YouTube TV Price Hike Coming January 2025 (betanews.com) 98
BrianFagioli writes: In a move sure to rattle some subscribers, YouTube TV has announced a price increase for its Base Plan. Starting January 13, 2025, the monthly subscription cost will jump from $72.99 to $82.99. The search giant cites the rising costs of content and investments in service quality as the primary reasons for this adjustment.
How much?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:How much?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but that's worse. You do get how that's worse? Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube Premium is like $18 a month
Re:How much?? (Score:4, Informative)
beat me to it. I didn't know people actually PAY for youtube. Ugh. Get NewPipe or Tubular and download what you want before YT has effective countermeasures. You'll be saving energy too, wtf do people just stream now? Think of the Adverts you won't have to see.
This is YouTube TV. Not regular YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's cable tv. It includes most of the standard cable channels and your local stations along with DVR. Cost increases are likely for the same reason cable prices go up - the content providers upped the prices for channels. Local tv stations have also been trying to get internet cable to have to negotiate directly with them instead of the network so that they can extract the same higher fees that cable companies pay.
Don't people bother looking up what something is before making ignorant comments?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup vastly less popular
YouTube TV 57%
Sling TV 11%
Hulu with Live TV 10%
DIRECTV STREAM 8%
Philo 7%
Frndly 4%
Fubo 3%
Re:How much?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Plenty of people pay for Youtube to avoid ads and not have to jump through hoops like downloading crap ahead of watching it.
That said, this isn't for Youtube (which is Youtube Premium) - its for Youtube TV. That has Youtube in the name but that's pretty much just branding purposes. Its a streaming Cable/Satellite TV competitor that offers streaming live cable channels.
Re:How much?? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is informative, but the price is STILL exorbitant.
I think everyone that would read /. knows that cable cutting was largely driven by the cost of cable packages, the increasing amount of ads and decreasing amount of actual content. So $72.99 / month, pre price hike, might be comparable to what people were paying for cable tv which obviously puts things into perspective.
But IMO this is just a healthy reminder that cable TV is a complete rip-off.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everywhere. Where I live there's little if any broadcast available. It's cable, satellite or nothing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YoutubeTV is the same as cable. Same channels and features except it's better. I get unlimited screens, unlimited DVR, some 4K sports. It works anywhere there's a good internet connection. Works great even on LTE on the iPhone. I can customize the program guide for each user in the family. I get that it's not cheap but it's still better than what I had with Comcast or with what I have compared on Sling and Hulu+.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the amateur hour section of YouTube, this is Google's paid offering intended to compete with cable TV. As for why it's so expensive, well, a quick Google search (or just asking ChatGPT) will tell you the reason is pretty simple: it includes live sports.
If you're not into watching sports (as someone who personally can't stand watching sports, you'll get no argument from me), the service is overpriced and it'd be easier on your wallet just to subscribe to competing streaming services.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough I get a lot more entertainment and also education from YouTube amateur hour than I do from a lot of cable TV programming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reading books - bullet proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was SO much cheaper when it started....I jumped on it when the similar streaming offering from Playstation ended (Playstation VUE?)...
Basically, this is still better than what I'd pay for Cox cable for the similar type offering...I get all my "cable" channels....news, ESPN channels, etc. and local channels.
It's getting expensive, but till worth it to me.
For this price...however, I sure do with they'd throw in YouTube Premium for regular YT...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I pay $13.99/month for Youtube Premium.
All the ad-blockers stopped working some time ago.
Re:How much?? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ublock Origin on Edge has been solid for me. Ublock Origin on Firefox has been erratic - it works, it doesn't work, it works. I've only had it maybe fail once on Edge, but a rules update fixed that in seconds.
It's amazing how unwatchable YouTube is nowadays. Especially the mid-stream ads - it always goes to an ad mid-sentence or other thing and now over a minute of ads.
But this is about YouTube TV, which is the live TV streaming service, which has nothing to do wit
Re: (Score:2)
Also Sponsor Block and DeArrow to improve it way beyond what YouTube Premium offers.
