YouTube TV - unlimited cloud dvr, etc.

[Tiki]

The "unlimited" DVR sounds cool, but for me the 9 month limit on retention would be a deal breaker. I usually prefer to wait to watch a new show until I know it's been renewed for at least a second season. Plus certain shows and movies I like to keep indefinitely, so I can re-watch them if I want.

[jm9843]

Originally Posted by stuckless

Device support is crucial for any of these types of services to survive and you'll quickly be able to see how serious google is with this by the number of devices they start to support.

Agreed, but I think that Android/iOS (both with Chromecast) and the web is a good place to start.

And there's reason to be optimistic considering the exhaustive device support that both YouTube and Google Play Movies has. The latter doesn't come up much in the streaming discussion but even it has support for the web, Android, iOS, Chromecast, Roku, Android TV, Apple TV, and both Samsung/LG smart TV platforms. I'd be surprised if YouTube TV doesn't follow suit given its higher profile and ambition.

[will]

Originally Posted by Tiki

The "unlimited" DVR sounds cool, but for me the 9 month limit on retention would be a deal breaker.

Couldn't agree more.

Even if they didn't have the 9 month limit I'd still be skeptical; companies often make service changes that impact users. Like when Microsoft went from offering unlimited OneDrive storage to something very limited.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I think this will ultimately be the failing of this service. Google not only needs to get the Android apps out there for existing Android devices, but it also needs to be working on iOS and Roku options as well.

I hope they realize this, too... Google has been reasonably good about offering its services on other platforms. When they don't, (e.g., no Google Play Movies on Apple TV), that seems to be due to Apple's policies on in-app purchases. This skirts that issue, assuming you can't buy individual episodes within the app.

Originally Posted by stuckless

Personally, this is where I think Netflix should be offer "as-a-service" additional TV offerings... ie, if I already pay for netflix, networks should be paying Netflix a cut to allow them to deliver their content over Netflix's infrastructure, as an add-on (ie, netflix bills me $35 and takes a cut of that from the networks). Netflix has figured out the content delivery problems, and they have players on every device imaginable. TV is their core business. For Google and Apple, TV is just another distraction, and I suspect google will throw in the towel on this as well.

It's not clear to me that Netflix is better suited for this. Developing apps isn't the hard part- Google can certainly do that for other platforms. The business arrangements are the hard part. You need to play by the rules of other platforms (namely, Apple's in-app purchase policies). And more significantly, you need to negotiate with the content companies. Netflix might have good arrangements with the studios, but dealing with hundreds of different affiliates spread over the US is a completely different animal, and one where any company is going to struggle.

I suppose it's true that video is more of Netflix's core business, but selling video/music (as services or individual items) is a core part of Google's strategy for Android/Android TV/Chromecast/etc. I very, very strongly suspect Google wished the network affiliates went away and that they would rather deal directly with the networks/studios, but I'm guessing they reached a conclusion that isn't going to work anytime soon.

The key sign I'm looking for is whether they actually expand to other markets. The key thing about their initial markets isn't just that they're big cities- it's that the most of the big local stations are owned by the networks. I'm sure that greatly simplified the negotiations.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by reggie14

It's not clear to me that Netflix is better suited for this. Developing apps isn't the hard part- Google can certainly do that for other platforms. The business arrangements are the hard part. You need to play by the rules of other platforms (namely, Apple's in-app purchase policies). And more significantly, you need to negotiate with the content companies. Netflix might have good arrangements with the studios, but dealing with hundreds of different affiliates spread over the US is a completely different animal, and one where any company is going to struggle.

I suppose it's true that video is more of Netflix's core business, but selling video/music (as services or individual items) is a core part of Google's strategy for Android/Android TV/Chromecast/etc. I very, very strongly suspect Google wished the network affiliates went away and that they would rather deal directly with the networks/studios, but I'm guessing they reached a conclusion that isn't going to work anytime soon.

The key sign I'm looking for is whether they actually expand to other markets. The key thing about their initial markets isn't just that they're big cities- it's that the most of the big local stations are owned by the networks. I'm sure that greatly simplified the negotiations.

