I think most people are angry with YouTube premium because it's a service that doesn't give you anything. It's a service where they stop annoying you. But it doesn't unlock anything new that you didn't have before, doesn't give you access to content or data you don't have access to, it doesn't improve the service. It just removes the annoyances they put there deliberately. So people are a little angry about it
It's a protection racket, for your attention and time.
You also get to play video with a screen off on mobile
You also get to download for offline viewing
You also support the creators of the videos, not just google.
AND FFS YOU DONT GET ADS.
Using adblock isnt some innate human right. They are well within their rights to block adblock.
You get almost the whole worlds information for free in video form. You can be entertained or use it as a teaching tool. It is the best place at this point for product demos and reviews. It is a crazy wealth of information and infrastructure that everyone takes advantage of and somehow just expect to be free. If Google cancells it because it is not profitable, i would bet the efficiency of the entire human race takes a significant nose dive. It also probably runs one of the highest sets of data storage and encoding on the planet.
The fact that they made it worse so they could lock what we had behind a paywall is what permanently killed YouTube for me. I will bend over backwards to make sure they never receive a penny at this point. They could have added or improved features but they just made everything shitty instead lol screw them.
The problem with this point of view is that Netflix either produces its own content or rents content from other producers. YouTube doesn't produce its own content and also doesn't rent content from producers... it only pays them a percentage of ad revenue (to be comparable to Netflix, YouTube would have to pay creators up front regardless of ad revenue they generate). YouTube profits from the content production of its users, and doesn't actually pay a fair amount for it. For them to charge for access to that content is just... egregious.
It's a protection racket, for your attention and time.
It is, but it is only between the free and paid versions. I can't expect a service to exist for my use without some form of compensation. I'd rather pay with money than time.
Doesn't it do exactly that? It removes the ads whoch makes it way better.
But it doesn't unlock anything new that you didn't have before
It does give you access to higher quality streaming though, offline play, background play, video queue, picture in picture and youtube music premium. Do you even know what you are talking about?
I dont agree on the sponsor adds because that money is money the creator gets directly that isnt totally dependent on the policies that YT pushes. If those spots become worth less to the creators because they are skippable then they are more dependent on YT for their revenue.
And on top of that, Youtube's annoyances are implemented client-side -- in other words, by co-opting your own machine, your property that you own, and turning it against you to serve someone else's interests.
Youtube is free to choose not to serve me content in the first place, but once they do and it's on my machine, it is my property right to control the computation of my machine however I want. I have just as much right to block ads as I do to write in the margins of a paper book I bought.
Edit: why the downvotes? Do y'all hate property rights or something?
You're giving too much credit, Youtube doesn't care and is running on AI autopilot. This benefits IP abusers, thieves, and trolls and hurts legitimate creators. But it's not on purpose, it's just indifference.
A corporation can blatantly violate the law, bribe politicians, ignore its TOS whenever its suits them, but a second somebody wants to use a heavily subsidised service without being assaulted by advertising, a gaggle of concern trolls pop up to lecture about "stealing service". Buddy, simping for Alphabet will get you nowhere.
This right here. I did youtube premium one time to watch the first season of cobra kai. And then immediately dropped it when that same month 3 content creators I followed all came forward with videos of how they were getting obviously fraudulent copyright strikes, demonetized over things that they didn't do wrong and youtube just screwing them over cause they could.
A company that makes billions in profits could easily afford to put better content creator support in place and cover costs or disputes against content creators so none of the people who make their site profitable in the first place ever have to worry if they'll still be paid for the hours and hours they devote to their channel only for a troll or bad faith actor to make a false claim on their videos and irrevocably remove income.
Paying for premium is fine, but premium users letting Youtube off the hook for their corporate greed is annoying. If YT ran reasonable ads like they used to in the olden days I wouldn't use an adblocker. Don't even get me started on their garbage search, a multi billion dollar company can and should do better. Then of course there's the fiasco of their demonetization system, and rules that apply to some but not others. Simply put they don't deserve to be paid for premium, if their grinch heart grows and they decide to do better as a company I'd honestly pay for premium.
While the monopoly that YT has as a video platform is definitely an issue, the cost of maintaining the content has definitely risen now. 480p vs 4k videos have a ton of difference in bandwidth, no matter how much Internet speeds have evolved over the years.
I used Google Play Music (RIP) and moved into YT Music for my music streaming needs. The cost of YT premium was marginally higher so I switched for it.
The major issue with YT Premium is that they still collect the data from YT to show targeted ads, but I use also use uBlock, so that doesn't really bother me as much.
Point is, video hosting services are expensive. The quantity (not quality) of content on YT is way higher than any othet streaming service, and maintaining that for free is pretty close to impossible. The only possible alternative would be a government backed video platform and that's definitely worse.
I'll pay to not be exposed to ads. I'll also pay to support a service I get value from. So I'm paying for YouTube premium, Netflix, Hulu. etc. When a service with media I want that has a more desirable corporate structure becomes available I'll pay for that and maybe get rid of other services. I also occasionally sail the high seas if the thing I want isn't available on any of the services I'm already paying for.
This works fine but the main reason I personally have premium is to support the YouTubers I watch. Adblock gets rid of their revenue while premium pays them MORE than just ads do and now I don't have to worry about it on any platform.
Smart tube, or I've been told a pi hole works as well. I haven't bothered with that though, because I don't like watching YT on TV myself. Out of the two, the pi hole is probably the better option since it works with all your devices.
