8 ms·

I echo the author's praise of YouTube Premium. When it first came out I was like there is no way I would ever pay for such service. Being an early YouTube user,

by jdoss 3y ago

I echo the author's praise of YouTube Premium. When it first came out I was like there is no way I would ever pay for such service. Being an early YouTube user, pre Google buyout, I still was in love with the platform that gave me content from real people. Fast forward to 2020 the US election cycle broke me. I could not stand the amount of political ads that were being shoved down my throat. My kids were perma home due to COVID and we were running out of things to watch. I finally caved and got YouTube Premium. I told myself OK after this shit show of an election cycle ends I will cancel and yet here I am still paying for it. It is that good. Yes I realize that I am part of the problem. I just got my first Amazon Prime ad tonight trying to catch up on the train wreck Wheel of Time show they are putting out... and I am going to upgrade to not have them because I simply DGAF about whatever bullshit that they are filling advertisement slots with. $2.99 a month is worth it. Kill me now.

imiric 3y ago
So a corporation acquired the platform you enjoyed using, and corrupted the user experience so much that it forced you to pay them to get the old UX back, and... you're happy about it? Sounds like Stockholm syndrome, to be honest, with Google laughing all the way to the bank.
- brabel 3y ago
  I think running the biggest video platform on the planet entirely for free is not realistic. Why are you so against Google charging a minimum fee for doing that while still giving you the opportunity to watch for free in exchange for being shown a few ads? Do you think they should be run as a charity?
  - imiric 3y ago
    > Why are you so against Google charging a minimum fee for doing that while still giving you the opportunity to watch for free in exchange for being shown a few ads? I'm against it because advertising is not the only business model that works at scale. Google effectively introduced itself as a middleman between content creators and consumers, which they continue to do whether you pay with your attention/data or cash. I happily support content creators who don't rely on advertising or Google itself. I just refuse to be forced into a corrupt business model.
    - jazzyjackson 3y ago
      > Google effectively introduced itself as a middleman between content creators and consumers, which they continue to do whether you pay with your attention/data or cash. anybody else is free to introduce a content discovery & delivery scheme that would obviate the need for a advertising-laden middleman, but for some reason people keep downloading the YouTube app
    - tiborsaas 3y ago
      What would be your ethical business model alternative to maintain YoutTube's staff, engineering, energy bill and hardware costs? Just to break even.
      - sbarre 3y ago
        Not to mention paying the creators!
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - judge2020 3y ago
      Advertising is the only business model that works at scale AND can support hypergrowth. We know that subscriptions work at scale, mostly. YT Premium[1] has 100 million (Maybe 90M if there are 10M people only getting Music premium). But if YT was only available via subscription in 2010 during the gaming channel boom, it probably would have failed out of the gate. But advertising is necessary to maintain the scale YT runs at today. 100 Million subscribers is nothing compared to the >2.7 billion humans that use it. Not all of them would pay even $2/month if you let them. 1: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-music-premium-100-million-subscribers/ https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-music-premium-1...
- charcircuit 3y ago
  No ads is not sustainable. It's not like the alternative is youtube remaining ad free. The alternative is youtube shutting down.
  - imiric 3y ago
    That's a false dichotomy. There are many monetizing alternatives besides advertising, or paying the platform to remove advertising they introduced in the first place.
    - jdoss 3y ago
      OK, I'll bite. What are some alternatives besides advertising or paying a fee to get no Ads?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - imiric 3y ago
