15 ms·

YouTube Red, a $9.99 Site-Wide Ad-Free Subscription with Play Music

338 points by mayneack 11y ago

softyeti 11y ago
$10 poses an interesting decision in comparison to Spotify. Spotify is a dedicated music app in comparison, and is designed that way. The catalog isn't as big as YouTube's, but YouTube isn't designed for the user to catalog their personal music. Youtube provides ad-free video, but I don't think the ad's are very intrusive for videos compared to listening to music, where it can definitely be annoying.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Spotify is a dedicated music app in comparison, and is designed that way. The catalog isn't as big as YouTube's, but YouTube isn't designed for the user to catalog their personal music. OTOH, Google Play Music is also a music app, and designed for the user to catalog all their personal music, and is already free, and the subscription that includes unlimited streaming of the Google Play Music catalog is rolled included with the new Youtube Red subscription.
- eertami 11y ago
  I recently trialed both Google Play Music and Spotify. While pricing is the same, I found that for my needs Google had a better offering - being able to upload my personal library was something I definitely wanted, and the radios/suggestions seem to give me more of what I want than Spotify did.
  - lmedinas 11y ago
    Spotify gets releases much sooner and better curation imho.
- notatoad 11y ago
  To me, this is a no-brainer if you're paying for spotify. Google music is at least as good as spotify (and better in many ways) at the same price. If you want to pay $10/mo for music streaming, you now can get ad-free youtube for no extra money if you choose google music instead of spotify.
- scotty2992 11y ago
  You can use Playlist Buddy to convert your Spotify playlists to YouTube Red.
linksbro 11y ago
It looks like some movies will also be available, as well as new original content[1][2]. This is shaping up to look like a netflix + spotify all in one package. Certainly this is also an attempt to curb the pervasiveness of adblocking by providing the ad-free option. [1] https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/home/youtube-red-blogpost https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/home/youtube-red-bl... [2] https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/youtube-originals/youtube-red-originals-blogpost https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/youtube-originals/y...
- IanCal 11y ago
  That would be very nice, as on the screenshot it says "save offline". Being able to download some episodes before getting on the train would be nice.
quaunaut 11y ago
The real killer app here is the ability to play videos in the background as music for your phone. Most of my favorite music isn't available on Spotify/Apple Music/etc, but quite a bit of it is on Youtube. It'd be interesting if they UI of this got good enough to employ it as a streaming replacement.
- noblethrasher 11y ago
  Prior to iOS 6, The bundled YouTube app let you play videos in the background, similar to music/audio apps.
- sb8244 11y ago
  You can sort of do this today on ios by clicking play on the slide up after it stopping. I never knew it was trying to prevent listening because it works once you hit play.
  - randyrand 11y ago
    There are also some good jailbreaks for this too
- beeboop 11y ago
  There are Android apps that can do this, too. Or at least, there were up until about a year ago. Mine stopped working, perhaps intentionally by Google? Not sure.
grubles 11y ago
>However, iOS users will be charged $12.99 to cover Apple’s in-app purchase tax. The Apple Tax[0] strikes again! [0]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Apple_tax https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Apple_tax
- Retric 11y ago
  Not so much, this is just Google making an anti iOS play as Netflix for example trivially avoids the 'tax'.
  - xigency 11y ago
    1) I think that's what he was talking about. 2) Isn't that illegal? Or getting pretty close to it.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      I don't see how this could or should be illegal. Can you elaborate?
      - ar0 11y ago
        I have to admit that I was also wondering about the anti-trust aspects of this. Given that YouTube is a dominant player (73.1% market share in the US according to [1], probably higher in many European countries where there are fewer alternative players on the market), one could argue that Google is abusing their market power in Internet video to push their own mobile OS. Since Google does not offer an app for Windows Phone, their YouTube Red service is basically 9.99$ for Android users and 12.99$ for all other supported mobile platforms. And - as others have pointed out - the 30% cut for Apple is not mandatory (see Netflix et al). [1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of-leading-internet-video-portals/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of...
        Nexxxeh 11y ago
        But YouTube is usable on WinPho using IE though, isn't it? Sure it's not a first class experience, but talking as someone with a fair bit of WinPho experience... What on WinPho is a first class experience? (Admittedly I've never actually tried YouTube in IE on WinPho, but the 3rd party MetroTube app is supposed to be good.)
nefitty 11y ago
Is it just me, or does this service sound way too similar to Redtube?
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Took me several re-reads to realise it wasn't a paid Redtube subscription. The music part is what got me.
  - angersock 11y ago
    ...you don't like the music on Redtube videos? :|
    - minot 11y ago
      Well, RedTube and PornHub were named pretty much after YouTube no matter how much they want to try to deny it.
      - eric_h 11y ago
        I suspect you mean RedTube and YouPorn.
        minot 11y ago
        Ah yes. I may have inadvertently typed almost by habit o.O and now I will try to distract the reader by mentioning something about keystroke dynamics. I wonder if I type pornhub in a different way than any one else does If you didn't know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystroke_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystroke_dynamics
      - carlob 11y ago
        Maybe RedTube and YouPorn, not really PornHub.
        angersock 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- xlm1717 11y ago
  Do you mean a backdoor into a sub-only revenue model for YouTube? You already had to pay for a Play Music subscription. The only part about it that was free was radio mode.
millstone 11y ago
> And any creator who doesn’t sign the deal for YouTube Red will have their videos on the ad-free old-school YouTube hidden from view. Does this mean that if I subscribe, I will see less content on YouTube?
- ljoshua 11y ago
  Or does it mean that if you don't subscribe that you'll see less content?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- rcxdude 11y ago
  IT means you will see the same amount. The reason they're strong-arming the creators (who have already signed up to monetize their videos via ads) is so the service is actually ad-free and still has all the content available.
corndoge 11y ago
$9.99 per year? Per month? Per millenium?
- striking 11y ago
  month
coldpie 11y ago
What does this mean for content creators, I wonder? My understanding is currently, if I block youtube ads, then the creators don't get paid for what would have been a viewing. Does this mean if I sign up for $10/mo, then the creators do get paid, and I get to avoid ads? Sign me up.
- runevault 11y ago
  That's a good question. I know the Twitch equivalent, Turbo, lets users count as ad impressions for paying streamers while not making them watch ads.
- TheGRS 11y ago
  I'm interested if they changed the model on this too. The current model encourages lots of low quality videos instead of encouraging well-produced, high quality video. If this simply pays the content creators in the same way that ads on youtube work, then I'm probably not very interested in the fee.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    I suspect content creators will have something to say about this, so I'll wait for a week or two and see how it shakes out for them.
- TheGRS 11y ago
  I'm interested if they changed the model on this too. The current model encourages lots of low quality videos instead of encouraging well-produced, high quality video. If this simply pays the content creators in the same way that ads on youtube work, then I'm probably not very interested in the fee.
- quadrangle 11y ago
