YouTube Premium

Google/Youtube aren't forcing us to watch YouTube, so we do have the option not to be bombarded by adverts on their platform. The barriers to entry on their platform are very low and the vast majority of channels lose them money, they should be able to charge those who don't want the adverts and price it regionally. Why should the likes of Turkey and Ukraine pay anything like the same amount as the US or Europeans?
 
Google, YouTube, have destroyed the quality of their content by squeezing every last advertising dime out if it. So they've switched to a subscription model. Now they've trying to force people into that. I'm guessing the only problem with that is the bulk of their audience isn't likely to pay for subscriptions. I suspect its the same audience that only use Free Music Streaming.
 
Minato said:
Greed. Unskippable Ads every few minutes inside videos, not just the start. Extremely expensive premium service. You lot are having to Ukraine VPN to dodge that. Shorts. Shorts again.

Their business model has become “how can we annoy potential customers as much as possible, in order to make them paying customers?”. So they’re focused on being as annoying as possible instead of providing value.
Click to expand...
For me, £12 a month for Ad-free viewing and a comparable service to Spotify is decent value. Everyone's opinion on the value of a service is different, as always if a service doesn’t offer value to a large portion of its customer base it won’t be around long. To call them buggers for wanting to be commercially viable is slightly unfair.
 
Minato said:
And I think a massive issue (one of many) with modern hypercapitalist consumerist society is the constant bombardment with advertising. I think people should have a right to choose whether they want to 1. Be spammed constantly with ads 24/7, when browsing the web, on TV, out on the streets, and 2. To what extent and how their personal data is sold and harvested to facilitate #1. Personally I'd rather be involved with neither. I don't think it's ethical for multi billion dollar organisations like Google/Youtube to force me to pay them just to have that option.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but this is just a really strange stance. If they don't either have advertisements or a subscription then the content doesn't get made, therefore you wont be watching it anyway.
So the fact that they do have both these options means that you have 3 options:
Dont watch it
Watch the adverts
Pay the subscription.

It's 12 quid a month or something to not have adverts, surely that's a good deal.
 
Jimbeam3678 said:
For me, £12 a month for Ad-free viewing and a comparable service to Spotify is decent value. Everyone's opinion on the value of a service is different, as always if a service doesn’t offer value to a large portion of its customer base it won’t be around long. To call them buggers for wanting to be commercially viable is slightly unfair.
Click to expand...

It's good value compared to the alternatives. But it's not a true music service if it's playing the audio from video sources with dubious SQ quality also very bloated data stream.

I expect once it has killed enough of the competition it will raise the price. Leaving you with a poor service overall.
 
Jimbeam3678 said:
For me, £12 a month for Ad-free viewing and a comparable service to Spotify is decent value. Everyone's opinion on the value of a service is different, as always if a service doesn’t offer value to a large portion of its customer base it won’t be around long. To call them buggers for wanting to be commercially viable is slightly unfair.
Click to expand...

The thing for me is, I'm never going to use YouTube to replace Spotify, so £12.99⁠/⁠month, just to remove ads, is terrible value.

Even £7.99 for the student plan doesn't seem like good VFM to me.

I can accept a couple of quid a month, paying via VPN for a subscription outside the UK, and YT still gets some money from me.

If they offered a £2.99 service without YT Music or whatever it's called, I'd happily pay that, but they don't.
 
OspreyO said:
It's good value compared to the alternatives. But it's not a true music service if it's playing the audio from video sources with dubious SQ quality also very bloated data stream.

I expect once it has killed enough of the competition it will raise the price. Leaving you with a poor service overall.
Click to expand...
The use case you have described doesn’t apply to the vast majority of user though. Youtube Music/Spotify audio quality I can’t tell that much difference if I am being completely honest.

Killing competition is what a competitive market is all about isn’t it and is what drives innovation and evolution of products.

Ultimately if Youtube premium does not offer value to the end user it will get killed off or prices reduced. :)
 
BIGWEB said:
I'm sorry but this is just a really strange stance. If they don't either have advertisements or a subscription then the content doesn't get made, therefore you wont be watching it anyway.
So the fact that they do have both these options means that you have 3 options:
Dont watch it
Watch the adverts
Pay the subscription.

It's 12 quid a month or something to not have adverts, surely that's a good deal.
Click to expand...

Do you remember what youtube was like 10 years ago, or even 5? You might have a single square advert somewhere on the page at the top of the recommended to watch next videos. Then they introduced a single short ad at the start or end of the video. Now there's ads everywhere on the page, at the start, end, and throughout the video. It's naked greed.

