If they could get people to give up $20 in exchange for ESPN and ABC Sports that is the best deal they could possibly make. Most of YouTubeTV's customers pay for the sports package. They could get the other content somewhere else for less. YouTubeTV is hoping that they can stave off the mass exodus as people realize that they won't be able to watch the games that they signed up for, and that their cable TV replacement is basically worthless.

You have this almost completely backwards. Sports fans currently subsidize scripted television to an almost outrageous extent. I used to work for Sling. Disney doesn't have to push ESPN and ABC Sports on the providers. It has to convince them to carry (and pay for) the rest of the channels. If sports fans could get access to the games that they wanted without having to pay for scripted television scripted television as we know it would disappear overnight. What we would be left with is the sort of thing that is currently available on Youtube.

As an example, Apple has spent over $20 billion on content over the last 6 years. Amazon Prime, on the other hand, spends just over $1 billion a year for Thursday Night Football. That's basically the worst possible NFL football game, and it still regularly has about half as many concurrent viewers as Apple TV has total subscribers. That's basically the case across the board. Sports is why YouTubeTV currently costs about 4 times as much per month as the most expensive Netflix package or 5 times what Disney+ costs. Sports fans are willing to pay for their television in a way that other viewers simply aren't willing to do. Disney and the other networks are doing their best to keep sports tied to the rest of their empires. It will be interesting to see how things end up.

For most people paying for live television ESPN (and ABC Sports) is the part that they actually want. That's why these negotiations always happen during Football season. Disney is trying to get YouTubeTV to pay for a bunch of channels whose viewership drops every year and they use the access to the live sporting events that people care about as a club.

The DVR revolution was a huge deal, and it also created a split between scripted and unscripted television. Once DVRs came out they quickly became a very popular way to watch scripted television. Since you were already time shifting your programs, it made sense to also skip over the ads. Live sports (and news), on the other hand tend to be watched live. People might wander off to get a snack when the commercials come on, but they rarely miss all of the commercials. Some sports fans will record a game and watch it later, but in those cases where they can't watch the game they mostly just watch the highlights. This is so popular that highlight news shows (with advertisements that generally don't get skipped, or are embedded in the content) are basically the most popular type of news.

Heck, for many sports fans the ads are basically part of the experience. They tune in early for pre-show events where there is nothing but advertisements. The talking heads either promote later shows, or they do product placement spots literally for hours.

Viewers of scripted shows, on the other hand, often go to great lengths to skip the ads. They set up VCRs and later Tivos and other DVRs. They bought (or rented and ripped) DVDs so they could own a pristine copy. Heck, as you know that's literally how Netflix started their business.

That's why Hollywood complained (at every step) about these technologies, while the sports people largely didn't care. They worked for the same companies, but their realities were very different. Moving into the modern era it is becoming more and more clear that sports fans have been subsidizing other television fans for decades. As the needs and wants of these two groups grow further and further apart expect interesting things to happen.

Right now Disney capitalizes with every negotiation on the fact that many YouTubeTV subscribers are actually sports television subscribers looking for a reliable way to ESPN and ABC Sports. If they can't watch ESPN on Saturday and miss their alma mater play the big game they aren't going to be mollified with a $20 on their bill. They are going to cancel. So the average sports consumer pays for hundreds of channels that they never use, and their money pays for 90% of the television that gets produced, despite the fact that they don't watch it. As this disconnect becomes more and more apparent expect Hollywood to have an even harder time funding the creation of content.

I definitely tend to speak in hyperbole. I actually appreciate that reminder. That sort of thing really doesn't help make any of my points.

The reality is that there are lots of people that have televisions on all day long, and there are plenty of businesses (for example restaurants) where they might have multiple televisions on all day long. Television is still a very powerful way to reach a fairly wide audience, even if live television has fallen a long. Heck, much of the content that gets the most views on platforms like YouTube also tend to be established television shows. So even if people aren't watching the content live it is still getting watched in a timely manner. And to advertisers (and viewers) that definitely matters.

