4 ms·

Also, content creators now have their own ads within their content itself. I feel no need to give Google any money.

amarant 2y ago
I mean they (Google) do provide a service. One could possibly argue that the content creators should pay Google to distribute their material, kind of like an equivalent to a AWS bill, but is anyone arguing that? It would actually be a kind of reasonable argument, or at least more reasonable than the currently popular "Google is rich so they should provide services for absolutely free".
- Larrikin 2y ago
  >Google is rich so they should provide services for absolutely free This is fine to think like this, there is no reason to care about the financials of billion dollars companies
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- hysan 2y ago
  > I mean they (Google) do provide a service. One could possibly argue that the content creators should pay Google to distribute their material, kind of like an equivalent to a AWS bill, but is anyone arguing that? People have argued this but Google has made it clear why they won’t charge - that is their moat. By pricing the service as free, they price out all competing services by making it so that all creators, new and old, will use YouTube by default. Especially with new creators, with no startup cost and a huge audience, there is no reason for to use any service that requires payment. This effectively tanks all competitors and is why the only surviving competing streaming services target niche audiences. For example, established creators who have the sway to bring an audience with them.
  - BigGreenJorts 2y ago
    At the same time, YouTube AFAIK is the highest paying platform for content creators. Presumably this is because ad spots on YouTube are associated closely with the content itself, so YouTube actually has a more direct model for paying out, but is there any reason they can't be taking a bigger (but still small) cut of this revenue stream?
  - jeffgreco 2y ago
    Google does charge if you don’t want ads. It’s called YouTube Premium and if one doesn’t like watching ads but do like watching YouTube, I would suggest putting one’s money where one’s mouth is.
    - tpoacher 2y ago
      except there's still ads.
    - hysan 2y ago
      I don’t understand this reply. The suggestion I’m replying to is about charging people (e.g., creators) for hosting the videos. It’s not about charging viewers. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?
    - throwawaygmbno 2y ago
      "I would suggest putting one’s money where one’s mouth is." How about no. Why would anyone that doesn't make their money by wasting everyone's time and working on ads or isn't a stock holder in Google waste their time with ads? Have you ever tracked your life wasted by ads? They will never charge and are clearly afraid to actually block ad blockers, possibly because they know they can't. I know I would watch a black mute box before every video before ever seeing a YouTube ad and sponsor block makes the rest of YouTube tolerable.
    - hulitu 2y ago
      > if one doesn’t like watching ads but do like watching YouTube I don't like watching Youtube. The quality is crap, search is horrible, you are tracked.
- eesmith 2y ago
  Google's cost is not simply distribution but also what's needed to support its advertising; the surveillance of keeping track of who you are, what you want, and when, and the bidding system so it can sell advertising. If content creators pay Google to distribute, that wouldn't pay for the surveillance/sales infrastructure, and it would take away the advertising profit center. There's no business reason for Google to change unless the creators also pay at least as much as the expected advertising profits, fully amortized. If they do that, then it'll almost certainly be cheaper to host elsewhere.
- cudgy 2y ago
  Doesn’t youtube already take a cut of the ad revenue paid directly from the advertisers?
beej71 2y ago
Also, Google dropped "don't be evil" a long time ago. I don't feel ethically comfortable giving them money. I pay a lot of people on patreon more money than they'd make off me with YouTube ads.
- TheUnhinged 2y ago
  This. I’d be more than happy to pay (a reasonable price to) Google. I don’t want to give them any personal information, especially financial.

I mean they (Google) do provide a service. One could possibly argue that the content creators should pay Google to distribute their material, kind of like an equivalent to a AWS bill, but is anyone arguing that? It would actually be a kind of reasonable argument, or at least more reasonable than the currently popular "Google is rich so they should provide services for absolutely free".

Larrikin 2y ago
>Google is rich so they should provide services for absolutely free This is fine to think like this, there is no reason to care about the financials of billion dollars companies
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
hysan 2y ago
> I mean they (Google) do provide a service. One could possibly argue that the content creators should pay Google to distribute their material, kind of like an equivalent to a AWS bill, but is anyone arguing that? People have argued this but Google has made it clear why they won’t charge - that is their moat. By pricing the service as free, they price out all competing services by making it so that all creators, new and old, will use YouTube by default. Especially with new creators, with no startup cost and a huge audience, there is no reason for to use any service that requires payment. This effectively tanks all competitors and is why the only surviving competing streaming services target niche audiences. For example, established creators who have the sway to bring an audience with them.
- BigGreenJorts 2y ago
  At the same time, YouTube AFAIK is the highest paying platform for content creators. Presumably this is because ad spots on YouTube are associated closely with the content itself, so YouTube actually has a more direct model for paying out, but is there any reason they can't be taking a bigger (but still small) cut of this revenue stream?
- jeffgreco 2y ago
  Google does charge if you don’t want ads. It’s called YouTube Premium and if one doesn’t like watching ads but do like watching YouTube, I would suggest putting one’s money where one’s mouth is.
  - tpoacher 2y ago
    except there's still ads.
  - hysan 2y ago
    I don’t understand this reply. The suggestion I’m replying to is about charging people (e.g., creators) for hosting the videos. It’s not about charging viewers. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?
  - throwawaygmbno 2y ago
    "I would suggest putting one’s money where one’s mouth is." How about no. Why would anyone that doesn't make their money by wasting everyone's time and working on ads or isn't a stock holder in Google waste their time with ads? Have you ever tracked your life wasted by ads? They will never charge and are clearly afraid to actually block ad blockers, possibly because they know they can't. I know I would watch a black mute box before every video before ever seeing a YouTube ad and sponsor block makes the rest of YouTube tolerable.
  - hulitu 2y ago
    > if one doesn’t like watching ads but do like watching YouTube I don't like watching Youtube. The quality is crap, search is horrible, you are tracked.
eesmith 2y ago
Google's cost is not simply distribution but also what's needed to support its advertising; the surveillance of keeping track of who you are, what you want, and when, and the bidding system so it can sell advertising. If content creators pay Google to distribute, that wouldn't pay for the surveillance/sales infrastructure, and it would take away the advertising profit center. There's no business reason for Google to change unless the creators also pay at least as much as the expected advertising profits, fully amortized. If they do that, then it'll almost certainly be cheaper to host elsewhere.
cudgy 2y ago
Doesn’t youtube already take a cut of the ad revenue paid directly from the advertisers?

beej71 2y ago

Also, Google dropped "don't be evil" a long time ago. I don't feel ethically comfortable giving them money. I pay a lot of people on patreon more money than they'd make off me with YouTube ads.

TheUnhinged 2y ago
This. I’d be more than happy to pay (a reasonable price to) Google. I don’t want to give them any personal information, especially financial.