4 ms·

Just as tiring as everyone pretending that YouTube doesn't offer a directly paid solution to the ads problem.

by izacus 3y ago

scbzzzzz 3y ago
true, but they bundle with youtube music and other services that i don't use. I don't see value paying for everything. there is no option to buy just youtube - ads(atleast where I live). it is a manipulative tactic. you are gaslighted for not seeing ads on internet (public space) and when you want to buy the service, they bundle it with other services.
- bongobingo1 3y ago
  Premium is $24/m here! Maybe I am dumb, but it does seem that if they offered a dirt cheap "just no ads" plan for like 2-5$/m they could probably get a higher conversion rate, maybe the actual 10x they'd "need" to match the current price. I think a lot of people watch youtube as a "second screen" thing like people historically left the TV on for some kind of connection, or when going to sleep, etc. That kind of content is probably not worth 24/m to most, but 2$?
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    Where is 'here'? It's $22 here in the US, but that is for the family plan (6 people, so just under $4 per person). > but 2$? Yeah, I highly doubt that covers the cost of serving up videos ad-free while also being able to provide anything of substance to the creators (which earn more per user from premium viewers than from ads).
    - bongobingo1 3y ago
      Au, 15usd/m. > but 2$? >> Yeah, I highly doubt that covers the cost of serving up videos ad-free while also being able to provide anything of substance to the creators (which earn more per user from premium viewers than from ads). Well if 2$/m with a 12x conversion rate doesn't cover, then neither does $24/m at a 1x conversion rate, so the current wouldn't be sustainable either?
tjarrett 3y ago
Of course you also have to pay for Youtube Music which is inferior to Apple Music and Spotify. If they'd bust YouTube Premium apart from YouTube Music it'd be cheaper and a more inviting proposition.
- drcongo 3y ago
  YouTube Music is hilariously bad. I doubt there's a person alive who is using that out of choice.
astronads 3y ago
And it costs more than the amount of revenue my viewing of ads generate them.
danShumway 3y ago
Youtube actually got rid of their directly paid solution to the ads problem and now forces it to be bundled with other services, because (and I can not stress this enough) Google does not want you to pay directly for content. Youtube Premium exists so that Google has something to point to when it wants to say that paid services aren't viable. That's why they charge way more than creators get out of ads, that's why they force it to be bundled with other services, that's why they introduce restrictions like simultaneous viewing limits and login requirements and app restrictions that make the service tangibly worse than the experience of anonymously blocking ads. Youtube does not want you to pay for content. It wants to monetize your data and serve you ads. It wants your consumption to be a passive habit, it does not want you to be actively engaged with funding the creators you care about. Youtube doesn't offer a paid alternative to ads. It offers ad-free viewing as a side-perk when you buy other significantly more expensive Google services.
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  YouTube Premium is the ad-free offering that they keep adding stuff to. I've been on it since it was Red, and I've enjoyed it the entire time. The price has gone up from the original $9.99, but not dramatically so. YouTube Red originally launched with music, so that's not new, and Premium has other nice features beyond ads, like video downloads and what not. So, I'm not sure what "bundled services" were added to YouTube premium that you are talking about. Oh wait, I can watch some movies for free, on YouTube. Oh wait, I can share my membership with my family for less than the original cost of YouTube Red... the horror. Those all seem related to watching YouTube videos, and not other services, so not entirely sure what you mean. I don't know, honestly, it feels like you don't want to pay for the ad-free experience at the price point they set. And that's fine. They have a price point, and you don't want it cheaper. 100% fine, but that's all there is to it.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    I subscribed to Youtube Premium when it came out, back when it was still called Youtube Red. I've written a couple of times in the past about why I eventually gave up on the service. I can dig some of those comments up if you want me to but the short version is: not only am I willing to pay for content, I have subscribed and paid for content through the exact option you describe and it wasn't the cost that drove me away. I will also point out, Youtube Premium is not primarily an ad-free Youtube service (and neither was Youtube Red, it also came bundled with Google Play Music). It is a paid video service and music service that happens to also contain ad-free viewing. Youtube Premium Lite did exist as an ad-free Youtube service. Google axed it. They axed it because Google doesn't want that -- it does not want to have a service that is priced around specifically the cost of removing ads from Youtube. Of course they axed Youtube Premium Lite, because Google wants to have a cable package, and then to be able to point to that cable package and say "see how expensive ad-free viewing is?" It would be a long conversation to talk about why that bundling is problematic, both from a competitive standpoint (see Amazon Prime) and from a "support creators" standpoint (the amount of money going back to creators is much lower than they'll get from direct support). But I'm going to keep going back to -- there is no option to pay specifically to remove ads from Youtube; Google killed that service and it's now only available as part of a bundling system with other services.
nerdjon 3y ago
here is the thing, I have yet to see any proof that by paying to removing ads from YouTube that they are removing the main problem and that is the constant tracking. If the root of the problem exists its not fixing the problem and its just fixing it for non technical people, since most don't understand the real problem or how it works.
realusername 3y ago
Youtube Premium is a joke, it's priced at probably 50 times the revenue that Google gets for the average user. I'm even wondering if they feel like it's a real option internally and not just a small gimmick to capture the most paying customers.
toastercat 3y ago
It doesn't solve the tracking problem, which is something adblock does. uBlock Origin unironically provides a better value and experience than YouTube Premium does.
- PJDK 3y ago
  Would anyone be condemning people who paid for youtube premium and also blocked tracking with ublock?
  - toastercat 3y ago
    That is a good question. I would hope not, but I suppose an argument could and would be made that you are still violating the TOS by blocking trackers, and by blocking them, you are depriving YouTube (and its creators) from another means of compensation by stifling the effectiveness of adverts.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    I actually did this for a while (not condemn people :) -- I paid for Youtube and then never signed in and continued to use 3rd-party apps and uBlock Origin). One big issue is that your payment then is basically just to Youtube -- and it's kind of impossible to avoid because the point is to stop Youtube from obsessively tracking everything you view and do, but in the process you stop Youtube from knowing which videos you're watching, so the creators are no longer getting their piece of that pie. It's a tricky problem, I'm not sure how to solve it using Youtube Premium's model (that's not true I can think of ways to solve this using some kind of anonymous token system, but Youtube's never going to do that). It's part of why I advocate now for supporting creators directly (and by extension not caring about Google's profits, although that's secondary). But you could still buy Youtube Premium on the side if you specifically want to support Youtube; it's just if you're using 3rd-party clients I don't think that gets rid of the obligation to help the creators themselves.
bluescrn 3y ago
They killed their most reasonably-priced ad-free option (without bundled music service): https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/25/23889917/youtube-premium-lite-subscription-discontinued-retired https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/25/23889917/youtube-premium-...

