5 ms·

I have YT premium and it is easily the best money I spend most months. I'll just play devil's advocate. Maybe people are imagining a pay per view type of experi

by mertd 3y ago

I have YT premium and it is easily the best money I spend most months. I'll just play devil's advocate. Maybe people are imagining a pay per view type of experience?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
senectus1 3y ago
completely agree. ESPECIALLY if you have children. they can piggyback of your subscription and they wont get fed those horrendous adverts while they're searching for tutorial videos. Its how the kids learn faster these days.. tutorial videos in small bites about specific subjects.
- sundvor 3y ago
  Agreed - YouTube Family, and all child accounts are covered. Some of those ads were truly atrocious for a child to watch, especially - if you're in Australia - those for WorkSafe.
post_break 3y ago
I don't like paying for premium, but at the same time I have been able to do things I never could have on my own, save tens of thousands of dollars in DIY projects, etc. My fear is they will raise the pricing and boil the frog.
sundvor 3y ago
Yep, of all my subscriptions, YTP will be the last to go. The experience truly is a premium one, only marred by the inability to disable YouTube shorts. (I recently made near exactly the same comment in a recent, related story thread - but it's worth repeating).
- crop_rotation 3y ago
  Yes I too would love an option to disable shorts. Like hide it behind 50 buttons for all I care but please let me disable shorts.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Agreed. Also stop shoving news channels in my face. Every few weeks/months they come back, usually after some horrific event. “Welcome to YouTube! Would you like to watch 40 videos on todays slaughter of innocent people?” No. The answer is always no.
    - ttctciyf 3y ago
      Every time a news channel comes up in recommendations, click the three dots menu on it and choose "do not recommend videos from this channel" (or w/e). After a short while of doing this the supply of news channels starts drying up, though the algo occasionally attempts to push increasingly unlikely ones on you; just continue mopping them up.
  - mertd 3y ago
    Shorts is the digital content equivalent of cigarettes. I'd love an option to hide shorts forever.
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      YouTube is the digital content equivalent of cigarettes. Shorts is just a stronger form.
      - mertd 3y ago
        I disagree. There is a lot of good and information dense content on YouTube. Shorts as a format though mostly tends to be dopamine rich garbage.
  - soared 3y ago
    For desktop there is a chrome extension, but no options for the app.
- tehsauce 3y ago
  Yes, I would happily pay more for the ability to remove shorts.
- LikelyClueless 3y ago
  On Android, I disabled the YouTube app and use Firefox for YouTube, entirely because of the shorts. It lets you remove the shorts for 30 days in the browser. I did have to switch text messaging apps because the default option wouldn't work without YouTube enabled whenever someone sent a YouTube link.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    It's indeed infuriating how these services try to cram TikTok style crap down our throats. The stupid thing is: they try to get more popular than TikTok. How the hell do they expect to become popular with users that don't want this stuff? I'm not on TikTok, I hate YouTube shorts and Instagram reels. Just allow me to turn that shit off and I'll be a lot happier and use the service more because it's not pushing me away. How do they think forcing it on unwilling users is in any way beneficial??
  - sundvor 3y ago
    Thanks, I'll have a look into that! My biggest beef with Shorts is that it's the equivalent of having the shelves full of lollies and junk food if you're trying to be healthy; it's far better not to have any available if you want to stay lean. I love long form YouTube videos as much as I loathe the short form, whose promotional algorithms are skewed towards content that's rubbish for the brain - and society. Edit: On Samsung Internet, could browse to the mobile app and indeed hide the shorts for 30 days (little X in top right of Shorts content panel, not a setting). Furthermore, if I disable "open links in apps" under settings/useful features, I now get the YouTube icon to open the current video in the app - this lets me browse for videos without being bugged by Shorts, and I can then open in the app if I want some of its features such as play in background etc. Thanks again, great tip.
- MBCook 3y ago
  The one thing I don’t like is incognito mode in the YT app disables YT Premium. From time to time I turn it in to look something up quick. Maybe a recipe or something. A topic I don’t want recommended to me constantly for the next few weeks. But it also turns all ads back on. Instead you can watch it normally and remove it from your history, but I’m not sure that works.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    Ok, work with me here… It’s incognito mode, the mode created such that it explicitly doesn’t carry over cookies from regular mode, or between sessions. What exactly are folks expecting here? Google to break out of the explicitly requested sandbox?
    - MBCook 3y ago
