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

YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 191 posts

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#111

Post by izacus »

wazoox wrote: post #107
izacus wrote: post #73

YouTube Premium is literally the service HN wants: honest payment to support a Google service costs and creators publishing on it. It's a sustainable service which actually earns more for creators than ads and data mining (at least according to last CPC values I've seen for video ads). And yet, it seems like the author of this piece still feels entitled to complain about being asked to pay the price of service and th…

No, it's literally the service a monopolist would naturally come to after it killed all competition. First, kill everyone in the field by offering a service for less than what it costs; once the field has been cleared, begin harassing people for their money. This is absolutely despicable. Break Google up, it's way past time.

I fail to follow your logic? What's the scenario you want here: for Google to continue providing YouTube for free or that they rise prices so other competition can be cheaper?

What's your endgoal with the breakup?

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#112

Post by wazoox »

alexis_fr wrote: post #18
perl4ever wrote: post #15

I can't remember if it was on YouTube or not, but the other day, I wanted to watch a video about an Acura concept car, and it forced me to watch a Honda ad. I quit in disgust. People insist that online advertising works, but it's just too much to swallow any more.

4 ads every 12 minutes was quite common on TV. I’ve always thought Youtube would ramp it up to this level one day. It’s only a matter of time until VoD does it too (Netflix? for 7$?).

It was quite common in the US. We Europeans always considered US TV as totally unwatchable, because of the horrible, constant ad interruption.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#113

Post by izacus »

dawnerd wrote: post #96
izacus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're only getting them because you're not paying anything for the service. Why do you think your "ask" matters? Do you feel the same entitlement in other stores? When using Spotify? When visiting the movies?

Not entirely true, they have nag screens even when you subscribe.

I'm not really receiving any for a long while. Is it a regional thing?

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#114

Post by izacus »

Nextgrid wrote: post #78
izacus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's sad that a basic element of computing is now considered a privilege people need to pay for. Just like it's sad that being asked to pay the creator and service provider is now something we need to write whole articles to whine about. How do you thing we'll get rid of personal data tracking and collection if you don't even want to pay a pittance for service you're using?

My problem is not with paying. My problem is that I am being asked to pay not for the content itself, but to remove bullshit limitations that shouldn't be there in the first place. Also, it's very naive to think Google will suddenly stop tracking you just because you're paying for Premium... quite the opposite actually, as you've now given them a valid credit card and billing address.

Everything a paid service doesn't give you until you pay is a "bullshit limitation" right? Is all always arbitrary. Why do you refuse to pay for the features if you want them? Why do you feel they should serve you for free?

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#115

Post by phaus »

warp wrote: post #62
lokedhs wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's gotten so bad that I installed Newpipe instead. Basically I tolerated Youtube ads up to a point, but now that I'm using Newpipe instead, neither Youtube nor the creators get anything. I wish there was a better way, since it's not pracitcal to contribute to all channel's patreons.

Subscribe to Youtube premium?

Like many others mentioned, they don't completely stop nagging you simply because you subscribe.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#116

Post by zamadatix »

izacus wrote: post #73

YouTube Premium is literally the service HN wants: honest payment to support a Google service costs and creators publishing on it. It's a sustainable service which actually earns more for creators than ads and data mining (at least according to last CPC values I've seen for video ads). And yet, it seems like the author of this piece still feels entitled to complain about being asked to pay the price of service and th…

I switched to YouTube Premium recently and the one downside is it largely only pays for the delivery. The actual creator content itself seems to be inundated with in video ads or promotions. For something that costs nearly the same as the Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN bundle it's a bit disappointing I can't purchase what I really want to purchase still.

That being said it's a step in the right direction and that's the reason I decided to switch.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#117

Post by zrm »

Drakim wrote: post #37
cameronbrown wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about competition or regulation. Someone needs to find a way to drive down the cost of bandwidth. Disclaimer in bio.

I have the feeling that if you drive down the cost of bandwidth, the businesses that rely on it will say "Thank you" and change nothing, merely pocketing the bigger margin themselves. The number of ads isn't proportional to bandwidth cost, it's about what their research shows they can get away with.

High bandwidth costs are an advantage for big players like YouTube because their economies of scale allow them to pay less than smaller competitors. The more bandwidth costs the bigger their advantage.

Lower bandwidth prices would both increase service provider competition and decrease costs. The provider competition would then push the cost savings away from providers and toward either paying creators more or attracting viewers by showing fewer ads (or both).

It might not solve the entire problem but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#118

Post by SebastianKra »

astral303 wrote: post #105

The author throws Apple under the bus pointing out a forced full screen modal message advertising Apple TV+. IMO this is an unfair comparison, because the Apple TV+ modal ad came up exactly once and never again (once per Apple TV device). Whereas YouTube is nagging and interrupting the author every day, multiple times a day. I wish there was a YouTube alternative. I dislike their Apple TV YouTube app enough that I lo…

I use RSS to keep track of my subscriptions and Invidio.us to watch them.

RSS is IMO waaay better than the sub-box because they are in the same place as all my other news.

Invidio.us doesn't have the best interface, but it offers all the necessary features and let's me do picture-in-picture on iPad.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#119

Post by wazoox »

izacus wrote: post #111
wazoox wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's literally the service a monopolist would naturally come to after it killed all competition. First, kill everyone in the field by offering a service for less than what it costs; once the field has been cleared, begin harassing people for their money. This is absolutely despicable. Break Google up, it's way past time.

I fail to follow your logic? What's the scenario you want here: for Google to continue providing YouTube for free or that they rise prices so other competition can be cheaper? What's your endgoal with the breakup?

The goal of the breakup is to end a monopoly and a undeserved power-grab. For democracy to thrive, nobody should have too much power. Particularly corporations.

Re: YouTube’s annoying Premium spam

#120

Post by htk »

I’m a premium subscriber but I do agree that the pop-ups on non-paying users are too much. It’s a poor proposition to make users subscribe to your service to get rid of annoying pop-ups. It’s like an airline company telling customers to pay a fee to get rid of spikes on their seats.

But I also think the shrill tone of the article diminishes the message.

Post reply on HN