3 ms·

Because those companies are just taking the piss. They are like an abusive boyfriend that wants to know what you're up to all the time. They pretend you can pay

Because those companies are just taking the piss. They are like an abusive boyfriend that wants to know what you're up to all the time. They pretend you can pay them off so they won't have to stalk you, but the prices they ask are greatly exaggerated and exist solely to try and fool regulators. But if you're happy to pay whatever is asked of you, that'll be a 100 dollars thanks

dageshi 3y ago
Youtube premium is £12.99 / month or £19.99/month for a family plan. That really doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  To know whether that is unreasonable or not you'd have to compare it to the cost of providing you that service, taking into account that youtube is just a delivery mechanism and so is infrastructure, not content. And what is or is not affordable is really dependent on where you live and that kind of money is a very large amount in some places. And especially in those places access to youtube for educational purposes can be quite important.
  - dageshi 3y ago
    Youtube premium also pays out the content creators you watch in lieu of the ads you don't watch does it not? At least that was my understanding. If so it's not just the infrastructure cost which itself is not trivial for a site like youtube.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Infrastructure costs are such that they're a rounding error on the total google budget.
      - tmtvl 3y ago
        With all respect, do you have a source for that? I thought Alphabet was losing money hand over fist on YT before they started being so aggressive with the ads.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Let's for the moment assume that you are right, then they shouldn't have bought it in ... 2006, all of 17 years ago. And if they are short of money why are they pushing more and more junk on people? Let's start with switching off autoplay by default, limiting videos to 640x480, and offering creators to pay for the hosting so that their video can be shipped, just like I pay for the hosting of my web servers. Their whole position is horribly inconsistent.
        random_mutex 3y ago
        Were they losing or weren't they making enough to satisfy their greed?
  - ryanjshaw 3y ago
    Why would the cost of providing YT be relevant? I look at the value I get, and YT Premium is a no brainer. Here in South Africa YT Premium Family is R109.99/mo (5.83 USD). By comparison, Netflix is R159/mo. Minimum wage is R25.42/hr.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Because infrastructure is cost+, Neflix gives you content that they have the rights to.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  I agree, and I think its also important to fund the creators making the content we consume. Artists need patrons and YouTube has made that possible and practical on a scale humanity has never seen. That's a valuable thing, and if google wants to get paid for it, I don't begrudge that. Ads are phycological warfare and must be eradicated with prejudice but asking the audience to chip in a couple bucks a month seems reasonable to me.
- beeboobaa 3y ago
  I watch like 5 videos a month. No way they're making more than $1, maybe $2, off of advertising to me. Why would I pay them 10x that? Don't be ridiculous.

dageshi 3y ago

Youtube premium is £12.99 / month or £19.99/month for a family plan. That really doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

jacquesm 3y ago
To know whether that is unreasonable or not you'd have to compare it to the cost of providing you that service, taking into account that youtube is just a delivery mechanism and so is infrastructure, not content. And what is or is not affordable is really dependent on where you live and that kind of money is a very large amount in some places. And especially in those places access to youtube for educational purposes can be quite important.
- dageshi 3y ago
  Youtube premium also pays out the content creators you watch in lieu of the ads you don't watch does it not? At least that was my understanding. If so it's not just the infrastructure cost which itself is not trivial for a site like youtube.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Infrastructure costs are such that they're a rounding error on the total google budget.
    - tmtvl 3y ago
      With all respect, do you have a source for that? I thought Alphabet was losing money hand over fist on YT before they started being so aggressive with the ads.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Let's for the moment assume that you are right, then they shouldn't have bought it in ... 2006, all of 17 years ago. And if they are short of money why are they pushing more and more junk on people? Let's start with switching off autoplay by default, limiting videos to 640x480, and offering creators to pay for the hosting so that their video can be shipped, just like I pay for the hosting of my web servers. Their whole position is horribly inconsistent.
      - random_mutex 3y ago
        Were they losing or weren't they making enough to satisfy their greed?
- ryanjshaw 3y ago
  Why would the cost of providing YT be relevant? I look at the value I get, and YT Premium is a no brainer. Here in South Africa YT Premium Family is R109.99/mo (5.83 USD). By comparison, Netflix is R159/mo. Minimum wage is R25.42/hr.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Because infrastructure is cost+, Neflix gives you content that they have the rights to.
idiotsecant 3y ago
I agree, and I think its also important to fund the creators making the content we consume. Artists need patrons and YouTube has made that possible and practical on a scale humanity has never seen. That's a valuable thing, and if google wants to get paid for it, I don't begrudge that. Ads are phycological warfare and must be eradicated with prejudice but asking the audience to chip in a couple bucks a month seems reasonable to me.
beeboobaa 3y ago
I watch like 5 videos a month. No way they're making more than $1, maybe $2, off of advertising to me. Why would I pay them 10x that? Don't be ridiculous.