My point is that neflix already has the infrastructure and apps in place.... so really for them it is literally about content negotiation, which they do as well. I think companies should be paying netflix to use their infrastructure instead of trying to re-invent (as happened with Shomi.. Finally rogers just started offering netflix subscriptions). For netflix, TV is their business. Getting to you quickly and reliably that is their business. For google has less to do with TV and more to do with advertising (they are an advertisting company). I think google will do a great job of it... but the question is how comitted will they be to it... Everyone of us can think about 10 products and services that google started and no longer is is use... In fact, it's becoming a running joke (and a very real concern) for google, when they create something new.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by stuckless

My point is that neflix already has the infrastructure and apps in place.... so really for them it is literally about content negotiation, which they do as well.

You could say the same thing about Google, who runs the second biggest video streaming service, has apps on multiple platforms, and negotiates with studios to sell movies/TV on Google Play.

Is Netflix really that much closer to what's needed for Youtube TV than what Google has to support Youtube and Google Play?

And, as I alluded in my previous post, content negotiations are going to be a lot more complicated. How many truly powerful content companies does Netflix really need to negotiate with? 10 maybe? Maybe less?

The network affiliate model is really what blows this up. I'm pretty sure the affiliate agreements give them a practical monopoly on anything that seems to compete with live TV. So while you might think Google/Netflix could just negotiate for major content with the networks, that probably wouldn't work in practice. And, the affiliates increasingly realize the powerful negotiating position they're in, and have been demanding more and more money from cable TV companies to rebroadcast their content. No doubt Google will run into this same problem as they try to expand into markets where the local affiliates are not owned by the network. (Presumably Canada has a similar situation with their networks, though I really don't know.)

Like the other TV streaming services, Google likely won't be able to reach agreements in every market. Presumably they'll be able to fall back on nationally-available VoD content, but that's going to be a subset of what airs on TV (even setting local content aside, I don't think the networks have full VoD rights to all the content they broadcast).

Originally Posted by stuckless

I think companies should be paying netflix to use their infrastructure instead of trying to re-invent (as happened with Shomi.. Finally rogers just started offering netflix subscriptions). For netflix, TV is their business. Getting to you quickly and reliably that is their business.

You're saying cut out the middle-men and have content creators use Netflix (and other services) as platforms?

I get the impression that the whole TV-related economy is fairly fragile. The studios, networks, affiliates, media groups, and cable TV companies are all very dependent on one another for their business models to work. If you start pulling on any of those threads too far and the whole thing will come apart. None of them are going to want to disrupt the status-quo by much.

Notice that the streaming services are still structured roughly the same way as cable TV packages.

I think this will change over time (though, it's not clear the outcome will actually be better), but it's going to be a very slow process.

[stuckless]

@reggie14 - Google is more than technically qualified... i've said that. But offering tv services is not their business. If they can't get advertising dollars out of it... how log will the remain comitted to it. Both Netflix and Google have the technology... but google has a track record of being under comitted to TV (GoogleTV, AndroidTV, what's the state of Fibre TV??). That's my point.

Traditional cable subscriptions are dwindling... Streaming is on the rise. A network has an option... Partner with a Google, Netflix, Apple, or build their own. Some have gone that route... and since Netflix doesn't offer that option to them anyways, you are left with Google (and maybe Apple). If I were Netflix, I'd be looking to creating an add-on model to allow LiveTV/PVR services over netflix (in collaboration with networks). Traditional TV doesn't want that... but in the same way CD business didn't want mp3s... but it happened anyways, so best be ready. I just don't think Google would be as comitted to this as Netflix (who doesn't even have that offering), based on Google's track record.

[reggie14]

You're right, of course. Google has shown a disturbing willingness to launch half-finished projects, and ultimately kill them off.

In some ways, this feels like a very different project for Google. But I say that less because of what type of service it is, but rather because of what it entails for Google. While Google is an advertising company at its core, I think they are committed to being a content distributor through Google Play (and, to a lesser extent, Youtube). Youtube TV seems like a natural extension. Content distribution that doubles as an advertising platform (at least, I assume the VoD ads are from Google's ad network).