For TVs I recommend SmartTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Adblock Plus on Safari on my desktop computer works quite well...
But UGH....YouTube is getting unwatchable on my TV streaming boxes (Apple TV and Amazon FireTV cube).
I don't know a way to block ads on those apps on my television streaming boxes....
Re: (Score:2)
Adblock Plus on Safari on my desktop computer works quite well...
Adblock Plus doesn't work for me in Firefox on the Mac. Youtube detects it, and refuses to send the stream.
I tried to see if AdBlock could outsmart them, but after months of it not working, I gave up, and started shelling out.
Re: (Score:2)
Adblock Plus on Safari on my desktop computer works quite well...
Adblock Plus doesn't work for me in Firefox on the Mac. Youtube detects it, and refuses to send the stream.
I tried to see if AdBlock could outsmart them, but after months of it not working, I gave up, and started shelling out.
Addendum: still doesn't work. If I get logged out of Youtube, I get all the ads, even with Adblock Plus engaged.
Adblock Plus also no longer prevents ads on Facebook. Nor does it block the ads on Slashdot, even when I have "Disable Advertising" checked on.
I think it does still block *some* ads on other sites. although most sites detect it and refuse to deliver content unless I whitelist them.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall paying anything for Adblock Plus....?
Anyway...give it a try with Safari browser....
Oh..just saw....I don't ever log out of YouTube....but again...no ads.
Re: How much?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not trying hard enough. I was never even bothered once by YouTube's attempts to show me ads. UBO and Firefox kept right on blocking the crap.
Re: (Score:2)
This price is exorbitant
Is it?
It's not hugely surprising that the price of "Cable TV over the internet" is converging on the price of "Cable TV over... cable". It's not like the distribution mechanism is the primary driver of cost there.
Re:How much?? (Score:5, Interesting)
$83 per month is about what I pay for a bundle of internet AND cable TV so yes, I would call it exorbitant.
Re: (Score:2)
>"$83 per month is about what I pay for a bundle of internet AND cable TV so yes, I would call it exorbitant."
I would love to have YOUR cable provider. Because on Cox, my 300/30 internet + basic cable TV (with cable card for TiVo, no other Cox equipment) + fees and taxes, and lots of frustrating "loyalty discounts", is $179.63 per month. And that is for ONE PERSON. And each year when the discounts expire, the bill will soar to over $230 or something, and I have to fight AGAIN.
And I record/watch progr
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, I just got my bill, and their raised it to $187 and that is STILL after the special "discounts".
I blame sports (Score:5, Insightful)
You see it all the time, they decide to show various sports games/events, then the price of THOSE gets higher. For people who just want the normal content, you are now paying more because of whatever sports event now charges more, even if you don't watch it. Football, basketball, hockey, baseball, they should all be on their own channels, and those who don't subscribe to those shouldn't get forced to pay more, just because there are other people who do. Oh, Amazon wants to have football(American football, not what we call soccer), that drives up the price of Prime.
Remember, Netflix and most of the others have cut back on their original programming, so that should mean prices go down or stay the same. Them going up is due to the obvious "it costs more" issues.
Re:I blame sports (Score:4, Interesting)
Netflix was running on investor money trying to corner the market. They shouldn't be perceived as reflecting the actual cost of what they produced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sports are pretty much the only thing anybody watches linear TV for these days. There's really no point to subscribing to YouTube TV if you just wanna watch regular broadcast TV syndicated shows. If you really want to watch local broadcast TV, an antenna will do that for free.
Re: (Score:3)
I still watch the local news broadcast OTA. That's about all I use it for though. (I am not a sport person)
Re: (Score:3)
OTA + HDHomeRun is almost the same as cable TV or YouTube TV, and is free other than the up-front hardware cost (which is getting closer and closer to just a single month's cost of these services)
This is how I've been rolling for several years now, and its been great. Plus, I have VPN access back to home, so I can even tune in while on the road and still catch the "local" sports games no matter where I'm at.
