I will pay for premium when it means they will not sell my data and will allow me control over my algorithm to prevent it from playing to my vulerabilities. Since they won’t change, I won’t pay.
when it means they will not sell my data and will allow me control over my algorithm to prevent it from playing to my vulerabilities
The problem is that this will never happen. That boat has sailed - companies will never give up on their existing revenue streams. They may say that paying today will exempt you from the ads, but it’s only a matter of time before they ramp up the cost and start showing ads anyway. That’s how cable television started, and it’s how internet streaming will end as well. And as for the not selling data/controlling the algorithm, well you have no way of proving that they don’t do that so they’ll do it no matter what they say.
There’s no reason for google to do this whatsoever. They have their business model - any new revenue streams will 100% definitely not reduce the other ones at all. It’s just gonna be another giant dump into the pile of enshittification.
I also want to be charged the amount they actually make off of me. I suspect that’s less than the subscription price
I will never pay for premium. Yewtu.be and all the similar front end ad killers are always there when ublock Origin gets half a step behind in the never ending cat and mouse it seems to have with YT. Fuck tech companies. Fuck YouTube. Fuck Reddit. Fuck em all.
Who are they selling your data to?
Literally everyone. Have you been living under a rock?
Google doesn’t sell your data, they’re one of the few that don’t. That doesn’t mean they aren’t misusing your data though. They’re more the dragon hoarder than the thief selling off stolen goods. They want all your data so they can learn everything about you. Selling your data to others makes it worth way less. It’s a difference in strategy. Google retains the data to enhance their products, Facebook sells your data because they have no products that would be improved by keeping it.
Sorry if I miscommunicated. No, they’re not selling your home address. But the idea that they aren’t monetizing your personal data aggressively is laughably wrong and heavily documented.
So literally no one, then?
I don’t know who started this trend of “showing ads is the same thing as selling data” but it’s fucking irritating to see so many people confidently wrong about something they could figure out themselves if they thought about Google’s business model for 30 seconds.
Since we’re all dummies and you know the answers, please go ahead and explain how Google goes about selling heavily targeted ads to uniquely identifiable groups, but that they also are not “selling data”.
Are we being massively pedantic and saying that it’s not actual user data, but rather leveraging said data to sell ads to the anonymized targeted groups, who are actively tracked by Google around the internet so ads can be served up at opportune times in their browsing?
Because that dumb argument is like saying Oxford Dictionary doesn’t sell words, they sell definitions; or that McDonalds doesn’t sell beef, they sell hamburgers.
There is a massive massive difference between using the data and selling the data.
They sell ads, but data. If you can’t see the difference I can’t help you. It’s not “pedantic”, it’s being factual. Sorry you apparently think facts don’t matter.
Showing ads is not the same as selling data, but it’s also not really what google is doing. Google spies on you and uses that data to sell access to you to any company that wants to exploit you. They’ve also been known to give (not sell) data on you to law enforcement based solely on your location data or things you looked up.
I simply turned off my watch history, no more algorithm.
Not to be rude, but I’m struggling to believe half the comments in this thread are legit. Do you really mean to tell me that Lemmy, a platform notoriously populated almost exclusively by anti-corporate tech people that really value FOSS and privacy –hence the reason why all of us are here instead of Reddit– has this many users thinking it is a remotely acceptable idea to pay for a Premium service for one of the most invasive companies online?
I think most of us understand the many underhanded techniques used by Google to achieve an almost monopolistic control of some aspects of the internet, but when talking about YouTube, suddenly all the logic is reduced to “if you use a service, pay for it, or else let them show you ads”?? what??? Also, what’s with comparing adblocking to stealing???
My own answer to the topic of this thread is that no, I won’t be paying for YouTube Premium anytime soon, possibly ever. Google has betrayed my trust many times in the past, and on top of that I don’t consider adverts as a legitimate source of income, so I will block any and all ads everywhere without paying an extra cent.
“But if you keep using their service, so you need to give them some form of revenue! Otherwise you just want free stuff!” I only keep using their service because Google has spent many years dumping on other platforms so that YouTube is –almost– the only platform that still exists where all the good creators are, so I will begrudgingly watch them on YouTube because there aren’t any options. But I will resist Google’s many insidious attempts to monetize me to the best of my ability while doing so.
That said, it’s really dishonest to claim that people who block ads on YouTube just want free stuff and don’t understand that services have a cost. Personally, I pay for Nebula because I do support the project and the creators involved. But YouTube won’t see a cent from me, not with my consent at least.
Not everyone is on Lemmy because they’re anti-corporate, FOSS enthusiasts. For example, I came here because Reddit became a dumpster fire of unreasonable policies and very restrictive accessibility to the site. I simply will not install their app. Everything I’ve seen and heard about it is revolting. I’m certain I will hate it and I’m not going to bother trying at this point. Since a nontrivial amount of my time on Reddit was via an app, and that app no longer works, I’m just not going to use the service.
I like FOSS, and I support FOSS whenever I can, but I’m hardly anti corporate. The big G has tried and failed at getting monopoly status for most things. Arguably their most successful services are search, mail and YouTube.
Me, personally, I pay for Google’s services and share those benefits with my family. We have extra Google drive storage, YouTube music/YouTube premium, and all the benefits that come with that (I don’t recall all of them right now). One payment takes care of my entire household. So for less than $20/month we all enjoy all the benefits of those subscriptions. It comes out to less than $5/person/month.
