5 ms·

Just pay the $15 for the ad free version? The entitlement people feel for a free service that takes hundreds of millions of dollars in compute and human hours t

Just pay the $15 for the ad free version? The entitlement people feel for a free service that takes hundreds of millions of dollars in compute and human hours to run boggles me. Don’t like ads? Don’t like subscription fees? Don’t like large tech companies? Great! Go to the library and check out a book.

hobs 3y ago
They are entitled, but just like any commercial service this will just bloat to "ad lite" and then "full ads but you can still pay for it" - cable did the exact same thing.
- drivers99 3y ago
  When’s that? It’s been 8 years so far, so good.
- blindhippo 3y ago
  It's already there, except the ads are baked into most content as "sponsored videos". They make it easy to skip over the ads (seriously, just fast forward 20-60 seconds depending on the video). For better or worse, the vast majority of my media consumption is youtube these days and of all the subs I pay for, it's the one I get the most value out of. I don't get the cynicism.
saos 3y ago
Erm No.
jmprspret 3y ago
Oh boo hoo.
AndroTux 3y ago
For me personally it’s the way they’re bullying me to pay it. For years I wanted YouTube and Twitter to introduce a paid plan with less ads. And then they did, and immediately started harassing everyone who didn’t purchase it right away with ads every few seconds. It’s just rude and I don’t like being bullied into doing something.
- blindhippo 3y ago
  What's the alternative here? Just offer the service with minimal ads and just hope people decide to sign up for the ad-free version - a value proposition that makes little sense since the ads are minimal? They aren't bullying anyone. They are trying to make a business model work as efficiently as possible. Anything that relies on ad revenue is going to be predatory like this.
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    Your point is they're not bullies, just mere predators ?
- Jensson 3y ago
  > And then they did, and immediately started harassing everyone who didn’t purchase it right away with ads every few seconds Youtube premium has been a thing for 8 years now, you have had a really long time to start paying for ad-free youtube. You just didn't bother to even check if it existed until they started to push for it harder recently. So you are a perfect example why they gave up and started becoming more aggressive now, its because it didn't work to just do it the way you think is "fair".
  - AndroTux 3y ago
    > Youtube premium has been a thing for 8 years now Tell me you're from the US without telling me you're from the US. > So you are a perfect example why they gave up and started becoming more aggressive now They started rolling out aggressive ads before YouTube Red was available in my country to purchase. And by the way, I gave in and do pay for YouTube Premium currently. But I still stand by my statement, because I see how bad it is on my second account. For decades, YouTube managed to show me a few ads before and after the video just fine. And suddenly it's literally every minute? I'm sure Google is struggling to make ends meet.
- okdood64 3y ago
  You could've started paying almost a decade ago. I've had Premium for as long as it's existed, even when ads were "tolerable." (It was never tolerable enough for me to be able to keep a few bucks.) I think it's ridiculous that people are only now coming out of the woodwork saying things like "I would pay if they weren't forcing me into it" or "I would pay if it wasn't so expensive now" or "I just want to pay for ad-free and not YT Music". It's been out for years, and it was cheap before; they even had Premium Lite for a while.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dade_ 3y ago
I’m fine with paying for this type of service,but the last thing I want to do is give money to YouTube so it can become an even bigger defacto monopoly.
- curtisblaine 3y ago
  And reward their enshittification practices once they reached monopoly status.
analognoise 3y ago
The deal was they siphon off all our private data, ruin society and get filthy rich, we get an infinite place to store cat videos. They’re breaking the implied contract, not us.
- arsome 3y ago
  I mean the entire point and value of that whole data siphon thing is literally the ads.
  - rzl1235 3y ago
    [dead]
  - analognoise 3y ago
    Previously they gathered all that data and didn't also display ads; that was the thing, it was seamless. Now they want all our data, AND for us to pay to skip their ads? I'm not for it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dvngnt_ 3y ago
no. sponsor block, downloading, kodi playback is free whereas you're paying for a worst experience while being tracked
xienze 3y ago
I 100% guarantee you that eventually the $15 tier will have “limited” ads and then the upcoming $25 tier is ad free, rinse and repeat. It’s happened with cable, it’s happened with streaming, it’ll happen with YouTube.
- NavinF 3y ago
  Doubt it. Most streaming sites are still ad free and their prices only increased with inflation. Both YouTube and creators already get way more revenue from premium subscribers than ad watchers so I doubt that'll change this decade
  - eiiot 3y ago
    HBO, Hulu, Netflix, and Disney+ all have ad-supported tiers that materialized after an ad-free price increase.
    - NavinF 3y ago
      US dollar inflation was 32.1% over the last decade. Netflix increased their prices from $10/mo to $16/mo in 2011 and faced massive backlash with tech journalists praising Blockbuster and saying "Up until today, we loved Netflix": https://www.wired.com/2011/07/netflix-price-hike-anger/ https://www.wired.com/2011/07/netflix-price-hike-anger/ https://www.houstonpress.com/arts/hey-netflix-wtf-6368309 https://www.houstonpress.com/arts/hey-netflix-wtf-6368309 Today Netflix charges $15.50/mo. The price rises and falls every 2 years and we get the same whining every 2 years: https://flixed.io/netflix-price-hikes https://flixed.io/netflix-price-hikes
