13 ms·

You can pay for YouTube premium and get rid of ads. If you spend a non trivial amount of time on YouTube it's well worth it, especially the family account. Don

You can pay for YouTube premium and get rid of ads. If you spend a non trivial amount of time on YouTube it's well worth it, especially the family account. Don't want to be the product ? Pay for your services then - the money has to come from somewhere.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Word. People won't pay so ads happen.
- kmnc 6y ago
  Bullshit. I pay to go to the movies, I am advertised to. Why do you think online services will maintain this “pay is for ad fee”?
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    So specifically, how should sites support themselves if such as you won't pay?
    - mdifrgechd 6y ago
      If they cant support themselves, they should find something people do want to pay for. The universe doesnt owe the website creators a revenue stream.
      - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        The people who are happy to read it do owe them a revenue stream if they want a website to continue. To be perfectly clear I have no desire to see any ads, and I don't cos I block pretty much every last one (squid) but if there are sites that are worth reading, like from here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25157722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25157722 well, author's got to make money for the time they put in. Advertisers can die in rotting heaps, but they exist because people make them exist. They exist because you want free stuff.
        freeone3000 6y ago
        I read articles online before the advertisements came. I'll read them again after the advertisements are gone.
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        All I hear is "I want free stuff". I'm not saying you should bleed yourself dry for them, would a couple of pounds/dollars a month (when you have paid work) to put rent-seeking ad men out of a job and to support OSS software development be so bad; would you even notice it?
        freeone3000 6y ago
        There is no indication that throwing money at companies decreases ads. We had newspapers, magazines, cable, and now Hulu and Amazon video and the NYT webpage. They'll gladly take my money and serve me ads.
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        If you look at the website mentioned before at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25157722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25157722, where are the ads? How long can the guy keep putting out high quality stuff without pay do you think. And what about OSS devs who have their stuff used by you but you won't pay? > There is no indication that throwing money at companies decreases ads Pocket change isn't "throwing money". But the converse is true, you don't pay, ads appear. If not, where - be specific - does the money to run the site come from? Also as someone pointed out before at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25179379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25179379 "You can pay for YouTube premium and get rid of ads" so it seems paying does indeed decrease ads. There's the evidence.
        freeone3000 6y ago
        Hulu and Cable also used to be ad-free. I believe that much like Amazon Video, YouTube Premium will only be ad-free for a limited time and then the ads will start to creep in again, because while not earning any money is not sustainable, no amount of money is "enough".
kmnc 6y ago
So the content producers just advertise to you directly, why wouldn’t they? The bigger they get, the more premium viewers, the more sponsors they receive. Eventually YouTube won’t like being cut out gain and boom to YouTube premium now has ads.
- reader_mode 6y ago
  You mean sponsored videos ? I don't follow channels that push those. If YouTube starts adding ads to premium why would I keep paying ?
- RussianCow 6y ago
  This doesn't make sense. If you're paying for YouTube, then Google is already making a steady income stream from you; no need for ads.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    But they could potentially make a larger steady income stream if they also had ads. It happened to cable TV, it happened when HTC introduced ads to their tiles or timeline or whatever it was called, ordering food online you'll get spammed when you try to checkout to buy their new promotional item (even if you already have it in your cart), and so on. If ads aren't a perfect fit then they'll still try to add other revenue models to things you've paid for -- smart TVs selling data about what you watch or which products your conversations are about, car diagnostic products shipping a patch to only work if you start shipping them location data, large companies like Garmin buying up smaller companies and cancelling any lifetime accounts in favor of a subscription model (and vehemently denying that it's a money-grab), needing a Facebook account to use your Oculus, and so on. If they're able to extract more value from you without excessive negative repercussions then they will, independently of what's "right" or legal.
    - RussianCow 6y ago
      I get that, but an ad-free experience is the main benefit of subscribing to YouTube Premium. If they introduce ads to it, why would anyone pay for it?
BiteCode_dev 6y ago
Oh, but I'm OK with paying. I paid for netflix, lastpass and zoom. I still pay for dynalist, audible or for having my own email address. However, I'm not OK with having a logged in google account that accumulates everything I do into their DB and AI while I use their services. Even when you pay, they still milk your private life. And they have proved time after time they cannot be trusted with it.
- cromwellian 6y ago
  Netflix also accumulates all of your watching habits and feeds it into AI while using their services.
  - baxtr 6y ago
    Is that a bad thing if it helps you to find great new content?
    - enkid 6y ago
      Except most of what you "discover" is actually more of the same. That why we have so much divisiveness in our society, people are unknowingly in echo chambers so deep they don't know anything else exists.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      It's just not a great argument against YouTube since "accumulates everything I do into their DB and AI" is something both services do in the name of better recommendations.
  - BiteCode_dev 6y ago
    Netflix doesn't have an ubiquitous search engine, analytic scripts on half the web sites in the world, Android, gmail, maps, youtube, and so on. Netflix business is not to accumulate data on you and resell it, or to display ads. Netflix was not part of the PRISM program. Netflix is not Google.
- Aunche 6y ago
mdifrgechd 6y ago
I think part of the tension is that advertising (and other data harvesting) attempts to monetize content that has virtually zero value for a lot of people: take any of the articles on a typical HN front page - right now the top two are "Booting from a vinyl record" and "Exotic programming ideas". These sound interesting (and are already somewhat well targeted to me as a HN reader), but the content is still worth almost nothing to me if I have to sign up for something or watch an ad to view it. Now apply the same reasoning to most web content that I value even less, like random medium articles or Forbes techcrunch or something that are pretty much designed just to get people to click on them. Most internet content that we are considering here is just there to get you to look at ads, and so ironically not worth "paying" for in any way for most people. So ad blocking puts the user in a funny position. It let's them continue to look at things they don't value much. And I think content creaters looking for views probably would rather complain about ad blockers than give users an ultimatum that could result in them just going somewhere else.
- reader_mode 6y ago
  Most (all ?) youtube vides fall in to virtually zero value category - but youtube as a platform is worth 15 bucks a month to me. I must admit I would only subscribe to a written publication if I get a printed copy occasionally, but anyway like youtube I don't find individual peaces of content worth it I might find the publication valuable. I don't see myself paying for blog article access ever - if you write outside of some publication it should either be self-promotion, exercise, or a labor of love and desire for exposure - attempting to monetise that sucks with advertising or without it - don't write those kinds of things. I feel the same about OSS projects. A way to invert this is to do a lot of good content consistently so you become a consistent source of valuable material - then it could fit Patreon model but I must admit I've haven't encountered someone I would sponsor like this yet. I will think about it more in the future.
dghughes 6y ago
I don't mind seeing an ad I grew up in the TV generation commercials are nothing. An ad at the start of a YouTube video is fine but it's become endless ads to the point of ruining the content. And often it's the same damn ad over and over and over.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