I don’t blame anyone for not wanting those services. I certainly don’t hold that against them. I completely understand the viewpoint. YouTube is very aggressive about everyone having premium. I see ads on YouTube when I’m using it on my work PC for music or to look something up on there; because my personal Google account is not and will never be associated to my work PC. I see what it’s like “on the other side” so to speak. I can see how aggro their efforts are to get people to subscribe to premium. How invasive the ads have become, and how annoying it is to deal with all that. I get it.
I also don’t really hate Google for it. They want people to buy their premium service and they have taken steps to try to encourage that. I understand, but I don’t necessarily agree with their choices.
In my mind they’re not the most egregious offender for being anti consumer in their methodology. Good examples of anti-consumer behaviour is Netflix trying to put an end to account sharing, or Reddit’s API changes that basically kicked out a nontrivial number of its users for seemingly no good reason. There’s plenty more anti consumer actions from other companies that I can point to that are far worse than what YouTube is doing.
In my mind, Google has supported FOSS more than most big tech companies. Android, at it’s core is FOSS, built on Linux. Chrome is based on chromium, which is FOSS as well. There’s numerous other examples of Google supporting FOSS. Sure, they have their own versions of that integrate Google services into the products and provide extra features on top of what the FOSS versions do. But I can’t think of any company that even comes close to the support of FOSS that Google has. In my mind they’re simply not the worst offender. They’re not innocent, but not the worst.
That’s my opinion though and it’s just one of many possible opinions. Far be it for me to impose my opinion on anyone else. If you want to distrust Google and use FOSS things instead, that’s fine. It’s your choice. If you agree but still don’t want to pay them for premium, that’s okay too. Or if you want to drink the Kool-aid and pay for all of their services, that’s also your choice.
Have a great day.
I’m only here 'cause it was the first lemmy instance I joined after the reddit bullshit.
I pay for YT Premium.
I’m also back on reddit arguing with people.
So, yeah… I’m everything this place hates.
I don’t hate you. I’m sure there are plenty more that feel similarly.
I also feel like there is a nontrivial number of people who could not possibly care less; and as always, a silent majority of people who are simply lurking, who express their voice through voting only. (Special shout out to all the lurkers. You’re awesome)
It’s all personal choice and the opinion expressed in the OP is just that, an opinion. Same as me. I can only express my opinion. If that upsets people, then I’m sorry for that. I’m not going to change my opinion to gratify someone else in their opinion or position. If anyone wishes to have a discussion about why they think my position is not properly informed or wrong in their eyes, then that’s fine. I can engage in conversation about it, but at the end of the day, I make my choices, you make yours, and everyone else makes theirs. My decision to pay for YT premium doesn’t really affect anyone but me, and Google.
No one hates you, some people just think youre an idiot for still using reddit after leaving it
More content than Lemmy shrug
Im not gonna lie, if raw content is all you want reddit is, like, option number 50 in terms of both volume and quality.
Is it really content count? Or just habit?
I like the layout of reddit/lemmy. If there’s something like that but has the activity of reddit I’m all ears.
So habit then. If its the specific formatting, no, reddits the literal largest of this style.
We don’t hate here. Except capitalism. We hate that.
Shoutout to Nebula! I might pay for it but it’s like old YouTube without the bullshit. Worth it in my opinion.
Absolutely agree with the youtube subscription part. I am not giving them money if i can.
So what do I do? Patreon. I watch ad free, and i give 1 dollar a month instead on patreon. Win-win.
P.S. However, this way only a select few get money from me, but it is what it is.
I’m only here because Reddit pissed me off. I toss money toward my instance and I’d be fine tossing a few bucks per month to YouTube if it meant no ads.
You have it all wrong. Giving money to FOSS is okay, giving money to YouTube is bad.
I started using nebula which costs $30/year (discounted price, easy to get). It has some of the YouTube creators, shares revenue with them, has no ads, and isn’t google.
Sure it has a fraction of the YouTube content, but there’s more new stuff there every day than I could watch. And it isn’t toxic like YouTube.
See my other comment. I also noted a lot of the accounts that promote YouTube premium, are less than a week old. So there is suspicion of trolling or astroturfing
Half the community came from reddit during 3rd party app purge it’s no surprise they wouldn’t be too concerned or know anything about privacy
I’ve been riding an old “premium” subscription from the introduction of Google Play Music (or whatever it was called) years ago when it was introduced, for like $3/month. Seemed like a reasonable deal to me.
They did just (finally) jack the price up on me, though, so as soon as i get some free time i’m canceling.
"They do want to pay for premium! They just don’t understand what a great value it is! SHOW THEM THE AD AGAIN! SHOW THEM ON EVERY VIDEO SO THEY WILL UNDERSTAND!!! "
Reasons not to buy premium:
- Google having a history of all the videos you watch via your account.
- Even if Google provided an option to opt out of tracking there would be no reason to trust then since they have lied about not tracking people in the past.
- YouTube seems to redirect any Premium profits intended to creators to the entity which made a copyright claim on a video. This would be sensible if YouTube’s copyright claim system wasn’t so vulnerable to abuse. Normal (yellow) demonetisation will pay out from Premium though. https://youtu.be/PRQVzPEyldc?si=5-wFn2SqPZLdOlqa
- Features are removed from YouTube to incentivise Premium such as playing videos while your phone screen is locked.
- Similar to above, Google have been increasing the amount of ads particularly on phones where ad blockers are harder to use. I.E. pushing users to Premium not by making the service better, but by making non-Premium worse.
Your utub link seems to contain a tracking Id.
