Rendered at 18:57:33 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
nerdsniper 1 hours ago [-]
I just pay for YT Premium. I’m genuinely curious why that option is so controversial? Happy to get people’s thoughts.
So I never see any ads and I feel like I get enough value for what I pay. It even helps me skip in-content ads with a single click.
legitronics 1 hours ago [-]
I also pay for yt premium.
Most people do not seem to like pay to play, pay to “win”, etc and this falls either very close or in that category.
The long term economics seem questionable to me. Google can always turn up the heat a bit more with ads, charge more for the ads, play more of them, etc when they need to be more profitable. The only way they make more from premium subscribers is charging more and they will lose people each time they do. I guess technically they could make more if premium watchers viewed less content but there’s a pretty hard floor and I suspect the economics of it are much like soda fountains.
I’m afraid ultimately if premium becomes too large of a user base Google would need to turn it into an “ad-lite” experience to increase profits. Then we’re in an even worse place.
steve_adams_86 54 minutes ago [-]
> I’m afraid ultimately if premium becomes too large of a user base Google would need to turn it into an “ad-lite” experience
I wouldn't hesitate to cancel my subscription and stop using the platform at that point. Life can go on without YouTube.
clpm4j 12 minutes ago [-]
YT Premium is my favorite monthly subscription - probably the highest value software that I pay for.
Nevermark 10 minutes ago [-]
It is very high value.
I would be happy to pay even more for an experience without AI slop masquerading as something else, and obviously fake or misleading news sources.
If Youtube or Meta spent a fraction of the effort identifying credibility as they do predicting user likes, they could do a passable job. I would especially like credible sources that express coherent viewpoints different to mine.
Perhaps even a quality setting or settings so i could set my own thresholds of credible information and non-trivial entertainment.
Premium Quality Tier. Ad and Shit Free.
MrWiffles 1 hours ago [-]
Privacy rights. Google’s ad surveillance eventually feeds ICE and its ilk, so I’ll not willingly reward this behavior.
gruez 16 minutes ago [-]
>Google’s ad surveillance eventually feeds ICE and its ilk
Is this a prediction about what might happen or a claim about what's happening right now? Also, there's plenty of reasons to object to government/adtech surveillance, but "youtube ads are going to help ICE deport people" is probably the worse examples that I can think of.
Ferret7446 41 minutes ago [-]
Seems like the opposite? You can choose to either have ads or a paid subscription service. If you don't choose premium then you are implicitly supporting the "ad surveillance"
flykespice 40 minutes ago [-]
How much do you use Google services on your daily life (Google search, Gmail, Google pay..)?
You might have unaware handed more your personal info them than you know
yifanl 1 hours ago [-]
You think explicitly highlighting that you're in the market segment that's happy to pay for online services will mean you will never see paid ads for online services again?
SirFatty 24 minutes ago [-]
YouTube specifically? Yes.
mrguyorama 48 minutes ago [-]
Because Google does not build a platform that is beneficial to the creators who make actually good and productive and positive content.
I don't want give Google money for building a Mr Beast platform. I want the stuff Nebula does.
So I pay for Nebula.
Paying an advertising company to not show you ads doesn't make that company not an advertising company, and the problem is being an advertising company. It's corrosive to society and people.
gonzalohm 15 minutes ago [-]
I also pay for Nebula. I wish more content creators moved to that platform. It's so annoying to deal with YouTube's homepage to find the videos of the creators that are not in Nebula
downboots 25 minutes ago [-]
It's a ransom.
YCpedohaven 1 hours ago [-]
I pay for YT premium, but it’s less because of the ads, and more because of the stupid restriction of not being allowed background play if my phone is locked.
rkagerer 50 minutes ago [-]
Once upon a time we paid for features, instead of paying to remove inbuilt annoyances.
