Trying YouTube TV again

A month ago, I decided to try YouTube TV again. So I subscribed.

How did that go? Not too good.

Almost every night after work, I came in, sat down, fired up the Roku device, and went right past the YouTube TV icon on the Roku menu. Same for when I fired up the Fire TV Stick or the Nvidia Shield.

Why? I mean, I paid $65 to Google to use YouTube TV for a month. So why didn't I use it?

Well, I did. Twice. No, three times. I watched some USFL games, but that was is. Nothing else.

Why not?

That's easy. There was nothing I wanted to see. I get local channels via antenna, with DVR from Tablo. That takes care of one of the things services such as YouTube TV offer. I can watch more local channels without YouTube TV than with.

Sure, there's Better Call Saul, right? Well, I bought the season, so I get the shows early the next morning anyway. And I don't have to watch live to find out if Lalo is targeting Jimmy and Kim. That can wait a few hours.

So, with live local channels not needed, and serial TV shows that I like not needed, what do I need it for?

Exactly. Which is why I won't be subscribing again. Well, not for a while. I'll consider it during football season, in order to get live ESPN, but until then? I'm fine.

I'm not saying YouTube TV isn't a good service. I'm saying I don't need to spend $65 for what it brings to my Streaming Life each month.

Microsoft Streaming Stick?

I've seen news reports this past week about a Microsoft streaming stick coming to market in the next year. The thing is, Microsoft announced a streaming stick in June 2021.

"We're also developing standalone streaming devices that you can plug into a TV or monitor, so if you have a strong internet connection, you can stream your Xbox experience," CVP of gaming experiences and platforms Liz Hamren said. There's no word on when to expect the smart TV app or streaming hardware to hit the market, but neither seems too far off.

So why is it in the news again? The best I can tell is that a reporter said it will be in 2023 before the device arrives. Only instead of "it won't be" the article was "as soon as" in tone.

In the next 12 months, Microsoft plans to release an Xbox cloud-gaming streaming device. This will likely look like an Amazon First Stick or perhaps a small, Roku-like puck. And like a Roku, the Xbox streaming device will enable you to access movie and TV services in addition to a library of games through Xbox Game Pass Ultimate.

Is this a big deal? Maybe. I kinda doubt it. While much of the Microsoft hardware I've seen has been good quality stuff -- I really like my Microsoft Surface Laptop, for instance -- good hardware doesn't mean it's something the consumer wants.

The focus of the Microsoft streaming stick seems to be gaming. Now, if it's a full-featured streaming stick that has additional gaming functionality, then it might have a market. But if its focus is gaming, with streaming as an afterthought or limited -- looking at you Xfinity Flex -- then it'll go the way of Microsoft Kin.

Do we need another streaming device? Sure, why not. If Microsoft can bring a good quality streaming device to the market, that's a good thing for consumers. But I do worry about the interface Microsoft will design. Remember Vista? And Windows 8? And Windows Me?

If a Microsoft device brings something good to market, that will be something to celebrate. Whether or not it would become a part of my Streaming Life will have to wait a year. Then we'll see.

What a Roku isn't. Same for Fire TV, Apple TV, and Android/Google TV

I saw a question on the Roku support forums the other day where the person complained that he couldn't get live local TV on Roku. He said the salesman -- assuming he bought it in a store based on this -- told him he could watch live local TV.

Now, either the salesman lied, or the person misunderstood. I'll go either way. The person also complained about there not being a CBS app. There is a CBS app, so the person will certainly get things wrong, meaning it could have been the salesman said something that the person interpreted that way.

Either way, that's not what Roku does. Nor Fire TV. Nor Apple TV. Nor Google/Android TV.

If you are looking into streaming, be aware that a Roku -- or any streaming device -- does not in and of itself get you live local TV. You get that from an antenna. Or from a subscription to a live streaming service that costs $65/month or more. But just taking a Roku and hooking it up to a TV? That won't get you live local TV.

Now, you can get live TV. There are news feeds. There are streams from other channels that work like cable; you use the remote to launch the app with the channel, then select the channel from those listed inside, and just watch. Roku Channel, Pluto TV, Xumo, and others have content like this. So, while you can find live TV, you won't find live local TV.

