41–50 of 201 posts
Google seems really desparate to make money lately.
So, Google has to do something to monetize before somebody coughs to the fact that YouTube's numbers are dropping.
I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…
Yah, Google did the right thing here. You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads", and you can't say "if you subscribe you see less videos". They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or loose revenue sharing status.
But you do get less videos though. So they really either should say that, or figure out a better way... while the latter may be an unreasonable request, the former not so much.
I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…
The potential backlash is just too big, if you don't sign up you do not get revenue from the views that will push pretty much any YT contributor to sign the deal if the amount of YT subscribers gets even to single digits as a percentage of the total YT userbase.
Not all views are equal already, views from non-western countries generate little to no revenue as they either do not show ads at all or at a very low rate, the people that do generate ad revenue are people from countries that most likely won't mind getting the subscription and can afford it so even a small percentage of them moving to YTRed can have a drastic effect on the revenue of YT contributors which will force them to sign.
So option 7 and the reasonable one will be show videos, there's almost no loss for YT (many ISP's cache YT videos to save money which reduces YT bandwidth costs) but don't give money to contributors, they already don't get money if people use adblock, why would this be any different?
I'm actually kind of surprised that the YouTube terms of service require a new agreement and aren't structured in a way that would allow them to make changes like this unilaterally.
-warmest regards, youtube
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yah, Google did the right thing here. You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads", and you can't say "if you subscribe you see less videos". They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or loose revenue sharing status.
> and you can't say "if you subscribe you see less videos" But you do get less videos though. So they really either should say that, or figure out a better way... while the latter may be an unreasonable request, the former not so much.
I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's "pro user" unless it starts to limit new content, which is possible. Many videos are actually on YouTube without ads because they are stored as tutorials, etc. I get why Google wouldn't want to keep hosting them but it could mean a reduction in content.
I'm not sure the new deal affects those uploaders. The deal only affects people who are monetizing today via Ads and don't want to monetize from the Red subscription. If you are just uploading tutorials, you can just opt out of being a "YouTube Partner" altogether.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and you can't say "if you subscribe you see less videos" But you do get less videos though. So they really either should say that, or figure out a better way... while the latter may be an unreasonable request, the former not so much.
You get the same vides everyone else does, which is all that matters when you're considering whether to take out a Red subscription or not.
PS: downvotes for facts without any actual explanation is really lame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like it would be the worst time to launch a competitor. You'd be saying "check out this new site, it's like YouTube but we brought back the ads". If this new contract is actually an issue, it'll still take a little while for people to understand the downsides, and that's when you want to launch your "creator-friendly YouTube" or whatever.
You could wait for the problems to get worse to launch it, or you could offer a working platform now [if you had it] and switch to a totally-free model. As long as you have capital, burn through it to pay for everything until you have enough users. Then, after a year or two, introduce ads, or a subscription fee, or sell product placement or something. I still don't get why product placement isn't used in place of ads…