My point is that most people, especially most people on /., have absolutely no idea how much sports carries our current television programming. Netflix was originally able to buy rights to so much VOD (video on demand) content in the early days because no one thought that it had any value. Streaming pre-recorded shows is technically easy, and even in the era of cable there were only so many channels that were feasible. Netflix showed that you could turn this into a business, if you had a big enough portfolio. Even still a premium Netflix package costs $25, and you probably get it subsidized with your phone carrier. A cable subscription, with live television, and Disney pushing up the fees is at least double that. If you want ESPN it's probably closer to triple that.

Not only are people willing to pay money for sports, but sporting events have a proven track record of putting people in seats, and even keeping them there during commercials. That's why Superbowl ads are so ridiculously expensive. Advertisers realized that people were actually watching the spots during the games.

To give you an example of how skewed the numbers are individual NFL football games regularly have more viewers than Apple TV has subscribers, and they air three to four competing NFL games basically every Sunday. We think of television in terms of Hollywood and the shows that they produce, but the reality is that most of the television that we watch is just filler for the next sporting event. Since the commercialiation of television these two types of shows have worked together to build the market that collectively we call "television," and serials got most of the credit for the growth. Hollywood has always been very good at self-promotion. However, it has always been live sports that has had the largest audiences. People come together to watch Superbowls, Olympics, etc. As our modern way of watching increasingly divides live television from scripted television we are likely going to see far less money going towards scripted television. My Apple TV is germane. Apple has spent billions of dollars trying to create a scripted television service that people will pay money for, with very limited success. Amazon Prime did far better by paying $1 Billion a year for Thursday Night Football.

If you really like scripted television, you might want to consider paying more for subscriptions to some of Hollywood's services. Personally, I like watching people restore old sailboats. That's pretty niche, but in a world where YouTube has made publishing content so inexpensive there are content providers that apparently can make a living that way. So I tend to agree with your opinion that it is fun to watch evil tear away at evil.

Disney does this every time it negotiates its contract, and it is always during Football season. I used to work for Sling they did this to us twice while I worked there.

This is how live television actually works these days. Disney has a pile of channels that they can't hardly give away. Remember, we aren't talking about shows (although most shows don't matter either). We are talking about channels. When was the last time you channel surfed trying to find something on the air? My guess is that it was decades ago. Well, all those channels still exist, and the live television providers still pretend that someone cares whether re-runs of Wizard of Waverly Place is playing on whatever channel reruns of that show play on these days.

It's 2025. Sane people watch pre-recorded stuff when they have time. The industry calls that Video on Demand. They stream these shows from someone that let's them watch when they want to watch, and that keeps track of where they are when the stop. They don't tune in every day at 3:30 PM and watch reruns of their favorite show. If you are old enough, like me, you probably remember sitting down with all of your friends every week to watch the newest episode of Star Trek the Next Generation, or whatever. Remember how terrible that was. You had to make an appointment to watch television or you missed an episode and you couldn't watch it until it was in re-runs.

Well, those days are so dead no one even mourns them any more.

Disney knows this, and YouTubeTV knows this as well. Everyone involved in live television knows this. The only reason that people even have live television subscriptions is so that they can watch sports while the game is happening live. And in the United States that means that mostly boils down to watching football.

So every few years each of the live television companies (all of the cable companies, essentially) have to renegotiate with Disney. Every year the story is precisely the same. Viewership on everyone's live channels is down at least 25%. The market is shedding customers like crazy. Disney wants to raise prices at least 30%, and they also want the companies to carry (and pay for) a wide array of channels that absolutely no one watches. Meanwhile, the broadcasters just wants access to ESPN and ABC Sports. The reason that people pay money for YouTubeTV is that want to be able to watch the live sports content, and to a lesser extent the live news. Even that basically amounts to the sports news. They want to watch the College football games on Saturday, and the NFL games on Sunday. They want to be able to have a baseball game playing in the background, or catch their NBA team play. They want to hear the talking heads talk about sports, and they want to see the highlights. To accomplish this they are willing to pay approximately 4 times the cost of the fanciest Netflix subscription, maybe more if they have to rush out and sign up for another service because YouTubeTV no longer has access to ESPN and ABC Sports.

