41–50 of 444 posts
I'm curious what YouTube's real numbers are for YouTube profitability. Are these channels at such high subscriber rates that they're cutting into YouTube's ability to sustain themselves? They recently demonetized all of the Salad Fingers videos, causing David Firth to remove all those videos from YouTube and only allowing them to Patreon subscribers via Vimeo. I hope this pushes towards more independent, distributed…
Wait, am I reading this right? If you're a particularly popular channel, you're required to monetize and YT will block you if you don't? That's ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot. The vast majority of creators with many views do want to monetize, YouTube is losing almost nothing by allowing people not to if they choose. They must be really be desparate for revenue over there.
Advertising is certainly one way to square that. Honestly I don't see what the big deal is here.
I can't believe this has been going on for three days. YouTube seems like it is actively sabotaging its independent content creator's channels. But in this case it's not just some random kid living with their parent's. MIT and Blender are both respectable orgs.
I'm pretty annoyed, I was planning on using a bunch of MITOCW video series to level up some on some computer science and information theory this summer and I hadn't even gotten through the first lecture of the first series on my list (6.001 with Sussman from 1986, classic and awesome) when this stopped me in my tracks. I've been waiting patiently hoping it comes back, but at this point I feel like I'm going to have t…
It makes sense that YouTube would do this. I've been expecting YouTube to go after channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations with full teeth and claws for awhile now, and still expect it is coming. Channels not running ads reduced YouTube to a free video hosting service and cuts them out of the revenue loop completely. Their main goal, as I see it, is to transition into a centralized and much more co…
> I've been expecting YouTube to go after channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations with full teeth and claws for awhile now... An alternative solution would be for youtube to compete with patreon, allow sponsorship directly and take a cut. They have in fact been testing this on select channels. On some big channels you see a "sponsor" button next to the "subscribe" button.
Patreon's also got inertia for crowd funding and donations. Twitch has had paid subscriptions for a fairly long time and you still see Twitch streamers talking about their Patreon. Twitch only recently added multi tier support, but their bits for donations has essentially killed PayPal (largely since PayPal's service isn't very good).
There are people throwing cash at the screen, and YouTube is taking the slow road and they're going to end up as far behind as IBM was in the 90s.
PeerTube fundraiser: https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/peertube-a-free...
So YouTube created an effective monopoly through social networking, and now is abusing that position. Not surprising but disappointing. Hopefully people leave YouTube in droves and remind them that their position is not static. First time hearing of PeerTube, but looks good so far.
> now is abusing that position Offering to host your videos for free and display ads along them hardly seems like "abusing that position"...
YouTube gives Google _unparalleled_ access to what we like, how we think, what we want, ... It's the best profiling tool there is.
Let's not say "for free" when we are paying a price for it already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they picked the wrong org to gamble on strongarming in the case of Blender. Instead of getting them to monetize they've just compelled Blender to move platforms.
Other than unlikely damage to the total user critical mass effect, what does YouTube potentially lose from kicking blender out?
Wait, am I reading this right? If you're a particularly popular channel, you're required to monetize and YT will block you if you don't? That's ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot. The vast majority of creators with many views do want to monetize, YouTube is losing almost nothing by allowing people not to if they choose. They must be really be desparate for revenue over there.
More like if you're a particularly popular channel with revenue and a budget . YouTube isn't a service for nonprofits to use to offload their bandwidth costs. If you have money to pay for your other expenses, it's not reasonable to expect this one supplier to do it for free. Morally, Google deserves some kind of reimbursement here. Advertising is certainly one way to square that. Honestly I don't see what the big dea…
Also don't forget that YouTube gave them the option to not advertise on those videos. It's so arbitrarily capricious I was convinced it was a technical mishap when the news first broke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fellow paying YouTube Red customer, this hadn't occurred to me. I shall do so as well.
As a fellow paying YouTube Premium user I'm glad that YouTube is taking this step to insure the long-term viability of the platform I pay to support.