8 ms·

> Seems like a lesson learned about raising money to solve something people don't care about... in this case a first-class mobile experience... People do want

by dvt 6y ago

> Seems like a lesson learned about raising money to solve something people don't care about... in this case a first-class mobile experience... People do want a first-class mobile experience (see TikTok), they just don't want to pay a premium for it. If you charge people for something, you better make damn sure it's way better than the free alternative.

adrr 6y ago
YouTube premium has 20mm paying users. Educated guess most of users consume through a mobile device. Biggest issue with Quibi was lack of app for TV. They cut their TAM by only focusing on Mobile. I don’t think YouTube premium would be as popular if it was only for 1 platform.
- causality0 6y ago
  Nobody pays for Youtube Premium because they want the exclusive content. They pay because they hate ads and Youtube gatekeeps basic app functionality behind the paywall. It's not a service it's a hostage negotiation.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    Adblockers work fine on YouTube.
    - jfim 6y ago
      Not on mobile, Chromecast, or TV apps.
      - bigwavedave 6y ago
        Ublock works just fine on Firefox mobile; all you have to do is play YouTube in the browser and not the native app. Sadly, this does not resolve the "disable playback while the screen is off" functionality.
      - Nextgrid 6y ago
        For iOS, AdGuard solves that problem. For Android, the other comment suggests uBlock Origin which I definitely recommend (even for other reasons beyond YouTube).
      - input_sh 6y ago
        My TV is behind Pi-hole and I'm pretty sure I've never seen an ad on my TV (or while casting). On phones... sometimes, but that's usually fixed within a day or two. Before others crucify me for not paying for the content: I'm paying for a subscription service where most of the YouTube channels I follow mirror their content (https://watchnebula.com/ https://watchnebula.com/). I just cut out Google as an unnecessary middleman.
  - anamexis 6y ago
    No one was arguing that people pay for Youtube Premium because of the exclusive content. Also is there anything wrong with offering a paid service which offers removing ads and getting some extra functionality?
    - adrr 6y ago
      It’s exclusive to YouTube. If I could pay less money for no ads on another video platform that has the same content, I would.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        What? Most video content is exclusive to a single platform already? If you think HBO, Disney+, Netflix originals, etc., are too expensive, you don't have other options there either in paying less from someone else. Why should you expect to be able to do so?? If anything YouTube is the most open platform by far, because the vast majority of the content on there is owned by the creators, not YouTube, and thus it could be on other platforms, in a way that will never happen with the paid streaming services. Indeed this is even happening with CuriosityStream.
    - causality0 6y ago
      Nothing at all. I'm not making a value judgment on Youtube Premium. I'm saying it's not the same class of service as Quibi and thus not a counter-example for how Quibi could/should have succeeded. They're fundamentally different things with completely different non-user to paying customer paths. Quibi wasn't Youtube. Quibi is 2013 Netflix if it didn't have any non-original content. Except 2013 Netflix wasn't dumb enough to charge you money and still show you ads.
  - Zancarius 6y ago
    > They pay because they hate ads and Youtube gatekeeps basic app functionality behind the paywall. Ding, ding, ding! The accuracy of this statement is frightening. I'm annoyed with YT pushing major media orgs' content out because the only reason I watch it is for the smaller creators. But the reality is the ads are annoying. And it's worth paying for just to be able to listen to the app with the screen turned off. I've also warmed up quite a bit to YT Music even if the UI feels a bit rough around the edges (browser; mobile is OK). But the ads? Yeah, that's a big reason.
  - mguerville 6y ago
    That's me exactly, I paid for the download feature when I use to fly a lot, now I pay because otherwise the ads to content ratio is so bad I don't even try to keep up with creators I like
  - dageshi 6y ago
    Based on the sheer volume of content consumed on youtube, some people might genuinely want to support the creators they watch without seeing ads. I'm forever seeing people on HN saying "just let me pay for it instead of watching ads" well youtube gave that option.