  But this is just rewarding them for using ads in the first place while we ought to be most supporting those who treat us better by not using obnoxious ads at all. The real point is this is actually about having more ads, just like Google Contributor. This is Google working to tell the world, "if you want to get paid, even by people who donate directly to avoid ads, you must first accept showing our ads otherwise". So this is about increasing, amplifying, reinforcing the ads because there won't likely be a way to say "I want to get paid when people enjoy my work, but I don't want to push ads on anyone ever". Google wants people like that to not exist. If you want to be paid in any form, you have to accept using Google ads. That's their end-game here.
ljoshua 11y ago
If I subscribe, will it remove the preroll ads while watching YouTube on Apple TV? Because I like to occasionally set up playlists of educational content for my kids to watch for a bit, but far too often an inappropriate ad has played in the middle of the playlist, driving me nuts.
- coldpie 11y ago
  If the YouTube app on Apple TV is made by and still supported by Google, then yes, probably.
- bosdev 11y ago
  Just out of curiosity, what are examples of inappropriate ads? Is it a subject matter issue?
  - ljoshua 11y ago
    Two specific examples: a Victoria's Secret ad, and one for a movie that was far too scary for young children to be seeing.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Sometimes there are ads for alcohol or gambling on video clearly aimed at children. This is probably not legal in UK, and it's something I'm going to raise with regulators next year. In general you should probably allow people to opt out of alcohol ads. Or violent films. It's weird that the film has an age rating; the ad has an age rating; the content has a much younger age rating; but YouTube can't see that many parents don't want an 18 / 15 movie ad on content they're showing to their children.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - strictnein 11y ago
      That's why Youtube Kids for the iPad/iPhone is nice. None of that. Does that not exist on AppleTV?
jasonsync 11y ago
Yes, I wish Netflix had music videos channels, and for an extra $5/month optional Spotify audio channels built in.
- copperx 11y ago
  That would be awesome. The rebirth of MTV. Properly done.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    Almost like MTV in the 80s when they actually played music videos. Then Netflix can slowly roll in the terrible reality TV and we can repeat history once more :)
chambo622 11y ago
The fact that this is included with Google Play Music is awesome, and really represents a great value for ten bucks a month (or $8 for long time customers). Also, 'Red' is a much better name than 'Music Key.'
- striking 11y ago
  Except "YouTube Red" sounds a little like "RedTube" which is a different kind of video streaming site.
  - torbit 11y ago
    eh, if you visit redtube enough, it becomes a brand name. For those that don't use redtube it sounds like they copied the "tube" from youtube.
Someone1234 11y ago
Their branding is horrifying. YouTube Red, Music Key, Google Android Play Music All Access Subscription, etc. Don't get me wrong, the actual service they provide is good, and Music Key (advert free YouTube music videos) was a nice value add. This too will only expand Music Key into other videos. I do worry a little bit that long term Google Music subscribers will wind up seeing price increases to pay for YouTube Red. If all I want is JUST Google Music, then all I should have to pay for is JUST Google Music, and that is fine today as there are no price increases, but ask me again when the first price rise is announced a few months from now.
- abraham 11y ago
  Was horrifying. Now it's just YouTube Red and Google Play Music subscription.
  - DominikR 11y ago
    But aren't both the same?
    - abraham 11y ago
      Essentially they are the same. Technically they are different but they include the other.
      - mehta 11y ago
        Why not make it simple for people and just use one name? How does the "technically different" part affect people?
        IshKebab 11y ago
        I suppose because it's clear what you get with those names.
        11y ago
fumar 11y ago
Link to the actual source: http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2015/10/red.html http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2015/10/red.html
Laaw 11y ago
Google seems to be trying a bunch of different things to leverage this downright stupid mentality embedded in a subset of the Internet population that YouTube is a platform for music (sans video). It's not Google's fault that folks are using YouTube as strictly a music service, but here we are. I don't really know how I'd solve this problem either, but if I have to regress to using YouTube to listen to music, it's going to piss me off (why oh why would I stream video if I'm just using the audio)? I just fear the majority is never going to take the short hop over to Google Music (or whatever app Google offers strictly for music), and I'm going to get stuck needlessly using YouTube related apps/platforms.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  There is a vast gulf between not using things the way you prefer and being stupid.
  - Laaw 11y ago
    The word "stupid" has no valuable meaning in rational discourse, so I've appropriated it in this case to mean, "evokes a negative emotional reaction." I hope this wasn't too harmful to the conversation, though it seems to have caused damage to the sensibilities of multiple people already. I'd edit, but I think at this point it's hardly worth the effort.
- sdenton4 11y ago
  Pretty sure the Youtube Music app has a 'don't stream the video' mode.
  - Laaw 11y ago
    It does, but there's no technical reason to even involve YouTube at all; there's simply no way Google on the backend would rather split the audio off of the video than just play the audio from an album directly.
arrowgunz 11y ago
The original subscription page: https://www.youtube.com/red https://www.youtube.com/red
6stringmerc 11y ago
I wonder if the YouTube platform payout is less than the Google Music Key platform payout. Over time, and via the Sony hack, I think being suspicious of distribution platforms and major labels is warranted. So far, they tend to like non-disclosure based agreements which freeze out independents as much as possible. Considering the "artists hate streaming" bad publicity that seems pretty consistent, I think if YouTube Red was going to be a real improvement and fiscally more rewarding for artists, they should put that in big type somewhere.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sharkweek 11y ago
How does this new ad-free version of YouTube pay content creators? If I upload a video to YouTube under the pretense that based on ad clicks I make money, how does YouTube showing my videos ad-free get me paid? I have read the official press release and a few articles but am not finding any news on these details.
- coldpie 11y ago
  Yes, this is what I really want to know. I think creators will have something to say soon, so keep your ears open.
- JTon 11y ago
  Yes, great question. I have two guesses: (1) simply "it doesn't". I'm sure most people will opt to watch ads rather than pay. That presumably much larger user base supports content creators (2) A fraction of the total subscription revenue is distributed to content creators weighed by views (a la Spotify)
- strictnein 11y ago
  It's in the article folks. > "YouTube Red will split subscription revenue with the rights holders of content people consume through the service. YouTube managed to sign-on most of the independent creators, record labels, TV networks, and movie studios to the program. A YouTube exec told reporters at today’s launch event that YouTube is paying out “the vast, vast majority of revenue”."
  - shostack 11y ago
    "the vast, vast majority of revenue" ...for now. You don't boil a frog by turning the heat up all the way. Once you get people fully locked in and dependent on your platform by having both content AND viewership, you can have much greater ability to change agreements/pricing until there is a viable competitor.
    - silverlight 11y ago
      I think it's pretty safe to say that YouTube already dominates both the content and viewership of online user-created video content.
captn3m0 11y ago
Not available outside the US: >YouTube Red is available in the U.S. If you leave the U.S., you won’t be able to save videos offline, videos won’t play in the background, and you will see ads. Any videos that you’ve saved offline before leaving the U.S., will continue to be available offline for 30 days.
- mordae 11y ago
  Are they FUCKING kidding me? Not again!
  - ju-st 11y ago
    What, you're suprised about this?
