3 ms·
*Allocating man-hours towards making sure that users actually pay for the service they're using, either via youtube subscription or ads
by nikanj 8mo ago
*Allocating man-hours towards making sure that users actually pay for the service they're using, either via youtube subscription or ads
- saagarjha 8mo agoMonetizing a basic OS feature is not a good look.
- sidrag22 8mo agothe only time ive tried to use a feature like that, is when im in the car listening to a podcast or something. juggling the phone to not only skip ads, but also forcing the phone screen to be active, is a hazard. In my case this loophole being closed, wouldn't make me pay for premium... but it would make a younger version of me certainly more dangerous on the road.
- angoragoats 8mo agoDo you ever watch videos on a computer? If so, do you ever switch away to a different tab, or to a different app entirely, and keep the video playing in your browser tab? YouTube artificially prevents that exact same action on tablets and phones unless you pay them. Multitasking is a basic OS feature, no matter what kind of device you’re using. Gating it behind a paywall is user-hostile behavior at its finest.
- realusername 8mo agoMaybe if the Youtube subscription wasn't 10x what they earn from a single user with ads, that would be more believable option.
- BrenBarn 8mo agoIf they wanted users to pay for the service they're using they should never have made YouTube free in the first place.
- reddalo 8mo agoThey made it free just like any other startup makes a free tier to obtain market share.
- learingsci 8mo agoDrug dealers invented this business model, they would give heroin to young children for free and then once hooked hike the prices or force them to turn tricks to pay for their habit. It’s effective but not very admirable to say the least.
- stavros 8mo agoI've also seen this done for cheese, do you find that equally reprehensible? Or is the argument just rhetorical sleight of hand, where "drug dealers do X, so therefore X must be bad"? Drug dealers also consume food, and you know who else consumes food? You.
- learingsci 8mo agoCheesemongers have a bit less impact on society than drug dealers or Google. If Google were raking in hundreds of billions giving kids free cheese then charging them full price for parmigiana some might complain and I would not find fault in that. Scale matters.
- stavros 8mo agoIt's not that we got hooked on YouTube (that would maybe be ok in a free market), it's that YouTube used "free" to make itself a monopoly. That's what the issue is, that you have no other options now.
- learingsci 8mo agoYes, the monopolistic aspect and scale are the parts I’m most bothered by. I think we all agree dangerous chemicals should be regulated, but we lack this sensibility when it comes to many tech products. So far at least. Eventually we’ll catch up. Will there be the lingering legacy, the tech equivalent of super fund sites? Maybe.
- anonymous908213 8mo agoGoogle is the richest company literally on the entire planet, you really don't need to go to bat for monopolistic practices.