I’d pay for YouTube premium if t wasn’t more expensive than HBO. It’s ridiculous. Especially considering YouTube has no production costs. It’s all user-generated content.
deleted by creator
More video is uploaded every minute than anyone can ever watch in a lifetime. It costs money to store and serve all that.
Then they shouldn’t store everything.
You can get Premium cheaper through other countries. It’s super simple. I only pay about 1€ / month and that feels about right to me unlike the 15€ or something I’d have to pay otherwise.
I’m guessing via a VPN, but which country do you connect to for the low prices?
Argentina or (in my case) Turkey seem to be popular options. You only need to use a VPN when setting up the first payment. Your credit card can be from your home country, no checks at all. After that it’ll just work and you won’t need a VPN anymore.
I’m from India and it’s about ₹120 ~ $1.4.
Which country did you go through? I assume you purchase on a VPN and then after it applies normally?
Yep! I left another reply with more details. I’m using Turkey and it’s super easy to set up.
Isn’t their issue more hosting costs and not production costs? Unless they start telling people they can’t upload videos (exception being copyright of course) Youtube greatly outpaces the storage costs of other social media sites.
They probably still store more than other video-hosting sites too.
their problem is probably paying $2 billion a year or some crazy number for nfl football.
It should be a crime the way they make you subscribe to YouTube Music to get YouTube Premium.
The pricing feels like it only makes sense if you want to use YouTube Music (and thus also don’t use one of the many streaming music competitors). Paying a couple of bucks extra for ad free YouTube is fine and that’s why I pay it personally. But if I wasn’t a YTM user already, I don’t think I would.
And most people don’t want to switch streaming music services. I did that years ago and it sucked. Music is the kinda thing where you really benefit from the service knowing your tastes. I only did it because back then, Spotify was missing some of my favourite artists while Google Play Music had them. I don’t even know if that applies today.
the users do get paid though, although i’m sure it’s a fraction of what youtube makes.
deleted by creator
A part of your YT Premium payment goes directly to creators that you watch based on your watch time. That is their content expenses just like HBO for making new shows.
That’s a bit disingenuous, IMO. Of course they don’t pay to produce content, but they definitely pay quite a lot to store all of the video that millions of people are uploading daily for free.
Idk if the price is that ridiculous, the family plan costs me 16 bucks and I have YT premium for my household+. I also have YouTube music from that as well, I find it better than spotify for my use and I dont have to put up additional cost for music streaming elsewhere. There was also youtube premium content (Youtube Red?) if that is still a thing, I remember the Vsauce series being available because of this.
Youtube having no costs is a hot take if ive ever seen one, but I dont think I can say anything about this that hasnt been said.
Only a kid used to having mommy and daddy pay for everything would claim youtube has no costs. It is amazing how many people on social media think everything should be free. The real issue here it is the lack of competition.
Yeah they just need storage for millions of people and bandwidth for billions no biggie, thank you for your expertise
lol zero production costs because they’re not a production studio, genius, lmao. they do have a shit ton of overhead costs though - look into it instead of acting like it costs nothing to be the largest video hosted site on the planet.
Keep 720p only for users who upload crap and aren’t generating revenue and keep 4k for the channels who are uploading quality content. I’ve seen a podcast uploading hours of content in 4k. That is incredibly costly to stream to people.
I’m not going to pay for a service that is so wasteful with their income and then they want more.
Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube
-
ad blockers are not “on youtube”, they are on my devices
-
allowed by whom?
-
fuck you
ad blockers are not “on youtube”, they are on my devices
By the same logic, they can make any changes to youtube they want and that is perfectly OK. Youtube isn’t on your PC. It’s on their server. You don’t own that server. They can reject your connection to their server for any reason they want.
Technically, YouTube runs on your computer as well as their servers. They could put a crypto mining script on there if they wanted,and I think most people would concur that that is unacceptable.
Rare to see there valid points in a row.
Just click the “not using an adblocker” button. If everyone does that it’ll probably whitelist the blockers, we can hope.
- ad blockers are not “on youtube”, they are on my devices
based
- allowed by whom?
checked
- fuck you
and redpilled
-
ublock origin users:
Sponsorblock and Return YT Dislikes FTW as well.