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Which also means not always available inside the US, as Google's geo IP has to be the worst I've experienced. In Denver, they located me as being in France. After a while that got fixed. Now Google thinks I'm in Hungary. Despite multiple requests to fix it, it remains the same over months They could even automate it to some extent just by pinging. Use speed-of-light to determine that my system definitely cannot be in Europe. A lot of things do not properly de-localize, when you select English or no customization. Menu text, alt text, logos, etc. all remain localized. It's a terrible implementation. Chrome was (is?) worse. It'd "auto detect" the language to use based on IP, then refuse to remove it once running. So you'd have an English OS, sending "en" in the Accept-Language language header, and Chrome would decide you actually wanted Spanish or Russian or whatever, using .ru sites, etc.
  - cuddlybacon 11y ago
    I'm in western Canada, and for a while Google thought I was in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia
  - swagswag 11y ago
    google thinks I am in bangladesh
wnevets 11y ago
> If you’re already a Google Play Music subscriber, you’ll receive a free YouTube Red membership. Ok good. This is simply a bonus feature for me then.
jbob2000 11y ago
Get ready to get burned folks. It starts ad-free, just like Hulu. And then they add one or two ads during christmas time. And then during black friday. Then they add a small skippable add at the beginning of movies. This is how google is going to get you to pay for the same service they offer for free today. It won't stay ad free forever.
- serge2k 11y ago
  Then I cancel. Same as if Netflix moves to ads. I'll buy Hulu when they offer ad free stuff. Will gladly pay for ad free. If I pay the subscription fee on my desktop do I have to pay extra because I use iOS? That's not an in app purchase.
  - daxelrod 11y ago
    Hulu does offer an ad free option now: http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials
    - serge2k 11y ago
      Nice! I'll look into that and probably sign up. Assuming it's not crippled or anything. edit: and now the question becomes do I want to add showtime. hmm My TV is getting expensive against Netflix 8 HBO 15 Hulu 12 Showtime 9 AIV 99/year 52 dollars a month. Covers most of the shows I like though. Unlike Cable this (pretty much) ad free and on demand. I think it's worth it.
  - jhowison 11y ago
    Hulu did just recently add an ad free version: http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials. It's $12/month, whereas the ad version is still $8/month.
  - silverlight 11y ago
    No, I think you only pay $12.99 if you subscribe via iOS. If you subscribe on Desktop then access it via your iOS device on the same account, you already have a subscription.
austenallred 11y ago
WTF does this mean? > And any creator who doesn’t sign the deal for YouTube Red will have their videos on the ad-free old-school YouTube hidden from view. That’s pretty harsh. So YouTube is saying if you don't join their new subscription plan they will just not display your videos on YouTube? Edit: Just heard back. Yes, this is exactly what happened, and it's now going into motion. If you are a YouTube creator and you don't agree to be a part of this new service, your channel will removed and your videos won't appear in search results. In other words, all of your videos are made "private" and you're pretty much dead.
- coldpie 11y ago
  Take it easy and wait for more info. All you've got to on is one line in a 3rd party news article.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - Blaaguuu 11y ago
    This isn't the first time Youtube has dramatically changed their terms, and forced creators to basically accept them or leave, though... so it is pretty easy to assume the worst when it comes to Youtube.
    - newjersey 11y ago
      The way I understand it, you can still host your videos. You just won't get any revenues. That is completely fine by me.
      - jahmed 11y ago
        Yeah it's Alphabet's site. You play by their rules. Don't like it? Well there's always other options.
ariwilson 11y ago
I've been using this service for a little bit and it's been fantastic. Ad-free viewing on my desktop has increased my YouTube viewing by probably 50% because I know I'm just going to see the content I want to see. Other notable features include Chromecast no-ads support (makes your YouTube parties much better) and offline downloads of long videos (finally can catch up on all those feature-length amateur films).
- thesimpsons1022 11y ago
  did you just never use ad-block or something?
  - Pharaoh2 11y ago
    Doesn't work when chromecasting.
  - ariwilson 11y ago
    I like to support content creators. And no, I don't want to have to sign up for the Patreon accounts of every single YouTube user I like the videos of.
    - beagle3 11y ago
      Unless you really liked being tracked, cataloged and analyzed, I recommend you use ad blocking even though you're using YouTube Red. It's not advertising. It's advertracking. YouTube red removes the "advertising" part, but the "tracking" part stays. (Yes, Google could, and probably do, track you through an adblocker while you are on YouTube. But why tracking easy for them and everyone else?)
GigabyteCoin 11y ago
They're going to have to do something about uBlock Origin blocking youtube video ads flawlessly before this ever takes off imho. I installed uBlock a few weeks ago and only recently realized I haven't seen a single youtube video ad since then.
- darkstar999 11y ago
  Not entirely. There are platforms such as Google TV that can't block ads.
  - Cub3 11y ago
    My chromecast doesn't block ads, i'll pay for the service specifically for this
    - GigabyteCoin 11y ago
      Instead of paying $9.99 monthly (forever) why not just buy one of those "TV on a stick" devices [0] (a one time purchase) and run a web browser+uBlock? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-on-a-stick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-on-a-stick
      - darkstar999 11y ago
        Because the experience and usability of a chromecast is much MUCH better than what you are suggesting.
  - GigabyteCoin 11y ago
    The Google TV program has been discontinued.
    - darkstar999 11y ago
      Android TV, sorry. It's built into my tv. The top discussion in this thread is about their poor branding. Chromecast? Google Cast? Android TV? Nexus Player? Google TV? What is it? I have Android TV and even I'm confused.
smegel 11y ago
A month for those annoyed by this frustrating omission.
mschuster91 11y ago
Wow. Took them long enough, but I really appreciate a big site experimenting with replacing ads by real money. Of course, Google has a pretty solid process for low-amount online payments, though.
dogma1138 11y ago
If this would include access to paid YT videos I think this would rock but currently it isn't stated if it would.
anonbanker 11y ago
Youtube is ripe for disruption right now. All these attempts to monetize will simply drive their users elsewhere.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- Bedon292 11y ago
  This seems to be a win for everyone. People don't want to see ads, and they don't with this. Google makes the money they were already making from ads. And content creators are getting the money they would have gotten from ads. They probably make even more since people are not ad blocking and cutting down their income. It seems less profit motivated, and more motivated at giving people what they want. If people don't want to pay they don't have to.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
bluthru 11y ago
>YouTube Red will also offer Background Play, so you can close the app while continuing to listen to the audio of whatever you were watching as you use your phone. What a joke. This should be a standard feature. iOS users: You can play audio in the background by playing a video in Safari, swiping up to open control center, pressing play, and then double-tapping the home button to go to another app. The only restriction is that you can't use Safari while the video is playing.
- mtgx 11y ago
  Indeed. Android should be able to play audio from videos while the screen is off by now. But Google doesn't even allow the Read Aloud feature in Play Books to work while the screen is off. I don't get that one at all.
- beeboop 11y ago
  Agreed, it's really the only feature I care about. I used a third party app exactly for this but it broke about half a year ago. I wonder if it broke intentionally because of Google.
- eco 11y ago
  I believe it's that way because of the rights issues. They can show ads while songs are playing to pay the copyright holder of the song but if your display is off then there is no ads and thus no revenue to share.
meesterdude 11y ago
Overall this is a good idea - the fact that google is the one behind it doesn't give me any fuzzies though. They will always want to make more money from it - that's why they started with ads in the first place, and are now trying to go subscription. My guess is this goes alright in the short term, in the long term they cluster fuck it, lest we not forget the Google+ fiasco. Probably won't muck it up enough to spawn rivals, but close. They really just won't be able to help themselves. Still, give them credit: making money off other peoples content is a lucrative business, as apple has shown.