Word. People won't pay so ads happen.

kmnc 6y ago
Bullshit. I pay to go to the movies, I am advertised to. Why do you think online services will maintain this “pay is for ad fee”?
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  So specifically, how should sites support themselves if such as you won't pay?
  - mdifrgechd 6y ago
    If they cant support themselves, they should find something people do want to pay for. The universe doesnt owe the website creators a revenue stream.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      The people who are happy to read it do owe them a revenue stream if they want a website to continue. To be perfectly clear I have no desire to see any ads, and I don't cos I block pretty much every last one (squid) but if there are sites that are worth reading, like from here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25157722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25157722 well, author's got to make money for the time they put in. Advertisers can die in rotting heaps, but they exist because people make them exist. They exist because you want free stuff.
      - freeone3000 6y ago
        I read articles online before the advertisements came. I'll read them again after the advertisements are gone.
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        All I hear is "I want free stuff". I'm not saying you should bleed yourself dry for them, would a couple of pounds/dollars a month (when you have paid work) to put rent-seeking ad men out of a job and to support OSS software development be so bad; would you even notice it?
        freeone3000 6y ago
        There is no indication that throwing money at companies decreases ads. We had newspapers, magazines, cable, and now Hulu and Amazon video and the NYT webpage. They'll gladly take my money and serve me ads.
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        If you look at the website mentioned before at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25157722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25157722, where are the ads? How long can the guy keep putting out high quality stuff without pay do you think. And what about OSS devs who have their stuff used by you but you won't pay? > There is no indication that throwing money at companies decreases ads Pocket change isn't "throwing money". But the converse is true, you don't pay, ads appear. If not, where - be specific - does the money to run the site come from? Also as someone pointed out before at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25179379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25179379 "You can pay for YouTube premium and get rid of ads" so it seems paying does indeed decrease ads. There's the evidence.
        freeone3000 6y ago
        Hulu and Cable also used to be ad-free. I believe that much like Amazon Video, YouTube Premium will only be ad-free for a limited time and then the ads will start to creep in again, because while not earning any money is not sustainable, no amount of money is "enough".

