YouTube is increasing Premium prices in multiple countries, right after an ad-blocker crackdown | You either pay rightfully for the video content you consume, or you live with the ads.
androidauthority.com
YouTube is increasing Premium prices in multiple countries, right after an ad-blocker crackdown | You either pay rightfully for the video content you consume, or you live with the ads.::Google is increasing the prices of YouTube Premium and YouTube Music Premium subscriptions in some regions, right after blocking ad-blockers.
Or you can use any of these solutions:
No mention of revanced? It's a great option, has sponsorblock and all
I feel like I'm experiencing deja vu. Wasn't there a thread just like this yesterday?
Edit: There was!
They seem to be increasing in frequency. If this is only the second one you've seen in the last 24h then you're lucky.
ReVanced is by far one of the best solutions.
I have a question for people using sponsorblock. Why? How do you expect a content creator to pay the bills? I use an adblock because fuck Google but content creators pick up sponsorships specifically because YT pays like shit.
I'm only speaking for myself here, and I'm certain you're not going to like the answer I have to offer. That's not my problem. I don't like being advertised to. I don't like others telling me what I'll like or what to do. I'm a monster, I know, I also take pee breaks when commercials come on tv as well and I usually arrive late to movies so I can skip the previews.
Seriously though, I really don't care how they pay their bills, they're a dancing monkey on the sidewalk that I enjoy for a couple minutes and move on. If they can't afford to keep making content and quit, I'll just move onto the next channel that's still producing. It'll never run out, just like there's always going to be someone who sits through the ads or actually buys whatever their shilling. At the end of the day, it's their responsibility to make sure their shits handled, not mine. If they can't pay their bills, they should probably do something that offers a more steady income stream.im not obligated to give them my time in exchange for them getting money. They get my time in exchange for me being entertained, that's it. Maybe if they made content for enjoyment instead of money, they'd make better content.
Before we get to name calling, I am fully aware that this is a shit take, but it's the truth. I'm a cynic and I'm not very fun at parties either
10000% this. I don't give a shit how you make money. YouTube started out as a place to let people show off to the world. It was wholesome. It was a community. Then they started paying people for views and it got perverted into this capitalist hellscape we have now where the most popular channels are garbage spewed out by content farms that exist to game an algorithm. Where the highest earners can commit literal crimes and get a slap on the wrist because Google wants the ad revenue their views bring in. This is not a community of the "you" the end users who just want to share interesting hobbies and funny clips with the world. Put the "you" back in YouTube.
Exactly!! I've been on the Internet for a long time. I remember the pre-youtube days. Way back when the Internet wasn't exactly profitable. That meant that the content you found was genuinely made just to share something. I remember the early days of YouTube where people were just making cool shit. A good example, and I understand people have opinions that differ, would be RoosterTeeth. Started as just friends making funny shit, and they did separate shit for money to support making the fun stuff. Now, they're a very different company owned by a mega corporation. They exist to produce favorable content and farm views. With the way that shit goes viral nowadays, there isn't really a chance for small communities to exist before whatever space it is eventually explodes. I'm not saying small communities don't exist, but there's a big difference between what was and what's become. Everything's so much more commercial and purely for the intent of clout or money. People are actively trying to meet KPIs to satisfy arbitrary algorithms. Just go back to making entertaining captivating content.
I love basement dwellers. Moms cooking, pops paying the internet bills and he thinks he's not going to see ads with his hands on cheetos, watching Netflix and ordering on food delivery app he subliminally remembers. But they were totally not from the ads.
That's an awful lot of assumptions and insults coming through to someone who's just answering the question honestly. I'm not naive enough to think I'm advertisement proof, I just get tired of them and avoid them where I can. I'm failing to see what your point is
Just because you're honest doesn't mean you get a cookie. Your take a isn't just shit, you're a fucking thief stealing from mostly ordinary people who are trying to find new ways to make money because the traditional economy fails us. You can take your whining and go fuck yourself as far as I'm concerned. If you don't want to watch sponsorships that help people make more money then turn the fucking content off. Entitled twat.
So many gigantic hypocrites on this site. Any time success for workers requires even a tiny amount of time all you hypocrites on this site suddenly turn into penny pinching fuckwads. bunch of fake leftist tools. It wasn't enough for you to block ads so now you're also blocking sponsorships, so that tells me you think you're entitled to free work from others which makes you no different from some corporate capitalist shithead.
I don't think thief is the right word. Would you consider someone who stands by a busker listening to their whatever and not throwing a coin in the hat, a thief as well? I get your point, I just think you went about it the wrong way. Who has the better claim to entitlement, the person who already got paid for the sponsorship based on their existing performance metrics, or me and my time? Are you a thief for taking a piss during a commercial break? Are you a thief for arriving late to movies to intentionally skip the previews? Where's the line here? I'm also not sure of where my hypocrisy comes in either. I have no fantasies about other people wanting to hear what I have to say, especially if it's going to cost them time or money. I'm not blocking advertisements and expecting people to watch mine. I don't have anything to advertise. If I wanted to make a shitty YouTube video to entertain people, I'll do that, but I'm not going to pretend that it's going to put food on my table. My real job does that. I'm not so vain as to think I deserve other people's time and attention. What makes Linus tech tips entitled to my time, or Mr beast, or whoever else is churning out mediocre content purely for profit?
Go back to reddit
They're already getting paid for putting it in their video. Sometimes the sponsorships are on a "per signups" basis and I have never once come across a YouTube sponsorship for something that I would actually have a use for. They're either already getting paid or they weren't getting my money anyway so I might as well skip it. I don't need to hear a pitch for something I don't want/need
I don't care who's serving the ads, I don't want to watch ads period. I will pay for the content where possible though. I dont think youtube taking 45% considering the crazy infrastructure provided is that strange. Maybe 45% is still too much, but i don't think 55% sounds like "shit".
I forgot that the people I watch are far less mainstream. They survive on Patreon and sponsorships because they're constantly demonetized, thus my perception it pays shit.
That's fair enough. Didn't think of that angle which is a pretty relevant one considering how easy it seems to be to get demonetized.