    - freehunter 6y ago
      "Let me pay for it instead of watching ads" is the part that's said out loud. The part that's only implied is "and stop tracking me, stop making recommendations with the sole purpose of distracting me/keeping me here longer, etc". The part that isn't said is "stop treating me like the product". No one wants to pay for something where they're still the product being sold. Youtube Premium still has all its trackers, still recommends videos not that it think you will find interesting but that it thinks will keep you watching (for better or worse), and still feeds all of your data into the Google ads network for companies to target you on other websites.
      - cambalache 6y ago
        For real, imagine go to the doctor for any cause and just the day after being inundated by spam and people calling you offering health insurance.
        drusepth 6y ago
        I registered a .us domain yesterday (which doesn't support WHOIS protection-esque anonymity services) and so far today I've received: * 6 phone calls * 4 voicemails * 9 emails all from what looks like companies from third-world countries offering business development services, website designs, app developers, logo design, etc, specifically asking about the new domain I purchased. :(
        therealx 6y ago
        Sounds like .us needs to be handled like .com was before those services even existed - either fake info or a free/cheap Voip line.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Why would you be entitled to any level of service for a product that you aren't paying any money for? YouTube isn't free to run. All that bandwidth, engineering work, and creator compensation don't pay for themselves. You either pay with ad views or you pay with cash. YouTube doesn't owe anyone a free experience. They could lock the entire site behind a paywall to paid subscribers only tomorrow, and thus be exactly like Netflix, Disney+, HBO, etc., and they'd be entirely within their rights to do so.
    - hansvm 6y ago
      They had to go out of their way to prevent videos from playing audio in the background. They're objectively gatekeeping basic functionality behind a paywall, independently of whether anyone feels entitled to those features.
      - input_sh 6y ago
        Also the option for a picture-in-picture on a phone used to be free, then they've just decided to make it a premium feature. Back when it was introduced on Android, it worked on YouTube just fine. Then it was intentially broken (hidden behind a paywall).
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        Yes, companies purposely don't include all desired features in the free tier as an incentive to induce users to upgrade to the paid tier. And features are liable to move between tiers as they fine-tune their monetization strategy.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        Yes, they are absolutely doing all of this, and it's entirely within their remit to do so because no one is entitled to any of it for free. Why should they offer all of their basic functionality for free if that means they're not making as much money as they could be if they charged for it instead? The only people they owe background audio playback to are those paying for it, and those people are getting it.
  - ramraj07 6y ago
    Hostage negotiation, aka a literal gun to your head if you are annoyed by watching ads in return for a free service? Not an exaggeration at all.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    I pay for youtube premium because I don't want my kids to watch the ads.
  - nullsense 6y ago
    you're being downvoted, but as someone who used to pay the monthly ransom to be able to play YouTube audio in the background with the screen off, I wholeheartedly agree. I've never watched YouTube exclusive content and couldn't name anything if asked.
- pavanky 6y ago
  I originally got youtube premium because I was already paying for Google music. But I'd say 90% of my youtube consumption is on TV.
  - datavirtue 6y ago
    This
mgadams3 6y ago
very true. I should have been more clear that I was referring to their whole seamless profile vs landscape thing that I personally thought was silly when I tried Quibi. Seems like a good idea in theory tho
scsilver 6y ago
I dont think anyone wants to watch 10-20 minute shorts made by professionals. They want 30+ or 30 seconds.
- Traster 6y ago
  Every single Simpsons episode is 20 minutes, they seem to make it work.