What if next your 12 quid a month only removes the adverts on the page, but then they release a higher 20 quid tier to remove the ads in the video? See netflix subscription -> multi screen tier -> 4K tier. These companies want to squeeze every penny they can out of you.

And if £12 a month is such a good deal, why is everyone here using a Ukraine VPN to pay less. Because clearly they don't think it's good value for money or fair to pay £12/mo just to remove ads that have been forced down their throat.
 
Minato said:
Do you remember what youtube was like 10 years ago, or even 5? You might have a single square advert somewhere on the page at the top of the recommended to watch next videos. Then they introduced a single short ad at the start or end of the video. Now there's ads everywhere on the page, at the start, end, and throughout the video. It's naked greed.

What if next your 12 quid a month only removes the adverts on the page, but then they release a higher 20 quid tier to remove the ads in the video? See netflix subscription -> multi screen tier -> 4K tier. These companies want to squeeze every penny they can out of you.

And if £12 a month is such a good deal, why is everyone here using a Ukraine VPN to pay less. Because clearly they don't think it's good value for money or fair to pay £12/mo just to remove ads that have been forced down their throat.
Click to expand...
Business models have to evolve over time. If they don't pay creators enough then they are free to move elsewhere. You can also move elsewhere for your viewing too. Rumble, Vimeo or others.
If you don't like their model then vote with your feet (or eyeballs)
 
YouTube 5 or 10 years ago had a fraction of the content it has now ... If servers were free to buy and run then yes you'd have half an argument.
Instead we have some entitled people whining about how unfair the world is to them.
Nothing grows without consequence.
 
The trouble is, YouTube have set the value of its video content for 20 years at the price of £0.00. It's like selling Ferraris for £10 one week and then £50,000 then next, on the face of it, £50k still a good deal, but people would refuse to pay because the perceived value isn't there.

There's a reason high value brands don't do sales.
 
Minato said:
Do you remember what youtube was like 10 years ago, or even 5? You might have a single square advert somewhere on the page at the top of the recommended to watch next videos. Then they introduced a single short ad at the start or end of the video. Now there's ads everywhere on the page, at the start, end, and throughout the video. It's naked greed.

What if next your 12 quid a month only removes the adverts on the page, but then they release a higher 20 quid tier to remove the ads in the video? See netflix subscription -> multi screen tier -> 4K tier. These companies want to squeeze every penny they can out of you.

And if £12 a month is such a good deal, why is everyone here using a Ukraine VPN to pay less. Because clearly they don't think it's good value for money or fair to pay £12/mo just to remove ads that have been forced down their throat.
Click to expand...

Someone has to foot the bill unless you think Google should host Youtube for free without adverts through sheer benevolence?

No one is entitled to a service. If Google decide they want to add adverts to their own service, it's a case of put up or shut up.

I don't get the entitlement some people have with YouTube (yes, because it's been turned on me before. Clearly I also have a degree of entitlement if I'm paying for YTP via Argentina) where they believe the service should have no adverts and Google pays the bill because they don't like seeing adverts.
 
Junglist said:
Someone has to foot the bill unless you think Google should host Youtube for free without adverts through sheer benevolence?

No one is entitled to a service. If Google decide they want to add adverts to their own service, it's a case of put up or shut up.

I don't get the entitlement some people have with YouTube (yes, because it's been turned on me before. Clearly I also have a degree of entitlement if I'm paying for YTP via Argentina) where they believe the service should have no adverts and Google pays the bill because they don't like seeing adverts.
Click to expand...
Alphabet made $223m profit in Q3 last year. Admittedly as tech firms go that's not a lot, but it's still profit. But, of course, the stock market, investors and shareholders always expect and demand MORE so they'll look to any income stream they can.

Would YT get 3x as many signing up to YT Premium if it was £6 instead of £18? Possibly, but clearly they either don't think so, or their current £18pm offering is getting more than 33% of what they'd get at £6pm.
 
Junglist said:
Someone has to foot the bill unless you think Google should host Youtube for free without adverts through sheer benevolence?

No one is entitled to a service. If Google decide they want to add adverts to their own service, it's a case of put up or shut up.

I don't get the entitlement some people have with YouTube (yes, because it's been turned on me before. Clearly I also have a degree of entitlement if I'm paying for YTP via Argentina) where they believe the service should have no adverts and Google pays the bill because they don't like seeing adverts.
Click to expand...

Ok you foot the bill then happily
I'll keep using my adblocker, also happily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom