That's interesting to me as someone who has paid for both lol.
Just curious, why would you not want to pay for YouTube knowing that some of that money makes it to the creators at least? Is that not enough? Is it a principal thing because they try to block the ad blockers now? Or do you think all video content should be free somehow with the creators making a living some other way?
I have been going through things I subscribe to lately and realized that the content on YouTube is probably the thing I watch the most. I genuinely like some of the people I watch videos of there and want them to do well. I like that some of them started their own streaming sites now so that's nice but I also don't want more streaming sites.
Well there are a few things to say about your comment. First, YouTube DOES pay content providers. However, most earn money from multiple sources like YouTube, Patreon, sponsors and merchandise sales. Out of those sources youtube is probably the most fickle. Their rules about canceling a channel or removing monetization are arbitrarily enforced and difficult or impossible to appeal.
The same can be said for the way viewers are treated. YouTube is a "free" service. They decided to operate this way, not us. Instead of, for instance, offering the streaming service as a paid subscription, they chose to essentially destroy the product and then ask for payment to fix it ( the so called poison pill). And don't forget the notion that if you are not paying for the product, you ARE the product. I'm pretty sure that YouTube is collecting our information and profiting from it. And if they aren't the parent company absolutely is. When you couple this with the thought that "suggested" content is designed to profit youtube, its easy to make the argument that it wasn't actually free to begin with.
So bottom line is, I think people are fed up with relentless marketing and the form of marketing YouTube has chosen is the worst possible kind of marketing. This leaves those who have been users for a while and want to continue, with the choice of fighting this invasive advertising with ad blockers or paying for the service. The latter of which feels a lot like a reward for reprehensible behavior on the part of youtube.
In short, I think the chief complaint here is HOW youtube has gone about this. Anyway, that's the way I see it. I use a lot of "free" services and youtube is by far the worst type of cost. Pandora, plays ads I have to listen to as the cost for that service but they aren't nearly as bad about it and they never do it in the middle of a song, for instance. I use Wikipedia and they don't market at all, just ask for a donation every now and then. I gave up and just paid for youtube premium. But I have to say it feels a bit like I was extorted, because I feel like I have seen enough ads for one lifetime. If at any point youtube starts showing ads with their paid service I will absolutely drop them like a hot potato, which would be a shame since, like you, I enjoy a lot of the content.
If youtube didnt consistently fuck over creators, and didnt have draconian and immutable copyright takedown and ad stealing policies, maybe Id consider it
But theyre too hostile to feel good giving money to. They dont work with creators or viewers, they try and undermine them. So Im not interested in doing as they ask.
why would you not want to pay for YouTube knowing that some of that money makes it to the creators at least?
do the math to find out what percentage of user subscription ends up in a creator they watch. Also do the math to find out how much is earning google vs how much money goes to the creator. Creators end up getting pennies. If you want to support your favourite creators do it differently. By believing that "least some money makes it to the creators" is what youtube has managed to make people believe so that they rationalize paying for a subscription.
Google have to fund their infinite persistent growth model somehow. It's only fair to the share holders for the sake of their dividends
That's interesting to me as someone who has paid for both lol.
Just curious, why would you not want to pay for YouTube knowing that some of that money makes it to the creators at least? Is that not enough? Is it a principal thing because they try to block the ad blockers now? Or do you think all video content should be free somehow with the creators making a living some other way?
I have been going through things I subscribe to lately and realized that the content on YouTube is probably the thing I watch the most. I genuinely like some of the people I watch videos of there and want them to do well. I like that some of them started their own streaming sites now so that's nice but I also don't want more streaming sites.
Well there are a few things to say about your comment. First, YouTube DOES pay content providers. However, most earn money from multiple sources like YouTube, Patreon, sponsors and merchandise sales. Out of those sources youtube is probably the most fickle. Their rules about canceling a channel or removing monetization are arbitrarily enforced and difficult or impossible to appeal.
The same can be said for the way viewers are treated. YouTube is a "free" service. They decided to operate this way, not us. Instead of, for instance, offering the streaming service as a paid subscription, they chose to essentially destroy the product and then ask for payment to fix it ( the so called poison pill). And don't forget the notion that if you are not paying for the product, you ARE the product. I'm pretty sure that YouTube is collecting our information and profiting from it. And if they aren't the parent company absolutely is. When you couple this with the thought that "suggested" content is designed to profit youtube, its easy to make the argument that it wasn't actually free to begin with.
So bottom line is, I think people are fed up with relentless marketing and the form of marketing YouTube has chosen is the worst possible kind of marketing. This leaves those who have been users for a while and want to continue, with the choice of fighting this invasive advertising with ad blockers or paying for the service. The latter of which feels a lot like a reward for reprehensible behavior on the part of youtube.
In short, I think the chief complaint here is HOW youtube has gone about this. Anyway, that's the way I see it. I use a lot of "free" services and youtube is by far the worst type of cost. Pandora, plays ads I have to listen to as the cost for that service but they aren't nearly as bad about it and they never do it in the middle of a song, for instance. I use Wikipedia and they don't market at all, just ask for a donation every now and then. I gave up and just paid for youtube premium. But I have to say it feels a bit like I was extorted, because I feel like I have seen enough ads for one lifetime. If at any point youtube starts showing ads with their paid service I will absolutely drop them like a hot potato, which would be a shame since, like you, I enjoy a lot of the content.
If youtube didnt consistently fuck over creators, and didnt have draconian and immutable copyright takedown and ad stealing policies, maybe Id consider it
But theyre too hostile to feel good giving money to. They dont work with creators or viewers, they try and undermine them. So Im not interested in doing as they ask.
do the math to find out what percentage of user subscription ends up in a creator they watch. Also do the math to find out how much is earning google vs how much money goes to the creator. Creators end up getting pennies. If you want to support your favourite creators do it differently. By believing that "least some money makes it to the creators" is what youtube has managed to make people believe so that they rationalize paying for a subscription.
Google have to fund their infinite persistent growth model somehow. It's only fair to the share holders for the sake of their dividends