Live data from Hacker News

YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers

bleepingcomputer.com

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers

#521
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>people do not want to pay People don't want to pay for subscriptions because everything has become a bait and switch with infinite tiers! Whether it's the local newspaper, or a mega-tech company's corporate offerings. I tried subscribing (online) to my hometown newspaper within the last year. And a major national news publication. You know how people say (or used to) that the garbage on the internet is the fault of…

YouTube premium has just one tier. And before you raise the hypothetical question of additional tiers in future, by that kind of logic people shouldn't make any recurring purchase of anything since in future terms might change.

> by that kind of logic people shouldn't make any recurring purchase of anything since in future terms might change.

20 years ago, you'd be right. This argument would be paranoid nonsense. But that's not the world we live in.

We live in a world where your car manufacturer wants you to pay monthly for heated seats. Today it's normal for hardware you bought outright only works if you pay rent to someone else, and services like Netflix reduce features and increase the price. Amazon can, at any moment, delete books from your kindle that you already paid for. Digital rent extraction is a huge part of how the tech industry operates today.

Yes, you should avoid subscriptions where you can, because there is a real risk that they'll change the rules to take away what you paid for down the line.

And especially don't trust the advertising company to not put ads in their paid tiers down the line.

Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers

#522
post #4

On a related note as someone who uses YouTube constantly YouTube Premium is absolutely worth it.

HN/Reddit : For years, "I'm happy to pay for services that has no/few ads". Companies: Here's a ad-free version. Subscribe HN/Reddit: Why are you asking me to subscribe? I hate this

What, so Google can track me better? I hate YouTube's recommendation system and only watch videos in a Private browsing window. I would happily pay for YouTube if they wouldn't track me, shovel shit in my face, or otherwise misuse my data.

Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers

#523

As someone who regularly consumes YouTube videos with uBlock Origin, the only thing this move would make me do is stop watching YouTube.

Mission accomplished for YouTube then

I think they would be happier if I stopped using adblock instead. If there are many others like me, that means less viewers for YouTube channels.

Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers

#524

YouTube premium perfectly showcases why ads dominate the internet, because even when there is a paid option for a service much cheaper than any alternative, people do not want to pay (And I am not talking about too broke to pay cases). Serving an infinite video catalog is very expensive in terms of all resources (And yes Netflix is not comparable, unlike YouTube, Netflix can highly leverage cache boxes at ISPs). Vime…

People would buy two cups of boba tea, other than paying 12 per month. Ain't nothing wrong with this, once it went free, it is hard to go back.

Except in other-than-first-world countries it's equivalent to tens of cups of tea.

Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers

#525

Is it weird that this makes me want to subscribe to YouTube premium less than before? Feels like I've been poised to give them money for a while, since so many people seem to like the service. Now I feel like they're challenging me to a duel.

Mate, Youtube have existed for almost 2 decades and you probably used them for most of it. I have used it to watch countless hours of lectures, talks, interviews and entertainment. You probably have the same experience of it for the past 2 decade too. If you are not going to pay for THAT, you aren't going to pay for ANYTHING. Just admit you want free stuff. Stop deluding yourself into thinking that Youtube is somehow…

Google set the standard for free online videos. It's what they used to aggressively drive other competitors out of the market. Now they want to reap the "benefits" of market dominance.

Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers

#526
post #514

YouTube premium perfectly showcases why ads dominate the internet, because even when there is a paid option for a service much cheaper than any alternative, people do not want to pay (And I am not talking about too broke to pay cases). Serving an infinite video catalog is very expensive in terms of all resources (And yes Netflix is not comparable, unlike YouTube, Netflix can highly leverage cache boxes at ISPs). Vime…

No, it perfectly showcases that people do not want to pay 1000% more money for the privilege of paying a monthly subscription. Youtube Premium costs $12/month [1]. Ads average something like $2 per 1000 views to the creators (in some of the most common categories) [2]. Youtube takes a ~45% cut, so Youtube makes ~$4 per 1000 views from ads. So, to reach $12/month, you would need to average 3000 views per month. At a a…

I don't think you're taking everything into consideration here.

For one it's not only creators who make money. You also have to pay for hosting/development as well as Google's own profit. So the cost to buy ads is clearly greater than $2 per 1000.

I just looked and apparently the cost to buy 1000 views is about $20. So your off by 1000% yourself.

At that rate premium is priced equivalent to 600 views a month or 20 a day. Which doesn't sound absurd to me for someone who uses it as their main source of screen time.

Remember ad views /= video views. There may be 4 ads per video which mean we're talking about watching 5 videos per day.

How many ads would you see in a day watching cable?

If you only use it a few times a week to look up the odd tutorial or something then it's probably not worth it.

For anyone who watches hours everyday it seems a no brainer. I reckon the only reason people aren't buying is because of habit. They're used to ads so a subscription seems outrageous. With Netflix they're used to a subscription so an ad seems outrageous.

Or maybe the people being outraged are different people, I dunno.

Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers

#527
The thing with the paid subscription is that the bastards still track you. Paying for the service does not exclude you from surveillance, it supposedly makes it less obtrusive. Ad-blocker is insufficient for anything close to anonymity, and so is everything else. But it does make the tracking harder and it does move you ever so slightly to the tail of every distribution that matters for fingerprinting.

Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers

#528

> A YouTube spokesperson confirmed this experiment and said the company urges viewers to try YouTube Premium or allow ads on the platform. Cutting off users access unless they do something is not "urging."

> Cutting off users access unless they do something is not "urging." The company urges all users to do that, it is also experimenting with doing more than urging. The description quoted was exactly accurate.

Urges and also cuts! Cutting is a kind of urging! "Extreme urging" if you will.

Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers

#529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've said it before and I've said it again: ad-based content and pay content are incompatible business models. YouTube Premium fails because the content isn't worth paying for. The content is not worth paying for because it's been designed from the ground up to sell ads . When a website designed to sell ads fails to sell content, that's not evidence that selling content doesn't work, it's evidence that selling conten…

The content is not worth paying for because it's been designed from the ground up to sell ads. Some of it is, but the vast bulk of it clearly was not. You knew that of course. I'd strongly consider paying for YT if it were an independent company. But as a part of Google - fuck no.

> I'd strongly consider paying for YT if it were an independent company

YT wouldn't be YT if it was an independent company. Lack of competition in the field is a proof

Re: YouTube tests blocking videos unless you disable ad blockers

#530
When I first started using Youtube in late 2006, it didn't have ads, and I didn't have an ad-blocker because I didn't know they existed. Since then, I've more or less used Youtube the same way as I did. I use an ad-blocker now as part of my normal web browsing, and it, thankfully, happens to work on Youtube, giving me that same experience. If I eventually lose the ability to use ad-blockers on Youtube, I'll probably just wind up using it a lot less. I'm not sure I want to add yet another monthly payment.
Post reply on HN