You can find apps that carry your local news after it airs. So that is local, but it's not live. It just plays on loop.

And if you want CBS, as our intrepid user wanted, there is Paramount+, which as part of the $10/month plan, gets you live local CBS.

If someone told you that you can add a Roku, or Fire Stick, or other streaming device to your TV and pick up live local channels, you may want to check again. You can't. They either told you something wrong, or you misunderstood.

You can certainly use these streaming devices and get a lot of good content, but just having them won't automatically get you live local TV as part of your Streaming Life.

Streaming more content with fewer services

According to research that Tubi commissioned, a majority of U.S. streamers are looking to stream more content in the next year. The same poll shows that streamers are also looking to cut the number of streaming services.

How can that be reconciled. Fairly easily. I've been doing it, and suggesting that others do it for a while now. And it seems more and more people are coming to that conclusion. They may not be doing it the same way I'm doing it, but still, taking charge of your streaming budget while enjoying what you stream is a very good thing.

Conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Tubi, the survey found that seven in 10 cited changes to their financial situation as a reason to reevaluate their streaming service spending.

Aside from budget respondents cited other factors that would make them pull the plug on a streaming service, including a limited selection of titles (49%), lack of a user-friendly interface (34%) and poor customer service (33%).

Forty-four percent said they’d stick with an unsatisfying streaming service for only a week before canceling it.

What would keep people loyal to a service? Affordability (45%), a wide selection of content (44%) and a user-friendly interface that makes it easy to discover movies and shows (43%).

So what many are looking to do is to cancel certain services and stay with just a few. And if that works for them, great. It works. They are paying less, and watching more. That's good however you do it.

But I do it a different way. I subscribe to several of the services that people are considering dropping. Why? They have good content, that's why. But, I'm not sticking to the services year round. I'm subscribing for one month only.

Here's how it works. I'll list several popular services, and explain a way of using my method to watch all the services, and save money. First, here are the services and the prices.

• Netflix ($15/month; $10, $15, or $20 depending on tier)
• HBO Max ($15/month; there is a $10/month package)
• Disney+ ($8/month)
• Paramount+ ($10/month)
• Discovery+ ($5/month)
• Apple TV+ ($5/month)
• Hulu ($7/month)
• Prime Video ($9/month; $12/month package includes shipping benefits)
• Peacock TV ($5/month; there is a free tier that has about half content, and a $10 ad-free tier)
• AMC+ ($7/month)
• Starz ($9/month)

These are 11 top services. Here's how you do it.

January, pick one or two of the services. If you want two, stay away from two higher priced services. At the start of the month, pick the one or two services for that month, and subscribe. Then, during the month, watch all you can from those services. Cancel before the 30-day renewal.

Then, when those subscriptions end, subscribe to one or two more. Watch for 30 days, and cancel before renewal.

Then, when those subscriptions end, subscribe to one or two more. Watch for 30 days, and cancel before renewal.

You see how this goes? If  you picked two services each month, you would go all the way through the list in six months, and never pay more than $20/month for streaming services. Yet, during the year, you watched all of the services, and had access to all of the content.

And you don't have to stick to a rigorous schedule. If a service is one that you don't watch a lot, repeat one of the services that you like better. Just keep it to one or two a month. You'll watch a lot of content, and save a lot of money.

If you subscribed to each of them each month, that's around $95/month. But you can knock that down to an average of around $20/month if you cancel and skip around.

If this is too much work for you, that's okay too. You know how much time and effort you can put into your streaming infrastructure. Do whatever works best for you. If that means cutting down to three or four services, then you've cut your bill in half, or more. If you have the time and effort to put into managing it more closely, you can save even more. But however you save, just by saving, you've made your Streaming Life a better deal.

What was three channels is much more now

When I was younger, we got three TV channels. Actually, two. Or five. Or six. Let me explain.

The nearest TV stations were in Savannah, and way back when I first started watching TV, we were able to pick up two stations out of Savannah. WTOC Channel 11 was the CBS station, and WSAV TV 3 was the NBC affiliate. What about ABC? Well, WSAV also carried ABC programming, but they went with the NBC programming most of the time. Sometimes, they did carry the ABC show, such as The Avengers or The Time Tunnel, instead of the NBC show, but most of the time, NBC programming was offered live, with ABC shows broadcast on a tape delay basis.