On desktop blocktube has improved things so much too. It has made search results so much better, since YouTube suppresses smaller channels in favor of the same large youtubers depending on the subject. Really wish it could be integrated into mobile YouTube options, but until then my hope is waiting until mobile firefox getting desktop extension support.
Glad you brought that up, never heard of it. Thanks!
Blocktube looks great
Thank you
Does anyone know if the dislikes extension is actually accurate or is it a sort of estimation
For new videos it’s an estimation with added dislike data of people using the extension, it’s rather accurate for most videos. For old videos before the dislike removal it uses old archived data plus new data added on top using the algorithm and data by the extension users
A combination of archived data from before the official YouTube dislike API shut down, and extrapolated extension user behavior.
I’m confused, if ublock origin and sponsor block and all those are bypassing this, then who is it actually targeting?
have you ever searched “ad blocker” on your browser of choice’s extension store and scrolled down? or had a cheap/free VPN that advertised ad blocking functionality?
those. for some reason people install those. and they never get updates.
(some of them are actual malware too)
Not sure what you’re on about, Google is absolutely capable of detecting if you’re using Ublock Origin, Piped, ReVanced, whatever. The question isn’t if they CAN break those things, it’s just if they WILL.
And if they’re beta testing this system right now, I’d say it’s just a matter of time.
I wouldn’t be absolutely sure about this. In the end, everything on the web still boils down to (mostly) simple HTTP GET requests. If you open a webpage, then you are served the file you requested (usually HTML with CSS for styling and JavaScript for special actions) and your browser handles the display of them and the execution of their scripts. This means that you can program a browser to detect and remove ads directly from the code and also eradicate malicious detection scripts potentially employed by Google that are meant to find out whether the ads are displaying correctly. If Google would want to circumvent this, they would either have to make YouTube available solely over their own app or block such behaviour on the client’s end, for example by manipulating the browser’s code to block ad-blocking functionality. Google is actually pursuing the latter with their Chromium browser, which is also the foundation for some others, including Microsoft Edge. This is why it’s important that people start to move away and use Firefox for browsing, THE free/libre software non-profit web solution since decades. Because then Google is essentially powerless, if they don’t want to take YouTube off the web.
Making YouTube available solely in their app sounds entirely possible and not unlikely here. They already sorta do that with age-restricted videos and videos that have voluntarily disabled embedding.
Watching all this from the sidelines, I’m very pleased that I took the time to de-Google my critical daily services, already.
Yeah, I’m glad I already have a cheap annual subscription to Curiosity Stream + Nebula. I’ll have to look for some other decent video platforms if they’re going to start being dicks about YouTube.
Yep, they are ramping up to disable all of the scripts and extensions.
Lately, I’ve been getting 403 errors in Newpipe after a video has been playing for about a minute. I think they’re starting.
They are capable of detecting it because they aren’t putting much effort into being undetectable. If there was a need, uBlock Origin itself could be made entirely undetectable.
Of course the YouTube script running in your browser will be able to detect changes made to the page and request blocking. However, the said script can be modified by a different extension to either receive incorrect data about blocked requests and page information, or to send a fabricated result back to the server. Google can react to it by modifying the script, and the extension would need to adapt accordingly. It’s a game of cat and mouse.
If there was a need, we could have YouTube running in an entirely clean headless browser with no adblockers, while the real browser we use pulls data from it and strips out the ads.
Ultimately, currently we have the last word on what happens on our end. Unfortunately, Google’s webDRM, pushed by traitors to humanity Ben Wiser, Borbala Benko, Philipp Pfeiffenberge and Sergey Kataev, is trying to change that.
I mean, you could do all sorts of wild shit but at a certain point it’s impractical for most people. You think Google has actually put effort into this so far? You haven’t seen effort yet, they’re just beta testing.
Oh, they absolutely are capable of telling if you have uBlock Origin installed. However, uBlock is also capable of blocking scripts, so you can make a filter to block whatever part of the scripts on the page it is that detect your adblocker. I’ve never seen an anti-adblocker that didn’t use Javascript, and the great thing about Javascript is that your browser can just… Ignore it.
