I use Adblock, but also believe creators should be paid and YouTube itself cannot exist for free. If you’re not willing to pay and also don’t want ads, what’s the solution?
I was willing to pay for "no ads", YouTube had the perfect product for me, Premium Lite, which I gladly paid for 2 years until I got an email in October: > Subject: Your Premium Lite membership will be discontinued > Thank you for being one of our first Premium Lite members. > We’re writing to let you know that after October 25, 2023, we will no longer offer your version of Premium Lite. While we understand this may…
Aame, I'm willing to pay for just the Ad free YouTube, without the tie up to YouTube Music.
OK, this has been brewing on for a while, so time for a Plan B. Since I don't have enough karma do do a full AskHN, here's to hijacking a comment thread:
Question : What's the best solution for someone mainly watching STEM channels and various video essayists (Contrapoints, Stories Of Old, various art critics)?
Personally, Youtube Premium feels like paying for a protection racket. So far I'm inclined towards paying for Nebula. Any other ideas anyone?
Do you think Premium will be ad free forever? I doubt it, because once they get enough people paying for Premium, they can make even more money by adding ads to Premium.
I think the current offering is worth it. If / when they change it for much worse I might join the riots then.
This is why I pay for YouTube. The content provides decent value and I don’t want to see ads.
What will you do when YT Premium gets ads too?
I’d stop using the service. But it makes no sense for them to not have an ad free option where you just pay them the value of what the ads would have given them.
Please YouTube, make things even worse by embedding ads into the video itself, like twitch does. After I had to watch the same ad over and over for the new Zelda, then Aquaman 2 , I eventually managed to delete my twitch account and stop losing my time there. Hopefully will be the same with youtube, I didn't watch a single ad in 12 years, I don't understand how people does it.without sponsorblock and ublock, youtube…
The Ads you see are only because the creator enabled them for monetization AFAIK. There are many channels without Ads.
That's how it used to work. Ads show on all videos now, the only difference is whether Google shared the ad money with the creators
OK, this has been brewing on for a while, so time for a Plan B. Since I don't have enough karma do do a full AskHN, here's to hijacking a comment thread: Question : What's the best solution for someone mainly watching STEM channels and various video essayists (Contrapoints, Stories Of Old, various art critics)? Personally, Youtube Premium feels like paying for a protection racket. So far I'm inclined towards paying f…
I bought a Nebula lifetime to help support that lifeline here.
Paying because a service is making itself suck on purpose to create “fake value” to make you relent to their suckage is objectionable business practice, and all those that support YouTube by buying premium need to think a little deeper about the kind of future their are supporting with their money: you’re paying for pain relief instead of innovation and, frankly, condemning the Internet.
You are missing something key. There is a very popular strategy that YouTube and Uber and a bunch of other companies followed. If you have a product with network effects you don't sell it for what it's worth right away. First, you heavily subsidize the price to maximize your user base, only then do you start charging what the product was worth all along. You got convinced that the unreasonably good initial offering i…
> First, you heavily subsidize the price to maximize your user base, only then do you start charging what the product was worth all along.
More and more I feel this should run afoul of anti-trust laws. It's one thing to subsidize a product short term. It's another to subsidize a product for years upon years so you can squeeze out any competition in the market. In the example of Uber and Lyft, how many start-ups that weren't flush with hundreds of millions of VC cash completely failed or never even got off the launchpad because there was no way for them to compete against a company selling it's services at a loss for years at at time?
You are missing something key. There is a very popular strategy that YouTube and Uber and a bunch of other companies followed. If you have a product with network effects you don't sell it for what it's worth right away. First, you heavily subsidize the price to maximize your user base, only then do you start charging what the product was worth all along. You got convinced that the unreasonably good initial offering i…
> First, you heavily subsidize the price to maximize your user base, only then do you start charging what the product was worth all along. More and more I feel this should run afoul of anti-trust laws. It's one thing to subsidize a product short term. It's another to subsidize a product for years upon years so you can squeeze out any competition in the market. In the example of Uber and Lyft, how many start-ups that…
I'm not an attorney, but have sat through many sessions with our legal team in the past on this topic (pricing models). Agree the practice may fee icky, but I'm not sure this case would qualify as anticompetitive (in the US). First, lawyers would have a field day at defining and redefining the market. Related, it is unclear what other services we as consumers no longer have access to due to them executing this strategy. So across consumer harm, market power/monopoly, and predatory pricing the legal case might be challenging to construct. Back to your point, maybe this practice SHOULD run afoul with anti-trust laws, but the laws may need to change to apply to this situation.