arsome 3y ago
I pirate everything anyways, why in the hell would I pay for YouTube?
- adamgordonbell 3y ago
  55% net goes directly to the creators making the videos. The very video you are watching. Encourage what you want to see in the world.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - trjlwl 3y ago
    >Encourage what you want to see in the world. You can do that through patronage, if you have the means. Advertising never leads to that. Every sector that depends on large numbers of people contributing a small fraction (like cinema or music) ends up turning into a race to the bottom, as appealing to the lowest common denominator is the most efficient way to succeed. The advertising internet model the epitome of that.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      That is only true for the largest of brands. There are hundreds of thousands of niche youtube channels that makes their creators enough money to live on so that can now work full time creating niche content for their audiences, that wouldn't be possible without youtube ads. So at least from we see on youtube the ads leads to more niche content, not less. There aren't enough payers to sustain that many niche channels.
      - trjlwl 3y ago
        Maybe. From what I've seen niche channels tend to have a Patreon or similar, so neither monetization model exists in a vacuum. It's true those niche channels exist thanks to YouTube, but if they were forced to rely uniquely on ads I don't think they would be able to survive without succumbing to trend-chasing, drama and formulaic routine videos, which is what big channels seem to do for the most part.
namlem 3y ago
No. They're making my pay for the bundle of YouTube Music plus ad free YouTube. I'm happy with Spotify, I refuse to pay extra for a service I won't use.
- NavinF 3y ago
  If it was $10+$5 for YouTube+music, this thread would be full of people complaining that Google is nickel and diming them because there's already music on YouTube.com
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yumraj 3y ago
> Just pay the $15 for the ad free version? Why not pay people to watch the ads by a similar logic? BTW, curious has anyone ever anywhere in the world, any media, tried creating a channel/stream which just shows ads and pays people if they watch? Wondering if that’ll work. Also, I rarely watch YT, so for me personally $15 or whatever the price is, is too high. Another thing, ad blockers also help in privacy. $15 may result in no ads being shown in YT, but does that also mean that Google is not collecting data? I’ll consider paying to Google for a no-data-collected mode.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  Yes. There are a number of "view ads and fill out surveys and get paid" things in the world.
devmor 3y ago
I’ll pay for the ad free version when youtube stewards a responsible and accountable platform - both in moderating content and in proving transparent appeals instead of giving an open path for copyright trolls to harass and cause monetary harm to creators. Until then, they get no money and I watch no ads.
- sanswork 3y ago
  If you use YouTube at all then you're not at all concerned with "a responsible and accountable platform" you're just trying to justify leeching. If you were actually concerned about those things you'd avoid using them entirety. You talk about being concerned about YouTube causing monetary harm to creators but your own actions are causing them monetary harm by denying them any payment for their value provided to you. It's hypocritical.
  - struant 3y ago
    I don't want to financially support every person that I happen to watch. Sometimes I am curious what propaganda scumbag right wing trolls are putting out. Viewing content I disagree with is the cost of staying informed. Doesn't mean I want those creators getting a cent. YouTube isn't getting any revenue from me (from advertising or subscription) until I can allocate exactly where my money goes.
  - devmor 3y ago
    So your statement is that "You cannot possibly be concerned about, and want something to be better, if you continue to use it."? Am I understanding that correctly?
    - sanswork 3y ago
      My statement is that if you're really concerned about a service being a bad actor you would avoid it entirely to avoid propping it up at all unless it's an essential service. I am concerned about the new management of Twitter so I deleted my account and stopped using the service. It's very empty to claim you won't pay for a service because you are morally opposed to their service while continuing to use said service.
tshaddox 3y ago
How are you using the word “entitlement” here? A very small number of people are looking for technological solutions to block ads, presumably motivated more by the enjoyment of the intellectual pursuit than by the disdain of ads. I don’t see any statements or actions even remotely hinting at feeling entitled to an ad-free viewing experience. They’re simply trying to figure out how to achieve an ad-free experience. If someone locally modifies a website’s visuals to implement dark mode, would you lambast them for feeling entitled to dark mode?
- curtisblaine 3y ago
  I'm absolutely entitled to decide what content plays on mwy computer. They're also absolutely entitled to send me ads along with their content. What they're not entitled to is forcing me to see those ads.
curtisblaine 3y ago
The service has been free so far only because it allowed YouTube to get almost 3 billions of users and build a de facto monopoly. Now that they are the video platform, the enshittification starts. I don't see any downside in speeding up their ads: I'm not interested in rewarding their enshittification practices and I find it healthy to affirm, once again, that on my computer I play only the content I decide to play. If this hurts the business model of YouTube, good. Maybe it will help competition.
UncleMeat 3y ago
Yeah the rage here is wild to me. People constantly say "just give me an option to pay" but Youtube Premium has existed forever and remains an option.