It would be pretty trivial for them to just block playback completely for any agent that’s blocking their ad scripts. Or make their ad videos indistinguishable from the actually video you want.
The question isn’t CAN they enforce this, it’s WILL they enforce this? Thus far we’ve been succeeding at this cat-and-mouse game simply because the cat is too fat and lazy to chase us. But this cat is looking more hungry and motivated every day…we’ll see.
Ad publishers have been in a war with adblockers for a decade now, were it trivial to detect adblockers, they would have already won. This is the sole reason Google has introduced the idea of DRM for websites.
In fact, the only trivial thing is bypassing anti-adblock. There is no anti-adblock that relies upon Javascript that cannot be bypassed without issue. The way Javascript is executed on the user’s computer, unobfuscated, means it can be altered in whatever way you want before it is ran.
It drives me mad when I use PCs of friends and relatives and I see AdBlock Plus installed, but they still get ads and they never seem to stop and wonder why this “ad blocker” is not working! I do however enjoy their facial expressions when I install uBlock Origin for them and start refreshing pages.
They want to frame it so that internet ID is the solution. That way you as a person can be banned, not just the account or ip. Good luck buying and selling when everything becomes digital and you get banned.
The reason people are talking about this new change is that it will bypass the extensions.
I understand that, but look at who I am responding to - they seem to think that they’re immune from it.
Dear Youtube: Bring back the downvote count, allow me to disable shorts, allow me to disable your bullshit annoying ass startup music, then half the price and then we’ll talk about paying for your “service”.
Being able did disable content you don’t want aside from ads with a paid membership would be a huge boon.
Killing shorts would be fantastic, and they shouldn’t care if I’m not using a feature as long as I’m paying.
That got me, the “you can only upvote stuff” bull. I should also have the option to block channels and videos.
Why would they ever do that when they can make the website more intrusive and annoying to use?
Why would they ever do that for free? Either the advertiser pays for the infrastructure, or you do. IT isn’t free. Hence YouTube premium.
The problem is that they make it unreasonable when they get greedy and many people don’t tolerate their shit. This isn’t a “people won’t pay for the service” problem. We’ve all paid for streaming services. I personally won’t when it feeds into their shenanigans.
Well, it was exactly as described and also free like 8 years ago.
Youtube has startup music???
I am paying for YouTube Premium, and yet I still have to skip over US-exclusive sponsor sections which almost every Youtuber has nowadays…
That’s why I still use Vanced. Sponsorblock is something I can’t live without even though I have YouTube premium.
You should try revanced.
Yup. Just be careful the only real website is revanced.app and the github. All others are unofficial and can sometimes spread malware
Yeah, almost exclusively either Us-centric and not even available where I live, or so gosh darn expensive that I just will never use the stuff advertised (looking at you, magic spoon)
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Linus’s video on their sponsors gave them way too much benefit of the doubt for scummy practices I would have dropped a company for
To be fair a lot of us here on Lemmy are likely to be more principled or have staunch opinions on companies and products - we’ve abandoned the orange R, and likely centralised social media for one thing.
From my POV, Linus seems to tone down his views in videos, and his writers are the ones doing the research for the video rather than him. He’s a lot more critical of companies on the WAN show from what I’ve seen
Doesn’t really matter if he is critical on one segment but not so much either. Or that the blame is shifted to the writers. But, I guess it’s just to say whoever it is sponsored segments are not to be trusted by default, and best being ignored.
Like even pro athletes end up shilling and using products that end up hurting them despite being in the 1% in their field like Lonzo Ball and his crappy shoes.
Here in Germany, the national soccer team has been advertising Nutella for decades. I don’t think they eat the chocolate flavored sugar-fat as much as they are paid to pretend…
My first impression for anything on YouTube is untrustworthy spam. Don’t matter who it is. It’s just the reality of paid sponsorships, and anyone being paid is going to generally talk up the positives, and talk up how much integrity they have. It’s not just a YouTube thing either. I assume the same for celebrity endorsements even if it is in an area they are an expert in like sports, since product they use isn’t the quality that reaches consumers. Sometimes even the products they use is crap and ends up hurting them. Example Lonzo Ball and the shoes he endorsed.
