The problem is that they actually don’t mean that. And truthfully I don’t mind the idea of paying for video hosting, that shit’s expensive, but YouTube is going about it in the worst way possible.
No no, we mean it, at least at that price. I’d be willing to kick YouTube a few bucks a month. I’m not going to pay them more per month than most MMOs. They’re trying to charge streaming service prices for content they don’t produce.
Because they pay the creators from that? They’re not taking the whole thing as a cost for hosting
slowing my buffer down is not how you get me to turn of my adblocker. no thanks.
Right. Some people get stuck up about getting things for free that they think they should get for free.* But a lot of the problem is the obnoxious ways companies go about control and profit.
*There are important arguments to be had about freedom, still.
I pay for YouTube Premium. I didn’t really want that, I just wanted YouTube Music, but it didn’t make sense to just pay for YT Music. I don’t want Spotify and Amazon Music kinda sucks so YT music worked best.
Same for me but in reverse.
Remove music, deduct 2-3 € from the bill and I’d be happy enough with it.
Spotify suits my use case way better.I actually used to pay for the Premium account in Google Play Music, but disliked YouTube Music so much when they migrated accounts over that I canceled my subscription. Have they improved the radio/music discovery parts at all?
I just saw something similar on DuckDuckGo, and Firefox too - it’s f-ing everywhere.:-(
YT Premium is the single most valuable subscription service on the net right now. Don’t regret mine a bit. I listen to hours and hours of YT Music a day, and I watch probably a few hours of YT content a night as well.
If I compare the usage of Netflix vs Youtube
Last 7 days (from right now): 24h 30min
Last time I used Netflix in a high volume: Probably <12h. At absolute highest maybe 18-20h in total.But: YT usage is consistant. Netflix/service of choice is at best a seasonal happening if a show is very good and you binge it.
So to me it’s worth it enough to keep. But I’d want to have an option to remove music as I prefer Spotify, have optionally Jellyfin and dont need yt music.
I have never watched YouTube in my life and I buy my music by the album. Yes I am a psychopath
I get you’re saying its a great value because of what you get out of it, but I’m not comfortable pricing things in that way… I’d rather it be based on the actual cost. I know real prices don’t tend to work that way (or at least not in many cases) but it just feels icky and exploitative still.
You say that today. Give it a couple years. I’m pretty sure that by 2030, the cost will be ~100 dollars/euros/whatever per month and you’ll see 2 minutes of ads for every single minute of content you watch. (Okay, maybe the number of ads is an exaggeration, but I don’t think the monthly cost is.)
Don’t pay the Danegeld. It never makes them go away.
Paying a business to provide a service you use is not ransom.
“They might raise prices later” is an idiotic reason not to pay for something.
Exactly, if they price it stupidly they’ll lose paying customers (I don’t buy into the free market ideology)
Can’t lose paying customers if they have nowhere to go. Youtube basically own the western audience and they simply can’t switch to youtube competitors because there isn’t any left. At least japan still has niconico and china has a lot since youtube doesn’t operate there.
Haha yea, shame on them for trying to transition to a business model that’s actually a great value for the customer compared to other music and video playforms, no longer relies on datamining customers to maximize ad-effectiveness, and brings in more income for creators than ads ever did…
It’s a totally stupid idea, YT should just eat the costs and be subsidized by Google search revenue forever.
Why can’t we just keep taking from the platform while its expenses are covered by some shrinking group of shmucks who don’t know about ad-blockers yet, drowning in commercials?
/S
I don’t understand this outlook. Like, sure, you can use adblock. One person stealing a mars bar isn’t gonna hurt Walmart… But if literally everyone just took their shopping cart home, never once paying, Walmart would just… Cease to exist.
You’re not wrong, but that doesn’t mean YouTube’s model is correct. The basic understanding we all need to have is pay people for their bread. Don’t ever get more from someone that you aren’t willing to pay back in some kind. 20% tip for waiting staff might suck for a person, but do not “NOT TIP”. We tip till workers get fair wages or we don’t go eat out, but don’t go eat out and not tip. Same here. Don’t head over to your creators on YouTube and deny them their fair share be it premium or ads.
