5 ms·

I watch a lot of YouTube and I have premium subscription. I believe it is worth it for me. Yes I can use adblockers, but the premium experience is just better.

I watch a lot of YouTube and I have premium subscription. I believe it is worth it for me. Yes I can use adblockers, but the premium experience is just better. It also comes with YouTube music which is much better than Spotify and others. There are other benefits like watch queue, background play on phone.

cvak 3y ago
Same here, it's the only subscription I pay for, worth it imo.
pohuing 3y ago
Tbh I mostly pay because I hate the modern ad and behaviour tracking financed Internet. If your service has a paid option I'll pay for it. I think had we all gone down the freemium road decades ago the Internet would be in much better shape today :/
error503 3y ago
I'm never going to be one to buy merch, and there are a lot of creators whose content I occasionally enjoy but don't want to pay directly via e.g. Patreon. Premium views pay more to them, so you're also doing a bit more to support the creators you watch as well.
isaacremuant 3y ago
Premium subscription is just an antipattern of them removing options. The experience is not better than before premium was a thing. YouTube music is in no way better than Spotify. I actually had to leave Google play music (and YouTube music) for Spotify because the product was so subpar. The only benefit was that some random thing on YouTube might be there but, other than that, just part of the Google poor support of their paying users. The benefits you site are possible without their premium, using other apps and, again, they worsened the experience to push you to premium which is extremely shady.
- DropInIn 3y ago
  Interestingly came to this because I googled it after having essentially the exact same thought....
- psnehanshu 3y ago
  > Premium subscription is just an antipattern of them removing options. It makes sense only if you believe everything on the internet should be free. > YouTube music is in no way better than Spotify. I don't disagree. It's highly subjective. > The benefits you site are possible without their premium, using other apps Piracy is always an option. But if you choose not to do it, buying premium makes sense.
  - isaacremuant 3y ago
    >> Premium subscription is just an antipattern of them removing options. > It makes sense only if you believe everything on the internet should be free. I wish HN readers would try and stay away from strawmen and address what others say. If a product offers something and suddenly makes it product progressively inferior as a means to make a distinction of "this is premium", then it's an anti pattern. It feels scummy since it didn't start with "first X are free" and shows a lack of upfront monetization strategy. >> YouTube music is in no way better than Spotify. > I don't disagree. It's highly subjective. It's highly objective if you actually use arguments, which you don't. >> The benefits you site are possible without their premium, using other apps > Piracy is always an option. But if you choose not to do it, buying premium makes sense. Using the term piracy here is playing into the game of anti competitive companies who continually lobby governments to get their way over the actual desires of citizens. You haven't really supported your quasi marketing campaign claims about the YouTube experience. Truth is: They had a product that was good. Made it shitty and told you to pay if you want what you had. You pay and laud it. I mean, you do you but it's an unconvicing sell.
    - psnehanshu 3y ago
      > If a product offers something and suddenly makes it product progressively inferior... The inferior experience in terms of YouTube is the increase in ads. I like to think of it as a price increase due to inflation. > It feels scummy since it didn't start with "first X are free" and shows a lack of upfront monetization strategy. That's a standard practice actually. I have seen new restaurants offer food for free on the day of opening to attract customers and then charge from next day onwards. They will also gradually keep increasing their prices to cope up with inflation and/or other reasons. > It's highly objective if you actually use arguments, which you don't. Treating your preference as objective just shows how much disconnected you are from the reality. In my country, YouTube is the goto choice for music. Moreover, YouTube ads are skipable, but Spotify ads aren't. > Using the term piracy here is playing into the game of anti competitive companies who continually lobby governments to get their way over the actual desires of citizens. Desires of citizens like you is to get everything for free. That's what I have understood. > You haven't really supported your quasi marketing campaign claims about the YouTube experience. Your happy customers are your best marketers. > Truth is: They had a product that was good. Made it shitty and told you to pay if you want what you had. You pay and laud it. I agree, they did make the product shitty for free users. But that won't make me and many others stop using it.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
Missing part of the terrible is not the same as good. The premium experience still absolutely sucks, merely the free is even worse.

