3 ms·

What value do you get from YouTube Premium that I don't get from using my ad blocker while browsing YouTube for free? (I also get 1080p videos on my phone with

What value do you get from YouTube Premium that I don't get from using my ad blocker while browsing YouTube for free? (I also get 1080p videos on my phone with a safari extension.)

dangus 3y ago
What value do you get from your $1000 iPhone that I don’t get from the one that I stole for free? Okay, you wouldn’t download a car, I know you’re not “stealing,” but Google has the right to block you just like you have the right to block ads. If you want an actual answer, here are the ones I use regularly: - Download offline videos to the phone app - Picture-in-picture on mobile - enhanced bitrate 1080p - background playback on mobile - “continue watching” - music streaming Plus, I don’t have to install and update any bullshit or hacked apps to keep all of it working. Full list: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116?hl=en
- chatmasta 3y ago
  FWIW, I get all of that with a single Safari extension called Vinegar, which replaces the hostile YouTube video player (and its associated scripts for hijacking the screen) with a native HTML5 Video element, thus restoring picture-in-picture, background playback, bitrate selection including 1080p, and continue watching (assuming I'm logged into YouTube). No bullshit or hacked apps required. Just a $1.99 purchase of a Safari Content Extension from the Apple App Store to restore native features of my OS that hostile JS on YouTube attempted to take away from me.
  - dangus 3y ago
    It’s a personal preference, but I watch YouTube heavily on mobile and streaming tv box devices, so I prefer the app over the website unless I’m on desktop. I think the app works better, faster, easier than the mobile website. You didn’t mention offline downloads, and that’s a major advantage of the app. I queue up downloads for plane rides all the time. I’m not going to use a desktop interface for my TV, either. I want an app that is designed for use with a remote. So you found a solution to get around it, and you’re now part of the statistic that Google uses to figure out how much to charge for Premium and how many ads to play for people who don’t block ads. You’re that X% of people who block ads and don’t pay for premium but still use up Google’s hosting resources. What that means is that you effectively increase the price for paying customers like me, and increase the amount of ads that people who don’t block ads get to see. It is mathematically no different than people entering a Walmart and shoplift roughly 1.6% of the inventory [1], you make the business overhead that little bit higher. Thanks! Personally, I think for the amount I get out of it the pricing is very fair, it’s a trivial expense, under $4/person/month with the family plan. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/retailers-lost-112-billion-to-inventory-shrink-in-2022 https://www.businessinsider.com/retailers-lost-112-billion-t...
    - chatmasta 3y ago
      lol, I have to admit that's an interesting argument against ad blocking. I'm not sure whether it makes me feel better or worse about it though... btw, do you think YouTube Premium will eventually include ads? Because the same sort of game theoretic argument applies there, doesn't it? If everyone subscribes to Premium then YouTube will feel emboldened to serve ads there too. Maybe people like you actually need people like me to maintain Premium's differentiation... and about your "shrinkage" analogy - I could say the same about you, assuming you don't purchase the things in the ads. I'm costing Google money, but I'm saving advertisers money by keeping my non-consuming eyeballs away from them. If Google served me ads they'd just be wasting more money from advertisers, because I wouldn't buy the products advertised in them. (And the only counterargument to this is "well actually you might be convinced to buy something from the ads," which is basically an argument that I should submit myself to psychological warfare, at which point you've lost all moral high ground.)
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        That's actually exactly what Netflix did, and cable TV before them so it's on fact highly likely
        dangus 3y ago
        Netflix added a cheaper ads tier, it still has the original ad-free plans. I don’t know why everyone insists that streaming services are adding advertisements when literally all of them have ad-free plans.
        chatmasta 3y ago
        I'm the guy you're arguing with upthread, but I agree with this one. I've never seen an ad on Netflix. But Hulu, Prime, and (I think) Paramount+ all show ads to their paid subscribers. Although Paramount and Prime mostly limit their ads to promotions for their own shows, whereas Hulu sells slots to outside advertisers. (And this is ignoring the $100+ monthly cost of traditional cable packages that show at least a minute of ads for every two minutes of content, on every channel). And ok, maybe those streaming services offer ad-free plans, but that's moving the goal posts from the original impetus of subscribing to the first (and initially only) tier of a non-free plan (e.g. YouTube Premium in this analogy) explicitly to opt out of ads. And in fact its further evidence that future YouTube will likely offer a paid tier that includes ads, which would negate the primary argument for using any paid tier from them now (if you give a mouse a cookie...)