YouTube takes a 45% cut on subscriptions. That’s not fair share and they don’t provide a means for creators to strike a balance. You can be angry at that. But don’t ever be angry at that and not give some fair share to the creators. Additionally, with the whole Channel Membership, makes the whole YouTube Premium questionable. Why am I paying $14/mo for Premium and then $5/mo/channel I’m a member for? Why can YouTube not see that I’ve spent x% time here at so-and-so’s channel and take x% of that Premium and send it to that creator (minus some off the top for infrastructure for themselves)?
This is ultimately what I dislike about YouTube Premium and what I like most about Patreon. In fact, the majority of what I once watched on YouTube has largely shifted there to Patreon. The things is, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask folks to be FAIR about what YouTube is giving, so you’re right. But YouTube is a crap distribution platform that routinely robs creators of power over their media, exposure, and revenue and does so with impunity.
People shouldn’t rob from YouTube to make a point. People should just leave to make a point. That’s the fair thing to do. And if you do enjoy content from your favorite creators, always make sure you tell them so by putting money in their pocket. If we want fair wages for one, we need to remember we need to want fair wages for everyone. And more importantly, the folks running the show need to be more affable to listening to the folks tending to the fields. Be it employers need to listen to their waiters and pay them based on that or YouTube needs to listen to it’s creators and address the various issues they bring up.
We’re in an era where there’s a whole lot of “I know better” in the workplace and really I think we just need more partnership between all involved. I think if we had more of that, we’d have a lot more of the other issues solved by proxy. That’s ultimately what I have issues with YouTube, but just because I have issues doesn’t mean I go stealing things from them. You are absolutely correct in that folks should play fair if they’re heading to YouTube. We’re all in this together folks, don’t rob from each other even if you don’t like the means by which they get the money.
Premium already does what you’re saying, channel membership is a separate thing
Google doesn’t deserve your money.
You don’t pay a bully so that they bully you a little bit lessThat’s a very bad analogy.
That logic would lead to defect-defect scenarios in all but the rarest of cases.
By all means, defect when warranted, but if a bad company changing course doesn’t net rewards, why would corps ever do anything other than the worst possible, taking as many users down with them as they can snare?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
That logic would lead to defect-defect scenarios in all but the rarest of cases.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
no longer relies on data mining customers to maximize ad effectiveness
You’re an idiot if you believe they won’t do that anyway.
You don’t say. Everyone does it.
But it’s a shit source of income that nets mere cents per user, and should be made illegal as soon as political will allows.
Hence, a good service should not rely on collecting user data as a sole revenue source.
If google goes down someone else will fill the void. And I don’t give a shit about their numbers, if it’s not financially feasible to host everything without running a loss for years to extinguish competition and then to hike up the price, they should have thought of that before.
Aside from that, any Corp that goes down is a victory in my book.
Then I hope YT gets legally enshrined and archived in some way.
Like it or not, it is the sole complete repository of a lot of video and audio records for recent human history.
It’s become something that should not be under corporate control. Something which should be treated with care and reverence.
Yet it is, and isn’t.
[even bigger rock] “No, Youtube, I don’t want to watch TF2 content. Stop recommending it to me”
It’s like why even have an algorithm if it’s just going to show you what it wants you to see rather than what you want to see.
Do you pay for premium? From what I’ve seen the algorithm is much more hostile to people who don’t pay. I literally _never _ have these problems about YouTube recommending stuff I don’t care about.
Their algorithm is constantly trying to groom its viewers to the far right. They aren’t getting a cent from me.
Because you are the product being sold, and advertisers are the customers
Sometimes the algorithm can be dumb. Here’s a tip:
Doesn’t change anything I’ve literally NI’d every single post of that matter and THEY KEEP SHOWING UP. I’ll even DRC to channels that post that content primarily and they’ll start show up half a year later. I’ve had it up to here with youtube’s fucking algorithm deciding what I want.
Check your watch history. Did anything TF2 related end up in there by mistake? In my experience, you can remove it and it’ll help.
Nope it’s an association link, i’ve been at war with that stupid game for well over two years now. I’ll even block content shitting on it.
I guess another option is to give up and become a Titanfall fan ; )
I would pay if it were more a more affordable price.
I haven’t browsed apps in ages so idk if it’s still common, but I remember lots of apps having a lite version and a paid version. Lite version has ads and a sometimes couple less features. Full version ad-free and potential extra features.