Not particularly surprising. It was copied from the YouTube iOS app…
Meta-evil
Point one: I’m pretty certain they already track that. With or without account. And you’re on the internet, without a VPN there is no privacy. You are also able to remove that history any moment you want. Is it Ideal? No. But you should’ve acted 10-15 years prior if you wanted to stop this. It’s still not ideal though.
Point two: I agree. There does need to be space for them to repent, but they aren’t actively trying to, so don’t trust them (see the next point as an example of that).
Point three That’s a shame. They really need to fix that, though with how corpos do things nowadays, not sure that’ll happen.
Point four: That’s normal, expected and a reasonable business decision. Most of these features they likely added after premium, and they’re meant as incentives. Why else would you want to but their premium, if not for the added features?
Point five: This is shitty and mostly inexcusable behaviour. It’s god awful, and they really shouldn’t do it. I do have to play devil’s advocate a little. They are fully, 100% in their right to do this. If you don’t like it, vote with your wallet (and time). If we stop using their services, they’ll stop making it worse. They are still A-holes for doing it though.
Point one: I’m pretty certain they already track that. With or without account. And you’re on the internet, without a VPN there is no privacy. You are also able to remove that history any moment you want.
I mean sure, they could try combining the user agents my unofficial apps provide with my carrier’s NAT IP to build a profile on me, but it would be highly inefficient and imprecise to the point where it’s almost useless for them. With a Youtube Premium account they have an identity tied to an email address, full name, and payment info that they can relate every click in their apps and websites to. If I also use their other services with the same account, I would be paying them to spy on everything I do and sell my data, so other companies can sell me crap.
If you’ve already got that much of a set-up to guarantee privacy, it’s a very good point. Most people aren’t that dedicated to privacy (I think), but it’s still a very valid point in your case
I would be very interested to know how good they are at tracking a user across brand new browser sessions. I have mine set to delete cookies, cache and history (minus a few trusted domains) on close but I’d imagine it would be easy to differentiate between me and others in my household by browser fingerprints alone. The only question then is whether those guesses are reliable enough for Google to essentially treat those sessions as 1 person, or throw it away since there are bound to be quite a lot of cases where 10s or 100s of people on the same IP have very similar browsing habits and configurations and trying to figure out who is who would be incredibly difficult (think offices where everybody could have exactly the same laptop and share similar browsing habits due to working for the same company). That’s my cope anyway. The alternative is Youtube over Tor for which would be painful.
Points 4 and 5 on my end are essentially two sides to of the same coin. I should clarify, I don’t have a problem with YouTube introducing a new feature and making that Premium-only.
I would be very interested to know how good they are at tracking a user across brand new browser sessions
It’s called fingerprinting
Google having a history of all the videos you watch via your account.
They already do this anyway. They also do it whether you have an account or not.
What about the reasons to buy premium? Pretty much none right?
I mean, fair. The two big reasons are that your views are worth much more than normal viewers to creators, so it does mean you’re helping support the content you watch. Further, the more people who pay for content the less influence advertisers have. All this said, I would assume that $5 a month to your favorite creators (Patreon, Paypal, Librepay, etc) would be worth more to them than a share of your YouTube Premium subscription fee.
That’s what I’m thinking. The day I have a job I would much rather support my favourite creators directly than pay YouTube and hope for some trickle down effect
Fyi all the removed features of the YouTube app they want you to pay for? Work fine on Firefox
Playing while locked doesn’t seem to work unfortunately in Firefox for iOS. You can do the trick where you start PIP and then immediately lock the phone to play in the background, but that only works if you don’t unlock your phone again.
That’s weird. On Android I just take the “notification” and can press play and it’ll work just fine.
iOS always has been finnicky
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/PRQVzPEyldc?si=5-wFn2SqPZLdOlqa
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Im not holding my breath for someone to start hosting petabytes of videos for free. I don’t like ads, so I’m just going to pay.
imagine paying to remove ads
They started the war, never forget, never forgive.
Used to be ads on the side of videos, and they were still scams like “Hit the target to win a FREE ipad!” At least they didn’t block the actual content. No one should ever feel bad about blocking ads lmao.
Ads are as pure brainwashing as the definition allows for, literally changing your subconscious behavior by ceaseless repetition. It’s considered torture under the Geneva convention, not sure how people got to the point where they think this is ok on radio, tv, billboards, everywhere all the time 24/7, but I have a feeling the brainwashing played a role.
It’s also cool that YouTube Premium pays a bigger cut to creators when compared against regular YouTube ads.
I do like that.
How much? I doubt it’s more than just enough to make people think that, “oh that’s nice”, while doing some absurd minimum…
If you want to support Youtubers, then buy their merch or something like that.
The cost of supporting every YouTuber I watch with merch greatly outpaces the cost of a few years of premium
Maybe, but at least it doesn’t give money to google.
You say that as if it’s the only option while being on a platform that explicitly isn’t a single organization hosting the entire thing. There’s no way this is a serious comment.
Lemmy has 50 thousand users and hosts mostly text and static images. YouTube has 2.7 billion users and hosts mostly high quality video. Pretending it’s even remotely the same is pointless.
Of course, and that’s why something like PeerTube works differently.
Counterpoint. There used to be far less ads
Counterpoint. Still not making profits.
Counterpoint to the counterpoint: Youtube made $28 billion in revenue in 2021. Bandwidth and storage space are expensive but i can’t believe they’re that expensive. If they’re not profitable then i have to assume that’s a decision they’re making.