BasDirks 11y ago
This is dumb on so many levels. The name, the branding, the backstabbing of the content creators, the availability restrictions. Of course, they are Google, they can get away with this. Deeply uninspiring.
oneJob 11y ago
The profit motive is showing its true colors. It'd be a very tough argument to claim that "YouTube Red" is playing a vital role in Google's attempt to organize the world's data. It's purely a grab for revenue/profit. Netflix (as well as HBO, and many others) already has commercial free streaming movies. HULU (as well as others) now has commercial free streaming tv. Content wise, what YouTube brings to the table is the user generated content, and YouTube Red does not seem to be centered around user generated content. I'd say user generated content is caught up in the mix, if anything. Google could index HULU and Netflix instead of creating YouTube Red. Also, it is a false choice to say, given the assumption of ad-free services, I should either have to pay for ads or Google should take a loss in revenue. There are many other business models, such as P2P, that could facilitate ad-free user generated content channels. The rub? P2P doesn't work too well with commercial content generation. And so, we find ourselves back to ads vs subscriptions, and back to the revenue grab. When talent at Google is working on YouTube Red, it's not working on other problems. I can think of many other problems I'd rather see Google working on, given their core competencies.
- nemothekid 11y ago
  >*The profit motive is showing its true colors. It'd be a very tough argument to claim that "YouTube Red" is playing a vital role in Google's attempt to organize the world's data. YouTube Red seems less like a "profit grab" and more like a defensive move. I'm sure Google would love to continue its current model of 50% of all ad revenue. From what I've gathered its (1) Google's top creators exploring other options such as Vessel (subscription music service) and (2) YouTube's need to provide a regular/more predictable revenue stream to their partners. The Ad model doesn't seem to work well if your most of your viewers are outside the United States.
  - oneJob 11y ago
    I guess I was saying, back up even more, why the heck, given Google's stated mission of "Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful", are they in this part of the market at all. Especially given, as you (I believe correctly) pointed out they need to put up pay walls to adapt to the changing landscape and in the process make unavailable any content that doesn't conform to their revenue goals. "YouTube Red" doesn't seem to conform to their mission of making all of the world's info accessible and useful. That word 'all' is important, since they constantly stress that point. And here, they are compromising exactly that point. footnote regarding all: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-targeting-all-the-worlds-content-and-all-your-information/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-targeting-all-the-worlds...
sjg007 11y ago
Does it turn off ads in the mobile app and in you tube kids?
aluhut 11y ago
Good. Time for a new popular video platform.
tolmasky 11y ago
> "However, iOS users will be charged $12.99 to cover Apple’s in-app purchase tax" I thought Apple specifically didn't allow this.
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  I don't think Apple gets a say over it. The already got sued & lost about price fixing on eBooks, I don't think they're going to try their hand at price fixing again. Also practically what could Apple even do? Kick YouTube off of the AppStore? That'd just hurt Apple as well.
ninjakeyboard 11y ago
"RedTube" makes this something akin to product mis-placement.
kozukumi 11y ago
Ha for a second I thought Google/YouTube were getting into the porn business!
mandeepj 11y ago
My first thought was - "What? Are they starting a subscription for porn?"
raykaye47 11y ago
Or you could just download Adblock Plus for free...
- bsilvereagle 11y ago
  There are those of us that don't want to see ads but still want to support content creators. This is potentially a win-win on that front, while an ad blocker is not.
  - userbinator 11y ago
    There are many other ways to "support content creators", like... ask them if they have Paypal or similar and donate to them directly that way.
tucif 11y ago
From the FAQ: > "As an added bonus, your YouTube Red membership includes a free subscription to Google Play Music, with access to its extensive catalog of music. If you’re already a Google Play Music subscriber, you’ll receive a free YouTube Red membership."[0] That's an interesting way to bootstrap their paying userbase. [0]https://www.youtube.com/red https://www.youtube.com/red
kenjackson 11y ago
Is that $9.99/month? The site doesn't say (AFAICT). That seems WAY expensive. I'd happily pay $20/year, but not $10/month -- not even close.
- eco 11y ago
  It's the same price as Spotify. Since you get the entire Google Play Music library with it it seems to be priced very competitively.
  - scotty2992 11y ago
    You can use Playlist Buddy to convert your Spotify playlists to YouTube Red.
nathanb 11y ago
Either the article doesn't make it clear or I'm bad at reading, and the YT Red site itself just tells me it's not available in my country: I assume this is $10 US a month?
dpweb 11y ago
Block ads, that can be done already. I think the real value is Background Play.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- swagswag 11y ago
  they also hire kids straight out of comptonq
scoot 11y ago
"iOS users will be charged $12.99 to cover Apple’s in-app purchase tax." If that's true, it looks like someone in google got their math wrong. Apple will take 30% of $12.99, i.e. $3.90, leaving google with only $9.09, not the $9.99 they're expecting. The correct price to "cover Apple’s in-app purchase tax." is $14.27.
personjerry 11y ago
Is this the trend? Of moving the Internet into subscription based as-free? At some point I suspect ads will just be removed altogether and we'll have an entirely subscription based model.
- DavideNL 11y ago
  > At some point I suspect ads will just be removed altogether and we'll have an entirely subscription based model. I certainly hope so. Enough with the ad torture...
zmmmmm 11y ago
This sounds pretty awesome and as soon as it comes to my country I will subscribe. HOWEVER, I hope they come up with a family subscription or that the Play Music family subscription covers it. Because the main reason I want the ads gone is for the sake of my kids.
grandalf 11y ago
I would have signed up for this but I finally got fed up and installed adblock.
mark_l_watson 11y ago
I like this. Although a lot of great content is, and should be, freely available on the web, I also would like to see more subscription based content creation and viewing. Google Play movies, TV, and books is getting to be convenient enough so I am using it more (I just bought the BBC 'Worricker Trilogy', one of the best shows we have watched in years). While subscribing to a service like this, plus Hulu no commercials version, Internet version of HBO Go, and Netflix may seem a little expensive, it basically covers all entertainment costs except for buying books.
chatmasta 11y ago
Does this give google legal ground to make an argument that ad blockers enable piracy? If "ad free content" exists, but you have to pay for it, then is it piracy to get the "ad free content" without paying for it?
task_queue 11y ago
Another thing on the internet I'm not paying for.
adrianlmm 11y ago
Was YouTube gaming even succesful? I think the YouTube Brand is overused and has lost value.
tehwebguy 11y ago
Headline 1 year from now: How Pewdiepie became a billionaire and everyone making a living off 1M views a month went broke. (At least that's what will happen if their royalties are based on aggregate subscription revenue & views rather than per subscriber views, a la Spotify)
itistoday2 11y ago
Major kudos to Google for re-aligning its income source with users! RedTube confusion be damned, this is a great win for users!
jmpeax 11y ago
It's $9.99 per-month, where in the article the word "month" doesn't appear once. Great journalism there techcrunch.
scotty2992 11y ago
You can use Playlist Buddy to convert your Spotify playlists to YouTube Red.
scotty2992 11y ago
You can use Playlist Buddy to convert your Spotify playlists to YouTube Red.
voidr 11y ago
Sounds too similar to Vodafone Red, it doesn't feel like these people did their research when coming up with this branding.
makecheck 11y ago
Why didn't they call it YouTunes? :) This move is good in general. When big sites offer ways to pay, I think the idea becomes more mainstream and it'll be easier for new services to actually charge enough to survive.
adultSwim 11y ago
I would happily pay ten bucks a month for youtube. Hurray!

