Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Television Youtube

Peacock to Be Included With YouTube Premium In Major Streaming Tie-Up (hollywoodreporter.com) 47

Posted by BeauHD from the sweetening-the-deal dept.
YouTube Premium will include Peacock Premium at no extra charge beginning in early 2027. "The deal brings a slew of premium content to the [$15.99 per month] YouTube Premium subscription, including live sports like the NFL, NBA and MLB and entertainment like Law & Order, Saturday Night Live and Love Island," reports The Hollywood Reporter. "It also has the potential to dramatically scale Peacock, which remains smaller than many of its streaming competitors." From the report: Peacock has 48 million subscribers, while YouTube Premium and YouTube Music have a combined 125 million subscribers, though they don't break out how many each of those offerings have. The agreement, which expands on the deal the company inked with YouTube parent company Google last year, will also extend the entertainment company's programming deal with YouTube TV, while bringing some of YouTube's offerings to Comcast Xfinity and Xumo platforms.

There's also a notable sports and production element to the deal, with NBC Sports agreeing to stream some live sporting events on its YouTube channels, and with NBC agreeing to serve as the production partner for select live events on YouTube. YouTube will also bundle some of the company's International streaming offerings like Universal+ and Hayu in select markets.

Peacock to Be Included With YouTube Premium In Major Streaming Tie-Up More | Reply

Peacock to Be Included With YouTube Premium In Major Streaming Tie-Up

Comments Filter:

  • Consolidated Silo (Score:3)

    by crunchy_one ( 1047426 ) on Monday July 27, 2026 @07:09PM (#66259812)
    Just what the public is yammering for, consolidation of one streaming silo into another, all for a price that's guaranteed to increase year after year while the programming you came for disappears show by show. Ads on their way, too, unless you upgrade to the super premium deluxe package.

    • Deja Moo - Part Two. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Monday July 27, 2026 @07:36PM (#66259832)

      Just what the public is yammering for, consolidation of one streaming silo into another, all for a price that's guaranteed to increase year after year while the programming you came for disappears show by show. Ads on their way, too, unless you upgrade to the super premium deluxe package.

      Those of us who were young enough to have to be the one to get up to turn the channel knob and move the rabbit ears realize this cord re-attaching deja moo as same shit, different century.

      • I remember the opposite: we had like 5 channels (maybe two more if you count PBS). Then cable came and we got dozens more. Then cable got popular, and we got dozens more.

        Now it's true there was consolidation (my channel 20 and 44 merged into the CW) ... but mostly it was about going from watching sports on one of three networks, to ESPN, to ESPN Ocho.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      I may be vile and pernicious but you can't look away
      I make you think I'm delicious with the stuff that I say
      I'm the best you can get, have you guessed me, yet?
      I'm the slime oozin' out from your TV set

    • To be honest, every discussion of streaming these days is "Why do I have to subscribe to 50 different services? Why can't there just be one" (the answer is because if there was just one, it'd cost $200 a month, and there'd be no ad free option.)

      So yes, this is what the public is clammering for. The public doesn't actually know what it wants or the consequences of what it wants.

      I rather like the current streaming environment. Way cheaper than cable, because no need to subscribe to every TV channel simultaneo

  • Peacock has such high subscriber numbers because it was included free with any Comcast subscription, but I for one would never consider buying it because its best content consists of kids movies and Love Island.

    • Peacock "premium" still has ads. That's ahy I'm not watching it, even though i have Comcast. New episodes of L&O that are broadcast over the air aren't available on it until the next day, also. I'll stick with my OTA, Plex DVR, with commercial detection/ skip.

    • It's the only way to watch NBC right now short of rabbit ears and some kind of ATSC DVR thing, or worse, a cable subscription, so there's that. If you want to watch SNL (for example) it's the only (streaming) option.

      But that kind of content really ought to be free when ad supported.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

      Has Telemundo content, so you got every World Cup match if you were willing to watch in Spanish rather than having to spend $20/month for Fox to watch them otherwise. You also get a decent amount of global soccer games, most notably EPL. Peacock can almost always be found with a bargain basement price so it's actually a good deal if you like soccer. The Law & Order reruns are just gravy.

  • Many people around here predicted as streaming balkanized, that we would see a consolidation at some point as the greedy fuckwits that thought they could somehow run their own service with only their content and charge as much as Netflix does for a much bigger library.

    This could be the beginning of that. I think these companies are starting to figure out that running streaming video is expensive, and it only pays off if you can get to 9 digits of subscribers.

    Looking forward to Peacock, Paramount+, HBO Now,

    • The consolidation is actually being fought against. Several deals for consolidation have been denied already and Paramount is struggling to merge with Warner even though combined they would still be smaller than Netflix even if you added their numbers together, but that's not how subscriptions work. You don't have two separate sets of exclusive subscribers - its the same people just subscribed to multiple services.

      • And most people aren't going to send $16 to $20 a month to 5 different streamers. Most people are smarter than that.

        They'll give you a month, watch everything they give a fuck about, and then cancel and move their money to a different service. And all these services lose money and never gain subscribers - it's an oversaturated market where there is far more supply than demand.

        These guys are playing like it's still the days of linear TV, and if you don't see it when it's published you're shit out of luck.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dfghjk ( 711126 )

          You paint such a realistic picture of how TV watching works.