      You don’t have to be snarky. I want the app to keep a single boolean flag in memory: user is authorized to not see ads. They don’t need to know who I am, just that I don’t need to see ads. That seems imminently doable.
      - falcolas 3y ago
        Yes, they do. YouTube distributes your premium funds to creators by watch time. If they can’t associate your views with your subscription, they can’t compensate creators fairly. Not to mention, it’s imminently not possible. Not without poking holes in what is and is not shared between regular and incognito mode (across 5+ browsers owned by different businesses, no less). And breaking this barrier would earn Google a ton of backlash, and rightfully so.
        MBCook 3y ago
        > across 5+ browsers owned by different businesses, no less I don’t care about that. I agree this would be impossible in the browser. I’m talking about the official app specifically, they should be able to do it there. Premium funds is a good point I hadn’t thought of. I’d be fine if that didn’t happen while in incognito. Treat me like incognito mode for any other random user, just without ads. I don’t run it all the time. And I wouldn’t if they did this. It’s extremely rare I want to do this. But if I look up a recipe I’m likely to be bombarded with cooking channels. Home DIY fix? Similar. God forbid I look up a news video on a current event.
- kirill5pol 3y ago
  Same here, live YouTube premium but hate shorts. I’ve even reached out to Google to have an option to disable (which I know won’t go anywhere but )
tehsauce 3y ago
+1 on this. YT premium is easily worth 4x its price, it's an amazing deal. It's the largest media catalog in the world, and unlimited ad-free access for $12 is a steal. There is no digital subscription that comes close in value.
- peanutz454 3y ago
  Question, how do content creators get paid if the platform has no ads? I thought they get paid when I watch an ad, and even more if I engage with those ads? In fact, I maliciously (is this the right word) clicked on scam ads (youtube sends me lots of those). And is it really worth 4x its price? I mean its just ads getting removed. I can tolerate ads easily.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - daveoc64 3y ago
    YouTube Premium pays content creators based on the amount of time that Premium subscribers watch their content. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en#zippy=%2Cwill-creators-still-be-paid-with-youtube-premium%2Chow-is-revenue-figured-out https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en#zipp... From what I've seen creators say, they get more revenue from a Premium user than they would have if the user had just watched some ads.
    - brewdad 3y ago
      I’m curious about the potential for adverse effects. Let’s say I pay YT $12/mo and Google keeps $3 for their costs. If I watch 1 video that month does that creator get $9? Does the creator get 5c per view from me regardless and some subscribers subsidize others? I wish there was more transparency around what my money is actually buying.
  - warp 3y ago
    Google shares a portion of their YT premium revenue with creators. In general a view from a YT premium user will earn a creator more money than a view from someone using YT for free and viewing ads. (But any info I can find seems anecdotal, I don't think youtube publishes any numbers -- and earnings will depend on where in the world those viewers are, etc...)
MBCook 3y ago
I agree. I love YT Premium and I think it’s worth it for the amount I watch YT. But almost everyone I ask thinks it’s a “scam”. The more technical the user, the more likely they are say something like “why should I have to pay when I have an add blocker”. Like so many thing, there is almost a sense of entitlement to free content with clickable ads, which doesn’t bode well for the future. The others either are willing to put up with the ads or think the price is much too high for the value of not seeing ads even if they watch tons of content. I pay because I want to support the channels I watch and at this point the YT ads are just infuriating to me.
moron4hire 3y ago
I also pay for YT Premium, but I have a gigantic complaint that it doesn't actually make YouTube completely ad-free. There are still the ads that the content produces insert themselves. I'm not blaming the creators. I get it. They aren't making enough money from YouTube to avoid having to do their own promotions. But that means that YouTube is not giving me what I'm paying for. I'm paying for an ad-free experience and--because YouTube doesn't use my money to compensate creators well--I'm not getting and ad-free experience.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  You can use sponsorblock. But yeah you shouldn't have to.
  - moron4hire 3y ago
    This could be fixed. Some creators have already split their sponsor blocks out into video chapters, making it very easy to skip. YouTube could mandate that content creators mark their sponsor pitches and both A) automatically skip it for paying users, and B) prevent skipping it for free users.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      True, but I doubt they will do this because it evades their 30% take on ad revenue.
jquery 3y ago
Yeah, YouTube premium is one of those rare subscriptions that as soon as it lapses I immediately resubscribe. The value for the money is just too good.
asdfman123 3y ago
Yes, me too. YouTube leads in my unregretted minutes, and I don’t want to watch ads when deciding what to watch.