(In a sense, this is getting too close to paying a bully to stop harassing you).
ryankrage77 1 hours ago [-]
This used to work for free, they went out of their way to disable it so they could charge for it.
pirates 1 hours ago [-]
> So I never see any ads
> helps me skip in-content ads
So you get ads still! Whether or not they are from YouTube or the video creator is irrelevant. I thought paying was supposed to supplant needing to advertise to me during the actual video.
vizzier 1 hours ago [-]
Alas, tubers feel the need to add sponsorships these days through either greed or reduced google revenue. Premiums "skip frequently skipped section" is about as easy as it can be to skip over them without blocking them entirely, short of using sponsorblock.
I'm not sure where the legality lies with them being able to skip it automatically if you're a premium user, I'd imagine their uploaders wouldn't be happy though.
Havoc 1 hours ago [-]
Not controversial per se but it’ll go the same way as Netflix - once it’s got adoption they’ll crank enshitification up to 11
lofaszvanitt 4 minutes ago [-]
Good, less youtube, more free time.
ajay-b 1 hours ago [-]
Does anyone have a good study as to how much advertising is too much advertising? There are some content creators on YouTube I enjoy watching but it's an ad every five minutes and it just ruins it all. For some, I've reached the point where I don't bother watching anymore because the ads are just too much. I sympathize with creators wishing to make money, but ... it's just becoming relentless. I'd love to see a study or even better YouTube internal analysis of how much viewers are willing to take before they just say enough.
ducktastic 2 hours ago [-]
They really are unbearable: I use Duck Player primarily to view Youtube, connected via city wifi and every so often, I receive a message saying that youtube thinks I am a bot presumably because they are not getting ad revenue. Of course I have a workaround for this but annoying nonetheless.
hedora 1 hours ago [-]
On our TV, using the official YT app, it just rapid cycles through the first few seconds of each ad. As far as I can tell, this is part of a Google-operated display fraud scheme.
I wonder how the new standards will impact our user experience.
Will they just halve the length of time each video is run and charge for twice as many impressions? They could also just run the ads in the background (with the video displayed over it + ad audio muted).
rolph 2 hours ago [-]
google is seeing an uptick in viewing with a smartTV, so they think that means family time in the livingroom, thus 70s style TV is the model of the day.
have they considered home office, phones are just too small, and studios where you watch the screen and perform the "how too" from across the room are getting to be a thing [mancaves, shesheds].
i would definately have a curated, edited feed of YTz to a group viewing location, rather than a raw stream.
add-sub-mul-div 1 hours ago [-]
Since 1999 we've had the DVR and commercials have been effectively skippable if you want to avoid them. This is worse than that. Not having the freedom and control to seek through the video stream ("unskippable") was innovated by the streaming takeover.
xedrac 1 hours ago [-]
Maybe this will help people kick their doom scrolling habit.
downboots 28 minutes ago [-]
That's just doom scrolling on a different axis
ray023 46 minutes ago [-]
Why are people even so dumb to use TV apps for a fucking TV? Just connect a "computer" to the TV and play YouTube with a mouse and KB and with Brave and Sponsor Block. If they ban adblockers and Sponsor Block there will be AI solutions that let you cut the ads out in the future.
Nobody should use shitty TV apps. It's like more convenient and practical to have some kind of PC like device attached to the TV for 100 other reasons as well. They are feeding this shit only to the dumb mass consumers who have no clue about anything.
"Just pay for YT premium" so that an evil megacorp is using your money against you, no, thanks! Donate to creators you like as directly as they allow it. They are also dumb and let Patreon or whatever suck large percentages off their donations for whatever retarded reason.
michelangelo 31 minutes ago [-]
> Why are people even so dumb to use TV apps for a fucking TV?
To address both the arrogant tone and the question itself: because sometimes people don’t have, don’t want to have or cannot use a computer connected to a TV.
Not everyone is a HN commenter with anger issues. Most of times these devices (TVs, streaming sticks and so on…) are used by normal folks that are not comfortable with computers.
Razengan 1 hours ago [-]
Has anyone ever actually purchased anything because you saw an ad for it?
bgun 49 minutes ago [-]
If you're asking whether advertising works, there is plenty of science making clear that it does, without fishing for anecdata.
