611–620 of 783 posts
This is probably a good thing because it'll force companies to move to other video platform that let them host videos without ads. It might drive up competition in video space, which is a good thing. Youtube has been monopolizing video space for far too long because they were operating without much regards for profits, killing their competitors that don't have a deep pocket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it'd be nice if they offered a way for creators to pay for YouTube hosting so they can continue to offer their channels ad free This. I work with a small art organization, and we've started to put our artists videos online (we couldn't have an event this year). Youtube makes it easy. but like flickr they put ads in and there is no way to get rid of them. If we could pay for the service we probably would. I'm not sur…
Vimeo serves the paid, ad-free video hosting niche. They're probably celebrating this latest announcement from YouTube. YouTube has the advantage of organic traffic and discovery, though. Nothing stopping you from uploading the video to both services for the best of both worlds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's kind of a shitty move by Google. It's kind of business as usual for Google. Why would anyone expect them to be kind and generous suddenly when they have consistently for years pulled the rug out underneath previosly-free services. (or killed them off completely https://killedbygoogle.com/ ) gmail subscriptions are next, just wait and see.
That's probably the one service that will always be "free" since it's such a gold mine of your personal info
But search is the thing that is essentially free advertising space for them. So it's likely to stay free...
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…
This sounds like a pretty straightforward cause & effect here. Creators went for direct monetization outside of youtube instead of ads, and youtube responded by keeping their net income the same by just showing ads anyway. > But at the same time, there are people who have so heavily invested into the YouTube ecosystem with certain expectations for a very long time, and pretty much have their entire business on there,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Or how about paying $5/month for YouTube premium
As a content consumer I see this as a positive thing for me. A few months ago when YouTube decided to auto-add ads on all videos, my watch time on YouTube decreased by more than 50% since I consume all video content on either my phone or my tablet (where I don't have access to AdBlock), and I find the amount of ads I have to go through to watch a video so annoying that I'd rather not watch it at all. As a result I sp…
If you're on a network you control, you can do network level ad blocking :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The YT deal is that they take a cut of (ad) revenue to fund storage, cpu, bandwidth costs and profit in exchange for hosting the content. Many of these content providers disabled the feature effectively making YT operate at a loss to host their video while continuing to use the platform. I already have shown you other examples of these types of attempts which also didn't fly. You can't sell a TV in Walmart for 0.99$…
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. (YouTube monetizes directly with its viewers too: https://www.youtube.com/premium )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Linus of the Tech Tips variety has said that a major reason they kept paying for the forums, which are a pain to keep healthy & don't generate much revenue, is so that they could have a direct line of communication to their core fan base no matter what happens. Similarly there's a reason LTT launched Floatplane. Risk management is important regardless of how big your business is. Even if you're large enough for youtu…
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…
YouTube premium is great, I'm surprised it's not more popular. I'd cut my Spotify subscription way before YouTube, but that's not what I typically hear from my friends. Spotify = Streaming music $12/month YouTube = Streaming music + learned SolidWorks + learned Blender + learning Spanish + general entertainment of all sorts... $12/month. YouTube is incredible.
- No ads
- Minor usability improvements to the app
- “premium” content
- YouTube Music
The “premium” content is trash and YouTube Music is the worst music app with any significant effort put behind it, in addition to being a significant step down from Google‘s previous offering.
Most people would rather deal with the ads.