But how will the CEO afford their 7th yacht?
They pass a lot of the income to producers. Youtube allegedly pays best. They have a ginormous catalogue of videos and allow any user to upload unlimited data.
Then give us a fair price. YouTube is not making any content, so I just wish to pay for the hosting privileges. That shouldn’t cost me 15€/month. Give me simple prenium that removes ads for 6-7€, and I will jump in. It’s all about what I feel I’m getting.
For instance, I fucking bought a 1300€ pixel 8 pro ROFL.
I pay for a premium account and I get more value out of it than Netflix or any other streaming service.
People are out to lunch on this whole situation. Try running a service that hosts somewhere between 2 and 3 billion Gigabytes of data. Where basically anyone on the planet can upload gigs of video and YouTube will still make it available 10 years later. You are never going to crowd source that, ever. I also pay for premium and I get at least 5x the value of any other streaming service. Just on home renovations, it’s probably saved me 10k+ being able to watch tutorials about every kind of repair.
Youtube Premium is literally the only subscription service I pay for. Apart from your reasons there is one very solid reason behind my choice:
I can find shows and movies for free online if I bothered trying, it isn’t difficult. I cannot easily do the same for Youtube content.
The best part is: Youtube doesn’t even do any of that. It’s the creators that try to keep other streams off the web, because they wanna drive traffic to their own channel.
Idk why, but it’s just funny to me.
I’m very curious about why YouTube allow users to upload what seems like unlimited footage in 4K HDR and keep it around indefinitely. Only guess is they don’t want to miss out on the next big YouTuber. I upload a lot of video for very few views. There is no way in hell that Google make money from my account.
I’m starting to wonder, what will YouTube do once it stops being remotely sustainable to run?
Is more efficient video compression being developed faster than people are uploading content?
Like, at some point, they might just run out of space and will have to purge millions of videos.
Youtube can show ads and offers subscription without being this shitty though. Just look on how popular region-specific video services like niconico (japan) or bilibili (china) operate. They also have ads and subscription, but nowhere as crazy as google adding multiple video ads upon ads and pick a fight with ad blocker users (which used to be a minority when google haven’t aggressively pushed more and more ads. the current popularity of adblockers today is google’s own doing). This is only possible because google has killed off competitors in western market and now it’s time for cashing out.
you’re not putting the bar very high there
ITT: “it costs more than 5 bucks a month!” yeah, if you don’t share with friends with family, it does. Also, music service included, deduct your spotify payment.
“You can just block ads” You can just miss the whole point.
“I rather support creators directly” I’m happy you do that. YouTube hosting is not free for Google/Alphabet, pay them too, or you’ll have to teach each and every creator how to webhost + help em search a “real job” because selfhosted won’t pay enough. Also, good fun browsing videos then.
IDK man, paying for YT Premium really isn’t that bad. Assuming you already consume YouTube content, that is. And I’m pretty sure that’s like 98% of first world population between 4 and 70.
Blocking ads on YouTube is no sustainable solution. Hosting Billions of Gigabytes of on-demand content is SUPER expensive. Like, it actually costs money. Other, wayyy smaller indie creator on-demand video platforms charge 5 bucks a month, but i’ts okay if they do it, because they aren’t big bad Alphabet.
If that’s your view, you don’t have a problem with pricing, you have a problem with morals. And if you still do voluntarily consume YouTube content in private, with or without ads in any which way, you inarguably have a huge problem with your own morals.
YouTube premium is a good deal. It’s priced very well compared with competition, it actually does pay indie creators and it let’s you access to features that many users really do use.
BUTBUT THEY ARTIFICIALLY LIMIT FEATURES FOR NO REASON WITHOUT PREMIUM. I mean, it’s subscription software and streaming, what else would they do? Every for profit subscription software provider and their mother does this. I develop hospital software and we literally do exactly this. If hospital A has feature x and hospital B also wants that, we don’t just hand that out for free even when we just have to add it to their system in like 10 minutes… what did you expect? They already use our software (like you use YouTube), we don’t have a huge incentive to just randomly add features if nobody paid for it. If we do, be happy about it, send me a gift card, if we or they don’t, that’s just business.
5 bucks? If only… It’s 12 euros per month here, which is simply too expensive for the kind of content I watch on YT. Especially considering the amount of baked in product placement (VPN, diet plans, that kind of crap) that I come across, I’m not paying that kind of money just to still get hammered with commercials. Sorry, but YouTube Premium is a bad deal here.
Either watch ads or pay for Premium. Or don’t watch Youtube. Those are the three choices most people will have. And it’s Youtube’s right as a private platform to give them those choices.
It’s worth it for me because I watch a lot of Youtube. In return, I don’t watch traditional TV, so I don’t pay for cable or similar things.
Those are the three choices most people will have.
LMAO
You forgot the simplest of them: Firefox, uBlock Origins, SponsorBlock. Works on desktop and Android.
You mean the browsers that Google is throttling Youtube on, if they’re blocking ads? I use Firefox with SponsorBlock myself, but I’d say that most people are using either Chrome or Edge and would not switch to Firefox, despite of how much better it would be. Most people just like what they’re used to.
Man, you’re all over this thread sticking up to Google. You should apply there. They just laid off 100 YouTube employees. At least you’d be paid to shill.
Fuck off lol. I’m not sticking up for Google/Alphabet, they’re an untrustworthy company and as someone working in tech, I hate the trend of layoffs currently going on, all to make shareholders happy.
