4 ms·
Because the vast majority of people don't want to and have zero intention pf paying separately for email, maps, navigation, browser, etc. In fact, that's how t
by sofixa 1y ago
Because the vast majority of people don't want to and have zero intention pf paying separately for email, maps, navigation, browser, etc.
In fact, that's how things used to be before Google and their ilk used ads to make an ecosystem, and their ecosystem was better and free at the point of use than what came before
- fsh 1y agoThe vast majority of people are paying separately for all kinds of stuff. I don't see a reason why software and digital services have to be different. In the early days, payment was difficult, but this has been long solved. I am convinced that the quality would improve dramatically if there was some actual competition. Also most people would probably prefer not to pay for the ad fees that google extorts from pretty much any company.
- ikiris 1y agoWith the exception of fi, If you think any of those services are something people want to pay yet another saas subscription for, you’ve been hitting your own supply too much.
- tokioyoyo 1y agoEveryone would be subscribed to YT premium, if people were ok with paying for ad-free experience.
- jorvi 1y agoHonestly, I feel like people are subconsciously aware that Google is trying to bludgeon them into getting YouTube premium, and they're simply sticking it to Google rather than giving in. Google's gone through: - one skippable 5s ad - two skippable 5s ads - one unskippable 5s and one skippable 15s ads - aforementioned or two 15s ads, one skippable - two 15s unskippable ads - removed the prerenderer 'skip' button to make it more difficult to immediately skip - removed the ad amount indicator and precise length indicator (now just a bar) to psychologically drive people into sunk cost feelings God knows what they're cooking up next. And for large swathes of content, there is no alternative to YouTube.
- quitit 1y agoThose changes seem more like boiling the frog because the content they're looking for is only available on YT. I'm a firm believer in the issue being one of pricing, not that the consumer is willing to pay nothing at all. I have this view because we've already seen how users flocked to iTunes, then Spotify/Apple Music and Netflix/other streaming services when the pricing was right. We are also now watching as people depart streaming services and return to direct sales and P2P file-sharing due to incrementally higher prices. To me that's a sure indicator of price being the problem, not an insatiable appetite for zero cost. The math largely makes sense too. Particularly in music if you're the type that has a taste for a genre of music, rather than just wanting to listen to the top 40.
- pesus 1y agoI agree price is the issue. I'm a YouTube premium subscriber myself since I use it so much, but every friend I've talked to about it bar one has been put off by the price. Lowering the price and possibly splitting YouTube Music into its own subscription would make a big difference - I have no interest in YouTube music as I already have another music streaming subscription I'm not interested in giving up.
- Workaccount2 1y agoEverytime someone blocks an ad, someone else has to watch it. It's crazy to me how entitled people are and how completely blind they are to how the ad supported model works. Then these same people complain that youtube has no competitors. Yeah, no shit, who in their right mind would invest in a customer base like youtubes? Oh, that's right, Vid.me, and they went bankrupt in a year. Wonder why...
- benlivengood 1y ago> I am convinced that the quality would improve dramatically if there was some actual competition. You can pay for Google One right now, roughly exchanging cash for storage capacity on the otherwise free services. I see no viable competition for that model. Protonmail is comparatively expensive. I really don't want the Internet to turn into the mess that is video streaming where every independent licensing agency tries to capture an audience for $15/month. Another great example is Let's Encrypt. It's a public good to provide quality TLS certificates and the marginal cost is $0 with some sponsorship. I'd far rather other core Internet services like e-mail and basic file sharing are sponsored.
- sofixa 1y ago> The vast majority of people are paying separately for all kinds of stuff. And a lot of them already suffer from subscription fatigue.
- dreghgh 1y agoBut if Google weren't a monopoly, phone manufacturers could choose to bundle different collections of apps made by different people on to their hardware, rather than having to get it all from Google. This would also mean that phone users could be given a genuine choice about their privacy, rather than have dark patterns to force them to give up most of it, because it's the Android business model.
- asadotzler 1y agoOur expectations and intentions aren't some magical gift from god, they're simply the stuff we're used to, and Google got us used to ad-based everything when before many of us did pay for things like our blogging platform, our domain names and even our email and other hosting services.