I liked that. Let me decide if I enjoyed the app enough to pay for the better version.
Before Reddit went down in a fire, I paid premium even though I already had adblocker and no need for the premium features. And I would do the same for YouTube now, if it wasn’t so high priced.
I am consciously learning now what I think I subconsciously already knew. If I value something enough, pay for it. And I DO value YouTube’s videos. The current cost is just a bit uncomfortably steep for a monthly subscription fee.
, √
8!%%7i*::: spoiler spoiler >> :::** …**you alright there mate?
I found a comment that was deleted and I copy and pasted it.
Skybreaker said:
Sure. Have no shame for anything. Just be the way you are forever and never better yourself.
No idea how it got garbled up after that
I had YouTube when it was YouTube red and I was a part of a family plan with my friend for a couple years. I split the family plan with a few people and ended up paying $3 a month. Eventually he moved across country and YouTube said that since we didn’t have the same IP address that I could not be a part of the family plan so I ended up signing up for my own account. At some point I was trying to pay off my debt so I cancelled all my subscription services. YouTube premium included. I started watching YouTube and then I saw it. An ad. Something I hadn’t seen in years. It was the most annoying thing ever. I couldn’t believe that people put up with that. I was so annoyed by the ads that I looked at how to obtain YouTube and YouTube music for free without ads because I needed to save the money and the ads were so intrusive that this was what I was going to do and that is what I still do to this day.
Google really is the king of “you don’t REALLY mean ‘no’. Try again.”
I pay for a premium account and I get more value out of it than Netflix or any other streaming service.
you’re not putting the bar very high there
People are out to lunch on this whole situation. Try running a service that hosts somewhere between 2 and 3 billion Gigabytes of data. Where basically anyone on the planet can upload gigs of video and YouTube will still make it available 10 years later. You are never going to crowd source that, ever. I also pay for premium and I get at least 5x the value of any other streaming service. Just on home renovations, it’s probably saved me 10k+ being able to watch tutorials about every kind of repair.
Yet people keep going back there… curious.
And paying
Reasons not to buy premium:
- Google having a history of all the videos you watch via your account.
- Even if Google provided an option to opt out of tracking there would be no reason to trust then since they have lied about not tracking people in the past.
- YouTube seems to redirect any Premium profits intended to creators to the entity which made a copyright claim on a video. This would be sensible if YouTube’s copyright claim system wasn’t so vulnerable to abuse. Normal (yellow) demonetisation will pay out from Premium though. https://youtu.be/PRQVzPEyldc?si=5-wFn2SqPZLdOlqa
- Features are removed from YouTube to incentivise Premium such as playing videos while your phone screen is locked.
- Similar to above, Google have been increasing the amount of ads particularly on phones where ad blockers are harder to use. I.E. pushing users to Premium not by making the service better, but by making non-Premium worse.
Your utub link seems to contain a tracking Id.
Not particularly surprising. It was copied from the YouTube iOS app…
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/PRQVzPEyldc?si=5-wFn2SqPZLdOlqa
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
What about the reasons to buy premium? Pretty much none right?
I mean, fair. The two big reasons are that your views are worth much more than normal viewers to creators, so it does mean you’re helping support the content you watch. Further, the more people who pay for content the less influence advertisers have. All this said, I would assume that $5 a month to your favorite creators (Patreon, Paypal, Librepay, etc) would be worth more to them than a share of your YouTube Premium subscription fee.
That’s what I’m thinking. The day I have a job I would much rather support my favourite creators directly than pay YouTube and hope for some trickle down effect
Google having a history of all the videos you watch via your account.
They already do this anyway. They also do it whether you have an account or not.
Point one: I’m pretty certain they already track that. With or without account. And you’re on the internet, without a VPN there is no privacy. You are also able to remove that history any moment you want. Is it Ideal? No. But you should’ve acted 10-15 years prior if you wanted to stop this. It’s still not ideal though.
Point two: I agree. There does need to be space for them to repent, but they aren’t actively trying to, so don’t trust them (see the next point as an example of that).
Point three That’s a shame. They really need to fix that, though with how corpos do things nowadays, not sure that’ll happen.
Point four: That’s normal, expected and a reasonable business decision. Most of these features they likely added after premium, and they’re meant as incentives. Why else would you want to but their premium, if not for the added features?
