRECTV it'd probably cost them more than DIRECTV if you add in what they'd have to pay for internet and they wouldn't have near the capabilities as a dtv DVR (or most cable companies DVRs)

I use Netflix. But I don't subscribe to any premiums with DIRECTV. Don't see a reason too.

And I'm not even considering leaving DIRECTV till I can get my Lakers some other way with total ease and reliability.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> Awh, see here is where we differ most. You think this market is the same as any other. It's not. The broadcasters are who set the prices not the providers. Providers just add a little for profit. If they bleed customers to bad. That can't lower prices like other industries. Right now they add very little to streaming because they already have a massive infrastructure in place because of traditional tv anywhere platforms. At some point they will have to spend more to make that infrastructure a lot more robust and that will drive the provider costs through the roof. Or a lot of the costs from the traditional side will fall and be moved to the streaming side. I doubt that will happen but it's possible.
> 
> You won't see broadcasters take less money for shows on a streaming platform over a traditional one, except while it's a carrot where they can create a system to hook you on that allows them more info to sell better targeted ads. But once a balance is there (and we are years away from streaming being truly as popular as traditional) the costs will be the same or more.
> 
> I just don't understand why anyone thinks a broadcaster in the long run will take less money because it's streaming instead of from a traditional provider?


Funny, I was going to include that caveat in my post...  From my perspective that certainly does impose a "floor" on the price points. But, and it's a big but, IMO that leaves room for competition to drive overall prices. I have posted previously that DTV makes a profit just on the package alone at their current price point. What competition is already driving out of the equation is all the other stuff that folks like DTV and Dish, and the cable cos tack on. That stuff is already being driven out of the equation by the OTT offerings. In my case I was paying DTV over $118 per month, only abou $55 of which was the actual content charge. And no, I do not believe that DTV has no profit built into that content/package charge. IMHO, the days of companies being able to charge an extra $7 or whatever per TV that you want to have content access on is quickly going away. The industry is quickly going to the "simultaneous stream" concept that Netflix pioneered.
So yes, we agree that their are certainly some idiosyncrasies in this market. But I still think there is plenty of room for increased competition to drive down costs and keep them lower. How much lower is certainly the question. Time will certainly tell.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Haha! I'm pointing out there are no super cheap streaming solutions. It's a myth to say any offer anywhere close to your traditional providers. You need multiple ones to get everything you can get and internet access.
> 
> And I'm not even considering leaving DIRECTV till I can get my Lakers some other way with total ease and reliability.


Nobody gets close to "everything you can get" unless they live in a multiple person household with people of all ages having a really broad range of entertainment tastes. In that case you almost should calculate the cost per person per month. Or maybe even the cost per actual viewing hours.

Which brings me to sports. HBO gets $15 a month from folks in order to stream into their homes its original and movie offerings. It can be canceled and restarted at any time without any extra charges. Sports leagues and teams need to figure out a viable offering comparable to that IMHO. There have to be sports fans out there who resent paying for Disney Kids and OWN as much as I do.

I'm posting here because I have had internet service or one of its predecessors since the early 1980's. It's not a TV-related cost any more than my electric service is. As a result of streaming, I don't need to pay for a separate TV utility. Instead we have these TV streaming TV costs for two people who generally _both_ watch 120± hour of TV a month:










Since we are watching shows on HBO and Showtime right now, we're paying 25¢ per person per hour of entertainment totaling about $60 a month.



mjwagner said:


> Clearly our analysis diverges...; - ) Along with the increased competition represented by the OTT providers, I believe that we will see a continued downward pressure on prices. This market is not somehow different than other markets. Increased competition, and the virtual elimination of switching costs/hassle for the consumer, will drive prices down and feature/function/quality up, just like it does everywhere else.


Yes, I think the point is that I'm the one assembling a package, not a cable/satellite company fearful of losing subscribers if it doesn't fully subsidize the NFL by taxing me for premium content on ESPN.

Sure, Hulu is a subpackage offering ABC, Fox, and NBC shows. But truthfully, in the last decade every season we watched about the same total number of shows from those three networks as we did CBS alone. The point is I decide who gets money from me - if I want to watch a CBS show on CBS All Access or an Aussie show on Acorn TV, I don't have to pay for a Viacom-owned channel or ESPN.

On the other hand, we are still dependent upon the "Hollywood" movie/tv series production industry which even with the challenge of the Netflix streaming service is still dominated by a few huge international corporations. But Netflix and options like Acorn TV and YouTube have altered the playing field for independent and foreign content producers. And in the meantime, the corporate movie industry is turning to Asian audiences. It's all in flux.

Many things affect costs. In late 2007-early 2008 we had the 387 post Writers Strike Discussion Thread and in mid-2008 we had the 233 post Actors Strike thread. Those events were disruptive to the industry and I was concerned that scripted TV might fade away. But we still ended up with a 2015 thread Golly, there's just too much TV.... so I'm not very good a prognosticator.

Spring 2017 brings us headlines such as Hollywood Hopes To Avoid Writer's Strike As Contract Talks Are Extended and there is the ongoing actors strike SAG-AFTRA Claims It "Has The Momentum" In Video Game Strike Launched In October. The content producers have a busy life dealing with and paying for employees.

Me, I quit worrying about the industry and am assembling my own content package. It's better and cheaper than it was in 2007-2008.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Haha! I'm pointing out there are no super cheap streaming solutions. It's a myth to say any offer anywhere close to your traditional providers. You need multiple ones to get everything you can get and internet access.
> 
> In fact anyone without internet today if they wanted the equivalents of extra in DIRECTV it'd probably cost them more than DIRECTV if you add in what they'd have to pay for internet and they wouldn't have near the capabilities as a dtv DVR (or most cable companies DVRs)
> 
> ...


