3 ms·

Personally I just pay for Youtube Premium. Yes it's $10/month but I found that if you watch alot of Youtube, it's well worth it. Now anytime I'm at friends hous

Personally I just pay for Youtube Premium. Yes it's $10/month but I found that if you watch alot of Youtube, it's well worth it. Now anytime I'm at friends house and an ad comes up before a video I'm always like "oh right Youtube has ads"

Workaccount2 3y ago
I'll never understand why people don't think twice paying for the array of streaming services (netflix, hulu, disney, apple, etc.) but the thought of paying for a service with creator profit sharing (and a majority share at that) is unthinkable.
- Akronymus 3y ago
  I personally don't pay for any streaming service. Too damn expensive for the few shows I'd have any interest in, most of which aren't even available here, or would require me to subscribe to 5 different services. Along with that, I prefer having the highest bitrate versions possible available to me. Which I can't with a legit service, as I don't usde HDMI.
- thiht 3y ago
  I won't pay for Youtube, ever, because even if I pay, I still get sponsored segments in videos. To skip these, I have to get SponsorBlock so I might as well block ads too. Maybe if Youtube Premium also gave access to the same videos without sponsored segments I would reconsider. The thing is Youtube screwed themselves years ago: they were dicks to content creators (by being overly agressive with demonetizing, even giving creators money to DMCA trolls and completely ignoring fair use laws) so they couldn't rely on ad money and had to fallback to sponsoring instead. The shit situation we're in today il all Youtube's fault. On the other hand, I pay for Crunchyroll because it has a huge catalog for 5 bucks a month, and for Netflix because they never pissed me yet. However if they increase their subscription price one more time (>13.49€ per month), I'm out for good. I already unsubscribed from Disney+ because they pissed me off by removing shows without any warning, and from Prime Video because I got tired of finding movies just to realize they weren't actually included in the subscription.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
It's funny; I pay for lots of things, even other streaming services in order to not have ads, but I absolutely refuse to give YouTube a single penny. The difference is that every other service made the deal up front - pay X for content, pay Y for content and no ads, and here's the website and here are some mobile apps - while YouTube started out free for all with some really minor ads that you could block if you wanted and loads of 3rd party apps plus the website and 1st-party mobile apps, and then over time removed features from the free version and cranked the ads up to 11. Basically, if your selling point is "we made the free version worse" I don't want to reward that behavior.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Youtube has had ads since 2007. And complaining about it becoming harder to circumvent ads is silly. Youtube has a clear business proposition, and anyone is free to not use youtube. Not like their is any real competition though, it only takes two second of business analysis to see that users want a video service where you foot all the costs and charge nothing (ads or subs) for it. Read about what happned to vid.me
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    I don't see the part of my comment where I said they didn't have ads. I did say that the ads were less awful. Also... if you're free to not use them but they have a monopoly, are you free to not use them? Nobody's forcing you to use Standard Oil; you're totally free to just not have oil.
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      Youtube doesn't have a monopoly. Nobody else wants to compete because just look at the comments in threads like this. Everyone is entitled to no-ads no-subscription. Again, read up on the story of vid.me, who actually was stealing market share from youtube for a while.
fckgw 3y ago
What country? It's $14/mo in the US now, or $23/mo for a family plan. I wish they would unbundle the stupid Youtube Music from Premium.

Workaccount2 3y ago

I'll never understand why people don't think twice paying for the array of streaming services (netflix, hulu, disney, apple, etc.) but the thought of paying for a service with creator profit sharing (and a majority share at that) is unthinkable.

Akronymus 3y ago
I personally don't pay for any streaming service. Too damn expensive for the few shows I'd have any interest in, most of which aren't even available here, or would require me to subscribe to 5 different services. Along with that, I prefer having the highest bitrate versions possible available to me. Which I can't with a legit service, as I don't usde HDMI.
thiht 3y ago
I won't pay for Youtube, ever, because even if I pay, I still get sponsored segments in videos. To skip these, I have to get SponsorBlock so I might as well block ads too. Maybe if Youtube Premium also gave access to the same videos without sponsored segments I would reconsider. The thing is Youtube screwed themselves years ago: they were dicks to content creators (by being overly agressive with demonetizing, even giving creators money to DMCA trolls and completely ignoring fair use laws) so they couldn't rely on ad money and had to fallback to sponsoring instead. The shit situation we're in today il all Youtube's fault. On the other hand, I pay for Crunchyroll because it has a huge catalog for 5 bucks a month, and for Netflix because they never pissed me yet. However if they increase their subscription price one more time (>13.49€ per month), I'm out for good. I already unsubscribed from Disney+ because they pissed me off by removing shows without any warning, and from Prime Video because I got tired of finding movies just to realize they weren't actually included in the subscription.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

It's funny; I pay for lots of things, even other streaming services in order to not have ads, but I absolutely refuse to give YouTube a single penny. The difference is that every other service made the deal up front - pay X for content, pay Y for content and no ads, and here's the website and here are some mobile apps - while YouTube started out free for all with some really minor ads that you could block if you wanted and loads of 3rd party apps plus the website and 1st-party mobile apps, and then over time removed features from the free version and cranked the ads up to 11. Basically, if your selling point is "we made the free version worse" I don't want to reward that behavior.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Workaccount2 3y ago
Youtube has had ads since 2007. And complaining about it becoming harder to circumvent ads is silly. Youtube has a clear business proposition, and anyone is free to not use youtube. Not like their is any real competition though, it only takes two second of business analysis to see that users want a video service where you foot all the costs and charge nothing (ads or subs) for it. Read about what happned to vid.me
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  I don't see the part of my comment where I said they didn't have ads. I did say that the ads were less awful. Also... if you're free to not use them but they have a monopoly, are you free to not use them? Nobody's forcing you to use Standard Oil; you're totally free to just not have oil.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    Youtube doesn't have a monopoly. Nobody else wants to compete because just look at the comments in threads like this. Everyone is entitled to no-ads no-subscription. Again, read up on the story of vid.me, who actually was stealing market share from youtube for a while.

fckgw 3y ago

What country? It's $14/mo in the US now, or $23/mo for a family plan. I wish they would unbundle the stupid Youtube Music from Premium.