It’s just general good skepticism towards the marketing machine. Nobody is to be trusted when it comes to what they are paid to shill.
Linus is getting sponsorship from either actually useful tech software that is for enterprise or it’s some weird niche software or product that no one ever needs.
Yeah, those are frustrating. Some channels I watch have a ton of annoying YouTube ads, where premium becomes a must for sanity. But some others have baked in sponsors that can’t be skipped (but no native YouTube ads). I wish they’d reconcile the two. It doesn’t make sense that you can pay to only block some ads, and depending on what videos you watch, that could be either the majority of ads or none at all!
If you’re not already using it, this is gold: https://sponsor.ajay.app/
It’s funny how we need uBlock Origin, SponsorBlock and maybe even DeArrow (same dev as SB) to make Youtube tolerable.
Ah YouTube, the site where I watch a video that tells me in ten minutes what I could read in one. And only 5 advertisements!
Oops, six. I forgot the ad the creator slipped in between minute 1 and 2.
You might want to follow other people, my friend
No, they have a point. Because you earn money by views, people now make videos about everything instead of writing something somewhere that can be found by search engine. Video has its uses but it’s far overused nowadays and it sucks.
That’s why I use YouTubetranscript now to read through the video to see if it is even worth watching, since so much stuff is unnecessarily long due to how algorithms push those videos to the top.
Ctrl+F’ing my way through the transcript of a 38min crafting video to see when they’re ever actually going to do the thing they made the video about, if they ever get around to it at all.
Somehow, more than once, the answer was no.
I would like to use this opportunity to make more people aware of YouTubetranscript.
Sites been a huge time saver just reading through the video instead of sitting through 10 minute long videos that turn out to be a waste of time that could have been said in a couple minutes.
Recommend hitting ‘4’ (40%) straight away on how to videos, its usually the start of showing you how to do the thing.
The Wadsworth constant
I used SponsorBlock for a while and it worked pretty well. It crowdsources where the ads are in a video and you can choose to skip them automatically.
How can you possibly forget the mid-video ad read that is actually a part of the video, thus unblockable?
“Modern problems require modern solutions” -> get sponsorblock
I mean, if it is an ad that actually directly gets the video creator paid, I’m not even mad about those, especially when it’s quality content. Not a fan of those who just take common searches for questions online and create a long video to explain the answer when it should have just stayed as a stackoverflow question and answer or something.
It’s like how they expect you to pay for things at a store now too! Like “I just wanted some milk dude!”
If my grocery store required me to either buy an unwanted, overpriced store-specific subscription or stand there listening to multiple minutes worth of sales pitches for shit that I also don’t want and could never afford, and this kicked in every time I took an item from the shelf, regardless of whether I decided I was even interested in said item, then yes, shockingly, I am going to do anything except what they’re demanding. At that point, especially if they don’t like me doing it.
“Try not to make your customers’ experience repeatedly miserable or you will lose them” has fallen out of the playbook for no particular reason.
So I’m sure u wont have a problem avoiding it therefore this doesnt concern you
and this is why you should use third party clients/patches like revanced
Ehh. I wouldn’t suggest someone go use any old patched client. Do your due diligence and be safe.
Hard to believe people down voted this. I’m just saying make sure you get stuff from official sources like https://ReVanced.app
No. This is why if you like a service, you pay for it.
if google made youtube premium like $3/month no one would bat an eye and sub. but they’re approaching netflix prices and that’s just way to much. i rather support the creators directly than throwing money at google who will give the creators crumbs until they demonetize them because google is doing google things. also won’t solve the privacy problem that comes with using their native site/apps.
I think part of the problem is that they’re hosting so much more content than Netflix. It really is crazy that it’s free to upload to YouTube to just store all your videos on there. Probably 99.9% of YouTube content does not get enough views to justify the cost of storing it.
All that being said, YouTube premium comes with a bunch of shit nobody wants so surely they could cut that stuff to lower the price (or tiered pricing for people who want it).
