5 ms·

I'd say it's less people's fault and more Google's for driving people to want something like it.

• Gigachad 2y ago
  Yes, people prefer to get stuff for free rather than paying for it. That's not a very interesting insight.
  • freehorse 2y ago
    There is no way to pay google to get features like these or like what yt-dlp offers. If there was I would have gladly paid.
    • Arainach 2y ago
      You can pay for YouTube Premium and get no ads.
      • freehorse 2y ago
        I am not talking about ads (specifically), but about all the control that these tools offer.
      • moron4hire 2y ago
        That's not true, there are still lots of ads that you'll have to sit through. They're just not out there by Google, they're out their by the video creator. Which, I get it, YouTube isn't paying them enough and they gotta eat. So, it kind of feels like YouTube letting them post their own ads is an intentional choice on YouTube's part to not give me the service I'm paying for.
        • Arainach 2y ago
          This is a weird take. What is an "ad", and how would you expect any company to remove in-video "ads" without rampant accusations of censorship? If a channel posts a review of a piece of hardware that was sent to them for free by the manufacturer is the entire video an ad?
          • lurk2 2y ago
            > What is an "ad", and how would you expect any company to remove in-video "ads" without rampant accusations of censorship? You can already do this with Sponsorblock. > If a channel posts a review of a piece of hardware that was sent to them for free by the manufacturer is the entire video an ad? Yes.
          • latexr 2y ago
            > What is an "ad" Considering YouTubers have to disclose paid promotions, this isn’t nearly as grey as your question suggests. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/154235 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/154235
          • samrus 2y ago
            > What is an "ad", and how would you expect any company to remove in-video "ads" without rampant accusations of censorship? This is solved. Crowdsourcing. Look up sponsorblock
          • Dylan16807 2y ago
            > What is an "ad" While the line is fuzzy, there's definitely a line. For example, when a video cuts away from the content to talk about a sponsor that's a clear ad. > how would you expect any company to remove in-video "ads" without rampant accusations of censorship? Removing would be somewhat difficult. Banning would not be complicated. Companies word those kinds of agreements all the time. > If a channel posts a review of a piece of hardware that was sent to them for free by the manufacturer is the entire video an ad? I'd say it depends, but the answer doesn't really matter. That's a straightforward category that can be allowed or not allowed directly, no need to worry about semantics.
            • Arainach 2y ago
              HN is such a weird place. "Free speech" libertarianism when it comes to companies restricting hate speech on their platforms while simultaneously advocating for companies to ban sponsored content.
              • 2y ago
      • dinkblam 2y ago
        even if they are no ads, they still show you 99% only shit with no way to disable it. no i don't want "Shorts". no i don't want the "Gaming" or "Movie" tabs. no i don't ever want to see a video containing words like "reaction". why no customization?
      • foff9 2y ago
        [dead]
    • wingworks 2y ago
      Riight. I subscribed once, seeing they offered a download option. And it downloaded like a 720p terrible quality video... I unsubscribed.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • jjulius 2y ago
    I think the truly uninteresting insight is the flippant assertion that people "just want to get stuff for free", rather than the numerous other reasons someone might want a different frontend, or to use yt-dlp. Edit: Take me, for instance. I can tolerate ads, much as I hate them - waiting 15 seconds and hitting "skip" twice isn't going to kill me. But good christ do I not like YT's UI/UX.
  • chii 2y ago
    netflix (initially at least), spotify and steam have all shown that it's not a money problem, but a service problem. Good services will not get pirated.
    • Mindwipe 2y ago
      What? Literally all those services have piracy problems, and pretty much any time piracy drops it's because of more effective DRM, not service.
      • lurk2 2y ago
        > and pretty much any time piracy drops it's because of more effective DRM, not service. Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Music purchased on iTunes used to come with DRM. There were programs to get rid of it but they got shut down by Apple and were not easily accessible. Consumers pushed back on DRM and Apple eventually got rid of it. Rather than leading to widespread piracy, most people just started renting their music from Spotify, Apple, or YouTube.
      • samrus 2y ago
        Counterexample: steam They seem to be the only ones who get how piracy can be fought. And its no secret either, gabe newell has that "piracy is a service issue" quote for anyone to read. Its just that these companies dont want to consider not squeezing the life out of their users for shareholder benefit
        • Gigachad 2y ago
          Games have the best DRM of all though. They have extremely complex to crack software drm, integrate with 3rd party servers for online, and run the risk of installing malware if you get a bad cracked copy. Steam does do a great job of making stuff accessible and convenient. But plenty of people would still pirate over paying $90 for the new game if it wasn’t so hard.
          • Dylan16807 2y ago
  • heavyset_go 2y ago
    I deal with a lot of archival and forensics and tools like yt-dlp are invaluable, even outside of YouTube. There are important use cases for these tools outside of "free stuff".
  • soraminazuki 2y ago
    It's not free. Regardless of what the original intention was two decades ago, Google is putting everyone under mass surveillance and their manipulative algorithmic feeds are threatening our democracy. That's an enormous cost all of us are paying right now. If people don't like that, good luck trying to avoid it. Youtube is now so pervasive that not using it effectively means not participating in society. But yeah, why not also attach our payment information to our watch history to make it even more efficient for Google to keep on what it's doing right now?
  • Dylan16807 2y ago
    > prefer to get stuff for free rather than paying for it This is how you describe a glorified VCR?
    • Gigachad 2y ago
      What is describing is a platform that reimplements the YouTube frontend with the primary purpose being not having ads without paying.
      • Dylan16807 2y ago
        It does a bunch of useful things and that's one of them. Also the videos are free either way. It's true that people are avoiding paying for an ad removing feature, but installing your own software to get features is pretty reasonable. And ad removal is well established as a feature people use and it being fine that they do so.
  • foff9 2y ago
    [dead]
  • samrus 2y ago
    This is not correct. Look at steam, PC gamers overwhelmingly choosing paid DRM controlled games over free piracy, even for small indie games that have basically no protections Ill say again what gabe newell said. Piracy isnt a price problem, but a service issue. Its convenient, if you can make a legit way to get the product thats as convenient for the user as piracy, then they will pay for it
    • closetkantian 2y ago
      Yup. Just look at Spotify for an example. Almost no one uses Napster or anything like it anymore
    • aaronbaugher 2y ago
      Right. I haven't even considered pirating a game since GOG became a thing.