4 ms·
Yes I wonder why some people think a service like YouTube (or any ad-funded service) should be completely free (even ad-free), as if it was a basic human right.
by Xenoamorphous 3y ago
Yes I wonder why some people think a service like YouTube (or any ad-funded service) should be completely free (even ad-free), as if it was a basic human right.
Especially in the case of YouTube, which has a premium version with no ads, there's no reason to complain, really.
- diggan 3y ago> I wonder why some people think a service like YouTube The history of the service matters. If you launch something that says "Ad-free videos for free" and then X years later change to "Some ads + videos for free", people will have a reaction to that. Slowly change it over the years, and each iteration will have more reactions attached to it.
- Xenoamorphous 3y agoYes I'm sure all those using ad-blockers are thinking about YouTube origins 20 years ago. ;) If they changed their policies the right response is to stop using the service. Someone gives me something for free for a few years, and they stop doing it. Do I really have the right to make demands?
- diggan 3y agoI don't take the current "outrage" (wouldn't call it an outrage, but for the lack of other words) as "demands" as such. It's feedback from the users, that what they're doing sucks. Then it's up to each user to decide if it's worth leaving the service for, or not. So people are essentially doing what you say they should do. The service changes, users give feedback, some might leave, some might not.
- Xenoamorphous 3y agoWhy would YouTube "listen" to users with adblockers? They don't get ads, they don't pay for the premium version. They're a net loss to them (infra costs for nothing in exchange), they're better off without them so no incentive whatsoever to listen to them. And we should think about content creators too, where does the money they get paid for the views come from?
- dageshi 3y agoI don't think youtube has ever been ad free? Yet an awful lot of people feel entitled to it being so.
- diggan 3y agoYes, it was initially ad-free. Then they first launched "participatory video ads", and when asked about expanding the ads into more areas, the CEO at the time said: > we think there are better ways for people to engage with brands than forcing them to watch a commercial before seeing content. You could ask anyone on the net if they enjoy that experience and they'd probably say no A year or so later, they launched ads that ran before the video played.
- dageshi 3y agoAhh, didn't know that. Still for probably 99% of the people who youtube it has always had ads given how small the userbase would've been 17-18 years ago.
- iowemoretohim 3y agoYouTube introduced ads almost 18 years ago. There's a whole generation of users who have never experienced YouTube without ads. Not to mention the majority of users don't make use of ad-blockers.
- falloutx 3y agoIts their own fault for getting everyone hooked on free videos. If they started with charging model, no one would be complaining now.
- Xenoamorphous 3y agoShould I start stealing Pringles at the supermarket because there was a lady offering free ones of the latest flavour? They were nice by the way, Flame ones, quite spicey.
- xigoi 3y agoPringles don’t have a network effect. Other people eating Pringles doesn’t prevent you from choosing a different brand of chips.
- turbocabbage 3y agoEven if I'm personally paying for a premium account I do think that unpaying users still have two reasons to 'complain'. 1. There's no real competitor to Youtube so if you disagree with a certain thing but still want to watch how to fix your dishwasher there may not be any other place to turn to. 2. There's only one payment model. Someone who maybe follows a single type of video and doesn't watch videos every day still have to pay the same amount as someone who watches multiple videos per day. I really hate the second point since so many services these days use that model (especially newspapers, just let me pay per article).