Just as tiring as everyone pretending that YouTube doesn't offer a directly paid solution to the ads problem.

by izacus 3y ago

Just as tiring as everyone pretending that YouTube doesn't offer a directly paid solution to the ads problem.

true, but they bundle with youtube music and other services that i don't use. I don't see value paying for everything. there is no option to buy just youtube - ads(atleast where I live). it is a manipulative tactic. you are gaslighted for not seeing ads on internet (public space) and when you want to buy the service, they bundle it with other services.

bongobingo1 3y ago
Premium is $24/m here! Maybe I am dumb, but it does seem that if they offered a dirt cheap "just no ads" plan for like 2-5$/m they could probably get a higher conversion rate, maybe the actual 10x they'd "need" to match the current price. I think a lot of people watch youtube as a "second screen" thing like people historically left the TV on for some kind of connection, or when going to sleep, etc. That kind of content is probably not worth 24/m to most, but 2$?
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  Where is 'here'? It's $22 here in the US, but that is for the family plan (6 people, so just under $4 per person). > but 2$? Yeah, I highly doubt that covers the cost of serving up videos ad-free while also being able to provide anything of substance to the creators (which earn more per user from premium viewers than from ads).
  - bongobingo1 3y ago
    Au, 15usd/m. > but 2$? >> Yeah, I highly doubt that covers the cost of serving up videos ad-free while also being able to provide anything of substance to the creators (which earn more per user from premium viewers than from ads). Well if 2$/m with a 12x conversion rate doesn't cover, then neither does $24/m at a 1x conversion rate, so the current wouldn't be sustainable either?

tjarrett 3y ago

Of course you also have to pay for Youtube Music which is inferior to Apple Music and Spotify. If they'd bust YouTube Premium apart from YouTube Music it'd be cheaper and a more inviting proposition.

drcongo 3y ago
YouTube Music is hilariously bad. I doubt there's a person alive who is using that out of choice.

astronads 3y ago

And it costs more than the amount of revenue my viewing of ads generate them.