by mertd 3y ago

I have YT premium and it is easily the best money I spend most months. I'll just play devil's advocate. Maybe people are imagining a pay per view type of experience?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

senectus1 3y ago

completely agree. ESPECIALLY if you have children. they can piggyback of your subscription and they wont get fed those horrendous adverts while they're searching for tutorial videos. Its how the kids learn faster these days.. tutorial videos in small bites about specific subjects.

sundvor 3y ago
Agreed - YouTube Family, and all child accounts are covered. Some of those ads were truly atrocious for a child to watch, especially - if you're in Australia - those for WorkSafe.

post_break 3y ago

I don't like paying for premium, but at the same time I have been able to do things I never could have on my own, save tens of thousands of dollars in DIY projects, etc. My fear is they will raise the pricing and boil the frog.

sundvor 3y ago

Yep, of all my subscriptions, YTP will be the last to go. The experience truly is a premium one, only marred by the inability to disable YouTube shorts. (I recently made near exactly the same comment in a recent, related story thread - but it's worth repeating).

crop_rotation 3y ago
Yes I too would love an option to disable shorts. Like hide it behind 50 buttons for all I care but please let me disable shorts.
- MBCook 3y ago
  Agreed. Also stop shoving news channels in my face. Every few weeks/months they come back, usually after some horrific event. “Welcome to YouTube! Would you like to watch 40 videos on todays slaughter of innocent people?” No. The answer is always no.
  - ttctciyf 3y ago
    Every time a news channel comes up in recommendations, click the three dots menu on it and choose "do not recommend videos from this channel" (or w/e). After a short while of doing this the supply of news channels starts drying up, though the algo occasionally attempts to push increasingly unlikely ones on you; just continue mopping them up.
- mertd 3y ago
  Shorts is the digital content equivalent of cigarettes. I'd love an option to hide shorts forever.
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    YouTube is the digital content equivalent of cigarettes. Shorts is just a stronger form.
    - mertd 3y ago
      I disagree. There is a lot of good and information dense content on YouTube. Shorts as a format though mostly tends to be dopamine rich garbage.
- soared 3y ago
  For desktop there is a chrome extension, but no options for the app.
tehsauce 3y ago
Yes, I would happily pay more for the ability to remove shorts.
LikelyClueless 3y ago
On Android, I disabled the YouTube app and use Firefox for YouTube, entirely because of the shorts. It lets you remove the shorts for 30 days in the browser. I did have to switch text messaging apps because the default option wouldn't work without YouTube enabled whenever someone sent a YouTube link.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  It's indeed infuriating how these services try to cram TikTok style crap down our throats. The stupid thing is: they try to get more popular than TikTok. How the hell do they expect to become popular with users that don't want this stuff? I'm not on TikTok, I hate YouTube shorts and Instagram reels. Just allow me to turn that shit off and I'll be a lot happier and use the service more because it's not pushing me away. How do they think forcing it on unwilling users is in any way beneficial??
- sundvor 3y ago
  Thanks, I'll have a look into that! My biggest beef with Shorts is that it's the equivalent of having the shelves full of lollies and junk food if you're trying to be healthy; it's far better not to have any available if you want to stay lean. I love long form YouTube videos as much as I loathe the short form, whose promotional algorithms are skewed towards content that's rubbish for the brain - and society. Edit: On Samsung Internet, could browse to the mobile app and indeed hide the shorts for 30 days (little X in top right of Shorts content panel, not a setting). Furthermore, if I disable "open links in apps" under settings/useful features, I now get the YouTube icon to open the current video in the app - this lets me browse for videos without being bugged by Shorts, and I can then open in the app if I want some of its features such as play in background etc. Thanks again, great tip.
MBCook 3y ago
The one thing I don’t like is incognito mode in the YT app disables YT Premium. From time to time I turn it in to look something up quick. Maybe a recipe or something. A topic I don’t want recommended to me constantly for the next few weeks. But it also turns all ads back on. Instead you can watch it normally and remove it from your history, but I’m not sure that works.
- falcolas 3y ago
  Ok, work with me here… It’s incognito mode, the mode created such that it explicitly doesn’t carry over cookies from regular mode, or between sessions. What exactly are folks expecting here? Google to break out of the explicitly requested sandbox?
  - MBCook 3y ago
    You don’t have to be snarky. I want the app to keep a single boolean flag in memory: user is authorized to not see ads. They don’t need to know who I am, just that I don’t need to see ads. That seems imminently doable.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      Yes, they do. YouTube distributes your premium funds to creators by watch time. If they can’t associate your views with your subscription, they can’t compensate creators fairly. Not to mention, it’s imminently not possible. Not without poking holes in what is and is not shared between regular and incognito mode (across 5+ browsers owned by different businesses, no less). And breaking this barrier would earn Google a ton of backlash, and rightfully so.
      - MBCook 3y ago
        > across 5+ browsers owned by different businesses, no less I don’t care about that. I agree this would be impossible in the browser. I’m talking about the official app specifically, they should be able to do it there. Premium funds is a good point I hadn’t thought of. I’d be fine if that didn’t happen while in incognito. Treat me like incognito mode for any other random user, just without ads. I don’t run it all the time. And I wouldn’t if they did this. It’s extremely rare I want to do this. But if I look up a recipe I’m likely to be bombarded with cooking channels. Home DIY fix? Similar. God forbid I look up a news video on a current event.
kirill5pol 3y ago
Same here, live YouTube premium but hate shorts. I’ve even reached out to Google to have an option to disable (which I know won’t go anywhere but )

