Peacock to Be Included With YouTube Premium In Major Streaming Tie-Up (hollywoodreporter.com)
- Reference: 0184725814
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/07/27/1942254/peacock-to-be-included-with-youtube-premium-in-major-streaming-tie-up
- Source link: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/peacock-youtube-premium-streaming-deal-1236657073/
> 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.
[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/peacock-youtube-premium-streaming-deal-1236657073/
Peacock is just okay (Score:1)
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.
Re: Peacock is just okay (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> Peacock "premium" still has ads.
Yep, you have to move up to Peacock Premium Plus to go ad-free. Last I knew you could not take your free (to you) Comcast Peacock subscription and just pay the Plus kicker to go ad-free.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Predictable. (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
> ... 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:3)
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 (Score:3)
the old cable is coming back with big bundles and you think that the price will not go up to cover this?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Love Island... (Score:2)
I've always wondered who the f... actually watches that total trash.
Re: Love Island... (Score:3)
My wife.
Re: Love Island... (Score:3)
I'm sorry for your loss.
Sports are flipping boring. (Score:1)
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.
Nope (Score:2)
US centric, so this wont be coming to the rest of the worlds Youtube subscribers
And Nothing of Value was Included... (Score:2)
And Nothing of Value was Included...
Consolidated Silo (Score:3)
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)
> 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.
Re: Deja Moo - Part Two. (Score:2)
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: Deja Moo - Part Two. (Score:2)
I had access to 6 channels growing up in France. 3 of them only showed snow, despite a rooftop antenna, due to living in a valley.
Re: (Score:1)
> 3 of them only showed snow
Cool. I like to watch snow on the relaxation channels.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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