3 ms·

I think it's somewhat defendable when youtube doesn't give you an option to pay for what you'd be "stealing". Overall i agree with you, but lets not pretend tha

I think it's somewhat defendable when youtube doesn't give you an option to pay for what you'd be "stealing". Overall i agree with you, but lets not pretend that Youtube doesn't feel exploitative in the corporate behavior here. Especially considering the data they're stealing from me, harvesting and selling, etc. Ie show me the ads i'm missing, and let me pay for the view. It would be what, $3|5|7/m or w/e in value? Instead they're trying to strongarm you into an upcharge of $14/m for additional services. Show me the data they're harvesting from my viewing patterns and the added revenue they're getting from that. Tie that into my "cost" each month and reducing how much i owe. But of course they won't do that. Because this isn't an exchange. This isn't a service we're paying for, it's a data harvest where they want to have their cake and eat it too. This is scummy in the same way that my music software, Spotify, is trying to expand revenue streams and shoving more crap (podcasts, audio books, etc) down my throat. If Youtube isn't going to try and play fair then i'd rather leave (and will) than pay them.

gruez 3y ago
>I think it's somewhat defendable when youtube doesn't give you an option to pay for what you'd be "stealing". https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium
- kemayo 3y ago
  Not the person you're responding to, but from how they phrased it I suspect they'd be annoyed that they're having to pay for YouTube Music as part of Premium.
  - unshavedyak 3y ago
    Exactly. I want to pay for what i'm supposed to be paying for. Not subscribe to extra services i don't use.
throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
You're not just paying Youtube/Google for the ad, you're paying the content creators as well. You can always buy the music directly from artists if you don't like Spotify's revenue model. Or ditch Spotify and use the free Youtube Music subscription you get with premium, maybe combined it'd be worth the $14 to you.
- rerdavies 3y ago
  Youtube music is actually pretty remarkable. I'm a jazz musician. One of the remarkable features of YouTube is that if you're looking for a particular recording of a jazz tune (e.g. Lou Donaldson's The Masquerade Is Over, on the Blues Walk album, 1953), it's just there. The depth of the collection is quite amazing. And as an added bonus, if you subscribe you get no ads on youtube! :-P
  - graftak 3y ago
    If YT music is so great they could make it optional instead of making me pay for a second music streaming service that I don’t want or need. I hope they get a big fat EU fine for (illegal here) joint sales.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  > You're not just paying Youtube/Google for the ad, you're paying the content creators as well. That would only be true if Youtube proportionally split my subscription to the videos i watch. If anything, i'm advocating for exactly what you said - more than Youtube is. Ie show me how much i owe, and then whatever money i give youtube goes to content creators and the service provider. It's proportional to the service i consume, and is ultimately fair. Instead what we get is something (in my view) massively upcharged. Bundled with service(s) i don't use, and set at a price point that i suspect well exceeds my usage of the service.

gruez 3y ago

>I think it's somewhat defendable when youtube doesn't give you an option to pay for what you'd be "stealing". https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium

kemayo 3y ago
Not the person you're responding to, but from how they phrased it I suspect they'd be annoyed that they're having to pay for YouTube Music as part of Premium.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  Exactly. I want to pay for what i'm supposed to be paying for. Not subscribe to extra services i don't use.

throw_nbvc1234 3y ago

You're not just paying Youtube/Google for the ad, you're paying the content creators as well. You can always buy the music directly from artists if you don't like Spotify's revenue model. Or ditch Spotify and use the free Youtube Music subscription you get with premium, maybe combined it'd be worth the $14 to you.

rerdavies 3y ago
Youtube music is actually pretty remarkable. I'm a jazz musician. One of the remarkable features of YouTube is that if you're looking for a particular recording of a jazz tune (e.g. Lou Donaldson's The Masquerade Is Over, on the Blues Walk album, 1953), it's just there. The depth of the collection is quite amazing. And as an added bonus, if you subscribe you get no ads on youtube! :-P
- graftak 3y ago
  If YT music is so great they could make it optional instead of making me pay for a second music streaming service that I don’t want or need. I hope they get a big fat EU fine for (illegal here) joint sales.
unshavedyak 3y ago
> You're not just paying Youtube/Google for the ad, you're paying the content creators as well. That would only be true if Youtube proportionally split my subscription to the videos i watch. If anything, i'm advocating for exactly what you said - more than Youtube is. Ie show me how much i owe, and then whatever money i give youtube goes to content creators and the service provider. It's proportional to the service i consume, and is ultimately fair. Instead what we get is something (in my view) massively upcharged. Bundled with service(s) i don't use, and set at a price point that i suspect well exceeds my usage of the service.