        It's not my role to come up with consumer-friendly business models, or to vouch for any specific ones. I'm just saying that, as a consumer, I don't want Google's business. If someone is selling apples in exchange for punching me in the face (and actually watching me and doing that while I eat, for a more accurate analogy :), then I wouldn't like going to their store. I would prefer going to the farmers' market and buying directly from the farmer by paying for it with cash. Farm-to-table type of transaction. Would this make the farmer as rich as selling their apples to the face-punching store? Probably not. They would probably have to work harder for less money, because they would have to manage more of their business themselves, and their products wouldn't reach as many people. There would probably be less apple farmers overall as well. But would it be a more consumer-friendly business that is actually incentivized to put care in their product? Absolutely. It's not my fault that there aren't more farmers' market equivalents on the web. I'll use them if/when they exist, but in the meantime I'll have to resort to acquiring my apples in alternative ways.
        3y ago
- joemi 3y ago
  Something like youtube (streaming _huge_ amounts of videos with with no monetization) was bound to either get ads or die. The corporation didn't kill it. In fact, quite the opposite: they made it so it could keep living.
- jdoss 3y ago
  I said kill me now at the end of my post and that I am part of the problem and you yet think I am happy about it? Ok you got me bud. Yep 100% Stockholm syndrome. No, I am not happy about it, but what else is there? Do you block YouTube on your network so you don't see content from that platform? I'd wager you don't. Also, do you really think that any platform as big as YouTube can remain free forever? I will pay for things that bring value to my life. YouTube Premium brings value almost every day. I am pretty sure you pay for things that bring value or make thing easier for you in life, so maybe don't post these kinds of responses in the future as they are cynical and bring no value to the conversation.
  - imiric 3y ago
    > Do you block YouTube on your network so you don't see content from that platform? I'd wager you don't. I don't block YouTube, I just don't use any of their official frontends. There are plenty of alternatives in this space[1]. This might not work for everyone, but I get a much better UX with these tools. Not seeing ads is one benefit, but it's also about not being a participant in training algorithms that have a, mostly negative, psychological impact. > I am pretty sure you pay for things that bring value or make thing easier for you in life Of course. And I happily support content creators who don't rely on advertising or Google itself. I just refuse to be forced into a corrupt business model. Anyway, I didn't mean to antagonize you, so apologies if my response came across that way. [1]: https://github.com/mendel5/alternative-front-ends?tab=readme-ov-file#youtube https://github.com/mendel5/alternative-front-ends?tab=readme...
    - jdoss 3y ago
      You came across antagonistic, but fair enough, thanks for the apology. Let me put it this way. I understand that you can block YouTube ads and have the techicnal means to block them at the DNS level. I also understand I can run different frontends for YouTube, but it is flat out easier and faster for me personally to not do that and to pay $22.99 a month for my entire family to enjoy ad free content. Time is money. Also, I play a decent amount of video games and I send money monthly to content creators on said games I play. If something brings value to my life or makes things easier, I will pay for it. Just because I pay for something you do not like doesn't mean I don't support content creators via other means.
manquer 3y ago
it is $13.99 / month in the US now. $150/year is a lot of money - for a product you can choose not to pay and still mostly use.
- stevenwliao 3y ago
  I'm skipping 2 hours of ads per month for $15. IMO it's a pretty good deal. (Assumptions: I watch 10 hours of YouTube videos per week, YouTube shows 30 seconds of ads per 10 minutes of video)
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  Yeah, $2.99/mo would be a great value. $13.99/mo is at streamer levels who spend millions on production on top of infrastructure cost and allow you to share (within same household). $23/mo for family is just plain robbery.
orangepanda 3y ago
But does it block the ads that are still shown with youtube premium?

