4 ms·

Really? Something has to pay for the infra costs. Either tax money, ads or subscription fees. Choose one

by actuator 3y ago

tadfisher 3y ago
Donations would also work, but being a publicly-traded for-profit company sort of precludes that, practically.
- danShumway 3y ago
  Youtube Premium is effectively a donation, frankly. It's not in the legal sense, you do get a "product" for it. But it didn't take me long to realize that even paying for Youtube Premium, I was better off not logging into my account and just using NewPipe. I really think the only reason to pay for Premium is if you want to donate money to Youtube.
pierat 3y ago
I'll choose piracy, adblocking and freeloading. It saves me money for actual physical goods. So... Which do YOU want to pay? I'll choose to escalate the ad-adblocker-block adblocker war. Winning so far.
kuratkull 3y ago
I think what people want is for the old system to continue (similarly to the Netflix password sharing crackdown saga) - youtube pushes ads for people who don't adblock, some pay for premium, and the others are free from ads due to their exceptional skills of browser addon installation. There are always people in the comments taking the side of the company with arguments like "they need to make money" - sure, i'm all for capitalism, free markets and profits, but I use my right to whine when a company changes the status quo for the worse (from my POV). Public outcry is a way to pressure them to either keep the current situation, or think of something else.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Indeed. The idealized market is supposed to be a feedback-based system. Publicly wining about what a company is doing is a form of consumer feedback just as much as "voting with your wallet" is, and arguably more effective. For companies, it's Marketing 101 that if you can't or don't want to sell what people want, you can always brainwash or beat[0] people into "wanting" the thing you want to sell. But we do not have to take such treatment silently, or without a fight. By resisting, we raise the costs of anti-consumer moves ever so slightly. Maybe, sometimes, just enough to make the company - or the next one to follow - rethink if the change is really worth doing after all. -- [0] - Metaphorically, of course. But when a company cancels the very product people like the most, in order to force them to use an inferior product, and knowing full well none of the competitors will come up with a replacement (because they're all in lock step, what isn't profitable for one won't be for another, etc.) - being on a receiving end of that does feel like being beaten into submission.

Really? Something has to pay for the infra costs. Either tax money, ads or subscription fees. Choose one

tadfisher 3y ago

Donations would also work, but being a publicly-traded for-profit company sort of precludes that, practically.

danShumway 3y ago
Youtube Premium is effectively a donation, frankly. It's not in the legal sense, you do get a "product" for it. But it didn't take me long to realize that even paying for Youtube Premium, I was better off not logging into my account and just using NewPipe. I really think the only reason to pay for Premium is if you want to donate money to Youtube.

pierat 3y ago

I'll choose piracy, adblocking and freeloading. It saves me money for actual physical goods. So... Which do YOU want to pay? I'll choose to escalate the ad-adblocker-block adblocker war. Winning so far.

kuratkull 3y ago

I think what people want is for the old system to continue (similarly to the Netflix password sharing crackdown saga) - youtube pushes ads for people who don't adblock, some pay for premium, and the others are free from ads due to their exceptional skills of browser addon installation. There are always people in the comments taking the side of the company with arguments like "they need to make money" - sure, i'm all for capitalism, free markets and profits, but I use my right to whine when a company changes the status quo for the worse (from my POV). Public outcry is a way to pressure them to either keep the current situation, or think of something else.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Indeed. The idealized market is supposed to be a feedback-based system. Publicly wining about what a company is doing is a form of consumer feedback just as much as "voting with your wallet" is, and arguably more effective. For companies, it's Marketing 101 that if you can't or don't want to sell what people want, you can always brainwash or beat[0] people into "wanting" the thing you want to sell. But we do not have to take such treatment silently, or without a fight. By resisting, we raise the costs of anti-consumer moves ever so slightly. Maybe, sometimes, just enough to make the company - or the next one to follow - rethink if the change is really worth doing after all. -- [0] - Metaphorically, of course. But when a company cancels the very product people like the most, in order to force them to use an inferior product, and knowing full well none of the competitors will come up with a replacement (because they're all in lock step, what isn't profitable for one won't be for another, etc.) - being on a receiving end of that does feel like being beaten into submission.