338 points by mayneack 11y ago

$10 poses an interesting decision in comparison to Spotify. Spotify is a dedicated music app in comparison, and is designed that way. The catalog isn't as big as YouTube's, but YouTube isn't designed for the user to catalog their personal music. Youtube provides ad-free video, but I don't think the ad's are very intrusive for videos compared to listening to music, where it can definitely be annoying.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Spotify is a dedicated music app in comparison, and is designed that way. The catalog isn't as big as YouTube's, but YouTube isn't designed for the user to catalog their personal music. OTOH, Google Play Music is also a music app, and designed for the user to catalog all their personal music, and is already free, and the subscription that includes unlimited streaming of the Google Play Music catalog is rolled included with the new Youtube Red subscription.
eertami 11y ago
I recently trialed both Google Play Music and Spotify. While pricing is the same, I found that for my needs Google had a better offering - being able to upload my personal library was something I definitely wanted, and the radios/suggestions seem to give me more of what I want than Spotify did.
- lmedinas 11y ago
  Spotify gets releases much sooner and better curation imho.
notatoad 11y ago
To me, this is a no-brainer if you're paying for spotify. Google music is at least as good as spotify (and better in many ways) at the same price. If you want to pay $10/mo for music streaming, you now can get ad-free youtube for no extra money if you choose google music instead of spotify.
scotty2992 11y ago
You can use Playlist Buddy to convert your Spotify playlists to YouTube Red.

linksbro 11y ago

It looks like some movies will also be available, as well as new original content[1][2]. This is shaping up to look like a netflix + spotify all in one package. Certainly this is also an attempt to curb the pervasiveness of adblocking by providing the ad-free option. [1] https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/home/youtube-red-blogpost https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/home/youtube-red-bl... [2] https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/youtube-originals/youtube-red-originals-blogpost https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/youtube-originals/y...

IanCal 11y ago
That would be very nice, as on the screenshot it says "save offline". Being able to download some episodes before getting on the train would be nice.

quaunaut 11y ago

The real killer app here is the ability to play videos in the background as music for your phone. Most of my favorite music isn't available on Spotify/Apple Music/etc, but quite a bit of it is on Youtube. It'd be interesting if they UI of this got good enough to employ it as a streaming replacement.

noblethrasher 11y ago
Prior to iOS 6, The bundled YouTube app let you play videos in the background, similar to music/audio apps.
sb8244 11y ago
You can sort of do this today on ios by clicking play on the slide up after it stopping. I never knew it was trying to prevent listening because it works once you hit play.
- randyrand 11y ago
  There are also some good jailbreaks for this too
beeboop 11y ago
There are Android apps that can do this, too. Or at least, there were up until about a year ago. Mine stopped working, perhaps intentionally by Google? Not sure.

grubles 11y ago

>However, iOS users will be charged $12.99 to cover Apple’s in-app purchase tax. The Apple Tax[0] strikes again! [0]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Apple_tax https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Apple_tax

Retric 11y ago
Not so much, this is just Google making an anti iOS play as Netflix for example trivially avoids the 'tax'.
- xigency 11y ago
  1) I think that's what he was talking about. 2) Isn't that illegal? Or getting pretty close to it.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    I don't see how this could or should be illegal. Can you elaborate?
    - ar0 11y ago
      I have to admit that I was also wondering about the anti-trust aspects of this. Given that YouTube is a dominant player (73.1% market share in the US according to [1], probably higher in many European countries where there are fewer alternative players on the market), one could argue that Google is abusing their market power in Internet video to push their own mobile OS. Since Google does not offer an app for Windows Phone, their YouTube Red service is basically 9.99$ for Android users and 12.99$ for all other supported mobile platforms. And - as others have pointed out - the 30% cut for Apple is not mandatory (see Netflix et al). [1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of-leading-internet-video-portals/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of...
      - Nexxxeh 11y ago
        But YouTube is usable on WinPho using IE though, isn't it? Sure it's not a first class experience, but talking as someone with a fair bit of WinPho experience... What on WinPho is a first class experience? (Admittedly I've never actually tried YouTube in IE on WinPho, but the 3rd party MetroTube app is supposed to be good.)

nefitty 11y ago

Is it just me, or does this service sound way too similar to Redtube?

MichaelGG 11y ago
Took me several re-reads to realise it wasn't a paid Redtube subscription. The music part is what got me.
- angersock 11y ago
  ...you don't like the music on Redtube videos? :|
  - minot 11y ago
    Well, RedTube and PornHub were named pretty much after YouTube no matter how much they want to try to deny it.
    - eric_h 11y ago
      I suspect you mean RedTube and YouPorn.
      - minot 11y ago
        Ah yes. I may have inadvertently typed almost by habit o.O and now I will try to distract the reader by mentioning something about keystroke dynamics. I wonder if I type pornhub in a different way than any one else does If you didn't know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystroke_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystroke_dynamics
    - carlob 11y ago
      Maybe RedTube and YouPorn, not really PornHub.
      - angersock 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

xlm1717 11y ago
Do you mean a backdoor into a sub-only revenue model for YouTube? You already had to pay for a Play Music subscription. The only part about it that was free was radio mode.

millstone 11y ago

> And any creator who doesn’t sign the deal for YouTube Red will have their videos on the ad-free old-school YouTube hidden from view. Does this mean that if I subscribe, I will see less content on YouTube?

ljoshua 11y ago
Or does it mean that if you don't subscribe that you'll see less content?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rcxdude 11y ago
IT means you will see the same amount. The reason they're strong-arming the creators (who have already signed up to monetize their videos via ads) is so the service is actually ad-free and still has all the content available.

corndoge 11y ago

$9.99 per year? Per month? Per millenium?

striking 11y ago
month

coldpie 11y ago

What does this mean for content creators, I wonder? My understanding is currently, if I block youtube ads, then the creators don't get paid for what would have been a viewing. Does this mean if I sign up for $10/mo, then the creators do get paid, and I get to avoid ads? Sign me up.

runevault 11y ago
That's a good question. I know the Twitch equivalent, Turbo, lets users count as ad impressions for paying streamers while not making them watch ads.
TheGRS 11y ago
I'm interested if they changed the model on this too. The current model encourages lots of low quality videos instead of encouraging well-produced, high quality video. If this simply pays the content creators in the same way that ads on youtube work, then I'm probably not very interested in the fee.
- coldpie 11y ago
  I suspect content creators will have something to say about this, so I'll wait for a week or two and see how it shakes out for them.
TheGRS 11y ago
I'm interested if they changed the model on this too. The current model encourages lots of low quality videos instead of encouraging well-produced, high quality video. If this simply pays the content creators in the same way that ads on youtube work, then I'm probably not very interested in the fee.
quadrangle 11y ago
But this is just rewarding them for using ads in the first place while we ought to be most supporting those who treat us better by not using obnoxious ads at all. The real point is this is actually about having more ads, just like Google Contributor. This is Google working to tell the world, "if you want to get paid, even by people who donate directly to avoid ads, you must first accept showing our ads otherwise". So this is about increasing, amplifying, reinforcing the ads because there won't likely be a way to say "I want to get paid when people enjoy my work, but I don't want to push ads on anyone ever". Google wants people like that to not exist. If you want to be paid in any form, you have to accept using Google ads. That's their end-game here.