I’m sticking up for people actually paying for the services they use. Streaming videos costs a shitton of money (servers, bandwith, platform maintenance, etc.) and Youtube has lost money for literal YEARS, which they are trying to fix. If Youtube went under for being too unprofitable, most creators on the platform would be out of a job. As long as there’s no proper competing platform, Youtube is the best we have.
Then maybe YouTube deserves to die
Homie missed the point. using ublock and sponsorblock is equal to petty theft. Disliking a company doesn’t make it morally right to steal from them.
You’re not going to guilt trip me out of adblocking Google of all fucking companies lmao
No, I’m not here to defend Alphabet. I’m just saying it’s equal to stealing groceries at Wallmart. They request payment, you deny. Just because it’s so much easier to do on YouTube doesn’t mean it’s any more justifiable.
Imagine acting like removing unwanted content from MY screen is theft. My device my rules honey
Oh baby, you don’t understand what you just said, do you?
Nobody forces you to watch ads. Close YouTube, don’t look back, email content creators to have em send ad free video links directly to you.
Watching ads is your obligation as consumer, if you decide not to pay for their removal.
It’s not my obligation and I’m never going to stop because controlling what appears on my screen, is my legal right ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
If people decide to pay for something they have no legal obligation to because they got brainwashed, that only makes them suckers
My choice: Firefox with uBlock Origin because I get to decide what reaches my screen
Either watch ads or pay for Premium
Unfortunately though it is ‘pay for Premium and still watch ads’. So many videos have the ads baked in by the content creators. Yes, you can manually seek forward, but that’s annoying and defeating the purpose of Premium. Especially for the price they ask in my country.
Either watch ads or pay for Premium. Or don’t watch Youtube. Those are the three choices most people will have. And it’s Youtube’s right as a private platform to give them those choices.
I fully agree, never suggested otherwise. But fortunately free speech allows us to have an opinion about a product.
I get what you’re saying, and yes, sponsored segments can be pretty annoying, even if it’s up to the creator how annoying they are. Either way, I just run SponsorBlock, so I can skip those segments with one click.
Why would I pay YouTube that when I can give it directly to the creators though. I’ll just adblock and not put money in the hands of Google, while helping the creators more.
Without the content delivery system, creators don’t really have a way to share their creations with you.
YouTube is far from the only video hosting site, and far from the only way to do it. Peertube, Vimeo, Patreon, Floatplane, Nebula, bitchute to name some examples of sites already set up, with monetisation, with youtube creators actively posting on them. Twitch rivals like Kick and Rumble could also absolutely pivot into taking YTs market share too
I mean without YouTube/ Google the alternative for most creators would be to host the videos themselves. And then you would have like 20 Sites which you had to check yourself regularly to get new videos. I get that YouTube isn’t the best solution, but the alternative is much worse. There is a reason why we don’t all still have our own small WordPress blogs.
“most creators would be to host the videos themselves.”
And where the problem is ?
The Venn Diagram of “people with web hosting skills”, “people with content generation skills”, and “people who want to do this” is basically zero.
Yep. And if you look at video platforms that actually have to pay for their own bandwidth (Floatplane by LTT), you’re going to end up paying $5 PER CREATOR. Hosting video on Vimeo is also super expensive.
You know, RSS exists to literally circumvent this problem, albeit for articles. A lot of sites still have it, people just forgot that this is a thing. Little bit of a chore to setup, but its actually pretty nice. Obviously finding these sites is the hard part, but a good search engine (kagi btw) could make it work.
Also PeerTube exists as well, which reduces the cost of hosting videos.
Why would I pay YouTube that when I can give it directly to the creators though.
Do you?
Yep
Yes
5 bucks? I am in. But it’s 16 swiss francs. That’s just too much for me as I don’t need Youtube Music.
Google tells me 24 bucks for family. That’s equal to what I do. I actually do pay that for all of em, but technically, it’s just under 5 bucks a person since I share with 4 others.
Can the other people still use their own accounts like Apple does it? As in I just give my subscription to other accounts and that’s it. Nothing actually changes for them except that they have a subscription now.
Basically, not sure how Apple does it though. You have a Google family group. You can add individual accounts to that. The group owner cannot see any activities of other accounts, but he could remove people without their permission.
Removed users only lose active family subscriptions like youtube premium and google one (storage). Their watch histories and whatnot will remain the same. Watch out with Google one. If you have Google one and use more storage than google free, then remove google one, you only get a limited time period to remove data over the limit. Afterwards it gets inaccessible, I don’t think they delete anything, but no insurance on that.
Thanks, now to convince 4 friends :D
Or 5. It holds 6 people… 4 € per person best case. As for now, they aren’t enforcing same household sharing only, like Netflix do. I can’t tell you about the future.
Also, not to support such behaviour, but if you aren’t made of money, I’m totally okay with you teleporting to Argentina, subscribing to YT Premium at maybe 5 $ a month, and teleporting back to never go there again. That doesn’t require an argentinian CC.
I’m not sure about legal technicalities, but I do know that it currently works. Personally, I don’t risk it if they ever decide to ban associated accounts, because u know, they totally can refuse to service you, if they were to feel like it.
If only they didn’t demonetize creators who accidentally say whatever SJWs don’t like.
Or remove the slowdowns they deliberately applied to those who use Firefox (it’s not a conspiracy, they really did it).
It would just be enough that Google aren’t sons of bitches and I would probably also be happy to pay youtube premium.
I prefer to pay my favorite creators with donations, patreon or merchandise.
