6 ms·

"Focus on the user and all else will follow." https://about.google/philosophy/ https://about.google/philosophy/ To be fair they didn't state this in the posit

"Focus on the user and all else will follow." https://about.google/philosophy/ https://about.google/philosophy/ To be fair they didn't state this in the positive or negative sense.

izacus 3y ago
People who refuse to pay for a service and just drain expensive resources, aren't really "users" in terms of being worth focusing on.
- whythre 3y ago
  You mean ‘people who refuse to participate in time destroying corpo-brainwashing.’
  - izacus 3y ago
    Whatever makes you sleep at night. YouTube Premium gives you the service without the ads. You just need to pay for it as it should be. Or pay for Nebula. Or any others.
- piva00 3y ago
  What about people that were willing to pay Premium Lite and got fucked by YouTube when they summarily ended that subscription tier to push people into the more expensive Premium with unnecessary features? Are those paying users getting shafted or do those end up in "not being worth focusing on"?
  - izacus 3y ago
    The service costs X. You do not have a right to use someones service without paying that X. Support Nebula. Support PeerTube. Pay them.
    - piva00 3y ago
      I pay Nebula. I paid YouTube Premium Lite to get rid of ads, I will not pay 2x for the same feature since I do not need offline, Music, nor background play, if they decided to cut my use case from their offering by forcing me to pay extra rent then I can decided to not pay them and use an adblocker. I do not need to bend over for a digital feudal lord.
      - izacus 3y ago
        Then don't. Noone is forcing you. Just like noone is forcing you to watch Hulu or BBC.
        piva00 3y ago
        No one is forcing me except there's no other place on the internet to find educational content about some of my hobbies. I don't have a choice to go somewhere else to watch them and learn (and for some, not even read, it's mostly in video tutorial form); they are exclusively on YouTube because there's no other place to upload them to be syndicated in a discoverable way... Give them an open standard for that and there will probably be competition so I can move away from YouTube. You are either being extremely naive about the state of the internet in 2024, or do not use YouTube for the content I do, or are just being obtuse to try to make a point. "No one is forcing you" is a non-sequitur, it's a thought-terminating cliche that does not work when platforms have taken over and fenced off huge parts of the internet, c'mon. I'd love to avoid YouTube if there was another option, there simply isn't. Comparing YouTube with Hulu and BBC is... Just stupid. What do these services have in common apart from "they display videos"? Please, read this: https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/13/solidarity-forever/ https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/13/solidarity-forever/
    - rglullis 3y ago
      How has that "if you don't want to have ads, pay for it" logic worked out for cable TV subscribers?
      - izacus 3y ago
  - tekla 3y ago
    Not worth it
- tentacleuno 3y ago
  Though I do suspect I'm in the minority on this website, £12.99 a month (£155.88 a year) for one website is very hard to justify when you're on very little income.
  - netmare 3y ago
    I would pay much more for YouTube if they offered proper search and filtering tools. There's so much interesting stuff hidden behind light years of fluff. Ymmv, of course.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    If you own anything that breaks during that year, you can probably recoup all that money by watching a YouTube video with instructions of how to fix it. Edit for the angry down voting hackers: Try searching YouTube next time you have a problem with your vehicle or household appliance. There is usually somebody there who made a video showing you exactly how to fix it by yourself, so you don't have to buy a new one or pay somebody to fix it. There is no better resource AFAIK.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Then perhaps that says all we need to know about the value of these services. $15 a month isn’t nothing but is pretty cheap as far as bills go