So, two stations. But there were three if you counted the PBS station. We didn't.

Of course, in the evenings, we could pick up the stations in Jacksonville. Well, two of them. WFGA, later WTLV, Channel 12, was the NBC affiliate in Jacksonville. WJXT, Channel 4, was the CBS affiliate. We couldn't pick up the UHF stations from Jacksonville.

Oh, there were also WUSN, now WCBD, Channel 2, in Charleston, South Carolina. When the weather was right, at night, we could pick that up.

So, depending on how you counted, we didn't get a lot of channels. We got one or more CBS, one or more NBC, and one or more ABC. So I'm going to say three, counting just the different networks. And that was it.

Many people today have no idea what that was like. To us, it was just how it was. And I kept that mindset, to a huge degree, after I dropped cable. I did put up an antenna, and hoped to pick up the ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, and NBC stations. So five.

I get a lot more. I get five times that. There are 25 reliable stations I can pick up. Actually more, but there is some duplication on some, so I'm counting 25 unique networks of content I can pick up free over the air. All out of Savannah. I point the antenna that way, and don't turn it to Jacksonville. Could I pick up Jacksonville stations? I don't know, but I'm not going to try to find out. I'm happy with 25 different networks.

Oh, and I live over 40 miles from the nearest stations. So, if I lived closer to the stations, I would likely pick up more. I can get other stations with different content, but the signal is weak, so I don't even bother. Like I said, 25 is good.

A lot of people get more. Some get a lot more. Maybe you can get more. If you put up an antenna, you may find that you can watch enough live TV to suit your tastes, time, and budget. And while I don't watch over the air TV exclusively, I do know some people that do. They don't stream, they just watch free over the air TV.

I stream, of course. And together with over the air TV and streaming content, I have a pretty good selectin of content. My Streaming Life is good. A TV antenna may make yours better too.

Digital ads

I saw an article on AFTV News this week about Amazon inserting digital product placement in movies. Huh, was my first thought. Then I read the comments.

There's everything from "now everyone's going to be doing it" to "everyone is already planning to do this" to "I'm throwing all my stuff away" to ... well, everything.

The actual product placement in the article was a bag of M&Ms.

... presumably, the M&Ms on the counter did not exist when the scene was shot and have been digitally inserted after the fact to advertise the candy. The program is currently in open beta and already being used in Amazon’s own original content, such as Reacher, Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan, the Bosch franchise, Making the Cut, and Leverage: Redemption

The funniest, or silliest, or most knee-jerk reaction was one that said:

I can’t believe they have went this low I am sorry Amazon but this just makes me want to ditch all my streaming device’s 8 in total

Think that one through. They want to ditch their Amazon streaming devices because of this. Then what? Not stream? Go back to cable? I don't think so.

Let's suppose this fellow did toss his Fire TV devices in the trash. Then what, he goes out and buys some Roku devices? Maybe some Chromecast devices? And do what? Launch Amazon Prime Video and watch the content anyway?

And some of the comments make it look like they've never heard about product placement. The outrage over commercials within a TV show! That's never happened before in the history of TV ever!

[YouTube]

I think keyboards make people stupid. And, yes, I realize I'm saying this from behind a keyboard. I stand by what I wrote.

Let me tell you my thoughts on this. I don't care. Maybe I should, but I don't. If they didn't put a digital bag of M&Ms in the movie, what? They'd put a real bag of M&Ms in the movie?

It gives Amazon, who is the content creator in this instance, the ability to rake in some money from product placement without having to wait on the product placement agreement to film the scene. (I know, they aren't using film, but you know what I mean.)

And if they don't have an agreement in place when it airs, then they can put in a generic brand of candy, then update it with M&Ms when they finalize the deal.

Like I said, it doesn't bother me. And, yeah, maybe it should. But it doesn't. I only care that there's some good content to make my Streaming Life more enjoyable. And it doesn't matter if it's M&Ms or an Apollo bar, as long as the TV show or movie is enjoyable.

