YouTube premium gets rid of all the ads, unless creators have embedded them in the video. There is lots of good content for toddlers on YouTube, but it is unwatchable with ads. I watch more myself now all the ads are gone, plus you get youtube music, not as good as spotify but good enough.
Agreed. I had Youtube Premium through Google Play Music until Google finally axed GPM. I was so disappointed by how poorly Google handled that process that I cancelled my subscription and lost my YT premium. Youtube is completely unbearable without premium - I have no idea how non-subscribers tolerate Youtube content. The ads are so intrusive. I would totally pay $5-$10 per month for a Youtube only subscription but I…
Exactly, I'd pay for Youtube Premium if it didn't come bundled with a music subscription, and the price reflected that.
Yeah, and I think this drives the point home even further. You really want a risk mitigation strategy for YouTube's hostile actions against creators. It's been a slow but steady creep. So, if your business is built off the back of something like Facebook, or YouTube, or Instagram, you probably want a backup plan. I've seen a few YouTubers have a centralized site for signups and support where they host all their conte…
Can creators self-host videos on their personal website and push that video to Youtube for their subscribers? That way, they can direct users who don't want ads to their website. Then they are not completely dependent on YT, FB, etc.
If you even have a few thousand people regularly watching you (whcih is common these days). The bandwidth costs start to add up.
How do you handle driving on roads with billboards? Or walking through a city? In most of the US, the number of outdoor places you can go without advertising attacking you is dwindling. Europe seems better regarding roads (fewer billboards and more highways with none) but similar in cities. The rise of blindingly bright LED billboards in the US feels like all the downsides of a sci-fi dystopian world without any of t…
Actually, most billboards around the roads in Czech Republic are being dismantled due to being too startling to drivers - the advertisers fought it quite hard, even placed big Czech flags instead of adds to the billboards due to some provision in the law saying you can't just remove a flag of the country. But the ultimately list and billboards around roads are going away. Also more thought is now being given to "visu…
Good to hear :). I think in the US some places must be much worse than others. Here in Portland, Oregon, on a 7 mile round trip (without much overlap) through the urban core that I make regularly by bike I only see maybe four billboards, and all but one (a not too large sign of a stadium that mostly advertises events there) are the traditional paper type (or whatever it is that they use). Most are near highways or highway access so I assume anyone who uses highways regularly will see more of them. There are also some small advertisements (also not LCD) on bus shelters, although there aren't many bus shelters. I rarely notice any of them unless I am stopped at a traffic light near one. It took me a while to even remember most of them. I'd still prefer fewer of them, but it isn't at all comparable to using the web without an adblocker. Additionally, there is no chance that the billboards will install malware on my computer.
Having youtube premium is definitely the biggest time saver for me. Other than not showing ads, lets you listen to videos like a podcast on mobile in background. For podcasts that also posts youtube videos, I just use youtube since it lets me see reactions when I want to from podcasters. I never understand HN Crowd complaining about ads on YouTube. It literally costs(1 month sub) less than typing a comment like this…
Opportunity costs can only be considered if you could (and would) monetize your extra time. It's not the case for most people.
> They always had to add ads at some point, hosting video, and the bandwidth and transcoding that goes with it, is incredibly expensive, not to mention the dev time going into creating such a massive platform. This isn't about covering expenses that they couldn't afford otherwise. This is about making enormously rich people even richer.
>This isn't about covering expenses that they couldn't afford otherwise. This is about making enormously rich people even richer. So you truly believe people should be entitled to free video hosting? It literally costs money to host content. If you make the platform no money, Youtube has no obligation to keep you around. Just because I pay for my groceries doesn't mean you get yours for free. Just because one person…
I simply stated that this isn't about covering necessary expenses that wouldn't have been able to be covered otherwise, which is how you initially framed it.
I know there are several content creators (such as Jim Sterling) that have their videos ad-free as a perk for their supporters (since he's supported enough via Patreon). He's pretty angry about this change. I somewhat understand Google's stance on this, as it's a service that should be allowed to make money even on people who don't want to make money. They don't really have such a way to opt out of pretty much any ot…
Hosting this video requires a lot of storage and bandwidth. I would not be surprised to learn YouTube alone requires $50,000,000 to $75,000,000 in hard drive purchases per year. Sure, they make a lot more than that in advertising, but I imagine every year those hosting and storage costs go up. Why not implement an option for creators to share some of that load if they want to opt-out of advertisements on their videos…
Why is it shady, should Youtube host your video for free? Youtube is an insane free service, there's nothing that comes close to the video and stream quality. To be honest I'm surprised so many video's have been hosted without ads while the creators cash in outside of Google.
>should Youtube host your video for free? Yes, because I am making content for them for free. It is unpaid labor on my part in exchange for free hosting. Now it is unpaid labor that makes them money.
Could someone explain the downvotes? I do not believe this is such a radical opinion. Prior to this change you were still producing content for the YouTube ecosystem for free until you hit 4k view hours. Then you could begin to make a meager amount of money. It is not such a great deal for content creators and now it is even worse.
Can creators self-host videos on their personal website and push that video to Youtube for their subscribers? That way, they can direct users who don't want ads to their website. Then they are not completely dependent on YT, FB, etc.
If you even have a few thousand people regularly watching you (whcih is common these days). The bandwidth costs start to add up.
Not really. Good dedicated servers come with multiple TB free = 1000x 1 GB stream. And usually it's only pennies afterwards.
How is it a "scam" to have other sources of income for a video?
The YT deal is that they take a cut of (ad) revenue to fund storage, cpu, bandwidth costs and profit in exchange for hosting the content. Many of these content providers disabled the feature effectively making YT operate at a loss to host their video while continuing to use the platform. I already have shown you other examples of these types of attempts which also didn't fly. You can't sell a TV in Walmart for 0.99$…
It would be great if YouTube let creators pay for hosting directly (just like other web hosts) if they wanted to maintain the ad-free experience for their viewers.