> YouTube is still the largest music streaming platform in the world ... and still the place where teens get the majority of their music.
Why hasn't anyone jumped on this yet?
These kids aren't watching "music videos", they're listening to music which is only accompanied by video content because the platform is unapologetically focused on it.
Free, selectable music with a simple interface and all the ads you want, available on any PC. Still not solved in 2015...
> YouTube is still the largest music streaming platform in the world ... and still the place where teens get the majority of their music. Why hasn't anyone jumped on this yet? These kids aren't watching "music videos", they're listening to music which is only accompanied by video content because the platform is unapologetically focused on it. Free, selectable music with a simple interface and all the ads you want, av…
Spotify addresses this really well. It has both desktop and mobile apps.
> YouTube is still the largest music streaming platform in the world ... and still the place where teens get the majority of their music. Why hasn't anyone jumped on this yet? These kids aren't watching "music videos", they're listening to music which is only accompanied by video content because the platform is unapologetically focused on it. Free, selectable music with a simple interface and all the ads you want, av…
Spotify addresses this really well. It has both desktop and mobile apps.
Spotify doesn't exist in dragonland, YouTube is basically everywhere.
Interesting move on YouTube's part to launch the "unnamed service" with premium content creators on-board before releasing information to the users. I feel fans trust and support creators more often than the providers.
> YouTube is still the largest music streaming platform in the world ... and still the place where teens get the majority of their music. Why hasn't anyone jumped on this yet? These kids aren't watching "music videos", they're listening to music which is only accompanied by video content because the platform is unapologetically focused on it. Free, selectable music with a simple interface and all the ads you want, av…
Spotify addresses this really well. It has both desktop and mobile apps.
The app requirement alone kills this demographic. Login nails the coffin.
These kids aren't going to install an application on a friends device and log in with their own credentials when they can search a .com instantly.
The household computer, the one with the bundled multimedia speakers, that's where you'll find them hovering, socially selecting and blasting main stream pop.
Teen parties are being DJed with YouTube! YouuuTube!
I would happily pay a monthly fee to never see another advert.
“ It’s a gigantic social phenomenon. People find ways of getting money by impeding society. Once they can impede society, they can be paid to leave people alone. ” — Richard Stallman, 1986 ( http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview )
It's a form of price discrimination: charging rich people more than poor people.
It seems like the move would be to try and spin off a netflix like service for videos > 15 minutes. Curate and invest in quality content and then charge for it. Google is the search engine of choice for most of the world and the lowest common denomenator when you type yourfav.newartist into your search bar because it is direct, frictionless and free. When Chris Sacca tried to monetize sports/content at youtube/google…
It seems likely people would just divide their long videos up into shorter segments just as they do now. I think it's probably got more to do with how content creators monetize their work-you let them put it behind the premium service and pay them more per view or something similar. Then your content creators start pushing your subscription service for you, I'd expect putting most of it free and a section of it behin…
Hmmm. Maybe I am an edgecase, but I only like watching videos > 20mins. I watch a lot of Kevin Rose's foundation series, interviews with entrepreneurs, how to videos, etc. I see the value prop in having longer well done, high production value material and that is what I would pay for. They could basically be television and curate google endorsed channels for entertainment, news, education etc. seems like they want to compete with twitch and pandora when they really should just help netflix kill cable.
Spotify addresses this really well. It has both desktop and mobile apps.
The app requirement alone kills this demographic. Login nails the coffin. These kids aren't going to install an application on a friends device and log in with their own credentials when they can search a .com instantly. The household computer, the one with the bundled multimedia speakers, that's where you'll find them hovering, socially selecting and blasting main stream pop. Teen parties are being DJed with YouTube…
People keep underestimating this about the web. Sometimes people don't care how awesome your app is, they just want something that they can do that works every time. Something passable that runs on ever platform everywhere. That's HTML, and for music, that's YouTube
If the fee is reasonable, say €10, I wouldn't mind paying. My "issue" is that I also don't want to log in.
Yeah, that's my issue too. Google's suggestions service is incredibly invasive, and does an utterly terrible job. I like to fall asleep listening to a variety of different relaxation videos, so that means any time I open up the youtube app on my phone, it bombards with me with nothing but weird looking ASMR videos that - to somebody who's never seen the concept - probably look like porn. I couldn't imagine hooking up…
Whether to show ads or not is the content creators' choice. My YouTube channels are ad-free. I don't get paid for my videos, but I don't care because I don't rely on YouTube as a source of income. On the other hand, I invest little time and no money in my channels, unlike the YouTubers who create content professionally. How would you like it if you weren't paid for your work? At least now, YouTube is giving you a cho…
There is no inherent reason why a person should be paid for work. In the tech sector if you can't effectively monetize the work you do then the attitude is very much "well do something else then", but for some reason media people seem to think that when they cannot monetize their work it is the fault of the consumer, not themselves. Some business models were just never meant to be, politely asking random people to do…
The two ways these "media people" on YouTube get money are exactly the same two ways that most "tech sector" people get money -- advertising or direct payment. In this case, the customer gets to choose which they prefer. What you're suggesting is exactly equivalent to software piracy or unauthorized access to computer services.