hobs 3y ago

They are entitled, but just like any commercial service this will just bloat to "ad lite" and then "full ads but you can still pay for it" - cable did the exact same thing.

drivers99 3y ago
When’s that? It’s been 8 years so far, so good.
blindhippo 3y ago
It's already there, except the ads are baked into most content as "sponsored videos". They make it easy to skip over the ads (seriously, just fast forward 20-60 seconds depending on the video). For better or worse, the vast majority of my media consumption is youtube these days and of all the subs I pay for, it's the one I get the most value out of. I don't get the cynicism.

saos 3y ago

Erm No.

jmprspret 3y ago

Oh boo hoo.

AndroTux 3y ago

For me personally it’s the way they’re bullying me to pay it. For years I wanted YouTube and Twitter to introduce a paid plan with less ads. And then they did, and immediately started harassing everyone who didn’t purchase it right away with ads every few seconds. It’s just rude and I don’t like being bullied into doing something.

blindhippo 3y ago
What's the alternative here? Just offer the service with minimal ads and just hope people decide to sign up for the ad-free version - a value proposition that makes little sense since the ads are minimal? They aren't bullying anyone. They are trying to make a business model work as efficiently as possible. Anything that relies on ad revenue is going to be predatory like this.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  Your point is they're not bullies, just mere predators ?
Jensson 3y ago
> And then they did, and immediately started harassing everyone who didn’t purchase it right away with ads every few seconds Youtube premium has been a thing for 8 years now, you have had a really long time to start paying for ad-free youtube. You just didn't bother to even check if it existed until they started to push for it harder recently. So you are a perfect example why they gave up and started becoming more aggressive now, its because it didn't work to just do it the way you think is "fair".
- AndroTux 3y ago
  > Youtube premium has been a thing for 8 years now Tell me you're from the US without telling me you're from the US. > So you are a perfect example why they gave up and started becoming more aggressive now They started rolling out aggressive ads before YouTube Red was available in my country to purchase. And by the way, I gave in and do pay for YouTube Premium currently. But I still stand by my statement, because I see how bad it is on my second account. For decades, YouTube managed to show me a few ads before and after the video just fine. And suddenly it's literally every minute? I'm sure Google is struggling to make ends meet.
okdood64 3y ago
You could've started paying almost a decade ago. I've had Premium for as long as it's existed, even when ads were "tolerable." (It was never tolerable enough for me to be able to keep a few bucks.) I think it's ridiculous that people are only now coming out of the woodwork saying things like "I would pay if they weren't forcing me into it" or "I would pay if it wasn't so expensive now" or "I just want to pay for ad-free and not YT Music". It's been out for years, and it was cheap before; they even had Premium Lite for a while.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dade_ 3y ago

I’m fine with paying for this type of service,but the last thing I want to do is give money to YouTube so it can become an even bigger defacto monopoly.

curtisblaine 3y ago
And reward their enshittification practices once they reached monopoly status.

analognoise 3y ago