In some places they are more expensive than Netflix…
Does YouTube pay their content creators properly? No, they have to rely on external partnerships. Does YouTube help their creators solve issues with greedy companies making copyright claims on not their content? No, they close channels because of such claims and strip creators of income they deserve. Does YouTube keep their platform secure to protect its creators? No, hackers managed to get access to the biggest channels on the platform despite YouTube being aware of the issues for months. Does YouTube at least use their knowledge from spying its users to stop bots posting comments? No, bot comments are all over the place. And I could go like that for ages…
The fact is YouTube is a shitty platform and people use it because they have to not because they want to. Because they have a fucking monopoly! People are paying thousands of dollars directly to content creators through platforms like Patreon, because they like the content. But people are not willing to support financially the platform that openly don’t give a fuck about their users and creators (which are the only reason this platform exists) and care only about their shareholders. Because why would they pay to make the rich richer while content creators struggle to earn money for rent!
Google has been shamelessly destroying all their projects the last few years in a desperate fit to make money. They’ve weakened ad blockers on chrome, they’ve altered the search algorithm so random BS is mixed in with regular to drive towards sponsored content, their starting to setup browser level DRM and creating un skipable ads. None of this is for anything more than greed and desperation. They no longer see anything other than money as the end goal and don’t care if their selling a shittier product at a higher price than no one was ever even willing to pay for. F*ck google.
YT Premium costs less than $4 for me and I also get YT Music. It sure beats paying $4 for only a music service.
Oh nooo, who will think of the big tech who continue to get record profits every year?
I want creators to get paid when I watch them but I also don’t want ads. YT Premium is affordable (it costs less than $4 a month for me) for me and I also get YT Music with it. I watch hundreds of hours worth of video from multiple creators so it’s a fair deal.
Quit bragging and start sharing that code you’re using for $4/month YT Premium that the rest of us have to pay $13.99 after last month’s price hike.
Woah dude that’s crazy. Anyways, I’m still going to AdBlock them and pirate yt music. Big tech can suck my
Personally I don’t want to pay Google out of principle tbh, the creators I support can benefit from my Patreon donations and Nebula subscription
That’s way too expensive and I can’t afford it. YTP is less than $4 a month so at least the creators gets at least a few cents from my views, and I watch a lot of creators.
Where the hell are you paying less than $4 a month? It’s $14 here in America. Even with a student discount, it’s still twice the price you’re quoting.
Malaysia. It’s RM 17.90 which roughly converts to $3.94.
I find this take wierd. If you do not want to support Google, stop using services created by them.
The content creators can upload videos to multiple platforms if they want to
deleted by creator
Because somehow paying $4 a month is unreasonable for a service that I use for 2-4 hours every day.
Right.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’m a premium user so I’m not affected (for now)
deleted by creator
And that’s how things die due to no revenue. Running YouTube is expensive af and the more people who used things like revanced, the worse things will become for everyone else.
Maybe they shouldn’t operate in the first place if they cannot think of a sustainable business model without f*ing their users up.
Basically everything within capitalism fucks over someone that’s just business as usual 8n out society. Usually to a much worse degree, think the children who likely made your clothes for next to nothing. I’m all for tearing down the system, but there’s not a whole lot as an individual that I can do.
It’s funny how you put all the blame on the users and none on the people that run the site. They fail to pay creators properly, fail to protect them from copyright claim abuse, and all the while they expect those creators to keep making content to keep their site relevant. It’s going to come crashing down eventually.
Also, in matters of taste the customer is always right. If people are so fed up with ads that they adblock en masse and/or leave, then youtube are the only ones to blame.
My point in my comment was about how YouTube is expensive to run and that the more people who refuse to generate revenue for it (I feel dirty writing that and strongly disagree with it, by my feelings have no effect on reality,) then it has to make shittier and shittier decisions to generate that revenue.
I 100% agree that YouTube should pay their creators more and protect them from bullshit copyright, but that would just compound the issue of the cost of running the site.
What is this entitled attitude everyone has where they believe they should be handed things for free? It completely unsustainable and childish. Corporations do not do things for free, they can’t. They exist solely to generate revenue and if they can’t, they die. I generally hate corporations on principle, but again my feelings don’t change reality.
deleted by creator
Nobody is saying they should be handed things for free, we are saying that youtube is doing a bad job and shouldn’t be enabled.