Counter-ask: how does watching the sponsored content help them?
They've been paid initially, people who use sponsor block are way less likely to sign up for the service.
Watching it does literally nothing for them if you don't sign up... The sponsor won't even see metrics of who skipped the sponsored portion
It just seems like overkill to me tbh. The content creators I watch need sponsors to get by, so I'll take a peek at what they're offering in good faith. If I don't like it I just skip to the end of the bit, or leave the video since a few put them at the end. You're not messing with corporate profits or anything.
Ok, but you can set it up to not auto skip. You could just get a button to skip to the end of the promotion - I think that's the default even
But I've literally only looked into a product sponsored by a creator once, and once I saw the price tag I clicked off. And that was after I installed sponsor block
Most ads are for products in another country so even if I hypothetically wanted it I can't get it so why waste my time on it. And if they are multinational companies I usually don't want anything to do with it. I also just don't want to be advertised to. It's wasting my time because 99.99% of the time it's irrelevant to me.
YT does not pay like shit. A lot of the time sponsorships are much more targeted and interesting than YouTube ads.
That being said I mainly dislike bad ads. Good, well targeted ads that don't destroy your eardrums for products that interest me seem nice. But they don't tend to exist.
Watch this, please:
https://youtu.be/_--LvdAHfVo?si=-dfOn86mIPHvKCQU
This didn't help me, I understand advertising. My questioning sponsorblock apparently didn't properly convey that a huge part of my confusion is that you can just... Skip that part. It's not like rolled ads and even then I already mentioned support for adblocker.
Like it's overkill, obsessive type feel to me "I hate advertising so much I want everything to be automatic so I don't even process for a 10th of a second that I may have consumed an ad" while most people are like "Oh it's the sponsor" click click and move on. And hey maybe I see a it's a product I DO use like Displate, so the discount code is useful.
Is the question "why automate when you can manually do it?" I think that's where the confusion may lie. Why wouldn't you automate it if you were going to do it anyway?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/_--LvdAHfVo?si=-dfOn86mIPHvKCQU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
+1 for yattee on IOS. Until we can get ublock origin on iphones, but that’s another story
uyouplus and sideloadly/trollstore is great combo
'rightfully' is doing a lot of lifting here.
Or you update your uBlock Origin blocklists and declare YouTube the war.
Considering a DNS block
That doesn't work AFAIK. It only works when the ads are served by a 3rd party.
Yep. I tried doing this with Hulu’s self-serving ads and I blocked enough domains that it just quit working
Doesn't work. I have network wide DNS filtering, but that alone doesn't stop YT ads.
If you have a link to a GitHub host file for that, I'd definitely take a peak.
Otherwise, uBlock and *Pipe apps.
Try blocking the ads.
You will block the video serving domains as well :)
YT/Google aint that stupid and knows how to bundle both for your convenience.
I never see Vivaldi mentioned in these. Yes, it’s chromium based, but I have not seen a single YouTube ad since they implemented built-in ad block many years ago. Without the need for extensions, plug-ins, or user managed block lists.
Vivaldi is proprietary garbage
yeah, ive been using vivaldi and only very recently did i see my player diabled with ubo off but if i disable ubo and put vivaldi's blocking option to just block trackers, that does the trick tho the ad starts with a black screen but the skip button instantly appears under .5 seconds or the video starts
I'm willing to pay for content.
I'm not willing to give Google money, or any proprietary solutions.
I judge adverts to be a waste of limited human life. I hope that industry can change.
So then you're unwilling to pay for the content
I mean, we can't act surprised that YouTube needs to somehow afford the infrastructure to serve content? Adblockers caught on & youtube cracked down.
More technical solutions will be created in response, and those wi be picked up by a small majority causing the cycle to start over once more.
Where was Google's concern for paying for infrastructure in the past? Google choose to bleed money which made it harder for smaller competitors to compete and take a share of the users, and now Google wants to have their cake and eat it too. Too damn bad.
I am unwilling to pay for the content while Google is where the content is. Odysee seemed shady to me so I stopped using it. Floatplane is proprietary and I'm trying to kick the nasty habit of using proprietary software, I don't want to start using new ones. I used to pay to listen to a podcast but I got tired of the content. I donate to Wikipedia.
YouTube has been in the red since day 1. Now Google wants their payback. OK. Seems fair. But I don't have to participate.
Everybody acting like Google is taking away a basic human right, or somehow "taxing" them is getting exhausting.
Facebook is up to even more shenanigans, proposing to charge users to keep ads off the screen. Again, fine. I don't have to use FB.
"But muh free content!"
It was very damned long ago that "content" was what you could see at the movie theater, see on your 4-channel TV selection or grab at the library.
/old_man_rant
Payback is fair? Even though these very digital megacorporations are just now facing antitrust lawsuits for very good reasons? The only argument for having to use these platforms as a content creator is reach. But if Google, Amazon, Meta, etc. only got their market-dominating positions by illegal means, nothing is fair about wanting payback.
I am paying money to people creating content for me directly, even for some YouTube channels. If I were to abide by Google's rules, I'd have to pay double. For the infrastructure & the people actually producing the content. Sorry... Why would I? I will not pity a monopolist because of their lost profits as long as I can circumvent it somehow.
It's not fair, it's literally illegal under antitrust law. The DOJ has been accused of "taking a nap" and not enforcing those laws for 20 years... but they're awake now. Which is probably part of why Google is suddenly changing course. They're involved in a few antitrust investigations as it is and don't want any more.
You can't run a company at a loss leader until nearly all your competition is dead and then start charging more than customers are willing to pay (or showing more ads than customers are willing to watch).
I'm happy to pay for video content - but I won't pay the prices YouTube is charging and their ads are even worse.
It's not fair to pay money for services to a company involved in unrelated lawsuits? Does the antitrust investigation negate the expenses associated with running the operation of serving you content?
Are all competitors dead? You can switch to watching TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, for random user generated content. You can go to nebula if you want YouTube style documentaries. You can go to any movie platform if you want to watch random stuff. They are all either in the red, backed by VC, waiting to do the same thing, or serving aggressive ads, or selling your data, or costing money.