I'm not that concerned about pricing. What I want is better service, I'm willing to pay for that. I already have Amazon, Hulu, NF and HBO Now. I use them for most of my viewing. All I use or want D* for at this moment is sports. I can get PS Vue and get the sports I want. I can do the math, I know it's gonna be near the cost of what I now pay D*. I want a low maintenance viewing system that I can service. I want PQ that's superior to what I get from D*, I can get that, for the most part I have that already.

You said this in a previous post:
_And Netflix does not count, (and they don't have that big a library streaming for current shows if you take out Disney stuff) they are a premium station like hbo and act that way. They aren't a streaming service like Hulu etc..._
Netflix doesn't count? Just because there's a considerable wait for current shows? That makes NF not count in this discussion? I'm willing to wait for a superior experience. I find HBO Now kinda limited, limited to only HBO content of course. I'll grant you that, but I don't see how HBO and NF compare on any level other than they both are streamers. I pay more for the very limited HBO Now than I do for NF. And NF has more than enough content to keep me satisfied. I realize that all this is subjective, I get that. What I want really shouldn't influence others all that much. But when you make such statements it might influence folks looking for alternative choices. I think NF is a very viable choice as is AP. These streaming sources are the new LUXURY, I think. I'm willing to pay for it, I paid willingly to D* all these years and I'm gonna let evolution take its course.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Funny, I was going to include that caveat in my post...  From my perspective that certainly does impose a "floor" on the price points. But, and it's a big but, IMO that leaves room for competition to drive overall prices. I have posted previously that DTV makes a profit just on the package alone at their current price point. What competition is already driving out of the equation is all the other stuff that folks like DTV and Dish, and the cable cos tack on. That stuff is already being driven out of the equation by the OTT offerings. In my case I was paying DTV over $118 per month, only abou $55 of which was the actual content charge. And no, I do not believe that DTV has no profit built into that content/package charge. IMHO, the days of companies being able to charge an extra $7 or whatever per TV that you want to have content access on is quickly going away. The industry is quickly going to the "simultaneous stream" concept that Netflix pioneered.
> So yes, we agree that their are certainly some idiosyncrasies in this market. But I still think there is plenty of room for increased competition to drive down costs and keep them lower. How much lower is certainly the question. Time will certainly tell.


Well written Mark, I agree.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I'm on the Access tier. Why don't you just sign-up for the 7 day free trial and try it out on your FireTV box.


I had also hoped to see the FTV3 this year, I've had no luck with the FTV2s. Kinda hope to see more apps on the ATV4s or the new ATV5s later this year. When I do the snip I'm gonna need more boxes, I presently have 10 TVs in my home. I'd need a box for each one and I'd really like them all to be ATV5s. Gotta wonder why my ATV4s don't have PS Vue. I hope it's not because of something like the Apple-Amazon feud.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Capable? Eh sometimes. If you don't have internet and there fore no in demand with DIRECTV say, then no they couldn't even do this.


That is one of the lamest excuses I have read on here, lol. If you don't have internet you won't be able to use any streaming service at all.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> That is one of the lamest excuses I have read on here, lol. If you don't have internet you won't be able to use any streaming service at all.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My point is correct. DIRECTV doesn't actively make you watch commercials if you set something to record. You tube will. That's without even discussing on demand.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> My point is correct. DIRECTV doesn't actively make you watch commercials if you set something to record. You tube will. That's without even discussing on demand.


That point is correct however your excuse for why the DVR was not capable is totally off and laughable at best.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I never said it wasnt capable, I said that they arent going to do it. Streaming though, that will be where they do it a lot.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> I never said it wasnt capable, I said that they arent going to do it. Streaming though, that will be where they do it a lot.


Spin? Cause definitely the intention was there



inkahauts said:


> Capable? Eh sometimes......then no they couldn't even do this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sabrewulf (Sep 4, 2011)

Other than PSVue Discovery Networks is a pain to get. I use Sling, Hulu, and CBS All Access and pretty happy with it. Hope to get Discovery/Animal Planet sometime.


----------



## Xelleld (Jun 13, 2017)

I don't think this will go well for Google, to be honest. PS Vue, D* Now, and Sling all offer more channels for about the same price or less. Also, it's nearly pointless to include YouTube Red content without the benefit that just about everybody who pays for YouTube Red got it for: getting rid of the ads without feeling guilty for using an adblocker.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> It's toast for me. If you DVR something you still won't be able to skip commercials on certain shows and if the show is available on demand you will be forced to watch that version and no fast forwarding at all.
> 
> The problem with cloud DVRs and then controlling your viewing.


A few months experience, now, sat-cutting and specifically when cloud dvr well designed and implemented, no problem with FF Cloud dvrs. Watching Vue and a bit of Sling, shared between households w/3-5 screens simultaneously. Apple TV and Harmony 650 remotes, and I ff and rw easily most times. YMMV depending on channel cooperation with each provider.

When D* gets their cloud dvr operational, I'll be glad to try 'em. Never pay attention to Sling time strictures because mostly use it to share Bloomberg TV. And D*Now chat CSR says they also include the sidebar and crawl like the sat feed does. The Vue cloud dvr keeps unlimited choices up to 28 days and that works for me.

Who knows - maybe we'll be a DirecTV household, again?


----------

