3 ms·

But you can access YouTube content for free. You aren't paying for access to the content like you do with other services; you are paying just for ad removal. T

But you can access YouTube content for free. You aren't paying for access to the content like you do with other services; you are paying just for ad removal. To me, that's way, way less valuable.

dangus 3y ago
I think if you refuse to watch ads the difference is moot. And it’s fine that people who ad block get the service for free but they’re going to be playing a cat and mouse game forever, the same way I could get the New York Times for free if I threw links at archive.is, but if I’m a regular reader that experience is going to suck to the point of a subscription being worth it. I also think that all of these streaming services are so ridiculously affordable compared to most other life expenses. Nobody seems to mind spending $12 on one trip to McDonald’s or Starbucks for product that only lasts a fraction of a day but somehow a month of watching zero ads on YouTube with a few extra features thrown in isn’t worth the price.
- RoyalHenOil 3y ago
  Not everyone makes the same income, has the same expenses, or has the same priorities. I disabled adblock about a month before started my YouTube trial because I wanted to do a fair comparison. What I have found is that the removal of ads is simply not worth the $18/month YouTube Premium costs in my country. For that price, I would rather just see ads even without any adblocker. There are a LOT of things I could spend $216 on that would give me more pleasure than not seeing YouTube ads for a year. Even better, I could just reconfigure my adblocker a couple of times a year (something I already do due to the malware arms race). That's way better than cutting $216 out of my hobby budget. Now, if I had the option to get YouTube Premium (or some reduced version of that only offered ad removal) for about half the current price, then it would probably be worth it. (And no, I do not buy fast food, either. It is more expensive and tastes worse than something I can whip together at home.)

But you can access YouTube content for free. You aren't paying for access to the content like you do with other services; you are paying just for ad removal. To me, that's way, way less valuable.

dangus 3y ago

I think if you refuse to watch ads the difference is moot. And it’s fine that people who ad block get the service for free but they’re going to be playing a cat and mouse game forever, the same way I could get the New York Times for free if I threw links at archive.is, but if I’m a regular reader that experience is going to suck to the point of a subscription being worth it. I also think that all of these streaming services are so ridiculously affordable compared to most other life expenses. Nobody seems to mind spending $12 on one trip to McDonald’s or Starbucks for product that only lasts a fraction of a day but somehow a month of watching zero ads on YouTube with a few extra features thrown in isn’t worth the price.

RoyalHenOil 3y ago
Not everyone makes the same income, has the same expenses, or has the same priorities. I disabled adblock about a month before started my YouTube trial because I wanted to do a fair comparison. What I have found is that the removal of ads is simply not worth the $18/month YouTube Premium costs in my country. For that price, I would rather just see ads even without any adblocker. There are a LOT of things I could spend $216 on that would give me more pleasure than not seeing YouTube ads for a year. Even better, I could just reconfigure my adblocker a couple of times a year (something I already do due to the malware arms race). That's way better than cutting $216 out of my hobby budget. Now, if I had the option to get YouTube Premium (or some reduced version of that only offered ad removal) for about half the current price, then it would probably be worth it. (And no, I do not buy fast food, either. It is more expensive and tastes worse than something I can whip together at home.)