But, Google doesn't seem to like doing things that requires complicated arrangements with other companies (or governments- which is probably what drove them away from Google Fiber). Or things that make them particularly reliant other companies to provide their product/service. And that's definitely the case with Youtube TV. If they're really going to roll this out nationwide, I suspect they'll have a surprisingly small technical team working on the infrastructure and apps, and a surprisingly large team negotiating with network affiliates. I can't imagine they'd like that.

Does Google even have anything remotely close to that with their other services? I suppose music is the closest thing, but it really seems like the recording companies have opened up to streaming services and perhaps weren't that bad to deal with.

If Youtube TV ever gets to something close to a nationwide launch, I think it will stick around for a while. But I'll certainly share your skepticism at least until we see Youtube TV launch in markets with local affiliates that are not owned by the major networks.

[NetworkGuy]

Here is the response I received when I asked about Android TV.

It seems like they are not listening.

Hi John,

This is Anthony with YouTube TV Support. Thanks for reaching out!

We’re happy to hear that you’re excited to watch YouTube TV on Android TV. While this isn't currently a supported device for YouTube TV, we're working to expand YouTube TV to more platforms this year, and I'll let the team know about your interest in watching on Android TV. In the meantime, you can find a list of our current supported devices here.

Just so you know, we're also running a Chromecast promotion for new YouTube TV users after they've paid for their first month of YouTube TV! So if you do decide to sign up for a free trial and stay with the service, as one of the first YouTube TV customers, you'll be eligible to get a free Chromecast after your first YouTube TV payment. This article has a bit more information about this promotion, if you're interested. }

Let me know if you have any other questions, and I'll be happy to help out.

All the best,
Anthony

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by NetworkGuy

Here is the response I received when I asked about Android TV.

It seems like they are not listening.

What did you expect? That seems like a pretty standard form email. They probably use the same one with Roku replaced for Android TV.

Even if they are developing an Android TV app, the low-level customer service reps aren't going to know.

[wayner]

@reggie14 - Why do local affiliates matter? Do they have anything unique to each local market Tha people care about with the exception of local news and market-specific NFL games? I would think that you could just watch the local news over the web and they can probably come up with other solutions for the NFL.

@stuckess - You make some very good arguments about Netflix. Another advantage is that Netflix has a global footprint whereas most of these other players are US-only. I really wish we could start moving away from caring about country borders for streaming on the WORLDwideweb, and at least Netflix can do that with their own content. By the way, Shomi was also available on Rogers' TV boxes.

[jm9843]

Originally Posted by reggie14

Google has shown a disturbing willingness to launch half-finished projects, and ultimately kill them off.

Besides Reader (which had a small but vocal user base and was usurped by superior alternatives), what projects are people referring to when they make these accusations? I may be forgetful, but I don't come up with much. I guess Google TV, but that failed in the marketplace and was rebooted with the more competent Android TV which they continue to support (see: Assistant/Nvidia Spot announcements at CES). Google Fiber isn't going anywhere in the markets where it exists and future deployments are shifting to a more profitable wireless solution to avoid the laying of costly fiber and to reduce the regulatory burden.

In other words, I think YouTube TV is going to be around for the long haul. Its biggest issues are, like others have said, negotiating with the local affiliates in each market. They'll likely follow the same path as PlayStation Vue here and release a lower-priced version without live local streaming for a national roll-out.

[KarylFStein]

Originally Posted by jm9843

Besides Reader (which had a small but vocal user base and was usurped by superior alternatives), what projects are people referring to when they make these accusations? I may be forgetful, but I don't come up with much. I guess Google TV, but that failed in the marketplace and was rebooted with the more competent Android TV which they continue to support (see: Assistant/Nvidia Spot announcements at CES). Google Fiber isn't going anywhere in the markets where it exists and future deployments are shifting to a more profitable wireless solution to avoid the laying of costly fiber and to reduce the regulatory burden.