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > £12.99 a month (£155.88 a year) for one website is very hard to justify when you're on very little income They are positioning YouTube as a super-premium product (relative to other streaming services). An underlying takeaway might be that advertisers no longer value users "on very little income" in a positive real-rate environment.
  - izacus 3y ago
    If you have very little income, the service is supported with ads.
    - 3y ago
- rglullis 3y ago
  They could provide just torrent links, so there would be no expense for them If they don't, someone else will.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    You forgot about the content creators. They use YouTube as a syndication service to get paid for their work.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      I did not. I have no qualms "stealing" content from creators who prefer to stay in bed with a user-hostile service provider like Youtube. I will gladly pay content creators that leave youtube and set up their own distribution channel, though.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        If you take off the hate-tinted glasses and think about YouTube without prejudice, then I think you could come to another conclusion. YouTube is one of very few places were an independent or small-time creator can publish their content just in the way they please and get paid for it without having to do anything else aside for publishing their work. That's incredible. That gives so many people a chance to make a living by their creativity. Compare with Spotify, which is the only other comparable platform that exists. They pay peanuts to their creators in comparison to YouTube. Instagram, Facebook and all other social media pay nothing at all. It would be cool if some other platform appeared, that paid creators better. But YouTube is the only platform letting anybody be a paid creator that exists for video. Expecting creators to set up their own distribution channel and payment platforms would mean that only creators who are also web developers deserve to be paid. YouTube in 2024 is also completely different to YouTube in 2014. It has much more quality content than all other streaming platforms combined, just because of the immense of amount of content there. If you set up your subscriptions right, it is a good experience.
        3y ago
gorbachev 3y ago
They sell us to their real users...the advertisers. They're following their own advice.
mey 3y ago
Who is the "user" in this case? The viewer, the publisher, or the advertiser? They all have very different needs. Two of them are being served very well in all of this as long as not too many viewers are being pushed away. I am not defending this. In fact, as a "user", I am actively using Youtube less over this. Just providing the example of these internal concepts can be twisted by perspective.
- greesil 3y ago
  Maybe the wording is deliberately vague
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
MikeCheque 3y ago
it became negative when they removed "don't be evil" from their bylaws
wdr1 3y ago
If there is no ecosystem -- if there is no way for creators to make money for the countless hours they put into creating content -- that's a net negative for users. Just look around -- a lot of amazing creators talk about how YouTube is what really enables them to do what it is they do. Mark Rober, Destin Sandlin, Linus Sebastian, Marques Brownlee, etc have all made statements to that effect. If you, as a user, don't want ads, that's okay. There's a no-ads version of YouTube, YouTube Premium.