The deal was they siphon off all our private data, ruin society and get filthy rich, we get an infinite place to store cat videos. They’re breaking the implied contract, not us.

arsome 3y ago
I mean the entire point and value of that whole data siphon thing is literally the ads.
- rzl1235 3y ago
  [dead]
- analognoise 3y ago
  Previously they gathered all that data and didn't also display ads; that was the thing, it was seamless. Now they want all our data, AND for us to pay to skip their ads? I'm not for it.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dvngnt_ 3y ago

no. sponsor block, downloading, kodi playback is free whereas you're paying for a worst experience while being tracked

xienze 3y ago

I 100% guarantee you that eventually the $15 tier will have “limited” ads and then the upcoming $25 tier is ad free, rinse and repeat. It’s happened with cable, it’s happened with streaming, it’ll happen with YouTube.

NavinF 3y ago
Doubt it. Most streaming sites are still ad free and their prices only increased with inflation. Both YouTube and creators already get way more revenue from premium subscribers than ad watchers so I doubt that'll change this decade
- eiiot 3y ago
  HBO, Hulu, Netflix, and Disney+ all have ad-supported tiers that materialized after an ad-free price increase.
  - NavinF 3y ago
    US dollar inflation was 32.1% over the last decade. Netflix increased their prices from $10/mo to $16/mo in 2011 and faced massive backlash with tech journalists praising Blockbuster and saying "Up until today, we loved Netflix": https://www.wired.com/2011/07/netflix-price-hike-anger/ https://www.wired.com/2011/07/netflix-price-hike-anger/ https://www.houstonpress.com/arts/hey-netflix-wtf-6368309 https://www.houstonpress.com/arts/hey-netflix-wtf-6368309 Today Netflix charges $15.50/mo. The price rises and falls every 2 years and we get the same whining every 2 years: https://flixed.io/netflix-price-hikes https://flixed.io/netflix-price-hikes

arsome 3y ago

I pirate everything anyways, why in the hell would I pay for YouTube?

adamgordonbell 3y ago
55% net goes directly to the creators making the videos. The very video you are watching. Encourage what you want to see in the world.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- trjlwl 3y ago
  >Encourage what you want to see in the world. You can do that through patronage, if you have the means. Advertising never leads to that. Every sector that depends on large numbers of people contributing a small fraction (like cinema or music) ends up turning into a race to the bottom, as appealing to the lowest common denominator is the most efficient way to succeed. The advertising internet model the epitome of that.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    That is only true for the largest of brands. There are hundreds of thousands of niche youtube channels that makes their creators enough money to live on so that can now work full time creating niche content for their audiences, that wouldn't be possible without youtube ads. So at least from we see on youtube the ads leads to more niche content, not less. There aren't enough payers to sustain that many niche channels.
    - trjlwl 3y ago
      Maybe. From what I've seen niche channels tend to have a Patreon or similar, so neither monetization model exists in a vacuum. It's true those niche channels exist thanks to YouTube, but if they were forced to rely uniquely on ads I don't think they would be able to survive without succumbing to trend-chasing, drama and formulaic routine videos, which is what big channels seem to do for the most part.

namlem 3y ago

No. They're making my pay for the bundle of YouTube Music plus ad free YouTube. I'm happy with Spotify, I refuse to pay extra for a service I won't use.