ljoshua 11y ago

If I subscribe, will it remove the preroll ads while watching YouTube on Apple TV? Because I like to occasionally set up playlists of educational content for my kids to watch for a bit, but far too often an inappropriate ad has played in the middle of the playlist, driving me nuts.

coldpie 11y ago
If the YouTube app on Apple TV is made by and still supported by Google, then yes, probably.
bosdev 11y ago
Just out of curiosity, what are examples of inappropriate ads? Is it a subject matter issue?
- ljoshua 11y ago
  Two specific examples: a Victoria's Secret ad, and one for a movie that was far too scary for young children to be seeing.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Sometimes there are ads for alcohol or gambling on video clearly aimed at children. This is probably not legal in UK, and it's something I'm going to raise with regulators next year. In general you should probably allow people to opt out of alcohol ads. Or violent films. It's weird that the film has an age rating; the ad has an age rating; the content has a much younger age rating; but YouTube can't see that many parents don't want an 18 / 15 movie ad on content they're showing to their children.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - strictnein 11y ago
    That's why Youtube Kids for the iPad/iPhone is nice. None of that. Does that not exist on AppleTV?

jasonsync 11y ago

Yes, I wish Netflix had music videos channels, and for an extra $5/month optional Spotify audio channels built in.

copperx 11y ago
That would be awesome. The rebirth of MTV. Properly done.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  Almost like MTV in the 80s when they actually played music videos. Then Netflix can slowly roll in the terrible reality TV and we can repeat history once more :)

chambo622 11y ago

The fact that this is included with Google Play Music is awesome, and really represents a great value for ten bucks a month (or $8 for long time customers). Also, 'Red' is a much better name than 'Music Key.'

striking 11y ago
Except "YouTube Red" sounds a little like "RedTube" which is a different kind of video streaming site.
- torbit 11y ago
  eh, if you visit redtube enough, it becomes a brand name. For those that don't use redtube it sounds like they copied the "tube" from youtube.

Someone1234 11y ago

Their branding is horrifying. YouTube Red, Music Key, Google Android Play Music All Access Subscription, etc. Don't get me wrong, the actual service they provide is good, and Music Key (advert free YouTube music videos) was a nice value add. This too will only expand Music Key into other videos. I do worry a little bit that long term Google Music subscribers will wind up seeing price increases to pay for YouTube Red. If all I want is JUST Google Music, then all I should have to pay for is JUST Google Music, and that is fine today as there are no price increases, but ask me again when the first price rise is announced a few months from now.

abraham 11y ago
Was horrifying. Now it's just YouTube Red and Google Play Music subscription.
- DominikR 11y ago
  But aren't both the same?
  - abraham 11y ago
    Essentially they are the same. Technically they are different but they include the other.
    - mehta 11y ago
      Why not make it simple for people and just use one name? How does the "technically different" part affect people?
      - IshKebab 11y ago
        I suppose because it's clear what you get with those names.
        11y ago

fumar 11y ago

Link to the actual source: http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2015/10/red.html http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2015/10/red.html

Laaw 11y ago

Google seems to be trying a bunch of different things to leverage this downright stupid mentality embedded in a subset of the Internet population that YouTube is a platform for music (sans video). It's not Google's fault that folks are using YouTube as strictly a music service, but here we are. I don't really know how I'd solve this problem either, but if I have to regress to using YouTube to listen to music, it's going to piss me off (why oh why would I stream video if I'm just using the audio)? I just fear the majority is never going to take the short hop over to Google Music (or whatever app Google offers strictly for music), and I'm going to get stuck needlessly using YouTube related apps/platforms.

oldmanjay 11y ago
There is a vast gulf between not using things the way you prefer and being stupid.
- Laaw 11y ago
  The word "stupid" has no valuable meaning in rational discourse, so I've appropriated it in this case to mean, "evokes a negative emotional reaction." I hope this wasn't too harmful to the conversation, though it seems to have caused damage to the sensibilities of multiple people already. I'd edit, but I think at this point it's hardly worth the effort.
sdenton4 11y ago
Pretty sure the Youtube Music app has a 'don't stream the video' mode.
- Laaw 11y ago
  It does, but there's no technical reason to even involve YouTube at all; there's simply no way Google on the backend would rather split the audio off of the video than just play the audio from an album directly.

arrowgunz 11y ago

The original subscription page: https://www.youtube.com/red https://www.youtube.com/red

6stringmerc 11y ago

I wonder if the YouTube platform payout is less than the Google Music Key platform payout. Over time, and via the Sony hack, I think being suspicious of distribution platforms and major labels is warranted. So far, they tend to like non-disclosure based agreements which freeze out independents as much as possible. Considering the "artists hate streaming" bad publicity that seems pretty consistent, I think if YouTube Red was going to be a real improvement and fiscally more rewarding for artists, they should put that in big type somewhere.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

sharkweek 11y ago

How does this new ad-free version of YouTube pay content creators? If I upload a video to YouTube under the pretense that based on ad clicks I make money, how does YouTube showing my videos ad-free get me paid? I have read the official press release and a few articles but am not finding any news on these details.

coldpie 11y ago
Yes, this is what I really want to know. I think creators will have something to say soon, so keep your ears open.
JTon 11y ago
Yes, great question. I have two guesses: (1) simply "it doesn't". I'm sure most people will opt to watch ads rather than pay. That presumably much larger user base supports content creators (2) A fraction of the total subscription revenue is distributed to content creators weighed by views (a la Spotify)
strictnein 11y ago
It's in the article folks. > "YouTube Red will split subscription revenue with the rights holders of content people consume through the service. YouTube managed to sign-on most of the independent creators, record labels, TV networks, and movie studios to the program. A YouTube exec told reporters at today’s launch event that YouTube is paying out “the vast, vast majority of revenue”."
- shostack 11y ago
  "the vast, vast majority of revenue" ...for now. You don't boil a frog by turning the heat up all the way. Once you get people fully locked in and dependent on your platform by having both content AND viewership, you can have much greater ability to change agreements/pricing until there is a viable competitor.
  - silverlight 11y ago
    I think it's pretty safe to say that YouTube already dominates both the content and viewership of online user-created video content.

captn3m0 11y ago

Not available outside the US: >YouTube Red is available in the U.S. If you leave the U.S., you won’t be able to save videos offline, videos won’t play in the background, and you will see ads. Any videos that you’ve saved offline before leaving the U.S., will continue to be available offline for 30 days.

mordae 11y ago
Are they FUCKING kidding me? Not again!
- ju-st 11y ago
  What, you're suprised about this?
MichaelGG 11y ago
Which also means not always available inside the US, as Google's geo IP has to be the worst I've experienced. In Denver, they located me as being in France. After a while that got fixed. Now Google thinks I'm in Hungary. Despite multiple requests to fix it, it remains the same over months They could even automate it to some extent just by pinging. Use speed-of-light to determine that my system definitely cannot be in Europe. A lot of things do not properly de-localize, when you select English or no customization. Menu text, alt text, logos, etc. all remain localized. It's a terrible implementation. Chrome was (is?) worse. It'd "auto detect" the language to use based on IP, then refuse to remove it once running. So you'd have an English OS, sending "en" in the Accept-Language language header, and Chrome would decide you actually wanted Spanish or Russian or whatever, using .ru sites, etc.
- cuddlybacon 11y ago
  I'm in western Canada, and for a while Google thought I was in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia
- swagswag 11y ago
  google thinks I am in bangladesh

wnevets 11y ago

> If you’re already a Google Play Music subscriber, you’ll receive a free YouTube Red membership. Ok good. This is simply a bonus feature for me then.