"Focus on the user and all else will follow." https://about.google/philosophy/ https://about.google/philosophy/ To be fair they didn't state this in the positive or negative sense.

izacus 3y ago

People who refuse to pay for a service and just drain expensive resources, aren't really "users" in terms of being worth focusing on.

whythre 3y ago
You mean ‘people who refuse to participate in time destroying corpo-brainwashing.’
- izacus 3y ago
  Whatever makes you sleep at night. YouTube Premium gives you the service without the ads. You just need to pay for it as it should be. Or pay for Nebula. Or any others.
piva00 3y ago
What about people that were willing to pay Premium Lite and got fucked by YouTube when they summarily ended that subscription tier to push people into the more expensive Premium with unnecessary features? Are those paying users getting shafted or do those end up in "not being worth focusing on"?
- izacus 3y ago
  The service costs X. You do not have a right to use someones service without paying that X. Support Nebula. Support PeerTube. Pay them.
  - piva00 3y ago
    I pay Nebula. I paid YouTube Premium Lite to get rid of ads, I will not pay 2x for the same feature since I do not need offline, Music, nor background play, if they decided to cut my use case from their offering by forcing me to pay extra rent then I can decided to not pay them and use an adblocker. I do not need to bend over for a digital feudal lord.
    - izacus 3y ago
      Then don't. Noone is forcing you. Just like noone is forcing you to watch Hulu or BBC.
      - piva00 3y ago
        No one is forcing me except there's no other place on the internet to find educational content about some of my hobbies. I don't have a choice to go somewhere else to watch them and learn (and for some, not even read, it's mostly in video tutorial form); they are exclusively on YouTube because there's no other place to upload them to be syndicated in a discoverable way... Give them an open standard for that and there will probably be competition so I can move away from YouTube. You are either being extremely naive about the state of the internet in 2024, or do not use YouTube for the content I do, or are just being obtuse to try to make a point. "No one is forcing you" is a non-sequitur, it's a thought-terminating cliche that does not work when platforms have taken over and fenced off huge parts of the internet, c'mon. I'd love to avoid YouTube if there was another option, there simply isn't. Comparing YouTube with Hulu and BBC is... Just stupid. What do these services have in common apart from "they display videos"? Please, read this: https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/13/solidarity-forever/ https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/13/solidarity-forever/
  - rglullis 3y ago
    How has that "if you don't want to have ads, pay for it" logic worked out for cable TV subscribers?
    - izacus 3y ago
- tekla 3y ago
  Not worth it
tentacleuno 3y ago
Though I do suspect I'm in the minority on this website, £12.99 a month (£155.88 a year) for one website is very hard to justify when you're on very little income.
- netmare 3y ago
  I would pay much more for YouTube if they offered proper search and filtering tools. There's so much interesting stuff hidden behind light years of fluff. Ymmv, of course.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  If you own anything that breaks during that year, you can probably recoup all that money by watching a YouTube video with instructions of how to fix it. Edit for the angry down voting hackers: Try searching YouTube next time you have a problem with your vehicle or household appliance. There is usually somebody there who made a video showing you exactly how to fix it by yourself, so you don't have to buy a new one or pay somebody to fix it. There is no better resource AFAIK.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Then perhaps that says all we need to know about the value of these services. $15 a month isn’t nothing but is pretty cheap as far as bills go
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > £12.99 a month (£155.88 a year) for one website is very hard to justify when you're on very little income They are positioning YouTube as a super-premium product (relative to other streaming services). An underlying takeaway might be that advertisers no longer value users "on very little income" in a positive real-rate environment.
- izacus 3y ago
  If you have very little income, the service is supported with ads.
  - 3y ago
rglullis 3y ago
They could provide just torrent links, so there would be no expense for them If they don't, someone else will.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  You forgot about the content creators. They use YouTube as a syndication service to get paid for their work.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    I did not. I have no qualms "stealing" content from creators who prefer to stay in bed with a user-hostile service provider like Youtube. I will gladly pay content creators that leave youtube and set up their own distribution channel, though.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      If you take off the hate-tinted glasses and think about YouTube without prejudice, then I think you could come to another conclusion. YouTube is one of very few places were an independent or small-time creator can publish their content just in the way they please and get paid for it without having to do anything else aside for publishing their work. That's incredible. That gives so many people a chance to make a living by their creativity. Compare with Spotify, which is the only other comparable platform that exists. They pay peanuts to their creators in comparison to YouTube. Instagram, Facebook and all other social media pay nothing at all. It would be cool if some other platform appeared, that paid creators better. But YouTube is the only platform letting anybody be a paid creator that exists for video. Expecting creators to set up their own distribution channel and payment platforms would mean that only creators who are also web developers deserve to be paid. YouTube in 2024 is also completely different to YouTube in 2014. It has much more quality content than all other streaming platforms combined, just because of the immense of amount of content there. If you set up your subscriptions right, it is a good experience.
      - 3y ago

gorbachev 3y ago

They sell us to their real users...the advertisers. They're following their own advice.

mey 3y ago

Who is the "user" in this case? The viewer, the publisher, or the advertiser? They all have very different needs. Two of them are being served very well in all of this as long as not too many viewers are being pushed away. I am not defending this. In fact, as a "user", I am actively using Youtube less over this. Just providing the example of these internal concepts can be twisted by perspective.

greesil 3y ago
Maybe the wording is deliberately vague

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

MikeCheque 3y ago

it became negative when they removed "don't be evil" from their bylaws

wdr1 3y ago

If there is no ecosystem -- if there is no way for creators to make money for the countless hours they put into creating content -- that's a net negative for users. Just look around -- a lot of amazing creators talk about how YouTube is what really enables them to do what it is they do. Mark Rober, Destin Sandlin, Linus Sebastian, Marques Brownlee, etc have all made statements to that effect. If you, as a user, don't want ads, that's okay. There's a no-ads version of YouTube, YouTube Premium.