Point five: This is shitty and mostly inexcusable behaviour. It’s god awful, and they really shouldn’t do it. I do have to play devil’s advocate a little. They are fully, 100% in their right to do this. If you don’t like it, vote with your wallet (and time). If we stop using their services, they’ll stop making it worse. They are still A-holes for doing it though.
I would be very interested to know how good they are at tracking a user across brand new browser sessions. I have mine set to delete cookies, cache and history (minus a few trusted domains) on close but I’d imagine it would be easy to differentiate between me and others in my household by browser fingerprints alone. The only question then is whether those guesses are reliable enough for Google to essentially treat those sessions as 1 person, or throw it away since there are bound to be quite a lot of cases where 10s or 100s of people on the same IP have very similar browsing habits and configurations and trying to figure out who is who would be incredibly difficult (think offices where everybody could have exactly the same laptop and share similar browsing habits due to working for the same company). That’s my cope anyway. The alternative is Youtube over Tor for which would be painful.
Points 4 and 5 on my end are essentially two sides to of the same coin. I should clarify, I don’t have a problem with YouTube introducing a new feature and making that Premium-only.
I would be very interested to know how good they are at tracking a user across brand new browser sessions
It’s called fingerprinting
Point one: I’m pretty certain they already track that. With or without account. And you’re on the internet, without a VPN there is no privacy. You are also able to remove that history any moment you want.
I mean sure, they could try combining the user agents my unofficial apps provide with my carrier’s NAT IP to build a profile on me, but it would be highly inefficient and imprecise to the point where it’s almost useless for them. With a Youtube Premium account they have an identity tied to an email address, full name, and payment info that they can relate every click in their apps and websites to. If I also use their other services with the same account, I would be paying them to spy on everything I do and sell my data, so other companies can sell me crap.
If you’ve already got that much of a set-up to guarantee privacy, it’s a very good point. Most people aren’t that dedicated to privacy (I think), but it’s still a very valid point in your case
Last time I talked about YouTube here, people liked to throw their money to Google…
It seems to be easy to turn a free service into a subscription service… I should probably buy Alphabet shares to profit from that…
IDK man, paying for YT Premium really isn’t that bad. Assuming you already consume YouTube content, that is. And I’m pretty sure that’s like 98% of first world population between 4 and 70.
Blocking ads on YouTube is no sustainable solution. Hosting Billions of Gigabytes of on-demand content is SUPER expensive. Like, it actually costs money. Other, wayyy smaller indie creator on-demand video platforms charge 5 bucks a month, but i’ts okay if they do it, because they aren’t big bad Alphabet.
If that’s your view, you don’t have a problem with pricing, you have a problem with morals. And if you still do voluntarily consume YouTube content in private, with or without ads in any which way, you inarguably have a huge problem with your own morals.
YouTube premium is a good deal. It’s priced very well compared with competition, it actually does pay indie creators and it let’s you access to features that many users really do use.
BUTBUT THEY ARTIFICIALLY LIMIT FEATURES FOR NO REASON WITHOUT PREMIUM. I mean, it’s subscription software and streaming, what else would they do? Every for profit subscription software provider and their mother does this. I develop hospital software and we literally do exactly this. If hospital A has feature x and hospital B also wants that, we don’t just hand that out for free even when we just have to add it to their system in like 10 minutes… what did you expect? They already use our software (like you use YouTube), we don’t have a huge incentive to just randomly add features if nobody paid for it. If we do, be happy about it, send me a gift card, if we or they don’t, that’s just business.
It’s wild to me that this is so often called “just business” when, described this way, it’s textbook racketeering.
Could you explain to me how “if someone wants to use my work, they should pay me for it” could be perceived as racketeering, let alone “textbook?”
There’s “if someone wants to use my work, they should pay me for it” and there’s “intentionally sabotage the work/service provided in order to extract more profits.”
“The work or service provided for free?” If so what’s the difference? If you’re getting something for free you have no right to complain
But it’s not free, just because you aren’t paying in money doesn’t mean you aren’t paying for it in other ways.
The textbook this person owns:
service provider: “Hello, I’m a window cleaner, do you want me to clean your windows? I’ll actually do it for free this time! Please recommend me to your peers”
customer: “yes please”
service provider: “all done! Want me to do it again in three months time?”
customer: “yes, I love free stuff!”
service provider: “actually, I’d have to charge for that, can’t work for free all the time.”
customer: “Racketeering!”