Streaming the Kentucky Derby

The Kentucky Derby is this afternoon. And yeah, it's kind of a big deal. It's been a big deal for a while now.

I never really cared for horse racing, whether Thoroughbred or other horse racing, mostly because I didn't come up around it. Maybe if I was from Kentucky, I might care. Well, care more.

I do have a passing interest in the race, and if I'm able, there's a better than even chance I'll watch it. And I realize I'm not sounding like I'm drumming up excitement about the race. That's because I'm not. Some people are interested in it a lot, some a little, and some not at all.

If you are interested, and if you are a streamer, you will probably want to know how you can watch it. Or even if you can watch it if  you're a streamer. Well, you can.

NBC is, again, carrying the race. While USA carried the Kentucky Oaks yesterday, the Derby is on NBC and Peacock. Coverage begins at 2:30 pm, with the actual race a few minutes before 7:00 pm.

The fastest time in the Kentucky Derby was set by Secretariat in 1973, at 1:59.4. The second fasted time in the Derby was Sham, at an estimated 1:59.8. Why was Sham's time an estimate? Because they don't normally keep as accurate records on second-place horses. Sham set his time in 1973, when he lost to Secretariat. Had Sham run that time, and Secretariat not run in the race, Sham would be the record holder. That was quite a race.

Will any records be set today? Find out. Watch the Kentucky Derby on NBC or on Peacock TV and see for yourself.

Here's how to watch:

Peacock TV

• Subscription is $5/month for the Premium service. It's $10/month for ad-free. But ad-free doesn't include not having ads in live TV. The ad-free applies to on-demand only.

NBC

• Antenna (free) over the air.
• Sling TV ($35 Orange) ($35/Blue) ($50 Orange + Blue)
• YouTube TV ($65/month)
• Fubo ($65/month)
• Hulu+Live TV ($70/month)
• DirecTV Stream ($70/month)

If watching the first jewel of the Triple Crown is on your agenda for the day, you can enjoy streaming it on one of those services. It's nice when you can enjoy your Streaming Life so effortlessly.

Data collection

In case you haven't noticed, there are ads on this Website. Yeah, I know. You noticed. You can't help but notice. And that led into my thinking about data collection.

You see, those ads may be customized with you in mind. Oh, I'm not doing that. Google places the ads, and Google picks what the ads are for. I do have the option to request certain ads not be shown, or suggest other ads that may be shown, but I don't do that. I leave it entirely up to Google. Why? They do this for a living, and are making a shipload of money doing it. They're the professionals, and I'm fine with them handling all the ads.

The cookies and other data that Google collects along the way is part of how they determine what ads to show you, but I don't get that data. I don't know if it's available to me, but I don't really care. I'm not in the data collection business.

If you leave a comment, the form asks you to log in with a Google account. And that's stuff that Google collects.

If you use the "Ask A Question" form, it does ask for a name and email address, but that isn't in any database that I have access to. I do get an email with the information, and when they arrive, I read them, and if I want to address what they wrote, I'll write up a post, then I'll delete the email. I don't store the data.

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, I have a notice about being an Amazon affiliate. That means that if I link to something on Amazon that qualifies for commission, and you use the link and make a purchase, I'll get a small commission. But I don't get the data. Amazon does. And they keep it. I'm not in the data collection business.

Sure, if the ads on the Website show something in which you have an interest, and if you make a purchase, I'll get a little bit of money. And if the products to which I link earn a commission (not all do, by the way), I'll get a little bit of money. I like collecting money. But I don't collect data. Google does and Amazon does.

Data collection is not my interest. Streaming is. I'm here to share my experiences, thoughts, and suggestions about how to improve your Streaming Life. That is my my interest.

Roku and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad USB Power Cable with Long-range Wi-Fi Receiver

I've been a Roku user for quite some time. In the early days, there was no Roku stick. They eventually introduced one that connected via an MHL port. That's another long story that we won't cover today, but just know that you couldn't take that stick and expect it to work on most TVs today.

In March 2014, Roku introduced their model 3500 HDMI Streaming Stick (to differentiate between the MHL-based stick for the old "Roku Ready" TVs, which is another long story). I got one of those, because I liked the idea of a stick. It was kinda meh. Heck, it was a lot meh.

