4 ms·

You lose on long run. In few years, you will pay more and still watch ads while YT will no longer be free. (let me remind you of video streaming services) Mana

by stiray 1y ago

You lose on long run. In few years, you will pay more and still watch ads while YT will no longer be free. (let me remind you of video streaming services) Managers want their rewards that are tied to earnings and stockholders want to earn more. And once they both get their money, the next year reward will be tied to even more earnings. And stockholders will want to earn more.

scoofy 1y ago
I’ll switch to Nebula if that ever happens. Content creators have no loyalty to YouTube and will share their content elsewhere when YouTube annoys their paying fans.
- stiray 1y ago
  There is no if. This is how corporate greed works. What will happen is, that content creators will spread to different providers, that also have managers and stockholders/owners. Look what Netflix was like and how many various payable video streaming providers you have now. More than you are prepared to pay for content. In few years, you will be torrenting content that today you watch for free. And only because people decided to pay, showing the world that there is money to be made in YT model.
  - scoofy 1y ago
    Yes, businesses want money. The point is that YouTube has no leverage on creators. they have to play nice because the barrier to entry is nil as competitors already exist in Twitch, Dailymotion, Nebula, Vimeo, Dropout, etc. None of that helps you if you want it to be free, but for those of us willing to pay, we can happily ally with creators if YouTube gets shitty. That’s how it’s supposed to work. It’s a good deal now and I’m happy to take it. None of that matters if you are comparing it to piracy… obviously.
    - anticensor 1y ago
      Or stratify users into creators and viewers and force both strata to pay, where viewer users cannot upload and creators cannot watch (even if they paid).
    - stiray 1y ago
      We will see how prepared you will be to pay, where each of creators you watch will be on different network and you will have to pay for each network $10/month, while you watch 20 creators. Again, this is nothing new. It already happened with video streaming, where Youtube now is Netflix then.
      - scoofy 1y ago
        This already happened with Dropout.tv when college humor left YouTube. Yes, it ain’t perfect. The alternative is the creator literally stop making videos. YouTube is already not serving ads for demonetized videos. People doing it for the love of filmmaking can already do it for free.
        stiray 1y ago
        No, the alternative is that you DONT pay. That you deliberately not do what is the easiest move(1) and on top of that even feel special for doing it. That you suffer a short time for better next. That you fight them with technical means. That you vote with your wallet, squeeze your teeth hard and show them you just wont pay and they will lose ad watcher if they show more ads. And now you will tell, that people are not disciplined enough for that, that majority wont pass the marshmallow(2) experiment? That some Mike Judge movie was actually documentary? Yes, I know. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap , A common trick is to provide victims with a simple solution to a problem, for example, leaving only one door open in an otherwise secure building, luring them straight toward the firing mechanism 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...
        1y ago
- blitzar 1y ago
  Content creators have loyalty to the magic money tree on the internet, they will shake as many of the trees they can, right down to begging for $1 from every 'fan' to add to the $50,000 they make a month.
tshaddox 1y ago
I’ve paid for YouTube Premium from the beginning (remember YouTube Red?) and it has been a mostly great service for 10+ years. The value I get is vastly greater than Netflix or any other streaming service. But if they ever start putting ads in the paid subscriptions (like many streaming services now with their basic tier) I’ll jump ship.
- stiray 1y ago
  Yep, you were a test project. Will people pay for free content or punish them by leaving the platform. And will they start to pay if you increase number of ads. Now they moved to next stage. Anyway, not there yet. Frog is boiled slowly, slow enough that people dont notice until it is to late. First they need to kill ad blockers tier. Then you increase number of ads to unbearable (they are already doing that) and get as much people as possible to paid content. Also market must be ripe enough, so there will be no more ships to jump. Then you will get ads, different tiers to pay, segmentation of content etc.
  - anticensor 1y ago
    They already discontinued the premium-only content (YouTube Originals, turned out the audience isn't fit for that).
  - tempodox 1y ago
    Exactly, it's the enshittification trajectory as explained by Cory Doctorow. Without laws and regulations that stop companies from doing that, it's inevitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification#Examples
  - phito 1y ago
    So what's your alternative if I don't want ads (content is not free to make), want the creators to be paid, and paying for premium is tempting YouTube to abuse pricing? (or so you say)
    - stiray 1y ago
Mindwipe 1y ago
Number of video streaming services who have removed their ad free tiers: zero.
raincole 1y ago
By this logic you lose in long term no matter what you do. If you pay premium: they'll add ads to premium too. If you watch ads: they'll add more ads. If you use ad-blocker: they'll embed ads into the video. If you use another platform: the said platform will need to monetize and you are back to square one.
- draugadrotten 1y ago
  > If you use ad-blocker: they'll embed ads into the video. Someone will eventually make an AI adblocker that will dynamically update the video with all ads removed or replaced. For example, let's say that I specify to my AI streaming video editor that "detect all bottles and glasses with alcohol and replace their contents with water and their labels with Liquid Death" Similar technology will be/is already used to e.g. display a Coke can for some markets and a Beer can for other markets, depending on who paid for that market.
- godshatter 1y ago
  > If you use ad-blocker: they'll embed ads into the video If they do this then the right arrow becomes your best friend. If it's part of the stream then they have no way of blocking things so you can't skip past them. If they embed some way of notifying the app that it needs to block skipping here or there then that's what adblock would start triggering from. I'm assuming that's why they don't do it now.
- ChromaticPanic 1y ago
  You just described the evolution of every streaming platform out there

by stiray 1y ago

scoofy 1y ago

I’ll switch to Nebula if that ever happens. Content creators have no loyalty to YouTube and will share their content elsewhere when YouTube annoys their paying fans.

