3 ms·

> using their paid service without paying is bad Software engineers on HN or anywhere else certainly do not tend to agree that stripping ads from freely-availa

by wzdd 3y ago

> using their paid service without paying is bad Software engineers on HN or anywhere else certainly do not tend to agree that stripping ads from freely-available content is equivalent to using a paid service without paying.

HenryBemis 3y ago
(not defending Google here) I believe that YT costs money to operate. So when I use it without watching ads (which is exactly what I do), I kinda cheat a few cents from them per day/month/year. Also, having built IOS apps in the past: I love the idea that people use them I hate the idea that people use them without paying for them
- wzdd 3y ago
  > I kinda cheat a few cents from them per day/month/year You certainly do not. There is a very simple and legally-recognised way to recuperate costs associated with providing a service and that is to charge money for the service. Youtube is very happy to give you content for free; you're cheating nobody. Or do you think you're cheating if you watch the ads but don't buy any of the products too? > I hate the idea that people use [my apps] without paying for them Do you charge money for them?
nomel 3y ago
> freely-available It’s not freely available. It has very real costs associated with it, which is why YouTube was a money burn pit for the majority of its existence.
- wzdd 3y ago
  > It’s not freely available It is made available to the general public without cost. It is freely available.
  - nomel 3y ago
    It's "free", but not without compensation, and why FreeTube exists: the user is compensated with a free video only after being forced [1] to watch ads, or they can pay [2]. I don't believe compensation, behind a required act, is involved with "free", which is why I would describe it to someone as "ad supported" or even "free, with ads" (which most marketing uses, probably through the advice of legal). [1] https://cybernews.com/tech/youtube-crackdown-on-adblock-users/ https://cybernews.com/tech/youtube-crackdown-on-adblock-user... [2] https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium

by wzdd 3y ago

HenryBemis 3y ago

(not defending Google here) I believe that YT costs money to operate. So when I use it without watching ads (which is exactly what I do), I kinda cheat a few cents from them per day/month/year. Also, having built IOS apps in the past: I love the idea that people use them I hate the idea that people use them without paying for them

wzdd 3y ago
> I kinda cheat a few cents from them per day/month/year You certainly do not. There is a very simple and legally-recognised way to recuperate costs associated with providing a service and that is to charge money for the service. Youtube is very happy to give you content for free; you're cheating nobody. Or do you think you're cheating if you watch the ads but don't buy any of the products too? > I hate the idea that people use [my apps] without paying for them Do you charge money for them?

nomel 3y ago

> freely-available It’s not freely available. It has very real costs associated with it, which is why YouTube was a money burn pit for the majority of its existence.

wzdd 3y ago
> It’s not freely available It is made available to the general public without cost. It is freely available.
- nomel 3y ago
  It's "free", but not without compensation, and why FreeTube exists: the user is compensated with a free video only after being forced [1] to watch ads, or they can pay [2]. I don't believe compensation, behind a required act, is involved with "free", which is why I would describe it to someone as "ad supported" or even "free, with ads" (which most marketing uses, probably through the advice of legal). [1] https://cybernews.com/tech/youtube-crackdown-on-adblock-users/ https://cybernews.com/tech/youtube-crackdown-on-adblock-user... [2] https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium