Avatar
posted 48 years ago by
signweb
Happy Member

Youtube just launched a subscription TV service for $35/mo, no contract required. Free Chromecast after 1st payment.

Views
14 Comments
Add Comment
How do I fake where I live to get his?

signweb said:   Youtube just launched a subscription TV service for $35/mo, no contract required. Free Chromecast after 1st payment.
  This has all 4 major network which are not in included on DirectTV Now or Dish's Replay.
That is pretty cool, if it was in my city, I would sign up.

Just signed up... looks great on my iPad.

Curious why all the red. Seems like this has potential compared to Sling, DTV Now, etc. and other similar streaming services. I wonder if/what other promos might be offered down the line. For now, the free Chromecast isn't bad. Might as well try this out if one were getting a Chromecast anyway as it's the same price anyway. Link also says there is a free one-month trial, but you don't get the Chromecast without paying a month first.

Channel selection isn't bad, some good sports channels, but lacking AMC, History, Discovery is a negative for me.

Would be nice if this could be used with Roku and Fire, but it looks like a Chromecast is the only one for now. (And I do understand why, competing players.)

yoregano said:   Curious why all the red. Seems like this has potential compared to Sling, DTV Now, etc. and other similar streaming services. I wonder if/what other promos might be offered down the line. For now, the free Chromecast isn't bad. Might as well try this out if one were getting a Chromecast anyway as it's the same price anyway. Link also says there is a free one-month trial, but you don't get the Chromecast without paying a month first.

Channel selection isn't bad, some good sports channels, but lacking AMC, History, Discovery is a negative for me.

Would be nice if this could be used with Roku and Fire, but it looks like a Chromecast is the only one for now. (And I do understand why, competing players.)

  because not everyone live in  (Chicago, LA, NYC, Philly & SF Bay Area) go to asia, even some poor countries there can watch youtube on their tv without internet services. thats how youtube tv services supposed to be.

microkelvin said:   
yoregano said:   Curious why all the red. Seems like this has potential compared to Sling, DTV Now, etc. and other similar streaming services. I wonder if/what other promos might be offered down the line. For now, the free Chromecast isn't bad. Might as well try this out if one were getting a Chromecast anyway as it's the same price anyway. Link also says there is a free one-month trial, but you don't get the Chromecast without paying a month first.

Channel selection isn't bad, some good sports channels, but lacking AMC, History, Discovery is a negative for me.

Would be nice if this could be used with Roku and Fire, but it looks like a Chromecast is the only one for now. (And I do understand why, competing players.)

  because not everyone live in  (Chicago, LA, NYC, Philly & SF Bay Area) go to asia, even some poor countries there can watch youtube on their tv without internet services. thats how youtube tv services supposed to be.

If you are saying people are voting red because of the limited areas where this is currently available, that is a stupid way of voting (though you may be correct in that is why there are red votes). It's at least clearly stated in the the subject line. As to other parts of the world having better/different access to Youtube, I don't know what to say to that.

Would this be a good alternative for watching TV at home ? You would need a smart phone, tablet or laptop to control functions like changing channels and recording in addition to your AV Remote right ? Is a channel guide included ?

Needs more channels. Once they get Discovery, TLC, etc I'm in. Currently have DirecTVNow, no DVR, but much more channels.

I assume most people that have good inet to stream this service, would also get free networks out of the air
I don't see the benefit to paying $35 for this channel list

LORENW said:   I assume most people that have good inet to stream this service, would also get free networks out of the air
I don't see the benefit to paying $35 for this channel list

  They are completely different transmission methods so I don't understand why you would make such assumption.  With all the hills here in Seattle, getting free programming from OTA is just not an option.

Thanks OP. For $35 a month with what this has to offer, it is a good deal. But i guess that the only network that I would like to see that is currently not there is the NFL Network. Otherwise, the wife and myself could certainly enjoy the other networks offered. Especially since this offers the local channels. Oh, and PBS is missing also. I guess that an antenna would be needed for that. So not an insurmountable obstacle. 

One thing I don't see mentioned is they are giving the first month FREE, a $35 value.

EDIT: Take that back. I see the free trial was mentioned by yoregano.

I don't see CNN etc. why would this worth $35, you can this channel line of cable for a similar price.

msoyer said:   I don't see CNN etc. why would this worth $35, you can this channel line of cable for a similar price.
It has the Fox News Channel. I can live without the Clinton News Network.  



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017