Before you think that YouTubeTV is probably gouging their customers you probably should know that YouTubeTV almost certainly pays basically every penny that their customers pay them directly to the content providers like Disney. All of the providers do this, but Disney is by far the worst. In Disney's defense they have the content that people actually want to see. Sling used the entirety of the proceeds from its subscribers to pay the various provider fees, and I actually suspect that YouTubeTV was subsidizing its customers. With the packages that they carry I suspect that they sold packages at a loss. So when Disney comes back and asks for more, with the overall pie shrinking every year. It is no wonder that YouTubeTV opted to turn out the lights.

One thing is certain, this definitely isn't about Jimmy Kimmel. That sort of content has already been moved irrevocably to normal YouTube. Absolutely no one is watching it on live television. Jimmy's return had just over 6 million viewers and was basically a miracle. Now it is back to around 1 million viewers and it probably gets more actual views from the spots on YouTube than on all of the cable providers combined. To give you a frame of reference, the worst NFL games are the Thursday Night Football games and even poor outings have 14 million viewers.

I agree with basically everything you said, other, obviously, than the part where you said my reasoning was laughable. I honestly would have thought you were responding to someone else, but you quoted my entire original post. What I said was entirely factual. If I would have saved $50/week for the last 30 years at 8% (the SP500 would have done better than that) I would now be sitting on a pile of cash that is larger than the median net worth of people 45-50 years old in the United States. That's just from that one theoretical investment. As someone that has been saving this sort of modest amounts for more than 30 years I can personally attest that, at least during my lifetime, this sort of small incremental investment makes a huge difference over time. So, while past performance may not indicate future returns, telling me that my advice is laughable is pretty disingenuous. I am literally just laying out a basic math equation. It is possible that future people will not find investments that deliver these sorts of returns, but just about any reasonable stock market investment in your lifetime (assuming you are 30 years old) would have delivered at least those sorts of returns.

I didn't say anything about buying a house, although I did imply that spending 10% of your rent (that apparently the original poster had trouble paying) on takeout was probably a poor choice.

Loyalty programs and credit card use are fully evil. I couldn't agree with you more on either of those points. I also agree that home ownership is far more expensive now than it was when I purchased my first home. My oldest child just bought a house, and my next oldest is piling up money for a down payment, and so I am aware of what things look like. That being the case I still tell them that they should be investing for the future while they are young. It doesn't take much if you start while you are young enough.

You would be surprised how little money it takes to make a big pile if you have time on your side.

There are a million websites that will do these calculations for you. Here's one that will let you start with $0 and save $50 a week for 30 years at 8%. It's not even the one that I used for my original quote. If you really thought that my numbers were faked then you should spend some time playing with one of these websites to get an idea as to what is possible. The really crazy thing is if you take that same $325K and leave it invested at 8% for another 10 years (without adding any more money) it more than doubles.

I drive a 1996 Honda Civic that my father gave to me brand new in 1995. It doesn't have air conditioning, and I am tall enough that I have never really fit inside. In recent years it has become sort of cool to people that like Civics, but that's definitely a new thing. The car is a piece of crap at this point, and it was never more than the most basic form of transportation, but it is still my daily driver. Sometimes I think of the money that I have saved not having a car payment for the last 30 years and it boggles my mind.

Saving $50 a week for 30 years would put you over the median net worth of Americans aged 45-54 (according to this article by Fidelity.

If you can afford to . I am old enough that I am probably not going to get another 30 years of growth out of my saved capital. You've earned yours, there is no reason to feel bad for being able to afford delivered meals. If you happen to like the restaurant experience you might want to consider not using Doordash, as its business model is burning traditional restaurants to the ground. I expect, over time, we will see more and more food preparation businesses that don't really have a place to go and eat. They will just have a kitchen and a place for delivery people to pick up food. Personally, I sort of like getting a restaurant quality meal and being able to eat it in the comfort of my own home. I tend to pick up my meals, but I live close enough to the city center that I can comfortably walk there, I feel bad when I tip poorly, and I am cheap enough that I try and avoid tipping situations altogether.