As to whether every company buying ads is making a good investment, mileage may vary - but the blunt answer to your question is that yes, people do purchase things because they saw ads for it, the advertising economy is well understood. Companies like Google whose fortunes rest almost entirely on the known efficacy of advertising are not full of idiots who have never thought about whether or not ads actually work.
"Is an economy based on selling attention ultimately the most beneficial and productive one for all participants" is a separate question, but it's not the question you're asking.
So I never see any ads and I feel like I get enough value for what I pay. It even helps me skip in-content ads with a single click.
Most people do not seem to like pay to play, pay to “win”, etc and this falls either very close or in that category.
The long term economics seem questionable to me. Google can always turn up the heat a bit more with ads, charge more for the ads, play more of them, etc when they need to be more profitable. The only way they make more from premium subscribers is charging more and they will lose people each time they do. I guess technically they could make more if premium watchers viewed less content but there’s a pretty hard floor and I suspect the economics of it are much like soda fountains.
I’m afraid ultimately if premium becomes too large of a user base Google would need to turn it into an “ad-lite” experience to increase profits. Then we’re in an even worse place.
I wouldn't hesitate to cancel my subscription and stop using the platform at that point. Life can go on without YouTube.
I would be happy to pay even more for an experience without AI slop masquerading as something else, and obviously fake or misleading news sources.
If Youtube or Meta spent a fraction of the effort identifying credibility as they do predicting user likes, they could do a passable job. I would especially like credible sources that express coherent viewpoints different to mine.
Perhaps even a quality setting or settings so i could set my own thresholds of credible information and non-trivial entertainment.
Premium Quality Tier. Ad and Shit Free.
Is this a prediction about what might happen or a claim about what's happening right now? Also, there's plenty of reasons to object to government/adtech surveillance, but "youtube ads are going to help ICE deport people" is probably the worse examples that I can think of.
You might have unaware handed more your personal info them than you know
I don't want give Google money for building a Mr Beast platform. I want the stuff Nebula does.
So I pay for Nebula.
Paying an advertising company to not show you ads doesn't make that company not an advertising company, and the problem is being an advertising company. It's corrosive to society and people.
(In a sense, this is getting too close to paying a bully to stop harassing you).
> helps me skip in-content ads
So you get ads still! Whether or not they are from YouTube or the video creator is irrelevant. I thought paying was supposed to supplant needing to advertise to me during the actual video.
I'm not sure where the legality lies with them being able to skip it automatically if you're a premium user, I'd imagine their uploaders wouldn't be happy though.
I wonder how the new standards will impact our user experience.
Will they just halve the length of time each video is run and charge for twice as many impressions? They could also just run the ads in the background (with the video displayed over it + ad audio muted).
have they considered home office, phones are just too small, and studios where you watch the screen and perform the "how too" from across the room are getting to be a thing [mancaves, shesheds].
i would definately have a curated, edited feed of YTz to a group viewing location, rather than a raw stream.
Nobody should use shitty TV apps. It's like more convenient and practical to have some kind of PC like device attached to the TV for 100 other reasons as well. They are feeding this shit only to the dumb mass consumers who have no clue about anything.
"Just pay for YT premium" so that an evil megacorp is using your money against you, no, thanks! Donate to creators you like as directly as they allow it. They are also dumb and let Patreon or whatever suck large percentages off their donations for whatever retarded reason.
To address both the arrogant tone and the question itself: because sometimes people don’t have, don’t want to have or cannot use a computer connected to a TV.
Not everyone is a HN commenter with anger issues. Most of times these devices (TVs, streaming sticks and so on…) are used by normal folks that are not comfortable with computers.
As to whether every company buying ads is making a good investment, mileage may vary - but the blunt answer to your question is that yes, people do purchase things because they saw ads for it, the advertising economy is well understood. Companies like Google whose fortunes rest almost entirely on the known efficacy of advertising are not full of idiots who have never thought about whether or not ads actually work.
"Is an economy based on selling attention ultimately the most beneficial and productive one for all participants" is a separate question, but it's not the question you're asking.