In April 2016, Roku upped their game with an update, the model 3600 stick. It was better than the 3500 by quite a bit, but by then, I was used to the speed of a Roku 3, meaning the 3600 stick, while an improvement, was still kinda meh.

In October 2017, Roku released the 3800 Streaming Stick and the 3810 Streaming Stick+. Finally, Roku had a good stick. At least the 3810 Streaming Stick+ was good. I never used the 3800. But I liked the 3810 so much that I replaced all the Roku 3 devices, which were beginning to show their age, with the Streaming Stick+. I didn't replace any Roku Ultra devices, just the older ones.

In 2021, Roku introduced the 3820 Streaming Stick 4K and the 3821 Streaming Stick 4K+. I didn't run out and buy one, but decided to see how well they worked based on others. My Streaming Stick+ devices were good and didn't need replacing, so I was in no hurry.

Research showed they were actually the same device, but came with different remotes in the box. Same processor, same memory, same storage, same everything except the remote. I got my hands on a Streaming Stick 4K+ and tested it. I really liked it, so I bought a Streaming Stick 4K for my own use, replacing a Roku Premiere+ (3921).

So, all is well, right?

No. Not by a long shot.

It turns out that the stick I love so much has good WiFi because of a fancy-schmancy cable that has a WiFi receiver built in. And some of them are going bad. Well, a lot of them. High number, but likely a low percentage. But enough to make it a pain for a lot of people.

Roku sells replacement cables for the 3800/3810. And they're out of stock. And have been out of stock. And no estimate on when they'll be back in stock. If ever.

Roku has really dropped the ball on this one. Now, sure, most of the sticks work fine. Only a small percentage have issues. But a small percentage of a large number can itself be a large number. And that's what seems to be going on.

If you have a Roku stick, and it works, and you're happy, great. If you are thinking about getting a stick, I can say that mine all work great. But that cable issue really bothers me, enough so that I won't recommend a stick.

Yes, I bought a stick recently, and like it. But I don't have a problem spending my own money and dealing with a bad decision. I don't want to cause someone else to spend their money based on my recommendation then they regret the decision. I want your Streaming Life to be free of trouble. Roku is making that difficult.

Live TV streaming on Amazon Fire TV

Recently Roku added a Live TV section to their main menu. While it does bring something that Roku users haven't had before, it pales in comparison to what Amazon Fire TV has with their setup.

Roku's is pretty much content from the Roku Channel, along with selections from some live streaming services. Yeah, that's a description of what Amazon Fire TV offers, but the details are different.

The only real live TV guide is actually within the Roku Channel. If you have Pluto TV, or Xumo, or Sling TV Free, or any of a number of other free live streaming apps, you won't find them in one place. And where it does have links to other services, it's simply links to those apps, whether or not you have them installed. You'll see in a minute why I bring this up.

Again, Roku's Live TV section is not as useful to me as Amazon Fire TV's. So let's see what I like about Amazon's setup.

The Fire TV section for live TV is called "On Now," which actually is a good description when you think about it. There is a guide that brings in many channels (not all) from services you have, not services they suggest.

Remember when I said that Roku has links to apps whether or not you have them installed? Amazon only lists content from apps you have installed, and have configured to work with the On Now functionality.

After you launch the On Now guide, pressing the Menu button on the remote lets you configure the service. You can add or remote services (actually hide or show the source) and arrange them. And within each service, you can pick and choose which of the available channels show up in the On Now guide. I like that approach much better.

You can even select favorites, and they'll be listed at the top, regardless of the order of the services selected. The favorites will still show up within the sections for each service. Oh, and if you pick a channel as a favorite in two different services -- there is some overlap on these services, after all -- they will show up twice.

When you select the content to view, it does open the corresponding app, but unlike Roku, it only picks from installed apps. And with content from multiple services all in one place, it is far superior to Roku's offering.

If you've read many of these posts, you know I'm in the Roku camp when it comes to a primary streaming app. Regarding this type of feature, however, Fire TV is far ahead of Roku. If this is important to you, and you have a hard time deciding between Fire TV and Roku, this may be the factor to push you to the Amazon Fire TV camp, and have that platform as the basis of your Streaming Life.