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

181–190 of 201 posts

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

#181

Post by rasz_pl »

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…

You forgot about:

-KEEP WORKING the way it works NOW. Red subscriber = no ad and no monetisation for the video if no RED specific agreement with google.

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

#182

Post by rasz_pl »

eva1984 wrote: post #140
lmedinas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of these will probably mean Facebook might have an opportunity in Videos. Recently Youtube screwed up with Gaming which cannot compete even close with Twitch, older attempts to provide a premium service also failed now this is just pissing off everybody.

I think youtube gaming is decent, why do you think it is screwed up?

youtube gaming website is all javascript, and was probably only tested on chrome :/ Doesnt work at all in my browser, s in blank page. On the other hand twitch just works, so why bother?

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

#183

Post by rasz_pl »

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…

>other sites offer better rev share term

any examples? not to mention all other sites offer almost zero eyeballs, only way to get people to watch your videos there is to redirect people yourself. YT has a huge network effect.

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

#184

Post by Alupis »

munificent wrote: post #79
Alupis wrote: post #38

> But the coercion involved It sets an alarming precedent about how This is supposed to be two sentences, or remove the "It" from the middle of the sentence. How is it obvious grammatical and spelling errors make their way into these articles (and seemingly more common now-days)? These are professional writers, with professional editing staff - however it often feels the article is a first-draft written in one go and…

> It makes it feel as-if the general quality of journalism is declining. How much did you pay for a newspaper subscription thirty years ago? How much did you pay to read this article? The quality of journalism is declining, because the money is disappearing. News providers are producing more and more content for less and less money. The only way they can do that is by cutting corners.

That's hardly true. Have you seen how many ads are on most of these sites now? (and no, I don't ad-block).

I'd wager my $0.10-$0.25 cent newspaper subscription is easily covered after clicking around a few pages on one of these sites.

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

#185

Post by mcnamaratw »

intopieces wrote: post #131
mcnamaratw wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, but that's just what the dictionary says. I've decided that "to release" means "aardvark" which is a noun. So no verb "loose."

Since language is ultimately a social contract between speakers attempting to convey meaning, you'll need some people to agree with you on that before we can call it a change. But you're welcome to try :)

All that was a neat idea at the time, but in this thread you can see for yourself how it's breaking down in practice.

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

#186

Post by ergothus »

dtparr wrote: post #115
ergothus wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Out of curiosity, is there some reason a 15sec preroll on 7 shows is so off putting? Are they some of the main things you'd watch? Is it the principle of ads in an "ad free plan"?

My reasonings are:

* I'm paying for ad-free (in this hypothetical - I'm actually content with the above post mentioning that they clearly tell which shows are exceptions in advance), so yes, ads bother me.

* Why do ads bother me? It's a combination of: ads tend to pander to the lowest elements of the psyche/society; ads are explicitly manipulative - I don't enjoy exposing myself to manipulative people, why seek out or even tolerate this sort of exposure?; ads are disruptive to the experience I'm trying to have (pacing/tone/subject matter); ads consume time, something I have a limited capacity of.

* I stopped watching cable TV in college (some 15-20 years ago), and I immediately found I felt "smarter", more focused, with more available time, and (as a con) less in touch with the common zeitgeist (an experience somewhat similar to not following facebook or twitter today). This, despite the fact that I still "wasted" plenty of time watching movies and shows. As Netflix became prevalent (first in DVD, then in streaming) I found I could remain entertained without exposure to ads.

As I relied on the web for more news/entertainment, I found that ad blockers vastly improved the experience. Perhaps I've been oversensitized to the topic, but I usually find I'm more than willing to pay to get my experience ad-free, as the experience is just better then.

I've been frustrated at things like Huluplus and Youtube where I previously didn't have an ad-free option, despite my willingness to pay for such, so I have little doubt that frustration combines with the earlier sensitivity to make me more bullheaded on the topic.

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

#187

Post by 6d0debc071 »

fpgeek wrote: post #168
6d0debc071 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would you do? Pay content creators who don't participate and are on monetised accounts as if the Red views had been seeing adverts, show adverts to everyone else. I'd extract money from the red customers for the no advert feature, who would be more invested in the feature because their favourite channels would be on it. The Red customers would extract value from viewing that user's content. I'd still be gettin…

> Pay content creators who don't participate and are on monetised accounts as if the Red views had been seeing adverts, show adverts to everyone else. Doesn't Google's ability to do that depend on the details of the old agreement? Does anyone know those details? I could imagine an agreement along the following lines: 1. YouTube will show ads on all of creator's videos. 2. YouTube will pay creator based on some formul…

I'd imagine that Google has acquired a right, rather than a duty, to serve advertising through their partnership agreement and in trade has given partners a right to some of the money from that. Certainly I wouldn't impose a duty upon myself unless I absolutely had to - and Google is likely to have had the majority of the leverage in any individual negotiation.

In any case though, I imagine that the agreement would be far more acceptable given an only slightly modified version of business as usual as the alternative, than it would given an ultimatum between this and death.

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

#188

Post by mcphage »

intopieces wrote: post #114
mcphage wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I'm a hard-core descriptive linguistics kind of guy, but it doesn't preclude language mistakes, even common ones. "Loose" might someday become an accepted alternate spelling for "lose", but it isn't yet.

>but it isn't yet. True. But what do we gain in the meantime by quibbling over typographical errors? Did anyone really read this fellow's comment and go, 'wait, what? That doesn't make any sense. I can't make heads or tails of this person's sentence.'I have hard time believing so. And, if the situation is as the parent comment described --- 'this error is made consistently upstream' -- then we're looking at the colla…

> what do we gain in the meantime by quibbling over typographical errors? Did anyone really read this fellow's comment and go, 'wait, what? That doesn't make any sense.

Nothing. There wasn't really a reason for whoever pointed it out to do so. On one hand it's a common error, so it's very noticeable—but on the other, it's a common error, so people know what was really meant.

> And, if the situation is as the parent comment described --- 'this error is made consistently upstream' -- then we're looking at the collapse of loose/lose probably in the same timeframe as 'they're/their/there' and 'to/too/two'.

Yeah, that seems reasonable. One thing your other examples have going for them, though, is that if you use the incorrect spelling, it's (almost) always obvious from context which is correct, but I can imagine there are more situations that lose and loose could both be correct.

> My main point is that language is not a static set of do's and don't's. It lives. If you need someone to clarify, ask them! But pointing your teacher's baton at them and saying, 'you're using your language wrong' is a waste of life.

Agreed 100%

> so perhaps my fervor has backfired.

Meh. I see so many "they is always plural!" or "literally meaning figuratively is a recent error!" or "language never changes!" or other prescriptive garbage, that it's a nice change of pace to see someone a bit too far on the descriptive side :-)

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

#189

Post by spacemanmatt »

dtparr wrote: post #115
ergothus wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Out of curiosity, is there some reason a 15sec preroll on 7 shows is so off putting? Are they some of the main things you'd watch? Is it the principle of ads in an "ad free plan"?

I feel a strong motivation to punish companies who commit bait & switch product promotions. Don't promote ad-free premium service to me, then send me ads.

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

#190

Post by spacemanmatt »

dtparr wrote: post #115
ergothus wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Out of curiosity, is there some reason a 15sec preroll on 7 shows is so off putting? Are they some of the main things you'd watch? Is it the principle of ads in an "ad free plan"?

If you think about it, the only thing you're buying is freedom from ads. If they show you ads, they're taking back the only thing you paid for.
Post reply on HN