dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-05-10 12:21:41: As had been predicted for some time, Google this week announced their new subscription a la carte video "channels. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next
patt2k
join:2009-01-16

patt2k

Member

not for me

if they get Fox Soccer (15$ on my provider fios) I would get in a heartbeat otherwise I don't even see at least 1 good channel. At least for me.
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL

1 recommendation

brianiscool

Member

No thanks!

Why would I pay for these nobody channels?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: No thanks!

said by brianiscool:

Why would I pay for these nobody channels?

Netflix and Amazon have started some original content offerings. But I just don't see Youtube(the land of crap videos) coming up with anything worth paying for.
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL

brianiscool

Member

Re: No thanks!

I ditched TV and now all I watch is Youtube. It is just weird how I enjoy Youtube now than cable T.V.
TurtleFan
join:2003-05-03
Wyckoff, NJ

TurtleFan to brianiscool

Member

to brianiscool
exactly..I'd rather they make it so we could, I don't know, replace a video once uploaded? If Vimeo had had much eyes glued to it as youtube, I'd switch over instantly....

jazzlady
join:2005-08-04
Tannersville, PA

jazzlady

Member

Not for me either...

Way too much kid crap, reality, and family oriented stuff for my taste.

Offer me FoodTV, History 2, the Cooking Channel, Travel, SyFy, AMC, and a few others I would go for it. But these stations look like a whole lot of garbage to me.

Thanks, but no thanks.
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103

Member

If they carried something like

CBC - CBC Sports (not available in US), I'd consider it.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Another Non-Event

Google once again proves itself irrelevant.

alanhdsl
Premium Member
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ

1 recommendation

alanhdsl

Premium Member

Ads?

The main reason I'd subscribe is to support a show I liked, while avoiding the ads. There's some shows on Blip.TV that I follow, and I've whitelisted it in AdBlock so the creators get paid, but I'd really rather subscribe.

However, if the subscription shows still have ads, what's the point?

hey hey hey
@charter.com

hey hey hey

Anon

Re: Ads?

said by alanhdsl:

However, if the subscription shows still have ads, what's the point?

Do you pay for cable TV? Does it have ads?
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: Ads?

said by hey hey hey :

said by alanhdsl:

However, if the subscription shows still have ads, what's the point?

Do you pay for cable TV? Does it have ads?

Cable TV was sold on the idea that there wouldn't be ads. Then they got greedy.

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium Member
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD

newview

Premium Member

Re: Ads?

said by intok:

said by hey hey hey :

said by alanhdsl:

However, if the subscription shows still have ads, what's the point?

Do you pay for cable TV? Does it have ads?

Cable TV was sold on the idea that there wouldn't be ads. Then they got greedy.

Bingo

At one time, back in the day, CableTV (at least in my area) had NO ads. That was the selling point.

And intok See Profile is exactly right ... they got greedy.
Albert71292
join:2004-10-31
West Monroe, LA

Albert71292

Member

Re: Ads?

I keep seeing people say that cable had no ads at one time. Exactly HOW long ago was this? I first got cable in the early 1980's, when it became available where I live, and it had ads from the get go.

Been a "cord cutter" now for about three years. Not because of ads, but because of an extreme oversaturation of "reality" shows, and channels drifting from their original purpose.

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium Member
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD

newview

Premium Member

Re: Ads?

CableTV became available here on the Eastern Shore of Maryland about the mid to late 50s, due in-part to the horrible over-the-air antenna reception. At that time and for quite some time after ... there were NO commercials at all. The cable company even touted the lack of ads as a selling point for purchasing their service as opposed to staying with OTA.

Probitas
@teksavvy.com

Probitas to intok

Anon

to intok
Yep. Sub fees are gravy, their advertisers pay the freight. People are just too complacent about paying to watch advertising. Radio is still free, isn't it? That's my counter argument.
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL

kaila

Member

It's not for mainstream.....

but is potentially a good fit for long-tail content, and possibly channels culled from the cableco herd. I think for channels that focus content to meet the needs of a particular audience (however small), this is probably the only path to existence.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

silbaco

Premium Member

Internet Original Content

What is it with this awful original content these major internet companies have been pushing out lately? Amazon's original content is lackluster. Yahoo's is complete crap. And Google's isn't worth more than $.10.