jbob2000 11y ago

Get ready to get burned folks. It starts ad-free, just like Hulu. And then they add one or two ads during christmas time. And then during black friday. Then they add a small skippable add at the beginning of movies. This is how google is going to get you to pay for the same service they offer for free today. It won't stay ad free forever.

serge2k 11y ago
Then I cancel. Same as if Netflix moves to ads. I'll buy Hulu when they offer ad free stuff. Will gladly pay for ad free. If I pay the subscription fee on my desktop do I have to pay extra because I use iOS? That's not an in app purchase.
- daxelrod 11y ago
  Hulu does offer an ad free option now: http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials
  - serge2k 11y ago
    Nice! I'll look into that and probably sign up. Assuming it's not crippled or anything. edit: and now the question becomes do I want to add showtime. hmm My TV is getting expensive against Netflix 8 HBO 15 Hulu 12 Showtime 9 AIV 99/year 52 dollars a month. Covers most of the shows I like though. Unlike Cable this (pretty much) ad free and on demand. I think it's worth it.
- jhowison 11y ago
  Hulu did just recently add an ad free version: http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials. It's $12/month, whereas the ad version is still $8/month.
- silverlight 11y ago
  No, I think you only pay $12.99 if you subscribe via iOS. If you subscribe on Desktop then access it via your iOS device on the same account, you already have a subscription.

austenallred 11y ago

WTF does this mean? > And any creator who doesn’t sign the deal for YouTube Red will have their videos on the ad-free old-school YouTube hidden from view. That’s pretty harsh. So YouTube is saying if you don't join their new subscription plan they will just not display your videos on YouTube? Edit: Just heard back. Yes, this is exactly what happened, and it's now going into motion. If you are a YouTube creator and you don't agree to be a part of this new service, your channel will removed and your videos won't appear in search results. In other words, all of your videos are made "private" and you're pretty much dead.

coldpie 11y ago
Take it easy and wait for more info. All you've got to on is one line in a 3rd party news article.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- Blaaguuu 11y ago
  This isn't the first time Youtube has dramatically changed their terms, and forced creators to basically accept them or leave, though... so it is pretty easy to assume the worst when it comes to Youtube.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    The way I understand it, you can still host your videos. You just won't get any revenues. That is completely fine by me.
    - jahmed 11y ago
      Yeah it's Alphabet's site. You play by their rules. Don't like it? Well there's always other options.

ariwilson 11y ago

I've been using this service for a little bit and it's been fantastic. Ad-free viewing on my desktop has increased my YouTube viewing by probably 50% because I know I'm just going to see the content I want to see. Other notable features include Chromecast no-ads support (makes your YouTube parties much better) and offline downloads of long videos (finally can catch up on all those feature-length amateur films).

thesimpsons1022 11y ago
did you just never use ad-block or something?
- Pharaoh2 11y ago
  Doesn't work when chromecasting.
- ariwilson 11y ago
  I like to support content creators. And no, I don't want to have to sign up for the Patreon accounts of every single YouTube user I like the videos of.
  - beagle3 11y ago
    Unless you really liked being tracked, cataloged and analyzed, I recommend you use ad blocking even though you're using YouTube Red. It's not advertising. It's advertracking. YouTube red removes the "advertising" part, but the "tracking" part stays. (Yes, Google could, and probably do, track you through an adblocker while you are on YouTube. But why tracking easy for them and everyone else?)

GigabyteCoin 11y ago

They're going to have to do something about uBlock Origin blocking youtube video ads flawlessly before this ever takes off imho. I installed uBlock a few weeks ago and only recently realized I haven't seen a single youtube video ad since then.

darkstar999 11y ago
Not entirely. There are platforms such as Google TV that can't block ads.
- Cub3 11y ago
  My chromecast doesn't block ads, i'll pay for the service specifically for this
  - GigabyteCoin 11y ago
    Instead of paying $9.99 monthly (forever) why not just buy one of those "TV on a stick" devices [0] (a one time purchase) and run a web browser+uBlock? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-on-a-stick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-on-a-stick
    - darkstar999 11y ago
      Because the experience and usability of a chromecast is much MUCH better than what you are suggesting.
- GigabyteCoin 11y ago
  The Google TV program has been discontinued.
  - darkstar999 11y ago
    Android TV, sorry. It's built into my tv. The top discussion in this thread is about their poor branding. Chromecast? Google Cast? Android TV? Nexus Player? Google TV? What is it? I have Android TV and even I'm confused.

smegel 11y ago

A month for those annoyed by this frustrating omission.

mschuster91 11y ago

Wow. Took them long enough, but I really appreciate a big site experimenting with replacing ads by real money. Of course, Google has a pretty solid process for low-amount online payments, though.

dogma1138 11y ago

If this would include access to paid YT videos I think this would rock but currently it isn't stated if it would.

anonbanker 11y ago

Youtube is ripe for disruption right now. All these attempts to monetize will simply drive their users elsewhere.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Bedon292 11y ago
This seems to be a win for everyone. People don't want to see ads, and they don't with this. Google makes the money they were already making from ads. And content creators are getting the money they would have gotten from ads. They probably make even more since people are not ad blocking and cutting down their income. It seems less profit motivated, and more motivated at giving people what they want. If people don't want to pay they don't have to.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

bluthru 11y ago

>YouTube Red will also offer Background Play, so you can close the app while continuing to listen to the audio of whatever you were watching as you use your phone. What a joke. This should be a standard feature. iOS users: You can play audio in the background by playing a video in Safari, swiping up to open control center, pressing play, and then double-tapping the home button to go to another app. The only restriction is that you can't use Safari while the video is playing.

mtgx 11y ago
Indeed. Android should be able to play audio from videos while the screen is off by now. But Google doesn't even allow the Read Aloud feature in Play Books to work while the screen is off. I don't get that one at all.
beeboop 11y ago
Agreed, it's really the only feature I care about. I used a third party app exactly for this but it broke about half a year ago. I wonder if it broke intentionally because of Google.
eco 11y ago
I believe it's that way because of the rights issues. They can show ads while songs are playing to pay the copyright holder of the song but if your display is off then there is no ads and thus no revenue to share.

meesterdude 11y ago

Overall this is a good idea - the fact that google is the one behind it doesn't give me any fuzzies though. They will always want to make more money from it - that's why they started with ads in the first place, and are now trying to go subscription. My guess is this goes alright in the short term, in the long term they cluster fuck it, lest we not forget the Google+ fiasco. Probably won't muck it up enough to spawn rivals, but close. They really just won't be able to help themselves. Still, give them credit: making money off other peoples content is a lucrative business, as apple has shown.