stiray 1y ago
There is no if. This is how corporate greed works. What will happen is, that content creators will spread to different providers, that also have managers and stockholders/owners. Look what Netflix was like and how many various payable video streaming providers you have now. More than you are prepared to pay for content. In few years, you will be torrenting content that today you watch for free. And only because people decided to pay, showing the world that there is money to be made in YT model.
- scoofy 1y ago
  Yes, businesses want money. The point is that YouTube has no leverage on creators. they have to play nice because the barrier to entry is nil as competitors already exist in Twitch, Dailymotion, Nebula, Vimeo, Dropout, etc. None of that helps you if you want it to be free, but for those of us willing to pay, we can happily ally with creators if YouTube gets shitty. That’s how it’s supposed to work. It’s a good deal now and I’m happy to take it. None of that matters if you are comparing it to piracy… obviously.
  - anticensor 1y ago
    Or stratify users into creators and viewers and force both strata to pay, where viewer users cannot upload and creators cannot watch (even if they paid).
  - stiray 1y ago
    We will see how prepared you will be to pay, where each of creators you watch will be on different network and you will have to pay for each network $10/month, while you watch 20 creators. Again, this is nothing new. It already happened with video streaming, where Youtube now is Netflix then.
    - scoofy 1y ago
      This already happened with Dropout.tv when college humor left YouTube. Yes, it ain’t perfect. The alternative is the creator literally stop making videos. YouTube is already not serving ads for demonetized videos. People doing it for the love of filmmaking can already do it for free.
      - stiray 1y ago
        No, the alternative is that you DONT pay. That you deliberately not do what is the easiest move(1) and on top of that even feel special for doing it. That you suffer a short time for better next. That you fight them with technical means. That you vote with your wallet, squeeze your teeth hard and show them you just wont pay and they will lose ad watcher if they show more ads. And now you will tell, that people are not disciplined enough for that, that majority wont pass the marshmallow(2) experiment? That some Mike Judge movie was actually documentary? Yes, I know. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap , A common trick is to provide victims with a simple solution to a problem, for example, leaving only one door open in an otherwise secure building, luring them straight toward the firing mechanism 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...
        1y ago
blitzar 1y ago
Content creators have loyalty to the magic money tree on the internet, they will shake as many of the trees they can, right down to begging for $1 from every 'fan' to add to the $50,000 they make a month.

tshaddox 1y ago

I’ve paid for YouTube Premium from the beginning (remember YouTube Red?) and it has been a mostly great service for 10+ years. The value I get is vastly greater than Netflix or any other streaming service. But if they ever start putting ads in the paid subscriptions (like many streaming services now with their basic tier) I’ll jump ship.

stiray 1y ago
Yep, you were a test project. Will people pay for free content or punish them by leaving the platform. And will they start to pay if you increase number of ads. Now they moved to next stage. Anyway, not there yet. Frog is boiled slowly, slow enough that people dont notice until it is to late. First they need to kill ad blockers tier. Then you increase number of ads to unbearable (they are already doing that) and get as much people as possible to paid content. Also market must be ripe enough, so there will be no more ships to jump. Then you will get ads, different tiers to pay, segmentation of content etc.
- anticensor 1y ago
  They already discontinued the premium-only content (YouTube Originals, turned out the audience isn't fit for that).
- tempodox 1y ago
  Exactly, it's the enshittification trajectory as explained by Cory Doctorow. Without laws and regulations that stop companies from doing that, it's inevitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification#Examples
- phito 1y ago
  So what's your alternative if I don't want ads (content is not free to make), want the creators to be paid, and paying for premium is tempting YouTube to abuse pricing? (or so you say)
  - stiray 1y ago

Mindwipe 1y ago

Number of video streaming services who have removed their ad free tiers: zero.

raincole 1y ago

By this logic you lose in long term no matter what you do. If you pay premium: they'll add ads to premium too. If you watch ads: they'll add more ads. If you use ad-blocker: they'll embed ads into the video. If you use another platform: the said platform will need to monetize and you are back to square one.

draugadrotten 1y ago
> If you use ad-blocker: they'll embed ads into the video. Someone will eventually make an AI adblocker that will dynamically update the video with all ads removed or replaced. For example, let's say that I specify to my AI streaming video editor that "detect all bottles and glasses with alcohol and replace their contents with water and their labels with Liquid Death" Similar technology will be/is already used to e.g. display a Coke can for some markets and a Beer can for other markets, depending on who paid for that market.
godshatter 1y ago
> If you use ad-blocker: they'll embed ads into the video If they do this then the right arrow becomes your best friend. If it's part of the stream then they have no way of blocking things so you can't skip past them. If they embed some way of notifying the app that it needs to block skipping here or there then that's what adblock would start triggering from. I'm assuming that's why they don't do it now.
ChromaticPanic 1y ago
You just described the evolution of every streaming platform out there