YouTube TV is becoming the cable package we all hated…
You must log in or register to comment.
Yeah I ditched it a little over a year ago. I’m missing out on NBA games, but I can live with that.
I literally only stay because of sports that aren’t easily available outside of pay TV/cable. I don’t mind waiting for basically any other content. Time to start looking at alternatives, though!
I did that with Sling specifically so I could watch Doctor Who. BBC America would put enough commercials in to make a 45 minute episode last 1.5 hours and would break in mid action. I was so offended that I canceled it completely and decided I was ok watching episodes a week late on Amazon. I’ve never looked back.
Sports are kind of a joke. They are always controlled by one entity who wants to milk you.
The challenge is, for me anyways, if I know who wins I generally don’t care to watch the match anymore. This means I either need to watch the event live or try really hard to avoid spoilers, generally still trying to watch same-day.
I think a lot of sports fans are like that to some extent and it’s why sports are seen as the last hope for linear TV networks in the face of over-the-top streaming.
My wife?
I think the biggest issue with YouTube and smaller sites is that they have way to much cost overhead.
We need a better solution for storing and serving content.
Storage is the cheapest thing of all the things.
Not when you need high volume and high performance
Storage is cheap even when you need high volume. It’s literally the cheapest component in the architecture. High performance, in this context, is about replication and caching. Replication is expensive because of network utilization, caching is expensive because of the high demand. Neither are really a function of how much content is stored but about how much content is demanded. If I were to guess, likely less than 10% of all of YouTube’s content makes up 95% of its costs.