NavinF 3y ago
If it was $10+$5 for YouTube+music, this thread would be full of people complaining that Google is nickel and diming them because there's already music on YouTube.com

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

yumraj 3y ago

> Just pay the $15 for the ad free version? Why not pay people to watch the ads by a similar logic? BTW, curious has anyone ever anywhere in the world, any media, tried creating a channel/stream which just shows ads and pays people if they watch? Wondering if that’ll work. Also, I rarely watch YT, so for me personally $15 or whatever the price is, is too high. Another thing, ad blockers also help in privacy. $15 may result in no ads being shown in YT, but does that also mean that Google is not collecting data? I’ll consider paying to Google for a no-data-collected mode.

UncleMeat 3y ago
Yes. There are a number of "view ads and fill out surveys and get paid" things in the world.

devmor 3y ago

I’ll pay for the ad free version when youtube stewards a responsible and accountable platform - both in moderating content and in proving transparent appeals instead of giving an open path for copyright trolls to harass and cause monetary harm to creators. Until then, they get no money and I watch no ads.

sanswork 3y ago
If you use YouTube at all then you're not at all concerned with "a responsible and accountable platform" you're just trying to justify leeching. If you were actually concerned about those things you'd avoid using them entirety. You talk about being concerned about YouTube causing monetary harm to creators but your own actions are causing them monetary harm by denying them any payment for their value provided to you. It's hypocritical.
- struant 3y ago
  I don't want to financially support every person that I happen to watch. Sometimes I am curious what propaganda scumbag right wing trolls are putting out. Viewing content I disagree with is the cost of staying informed. Doesn't mean I want those creators getting a cent. YouTube isn't getting any revenue from me (from advertising or subscription) until I can allocate exactly where my money goes.
- devmor 3y ago
  So your statement is that "You cannot possibly be concerned about, and want something to be better, if you continue to use it."? Am I understanding that correctly?
  - sanswork 3y ago
    My statement is that if you're really concerned about a service being a bad actor you would avoid it entirely to avoid propping it up at all unless it's an essential service. I am concerned about the new management of Twitter so I deleted my account and stopped using the service. It's very empty to claim you won't pay for a service because you are morally opposed to their service while continuing to use said service.

tshaddox 3y ago

How are you using the word “entitlement” here? A very small number of people are looking for technological solutions to block ads, presumably motivated more by the enjoyment of the intellectual pursuit than by the disdain of ads. I don’t see any statements or actions even remotely hinting at feeling entitled to an ad-free viewing experience. They’re simply trying to figure out how to achieve an ad-free experience. If someone locally modifies a website’s visuals to implement dark mode, would you lambast them for feeling entitled to dark mode?

curtisblaine 3y ago
I'm absolutely entitled to decide what content plays on mwy computer. They're also absolutely entitled to send me ads along with their content. What they're not entitled to is forcing me to see those ads.

curtisblaine 3y ago

The service has been free so far only because it allowed YouTube to get almost 3 billions of users and build a de facto monopoly. Now that they are the video platform, the enshittification starts. I don't see any downside in speeding up their ads: I'm not interested in rewarding their enshittification practices and I find it healthy to affirm, once again, that on my computer I play only the content I decide to play. If this hurts the business model of YouTube, good. Maybe it will help competition.

UncleMeat 3y ago

Yeah the rage here is wild to me. People constantly say "just give me an option to pay" but Youtube Premium has existed forever and remains an option.