The only retirement that affected me was Picasa. I mean, besides the whole buying/shutting down of SageTV thing . At least the latter worked out.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by wayner

@reggie14 - Why do local affiliates matter? Do they have anything unique to each local market Tha people care about with the exception of local news and market-specific NFL games? I would think that you could just watch the local news over the web and they can probably come up with other solutions for the NFL.

While I agree with you on some level (and certainly agree you could come up with better technical solutions), I think the practical business challenges would ultimately make the service far less desirable.

Losing sports broadcast into specific markets is huge. There's no technical reason they couldn't work something out with the NFL (and the other pro sports leagues), but that would not only be expensive, but would likely conflict with existing licenses (which almost certainly include some form of exclusivity clauses). Given that they've prioritized sports over entertainment channels, I think this would be a dealbreaker to their target demographic.

Also, losing the affiliates would probably mean a delay between when a show is aired and when it would become available on VoD. It seems like it's typically a day. I strongly suspect that is due to the affiliate agreements, and isn't something Google could practically work-around (remember when you needed permission from your local affiliate to get network TV through a C-band satellite?). A one-day delay isn't huge, but given that most people with DVRs still watch things mostly live, I think this would also be a dealbreaker for many.

And I think losing local news (and local sports, like high school tournaments) would be a big deal to some people. I don't think the ability to stream it on a different device (which isn't an option in every market, mind you) would be seen as a suitable substitute by many people.

[stuckless]

And so begins the slow death of Youtube TV before it even really gets started....

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/B...Tube-TV-139352

[reggie14]

That's disappointing. The WSJ speculates this was a concession to the cable companies, but I wonder if it's just the way Google decided to do recordings. In particular, that Google wants to be able to delete recordings of shows in favor of just streaming the on-demand versions.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by reggie14

That's disappointing. The WSJ speculates this was a concession to the cable companies, but I wonder if it's just the way Google decided to do recordings. In particular, that Google wants to be able to delete recordings of shows in favor of just streaming the on-demand versions.

I really don't think this is Google's fault... I think the content industry is trying desperately to adhere to their legacy business models. It's mind boggling, really. When it becomes easier to stream pirated content (without commercials) than actualy paying for it, you need to seriously rethink your business model. Netflix is the exception here... You pay for it, you watch it, and the experience is better and easier than actually pirating it. I think google gets this... it's the content providers that are killing their own industry

The music industry has learned this as well. Today, it's literally easier to buy/rent music from a legal source than trying to pirate it. When music pirate sites were all the rage, it was because it was easier to find/pirate music from those sites than buying a cd, bypass the crappy copy protection, and then rip it. The music industry didn't want to change, but they were forced into it (thankfully). Even if you are into torrents, it's still generally more effort to set that up, than actually using a legit service.

In short, if you make your service easier and better than what the pirates offer... Most people will likely prefer it over the pirate solutions.

[wayner]

For music it is now easier to pay $10/month to Spotify, (or Google Music or Apple Music or whatever) then to worry about acquiring music.

TV/video should move to this subscription and streaming model as well - kind of like a Spotify for video. Charge me $120/month but let me stream every TV show or movie or sporting event that was ever made or broadcasted - I no longer have to buy BRs/DVDs, pay for cable, Netflix, etc. There is just as much revenue for the content generators. But this won't happen because too many people would get disintermediated.

[jm9843]

The news that stuckless linked to about YouTube TV serving up the on-demand versions (when available) instead of commercial-skippable DVR versions definitely sucks. Although it should be said that the former usually has less commercial content in the form of a couple ~30 second ads. It's still a tough pill to swallow if you are in the 'never watches a commercial' camp (*raises hand*).

In any case, I did begin my 30-day YouTube TV trial yesterday so that I could watch the Penguins begin their defense of Lord Stanley. First impressions are that the app is really slick. And whatever bandwidth shaping they are doing is impressive - live video thumbnails play almost instantly as you scroll through the channels and it seems to stream well over slower connections.

[tvmaster2]

Because of first Tivo, then Sage, I just can't deal with commercials anymore. It doesn't matter what the model is, the cost, how many or what channels are carried, but if there are commercials, I'm not in....