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

YouTube's New Hue

design.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 292 posts

Re: YouTube's New Hue

#241

Post by filoleg »

DarkCrusader2 wrote: post #235
qingcharles wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or paying for Premium. I do that to make sure the creators get something.

Look at how Disney, Prime, Netflix etc. are constantly jacking up their prices and introducing ads in paid tiers. There is zero reason why Google won't do the same.

Fair, but YouTube is imo one of those services that seems pretty fair about price increases. Disclaimer: pricing is regional, so I can only speak for the US pricing (as that’s what I personally dealt with).

It was $7.99 on launch in 2014 (as an early adopter price that they actually let people keep until 2024), $9.99 in 2016, to $11.99 in 2018 (for new subscribers only, you could still keep the old price if you were already paying), to $13.99 in 2024.

While the 2024 was rather steep, it imo doesn’t seem unreasonable (especially for the family plan that went from $17.99 to $22.99, which lets up to 5 people join with their own Goog accounts).

Sidenote: I personally don’t care in the slightest whether people decide to pay for this or just watch with ads or deal with adblockers (or other workarounds). But discussions of YT premium on HN have been a major eye opener for me, as they made me stop believing entirely in all the claims I see on HN in regards to “omg only if Facebook (or any other popular service that is free but makes money through ads) allowed a paid tier without ads, I would instantly pay, as this is an honest business model I support [followed by a large support of that opinion in replies]”. I always took them as genuine takes, but turns out that if even on HN that doesn’t end up holding true (given the discussion in this thread), it stands no chance among the general population.

As for me, I am glad that this option exists, simply because Youtube is one of those online services I peruse quite a lot, and not having to deal with their ads (or even thinking about them or being aware they exist) has been something I am glad to pay the amount they are asking for. Plus, I genuinely support the model of being able to pay a small amount instead of dealing with free-by-making-money-through-ads, especially for services that I spend a ton of time using.

Re: YouTube's New Hue

#242

Post by kuylar »

snailmailman wrote: post #179
xarope wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I self-host invidious but in the last few months it has been struggling (slow buffering, often doesn't load saying media not recognized, etc, which I understand is YT being actively hostile). Any better options, or am I "holding it wrong"?

YouTube has been really cracking down on alt clients and YouTube downloaders lately I think. I don’t even use one, and I see “you must log in to view this video” on videos shockingly frequently if I’m not logged in. Not even age restricted videos, they give that on any video at random now. I wouldn’t be surprised if soon it will require an account to watch at all, and they will just get to ban any accounts that use A…

YouTube currently bans every IP address with a lot of guest traffic. They have also banned all datacenter IP ranges.

Sometimes a "poToken" (a magic string that's used to 'validate' a client to prove that it's an official client) can be used to bypass this, but most of the time it's easier to just sign in with a Google account (which is also dangerous because YouTube has been banning accounts with unusual activity since last year[0])

Nowadays, most third party clients either use a browser/WebView to generate a poToken[1], or directly require a user to enter it for downloading[2]

I feel like the parent commenters issue is related to this, and it looks like there's an ongoing PR to implement support for it[3] (Invidious already had supported poTokens, hovewer their implementation were setting a single token in the config, and AFAIK that method doesn't work anymore)

[0] https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/issues/10085 [1] https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/pull/11955 [2] https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/wiki/PO-Token-Guide#guide-p... [3] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/pull/4985

Re: YouTube's New Hue

#244

Post by asacrowflies »

x187463 wrote: post #219
qingcharles wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or paying for Premium. I do that to make sure the creators get something.

I have had premium on a family plan for almost as long as it has existed. It's great to add family members who use YouTube on their televisions giving them an ad-free experience without the shenanigans of setting up blockers at a network level. I very much don't understand the opposition to paying for some of the services we use every day. I get not wanted to pay 15-20/month for something like Apple or Disney, if you…

Why do you not see the issue with some of us not wanting to give fraudulent extorting thieves money? The previous comment was pretty clear and blatant in it's example of unethical immoral even illegal advertisement...and your only reply is why not pay to stop it!