by dvt 6y ago

adrr 6y ago

YouTube premium has 20mm paying users. Educated guess most of users consume through a mobile device. Biggest issue with Quibi was lack of app for TV. They cut their TAM by only focusing on Mobile. I don’t think YouTube premium would be as popular if it was only for 1 platform.

causality0 6y ago
Nobody pays for Youtube Premium because they want the exclusive content. They pay because they hate ads and Youtube gatekeeps basic app functionality behind the paywall. It's not a service it's a hostage negotiation.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Adblockers work fine on YouTube.
  - jfim 6y ago
    Not on mobile, Chromecast, or TV apps.
    - bigwavedave 6y ago
      Ublock works just fine on Firefox mobile; all you have to do is play YouTube in the browser and not the native app. Sadly, this does not resolve the "disable playback while the screen is off" functionality.
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      For iOS, AdGuard solves that problem. For Android, the other comment suggests uBlock Origin which I definitely recommend (even for other reasons beyond YouTube).
    - input_sh 6y ago
      My TV is behind Pi-hole and I'm pretty sure I've never seen an ad on my TV (or while casting). On phones... sometimes, but that's usually fixed within a day or two. Before others crucify me for not paying for the content: I'm paying for a subscription service where most of the YouTube channels I follow mirror their content (https://watchnebula.com/ https://watchnebula.com/). I just cut out Google as an unnecessary middleman.
- anamexis 6y ago
  No one was arguing that people pay for Youtube Premium because of the exclusive content. Also is there anything wrong with offering a paid service which offers removing ads and getting some extra functionality?
  - adrr 6y ago
    It’s exclusive to YouTube. If I could pay less money for no ads on another video platform that has the same content, I would.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      What? Most video content is exclusive to a single platform already? If you think HBO, Disney+, Netflix originals, etc., are too expensive, you don't have other options there either in paying less from someone else. Why should you expect to be able to do so?? If anything YouTube is the most open platform by far, because the vast majority of the content on there is owned by the creators, not YouTube, and thus it could be on other platforms, in a way that will never happen with the paid streaming services. Indeed this is even happening with CuriosityStream.
  - causality0 6y ago
    Nothing at all. I'm not making a value judgment on Youtube Premium. I'm saying it's not the same class of service as Quibi and thus not a counter-example for how Quibi could/should have succeeded. They're fundamentally different things with completely different non-user to paying customer paths. Quibi wasn't Youtube. Quibi is 2013 Netflix if it didn't have any non-original content. Except 2013 Netflix wasn't dumb enough to charge you money and still show you ads.
- Zancarius 6y ago
  > They pay because they hate ads and Youtube gatekeeps basic app functionality behind the paywall. Ding, ding, ding! The accuracy of this statement is frightening. I'm annoyed with YT pushing major media orgs' content out because the only reason I watch it is for the smaller creators. But the reality is the ads are annoying. And it's worth paying for just to be able to listen to the app with the screen turned off. I've also warmed up quite a bit to YT Music even if the UI feels a bit rough around the edges (browser; mobile is OK). But the ads? Yeah, that's a big reason.
- mguerville 6y ago
  That's me exactly, I paid for the download feature when I use to fly a lot, now I pay because otherwise the ads to content ratio is so bad I don't even try to keep up with creators I like
- dageshi 6y ago
  Based on the sheer volume of content consumed on youtube, some people might genuinely want to support the creators they watch without seeing ads. I'm forever seeing people on HN saying "just let me pay for it instead of watching ads" well youtube gave that option.
  - freehunter 6y ago
    "Let me pay for it instead of watching ads" is the part that's said out loud. The part that's only implied is "and stop tracking me, stop making recommendations with the sole purpose of distracting me/keeping me here longer, etc". The part that isn't said is "stop treating me like the product". No one wants to pay for something where they're still the product being sold. Youtube Premium still has all its trackers, still recommends videos not that it think you will find interesting but that it thinks will keep you watching (for better or worse), and still feeds all of your data into the Google ads network for companies to target you on other websites.
    - cambalache 6y ago
      For real, imagine go to the doctor for any cause and just the day after being inundated by spam and people calling you offering health insurance.
      - drusepth 6y ago
        I registered a .us domain yesterday (which doesn't support WHOIS protection-esque anonymity services) and so far today I've received: * 6 phone calls * 4 voicemails * 9 emails all from what looks like companies from third-world countries offering business development services, website designs, app developers, logo design, etc, specifically asking about the new domain I purchased. :(
        therealx 6y ago
        Sounds like .us needs to be handled like .com was before those services even existed - either fake info or a free/cheap Voip line.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Why would you be entitled to any level of service for a product that you aren't paying any money for? YouTube isn't free to run. All that bandwidth, engineering work, and creator compensation don't pay for themselves. You either pay with ad views or you pay with cash. YouTube doesn't owe anyone a free experience. They could lock the entire site behind a paywall to paid subscribers only tomorrow, and thus be exactly like Netflix, Disney+, HBO, etc., and they'd be entirely within their rights to do so.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    They had to go out of their way to prevent videos from playing audio in the background. They're objectively gatekeeping basic functionality behind a paywall, independently of whether anyone feels entitled to those features.
    - input_sh 6y ago
      Also the option for a picture-in-picture on a phone used to be free, then they've just decided to make it a premium feature. Back when it was introduced on Android, it worked on YouTube just fine. Then it was intentially broken (hidden behind a paywall).
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        Yes, companies purposely don't include all desired features in the free tier as an incentive to induce users to upgrade to the paid tier. And features are liable to move between tiers as they fine-tune their monetization strategy.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      Yes, they are absolutely doing all of this, and it's entirely within their remit to do so because no one is entitled to any of it for free. Why should they offer all of their basic functionality for free if that means they're not making as much money as they could be if they charged for it instead? The only people they owe background audio playback to are those paying for it, and those people are getting it.
- ramraj07 6y ago
  Hostage negotiation, aka a literal gun to your head if you are annoyed by watching ads in return for a free service? Not an exaggeration at all.
- sjg007 6y ago
  I pay for youtube premium because I don't want my kids to watch the ads.
- nullsense 6y ago
  you're being downvoted, but as someone who used to pay the monthly ransom to be able to play YouTube audio in the background with the screen off, I wholeheartedly agree. I've never watched YouTube exclusive content and couldn't name anything if asked.
pavanky 6y ago
I originally got youtube premium because I was already paying for Google music. But I'd say 90% of my youtube consumption is on TV.
- datavirtue 6y ago
  This

mgadams3 6y ago

very true. I should have been more clear that I was referring to their whole seamless profile vs landscape thing that I personally thought was silly when I tried Quibi. Seems like a good idea in theory tho

scsilver 6y ago

I dont think anyone wants to watch 10-20 minute shorts made by professionals. They want 30+ or 30 seconds.

Traster 6y ago
Every single Simpsons episode is 20 minutes, they seem to make it work.