by jdoss 3y ago

imiric 3y ago

So a corporation acquired the platform you enjoyed using, and corrupted the user experience so much that it forced you to pay them to get the old UX back, and... you're happy about it? Sounds like Stockholm syndrome, to be honest, with Google laughing all the way to the bank.

brabel 3y ago
I think running the biggest video platform on the planet entirely for free is not realistic. Why are you so against Google charging a minimum fee for doing that while still giving you the opportunity to watch for free in exchange for being shown a few ads? Do you think they should be run as a charity?
- imiric 3y ago
  > Why are you so against Google charging a minimum fee for doing that while still giving you the opportunity to watch for free in exchange for being shown a few ads? I'm against it because advertising is not the only business model that works at scale. Google effectively introduced itself as a middleman between content creators and consumers, which they continue to do whether you pay with your attention/data or cash. I happily support content creators who don't rely on advertising or Google itself. I just refuse to be forced into a corrupt business model.
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    > Google effectively introduced itself as a middleman between content creators and consumers, which they continue to do whether you pay with your attention/data or cash. anybody else is free to introduce a content discovery & delivery scheme that would obviate the need for a advertising-laden middleman, but for some reason people keep downloading the YouTube app
  - tiborsaas 3y ago
    What would be your ethical business model alternative to maintain YoutTube's staff, engineering, energy bill and hardware costs? Just to break even.
    - sbarre 3y ago
      Not to mention paying the creators!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - judge2020 3y ago
    Advertising is the only business model that works at scale AND can support hypergrowth. We know that subscriptions work at scale, mostly. YT Premium[1] has 100 million (Maybe 90M if there are 10M people only getting Music premium). But if YT was only available via subscription in 2010 during the gaming channel boom, it probably would have failed out of the gate. But advertising is necessary to maintain the scale YT runs at today. 100 Million subscribers is nothing compared to the >2.7 billion humans that use it. Not all of them would pay even $2/month if you let them. 1: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-music-premium-100-million-subscribers/ https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-music-premium-1...
charcircuit 3y ago
No ads is not sustainable. It's not like the alternative is youtube remaining ad free. The alternative is youtube shutting down.
- imiric 3y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. There are many monetizing alternatives besides advertising, or paying the platform to remove advertising they introduced in the first place.
  - jdoss 3y ago
    OK, I'll bite. What are some alternatives besides advertising or paying a fee to get no Ads?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - imiric 3y ago
      It's not my role to come up with consumer-friendly business models, or to vouch for any specific ones. I'm just saying that, as a consumer, I don't want Google's business. If someone is selling apples in exchange for punching me in the face (and actually watching me and doing that while I eat, for a more accurate analogy :), then I wouldn't like going to their store. I would prefer going to the farmers' market and buying directly from the farmer by paying for it with cash. Farm-to-table type of transaction. Would this make the farmer as rich as selling their apples to the face-punching store? Probably not. They would probably have to work harder for less money, because they would have to manage more of their business themselves, and their products wouldn't reach as many people. There would probably be less apple farmers overall as well. But would it be a more consumer-friendly business that is actually incentivized to put care in their product? Absolutely. It's not my fault that there aren't more farmers' market equivalents on the web. I'll use them if/when they exist, but in the meantime I'll have to resort to acquiring my apples in alternative ways.
      - 3y ago
joemi 3y ago
Something like youtube (streaming _huge_ amounts of videos with with no monetization) was bound to either get ads or die. The corporation didn't kill it. In fact, quite the opposite: they made it so it could keep living.
jdoss 3y ago
I said kill me now at the end of my post and that I am part of the problem and you yet think I am happy about it? Ok you got me bud. Yep 100% Stockholm syndrome. No, I am not happy about it, but what else is there? Do you block YouTube on your network so you don't see content from that platform? I'd wager you don't. Also, do you really think that any platform as big as YouTube can remain free forever? I will pay for things that bring value to my life. YouTube Premium brings value almost every day. I am pretty sure you pay for things that bring value or make thing easier for you in life, so maybe don't post these kinds of responses in the future as they are cynical and bring no value to the conversation.
- imiric 3y ago
  > Do you block YouTube on your network so you don't see content from that platform? I'd wager you don't. I don't block YouTube, I just don't use any of their official frontends. There are plenty of alternatives in this space[1]. This might not work for everyone, but I get a much better UX with these tools. Not seeing ads is one benefit, but it's also about not being a participant in training algorithms that have a, mostly negative, psychological impact. > I am pretty sure you pay for things that bring value or make thing easier for you in life Of course. And I happily support content creators who don't rely on advertising or Google itself. I just refuse to be forced into a corrupt business model. Anyway, I didn't mean to antagonize you, so apologies if my response came across that way. [1]: https://github.com/mendel5/alternative-front-ends?tab=readme-ov-file#youtube https://github.com/mendel5/alternative-front-ends?tab=readme...
  - jdoss 3y ago
    You came across antagonistic, but fair enough, thanks for the apology. Let me put it this way. I understand that you can block YouTube ads and have the techicnal means to block them at the DNS level. I also understand I can run different frontends for YouTube, but it is flat out easier and faster for me personally to not do that and to pay $22.99 a month for my entire family to enjoy ad free content. Time is money. Also, I play a decent amount of video games and I send money monthly to content creators on said games I play. If something brings value to my life or makes things easier, I will pay for it. Just because I pay for something you do not like doesn't mean I don't support content creators via other means.

manquer 3y ago

it is $13.99 / month in the US now. $150/year is a lot of money - for a product you can choose not to pay and still mostly use.

stevenwliao 3y ago
I'm skipping 2 hours of ads per month for $15. IMO it's a pretty good deal. (Assumptions: I watch 10 hours of YouTube videos per week, YouTube shows 30 seconds of ads per 10 minutes of video)
turquoisevar 3y ago
Yeah, $2.99/mo would be a great value. $13.99/mo is at streamer levels who spend millions on production on top of infrastructure cost and allow you to share (within same household). $23/mo for family is just plain robbery.

orangepanda 3y ago

But does it block the ads that are still shown with youtube premium?