What's next.... Pay this subscription or we will install malware?or break your windows?

Re: YouTube's New Hue

#245

Post by asacrowflies »

snakeyjake wrote: post #239
rakkhi wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a reasonable argument to say you can pay $20/month or whatever it is in your country and avoid ad's altogether?

Yes. We can talk about what kinds of ads are appropriate but the right to use YouTube without paying either in money or time spent watching ads has never, will never, and does not currently exist.

Seems rather extreme and unprovable... Malicious ads already blow up this argument

Re: YouTube's New Hue

#246

Post by abhgh »

sublinear wrote: post #221
x187463 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had premium on a family plan for almost as long as it has existed. It's great to add family members who use YouTube on their televisions giving them an ad-free experience without the shenanigans of setting up blockers at a network level. I very much don't understand the opposition to paying for some of the services we use every day. I get not wanted to pay 15-20/month for something like Apple or Disney, if you…

I don't even care about any of that. I simply don't want to log into youtube because the recommendations inevitably turn to shit and I don't want to be stuck with them. The only sane way to use youtube is to never log in and nuke the session every week or so.

YouTube recommendations have worked very well for me. I listen to a lot of talks and if it weren't for the recommendations I wouldn't have discovered some very interesting talks or even areas. The only time the recommendations derail is when I have guests over and they login into my account (because that's the one always logged in on my roku). But that is expected. And it's easy to get rid of, by deleting the history in a custom date range, or simply by continuing to watch the kind of stuff I was watching earlier.

Re: YouTube's New Hue

#247

Post by ziml77 »

getnormality wrote: post #90

Reminds me of the infamous Pepsi logo redesign: https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...

Goodness I forgot how absolutely insane that was. The people who put that document together went wayyyy too hard on the drugs.

Re: YouTube's New Hue

#248

Post by TheBozzCL »

qingcharles wrote: post #197
DarkCrusader2 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, if someone is not using UBlock and Revanced, it is 100% their fault. Megacorps has very clearly told us that they want ever profits even if it destroys lives, our planet and our future.

Or paying for Premium. I do that to make sure the creators get something.

TBH, right now that just feels like rewarding YouTube’s bad ad behavior. I’d rather just pay the creators via Patreon.

Re: YouTube's New Hue

#249

Post by soared »

skinkestek wrote: post #103
CrimsonCape wrote: post #96

An ad interrupted my video today, it was Tom Hanks in a podcast talking about his prostate. The ad was (not so obviously) AI generated; both an AI clone of his voice and an AI-generated face-swap/ lip replacement. This seemed pretty surprising because it was fairly convincing. He looks like he is saying the dialog of the ad. It's surprising because there's no way the creator of the ad got Hanks' approval to use his l…

> I just scratch my head wondering if this massive company realizes the garbage they are forcing into our lives. I know someone who works on the technical side of a national newspaper and he has been happy and encouraged me to continue when I pointed out scammy ads ("Japanese knives" and that sort of things). Seems they don't vet ads individually but can take down ads they become aware of. With Google however it seem…

Advertising like that occurs in an open marketplace where pretty much anyone can place a bid. Some publishers have vendors that help and can set up rules, private marketplaces, etc. but effectively anyone can advertise on your site by default.

Re: YouTube's New Hue

#250

Post by addandsubtract »

bhandziuk wrote: post #238
ncann wrote: post #17

> Robyn: To give YouTube a sense of motion, we created a dynamic red-to-magenta gradient. For the second color, orange and yellow were strong contenders, but magenta felt like the most natural pairing with our new red. Interestingly, magenta doesn't often appear in the natural world, so it symbolizes the imagination and evolution that YouTube embodies. We also placed the gradient at a 45-degree angle with magenta on…

I noticed this gradient and knew it didn't used to be there. I thought for a long time there was something wrong with my TV. I would walk around the room looking at the TV from different angles and would move the progress bar to different points in the video. I was looking at the color settings and other known-color images. Ultimately I'm glad I saw this article and I can stop thinking I've gone crazy out that my tv…

Plot twist: your TV hasn't updated YouTube yet.
Post reply on HN