          But hey, capitalism in action. What we really need is more deregulation of industry, it's working so well.

        • > And most people aren't going to send $16 to $20 a month to 5 different streamers. Most people are smarter than that.

          Most people were paying around $100 a month for cable. $16-$20 for 5 services is fairly cheap.

          I also suspect you think that the alternative to this is one service with all of the content ever made that charges $10 a month. It's actually one service that charges $200 a month and periodically withdraws from distribution half of it like Disney did in the 1990s with VHS tapes.

          • Things have changed dramatically since the heyday when everyone had a cable subscription. I used to work for SlingTV (and then Dish), and I had a front row seat as the whole industry imploded. Every year the television networks and movie studios would sit down and renegotiate their contracts. Despite the fact that viewership was always down at least 10% year over year they always wanted price increases. If the cable providers pushed back (as Dish often did) they would lose access to channels, invariably

        • That reminds me, I have a free trial of Apple Music I need to cancel soon.

          Honestly, I think the "churn between streaming services" approach only works if you're single. The second you've got anyone else living in your household, now it's a discussion over whether or not everyone else is done watching whatever else they were interested in. My solution to this is whatever exclusive content we're not subscribed to gets acquired through the high seas, dumped on the NAS, and can be watched through Kodi.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by edwdig ( 47888 )

          And most people aren't going to send $16 to $20 a month to 5 different streamers. Most people are smarter than that.

          Peacock offers deals for $20/year pretty often. Paramount offers $30/year - or no ads for a little more.

          HBO usually offers a year for $3/month around black friday.

          I'm good with waiting for the deals. I've usually got all the major services and I'm still paying way less than I was for cable.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

          Meh. The Disney/Hulu/ESPN bundle is worth it year round. Disney content for my kids, Hulu content for my wife, sports for me. Can't tell you a day in the last five years it hasn't been running on one or more devices in my house.

    • ... charge as much as Netflix does for a much bigger library.

      Netflix used to have a much bigger library. Now, it's basically the same deal as the rest of 'em - a few exclusives* and a bunch of crap no one's ever heard of.

      * and they're all crime dramas, or shows written by writers who only know how to write crime dramas. I'm serious.

  • So they aren't generating the metrics they need... (Score:4, Informative)

    by PubJeezy ( 10299395 ) on Monday July 27, 2026 @07:57PM (#66259842)
    So they aren't generating the metrics they need and are just going to pay YouTube to manufacture them. This deal means that the Peacocks subscriber #'s are going to shoot up by millions with the stroke of a pen and requiring absolutely no consumer demand. This feels like an admission by Comcast that Peacock is a failure.

  • the old cable is coming back with big bundles and you think that the price will not go up to cover this?

    • A lot of people won't know that as they (like my family) simply cut the cord years ago and have zero intention of returning.

      Color me as one of those folks that will sign up if I really want to watch a show, binge watch all of the content over the course of a few weeks, then cancel. So streaming service XYZ will get precisely one month of subscription fees from me. The only exception is Amazon as I get enough value from Prime (not paying shipping fees) that I don't mind consuming the other stuff that they

    • It's already come back. Google already pieces of youtube together that they were offering separately before. I don't want them, I only and specifically want just to pay to remove ads, on principle and for convenience. But I won't pay for shit I don't want and oh yeah, also won't pay to be fucked with like how Google keeps turning autoplay back on after I've turned it off. Make the service work and let me pay for only the parts I want, and I'll pay.

  • Love Island... (Score:3)

    by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Monday July 27, 2026 @08:26PM (#66259880)

    I've always wondered who the f... actually watches that total trash.

  • Take football for example. 22 players, 3 referees and 1 ball interacting for 90min+ in a totally unpredictable pattern, in a swirling vortex of entropy, and the result is always one of 3 options: team A wins, team B wins, or it's a draw. It's simply not worth 90+ minutes of my life if I can guess the result with 33.3% success rate.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by darkain ( 749283 )

      If you think that simply because there are 3 possible outcomes, that there is perfectly even distribution of said outcomes, I think you should go back and attend an entry into statistics course again.

  • Nope (Score:3)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Monday July 27, 2026 @10:08PM (#66259974)

    US centric, so this wont be coming to the rest of the worlds Youtube subscribers

  • And Nothing of Value was Included...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hwstar ( 35834 )

      There was no value to begin with for Youtube Premium.

      The value of Youtube Premium will always be zero as long as uBlock origin, and Sponsorblock continue to be effective.

      The only way for Alphabet to make Youtube worth something would be to lock everything behind a paywall, mandate the use of a specialized viewer app which does not allow for uBlock origin or Sponsorblock to be installed, shove and shove ads down the subscriber's throats.

      The problem is, if they tried this, the risk of a new streaming platform

      • I got Google Play Music for my family back when that was a thing. It was the same price as Spotify, had the same catalog, and included any music on Youtube as well. The fact that it included ad free Youtube was just a bonus. These days that has morphed into Youtube Premium, and I still pay for it. I am mostly there for the music, but the ad free Youtube is not terrible.

        The interesting thing is that it is pretty clear that most people just watch the ads. Youtube had $60 billion in yearly revenue last

Slashdot Top Deals

The intelligence of any discussion diminishes with the square of the number of participants. -- Adam Walinsky

Close