3 ms·

Please YouTube, make things even worse by embedding ads into the video itself, like twitch does. After I had to watch the same ad over and over for the new Zeld

Please YouTube, make things even worse by embedding ads into the video itself, like twitch does. After I had to watch the same ad over and over for the new Zelda, then Aquaman 2 , I eventually managed to delete my twitch account and stop losing my time there. Hopefully will be the same with youtube, I didn't watch a single ad in 12 years, I don't understand how people does it.without sponsorblock and ublock, youtube is worse than the tv.

pratnala 3y ago
Premium+SponsorBlock is the answer.
twiceaday 3y ago
Premium + Sponsorblock is well worth my money.
- leereeves 3y ago
  Do you think Premium will be ad free forever? I doubt it, because once they get enough people paying for Premium, they can make even more money by adding ads to Premium.
  - twiceaday 3y ago
    I think the current offering is worth it. If / when they change it for much worse I might join the riots then.
happytiger 3y ago
Paying because a service is making itself suck on purpose to create “fake value” to make you relent to their suckage is objectionable business practice, and all those that support YouTube by buying premium need to think a little deeper about the kind of future their are supporting with their money: you’re paying for pain relief instead of innovation and, frankly, condemning the Internet.
- twiceaday 3y ago
  You are missing something key. There is a very popular strategy that YouTube and Uber and a bunch of other companies followed. If you have a product with network effects you don't sell it for what it's worth right away. First, you heavily subsidize the price to maximize your user base, only then do you start charging what the product was worth all along. You got convinced that the unreasonably good initial offering is the norm and resent the inevitable switch to the sustainable real offering. That makes sense, a lot of people will be in your boat as that is basically the entire point of the strat, get you to join the nework by giving you a false impression of the service / product. I'm sure there is some greed there too, but it's not fair to ignore this part of it. Yes, they are making the service worse in order to make more money, that is a fact, however I think some / most of that is needed to cover costs and was planned from the beginning. The argument should be what fraction is needed. Zero, as you seem to imply, seems clearly too low to me. Regardless, it seems best to evaluate a service based on how much you currently get from it for the price (and relative to current competition) rather than to what you used to get for the old price. I get so much value from YouTube that I do not mind paying for Premium. Yes, it is now a much worse deal than before. I think it is still a very good deal.
  - lp0_on_fire 3y ago
    > First, you heavily subsidize the price to maximize your user base, only then do you start charging what the product was worth all along. More and more I feel this should run afoul of anti-trust laws. It's one thing to subsidize a product short term. It's another to subsidize a product for years upon years so you can squeeze out any competition in the market. In the example of Uber and Lyft, how many start-ups that weren't flush with hundreds of millions of VC cash completely failed or never even got off the launchpad because there was no way for them to compete against a company selling it's services at a loss for years at at time?
    - lasean 3y ago
      I'm not an attorney, but have sat through many sessions with our legal team in the past on this topic (pricing models). Agree the practice may fee icky, but I'm not sure this case would qualify as anticompetitive (in the US). First, lawyers would have a field day at defining and redefining the market. Related, it is unclear what other services we as consumers no longer have access to due to them executing this strategy. So across consumer harm, market power/monopoly, and predatory pricing the legal case might be challenging to construct. Back to your point, maybe this practice SHOULD run afoul with anti-trust laws, but the laws may need to change to apply to this situation.
vtwoods 3y ago
Honestly, this is why I got rid of YouTube premium when their prices increased. The amount of ads reduced my YouTube usage to only videos that I "really" wanted to watch. Try turning off your blocker if you want to decrease your consumption :-)
nolist_policy 3y ago
The Ads you see are only because the creator enabled them for monetization AFAIK. There are many channels without Ads.
- rpgwaiter 3y ago
  That's how it used to work. Ads show on all videos now, the only difference is whether Google shared the ad money with the creators

pratnala 3y ago

Premium+SponsorBlock is the answer.

twiceaday 3y ago

Premium + Sponsorblock is well worth my money.

leereeves 3y ago
Do you think Premium will be ad free forever? I doubt it, because once they get enough people paying for Premium, they can make even more money by adding ads to Premium.
- twiceaday 3y ago
  I think the current offering is worth it. If / when they change it for much worse I might join the riots then.

happytiger 3y ago

Paying because a service is making itself suck on purpose to create “fake value” to make you relent to their suckage is objectionable business practice, and all those that support YouTube by buying premium need to think a little deeper about the kind of future their are supporting with their money: you’re paying for pain relief instead of innovation and, frankly, condemning the Internet.

twiceaday 3y ago
You are missing something key. There is a very popular strategy that YouTube and Uber and a bunch of other companies followed. If you have a product with network effects you don't sell it for what it's worth right away. First, you heavily subsidize the price to maximize your user base, only then do you start charging what the product was worth all along. You got convinced that the unreasonably good initial offering is the norm and resent the inevitable switch to the sustainable real offering. That makes sense, a lot of people will be in your boat as that is basically the entire point of the strat, get you to join the nework by giving you a false impression of the service / product. I'm sure there is some greed there too, but it's not fair to ignore this part of it. Yes, they are making the service worse in order to make more money, that is a fact, however I think some / most of that is needed to cover costs and was planned from the beginning. The argument should be what fraction is needed. Zero, as you seem to imply, seems clearly too low to me. Regardless, it seems best to evaluate a service based on how much you currently get from it for the price (and relative to current competition) rather than to what you used to get for the old price. I get so much value from YouTube that I do not mind paying for Premium. Yes, it is now a much worse deal than before. I think it is still a very good deal.
- lp0_on_fire 3y ago
  > First, you heavily subsidize the price to maximize your user base, only then do you start charging what the product was worth all along. More and more I feel this should run afoul of anti-trust laws. It's one thing to subsidize a product short term. It's another to subsidize a product for years upon years so you can squeeze out any competition in the market. In the example of Uber and Lyft, how many start-ups that weren't flush with hundreds of millions of VC cash completely failed or never even got off the launchpad because there was no way for them to compete against a company selling it's services at a loss for years at at time?
  - lasean 3y ago
    I'm not an attorney, but have sat through many sessions with our legal team in the past on this topic (pricing models). Agree the practice may fee icky, but I'm not sure this case would qualify as anticompetitive (in the US). First, lawyers would have a field day at defining and redefining the market. Related, it is unclear what other services we as consumers no longer have access to due to them executing this strategy. So across consumer harm, market power/monopoly, and predatory pricing the legal case might be challenging to construct. Back to your point, maybe this practice SHOULD run afoul with anti-trust laws, but the laws may need to change to apply to this situation.

vtwoods 3y ago

Honestly, this is why I got rid of YouTube premium when their prices increased. The amount of ads reduced my YouTube usage to only videos that I "really" wanted to watch. Try turning off your blocker if you want to decrease your consumption :-)

nolist_policy 3y ago

The Ads you see are only because the creator enabled them for monetization AFAIK. There are many channels without Ads.

rpgwaiter 3y ago
That's how it used to work. Ads show on all videos now, the only difference is whether Google shared the ad money with the creators