Current Events > Why does people paying for Youtube cause such passioned debate but...?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why do companies like Netflix, Prime etc get a free pass when raising their pricing or adding ads to already paid for subs?

Youtube premium has literal shills that do nothing but try to convince people to buy youtube premium

Ive never seen people attempting to convince people to pay for netflix

Who's giving Netflix a pass on their bullshit?

Youtube Premium works for me.

Because YouTube was a free service for decades that has now tried to hide once-free features like HD behind a paywall

YouTube Red also started off with a lot of skepticism because they were pulling entire creators like VSauce behind a paywall. Which I'm sure was great for their creative pursuits getting a budget but it wasn't what a lot of subscribers wanted.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Youtube premium has literal shills that do nothing but try to convince people to buy youtube premium

I've been called a YT shill but I've never once tried to convince people to buy it. If everyone is characterised as I have been then I have doubts of your claim.

Doe posted...

Because YouTube was a free service for decades that has now tried to hide once-free features like HD behind a paywall

YouTube Red also started off with a lot of skepticism because they were pulling entire creators like VSauce behind a paywall. Which I'm sure was great for their creative pursuits getting a budget but it wasn't what a lot of subscribers wanted.

As was mentioned in a previous topic no one else can enter the market because it would cost too much to run a playform like YT. There seems to be a disconnect between people saying it should remain free without ads and also accepting it costs a lot to run.

Prime is definitely getting to the point where I'm thinking about canceling it again, but especially over the COVID years, I was ordering so much stuff, it was def worth. Their video streaming stuff is whatever. I do wish the normal Prime membership still included Kindle, tho. That pissed me off a ton when that changed.

SHRlKE posted...

As was mentioned in a previous topic no one else can enter the market because it would cost too much to run a playform like YT. There seems to be a disconnect between people saying it should remain free without ads and also accepting it costs a lot to run.

That's not by accident, that's the modern investor scam of running a company at a loss so as to cut out all other business and then raising costs on the consumer when they no longer have an alternative. That should not be rewarded, in fact we should take active steps to punish Google for it.

Streaming services are definitely not getting a free pass about their shenanigans. I've seen much more complaining bout that than about Youtube premium. However, there is still a big difference between companies raising prices and a free service trying to charge while offering nothing in exchange.

SHRlKE posted...

Why do companies like Netflix, Prime etc get a free pass when raising their pricing or adding ads to already paid for subs?

have you been asleep for the past decade or so

mario2000 posted...

have you been asleep for the past decade or so

He's trolling.

mario2000 posted...

have you been asleep for the past decade or so

Nope but from my experience on CE I only ever see topics on youtube. So my post is purely referencing CE.

Pay for what makes you happy

SHRlKE posted...

As was mentioned in a previous topic no one else can enter the market because it would cost too much to run a playform like YT. There seems to be a disconnect between people saying it should remain free without ads and also accepting it costs a lot to run.

how about keep all the features(or rather literally NOT slowly move them behind the paywall) but still have ads?

nah that totally wouldnt work since it gives the illusion that ads alone wont support the site without billions in profit for investors

I honestly cant tell if this dude always simping for ads is for real or just an act at this point.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/e7dbd2b4.jpg

YouTube Premium is great

I stopped using Spotify too and use YT Music now

This is the thing. I've never once tried to convince people they should get premium. People just couldn't accept that I'm happy to pay for it as are some other users on here. I gave my reasons. People are free to disagree with me all they want as long as they don't make it personal which sadly it has been getting.

SHRlKE posted...

This is the thing. I've never once tried to convince people they should get premium. People just couldn't accept that I'm happy to pay for it as are some other users on here. I gave my reasons. People are free to disagree with me all they want as long as they don't make it personal which sadly it has been getting.

But you just randomly decide to bring up the fact that you pay for youtube premium

literally nobody cares that you pay for youtube premium until you decide to tell everyone for no reason

Also, in relation to the topic title - I'm much less inclined to start giving Youtube money when I've never needed to before - whereas Netflix / Prime always costed money, the price is just higher now.

I will never pay for Youtube, period.

I get youtube premium just for the music.

nekrodev posted...

Also, in relation to the topic title - I'm much less inclined to start giving Youtube money when I've never needed to before - whereas Netflix / Prime always costed money, the price is just higher now.

I will never pay for Youtube, period.

Guessing you don't pay extra for HD versions or add free Prime?

I refuse to pay for YouTube because that would mean that they win

SHRlKE posted...

Guessing you don't pay extra for HD versions or add free Prime?

Correct, I will not be paying for features they've suddenly decided aren't included anymore either.

It's scummy, capitalist crap, and it's not my fault they've built their platforms on a failing model.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


They should've been a subscription from the start, is probably what should've happened, but all of these companies do that thing where they run at a loss until all their competition is gone first. No other company could've absorbed the losses Google did to keep that afloat.

Other companies would have run on exactly the same strategy though. If Google hadn't created YT someone else with as much money would have done. This feels more like a rant about capitalism in general than just YT \ Google tbh.

nekrodev posted...

They should've been a subscription from the start, is probably what should've happened, but all of these companies do that thing where they run at a loss until all their competition is gone first. No other company could've absorbed the losses Google did to keep that afloat.

