7 ms·

So they are charging people to remove ads so that the content creator doesn't get any ad revenue from their views? So ethical.

by Orphis 5y ago

sneak 5y ago
The ethical issue that I have with it is not the money, it's that you cannot get anything from the App Store (even free apps!) without giving Apple your rough location (client IP), a phone number (required to get an Apple ID), and your unchangeable device hardware serial number. Fuck that noise. Don't give money to App-Store-only software vendors.
MBCook 5y ago
I subscribe to YouTube, so I already pay them. If I watched YouTube on my phone or my iPad at all, I would definitely install this. Realistically I almost always use my TV to watch YouTube. So it doesn’t matter. Purposefully breaking built in functionality (full screen, PIP, etc) to force people to use your app or to remove the functionality altogether is a dick move. Something that’s getting real common with Google.
- rezonant 5y ago
  I don't understand. I can load YouTube.com in my mobile browser, go full screen, and then enter my home screen and I get picture in picture just fine. It works whether I'm Premium or not. I don't need a mobile app for it. What has YouTube broken here? I will say that I cannot use picture in picture while browsing another site in Chrome. That sucks, but I don't think that is YouTube's choice, that's just how the browser works (sadly)
  - LeoPanthera 5y ago
    AirPlay kinda-sorta works from the YouTube player but it is glitchy as hell. It works way better from normal HTML5 videos.
    - rezonant 5y ago
      Yeah that's on YouTube. I get why it's hard for them, as unlike in Casting, you can only deploy media types that can be natively played back in order to support Airplay, because you are passing a media reference, not a web page. But HLS is ubiquitous and Airplay supports it, so just serve the HLS and be done with it. I've been very happy with how easy it is to support this as someone who has built a number of web media apps.
  - andrewmackrodt 5y ago
    The YouTube app on Android only supports picture in picture and background play (screen off) with premium; I imagine the iOS app is similar.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      Picture-in-picture works great on Android without premium. No background play though.
      - andrewmackrodt 5y ago
        Hmm, this doesn't work for me in the app in Android 10 or 11. Perhaps it is region specific? I'm in the UK. Edit: it does work via browser if you navigate out of fullscreen. TIL :)
        tomrod 5y ago
        Happy to help! May our paths cross again.
        salamandersauce 5y ago
        It's US only.
      - salamandersauce 5y ago
        This only works in the US and on Android AFAIK. If I want PiP I gotta pay or fiddle with putting the YouTube app in a Window.
- ollien 5y ago
  If you subscribe to Youtube, that money doesn't go to creators unless you watch them through a means Google tracks, e.g. the embeds, AFAIK
vehemenz 5y ago
People have different views about ethics. Fortunately, there is no truth of the matter, so anything goes as long as we're internally consistent. I think ad revenue models are unethical. Promotion of extremist content is unethical. Privacy-invading data collection is unethical. Honestly, I think shitty content, in general, is unethical too. On the other hand, I think it is ethical for an entrepreneuring developer to charge users $5 to bypass bad faith actors, at the (questionable) expense of "content creators". And I'd feel pretty good about paying the $5 too.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  If you feel ad-supported content is flat out unethical, how would you prefer to pay for media online?
  - 3np 5y ago
    Remember the times before Spotify? Piracy was the only way to get a lot of music ; there simply weren’t any paid options. Nowadays the market for buying or streaming digital music has made paying for digital music viable. With a lot of YouTube content, the situation is very similar today; there isn’t a way to pay for content without simultaneously being exposed to ads and the associated tracking/profiling/stalking. Maybe as adblocking becomes more common, creators and platforms will be forced to accommodate for the change in demand.
    - mcdoogal 5y ago
      YouTube premium removes ads on YouTube so that covers half the woes.
    - lelandfe 5y ago
      That Spotify model basically already exists on YouTube with YouTube Premium. YouTube pays creators directly when a Premium viewer watches.
    - dakom 5y ago
      I remember buying cassettes and then CDs, either from a known distributor or litte hole-in-the-wall shops. When digital music was getting big, it was mostly experienced through DJs at parties. They got their records from distributors and there were ways of pressing small amounts of vinyl cheaply. Artists who didn't have a record deal had to hustle, selling their tunes directly from the trunk of their car or any means necessary. Lots of musicians didn't make their money from these routes, instead they gave their music out for free as promotional material for live shows where they charged tickets. Even if we jump forward to now, there's a few listener-supported models like soma.fm which may not last forever but have survived without resorting to ads or piracy. Piracy is fun for the consumer, while it lasts, but it suffocates the artists and was never a viable solution. For anyone willing to pay, there is always a way to get your wares if you know what you're looking for.
ofou 5y ago
The actual Youtube Subscription also removes the ads and you still can help creators.
kergonath 5y ago
After having been through the progressive worsening of YouTube and its player over the years, my position is now the same as that about pirating movies around 2005: enough bullshit, I’ll behave when they do. Same as for targeted ads on the web. At some point, appeal to emotion is not enough considering the hostility and dishonesty of some actors. In the meantime, I support people I watch regularly on Patreon, imperfect as that is.
xg15 5y ago
I'd happily allow ads (to an extent) if the content creator were in control and would actually receive 100% of the revenue. But this is not what's happening: YouTube controls when to play ads and how many and only a small percentage of the revenue - if anything - goes to the creator. This can have consequences bordering on the absurd, e.g. if someone uses a YouTube video in their presentation and is forced to interrupt the presentation to wait for the ad.
- sofixa 5y ago
  100% of the revenue can't go to the content creator - hosting and serving mind boggling amounts of video is extremely expensive, especially if you consider the vast majority of it won't make any revenue (people's wedding or vacation videos for instance).
pixelgeek 5y ago
The vast majority of people posting to YouTube make nothing from it. It might be unethical if they were marketing it solely as a way to avoid ads but there are a wealth of benefits to using it. YouTube in a browser on iOS is a nightmare to use and I suspect that they don't fix the many issues because they want you to use their app. This extension removes those issues.

