You're viewing a single thread.
$5 a month and you can share with 5 other users. That’s 90c per person. Why would anyone not have YouTube premium?
Where are you at where it's $5 a month for the family plan? In the US it's $15 for the single user, or $23 for the family plan.
I pay ₴150 (Ukrainian hryvnia) for a family plan of 6, which is currently roughly $3.60 (after the currency tanked due to war). *hide the pain dab*
That's interesting, here in Poland you pay ~$12 for the family plan.
I didn't know it was that expensive in US. That sucks, man.
South Africa
first and foremost you're paying for a worse experience than just installing an adblocker.
Paying for convenience isn't the same as paying to not be inconvenienced.
I pay for Premium for a few different reasons:
- I don't need to even think about fighting with ad block blockers.
- I also get YouTube Music, so I no longer need to pay for Spotify.
- Premium views pay creators more than regular views.
There is clearly a value proposition or no one would pay for it. I personally don't like to reward any company using the pay to not be inconvenienced model
A lot of people would rather fight adblockers (idk, literally never been an issue for me), use xManager (oh right spotify is free) , Pay creators you like through patreon (or buy their shitty amazon links or merch or whatever)
Premium is just rewarding youtube for making their platform worse in order to sell premium and fuck that noise.
Free Spotify blows, though
oh?
For me it’s a way to help support content creators, along with donations/merch, although admittedly not having to even try to block the ads is a nice bonus.
I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a YouTube fan, and it will be something I continue to evaluate.
Youtube premium gives you a higher bitrate option as well.
I think it's only for lower resolutions (other than 4k) but if the video was uploaded with an absurdly high bitrate you can see a slightly less destroyed version.
It is not about money. Google created a problem and then asked money to solve it. If I were a billionaire I still wouldn't paid a single penny.
They created the problem of creators needing to be paid without using ads?
Skippable and short ads were fine. No one asked for annoying ads and a "premium" service. And it was already profitable. Greedy Google wanted more money.
Most of their ads are still skippable, aren't they? And can you prove no one asked for a premium service? I certainly recognize ads are a way to pay content creators and would like an alternative way to pay them in exchange for not seeing ads, so that already disproves your claim.
And what does YouTube being profitable have to do with paying content creators, anyway? YouTube, who were known for running at a loss for years at the start, needs a way to pay content creators as well as pay for server costs to host YouTube videos.
Sure, they are also greedy, but watching content without paying the creators is not the actual way to fight that, is it? If you disagree with how Google runs YouTube, just stop watching YouTube instead of punishing the content creators. Go watch them on alternative platforms where you can directly pay for their content like Patreon or Ko-Fi.
Most of their ads are still skippable, aren't they?
In my experience, no.
And can you prove no one asked for a premium service? I certainly recognize ads are a way to pay content creators and would like an alternative way to pay them in exchange for not seeing ads, so that already disproves your claim.
I said annoying ads and premium service. If ads were not annoying and you still wanted to support your content creators without watching ads; that's fine, premium service sounds a good solution to you. But Google chose the asshole way. They bombarded us with ads if we wanted not to pay. Even though I hate ads I am not against them. They should be short and not annoying.
And what does YouTube being profitable have to do with paying content creators, anyway?
If it's profitable they can pay content creators.
YouTube, who were known for running at a loss for years at the start, needs a way to pay content creators as well as pay for server costs to host YouTube videos.
Google is known for killing their services if they don't bring money. Let's assume what you said is true, so you are telling me that Google paid from their pocket and waited patiently till they became monopoly so they can execute their asshole plan?
Sure, they are also greedy, but watching content without paying the creators is not the actual way to fight that, is it? If you disagree with how Google runs YouTube, just stop watching YouTube instead of punishing the content creators.
Google built an empire by tracking us through the web sites before ad blockers are a thing. I'm punishing Google not content creators. If Google cared about content creators they wouldn't behaved like this in the first place. Why would care about content creators when their employer Google does not give a f**k about them?
Go watch them on alternative platforms where you can directly pay for their content like Patreon or Ko-Fi.
I haven't heard about Ko-Fi before . I'll take a look at that.
And finally I should add that Google is a danger to the internet. With this "pay for premium or you'll watch more ads then the content" bullshit they are becoming a role model to other streaming services.
Because I can get the same results + more for free
By not paying the content creators for the content you consume.
Yeah, that's how YouTube works: you don't pay for individual videos
If someone wants to go that route for their content then there are sites for that
When did I say you pay for individual videos? You pay for access to those videos by watching ads or paying for premium.
If someone wants to watch videos without dealing with ads or payments, there are sites for that, too. Why aren't you going to those sites, instead?
Because I’m not giving Alphabet any information about me. It’s also why I don’t create a YouTube account and use browsers with common fingerprints.
Trying to avoid fingerprinting often results in easier fingerprinting.
Your browser might have a common fingerprint, but other points of configuration (screen size, window size, webrtc, etc) belie those.
Usually it just gets you put in the "People who don't like ads" advertising bin. They have specific ways to try to target us.
Relevant Bill Hicks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXi-9kA4ERM&t=75s
I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now, too.
"Oh you know what Bill's doing? He's going for that 'anti-marketing dollar.' That's a good market, he's very smart."
ther points of configuration (screen size, window size, webrtc, etc) belie those.
Those are also part of the fingerprinting that I’m talking about, and browsers like Tor and Mullvad take some or all of them into account.
It's £20 ($26.33) per month here. You are either lying or are in an exceptionally cheap country.
I can think only for one legitimate reason:
- Google bought out YouTube and operated it at loss for most of its life, effectively making it a monopoly in the process, and only started to earn money on it when there was no way any other alternative would come up and endanger it.
If you ignore this, YouTube Premium is a pretty good offer. And I personally like the fact that I support content creators, without the need of watching ads that are nothing more than cancer for society.
That said, I would still prefer YouTube to return to its roots and separate from Google, since it's pretty much possible for it to stand on its own right now, I guess.
Because it’s £15 in the uk ?
They speak of sharing with others, so they're talking about the family plan, so it's actually £20 in the UK.
In Germany, the family plan costs €23.99, but the worst part is that even when you pay for it, there are still ads from the creators within the videos. Essentially, you’re paying for nothing, not to mention that they are much more expensive than all other video platforms.
Because it’s $15 in the us? lol