3 ms·

>I don't understand why some people are SO OPPOSED to YouTube Premium. Making something worse then let people paying for to make it better is not a deal at all

>I don't understand why some people are SO OPPOSED to YouTube Premium. Making something worse then let people paying for to make it better is not a deal at all.

pb7 3y ago
They’re not making it worse, they’re monetizing it in a way that’s palatable by those that can’t afford to pay. Video is expensive to serve. There’s no way around it.
- haupt 3y ago
  > They’re not making it worse, they’re monetizing it in a way that’s palatable by those that can’t afford to pay. If it were so palatable I don't think there'd be such a fuss about it (which there clearly is). Most people don't like ads at all.[1] 1. https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2019/03/28/advertisers-paths-reaching-on-demand-live-TV-view https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/articles-repor...
  - pb7 3y ago
    There’s a fuss because people want something for nothing. This is not at all surprising or interesting.
    - haupt 3y ago
      > There’s a fuss because people want something for nothing. This is not at all surprising or interesting. That's entirely your opinion, but I do agree it is neither surprising nor interesting. It's almost a trope at this point that a company providing something like this ends up milking the consumer to the point the consumer just stops caring. I don't think there's a productive discussion to be had here. There are obviously two camps and neither are going to see eye to eye anytime soon. What will happen is YouTube will keep trying to milk their users for attention as much as possible (since more attention = more ad time). At some point in the future there will be a tipping point where people just lose interest. And when that happens people will again blame people "want[ing] something for nothing".
- lxgr 3y ago
  > Video is expensive to serve. Whatever Youtube is commonly serving me doesn’t exactly look like premium bitrates, to be honest. I recently uploaded a pan/landscape shot and was shocked by how blocky the result looks like – even (or especially) in "4K60 HDR".
  - pb7 3y ago
    What are you comparing it to? What are some alternatives that serve up 4K@60 HDR for free?
    - lxgr 3y ago
      I’d honestly rather they make 4K60 a paid tier, and stick to a resolution they can afford to deliver at an appropriate data rate for non-paying viewers.
      - pb7 3y ago
        4K was tested as a premium feature recently but it was rolled back to being for everyone, not sure why. 4K YouTube TV is still an extra optional feature. No point here, just FYI in case you wanted to know.

>I don't understand why some people are SO OPPOSED to YouTube Premium. Making something worse then let people paying for to make it better is not a deal at all.

pb7 3y ago

They’re not making it worse, they’re monetizing it in a way that’s palatable by those that can’t afford to pay. Video is expensive to serve. There’s no way around it.

haupt 3y ago
> They’re not making it worse, they’re monetizing it in a way that’s palatable by those that can’t afford to pay. If it were so palatable I don't think there'd be such a fuss about it (which there clearly is). Most people don't like ads at all.[1] 1. https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2019/03/28/advertisers-paths-reaching-on-demand-live-TV-view https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/articles-repor...
- pb7 3y ago
  There’s a fuss because people want something for nothing. This is not at all surprising or interesting.
  - haupt 3y ago
    > There’s a fuss because people want something for nothing. This is not at all surprising or interesting. That's entirely your opinion, but I do agree it is neither surprising nor interesting. It's almost a trope at this point that a company providing something like this ends up milking the consumer to the point the consumer just stops caring. I don't think there's a productive discussion to be had here. There are obviously two camps and neither are going to see eye to eye anytime soon. What will happen is YouTube will keep trying to milk their users for attention as much as possible (since more attention = more ad time). At some point in the future there will be a tipping point where people just lose interest. And when that happens people will again blame people "want[ing] something for nothing".
lxgr 3y ago
> Video is expensive to serve. Whatever Youtube is commonly serving me doesn’t exactly look like premium bitrates, to be honest. I recently uploaded a pan/landscape shot and was shocked by how blocky the result looks like – even (or especially) in "4K60 HDR".
- pb7 3y ago
  What are you comparing it to? What are some alternatives that serve up 4K@60 HDR for free?
  - lxgr 3y ago
    I’d honestly rather they make 4K60 a paid tier, and stick to a resolution they can afford to deliver at an appropriate data rate for non-paying viewers.
    - pb7 3y ago
      4K was tested as a premium feature recently but it was rolled back to being for everyone, not sure why. 4K YouTube TV is still an extra optional feature. No point here, just FYI in case you wanted to know.