What people call “demonetized” on YouTube is actually called “no or limited ads” inside of YouTube Studio. It’s not Google but the advertisers who don’t want their Coca-Cola ads shown on those videos. YouTube Premium views still pay out on those videos since they’re not ad views.
If everyone paid for YouTube Premium and didn’t use the ad-supported product, then advertiser boycotts would have no power.
Since alternatives that manage traffic in a better way exist, such as peertube and odysee, google can burn in hell, it’s a shitty company that slows down competition, I don’t give anything to a company that spends its budget on bullshit as manifest V3. I pay the creators with PayPal or Patreon, not with 70% of a subscription.
I pay for family account (6 Gmail account subscriptions I think). And share it with family. Between my sister/BIL and a friend, I would be paying 5 bucks a month. I pay for it myself but that’s because I’m subsidizing it for them. She is an amazing cook and he’s a doctor one speed dial away. Don’t want to jinx that. But I digress.
My point is, it’s way cheaper when you get family account and share the cost. If that’s a possibility . Also, I don’t use Spotify, and I download music and videos for trips. So there’s that.
It’s wild to me that this is so often called “just business” when, described this way, it’s textbook racketeering.
Could you explain to me how “if someone wants to use my work, they should pay me for it” could be perceived as racketeering, let alone “textbook?”
There’s “if someone wants to use my work, they should pay me for it” and there’s “intentionally sabotage the work/service provided in order to extract more profits.”
“The work or service provided for free?” If so what’s the difference? If you’re getting something for free you have no right to complain
But it’s not free, just because you aren’t paying in money doesn’t mean you aren’t paying for it in other ways.
The textbook this person owns:
service provider: “Hello, I’m a window cleaner, do you want me to clean your windows? I’ll actually do it for free this time! Please recommend me to your peers”
customer: “yes please”
service provider: “all done! Want me to do it again in three months time?”
customer: “yes, I love free stuff!”
service provider: “actually, I’d have to charge for that, can’t work for free all the time.”
customer: “Racketeering!”
“Racketeering” is definitely the wrong word.
I’ll put it like this. I think YouTube Premium is too expensive. I also think YouTube is too aggressive with it’s ads.
I opt to send them that message by using an ad blocking service tailored to YouTube and paying the content creators in other ways.
If the family plan weren’t 20 dollars a month to cover 2 accounts I would probably buy it. But they opted to offer only 1 or many never just 2.
I’m capable of affording it. I pay nearly every major streaming service monthly even when I am not using them, so long as their cost is reasonable.
YouTube Premium’s cost is not reasonable. Especially when you consider they are still collecting and making money off of your data in the end.
I don’t see how the pricing for Premium is unreasonable. I do, however see, how they are too aggressive with ads. That’s why I said paying for premium is a better deal than watching ads. If you don’t agree with either compensation, don’t use their service
It’s completely fair that your view on the pricing is different than mine.
Complete transparency, I do play their ads sometimes. I only refuse if I’m watching on my phone directly, but I cast from the official app. And I will have YouTube playing when I’m eating or playing a game on the steam deck.
The thing people should be referring to instead of it being a racket is that YouTube has a stranglehold on creators. I can watch streaming vids on another service, but if I want to consume content from small creators, I have to use YouTube. There isn’t a real option for alternatives.
So, I do provide the platform with some money. Then I pay creators in a way where they get a higher dollar amount than YouTube would give them.
It depends on the how the contract is written but generally billing a client the full time to develop an existing feature that “could be turned on in 10 min.” is a good example of fraudulent misrepresentation. A business/industry that replies on that (like your example) is a racket.
Yes, I understand that’s how the world of ‘software as a service’ works and yes I am calling it a racket.
YT Premium is the single most valuable subscription service on the net right now. Don’t regret mine a bit. I listen to hours and hours of YT Music a day, and I watch probably a few hours of YT content a night as well.
You say that today. Give it a couple years. I’m pretty sure that by 2030, the cost will be ~100 dollars/euros/whatever per month and you’ll see 2 minutes of ads for every single minute of content you watch. (Okay, maybe the number of ads is an exaggeration, but I don’t think the monthly cost is.)
Don’t pay the Danegeld. It never makes them go away.
Paying a business to provide a service you use is not ransom.
“They might raise prices later” is an idiotic reason not to pay for something.
Exactly, if they price it stupidly they’ll lose paying customers (I don’t buy into the free market ideology)
Can’t lose paying customers if they have nowhere to go. Youtube basically own the western audience and they simply can’t switch to youtube competitors because there isn’t any left. At least japan still has niconico and china has a lot since youtube doesn’t operate there.
If I compare the usage of Netflix vs Youtube
Last 7 days (from right now): 24h 30min
Last time I used Netflix in a high volume: Probably <12h. At absolute highest maybe 18-20h in total.But: YT usage is consistant. Netflix/service of choice is at best a seasonal happening if a show is very good and you binge it.
So to me it’s worth it enough to keep. But I’d want to have an option to remove music as I prefer Spotify, have optionally Jellyfin and dont need yt music.
I have never watched YouTube in my life and I buy my music by the album. Yes I am a psychopath
I get you’re saying its a great value because of what you get out of it, but I’m not comfortable pricing things in that way… I’d rather it be based on the actual cost. I know real prices don’t tend to work that way (or at least not in many cases) but it just feels icky and exploitative still.
The problem is that they actually don’t mean that. And truthfully I don’t mind the idea of paying for video hosting, that shit’s expensive, but YouTube is going about it in the worst way possible.
slowing my buffer down is not how you get me to turn of my adblocker. no thanks.