kmnc 6y ago

So the content producers just advertise to you directly, why wouldn’t they? The bigger they get, the more premium viewers, the more sponsors they receive. Eventually YouTube won’t like being cut out gain and boom to YouTube premium now has ads.

reader_mode 6y ago
You mean sponsored videos ? I don't follow channels that push those. If YouTube starts adding ads to premium why would I keep paying ?
RussianCow 6y ago
This doesn't make sense. If you're paying for YouTube, then Google is already making a steady income stream from you; no need for ads.
- hansvm 6y ago
  But they could potentially make a larger steady income stream if they also had ads. It happened to cable TV, it happened when HTC introduced ads to their tiles or timeline or whatever it was called, ordering food online you'll get spammed when you try to checkout to buy their new promotional item (even if you already have it in your cart), and so on. If ads aren't a perfect fit then they'll still try to add other revenue models to things you've paid for -- smart TVs selling data about what you watch or which products your conversations are about, car diagnostic products shipping a patch to only work if you start shipping them location data, large companies like Garmin buying up smaller companies and cancelling any lifetime accounts in favor of a subscription model (and vehemently denying that it's a money-grab), needing a Facebook account to use your Oculus, and so on. If they're able to extract more value from you without excessive negative repercussions then they will, independently of what's "right" or legal.
  - RussianCow 6y ago
    I get that, but an ad-free experience is the main benefit of subscribing to YouTube Premium. If they introduce ads to it, why would anyone pay for it?

BiteCode_dev 6y ago

Oh, but I'm OK with paying. I paid for netflix, lastpass and zoom. I still pay for dynalist, audible or for having my own email address. However, I'm not OK with having a logged in google account that accumulates everything I do into their DB and AI while I use their services. Even when you pay, they still milk your private life. And they have proved time after time they cannot be trusted with it.

cromwellian 6y ago
Netflix also accumulates all of your watching habits and feeds it into AI while using their services.
- baxtr 6y ago
  Is that a bad thing if it helps you to find great new content?
  - enkid 6y ago
    Except most of what you "discover" is actually more of the same. That why we have so much divisiveness in our society, people are unknowingly in echo chambers so deep they don't know anything else exists.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    It's just not a great argument against YouTube since "accumulates everything I do into their DB and AI" is something both services do in the name of better recommendations.
- BiteCode_dev 6y ago
  Netflix doesn't have an ubiquitous search engine, analytic scripts on half the web sites in the world, Android, gmail, maps, youtube, and so on. Netflix business is not to accumulate data on you and resell it, or to display ads. Netflix was not part of the PRISM program. Netflix is not Google.
Aunche 6y ago

mdifrgechd 6y ago

I think part of the tension is that advertising (and other data harvesting) attempts to monetize content that has virtually zero value for a lot of people: take any of the articles on a typical HN front page - right now the top two are "Booting from a vinyl record" and "Exotic programming ideas". These sound interesting (and are already somewhat well targeted to me as a HN reader), but the content is still worth almost nothing to me if I have to sign up for something or watch an ad to view it. Now apply the same reasoning to most web content that I value even less, like random medium articles or Forbes techcrunch or something that are pretty much designed just to get people to click on them. Most internet content that we are considering here is just there to get you to look at ads, and so ironically not worth "paying" for in any way for most people. So ad blocking puts the user in a funny position. It let's them continue to look at things they don't value much. And I think content creaters looking for views probably would rather complain about ad blockers than give users an ultimatum that could result in them just going somewhere else.

reader_mode 6y ago
Most (all ?) youtube vides fall in to virtually zero value category - but youtube as a platform is worth 15 bucks a month to me. I must admit I would only subscribe to a written publication if I get a printed copy occasionally, but anyway like youtube I don't find individual peaces of content worth it I might find the publication valuable. I don't see myself paying for blog article access ever - if you write outside of some publication it should either be self-promotion, exercise, or a labor of love and desire for exposure - attempting to monetise that sucks with advertising or without it - don't write those kinds of things. I feel the same about OSS projects. A way to invert this is to do a lot of good content consistently so you become a consistent source of valuable material - then it could fit Patreon model but I must admit I've haven't encountered someone I would sponsor like this yet. I will think about it more in the future.

dghughes 6y ago

I don't mind seeing an ad I grew up in the TV generation commercials are nothing. An ad at the start of a YouTube video is fine but it's become endless ads to the point of ruining the content. And often it's the same damn ad over and over and over.