So they are charging people to remove ads so that the content creator doesn't get any ad revenue from their views? So ethical.

by Orphis 5y ago

So they are charging people to remove ads so that the content creator doesn't get any ad revenue from their views? So ethical.

sneak 5y ago

The ethical issue that I have with it is not the money, it's that you cannot get anything from the App Store (even free apps!) without giving Apple your rough location (client IP), a phone number (required to get an Apple ID), and your unchangeable device hardware serial number. Fuck that noise. Don't give money to App-Store-only software vendors.

MBCook 5y ago

I subscribe to YouTube, so I already pay them. If I watched YouTube on my phone or my iPad at all, I would definitely install this. Realistically I almost always use my TV to watch YouTube. So it doesn’t matter. Purposefully breaking built in functionality (full screen, PIP, etc) to force people to use your app or to remove the functionality altogether is a dick move. Something that’s getting real common with Google.

rezonant 5y ago
I don't understand. I can load YouTube.com in my mobile browser, go full screen, and then enter my home screen and I get picture in picture just fine. It works whether I'm Premium or not. I don't need a mobile app for it. What has YouTube broken here? I will say that I cannot use picture in picture while browsing another site in Chrome. That sucks, but I don't think that is YouTube's choice, that's just how the browser works (sadly)
- LeoPanthera 5y ago
  AirPlay kinda-sorta works from the YouTube player but it is glitchy as hell. It works way better from normal HTML5 videos.
  - rezonant 5y ago
    Yeah that's on YouTube. I get why it's hard for them, as unlike in Casting, you can only deploy media types that can be natively played back in order to support Airplay, because you are passing a media reference, not a web page. But HLS is ubiquitous and Airplay supports it, so just serve the HLS and be done with it. I've been very happy with how easy it is to support this as someone who has built a number of web media apps.
- andrewmackrodt 5y ago
  The YouTube app on Android only supports picture in picture and background play (screen off) with premium; I imagine the iOS app is similar.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Picture-in-picture works great on Android without premium. No background play though.
    - andrewmackrodt 5y ago
      Hmm, this doesn't work for me in the app in Android 10 or 11. Perhaps it is region specific? I'm in the UK. Edit: it does work via browser if you navigate out of fullscreen. TIL :)
      - tomrod 5y ago
        Happy to help! May our paths cross again.
      - salamandersauce 5y ago
        It's US only.
    - salamandersauce 5y ago
      This only works in the US and on Android AFAIK. If I want PiP I gotta pay or fiddle with putting the YouTube app in a Window.
ollien 5y ago
If you subscribe to Youtube, that money doesn't go to creators unless you watch them through a means Google tracks, e.g. the embeds, AFAIK