How much people are willing to pay is irrelevant in the context of fairness. Fairness is about a company breaking even. Customer readiness is however relevant to business, and in this case I'm afraid that the evidence is against you - after countless similar complaints in the past, people haven't left the platform, and people have signed up to pay.
Paying for services is normal. It's unrealistic not to. It's unproductive to pretend otherwise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
Google offered content for free and so played a part in making generation(s?) of users expect content for free.
I used to watch films in cinema before they started playing them on TV but now I 99.8% don't care about them, or shows. I use Crunchyroll for a couple of anime but most of my content is only on YouTube.
Then don't watch the content. But in lieu of a open source, non profit, market dominating video platform thus means not watching videos.
Even if that open source platform existed it would require it to be more or equally profitable for creators to reach a point where people upload to both platforms.
I'll keep watching the content, thanks.
Floatplane is owned by a YouTuber more about capitalism than tech at this point
Look at nebula, the creator owned network (from what I've heard about it)
You're getting unfairly downvoted. I agree with the negative sentiment around Google but the only semi-alternative is nebula but they obviously don't have the same amount of content. It's not reasonable to expect YouTube to operate for free
Thank you, the unfortunate truth is that we're a community of people who just left a platform for their insatiable greed so its to be expected that when you say that companies should be able to make money within reason people get tight about it
The other problem is people treating small/medium content creators like they're some corporate entity fucking people over when they're not. The entitlement and sheer hypocrisy on this site is incredible to see. I'm specifically talking about people blocking sponsorships here.
FOSS has created this childish expectation that other people should spend their time creating shit for lemmy-type nerds for free, but that is not sustainable in a capitalist economy. Software only gets away with it because software devs make a comfortable living with enough free time to work on FOSS, or they actually get paid to work on it by some corp.
People applying the same expectation to creatives disgust me. A lot of smaller channels are not rolling in money, they're making enough for a decent living or some side cash. And they earned that. There's a huge difference between that and some giant media corporation ripping people off for content. Blocking sponsorships is immoral and downright criminal imo, and it disgusts me to see so many people trying to normalize stealing from other workers. Especially in our modern gig economy where many of these people turned to YouTube because they got fucked over by a recession or COVID.
Ads are annoying but I'll deal with being annoyed if it means someone gets compensated for work that I enjoyed. The sheer narcissism of believing you're entitled to free content from creators is enraging to be.
Youtube by itself produces almost no content. All content comes from content creators on the platform, which are getting severely underpaid by Youtube. If Youtube actually paid them their fair share, this argument would be somewhat valid.
I disagree, i think they're getting a fair cut? A channel as large as LTT has stated that YouTube ads make up nearly 30% of their revenue.
30% isn't a ton, but when you consider that they can add brand deals on top of that (which they get 100% of) creators can walk away with a decent chunk. Additionally, when you look at the rev split it's actually the creator getting 55% (45% in the case of shorts). Bigger channels probably get better deals too, as is the case with Twitch as well.
IMO this all seems fair, puts a heavy reliance on Google which is a just criticism however to ignore the costs of storing immense amounts of data (500hrs of video uploaded/minute), making it available, and the infrastructure associated (bandwidth, global cdn, etc) is not
Only big creators will get brand deals, that's the problem with you making assumptions based on LTT. And that's why I think people are enormous hypocrites for blocking sponsorships on smaller channels. Until we live in a socialist utopia, dealing with a 30 second ad isn't that fucking much to ask to compensate someone you just used for entertainment.
One of the most popular on the platform is by definition an outlier
Did you read the rest?
Also, yes it's an outlier but the only example i have on hand of a YouTuber sharing their revenue streams so
Aww. Are the greedy megacorporations upset that consumers are being greedy in return? Poor megacorporations. :c
All these billions in revenue are not enough :(
well i for one ain't paying shit to google, nor am i watching any ads 👍
If it comes down to it, I have no issue just not using Youtube ever again. FireFox and Ublock are your friend.
Preach!!
This is why Google has been using their browser monopoly to push their "Web Integrity API". If that gets adopted, they can fully control the client side and prevent all ad blocking.
Thankfully, Firefox is still a thing. If that comes out, it's going to be a hell of a lot more popular.
... and dependent on Google ; they may either push that API into FF or push something different so bad that FF would lose even more users.
https://9to5google.com/2023/11/02/google-chrome-web-integrity-api/
Thank fuck
Delayed... For now
Google also said they would cancel there plan to roll out FLoC after significant pushback a while ago, only to renamed it as Ad Topics and roll them out anyway when no one is looking. If Google do the same with web integrity API, I wouldn't be surprised anymore.
To be fair, FLoC had signifient issues and could be used to fingerprint users. Google's whole point of FLoC was to get rid of third party cookies, to stop sites from fingerprinting users and tracking them throughout the web, so FLoC didn't really solve the problem in that regard. With Ad Topics, only a limited subset of topics are presented to the advertisers, and fake data is injected, making that fingerprinting less likely.
Still haven't gotten any on Firefox with Ublock Origin. The usual explanation is that it rolls out in stages, but I've nothing weeks later.
Nah there was an article that said that it's fully deployed now.
Your ad block solution must be filtering it out appropriately.
I've had to do the full purge and refresh filters thing.
I just have all my YouTube subscriptions feeding into an RSS feed. Haven't gotten a single ad.
Are you logged in to YouTube on Firefox? Anonymous visitors with ublock origin doesn't seem to get the nag.
Yep, logged in and haven't seen a thing.
Kinda glad my uBlock Origin is still working.
This should be illegal, actually in Europe it's about to be...
what is illegal? Havinadblockcks, cracking down onadblocks or upping the price on the software after ""forcing"" people to move to it.
Anti Ad-Blocking Software would be (and arguably, already are) illegal as not only do ads count as a form of malware, but Anti-AdBlocks run scripts on YOUR machines without your consent, and thus are ALSO malware.
