5 ms·

> Besides a non-ad-free experience, the $7.99 Premium Lite subscription also removed several other cool features like the ability to download videos for offline

by planb 1y ago

> Besides a non-ad-free experience, the $7.99 Premium Lite subscription also removed several other cool features like the ability to download videos for offline viewing and background play, which can be quite convenient for listening to music on the app. Speaking of music, YouTube Premium Lite also does not include access to YouTube Music. So what's the deal here? $8 for "less ads but none of the premium features"? I'd understand "no ads but none of the premium features" but even for that it would be quite expensive. Who on earth is the target group for this plan?

bell-cot 1y ago
> Who on earth is the target group ... Folks who aren't paying much attention, but are paying $8/month.
owebmaster 1y ago
the "target" group is probably bundles of useless products from partners like "buy our useless SaaS and get a free Youtube Premium subscription!"
- philistine 1y ago
  Exactly. You can’t believe how the people at YouTube are salivating at the future conversion rate from people who got Lite from their cell phone provider.
sillyfluke 1y ago
It's amusing how they unironically continue to do this so plainly even after dystopian shows like black mirror and others mock this tactic aggressively in their latest outings. In the past, companies would try harder to hide a highly publicized bait and switch scam if they continued to make use of it. Subscription monetization schemes have truly hit a dead end if they can't bother even hiding it anymore.
anal_reactor 1y ago
The deal here is that maintaining a free hosting service for 4k videos is not profitable, even with shitload of ads. This is hard truth that nobody wants to hear. My suggested solution is that once businesses grow beyond certain size, the government should step in and buy them out. This would allow to provide such services at a loss. Like, for example, railway in Europe. The only reason why it's even remotely usable is because it's funded from taxpayers' money. And they also started as private companies that would later become de-facto branches of the government.

by planb 1y ago

bell-cot 1y ago

> Who on earth is the target group ... Folks who aren't paying much attention, but are paying $8/month.

owebmaster 1y ago

the "target" group is probably bundles of useless products from partners like "buy our useless SaaS and get a free Youtube Premium subscription!"

philistine 1y ago
Exactly. You can’t believe how the people at YouTube are salivating at the future conversion rate from people who got Lite from their cell phone provider.

sillyfluke 1y ago

It's amusing how they unironically continue to do this so plainly even after dystopian shows like black mirror and others mock this tactic aggressively in their latest outings. In the past, companies would try harder to hide a highly publicized bait and switch scam if they continued to make use of it. Subscription monetization schemes have truly hit a dead end if they can't bother even hiding it anymore.

anal_reactor 1y ago

The deal here is that maintaining a free hosting service for 4k videos is not profitable, even with shitload of ads. This is hard truth that nobody wants to hear. My suggested solution is that once businesses grow beyond certain size, the government should step in and buy them out. This would allow to provide such services at a loss. Like, for example, railway in Europe. The only reason why it's even remotely usable is because it's funded from taxpayers' money. And they also started as private companies that would later become de-facto branches of the government.