Re: (Score:2)
An antenna will not pull in the vast majority of programming *I* want to watch (and none of that is sports). Broadcast TV is about 90% junk. And, unless you have a DVR, broadcast or CATV is unwatchable.
Re: (Score:1)
it costs more
Translation: Profits need to increase by X amount every year the company exists. If not then the leaders won't be able to afford their new mansion for that year.
Nothing actually costs more, everybody is just gouging each other.
Wealth inequality is at levels not seen since the Robber Barons. The system needs a reset just like then.
ESPN needs to be an add on package not forced into (Score:2)
ESPN needs to be an add on package not forced into just about all basic plans.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it should be. And you are right, they are extorting the CATV providers.
And nobody I know (including myself) watches or cares about sports, so there certainly must be a significant user base that is hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
For a while, when I was doing over-the-top cable TV streaming, I went with Sling because they broke out sports into its own package. I also live in an urban area so have access to OTA channels (which Sling relies on for local channels). It was a perfect solution for me at the time. I think monthly cost was like $30 for the package I used.
If you add sports, it jumps the price dramatically.
Re: (Score:2)
You see it all the time, they decide to show various sports games/events, then the price of THOSE gets higher. For people who just want the normal content, you are now paying more because of whatever sports event now charges more, even if you don't watch it.
There is some truth that live sports are driving the high prices and price increases. However, there are cheaper alternatives. Discovery TV is just $5/month for content that doesn't include sports or live news, or just $7.50 without ads. Or if, you want sports and news, SlingTV is just $46/month for a slightly smaller channel lineup.
YouTube TV just happens to be the cut-the-cord option that looks exactly like cable TV. So it is not surprising that it is priced more and more like cable TV, especially after t
Re: (Score:2)
Discovery is trash, I'd rather watch pro sports and that's not something I ever do unless I'm at some one else's house and that's what's happening. Sling might be a good option though.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Discovery is trash"
I couldn't agree more. It *used* to be a decent network a long time ago, before it became nothing but stupid reality TV. More and more networks have become trash now. There are only a tiny number of channels left that offer intelligent programming- like History Channel, Science Channel, and some others.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh gosh, I used to love Discovery when I was a kid, they had some fantastic documentaries. Now they're all poltergeists and aliens nonsense.
Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
I cancelled two price hikes ago. There is zero reason a sane person would pay this much for TV service. At this price, it's now cheaper to go back to the cable company.
Youtube TV (Score:2)
Was a great service. I bought it imediately when it came out at.. what, 30$ a month i think? Then they raised the price to 80$/m and i immediately dropped it, and won't ever pick it up again.
Demand a la carte pricing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody wants dogshit like Fox News
As much as it pains me to say it, Fox News is the most popular news network in the USA. So, while in our current polarized political climate there's certainly those of us who would love to unbundle that cesspool of right-wing talking points, 62% [businesswire.com] of viewers were watching it for their election coverage.
That's some seriously popular "dogshit".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the context of paying for a cable-like streaming service though, Fox News is like McDonald's. Sure, it's terrible food, but they have no shortage of customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, let's say they make this alternate YouTube TV offering without Fox, and we may as well drop the sports too since that's a significant chunk of change. What remains really isn't competitive with the other streaming services. See, Google's niche here is the folks who want to watch sports, and potentially also the right-wing rage bait. Google already has an option for those of us who aren't into that, as you said: not subscribing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't say it was news.
They didn't say they watched it. In fact, the phrase "As much as it pains me to say it" should lead one to infer that they absolutely do not watch it.
They merely stated the fact that they are the #1 rated channel by viewership in the category of "cable news", which is true, and even cited a source to warrant the claim.
So I guess really the only moron here is you, because you let your emotion confuse what was actually said, with your emotional reaction to the words "Fox News."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You originally made the claim that "nobody" wants Fox News as part of their cable package, and it's not a piss poor argument to factually point out that network is actually quite popular with the majority of cable viewers. Google clearly doesn't intend this to be a service for everyone, and that's why a lot of folks in this discussion have indicated that we don't subscribe to it.