What value do you get from YouTube Premium that I don't get from using my ad blocker while browsing YouTube for free? (I also get 1080p videos on my phone with a safari extension.)

dangus 3y ago

What value do you get from your $1000 iPhone that I don’t get from the one that I stole for free? Okay, you wouldn’t download a car, I know you’re not “stealing,” but Google has the right to block you just like you have the right to block ads. If you want an actual answer, here are the ones I use regularly: - Download offline videos to the phone app - Picture-in-picture on mobile - enhanced bitrate 1080p - background playback on mobile - “continue watching” - music streaming Plus, I don’t have to install and update any bullshit or hacked apps to keep all of it working. Full list: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116?hl=en

chatmasta 3y ago
FWIW, I get all of that with a single Safari extension called Vinegar, which replaces the hostile YouTube video player (and its associated scripts for hijacking the screen) with a native HTML5 Video element, thus restoring picture-in-picture, background playback, bitrate selection including 1080p, and continue watching (assuming I'm logged into YouTube). No bullshit or hacked apps required. Just a $1.99 purchase of a Safari Content Extension from the Apple App Store to restore native features of my OS that hostile JS on YouTube attempted to take away from me.
- dangus 3y ago
  It’s a personal preference, but I watch YouTube heavily on mobile and streaming tv box devices, so I prefer the app over the website unless I’m on desktop. I think the app works better, faster, easier than the mobile website. You didn’t mention offline downloads, and that’s a major advantage of the app. I queue up downloads for plane rides all the time. I’m not going to use a desktop interface for my TV, either. I want an app that is designed for use with a remote. So you found a solution to get around it, and you’re now part of the statistic that Google uses to figure out how much to charge for Premium and how many ads to play for people who don’t block ads. You’re that X% of people who block ads and don’t pay for premium but still use up Google’s hosting resources. What that means is that you effectively increase the price for paying customers like me, and increase the amount of ads that people who don’t block ads get to see. It is mathematically no different than people entering a Walmart and shoplift roughly 1.6% of the inventory [1], you make the business overhead that little bit higher. Thanks! Personally, I think for the amount I get out of it the pricing is very fair, it’s a trivial expense, under $4/person/month with the family plan. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/retailers-lost-112-billion-to-inventory-shrink-in-2022 https://www.businessinsider.com/retailers-lost-112-billion-t...
  - chatmasta 3y ago
    lol, I have to admit that's an interesting argument against ad blocking. I'm not sure whether it makes me feel better or worse about it though... btw, do you think YouTube Premium will eventually include ads? Because the same sort of game theoretic argument applies there, doesn't it? If everyone subscribes to Premium then YouTube will feel emboldened to serve ads there too. Maybe people like you actually need people like me to maintain Premium's differentiation... and about your "shrinkage" analogy - I could say the same about you, assuming you don't purchase the things in the ads. I'm costing Google money, but I'm saving advertisers money by keeping my non-consuming eyeballs away from them. If Google served me ads they'd just be wasting more money from advertisers, because I wouldn't buy the products advertised in them. (And the only counterargument to this is "well actually you might be convinced to buy something from the ads," which is basically an argument that I should submit myself to psychological warfare, at which point you've lost all moral high ground.)
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      That's actually exactly what Netflix did, and cable TV before them so it's on fact highly likely
      - dangus 3y ago
        Netflix added a cheaper ads tier, it still has the original ad-free plans. I don’t know why everyone insists that streaming services are adding advertisements when literally all of them have ad-free plans.
        chatmasta 3y ago
        I'm the guy you're arguing with upthread, but I agree with this one. I've never seen an ad on Netflix. But Hulu, Prime, and (I think) Paramount+ all show ads to their paid subscribers. Although Paramount and Prime mostly limit their ads to promotions for their own shows, whereas Hulu sells slots to outside advertisers. (And this is ignoring the $100+ monthly cost of traditional cable packages that show at least a minute of ads for every two minutes of content, on every channel). And ok, maybe those streaming services offer ad-free plans, but that's moving the goal posts from the original impetus of subscribing to the first (and initially only) tier of a non-free plan (e.g. YouTube Premium in this analogy) explicitly to opt out of ads. And in fact its further evidence that future YouTube will likely offer a paid tier that includes ads, which would negate the primary argument for using any paid tier from them now (if you give a mouse a cookie...)