danShumway 3y ago

Youtube actually got rid of their directly paid solution to the ads problem and now forces it to be bundled with other services, because (and I can not stress this enough) Google does not want you to pay directly for content. Youtube Premium exists so that Google has something to point to when it wants to say that paid services aren't viable. That's why they charge way more than creators get out of ads, that's why they force it to be bundled with other services, that's why they introduce restrictions like simultaneous viewing limits and login requirements and app restrictions that make the service tangibly worse than the experience of anonymously blocking ads. Youtube does not want you to pay for content. It wants to monetize your data and serve you ads. It wants your consumption to be a passive habit, it does not want you to be actively engaged with funding the creators you care about. Youtube doesn't offer a paid alternative to ads. It offers ad-free viewing as a side-perk when you buy other significantly more expensive Google services.

jasonlotito 3y ago
YouTube Premium is the ad-free offering that they keep adding stuff to. I've been on it since it was Red, and I've enjoyed it the entire time. The price has gone up from the original $9.99, but not dramatically so. YouTube Red originally launched with music, so that's not new, and Premium has other nice features beyond ads, like video downloads and what not. So, I'm not sure what "bundled services" were added to YouTube premium that you are talking about. Oh wait, I can watch some movies for free, on YouTube. Oh wait, I can share my membership with my family for less than the original cost of YouTube Red... the horror. Those all seem related to watching YouTube videos, and not other services, so not entirely sure what you mean. I don't know, honestly, it feels like you don't want to pay for the ad-free experience at the price point they set. And that's fine. They have a price point, and you don't want it cheaper. 100% fine, but that's all there is to it.
- danShumway 3y ago
  I subscribed to Youtube Premium when it came out, back when it was still called Youtube Red. I've written a couple of times in the past about why I eventually gave up on the service. I can dig some of those comments up if you want me to but the short version is: not only am I willing to pay for content, I have subscribed and paid for content through the exact option you describe and it wasn't the cost that drove me away. I will also point out, Youtube Premium is not primarily an ad-free Youtube service (and neither was Youtube Red, it also came bundled with Google Play Music). It is a paid video service and music service that happens to also contain ad-free viewing. Youtube Premium Lite did exist as an ad-free Youtube service. Google axed it. They axed it because Google doesn't want that -- it does not want to have a service that is priced around specifically the cost of removing ads from Youtube. Of course they axed Youtube Premium Lite, because Google wants to have a cable package, and then to be able to point to that cable package and say "see how expensive ad-free viewing is?" It would be a long conversation to talk about why that bundling is problematic, both from a competitive standpoint (see Amazon Prime) and from a "support creators" standpoint (the amount of money going back to creators is much lower than they'll get from direct support). But I'm going to keep going back to -- there is no option to pay specifically to remove ads from Youtube; Google killed that service and it's now only available as part of a bundling system with other services.

nerdjon 3y ago

here is the thing, I have yet to see any proof that by paying to removing ads from YouTube that they are removing the main problem and that is the constant tracking. If the root of the problem exists its not fixing the problem and its just fixing it for non technical people, since most don't understand the real problem or how it works.

realusername 3y ago

Youtube Premium is a joke, it's priced at probably 50 times the revenue that Google gets for the average user. I'm even wondering if they feel like it's a real option internally and not just a small gimmick to capture the most paying customers.

toastercat 3y ago

It doesn't solve the tracking problem, which is something adblock does. uBlock Origin unironically provides a better value and experience than YouTube Premium does.

PJDK 3y ago
Would anyone be condemning people who paid for youtube premium and also blocked tracking with ublock?
- toastercat 3y ago
  That is a good question. I would hope not, but I suppose an argument could and would be made that you are still violating the TOS by blocking trackers, and by blocking them, you are depriving YouTube (and its creators) from another means of compensation by stifling the effectiveness of adverts.
- danShumway 3y ago
  I actually did this for a while (not condemn people :) -- I paid for Youtube and then never signed in and continued to use 3rd-party apps and uBlock Origin). One big issue is that your payment then is basically just to Youtube -- and it's kind of impossible to avoid because the point is to stop Youtube from obsessively tracking everything you view and do, but in the process you stop Youtube from knowing which videos you're watching, so the creators are no longer getting their piece of that pie. It's a tricky problem, I'm not sure how to solve it using Youtube Premium's model (that's not true I can think of ways to solve this using some kind of anonymous token system, but Youtube's never going to do that). It's part of why I advocate now for supporting creators directly (and by extension not caring about Google's profits, although that's secondary). But you could still buy Youtube Premium on the side if you specifically want to support Youtube; it's just if you're using 3rd-party clients I don't think that gets rid of the obligation to help the creators themselves.

bluescrn 3y ago

They killed their most reasonably-priced ad-free option (without bundled music service): https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/25/23889917/youtube-premium-lite-subscription-discontinued-retired https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/25/23889917/youtube-premium-...