cvak 3y ago

Same here, it's the only subscription I pay for, worth it imo.

pohuing 3y ago

Tbh I mostly pay because I hate the modern ad and behaviour tracking financed Internet. If your service has a paid option I'll pay for it. I think had we all gone down the freemium road decades ago the Internet would be in much better shape today :/

error503 3y ago

I'm never going to be one to buy merch, and there are a lot of creators whose content I occasionally enjoy but don't want to pay directly via e.g. Patreon. Premium views pay more to them, so you're also doing a bit more to support the creators you watch as well.

isaacremuant 3y ago

Premium subscription is just an antipattern of them removing options. The experience is not better than before premium was a thing. YouTube music is in no way better than Spotify. I actually had to leave Google play music (and YouTube music) for Spotify because the product was so subpar. The only benefit was that some random thing on YouTube might be there but, other than that, just part of the Google poor support of their paying users. The benefits you site are possible without their premium, using other apps and, again, they worsened the experience to push you to premium which is extremely shady.

DropInIn 3y ago
Interestingly came to this because I googled it after having essentially the exact same thought....
psnehanshu 3y ago
> Premium subscription is just an antipattern of them removing options. It makes sense only if you believe everything on the internet should be free. > YouTube music is in no way better than Spotify. I don't disagree. It's highly subjective. > The benefits you site are possible without their premium, using other apps Piracy is always an option. But if you choose not to do it, buying premium makes sense.
- isaacremuant 3y ago
  >> Premium subscription is just an antipattern of them removing options. > It makes sense only if you believe everything on the internet should be free. I wish HN readers would try and stay away from strawmen and address what others say. If a product offers something and suddenly makes it product progressively inferior as a means to make a distinction of "this is premium", then it's an anti pattern. It feels scummy since it didn't start with "first X are free" and shows a lack of upfront monetization strategy. >> YouTube music is in no way better than Spotify. > I don't disagree. It's highly subjective. It's highly objective if you actually use arguments, which you don't. >> The benefits you site are possible without their premium, using other apps > Piracy is always an option. But if you choose not to do it, buying premium makes sense. Using the term piracy here is playing into the game of anti competitive companies who continually lobby governments to get their way over the actual desires of citizens. You haven't really supported your quasi marketing campaign claims about the YouTube experience. Truth is: They had a product that was good. Made it shitty and told you to pay if you want what you had. You pay and laud it. I mean, you do you but it's an unconvicing sell.
  - psnehanshu 3y ago
    > If a product offers something and suddenly makes it product progressively inferior... The inferior experience in terms of YouTube is the increase in ads. I like to think of it as a price increase due to inflation. > It feels scummy since it didn't start with "first X are free" and shows a lack of upfront monetization strategy. That's a standard practice actually. I have seen new restaurants offer food for free on the day of opening to attract customers and then charge from next day onwards. They will also gradually keep increasing their prices to cope up with inflation and/or other reasons. > It's highly objective if you actually use arguments, which you don't. Treating your preference as objective just shows how much disconnected you are from the reality. In my country, YouTube is the goto choice for music. Moreover, YouTube ads are skipable, but Spotify ads aren't. > Using the term piracy here is playing into the game of anti competitive companies who continually lobby governments to get their way over the actual desires of citizens. Desires of citizens like you is to get everything for free. That's what I have understood. > You haven't really supported your quasi marketing campaign claims about the YouTube experience. Your happy customers are your best marketers. > Truth is: They had a product that was good. Made it shitty and told you to pay if you want what you had. You pay and laud it. I agree, they did make the product shitty for free users. But that won't make me and many others stop using it.

Brian_K_White 3y ago

Missing part of the terrible is not the same as good. The premium experience still absolutely sucks, merely the free is even worse.