BasDirks 11y ago

This is dumb on so many levels. The name, the branding, the backstabbing of the content creators, the availability restrictions. Of course, they are Google, they can get away with this. Deeply uninspiring.

oneJob 11y ago

The profit motive is showing its true colors. It'd be a very tough argument to claim that "YouTube Red" is playing a vital role in Google's attempt to organize the world's data. It's purely a grab for revenue/profit. Netflix (as well as HBO, and many others) already has commercial free streaming movies. HULU (as well as others) now has commercial free streaming tv. Content wise, what YouTube brings to the table is the user generated content, and YouTube Red does not seem to be centered around user generated content. I'd say user generated content is caught up in the mix, if anything. Google could index HULU and Netflix instead of creating YouTube Red. Also, it is a false choice to say, given the assumption of ad-free services, I should either have to pay for ads or Google should take a loss in revenue. There are many other business models, such as P2P, that could facilitate ad-free user generated content channels. The rub? P2P doesn't work too well with commercial content generation. And so, we find ourselves back to ads vs subscriptions, and back to the revenue grab. When talent at Google is working on YouTube Red, it's not working on other problems. I can think of many other problems I'd rather see Google working on, given their core competencies.

nemothekid 11y ago
>*The profit motive is showing its true colors. It'd be a very tough argument to claim that "YouTube Red" is playing a vital role in Google's attempt to organize the world's data. YouTube Red seems less like a "profit grab" and more like a defensive move. I'm sure Google would love to continue its current model of 50% of all ad revenue. From what I've gathered its (1) Google's top creators exploring other options such as Vessel (subscription music service) and (2) YouTube's need to provide a regular/more predictable revenue stream to their partners. The Ad model doesn't seem to work well if your most of your viewers are outside the United States.
- oneJob 11y ago
  I guess I was saying, back up even more, why the heck, given Google's stated mission of "Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful", are they in this part of the market at all. Especially given, as you (I believe correctly) pointed out they need to put up pay walls to adapt to the changing landscape and in the process make unavailable any content that doesn't conform to their revenue goals. "YouTube Red" doesn't seem to conform to their mission of making all of the world's info accessible and useful. That word 'all' is important, since they constantly stress that point. And here, they are compromising exactly that point. footnote regarding all: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-targeting-all-the-worlds-content-and-all-your-information/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-targeting-all-the-worlds...

sjg007 11y ago

Does it turn off ads in the mobile app and in you tube kids?

aluhut 11y ago

Good. Time for a new popular video platform.

tolmasky 11y ago

> "However, iOS users will be charged $12.99 to cover Apple’s in-app purchase tax" I thought Apple specifically didn't allow this.

kllrnohj 11y ago
I don't think Apple gets a say over it. The already got sued & lost about price fixing on eBooks, I don't think they're going to try their hand at price fixing again. Also practically what could Apple even do? Kick YouTube off of the AppStore? That'd just hurt Apple as well.

ninjakeyboard 11y ago

"RedTube" makes this something akin to product mis-placement.

kozukumi 11y ago

Ha for a second I thought Google/YouTube were getting into the porn business!

mandeepj 11y ago

My first thought was - "What? Are they starting a subscription for porn?"

raykaye47 11y ago

Or you could just download Adblock Plus for free...

bsilvereagle 11y ago
There are those of us that don't want to see ads but still want to support content creators. This is potentially a win-win on that front, while an ad blocker is not.
- userbinator 11y ago
  There are many other ways to "support content creators", like... ask them if they have Paypal or similar and donate to them directly that way.

tucif 11y ago

From the FAQ: > "As an added bonus, your YouTube Red membership includes a free subscription to Google Play Music, with access to its extensive catalog of music. If you’re already a Google Play Music subscriber, you’ll receive a free YouTube Red membership."[0] That's an interesting way to bootstrap their paying userbase. [0]https://www.youtube.com/red https://www.youtube.com/red

kenjackson 11y ago

Is that $9.99/month? The site doesn't say (AFAICT). That seems WAY expensive. I'd happily pay $20/year, but not $10/month -- not even close.

eco 11y ago
It's the same price as Spotify. Since you get the entire Google Play Music library with it it seems to be priced very competitively.
- scotty2992 11y ago
  You can use Playlist Buddy to convert your Spotify playlists to YouTube Red.

nathanb 11y ago

Either the article doesn't make it clear or I'm bad at reading, and the YT Red site itself just tells me it's not available in my country: I assume this is $10 US a month?

dpweb 11y ago

Block ads, that can be done already. I think the real value is Background Play.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

swagswag 11y ago
they also hire kids straight out of comptonq

scoot 11y ago

"iOS users will be charged $12.99 to cover Apple’s in-app purchase tax." If that's true, it looks like someone in google got their math wrong. Apple will take 30% of $12.99, i.e. $3.90, leaving google with only $9.09, not the $9.99 they're expecting. The correct price to "cover Apple’s in-app purchase tax." is $14.27.

personjerry 11y ago

Is this the trend? Of moving the Internet into subscription based as-free? At some point I suspect ads will just be removed altogether and we'll have an entirely subscription based model.

DavideNL 11y ago
> At some point I suspect ads will just be removed altogether and we'll have an entirely subscription based model. I certainly hope so. Enough with the ad torture...

zmmmmm 11y ago

This sounds pretty awesome and as soon as it comes to my country I will subscribe. HOWEVER, I hope they come up with a family subscription or that the Play Music family subscription covers it. Because the main reason I want the ads gone is for the sake of my kids.

grandalf 11y ago

I would have signed up for this but I finally got fed up and installed adblock.

mark_l_watson 11y ago

I like this. Although a lot of great content is, and should be, freely available on the web, I also would like to see more subscription based content creation and viewing. Google Play movies, TV, and books is getting to be convenient enough so I am using it more (I just bought the BBC 'Worricker Trilogy', one of the best shows we have watched in years). While subscribing to a service like this, plus Hulu no commercials version, Internet version of HBO Go, and Netflix may seem a little expensive, it basically covers all entertainment costs except for buying books.

chatmasta 11y ago

Does this give google legal ground to make an argument that ad blockers enable piracy? If "ad free content" exists, but you have to pay for it, then is it piracy to get the "ad free content" without paying for it?

task_queue 11y ago

Another thing on the internet I'm not paying for.

adrianlmm 11y ago

Was YouTube gaming even succesful? I think the YouTube Brand is overused and has lost value.

tehwebguy 11y ago

Headline 1 year from now: How Pewdiepie became a billionaire and everyone making a living off 1M views a month went broke. (At least that's what will happen if their royalties are based on aggregate subscription revenue & views rather than per subscriber views, a la Spotify)

itistoday2 11y ago

Major kudos to Google for re-aligning its income source with users! RedTube confusion be damned, this is a great win for users!

jmpeax 11y ago

It's $9.99 per-month, where in the article the word "month" doesn't appear once. Great journalism there techcrunch.

scotty2992 11y ago

You can use Playlist Buddy to convert your Spotify playlists to YouTube Red.

scotty2992 11y ago

You can use Playlist Buddy to convert your Spotify playlists to YouTube Red.

voidr 11y ago

Sounds too similar to Vodafone Red, it doesn't feel like these people did their research when coming up with this branding.

makecheck 11y ago

Why didn't they call it YouTunes? :) This move is good in general. When big sites offer ways to pay, I think the idea becomes more mainstream and it'll be easier for new services to actually charge enough to survive.

adultSwim 11y ago

I would happily pay ten bucks a month for youtube. Hurray!