Really, the primary benefit to YouTube TV seems to be that it's easily watchable from multiple devices, where similar capabilitie
Re: Demand a la carte pricing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Still, people should hold out until packages that disincentivize propaganda are available."
Good luck with that regarding network news, because to achieve that, you would have to drop pretty much EVERY news channel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, like others have said....Fox News is the #1 cable news channel out there.
It actually is a good thing to watch ALL of the major news channels out there...so that you know what both sides are saying and putting out there.
Leaving one that represents about half the US keeps you at risk of living in a bubble and not knowing what the spectrum of the nation is....
I watch ever
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Fox News is an editorial service that on rare occasions is interrupted by actual news."
And now contrast that with MSNBC and CNN and ABC (and several others). Oh my, it is the same thing with just an opposite bias that is just as fierce...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"No, those other guys have bias, but they don't take it with the huge fervour of Fox. Left of center is not like Far Far Right Hard To See of Center."
You have apparently never watched MSNBC :)
Re: (Score:3)
Sling TV is the closest you can get to this AFAIK. They, at least, have the sport package in it's own subscription. If you don't want sports channels and can get your local channels OTA, then Sling is a good option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Demand a la carte pricing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Demand a la carte pricing (Score:2)
Re: Demand a la carte pricing (Score:2)
I don't think so.... (Score:2)
I get my local TV OTA, and use my own (Plex) DVR. There's really nothing on Youtube TV that I'd want to pay that much for, and I don't have the extra cash right now to spare on it.
Bad move by Google. Driving customers away.
Piracy FTW (Score:1)
Meanwhile, the pirated streams and rips just keep getting better and better, including live sports and first-run movies and shows. The golden goose is halfway cooked already, and these dummies are just driving more people to the illicit options faster. E.g., many would-be consumers have already found it's better to pirate a movie just to not be forced to sit through 20 minutes of BS ads first.
Apparently they stopped teaching about diminishing returns in MBA school a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Sailing the high seas for movies and TV shows (via torrents) is straightforward enough, but live sports just seems like a minefield of scams and malware. TBH, I tried setting my father up with a "loaded" Fire Stick many years ago. It worked really great for about a month or so, then it started asking him to input his phone number and doing other sketchy things.
I don't mind doing the whole subscribing to a seedbox thing to avoid nastygrams, and maintaining a local NAS to store all my content, but I can tot
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, now support grandpa with his pirate TV feed when he wants to watch the baseball game....
You need DOGE (Score:2)
Beats AT&T (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People will never learn..... (Score:1)
Re: People will never learn..... (Score:1)
Big price hike (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube TV is still much cheaper than Comcast is in my area. Their comparable "125" channel package costs about $125 a month once you include the $30 "Broadcast TV Fee", the $25 "Regional Sports Fee", taxes, and $10 a month for the DVR box rental.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been incorporating AI into things (Score:1)
and it's not going well. For example the AI would create a description of the video, that gets many things wrong or misstates things, like "This guy" when it's a girl, or "The maker" when they are doing a disassembly of something.
Also it's adding in default comment replies, often complaining about the algorithm.
If their expenses have been going up it's only because of adding things that nobody wants.
WTF (Score:2)
SOMEONE has to pay for failed AI investments (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who better to pay for those investments, than people who will pay $80 a month to watch TV! Seems perfectly fitting to me.
Whhhhaaaaaat? (Score:2)
YouTube TV's monthly price has increased 137% since its debut:
â 2017 $34.99
â 2019 $49.99
â 2022 $64.99
â 2023 $72.99
â 2025 $82.99
Or some $1,000/year (precisely $995.28/yr).
Their quality of service hasnâ(TM)t changed since 2017, in fact itâ(TM)s gotten worse. There is no way the cost of content has increased that much. So the only thing left is paying for the out of control waste and high salaries! I donâ(TM)t support that so am waiving goodbye to @
Re: (Score:2)
I kind expect a quad-output of sports channels set-top at that amount.
It's called multiview. During peak college football season you could see 4 games at once. They continue to improve for all the major sports to see multiple games. The service has changed and improved. It's still steep increase but there have been improvements along the way.