tehsauce 3y ago

+1 on this. YT premium is easily worth 4x its price, it's an amazing deal. It's the largest media catalog in the world, and unlimited ad-free access for $12 is a steal. There is no digital subscription that comes close in value.

peanutz454 3y ago
Question, how do content creators get paid if the platform has no ads? I thought they get paid when I watch an ad, and even more if I engage with those ads? In fact, I maliciously (is this the right word) clicked on scam ads (youtube sends me lots of those). And is it really worth 4x its price? I mean its just ads getting removed. I can tolerate ads easily.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- daveoc64 3y ago
  YouTube Premium pays content creators based on the amount of time that Premium subscribers watch their content. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en#zippy=%2Cwill-creators-still-be-paid-with-youtube-premium%2Chow-is-revenue-figured-out https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6306276?hl=en#zipp... From what I've seen creators say, they get more revenue from a Premium user than they would have if the user had just watched some ads.
  - brewdad 3y ago
    I’m curious about the potential for adverse effects. Let’s say I pay YT $12/mo and Google keeps $3 for their costs. If I watch 1 video that month does that creator get $9? Does the creator get 5c per view from me regardless and some subscribers subsidize others? I wish there was more transparency around what my money is actually buying.
- warp 3y ago
  Google shares a portion of their YT premium revenue with creators. In general a view from a YT premium user will earn a creator more money than a view from someone using YT for free and viewing ads. (But any info I can find seems anecdotal, I don't think youtube publishes any numbers -- and earnings will depend on where in the world those viewers are, etc...)

MBCook 3y ago

I agree. I love YT Premium and I think it’s worth it for the amount I watch YT. But almost everyone I ask thinks it’s a “scam”. The more technical the user, the more likely they are say something like “why should I have to pay when I have an add blocker”. Like so many thing, there is almost a sense of entitlement to free content with clickable ads, which doesn’t bode well for the future. The others either are willing to put up with the ads or think the price is much too high for the value of not seeing ads even if they watch tons of content. I pay because I want to support the channels I watch and at this point the YT ads are just infuriating to me.

moron4hire 3y ago

I also pay for YT Premium, but I have a gigantic complaint that it doesn't actually make YouTube completely ad-free. There are still the ads that the content produces insert themselves. I'm not blaming the creators. I get it. They aren't making enough money from YouTube to avoid having to do their own promotions. But that means that YouTube is not giving me what I'm paying for. I'm paying for an ad-free experience and--because YouTube doesn't use my money to compensate creators well--I'm not getting and ad-free experience.

wkat4242 3y ago
You can use sponsorblock. But yeah you shouldn't have to.
- moron4hire 3y ago
  This could be fixed. Some creators have already split their sponsor blocks out into video chapters, making it very easy to skip. YouTube could mandate that content creators mark their sponsor pitches and both A) automatically skip it for paying users, and B) prevent skipping it for free users.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    True, but I doubt they will do this because it evades their 30% take on ad revenue.

jquery 3y ago

Yeah, YouTube premium is one of those rare subscriptions that as soon as it lapses I immediately resubscribe. The value for the money is just too good.

asdfman123 3y ago

Yes, me too. YouTube leads in my unregretted minutes, and I don’t want to watch ads when deciding what to watch.