Picking up upset viewers from cable companies and major networks has never been more ripe for the picking, and yet every internet company except Netflix keeps dropping the ball.
bugabuga
join:2004-06-10
Austin, TX

bugabuga

Member

Weird combo

Where puppets are right next to pr0n channels :P I thought boobs were forbidden on YouTube? Though wouldn't be surprised if they made an exemption for paid channels

Jeff
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium Member
join:2002-12-24
GMT -5

Jeff

Premium Member

Perception is wrong

This seems to be another instance of the company delivering what it thinks the customer wants vs what the customer actually wants.

The Youtube offering of unknown channels for a monthly fee is not something I'd even consider.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul

Member

...

Didn't Google Video start out offering paid videos and then flop badly in the face of YouTube's free videos?
Os
join:2011-01-26
US

Os

Member

Don't blame Google, blame the content providers

They probably went to the content providers, and they ignored them. The content providers aren't going to play this game, because it would begin their crumbling. Remember that Google has deals with all these providers now for Google Fiber, with the exception of AMC.

No legitimate channel is going to turn to this stream, because it breaks the model as we know it.

That's why the only legitimate channels here are the 7 .tv channels, and they're not even legitimate in the eyes of most people.

If it's not already part of programming contracts, I think it's very likely we will see it put into contracts that offering anything over-the-top will be considered a breach of contract.

carpetshark3
Premium Member
join:2004-02-12
Idledale, CO

carpetshark3

Premium Member

Re: Don't blame Google, blame the content providers

I'd pay for a BBC channel with good scientific type documentaries. Or an archive of old Nova and Frontline. I can get current Nova and Frontline OTA and record.
djoropallo
join:2003-10-20
Maple Shade, NJ

djoropallo

Member

Re: Don't blame Google, blame the content providers

said by carpetshark3:

I'd pay for a BBC channel with good scientific type documentaries. Or an archive of old Nova and Frontline. I can get current Nova and Frontline OTA and record.

Just an FYI, I get those on Amazon prime for free.

michieru
Premium Member
join:2009-07-25
Denver, CO

michieru

Premium Member

!

This is awesome. I would be looking forward to some interesting channels showing up in the next couple of months. National Geographic or Comedy Central would be nice. I do see National Geographic kids but that doesn't count.

ARGONAUT
Have a nice day.
Premium Member
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN

ARGONAUT

Premium Member

No Thanks, Youtube

I'm not seeing anything worth paying for. Not with that content.
rick0204
join:2009-05-20
North Bergen, NJ

rick0204

Member

More then the cable version?

Here TV is $7.99 on YouTube and on cable it is $6.99. I thought all these new channels were between .99 and $6.00?
elister
join:2006-07-17
Seattle, WA

elister

Member

Childrens Television Workshop

I would pay 5$ a month for Classic Sesame Street episodes, I would watch them over and over again with my daughter. Currently you can buy some episodes on youtube, but its nothing but the newer Elmo Generation ones, id rather watch the Jim Henson / Frank Oz era stuff. Netflix doesnt have much to watch for classic episodes, just a best of stream.

Also been dying to watch Electric Company or Mr Rogers episodes. Charge me 5$ a month, I'll watch em!

Suntop
Wolfrider Elf
Premium Member
join:2000-03-23
Fairfield, MT
·3Rivers Communic..
·T-Mobile
Netgear R6400
Netgear WNR1000
Netgear WNDR3400

Suntop

Premium Member

Re: Childrens Television Workshop

I rather watch those too. I dislike the ELMO only stuff. You do not see old stuff like anything to do with the Count von Count and I do not even see Barkley or Snuffy..... I miss the original cast I know a few of them are in Heaven but still like to see the shows that paved the way to good childrens TV.
IanR
join:2001-03-22
Fort Mill, SC

IanR

Member

I checked the pricing...

I checked the pricing and quickly found one channel I use a lot, on my Roku and Google have doubled the price! Google needs to get real...

Hamby
@verizon.net

Hamby

Anon

delivery issue?

Youtube quality is just not upto what I would pay for. This from a viewer with 5 3+ghz PCs on FiOS 35/35 ... don't think the quality issue is this end. Or will paid channels get higher QoS? And where does that precedent lead?

ASFSADFASDF
@comcast.net

ASFSADFASDF

Anon

You pay the service for uploading your own video

LOL!!!

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Hmmmmmmm

Never heard of any of these.
page: 1 · 2 · next