3 ms·

Giving them my card data feels more expensive than $12/month. The model of paying to remove ads always felt like hostage taking. "Is this ad annoying enough fo

Giving them my card data feels more expensive than $12/month. The model of paying to remove ads always felt like hostage taking. "Is this ad annoying enough for you? No? You think you're a tough guy? Here's an advert of me slicing off your toes. Now tell me your home address so I can mail them to you. Read me the CVV2 numbers from the back of the card to make it stop!"

morsch 3y ago
You can choose to pay for convenient download functionality and background playback on mobile, and think of the ads as a bonus, if you prefer.
- alpaca128 3y ago
  Let me guess: the download functionality doesn't actually give me access to the DRM-free video file and when YT deletes a video it's useless to me.
  - morsch 3y ago
    Sure. I wouldn't recommend it for archival. I would recommend it for downloading a few videos before a trip when you expect flaky/slow internet. Much more convenient than the youtube-dl dance I did before. Ymmv.
  - TrickyRick 3y ago
    [dead]
  - npteljes 3y ago
    Of course it doesn't. It's just allowing Google to have a local cache.
- squeaky-clean 3y ago
  I'm a premium subscriber but the background playback thing is a pretty insulting idea to me. They can save like 95% of the bandwidth if I'm listening to something audio-only. So why make it part of the more expensive option?
  - ubercow13 3y ago
    It's probably a licensing thing due to the large amount of music on Youtube.
    - npteljes 3y ago
      Nah, come on. It's just a popular feature that they locked behind the paywall, so that more people subscribe. Don't get me wrong, I really like my Premium. But this decision is a business one, not a technical one, and I was charitable.
      - ubercow13 3y ago
        Even if it's a business decision, so what? It makes perfect sense, Youtube cant charge advertisers for video ads played when the app is in the background.
npteljes 3y ago
Nah, come on. The price is well worth it just for the hosting and internet traffic costs.

morsch 3y ago

You can choose to pay for convenient download functionality and background playback on mobile, and think of the ads as a bonus, if you prefer.

alpaca128 3y ago
Let me guess: the download functionality doesn't actually give me access to the DRM-free video file and when YT deletes a video it's useless to me.
- morsch 3y ago
  Sure. I wouldn't recommend it for archival. I would recommend it for downloading a few videos before a trip when you expect flaky/slow internet. Much more convenient than the youtube-dl dance I did before. Ymmv.
- TrickyRick 3y ago
  [dead]
- npteljes 3y ago
  Of course it doesn't. It's just allowing Google to have a local cache.
squeaky-clean 3y ago
I'm a premium subscriber but the background playback thing is a pretty insulting idea to me. They can save like 95% of the bandwidth if I'm listening to something audio-only. So why make it part of the more expensive option?
- ubercow13 3y ago
  It's probably a licensing thing due to the large amount of music on Youtube.
  - npteljes 3y ago
    Nah, come on. It's just a popular feature that they locked behind the paywall, so that more people subscribe. Don't get me wrong, I really like my Premium. But this decision is a business one, not a technical one, and I was charitable.
    - ubercow13 3y ago
      Even if it's a business decision, so what? It makes perfect sense, Youtube cant charge advertisers for video ads played when the app is in the background.

npteljes 3y ago

Nah, come on. The price is well worth it just for the hosting and internet traffic costs.