I also have No ads, because I use NewPipe. There I can watch all Videos from YouTube, cccBerlin, pearTube and it is also possible to Listen to Music from Bandcamp and Soundcloud.
Unless you're on an iPhone, setting up Revanced takes less than 10 minutes and very rarely breaks anything. If you want to support your YouTube creators, then sure pay for premium, but it baffles me how someone could have the technical prowess to set up a Lemmy account, but then balk at something like this. If anything, mobile might be one of the last frontiers now that they're starting a war against adblock.
This is basically my stance. Its also one of a very few subs I use, I don't really care to watch streaming services or to pay for the slightly (maybe?) better other music streaming services.
I still have Premium but could never accept YT music as a former Play user. Why did they end the best music streaming service for this unusable trash?
Spotify is still worse than Play was, but at least it's good at recommending music. YT music is worse in every regard. Except for smart watch integration maybe.
Play was the best, especially in the early days with the professionally curated (by humans) play lists. I discovered so much new music. AI generated playlists are terrible.
They really do fuck us in the Nordics. It’s DKK179 (SEK281, USD26) for the family plan here in Denmark. Granted that’s the whole family getting YouTube Premium and Music, but that’s also I think the highest price anywhere in the world.
I pay for it so my kids' accounts don't have ads. They're too young to sort out all the edge cases that aggressive ad blocking generates and for a bonus we get youtube music.
Back when it was still called YouTube Red, they actually used to create exclusive content (or at least fund the creator). It was a selling point at the time. Now they just increase the number of ads to make not paying for it hurt more...
Someone needs to find a way to make it cheaper to host videos on a server, because the second you do that second a viable YouTube alternative can show up
I believe it's someone else's hard earned money, if they want to throw money to have what is objectively a better viewing experience, then it's not my problem.
I'm constantly in bob eisner's trash, he throws away a lot of profitable things. Got a crate of self-sealing stem bolts the other day. Just need to find a buyer.
Here’s the thing: how much YouTube content creators are really affected by ad blockers varies widely, and that’s due to several factors such as what region their main viewership is in, their subject matter, and how many viewers of each creator fit the demographic that might use ad blockers. YouTube is the only entity that would have the real data on the real impact to content creators due to ad blockers, and it’s believed that the reason they don’t share that data is so that they can inflate the numbers in order to claim greater losses than they actually suffer— and while that may very well be a strong motivation, I believe the primary motivation to be to hide the wide variation in levels of compensation between their top content creators. If the ad-blocking impact data became public, it would also reveal the wide disparities in how much YouTube compensates different tiers of content creators and would make public deals with top creators that have, until now, remained private.
This so why it’s always discussed in vague terms and as some existential threat— which is is, for them.
So I was against premium for a while, was using vanced and it was fine. Nowadays with my boy getting a bit older and how much we use YouTube it's just easier to have premium. I know people have mentioned the android TV app but I have a Vizio TV and can't get it on there. Also, I'm not going to try to root my tv or anything like that (not even sure if I can with this one)
I can pay for Netflix to be entertained for days at a time if I want to by original and classic shows and movies that I can't watch anywhere else, or I can pay for YouTube to show me a bunch of kowtowing brow beaten "creators" try to skirt their ever changing draconian rules long enough to make something that barely counts as entertainment anymore WHICH I could also already watch for free with ads.
For me it boils down to these points: 1. It's a service that has always been free. 2. The product the service delivers has become considerably worse over the last few years due to non stop ads, censorship, rampant misinformation, and an ever expanding list of impossible rules designed to sabotage their own users. 3. Once it objectively became worse than it's ever been they have the nerve to ask me for money literally every time I watch it.
I am offended by this, and I'm not giving them any of my money. If there's a creator I really want to support then I'll buy their products direct, or I'll join their Patreon so I know they're actually getting any of the money I spent
You could replace Netflix with literally any other paid streaming service and the argument would be exactly the same. I just used Netflix because that was the example OP gave in the post. Ultimately the real point is that YouTube wants people to start paying for their service without really offering anything more than what I could already watch for free.
YouTube is way more than content creators. Just last night I watched an hour long episode of PBS news hour, an hour long EDM concert that was live in Europe a few days ago and then fell asleep to a bunch of clips from late night comedy shows. These aren't struggling content creators, these are all from huge content providers that I'd have to track down separately if they weren't on YouTube. Anything on Netflix I just pirate because tv shows and movies are easy to get.
A further way to divide the masses. It's almost as if the masses desire division. We must judge each other based on the others decisions. Even if we were in complete agreement half of everyone would think the other half is agreeing incorrectly.
Ya know, if someone wants to spend their money on it, I really don't care because that's their money and not mine. It's not something I would personally buy into, but to each their own.
YouTube Music is the reason I sail the high seas if you equate blocking ads to pirating. I neither want nor need it, but I now have to subscribe to it to get Premium.
I was paying for YT Premium before that predatory bundling to justify an insane price hike. It's not worth 12€/month, sorry Google.
I pay for it, but it's insanely cheap in my country. Family plan is like $1.5 a month lol. 5 or 6 users for that convenience is worth it in my eyes. I'd rather do that than make my parents, grandparents have to worry about ad blockers on all their devices.
Nah, just making a joke cause I get attacked every time I say it's my favorite subscription service. I don't even use Netflox, Doisney or HOBO anymore. Just vids on woodworking and bread making.