YouTube didn’t slow down the buffer. It was ublocks latest update. There’s a patch rolling out I believe.
Was gonna comment you’re wrong.
Turns out you’re not. Well fuck me I guess.
I thought it was adblocks latest update.
Do you mean the actual video buffer or the page’s loading time? Because they made it take 5~ seconds longer to load on Firefox when they started going after adblockers and my filter that replaced it with
0.0001(or whatever) seconds hasn’t been working for a little bit.Is it really uBlock Origins? They mention AdBlock and AdBlock Plus, which are separate from uBlock Origins.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/iBTEibxAi7I
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
No no, we mean it, at least at that price. I’d be willing to kick YouTube a few bucks a month. I’m not going to pay them more per month than most MMOs. They’re trying to charge streaming service prices for content they don’t produce.
Because they pay the creators from that? They’re not taking the whole thing as a cost for hosting
Right. Some people get stuck up about getting things for free that they think they should get for free.* But a lot of the problem is the obnoxious ways companies go about control and profit.
*There are important arguments to be had about freedom, still.
This idea that nobody on the internet is willing to pay for anything is outdated. Most people know that if it’s not money, they’re paying in data, time and/or attention. I much prefer paying with money, as do most people that use Proton, Kagi and other paid alternatives to free Google products.
I pay for YouTube Premium. I didn’t really want that, I just wanted YouTube Music, but it didn’t make sense to just pay for YT Music. I don’t want Spotify and Amazon Music kinda sucks so YT music worked best.
Same for me but in reverse.
Remove music, deduct 2-3 € from the bill and I’d be happy enough with it.
Spotify suits my use case way better.I couldn’t justify $14 a month for YT Premium especially when YT Music sucks so much. And it’s very likely just going to get more expensive.
If they could stop bundling them both together and give me an option to just get rid of ads, I’d probably go back to paying. But for now, NewPipe is a way better experience.
I actually used to pay for the Premium account in Google Play Music, but disliked YouTube Music so much when they migrated accounts over that I canceled my subscription. Have they improved the radio/music discovery parts at all?
In the same boat. GPM was so much better than Spotify in terms of UI and basic features. People hype-up Spotify’s recommendations, but since moving there after GPM shut down, I don’t think I’ve ever had good music in my Spotify recommendations. Lack of basic features like being able to dislike specific songs, which they keep removing it with A/B testing, is so fucking infuriating!
I read everyone bitching about the ads but I don’t get them, and I have access to an awesome music streaming service too… you know, cause I have premium…
I use Firefox with ublock origin and get all that for free
I won’t criticize you for that. If it works for you go for it. I just don’t want to.
You don’t get access to youtube music with unlock origin. If you pay for a music streaming service anyway then going with youtube music and paying the few extra bucks to get yet premium is a nobrainer.
Music playlist and autoplay says what?
You don’t need to pay for any music streaming service separately? YouTube is full of music without any paywalls
Youtube Music worked just fine with uBO the last time I checked, and not a single ad either.
Revanced youtube music
My issue is that Spotify has sort of locked me in by knowing my tastes pretty well. My discover weekly and release radar as essential listening every week and I’m not convinced I’ll be able to transfer my fingerprint in a satisfactory way.
You can listen to music on YouTube without YouTube music…
You can download the music easily with yt-dlp…
It’s probably a good idea for me to not try out YouTube music, so they can’t show me what I’m “missing” and won’t pay for that…
Why would you admit to making poor financial decisions?
Why is it a bad decision? It’s the same cost as Spotify, but I get ad free videos. I don’t get this line of thinking…
It also supports the creators of the video as well. If I had the money I would choose premium over an adblocker just because of that.
100% agree
Why is it your responsibility to pay the creators? Google is a trillion dollar company and makes billions off of what people post on youtube. Shouldn’t they be paying them instead and not you?
Besides, it’s only a matter of time before Google takes more and more of the cut that you think you’re paying them.
Your logic doesn’t make any sense. They make money off of people paying for a service or watching ads. If you’re blocking ads then you’re costing Google money and no creators are getting paid. If you’re paying for the service then you don’t get ads, and you pay the creators, and you pay for Google to keep running the service.
Lmao… Amazing logic.
YouTube makes enough money to pay creators so you don’t have to.
Ok, how do you think YouTube makes money?
Error. Division by zero detected
1 Ad - Fine. 2 Ads - Ok. 3 Ads - Closed YouTube.
4 Ads - uBlock Origin installed on Firefox
Should have been from the beginning
They should include sponsorblock with youtube premium, I won’t pay 12€ per month to watch more ads than on free tv. Youtube doesn’t even make their own content. 5€ max for youtube would be okay with no ads.
Absolutely. 5$,sponsor block, no ads and no music premium bullshit. I don’t want it.
Edit: I forgot! Give me the fucking downvote count back so I can quickly know which videos are bullshit you assholes!
YouTube cannot do that. YouTube’s content legal system does not allow this.
That said, I use SponsorBlock and love it to the degree of finding it necessary depending on what type of content I am watching.
Why do people hate YouTube Premium anyway? I don’t quite get it. I have had it since it was available in my country, and I love it.
Also, I have to say I use the YouTube Vanced app with SponsorBlock and custom layout (no shorts, no uploads, no etc.) and YouTube Premium subscription. I don’t like the default YouTube app.
So, I don’t know if I like YouTube or just the model and content/creators behind it.