Piracy is not a moral problem, it is a service problem. They are making their service worse with their decisions, and if it’s not sustainable long term then it will die, which I believe is inevitable at this point.
Again, this isn’t about individual behaviour, it is about mass behaviour. None of us can control that. If youtube wants to succeed, they have to navigate the reality that adblocking will happen on their service, and I don’t believe they can do that. It’s not that it would be physically impossible, they just lack the capacity to find a solution because of how they are structured. The problem is that they will not accept a lower bottom line, they have to keep increasing revenue so they are squeezing people, and eventually they will go too far. Once they get just a little bit too close to the sun they will start their death spiral and then they’re done.
Federated networks prove that we don’t need some central overlord to run our networks for us, and once there is a way to own our own video sharing network I would have absolutely no problem giving some money to support it. I’m not going to give money to a big corporation to enable them to keep squeezing us. They don’t make a good service, they make a shitty, awful service that we have to fight them in order to use properly. The only substantial thing they’re doing is server hosting, and we don’t need them to do that. The only real barrier is critical mass of users and creators, and eventually they’re going to push enough people away that that happens.
deleted by creator
You’ll care as more and more people have to quit YouTube or make progressively more shit content to appease the algorithm. It also makes it harder and harder for new people to start on YouTube.
deleted by creator
I support the sentiment, but today everything is a service that wants your money, this resource is finite. And when it comes to YouTube, it’s not even about whether you like it or not: YouTube is a monopolist.
I’ll gladly pay for a service that doesn’t thrive on pushing propaganda down people’s throats to maximize watch time and that isn’t actively trying to make my user experience miserable by removing downvotes, forcing shorts and so on.
I’d rather pay someone to kick me in the nuts. Sounds like a better deal tbh.
Good thing I don’t like youtube.
I meant that if you use YouTube a lot, it would be fair to pay for an ad-free experience.
Like Cable Television, right?
I use SponsorBlock.
And you realize that YouTube will do everything in their hands to stop you from using these apps in the future right? That was kinda the point of the article.
Making people pay (with their time and attention) while they are already paying for subscription will not encourage more people to buy premium.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a service that shows more ads than content.
I just got my first 30 second UNSKIPPABLE ad on my TV the other day…I closed youtube, as watching a 1min video is NOT worth 30 seconds of ads
I recommend you to sideload SmartTube on your TV, *if it has an Android-based OS. It works better than the official app in my opinion, and includes SponsorBlock.
*Edit
I wish this was available on WebOS. I use it on my Shield and it’s been flawless.
There are ways to do that for WebOS
Are Android smart TVs that popular nowadays? I mean few years ago I wouldn’t assume Android TV when hearing about smart TVs
Probably depends on the country, but very popular.
Will do, thanks!
fuck YouTube premium. why would I pay £19.99 a month when literally the only defining feature for me is no ads. all this will do is allow for more complex ad blockers to be made to bypass this
The creators also get a good chunk of the money from premium as far as I’ve been able to verify (by asking some I follow directly).
Why not pay creators directly through Patreon PayPal or equivalent instead of Google as well?
Well, for one thing it scales more efficiently. If you watch 50 creators, giving Google a 45% cut is more efficient than paying processing fees on $20 split 50 ways. If you want to be truly fair, the logistics become basically impossible without massively increasing your budget. That’s why, when most people opt to give directly, they’re effectively choosing to reward only their most favorite channels while giving nothing to everyone else.
I don’t necessarily think there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s not objectively superior to Premium, which does fairly distribute the creator’s cut. Google is able to endlessly split your $11 creator’s cut into micro-contributions based on exact watch-time in a way that individuals cannot replicate. Every creator you watch gets their share. Not as much as a direct donation, true, but nobody gets left out and it’s considerably more than they’d get from an ad-watching viewer.
Finally a good argument, thank you.
I agree that premium splits the percentage of my cash equally and easily but only 55% bugs me. That’s an arbitrary number based off of some black box calculation.