And if they had someone else would have come in and done what google have done with YT.

I think its mostly just a sort of cognitive dissonance or mental resistance to the casual slide YouTube has been doing from being marketed/perceived as a video sharing, quasi-social media platform, to an on-demand video streaming platform.

For the first part of its existence YouTubes emphasis was on the You part. It was a platform when you could upload videos to share with friends, family, and the whole world. Users were both creators and consumers, similar to contemporary social media platforms like MySpace, Facebook, etc.

Although users are still nominally able to upload and share whatever they want, the actual use-case for YouTube has shifted into that of a more traditional streaming platform: users are categorized into either creators or consumers, with marketing and financial models put in place to encourage and foster both populations (skimming enough money off of consumers via ads or subscriptions and paying just enough to content creators to keep them churning out content).

In this way YouTube is no longer different than any other ad-supported streaming service. The difference is that YouTube used to function more like traditional social media, and still has some social media identity since anyone can upload to it. I think people would respond similarly, for example, if they started getting pop-up notifications on Instagram and Facebook asking you to pay $15 a month to not get ads while scrolling through Reels. And given how many of these user-driven social media platforms are quick to follow YouTubes lead (see the Tiktok creator fund), it wouldnt be surprising to see stuff like that happening more and more in the future.

Grim stuff.

SHRlKE posted...

If Google hadn't created YT someone else with as much money would have done.

Google didn't make Youtube. Google bought Youtube.

ellis123 posted...

Google didn't make Youtube. Google bought Youtube.

A fair point. I concede that point.

They don't get a free pass. It is worse with YouTube though, considering YouTube is user made content.

I feel like creators, no matter their platform, should be paid. Its why I have no issue with these paid services.

EmbraceOfDeath posted...

They don't get a free pass. It is worse with YouTube though, considering YouTube is user made content.

Well isn't that the point? The creators should get paid.

I see more people calling people who pay for YT Premium shills than I actually see people trying to convince others to pay for YT Premium.

MrToothHasYou posted...

stuff.

A lot of this is true. Youtube is just from a different time period of the internet compared to modern streaming and social media. Everything on the internet used to just be free and no one could have predicted the insane growth Youtube would have over a couple decades. So going from this old school video sharing site to the one and only content creation site like it on the web, there's no great turning point for where and how it should change. They're free to host ads just as much as I'm free to block them. Eventually one side or the other will give in, but until then, there's no easy transition to a traditional paid platform.

And my personal perspective, Youtube is one of the biggest sites on the web, owned by one of the biggest companies in the world. With the various behind the scene ad deals they have, investors, and the pure ubiquitousness of the site, there's no way they're hurting for money enough that they are forced to change to a full premium model.

nekrodev posted...

They should've been a subscription from the start, is probably what should've happened, but all of these companies do that thing where they run at a loss until all their competition is gone first. No other company could've absorbed the losses Google did to keep that afloat.

Youtube should have been a subscription from the start?

What? That would have been completely ridiculous for early YouTube.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yeah, it definitely wouldn't have been ideal, they wouldn't have experienced anywhere near the same growth - but that's the point. There were almost certainly points where they could've shifted more in that direction earlier, but trying to make it so everyone is paying to watch it just to avoid ads at this point is silly.

I can also only speak for myself, as someone who doesn't pay for this type of thing and uses adblockers religiously. I'm sure I'm vastly outnumbered by people who will pay or who will watch ads.

nekrodev posted...

but trying to make it so everyone is paying to watch it just to avoid ads at this point is silly.

You haven't really explained this point.

SHRlKE posted...

You haven't really explained this point.

I'm not sure why I'd need to, but okay

Youtube is actively pushing back against adblockers, more so than usual in their past, and pushing people to get Premium. A subcription from every user would be much more beneficial to them than any of the ad revenue - plus, if there was 100% adoption, it wouldn't be long until they started adding ads back in and up-charging for a new tier of service, like what Amazon has done to Prime recently.

It's literally just how these companies work.

YouTube Premium is $14/month.

Listed Features:
No Ads, Download Videos, Play in background or lock screen on mobile app, stream music ad free.

2 of those features are kind of redundant. YouTube mobile apps allows you to play videos while not focus on app as long as it's not music without premium.

Plus there are means to download videos and block ads without playing $14/month.

It's certainly a service many would deemed over priced for what it provides.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The hidden, third option is to not have to give them either - and as a service I've not spent a cent on in 20 years, I'm not gonna start now.

I have absolutely no issue with YT premium existing for access to thinks like 4K video because it's expensive as fuck to actually store that much video, but them paywalling off features like background play and video queueing is ridiculous.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Youtube premium has literal shills that do nothing but try to convince people to buy youtube premium

Ive never seen people attempting to convince people to pay for netflix

I see it as the opposite. People give people such shit for paying for YouTube premium and its like.. how about you just worry about your damn self

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Oh, for sure, and there are plenty of options for supporting most creators, without also feeding Google. I'll buy merch or hit a Patreon sub or something to some creators if I feel like, but I'm getting something very specific back from both of those.