YouTube's plan backfires, people are installing better ad blockers

ijeff@lemdro.id to Technology@lemmy.world – 2016 points – YouTube's plan backfires, people are installing better ad blockers
androidauthority.com

cross-posted from: https://lemdro.id/post/2883134 (!android@lemdro.id)

495

You are viewing a single comment
View all comments

They should fucking do an experiment - 2€/$ a month for an ad-free subscription and 3€/$ a month for higher video quality+no ads subscription. I would fucking pour my money into it.

Oh wait, that would not solve lack of sponsorblock. I guess I am not interested then...

They literally had that experiment with Premium Light. €6 for ad free watching, it was all I needed. But they literally sent out a mail they were stopping this tier right before they started implementing more anti-ad blocking measures.

Oddly enough, the "lite" subscription was introduced in some other countries during the time they shut it off in the launch countries.

I wonder if they're testing willingness to spend using the cheaper sub, then pulling it if it turns out people are likely to buy the pricier plan once the lower tier isn't available anymore?

I had the light subscription for over a year, not planning on paying for useless stuff like the music stuff though. Had it through a family plan years before and it was laughably bad compared to Spotify.

I'm personally a fan of YT Music, glad we've got some options though!

Options are of course great. What makes YT music a better option than Spotify Premium for you if I might ask? I found when I was trying it years ago it didn't seem to have an all encompassing music library. (It not having 10 years of playlists and recommendations that I do actually enjoy for new music is something I missed but couldn't count against it as a product ofcourse)

I much prefer the UI and it (used to?) allow uploading my own music where the offering was lacking. Notably, Spotify also didn't have these songs, so having them in one library is great. The recommendations are also spot on for me, but like you said that could be attributed to having used it for a long while (used Play Music pretty much from its inception).

Considering I'd want to pay to get rid of ads on YouTube too having the music service bundled is a bonus. I used to pay for the music service standalone before that.

I bet that Spotify will do just fine now, although last time I tried (some time last year) I didn't immediately like the UI, and the shuffle seemed to work oddly in large playlists. What it does have over YT Music for sure is integrations with other parties, I wish YT was better in that regard.

Thanks for the feedback, my most recent car does have a native YT music app so if I can keep a decent music library along with no ads it would be worth considering.

And Spotify shuffle in large playlist was plain broken for years indeed. I could have 1000+ songs in a list and shuffle would loop 20 of them.

2€/$ a month for an ad-free subscription and 3€/$ a month for higher video quality+no ads subscription

sponsorblock

This is basically Nebula lol, minus the video quality tiering

Nebula can only afford to do that because basically nobody who subs to nebula actually watches the videos on it. They did a video about their revenue model and people treat it as a way to support the creators, not to actually watch content

Could Nebula work as a Patreon-competitor. Patreon as a company is totally fucked iirc - the investors are treating the company like a piggy bank, which is a shame because it is easily a profitable and viable company.

Nebula is pretty awesome and the type of content is great. I miss some light entertainment content though, so the network effect is at work. Still, nebula is the only streaming platform I'd consider subscribing as their policy is great and they do provide good value.

I'm not really certain what value nebula provides other than some creators uploading occasional content exclusively on nebula. Without nebula they'd just... Upload it to YouTube, which is free, so I'm not sure what the difference is

Meh I had nebula a couple years ago and it had some missing features and fairly poor depth of content. The same few bits constantly being pushed. I'm hopeful it improves but I wasn't using it.

Not a penny to those bastards. Should YouTube and Google along with it rot to hell, I don't care. Maybe we'd finally get better alternatives running at full capacity.

And who will pay for those?

People valuing the content and the platform.

For now our best chance for free platform is Odysee/Lbry - at least crypto bros can keep tue platform running for the sake of it. Or PeerTube, but less likepy since it's more enthusiasm-driven, and enthusiasm only gets you so far.

Also, Nebula, CuriosityStream and other similar subscription services are good - and people pay for them.

I pay for Youtube, but I'm clearly in the minority. Look at all the pitchforks in this thread not willing to pay one cent or watch one ad but demanding the content...

There is a difference, though, and I know why those pitchforks are raised. YouTube is a video service behemoth, and it is owned by Google, a Big Tech company that has little respect for its users. It is one of the last things most Lemmy users (known on average for their hate of Big Tech, hence why we don't have this discussion on Reddit) would want to support.

Many of them would, and some do, support alternatives. But there is just nothing to the scale of YouTube, which exacerbates the problem as users often have nowhere else to go. And so they will do their best to use YouTube in a way that gives 0 benefits to Google, and will only be happy to see this giant fall and replaced by something more user-centric, free from corporate control, and privacy-friendly.

I appreciate that, but I don't think the vast majority support alternatives. It's just "I want it free and I want it now".

Also, if you don't support Google you most probably don't support the creators, very few of them have patreon or similar and just rely on ad revenue/sponsors.

I am not bothered by Google at all, at least in the EU you have pretty good control about the data they collect and I feel it's used well. I get pretty good recommendations on YouTube and the ads I get on other sites are at least somewhat relevant.

I see the chances of a competitor replacing it and being more privacy-friendly close to none. Maybe TikTok will replace YouTube over as GenZ takes over, and I see that as a solid negative.

They'd absolutely 100% be losing money with a $2 ad free tier. Ads make significantly more than that per user per month. Same with your """solution""" for higher res video. Bandwidth is goddamn expensive.

I agree, but they'd get a large number of users to subscribe.

And then maybe they wouldn't complain when they raised the price to $3. And a few months later maybe $3.50. Then $5.

A few years ago, people wouldn't have paid over $15 for a standard Netflix tier without 4K. But the way to boil a frog is to make them nice and comfy in lukewarm water, then keep increasing the temperature slowly... So even if they lose money, maybe a low price for the ad-free YouTube could make sense, from a business perspective.

Every time Netflix rises prices it makes it to the news (let alone all the drama on twitter/reddit/etc), I don't know what frog boiling you're talking about.

Yet they keep posting more and more profits. Subscriber count has only increased despite the content being lower quality and prices being higher. The fact that we don't like them increasing the prices doesn't mean it isn't working for them.

I'm not arguing it will work forever, but for now, it's been a viable strategy.

Plus, no way would it ever stay at that price. Nothing ever does. The only service I pay for now is spotting, and that's just to have ad-free music on my half-hour drive to work.

I completely agree the price is far too high.

I actually do subscribe but only because I get a deal through my mobile network that, long story short, cuts the price by two thirds.

I can’t understand their pricing policy at all. And they’re doing a terrible job at explaining their cost basis if it’s actually what it costs to serve video to us (highly doubt it).