I do not trust YouTube to have my or the creators best interest in mind.
If this number was 90% for creators I would consider it fair. The majority of the work comes from creators and is the reason YouTube has any people at its doorstep.
In the meantime, I can still far less effectively make use of my money the way I want to until a better alternative comes around.
I’ll just have the sweat it and try harder to be a better consumer, I guess.
That’s an arbitrary number based off of some black box calculation.
It’s not arbitrary. It’s the same 55/45 split that creators have gotten from ad-revenue as part of the YouTube Partner Program. I can’t seem to find a source to prove it, but IIRC the split percentage has remained completely untouched for a very long time, maybe even since YPP was originally introduced in 2007.
I should also stress that this is a revenue split, not a profit split. Youtube pays all of their operating expenses after creators take their 55% share. It means that the final balance sheet for Youtube works out to something like (fudging): 55% creators, 25% expenses, 20% profit. I won’t shill for the shareholders – the deal could be better, but it’s not exactly highway robbery, either.
Thank you for the information. I needed some brushing up on all of it.
deleted by creator
If no one pays for YouTube how can they keep supporting their insanely costly infrastructure? Hosting all those videos is not free. Far from it.
I’m perfectly fine paying for YouTube if that means I can continue to have access to awesome creators under a easy to use platform. It would be a very sad day if Google decided to shut down YouTube due to not being able to cover it’s costs.
The only other company that could potentially take over would be meta. Which would probably be even worse. At least YouTube provides an option to pay to disable ads.
Good. Let them close it.
They won’t, because it’s still making money hand over fist. This is all because tech profits are down a smidge now we’re all getting back to normal after COVID, so they’re all cranking up the enshittification dial to compensate.
None of these companies are “losing” money. They’re just making very slightly less than they were before. Fuck 'em.
I just wish they kept the ads at the start and end. There is something off putting about watching some documentary about some horrible event only to have it pause for some perky Grammarly ad in the middle of it.
I would be fine if YouTube crumbled and was put into second place by a better platform or two.
Yes it’s the best option currently which is why they can do such ridiculous practices.
But once they have actual competition, I expect them to bend over backwards for my attention. Because if they don’t change the current trajectory, they’ll go the way of the other digital giants of the past.
Do not worry about having a viable platform in a future without YouTube. I am 100% sure there will be one.
deleted by creator
This is an extremely unlikely hypothetical. Google is one of the most profitable companies in the world and there is no sign of that changing, even considering all the people who block ads right now. There is no reason to squeeze everyone like this.
There’s a lite version that’s only for the ads.
It’s cheaper than the full 19.99.
While that might still be too much, I just wanted to point out that if you don’t want ads, it doesn’t cost the full 20quid.
This was news to me so I went looking and couldn’t find it on youtube. Reading articles seems to indicate it is only available in certain regions and at certain times. I finally found the link to the page (https://www.youtube.com/premiumlite) and confirmed it’s not available for me in the US at least.
I pay for youtube premium because I watch a lot of youtube and it is easily worth the price. I paid $12 to see oppenhimer and that was only 3 hours. I watch way more than 3 hours of youtube every week.
Up next: An AI-enabled Web Browser extension which
- mutes the YouTube ads and overlays it with cute cat videos
- clicks the “skip” button for you
And then* YouTube adds captcha to the skip button.
And then the AI script retaliates by identifying and switching to matching videos on PeerTube, whilst also learning your viewing habits. A premium version offers a subscription which pays third world workers to complete the captcha on your behalf.
Then Google users WEI to kill the extension.
Then someone releases a VPS which runs Chrome and supplies the whole thing by Remote Desktop, with a client side app that integrates the behaviour…
(just thinking of how it could go.)
Just mirror every YouTube video ever created and we won’t get any ads. /s
I know you jest, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility for some peer to peer system to exist, similar to bittorrent, which could distribute the load across viewers. Most people have half decent internet these days. This imaginary extension could recognise the YouTube video URL, check it’s DHT to see if anyone else has it, and if not it could capture the YouTube video and redistribute it to the next person who looked up the same URL. Stale videos could be deleted after a time.
