this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
320 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

1928 readers
7 users here now

Rumors, happenings, and innovations in the technology sphere. If it's technological news, it probably belongs here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I pay for Prenium. But that's only because I also use YouTube Music. Otherwise, I wouldn't pay for it and I would do everything that I can to get rid of the ads. YouTube with ads is just hell now. There are so many of them now, it's ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong, I recognise the value that YouTube provides. Most things I watch and listen to are on YouTube. It's the website I use the most and I'll be glad to pay for it. I understand that it costs money to run and I want to support the creators that I watch.

HOWEVER.

I refuse to be strong armed into paying for it. Music brings me the value that I want and comparing with other prices, such as Spotify and so on, the actual "YouTube" part of the package just cost me 1€ per month which is one hell of a deal if you ask me.

But if you don't care for YouTube Music, 11€ a month (worst in the US apparently), just to get rid of ads is... ridiculous. I'd happily pay 5€ a month. It's not much and for the thing that I use the most? Yeah, I'm willing to! And I know that there is YouTube Prenium Lite. However, it's not available everywhere and it comes with a giant "fuck you" to the costumer.

You see, YouTube Prenium Lite is YouTube without ads. And that's it. So, no Background Play (which I use ALL THE TIME), no downloading of videos, none of that. You want that, well, you have to pay full price. Even though these are basic features.

Paying for getting rid of ads is one thing, and maybe accessing special features is one thing. But paying for artificial limitations that are put into place? Absolutely not. And I know the line between what's a prenium feature and what's an artifical limit is blurry. But for me it's basically this: If I can do something for free on desktop, but can't on mobile without paying. Such as background play.

I am convinced YouTube Prenium would be way more appealing if YouTube weren't being such dicks about it.

It's simple:

  • Get your prices back to normal (I hear that in the US, prices have been going up for... no reason).
  • Roll out YouTube Prenium Lite to everyone and rename it YouTube Prenium. So it has all the features of current Prenium except YouTube Music (put ads and disable background play only on music videos?).
  • Make it at like 5 bucks a month.
  • Make a variety of plans based around that. So a Prenium Family and also, a Prenium Duo, just like Spotify, for just two people. Reasonably priced.
  • And you make a YouTube Prenium Music plan, which includes YouTube Music as well. So on top of all of that, for 11 bucks a month, you now have a really compelling offer because you can go, Hey, for just 5 more bucks a month, you get all of the features of YouTube Prenium AND you get a complete music streaming services.
  • Oh and also: STOP DOING THIS SHIT.

Bam. All of the sudden you have compelling options. Some people will say: "Uuuh, jUsT uSe an AdbLocKeR!" and whatever. Those people are not the majority, so many people watch YouTube from their phones and their TVs now, they will be much more inclined to buy it...

...I think.

That last part is important. I recognise I'm just playing armchair business developper here and that I don't know shit, but still. I'm convinced this could work. The real issue comes down to YouTube being a monopoly and thinking that they can do whatever the hell they want, which... they likely can, due to the position they're in. It's an issue but this comment is already long enough and that is another discussion entirely, but basically: Monopolies sucks.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry, I know this isn't a constructive comment, but I had a real good chuckle seeing your autocorrect (?) writing Prenium every single time 😂

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Honestly, I pay for YouTube Premium because I find value in it. The price is reasonable for where I live, and it's my main source of entertainment. I don't like watching movies/TV shows that much so YouTube is my jam. So the convenience of being able to download videos, ad-free viewing, picture-in-picture, background playback etc. is totally worth it for me. I know if I dig hard enough and use an Android phone/tablet I can get those features without having to pay, but I don't like Android and again, the features are worth the small price.

For me, YouTube Premium and Spotify broke piracy because they're more convenient than pirating.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

and I'm testing Youtube Revanced on my phone for unlimited ad-free background play for nothing!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yet another platform to boycott? Excellent!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right! I'm enjoying all these FOSS alternatives lately. I really hope they're here to stay.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, this certainly explains my difficulty with YouTube over the last few days. Ironically, the piped instances still seem to be fine...

This might just be enough to push me primarily over to Rumble. There are fewer and fewer reasons to use YouTube and more and more reasons not to.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Hadn‘t heard of Rumble. At first glance, it looks like it‘s run by Elon Musk. Andrew Tate on the frontpage, far-right political channels and crypto bros. I think I‘ll pass.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I use YouTube a lot, both on my phone via ReVanced and my smart TV via SmartTubeNext, completely ad free. If Youtube manage to block videos unless the users deactivate their adblockers, even if I enjoy Youtube a lot, I'll just stop watching videos. The quantity of ad per video is just insane. No way I can stand watching all those ads.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

While I don’t disagree, YouTube won’t care. Currently folk like you and I who evade their ads are freeloading. We get all the content and YouTube gets nothing in return. Having those who block ads abandon watching doesn’t lose YouTube anything, and maybe saves them a little bandwidth bill I guess?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Honestly, others do have point when they say we are basically leeching off of the platform. I honestly don't think I'd mind paying for youtube, I currently don't because it kind of just got ingrained in me that youtube was "free". I think the ad supported model is fundamentally flawed though.

Platforms will always want to make it worth it for advertisers to work for them. With the huge trove of user data that sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc. have they will use that to leverage personalized ads that will feed your brain with garbage all day and coax you into buying shit you don't need or sometimes even falling for scams.

I'd honestly like it better if these sites just straight up charged you right out of the gate. Maybe on top of that we could have sites be interoperable, like the fediverse, so it's not necessarily what the site offers but how they offer it to you. Making you want to pay for an experience that you truly can't get anywhere else.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder if this would affect things like Newpipe (android YouTube client replacement with no ads) or even just playing streams via MPV. I assume that stuff is relatively safe since it's grabbing the actual video streams, but I'm sure there is still a way they could block them.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

they'll probably start embedding the ads in the video stream like Twitch does

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I pay for Premium (bc I watch mostly from the TV using a console or AppleTV) but this sucks. Especially because how annoying and long a bunch of these ads are now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I'm in the camp that says you should really pay for premium. It's so worth the money. For every premium user that watches a video the creator gets a pretty good cut. Something like 55%. Blocking ads doesn't really hurt the creator too much. Your mainly just sticking it to Google. But if your someone who watches alot of YouTube consider premium, to help your favorite creators more. Especially you get Music included.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I would consider it if YouTube had built in sponsorblock since I find YouTube videos unwatchable without it that I don't bother casting videos to the TV, and go through other methods to retain sponsorblock functionality.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have a private piped instance running in oracle cloud free, works nicely for me.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›