“Racketeering” is definitely the wrong word.
I’ll put it like this. I think YouTube Premium is too expensive. I also think YouTube is too aggressive with it’s ads.
I opt to send them that message by using an ad blocking service tailored to YouTube and paying the content creators in other ways.
If the family plan weren’t 20 dollars a month to cover 2 accounts I would probably buy it. But they opted to offer only 1 or many never just 2.
I’m capable of affording it. I pay nearly every major streaming service monthly even when I am not using them, so long as their cost is reasonable.
YouTube Premium’s cost is not reasonable. Especially when you consider they are still collecting and making money off of your data in the end.
I don’t see how the pricing for Premium is unreasonable. I do, however see, how they are too aggressive with ads. That’s why I said paying for premium is a better deal than watching ads. If you don’t agree with either compensation, don’t use their service
5 bucks? I am in. But it’s 16 swiss francs. That’s just too much for me as I don’t need Youtube Music.
Google tells me 24 bucks for family. That’s equal to what I do. I actually do pay that for all of em, but technically, it’s just under 5 bucks a person since I share with 4 others.
Can the other people still use their own accounts like Apple does it? As in I just give my subscription to other accounts and that’s it. Nothing actually changes for them except that they have a subscription now.
Basically, not sure how Apple does it though. You have a Google family group. You can add individual accounts to that. The group owner cannot see any activities of other accounts, but he could remove people without their permission.
Removed users only lose active family subscriptions like youtube premium and google one (storage). Their watch histories and whatnot will remain the same. Watch out with Google one. If you have Google one and use more storage than google free, then remove google one, you only get a limited time period to remove data over the limit. Afterwards it gets inaccessible, I don’t think they delete anything, but no insurance on that.
Thanks, now to convince 4 friends :D
Or 5. It holds 6 people… 4 € per person best case. As for now, they aren’t enforcing same household sharing only, like Netflix do. I can’t tell you about the future.
Also, not to support such behaviour, but if you aren’t made of money, I’m totally okay with you teleporting to Argentina, subscribing to YT Premium at maybe 5 $ a month, and teleporting back to never go there again. That doesn’t require an argentinian CC.
I’m not sure about legal technicalities, but I do know that it currently works. Personally, I don’t risk it if they ever decide to ban associated accounts, because u know, they totally can refuse to service you, if they were to feel like it.
5 bucks? If only… It’s 12 euros per month here, which is simply too expensive for the kind of content I watch on YT. Especially considering the amount of baked in product placement (VPN, diet plans, that kind of crap) that I come across, I’m not paying that kind of money just to still get hammered with commercials. Sorry, but YouTube Premium is a bad deal here.
Either watch ads or pay for Premium. Or don’t watch Youtube. Those are the three choices most people will have. And it’s Youtube’s right as a private platform to give them those choices.
It’s worth it for me because I watch a lot of Youtube. In return, I don’t watch traditional TV, so I don’t pay for cable or similar things.
Those are the three choices most people will have.
LMAO
You forgot the simplest of them: Firefox, uBlock Origins, SponsorBlock. Works on desktop and Android.
Homie missed the point. using ublock and sponsorblock is equal to petty theft. Disliking a company doesn’t make it morally right to steal from them.
Imagine acting like removing unwanted content from MY screen is theft. My device my rules honey
Oh baby, you don’t understand what you just said, do you?
Nobody forces you to watch ads. Close YouTube, don’t look back, email content creators to have em send ad free video links directly to you.
Watching ads is your obligation as consumer, if you decide not to pay for their removal.
It’s not my obligation and I’m never going to stop because controlling what appears on my screen, is my legal right ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
If people decide to pay for something they have no legal obligation to because they got brainwashed, that only makes them suckers
You’re not going to guilt trip me out of adblocking Google of all fucking companies lmao
No, I’m not here to defend Alphabet. I’m just saying it’s equal to stealing groceries at Wallmart. They request payment, you deny. Just because it’s so much easier to do on YouTube doesn’t mean it’s any more justifiable.
My choice: Firefox with uBlock Origin because I get to decide what reaches my screen