1000% in the TOS that you agreed to when you signed up, or implicitly by continuing to use the site
National laws trump TOS
The American brain can’t comprehend this
A significant number of Americans want to overturn the Enlightenment for being too woke.
I will never watch 20 ads in a 15 minutes video, it's worse than television.
Make it a reasonable number of ads and I might consider it
Some youtubers are so greedy it's unreal, you barely see the red line because it's way too filled with yellow spaces
Who could have POSSIBLY seen this coming?
Enshittification must be stopped
*you pay YouTube for the content they didn't make or they turn the thumbscrews.
This is misleading : a substantial part is distributed to the content creators. Traditionally the YouTube cut is alleged to be rather low.
Because it costs nothing to run data centers, employ thousands of people, distribute exabytes of data.
If some day I cannot block ads on YouTube I'll go to Patreon or any other platform that gives creators a real share of what I'm paying. Google will not see my money.
Has YouTube even done anything to improve the platform in the last 8 year? The only thing that I’ve seen change is the search turning to trash with “recommended content” after 4 real search results.
They removed the dislike button. That improved the platform right?
And they did it in a way so half-ass that if you have the right plug in the dislike button is back. I think the most pathetic is when I see that the dislike button is turned off by the owner of the video.
I understand why they did it, they were tired of major corporations having PR nightmares when trailers for unpopular products get downloaded into Oblivion, but protecting shareholders of other companies should not be their job. Their priority should be to content creators, sadly however this is how ethics works, not capitalism.
But, being able to turn off the dislike button all together...
Imagine every other job getting to do that, I am a janitor, imagine if one day I was allowed to have people just not be able to look at the dirt on whatever floor I didn't mop. I would basically never mop again.
I understand that YouTube is a hobby for most, at least it was in the beginning, but it is now a business. And if I were the Better Business Bureau I would give them a big fat F on their report card
To be clear, the plugin doesn’t make the button come back, the button never went away. The dislike counter went away, and the plugin doesn’t “bring it back” it simply approximates the number of dislikes (unless the channel operator opts in to having the info shared directly from their API, which comes with some security risks.)
No.
In fact they've made it objectively worse by restricting what you're allowed to make videos about.
The state of True Crime is abysmal.. it has gotten to the point where censorship is stricter than Cable TV, as the names of various felonies have to be bleeped out in order to not catch youtube's wrath.
Yet Far Right Political Channels are free to drop whatever slurs against transfolk they like.. and openly accuse whatever drag performer they want of being a kiddie diddler even though true crime channels get a content strike for saying "pedophile" even though it's in the context of someone literally tried and convicted as one.
Ever wonder why the kids are saying "Unalive" so much? It started as a cute 4th wall leaning cover for death in a Deadpool/Spider-Man crossover...
Now it has regular usage because direct references to death (Again, Regardless of context) is against Youtube Terms of Service.
It's so bad that a close friend of mine who is a streamer, despite not posting to youtube, has had to train himself to exclusively say Unalived so that clips of his streams can be safely posted to youtube, his livelihood cannot risk him using the "d" or "k" words.
It's absurd because a reason web content became so popular is that it wasn't restricted to the same kind of censorship the FCC puts on Cable TV.. We can have an Angry Nerd drop as many F Bombs as he wants while talking about something as innocuous as Super Mario 3...
But thanks to Youtube.. not anymore
Probably a lot on the backend. Honestly fewer changes on the front is probably for the better at this point.
I was under the impression that YT Premium paid creators the same per view as YT with ads. Is this not the case?
I believe Louis Rossmann said that giving a single dollar directly to a creator is more than a lifetime of watching their ads. Premium I think is really good comparatively but that's only because ads pay so little.
(https://youtu.be/4Q3ZXQZZlcE?t=55 is where he says this according to his cpm)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/4Q3ZXQZZlcE?t=55
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Some creators have said that the cut they get from premium viewers is higher than that of ad based (SpiffingBrit for example, in his YouTube download exploit video).
If that still holds true is unknown.
Linus (LTT) also said that one premium view was worth significantly more than ad based.
I don't believe so. As I understand it, all Premium money goes into a big bucket. Then, views/watchtime/etc. are used to calculate what percentage of the pie a given creator will receive.
Yeah, so if you watch one creator a lot then they get a lot more
Only issue would be getting the creators to move. That nay be more difficult than said with some. I already follow some on rumble, I only stay on YouTube as others haven't.
Otherwise I agree
Yeah, no.. it's already overpriced.
Paramount + £6.99 Netflix £10.99 (standard) Youtube £12
Makes no sense.. they don't have anything like the production overheads. Stuff like Star Trek and Stranger Things are expensive. '10 greatest cat videos' is not.
Heck, they don't even pay a good fraction of their bandwidth because they put caching box in your ISP location to reduce loads. This is a huge privilege as ISPs won't let any random companies run equipments for free in their network, which is one of a huge barrier for any YouTube competitors.
They might be allowing them to run the boxes for free, but the ISPs are saving money on bandwidth, too.
Get enough users for the ISP to care and they'll work with you. Otherwise, you probably don't have all that many users to begin with, so the overhead that maintaining and distributing these boxes would create wouldn't be worth it anyway.
Youtube expenses is revenue share with creators and hosting untold hours of video, over 500 hours uploaded per minute, that others just don't have to deal with.
It "makes sense" in that, unlike those two, YT has to deal with thousands of hours of video being uploaded to their servers every minute. What they don't pay in streaming rights, they pay in storage and bandwidth costs, plus a couple of peanuts for "moderation", which is probably more expensive in the long run
you forgot to add spotify which is about 12$
YouTube Music is included with YouTube Premium though so no need for Spotify if you have YTP.
yes. thats why i was saying they forgot spotify price in their calculation its still pretty ok price for ytp in relation to spotifys new price jump.
Ah I see, fair point
Depends on how much you use it. I watch Youtube pretty much every day for at least an hour, while using Netflix or other streaming services about once evey few months. I use Spotify every day too, just because I like their app more in some ways.
If I had to choose, I'd swap my Netflix and Disney+ subscriptions for YouTube. I think I watch YouTube videos about three times as much as Netflix and Disney.
Well it also includes a streaming music service which are normally $10/m on their own.
I already pay for Spotify. They knew exactly what they were doing when they lumped that shit in YouTube premium
They should offer it seperately.
IIRC, YouTube Music is also offered as a standalone service, Atleast in some countries. However, the difference b/w YouTube Premium and just the Music service comes out to be miniscule, so folks just pay for the former.
No, I want Premium without Music. It's not offered anywhere.
Same thing with Amazon. I want Prime without Prime Video. It's not offered either.
Oh, I understand now, especially the second one. The only thing from Amazon's product line worth using to me is the Prime delivery service. I can't give two hoots about their Prime Music( which I lost respect for after it denied to run for me on any browser on Linux for some reason) or Prime Video.
I can't see the value in using youtube for music.. it's not like I can watch music videos in my car. That's worth $0 to me, and I imagine the majority. Spotify is better.. or apple music if you're on the fruit side.
Youtube music doesn't have music videos, not sure what you are talking about. It's just a clone of play music after they shut it down.
Fwiw, it's not videos, it's a Spotify clone.
If you've already got a solution for ad-free music in your car, sure, obviously. Not everybody has that though.
why is everything being enshittified this year? :(
Tech bubble is deflating, high interest rates are probably also a culprit
You mean POP!?
I feel like a pop would be more extreme?
Unpopular opinion: this is a good thing.
(Waits for down votes... )
This is healthy for the ecosystem, it makes it possible for other video platforms to compete, and be sustainable. Google providing the loss leader in video streaming makes it difficult for other platforms to exist, and sustain themselves, because they don't have Google's war chest.
So it's going to be a difficult transition, but now there is wiggle room for other platforms to exist. And with 1 gigabit, and 10 gigabit home internet connections becoming more common globally, we have options for more interesting gorilla distributed video streaming.
Will the gorillas go door to door with a pad or something with a video on it, or are you thinking memory sticks?
Both services are available, and I recommend paying the extra for the 'please dont rip my arms off' extra.
More like IPFS. If you have a bunch of gigabit residential internet connections distributed globally. That's a reasonable approximation of a video streaming platform.
I'm not saying I have a good solution for today, but all the components are there to build a competitor to YouTube, and now if the price barrier going up, there's room for whatever organization competes with YouTube to get some sustainable income
You're right I hope. Especially about gorillas sharing video! We need a guerilla movement to get these gorillas some cell phones and I've been saying it for years!
Significant portions of the US are still on copper cable or DSL, I don’t think there’ll be widespread fiber, let alone 10G for at least 10-15 years
Agreed, I'm in northern Canada and only the capital city of my territory has cable internet, the outskirts of the city and the smaller communities are stuck with ancient and capped (300GB per month) DSL at 15 Mbps while I get unlimited 100/10 Mbps for $140 per month. I'd kill for symmetrical 100/100 so I could access my plex server outside of my house, let alone 1 Gbps fiber internet.
I'd guess we're a minimum of 5-10 years away from fiber internet sadly, we just don't have the population to make it profitable enough for the greedy ass telecom companies, even with the extra government funding the telecom gets for serving our low population territory.
10Gb to the home? Where have you seen this, and.for how much? I had no idea that was a thing for residential
64.75 Swiss Franks per month from my ISP, it's the same price as their 1 Gb/s and 25 Gb/s plans.
I'm currently still on 1Gb/s because buying the faster router, switch and network cards to make use of more is kind of expensive
I get 2gbps to my home in singapore for $30USD a month.
10gbps is available in a few places globally, but its becoming more common. i.e. https://www.utopiafiber.com/10-gbps-info/
Wow that's nice! I get 600/25mbps for $80USD in the US, coax 😞 wish fiber-to-the-premise was a possibility in my neighborhood
Even that's twice what I get. The prices here are disgusting... I get 300mbps for $100... Yay monopolies!
My parents get 25/1 for ~$150 since there’s no other options, nor is there any plans to run new cable to get them better internet.
https://www.advancedstream.com/brighamcity
10gbps in utah for $200 a month...
I imagine korea has some great prices too.....
but the important thing here is the trend, data is becoming available, data centers don't matter as much as we become more interconnected ourselves.
This is a really good point, I never thought about this. While we still haven't seen the anti-adblock message from YT (Firefox + uBlock Origin on Linux Mint), we've been using Nebula more and more lately. It would be great if there was a similar service for quality kids content. As it stands we stick to just a couple YT channels for our 2.5 year old because of how much absolute, irredeemable garbage there is targeted at kids there. I can't imagine how shit the ads are for them.
This is what I've been saying, youtube providing the service for free is what's been preventing competitors to exist.
No, not really. I get what you mean but the truth is, that unsustainable practices should've been capped, and made illegal BEFORE there was a monopoly. Now that there is one, they can do what they want. Google aren't idiots. They know FULL well they can do this. All of this is calcualted.
uBlock Origin and ReVanced users: I missed the part where that's my problem.
i know my problem: besides im almost immune, my family isnt, my devices connected in the same network could be affected by a malware sponsor on 1st search result, besides im the one who got to fix anything that could go wrong in their devices, etc
It's good that there is at least one person in a family that can fix electronics. It's worse when there's no one. I think the majority of malware coming from ads (and persisting on devices) is in those families that lack that one techy person.
Do you feel better after making fun of people who use other devices and not just a smartphone and browser? There are a hundred news that aren't your problem and you don't comment there, but you make sure to come in here and "rub it in" to people who care about this, by not providing an actual solution.
Very noble.
Sucks for them. This is what happens when you buy into the corporate, locked down, sanitised and monetised walled garden.
Privacy first and FLOSS software have been out there the whole time for people willing to invest the time (and money, but often it's cheaper than the commercial option) to learn them and gain those benefits for themselves.
But if people want a device so they pick up the one with the shiniest marketing and then wonder why it's shoving ads down their throat, well, that's what they get for not researching the options. There are alternatives, they've been posted many times over in this thread and similar ones.
So you're openly hating on people for being normal, without offering a single alternative of a video platform that's not all of those things that you labeled as evil.
The alternative to shopping isn't shoplifting. The usual things that people list are client side apps that circumvent intended operation of the platform, reaping as many benefits without paying the cost. But hosting isn't free. Running a business isn't free. And hating the people who literally subsidize your unauthorized use of the platform is hypocrisy.
We all know that Youtube need to get rid off of AdBlockers because they want to make more money than what they are making now. If they just need to cover business costs they could just make the service subscription only, make the fee high enough to keep the site running and earn something and allow to see only the first 10-15% of each video to not subscribed users and forget all this charade about AdBlockers.
Making money by charging for completely optional services is not only not wrong, but the very reason why we have most of the good stuff that we have.
Awesome! Submit your resume or send it as a proposal. If they didn't think of this first and discarded it because of reasons that you haven't considered, this might be an opportunity to benefit everyone.
And who said it is wrong ? I only said that they want to make more money, not that they cannot make money.
Not interested, I leave it to you ;-)
The reason is that this way they would make less money while keeping the service in the black, people would realize that, after all, Youtube is not that important part of their routine, and the total number of users would be lower (by a long shot probably) so even less data to harvest and sell and less return in Ads. After all who would watch 2 minutes of ads in a 2.30 minutes long video ?
Imagine Google doing it and then saying "we restructured out offer and this yeas we are 30% below the last year analysts' forecasts and we think that we will cut the earning by half while keeping the operational costs below the X % of the total profit". The next day the shares would be trash and all the management would be fired.
The reality is that once you are quoted in Wall Street (but it is true in every other place) you always need to grow. The problem is that you need to grow faster than your userbase could grow so no way to add X million new users (eyeball to watch your ads) every year: at some point you would run out of people (or of people who would accept, which is the same)
So the only thing you can do is monetize some more of what you already have. The only reason Youtube want to get rid of the Adblockers is that this way they can say to the advertisers "we increased the number of viewers of X % so you should pay us Y % more" so they can reach what the Wall Street analysts's forecasts were and the stock price increase. Nothing else, no server or bandwidth problems. Only stock prices.
Stock prices are one element of what makes business possible. Youtube would not even exist without this mechanic.
It's like complaining that people have sex.
It's a core facet of running a business. It's a requirement and an expectation. This is part of "keeping the lights on".
If you think so, you should explain where exactly the 1.624 trillions $ value of Google is, given that its net assets are about 267 billions $ and they had about 118 billions $ in cash (or cash equivalent)
Stocks are only a loan that a invenstor make to the company with the understanding that the company will repay it with a earning for the investor, nothing else. (well, it is not that simple but you get the point). Which is the reason a company always need to grow, because I buy your stocks today at 100 and I expect to sell them tomorrow at 101. Someone else buy your stocks tomorrow at 101 and expect to sell them next week at 103. That is indipendent from the fact that you have covered your operating costs in this week.
Youtube could exist even without this mechanic. True, it would not be as big as now or had the supposed value it has now.
It is the easy way to run a businness. A loan without the need to repay it.
The only element that "keep the light on" is that you have less cost than profit.
You can sell a cow for $1000 on the meat market. Or you can keep that cow, so that it produces milk for many years and earns you a total of $5000. This is the difference between net asset value and valuation. If you were to buy a cow, and producing a cow was next to impossible (cows are one of a kind, like unicorns), then the price of the cow would be closer to the valuation than its net asset value. And once you have that cow, as a responsible farmer you will milk it to the last drop, to get the most out of your money.
Now I'm sorry for the cow, but a business isn't a living creature so exploiting it is ok.
The company isn't necessarily expected to grow. Companies are expected to be milked. Sometimes companies don't grow and that's ok, they're still being milked. The only requirement is that the owners of the cow, at any age of the cow, will believe that there's milk in there somewhere some day.
It's not a loan, it's actual ownership. And the expectation is that people get something out of it.
YouTube would exist almost as a hobbyist site that has issues scaling its users and monetizing its activity. At some point it would have failed because people would find it frustrating to face the lags, and the owners (who by the way are still owners, who still invested in it, so actually very little changes in this mechanic) would introduce subscription fees or something in order to use the platform. Would it have become a ubiquitous platform as it exists today? Would you have it on your tablet, tv, phone? Probably not, but any of its competitors would have gone on a very similar journey and you'd be complaining about a different company, because you need investments in order to grow, become better, more attractive, and become both the way that people choose to upload content, and the way that people choose to consume content. And it would have been YouTube who couldn't have afforded to keep the lights on at this moment.
I'm sorry, but that statement is as false as "developers get paid to much simply to press buttons. Anyone can do that".
At the heart of this statement sits a conviction that you understand the topic, while you are missing some fundamental facts about it.
Why don't you play a few thought experiments? Put yourself in other people's shoes. If you were someone who had money, why would you put it in a loan that doesn't have a need to be repaid? If you're suggesting that the entire stock market rests on the "greater fool" principle, then maybe you don't know about the end goal? Did you consider the "return on investment"? This literally is the very thing that powers the farmer who buys a baby cow, and what makes trillion dollar companies. Literally, the same instruments and calculations that financiers and CEOs of huge companies use day to day, my acquaintances who literally run their own pig farm, use every year - from options on feed, to futures on meat before even buying the piglets. The only thing they don't do of this equation is stocks, since it's a small farm and it's owned fully by the family, and they don't need to scale.
Only thing is the 5000$ are what you are hoping to get, not what you have. If you sell the cow to another farmer you will get less then 1000 $ (or maybe a little more), only a fool would pay you 5000$. Obviously I know there are some exceptions, but this is the normal situation.
This is because YouTube is something that people can do without. But there is no technical reasons why a paid service should have scaling issues. In the real world there are a lot of paid service that scale pretty well without any issue.
If people would find the service worth enough then people would pay the service. The boom of Netflix is an example: as long as people find it worth the price, they happily pay it. Once the service is not worth anymore (or not seen as worth), people stopped paying.
If a competitor had come out with a better service that was worth it, people would have paid it. Again, Netflix is an example. Only difference is Netflix also had to pay for distribution licenses and to produce shows, which add up other problems. Another example is Patreon: people pay to access things that they value worth the price.
Well, looking to how all the big stock exanges scaldals ends, I would say that there is nothing that make me thing that this is false.
Your comment certainly provided "an actual solution" in a "very noble" way
Umm, actually it did. The solution to a problem is to first acknowledge it. The problem is being an asshole that can't let a day go by without rubbing something in.
The YouTube problem? For me it's not a problem any more than anything else price-related. It's interesting to see who is affected by the change and whether it impacts actual customers. What's not interesting is seeing a long string of whinging and schadenfreude from people who strongly believe that it's wrong to pay for services and who have not spent a cent on this. That's ok, believe what you want, but don't be an asshole about it.
Yes
it's going to be your problem soon regardless of your idiotic optimism
https://lemmy.world/comment/5021168
Read the article that has been posted under the linked comment!
For whatever reason Google has decided not to push forward with the current Web integrity standards. That doesn't mean they're giving up, doesn't mean they're committing to an open web, they've delayed a bit, and they'll push it out under a different name, slowly. It's not going away, it's delayed. We need to work hard now to maintain an open web forever, and we need to work hard everyday
https://hackertalks.com/comment/1617805
happily continues using uBO and Firefox
Get fucked Google. Glory to the adblockers.
The way Google is starting to abuse its position of power to crackdown on its users, its really comes to show the cracks in its armour.
It's the beginning of the end for Google.
Long live open source software!
Google isn't going anywhere. We are the minority. People who know what "open source" even means are the minority. The vast majority of people will just put up with it because they don't know any better. You are highly highly overestimating the tech literacy (and motivation level) of the average person.
If anything, I expect two things to rise - people that just stop watching videos online cold-turkey, and pirate mirrors of popular YouTube channels
Well, more crazy things has happened. Do you think that Google is going to be here forever?
It's the little things that corrodes a company. Hence the "crack in the armour.
I like to think that most people surf the Internet with an ad blocker. Simple because the Internet is just riddled with ads and the experience is frustrating without one.
So if you see your grandma has a bad experience online, you are likely to install an ad blocker to help her out. Most people knows how to do this, at least one person in the family. That is what hurts Google the most.
It's the annoyance factor that is a great driver of change. The way people do things. Even if they are used to do things in a certain way.
I personally have notest the Google maps are much more inaccurate nowadays than it used to be. It has become an annoyance.
Google is a trillion dollar company. It's not Digg. Google going down would be the single most sensational thing to have happened in the history of the Internet. Even Twitter is still kicking after everything they've done.
I read that only 6% of people even use adblockers
I have read that 6% of people use suspenders instead of belts.
I'm guessing only 6% of people understand this comment.
If we are going to do this capitalist market thing than we need competition.
Amen!
What abuse?
This article.
There's no abuse. The service is historically provided with ads. You blocking ads is technically illegal, as you're breaking ToS. The only abuse is people complaining here.
Another Google Abuse Example.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Another Google Abuse Example.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
How's that relevant to the topic exactly?
More enshitification.
The stupid thing is that they could have approached this in a much less dickish manner. Seriously. First, they are making money off us as it is with their demographics and the fact they are not utilizing this cash cow as before means they have gotten too greedy for their own good, or mismanaging funds which is a completely unrelated problem. Long ads, unskippable ads, expensive premium. This is the beginning of the end of something they used to offer as free, resting on their laurels as a monopoly, like the airline industry. When they are now practically forcing the cobra effect. Eventually, it will get so silly, it will go the way of the dod like Angelfire. AOL, and Geocities. Or, soon, Netflix.
I would have started it similar to Patreon, like, "by donating $1/mo, you can support artists like this," and incentivize the publishers with monetary gain and higher search results. Nobody is gonna miss $1 or $12/year. You multiply that by millions of viewers, that's millions of dollars on top of their demographics. Second, they could have had a 5 second bumper, similar to PBS, like "This and other find content is brought to you by Exxon and the Chubb group" or whatever. Five seconds. Front and back. Not enough to cause outrage. Skippable, but not so annoying, everyone skips.
God imagine SML allowing Jeffy to ask if Mario is "fucking high" again?
Pretty hyped for the death of Youtube.
If ads werent accompanied by malware, scams and right wing propaganda farms I might have considered not blocking them but as it is, no.
The right-wing propaganda thing has been odd for me. I'm a liberal gun nut and watch tons of gun related stuff. You would think I would be run over by BS, but I'm not. Can't explain it.
OTOH, if one has a soft mind, I can see the rabbit holes they might fall into. Perhaps we shore up education so even the idiots know enough not to fall in?
mine went from 17 AUD to 33 AUD.
what a bunch of greedy assholes.
I was paying for it for years. But now I'll go out of my way to not pay for it. No doubt a lot of people will too.
TF? (aka fuck'em) That seems like the USD price is probably going to rise too then. USD 9.99 right now for me and that's AUD 15.41.
AUD 33 would be more than doubling it for me, just like Disney more than doubled my barely used subscription (I instantly cancelled that).
One Piece is going to have real live action now methinks.
Not certain what is up with yours, but mine has been increased to $17 from $15 AU.
*Ah, the Family plan.
$18 > $32. An absurd increase especially given the single plan was just $2.
yeah sry the family plan I, didn't specify
Or you just continue to block the adds.
I think I will do neither of those things instead.
I will be stone cold dead before I pay a single dollar/euro to Google for THEM to harvest MY DATA to resell.
That's 4 global continents, that counts as worldwide.
I think they only missed Africa in terms of populated continents
Mapmen continents
If anybody wants to debate how many continents there are I will provide you the most inflammatory list:
.
Or how about I continue to use uBlock Origin and do neither.
The worst part of it is that they are still driving up the cost by bundling YouTube music.
They know nobody else will use it if they don’t
Just wait, it’s google. They’ll sunset google music and not bring the price down
Honestly I think Google has a horrible management culture. It worked fine when they were printing money regardless but at this point the incompetence is starting to show.
They've been also serving ads for YouTube premium as well recently
My guess it that it's to rope in people who don't use adblock
Wait... YouTube Kids has ads without Premium?! I would've hoped they'd keep the ads away from kids at least.
Anyone who grew up in the U.S. in the 80s can tell you that we spent hours every Saturday morning watching ads for toys disguised as cartoons in between ads for toys not disguised at all.
I still maintain that YT Premium is a great service if you're like a lot of people and YT is the majority of your online video consumption. From a price to use comparison standpoint, it's unbeaten. Netflix, Hulu, Crunchyroll, etc all pale in comparison.
But their insistence on bumping up prices, bundling YT Music and their war on ad blockers now is making it really hard to try to keep it. Hopefully now that Google is trying to cash in, we get some real competitors. Because right now when it comes to the sheer amount of content, visual quality and reliability of streaming nothing compares.
The problem is that, as I understand, YouTube still loses money.
They could probably break even if they screwed over their creators like other platforms, but their creators are their moat.
I've heard that too, but I don't know the details. It seems to me that their massive compute, storage and bandwidth requirements would be the culprits. If they're paying creators so much that they're unprofitable, that would make them very unsaavy with their money.
uBlock beat the filters almost immediately. Annoyingly for google once you've downloaded something its out of their hands.
How? I keep having to clear cookies. Now use Firefox. With logged in window I find the video I want and I open it in private window with ublock origin enabled. No warning in private logged out window.
I was honestly thinking about buying premium, so I would support the creators. Welp, that's out of the window.
See if they have Patreon, or better LiberaPay or OpenCollective. If not, you can ask them to make one.
The less people who watch YouTube, the less valuable those ads are, and therefore the less valuable premium just be.
Have YouTube viewers been going up to justify ads being more valuable?
Video serving can cost a lot of bandwidth. Hence it could be sensible.
YouTube don't even pay a fraction of those bandwidth as they run caching box on your ISP for free. ISPs won't let any random companies run equipments for free in their network, so this is a significant competitive advantage. You'll have to be a company as big as Google, Apple, or Netflix to do this.
A few months ago I was thinking about getting YouTube premium. It's a platform I'm on everyday and have been using it for years. But they decided to block adblockers and increase prices, so they can go fuck themselves.
I'm on the go fuck yourselves side even though I use YT everyday quite a lot.
Us Aussies got it hard, price went up from 18 to 33. I'm strongly considering this to be my last month.
See you in the other side ⚰️🙏😔
For youtube revanced, use revanced manager
There are so many ways to watch YouTube without ads on all devices. I don't see ads anywhere in my house. And when I like a creator so much, I support them directly. Fuck Google. If they were reasonable with their prices/practices and paid people more I'd buy premium.
How to avoid ads in YouTube on Fire TV Stick?
Smarttube Next. Easy to install, too.
After writing that I comment, I looked and downloaded SmartTube. Is Next one better than that?
There are two version. One is beta and the other is stable. I have both for no particular reason, just wanted to have them. Beta may get some new features before the stable one, but they both do the same.
Install "downloader" from the Amazon app store, then use it to Google and download the smarttubenext APK. Downloader is a web browser the fire TV stick that has a cursor. Fire TV stick runs on Android, so side loading is good on it. Make sure to enable install from "unknown sources" in the settings of the stick.
Thanks a lot. It's pretty nice. Had to enable developer options first.
No problem, I hope you enjoy it. Also, I apologize for forgetting to tell you about the developer options.
I will do everything within my power to take from them as much and give back as little as I can.
I don't need YouTube that much. It's competing with books, more traditional TV shows and movies, and Nebula / Curiosity Stream and Wondrium / LinkedIn Learning. I guess I might miss some reaction videos, but oh well.
I'd even be willing to consider paying them, if it was not as pricey and came with less bullshit.
Obviously, even compared to yt premium, third party Foss solutions are by far superior, but to support the creators, it would be okay.
Yet, when they higher the already ridiculous price further, I'm noting out.
Yeah, I don't want shitty music streaming, strip that out and give me a no ads only option for like $100 a year and I'd consider it
That's still a pretty high price
Can confirm, my YTM subscription in Poland went up from 9.99 to 10.99 PLN.
I pay for YouTube because I leave it on basically all day. It's worth the 14ish(I don't remember) a month. I just wish more of my pay would go to the creators.
If you're happy with the service then I hope it remains a good cost for you, to me it costs too much for what I would actually want it for.
And I'm from a country where YouTube Premium isn't even available.
I'm shocked /s
YouTube sucks ass now anyway, just don't watch it
But you're Assman, shouldn't you be enjoying a bit of ass sucking? 🙃
Nah, there’s still plenty of great creators on it.
I tried to get youtube premium because the ads are wack af and they won't even let me.
Aren't there sites that offer YouTube premium sharing for something like 3 euros and change? I remember landing on one while I was meandering the tubes.
Personally I'd say they should regulate the ads that are being rolled out so we don't have constant obvious scams but oh wait that would make for a better and safer user experience
I'm so glad I early adopted Google play music all access. It locked me in at a permanent lower rate, and that got rolled into YouTube premium with the release of YouTube music.
Seems like this could be turned around if enough people would just consciously refuse to patronize anything they saw advertised on youtube.
That seems like it could work, and I would love to say you're right, but many of the companies advertising—especially as we're seeing more and more of the big players—have a really diverse ad spend budget so their dollars are all over the place. Because so many ads aren't looking for a direct sale but rather increase your awareness when you DO want to buy, say, laundry detergent, there's no way to tie your purchase to having seen an ad (though marketers LOVE to try and draw lines to efforts, many are hazy at best). So seeing ads and consciously not buying what you're seeing could in theory lead to a dip in sales, but the watch numbers are high, so no adveriser would be able to tell that dip is because of youtube, or podcasts or... uh... radio?.
So sadly the best way to hurt the system is to a) keep blocking the ads so the watch level is low and the advertisers want out or b) drop the watch level naturally by picking another platform.
Source: a lot of time in advertising.
The horror. Paying for your content. Shudders