I still drive though. No sense letting the food get cold.

Carry out means, that I get the food I want, in a time frame that is convenient, and I don't have to worry about noisy restaurants or inattentive wait staff. If you want to pay extra to have someone deliver the food, that's your prerogative. No one is forcing anyone to drive Doordash or run a restaurant. They want you to pay them for these services. Why not take advantage?

People laugh at this sort of thing, but $50 a week for 30 years is $78,000. If you got an 8% return on that money (and over the last 30 years you would have had to work pretty hard not to get that) you would end up with $325,593, with $247,593 of investment returns. Not to mention the fact that if you are having trouble making rent you probably should steer away from spending 10% of your rent bill having food delivered to your house.

Precisely. If you make mistakes like this expensive enough for the police station then the problem solves itself. The real problem is that someone promised the police and the school a magic new technology that would make their schoolyard safer. So far the system probably has zero wins, and one spectacular failure. If the political and economic fallout for the failure is high enough then the school turns off the crappy system, and it encourages other schools to do the same. Potential new buyers for the system disappear and the vendor of the system goes out of business.

And we all win.

Eventually the school might even end up with an effective system that does roughly the same thing, but it will likely be structured in a way that makes it less likely that Doritos wielding young adults get assaulted by the police. It's hard to argue against safer schools. In any system like this false positives are going to be a potential problem. If you make false positives expensive enough, however, then you likely get the outcome that you want.

My oldest was born in 1999 and the hospital sent us home with a list of foods that we shouldn't introduce to our children until they were three years old. I remember this because both peanut butter and honey were on the list, and one of my favorite foods is peanut butter and honey sandwiches. I have six kids, and I got in trouble quite a bit over the years because I gave my infants bits of my sandwiches.

What can I say, they liked them...

It's a bit funny to me that I was actually right about that particular call. Most of the times that my wife and I disagreed about something I was definitely the one that was wrong.

Most new parents don't know anything about raising children, and even the worst parents are pretty motivated to do a good job. New mothers, in particular, are desperate for solid advice on what to do with their new child. My wife isn't keen on reading the instructions for any purchase that she makes ever. No matter what it is that she buys I am the one that has to read the instructions and teach her how the thing works. That was true with our children as well. However, she made me read every pamphlet that the hospital sent home with us when our babies were born dozens of times over. If she thought I was interpreting them incorrectly she would wait a bit, cross examine me again, and force me to show references. If one of those pamphlets would have said that the best way to insure that the child grew up healthy and strong would be to murder the father and sprinkle his blood over the baby by the light of a full moon then I probably wouldn't have survived the first full moon after my daughter was born.

Someone in the medical community decided that the best way to protect children was to keep them away from certain allergens, and they put that opinion into the pamphlets that get given out to new parents. I am sure that the people that came up with that strategy meant well, but in they theory was proven incorrect.

...and thanks for all the fish.

Most of the restaurants I go to don't even serve alcohol. Of course, I live in Utah, which is at the very bottom of the alcohol consumption per capita chart. Here restaurants all have normal fountain drinks, water, and then a wide array of specialty drinks, many of which are just normal sodas with some stuff added in.

Being a restaurant owner is hard. The margins on most food is slim. The margins on drinks (alcoholic or not), on the other hand, are ridiculous. There's a reason why sit down restaurants start you with something to drink, and why fast food places bundle sodas. To a very real extent these businesses make their money upselling you from drinking plain water.

Precisely. This is going to be used against the owners of the hardware, not for them. I suspect that these containers are very secure. It's just too bad that my phone is the one device that I own where I do not have root access. This security is not going to be used to protect my data from Google, but to protect Google's data from me.

Hooray!