So, basically torrenting but for YT videos. Pretty interesting on the technology side on how you’d handle unstable seeders, because after all it’s streamed content, which is different from your regular content you’d get.
Now I realized YT videos buffer anyway.
One could even dedicated a set amount of disk space for sole use of downloading videos automatically that server says they should, which could be algorithmically decided whether it’s needed due to high demand (need more seeds) or sort of archiving.
Could be an interesting project, a decentralized youtube “archive”.
“While the duration of this timer isn’t revealed, we expect it to be somewhere around 30 to 60 seconds.”
Peak journalism.
We suspect it may or may not be somewhere in the ballpark on five seconds to seven days.
The really annoying part is YouTube gets all their content for free, while every other subscription video service pays for content.
They do, but the costs to store all of that high resolution video is enormous. Especially since it must be replicated to local repository for quicker access as popularity raises and removed when popularity falls on videos. The amount of content stored and served is significantly more than Netflix houses. That being said, ads are getting way too intrusive.
other streaming services dont let pretty much anyone upload gigabytes of video
Me gesturing at gazillions of porn sites that lets anyone upload any videos…
If YouTube implodes, pornhub will immediately launch an sfw version to grab the fleeing content creators.
Honestly I’m surprised they haven’t done so already, they already have the tech to do it, probably need to scale it a bit.
Now I wonder if there aren’t SFW videos in pornhub from people that want to upload videos but don’t want to use YouTube. Or NSFW video that aren’t really porn, like a random guy reviewing videogames naked for some reason. I’m not checking either.
I remember people from certain subreddits used to upload full movies to pornhub and share them for shit and giggles.
Creators no longer get ad revenue? What did I miss?
The ad revenue is a portion of what the advertisers paid.
YouTube DOES get its content for free. They pay YouTubers per view, essentially a portion of profit, whereas something like Netflix pays for the creation of content and then also a portion of profit made.
Who pays for the severs and billions of gigabytes of storage required to hold all those videos?
We do, with the data google sold about us all.
How much data left is there to sell about me? Pretty sure they know pretty much everything about us already.
My surfing habits change a little, but it’s mostly cyclical.
They don’t need new data to sell, they just find a new client who doesn’t have your info yet.
The point is that that’s in their own interest, because if they wouldn’t host it, they wouldn’t make any money.
I know you’re mostly joking, but Google does sell your data/browsing habits for advertising, being able to show car dealership ads to someone who’s browsing history indicates they’re in the market is extremely valuable. It’s not just about things “about you” like demographics/location, but an active, rolling profile about where you’re most likely to spend your money.
deleted by creator
I believe he is referring to the fact that YouTube don’t have to pay upfront for new content, they even get new content without hunting for it, and many smaller channels don’t have partnership and so on.
Sure they have a platform, backend and so on. But Netflix needs to have all that too plus buy things to show to their customers.
That’s what I thought, and it’s kind of a silly point to make. You’re just moving around the order of the steps. They still pay for it.
I believe he is referring to the fact that YouTube don’t have to pay upfront for new content, they even get new content without hunting for it, and many smaller channels don’t have partnership and so on.
Well, sure, but on the other hand, those smaller creators couldn’t attract any attention or grow their audience without a platform to do it on. And, like it or not, youtube has that and doesn’t charge those new creators anything to use the platform (unlike platforms like Vimeo, as one example).
Most of those large profitable channels wouldn’t have been able to grow totbhwir current size without a free to use platform to spread their content to a wider audience.
There’s give and take on both sides.
;
Of course, the payment share on ads and memberships is fair and equitable is a separate discussion…
The worst part of YouTube ads is super long ads (sometimes even multiple hours long). It has happened to me multiple times. And coincidentally it always happens when I’m feeling sleepy.
Here is a screenshot.
Seems like a way to check for attention. Not clicking the skip indicates you’re not actually watching. The benefit to them is probably more ad revenue.
In other words, taking advantage of their own users!
And advertising customers. Great company all around.
Man, all these companies just pushing me away from using their services. I don’t need it.
For real. I’m mostly excited for the possibility of getting a viable alternative to Google’s obvious disregard for human decency. Bring on the crowd funded video streaming apps!
