Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 201 posts

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#91

Post by ergothus »

JshWright wrote: post #55
ars wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah, Google did the right thing here. You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads", and you can't say "if you subscribe you see less videos". They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or loose revenue sharing status.

> You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads" That's exactly what Hulu did with their new "ad-free" option. There are a handful of shows they couldn't license with no ads, so they have a pre-roll ad, and a disclaimer about why.

...and as someone that is considering paying for said ad-free option, this is the sort of thing that makes me think twice...

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#92

Post by intopieces »

fitshipit wrote: post #88
intopieces wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.

no, it doesn't. loose isn't a verb. loosen is

loose lo͞os adjective 1. not firmly or tightly fixed in place; detached or able to be detached. "a loose tooth" synonyms: not fixed in place, not secure, unsecured, unattached; More 2. (of a garment) not fitting tightly or closely. "she slipped into a loose T-shirt and shorts" synonyms: baggy, generously cut, slack, roomy; More verb 1. set free; release. "the hounds have been loosed"

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#93

Post by sanderjd »

exelius wrote: post #14

I guarantee this is going to force some of the top content creators off of YouTube. Many have been close to leaving for a while anyway, since other sites offer better rev share terms. Many of those guys also syndicate out to a larger number of sites already, so losing YT revenue may hurt in the short term, but they'll probably end up taking their audiences with them. But yeah, this is a huge deal and it's going to re…

Yeah this was my first thought: seems like a major opportunity for one of YouTube's competitors.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#94

Post by intopieces »

sanderjd wrote: post #89
intopieces wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.

I'm usually into this whole language relativism thing, but this doesn't seem right. In fact, your final point about it being possible that it meant loose-as-in-release is exactly why this is confusing. "Lose" is (probably?) what was meant, while "loose" kinda-sorta works, but isn't quite right, so now it's confusing!

>so now it's confusing!

Is it confusing? Or were you able to tell from context what the user meant? I suspect, given the language ability you've displayed here, that you had no trouble discerning the meaning the user was attempting to convey.

Language is not a series of rules to follow, it's a loose confederecy of conventions we used with each other to get our point across.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#95

Post by erebus_rex »

bargl wrote: post #5

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…

Could Google simply say to creators: "if you sign this you won't get any revenue sharing from red users but you'll still get your quota from free users."

Gives them a financial incentive to sign up but allows them to opt out without making google eat the loss.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#96

Post by Balgair »

jdminhbg wrote: post #85
Balgair wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, a lot of the creators are from very small communities. I personally can't afford to pay Youtube 10$ a month just to watch those people (I can't even afford cable). That means I don't get to watch them now, as far as I can figure. Likely, they will now stop those channels. Some of them do get revenue from the ads, at least enough to buy equipment and support the side hobby. Without that, those channels are gone,…

If none of your viewers pay for a Red subscription, then there is zero change from the current state of affairs, right? You get whatever the ad revenue share is.

My question exactly.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#97

Post by rodgerd »

eveningcoffee wrote: post #65

Youtube has become stupidly aggressive with its video ads in my region. To the point I actually try to avoid using it. I will also consciously avoid all companies who think that it is acceptable to interrupt randomly people with their messages. I am fine with overlay ads and I would have been positively influenced with the same ads in overlay form that now are forced on me as video ads. Sorry, but this is a short ter…

> Youtube has become stupidly aggressive with its video ads in my region.

The video ads are part of the problem, the sidebar ads can be pretty rank, too. Hi, YouTube, have you considered that maybe when I want to watch an opera clip or a "how things work" video with my 8 year old I don't want gorey traffic ads, booze ads, or "buy a Russian bride" sidebars?

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#98

Post by swampthinker »

intopieces wrote: post #94
sanderjd wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm usually into this whole language relativism thing, but this doesn't seem right. In fact, your final point about it being possible that it meant loose-as-in-release is exactly why this is confusing. "Lose" is (probably?) what was meant, while "loose" kinda-sorta works, but isn't quite right, so now it's confusing!

>so now it's confusing! Is it confusing? Or were you able to tell from context what the user meant? I suspect, given the language ability you've displayed here, that you had no trouble discerning the meaning the user was attempting to convey. Language is not a series of rules to follow, it's a loose confederecy of conventions we used with each other to get our point across.

To a native speaker, sure. But to a non-native, those words have entirely different meanings to them.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#99

Post by tssva »

bo1024 wrote: post #87
corndoge wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Option 7: Remove all pre-video ads from YouTube and return it to the way it was, dropping the idea of monetizing the world's largest creative platform. Edit: False dichotomy. Monetization does not necessitate ads. But you get what I meant.

False dichotomy. Option 8: consider ways to monetize that don't involve video ads.

Like charging a monthly fee to watch videos and sharing a percentage of that fee with creators of the videos.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#100

Post by TrevorJ »

bargl wrote: post #5

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…

Or don't roll out a new revenue model that you can't reasonably transition to because it isn't compatible.
Post reply on HN