vehemenz 5y ago

People have different views about ethics. Fortunately, there is no truth of the matter, so anything goes as long as we're internally consistent. I think ad revenue models are unethical. Promotion of extremist content is unethical. Privacy-invading data collection is unethical. Honestly, I think shitty content, in general, is unethical too. On the other hand, I think it is ethical for an entrepreneuring developer to charge users $5 to bypass bad faith actors, at the (questionable) expense of "content creators". And I'd feel pretty good about paying the $5 too.

lelandfe 5y ago
If you feel ad-supported content is flat out unethical, how would you prefer to pay for media online?
- 3np 5y ago
  Remember the times before Spotify? Piracy was the only way to get a lot of music ; there simply weren’t any paid options. Nowadays the market for buying or streaming digital music has made paying for digital music viable. With a lot of YouTube content, the situation is very similar today; there isn’t a way to pay for content without simultaneously being exposed to ads and the associated tracking/profiling/stalking. Maybe as adblocking becomes more common, creators and platforms will be forced to accommodate for the change in demand.
  - mcdoogal 5y ago
    YouTube premium removes ads on YouTube so that covers half the woes.
  - lelandfe 5y ago
    That Spotify model basically already exists on YouTube with YouTube Premium. YouTube pays creators directly when a Premium viewer watches.
  - dakom 5y ago
    I remember buying cassettes and then CDs, either from a known distributor or litte hole-in-the-wall shops. When digital music was getting big, it was mostly experienced through DJs at parties. They got their records from distributors and there were ways of pressing small amounts of vinyl cheaply. Artists who didn't have a record deal had to hustle, selling their tunes directly from the trunk of their car or any means necessary. Lots of musicians didn't make their money from these routes, instead they gave their music out for free as promotional material for live shows where they charged tickets. Even if we jump forward to now, there's a few listener-supported models like soma.fm which may not last forever but have survived without resorting to ads or piracy. Piracy is fun for the consumer, while it lasts, but it suffocates the artists and was never a viable solution. For anyone willing to pay, there is always a way to get your wares if you know what you're looking for.

ofou 5y ago

The actual Youtube Subscription also removes the ads and you still can help creators.

kergonath 5y ago

After having been through the progressive worsening of YouTube and its player over the years, my position is now the same as that about pirating movies around 2005: enough bullshit, I’ll behave when they do. Same as for targeted ads on the web. At some point, appeal to emotion is not enough considering the hostility and dishonesty of some actors. In the meantime, I support people I watch regularly on Patreon, imperfect as that is.

xg15 5y ago

I'd happily allow ads (to an extent) if the content creator were in control and would actually receive 100% of the revenue. But this is not what's happening: YouTube controls when to play ads and how many and only a small percentage of the revenue - if anything - goes to the creator. This can have consequences bordering on the absurd, e.g. if someone uses a YouTube video in their presentation and is forced to interrupt the presentation to wait for the ad.

sofixa 5y ago
100% of the revenue can't go to the content creator - hosting and serving mind boggling amounts of video is extremely expensive, especially if you consider the vast majority of it won't make any revenue (people's wedding or vacation videos for instance).

pixelgeek 5y ago

The vast majority of people posting to YouTube make nothing from it. It might be unethical if they were marketing it solely as a way to avoid ads but there are a wealth of benefits to using it. YouTube in a browser on iOS is a nightmare to use and I suspect that they don't fix the many issues because they want you to use their app. This extension removes those issues.