I just refuse to pay to watch youtube videos which is why I dont like youtube premium
Yeah, I know that, XD but why?
What makes it so that you think you should be able to get creators and their content, server capacity, and storage for free? Who should be paying for it in your mind? Who should eat the cost? The creators, the platform, or the user? or all of them to a degree? And who should be able to profit?
I think it’s pretty clear that the end-user will carry most of the cost in the end.
No they need to add DVR so i can save all my favorite videos abd dont have to watch them live /s
How is it relevant that youtube does little in house production. The revenue is passed to the creators anyway(by watchtime)
Oh yes you are right, thank you.
I had YouTube when it was YouTube red and I was a part of a family plan with my friend for a couple years. I split the family plan with a few people and ended up paying $3 a month. Eventually he moved across country and YouTube said that since we didn’t have the same IP address that I could not be a part of the family plan so I ended up signing up for my own account. At some point I was trying to pay off my debt so I cancelled all my subscription services. YouTube premium included. I started watching YouTube and then I saw it. An ad. Something I hadn’t seen in years. It was the most annoying thing ever. I couldn’t believe that people put up with that. I was so annoyed by the ads that I looked at how to obtain YouTube and YouTube music for free without ads because I needed to save the money and the ads were so intrusive that this was what I was going to do and that is what I still do to this day.
Haha yea, shame on them for trying to transition to a business model that’s actually a great value for the customer compared to other music and video playforms, no longer relies on datamining customers to maximize ad-effectiveness, and brings in more income for creators than ads ever did…
It’s a totally stupid idea, YT should just eat the costs and be subsidized by Google search revenue forever.
Why can’t we just keep taking from the platform while its expenses are covered by some shrinking group of shmucks who don’t know about ad-blockers yet, drowning in commercials?
/S
I don’t understand this outlook. Like, sure, you can use adblock. One person stealing a mars bar isn’t gonna hurt Walmart… But if literally everyone just took their shopping cart home, never once paying, Walmart would just… Cease to exist.
What makes people think that math is any different for online services?
If google goes down someone else will fill the void. And I don’t give a shit about their numbers, if it’s not financially feasible to host everything without running a loss for years to extinguish competition and then to hike up the price, they should have thought of that before.
Aside from that, any Corp that goes down is a victory in my book.
Then I hope YT gets legally enshrined and archived in some way.
Like it or not, it is the sole complete repository of a lot of video and audio records for recent human history.
It’s become something that should not be under corporate control. Something which should be treated with care and reverence.
Yet it is, and isn’t.
no longer relies on data mining customers to maximize ad effectiveness
You’re an idiot if you believe they won’t do that anyway.
You don’t say. Everyone does it.
But it’s a shit source of income that nets mere cents per user, and should be made illegal as soon as political will allows.
Hence, a good service should not rely on collecting user data as a sole revenue source.
You’re not wrong, but that doesn’t mean YouTube’s model is correct. The basic understanding we all need to have is pay people for their bread. Don’t ever get more from someone that you aren’t willing to pay back in some kind. 20% tip for waiting staff might suck for a person, but do not “NOT TIP”. We tip till workers get fair wages or we don’t go eat out, but don’t go eat out and not tip. Same here. Don’t head over to your creators on YouTube and deny them their fair share be it premium or ads.
YouTube takes a 45% cut on subscriptions. That’s not fair share and they don’t provide a means for creators to strike a balance. You can be angry at that. But don’t ever be angry at that and not give some fair share to the creators. Additionally, with the whole Channel Membership, makes the whole YouTube Premium questionable. Why am I paying $14/mo for Premium and then $5/mo/channel I’m a member for? Why can YouTube not see that I’ve spent x% time here at so-and-so’s channel and take x% of that Premium and send it to that creator (minus some off the top for infrastructure for themselves)?
This is ultimately what I dislike about YouTube Premium and what I like most about Patreon. In fact, the majority of what I once watched on YouTube has largely shifted there to Patreon. The things is, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask folks to be FAIR about what YouTube is giving, so you’re right. But YouTube is a crap distribution platform that routinely robs creators of power over their media, exposure, and revenue and does so with impunity.
People shouldn’t rob from YouTube to make a point. People should just leave to make a point. That’s the fair thing to do. And if you do enjoy content from your favorite creators, always make sure you tell them so by putting money in their pocket. If we want fair wages for one, we need to remember we need to want fair wages for everyone. And more importantly, the folks running the show need to be more affable to listening to the folks tending to the fields. Be it employers need to listen to their waiters and pay them based on that or YouTube needs to listen to it’s creators and address the various issues they bring up.
We’re in an era where there’s a whole lot of “I know better” in the workplace and really I think we just need more partnership between all involved. I think if we had more of that, we’d have a lot more of the other issues solved by proxy. That’s ultimately what I have issues with YouTube, but just because I have issues doesn’t mean I go stealing things from them. You are absolutely correct in that folks should play fair if they’re heading to YouTube. We’re all in this together folks, don’t rob from each other even if you don’t like the means by which they get the money.
Cool, I was upvote number 469
Premium already does what you’re saying, channel membership is a separate thing
Google doesn’t deserve your money.
You don’t pay a bully so that they bully you a little bit lessThat’s a very bad analogy.
That logic would lead to defect-defect scenarios in all but the rarest of cases.
By all means, defect when warranted, but if a bad company changing course doesn’t net rewards, why would corps ever do anything other than the worst possible, taking as many users down with them as they can snare?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
That logic would lead to defect-defect scenarios in all but the rarest of cases.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
