YouTube’s annoying Premium spam(theverge.com)
theverge.com
YouTube’s annoying Premium spam
https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/23/20946114/google-youtube-premium-subscription-ads-pop-ups-spam-rant
190 comments
It's the opposite for me. I've been paying for Youtube Premium since back when they were calling it Youtube Red, and the nag screens haven't gone away. When I'm signed in, Youtube still sticks up banners that remind me that I have exclusive content I don't care about. I still get reminders about all of the "cool" features I don't want. I still have to jump through hoops to archive content that I care about. I'm paying money for exactly 2 reasons:
- I want to support creators.
- I want to watch #%!@X videos without distractions.
Youtube Red only helps me with the first point -- I can support creators, but it's even questionable there whether I'd be having a bigger impact by directly giving money on Patreon. In the meantime, I'm still paying money for Youtube Premium right now and I've gotten to the point where I don't use it, because the experience with an adblocker and proxies is better than the experience I pay for.
At some point, when someone is paying money for a service and then going out of their way to avoid signing into their account or using the thing they pay for, you have to question whether the service is designed well.
- I want to support creators.
- I want to watch #%!@X videos without distractions.
Youtube Red only helps me with the first point -- I can support creators, but it's even questionable there whether I'd be having a bigger impact by directly giving money on Patreon. In the meantime, I'm still paying money for Youtube Premium right now and I've gotten to the point where I don't use it, because the experience with an adblocker and proxies is better than the experience I pay for.
At some point, when someone is paying money for a service and then going out of their way to avoid signing into their account or using the thing they pay for, you have to question whether the service is designed well.
> and the nag screens haven't gone away
I'm also there since Youtube Red and I'm not sure what you mean. I've never seen a nag screen so far. I wonder if it's some bug, or some kind of targeting failure?
I'm also there since Youtube Red and I'm not sure what you mean. I've never seen a nag screen so far. I wonder if it's some bug, or some kind of targeting failure?
From what I'm hearing, it seems to vary a lot from person to person. I would see a lot of popups on the official Youtube App for Android. Youtube was also really interested in getting me to install the Youtube Music app, even though one of the big benefits of Youtube Red in the first place was supposed to be background listening. Youtube Kids was advertised a lot, I didn't understand how I fit the target demographic for that one.
I also saw a lot of advertisements for addons or benefits (here's a Youtube Red exclusive video from some random B-list celebrity that doesn't belong in your recommendations). And I got a lot of tutorials and tips, like popups for how to subscribe to channels. That always felt weird to me, because even if I didn't pay for Youtube Red, surely after a while Youtube would figure out that I knew how to subscribe to channels.
Maybe it's gotten better. Like I hinted at above, I rarely sign into Youtube (I hope they're still distributing the money I give them at least somewhat fairly to creators I like). I'm now paying for Youtube, and separately using a combination of Youtube-DL, NewPipe, Invidious, and proxies/adblockers to build an experience that I consider tolerable. So maybe the notifications have gotten better and I haven't noticed because I haven't checked back recently?
I also saw a lot of advertisements for addons or benefits (here's a Youtube Red exclusive video from some random B-list celebrity that doesn't belong in your recommendations). And I got a lot of tutorials and tips, like popups for how to subscribe to channels. That always felt weird to me, because even if I didn't pay for Youtube Red, surely after a while Youtube would figure out that I knew how to subscribe to channels.
Maybe it's gotten better. Like I hinted at above, I rarely sign into Youtube (I hope they're still distributing the money I give them at least somewhat fairly to creators I like). I'm now paying for Youtube, and separately using a combination of Youtube-DL, NewPipe, Invidious, and proxies/adblockers to build an experience that I consider tolerable. So maybe the notifications have gotten better and I haven't noticed because I haven't checked back recently?
Hi did you know YouTube Kids exists? Even if you don't have kids (I don't, and I'm sure Google's almighty tracking is well aware), but oh man here's another reminder!
And while you're at it, I bet you really miss watching CNN and Fox! Why not check out YouTube TV! For "only" $49.99 a month!
Don't forget to smash that subscribe bell so we can send you push notifications to consume even more of your attention!
And while you're at it, I bet you really miss watching CNN and Fox! Why not check out YouTube TV! For "only" $49.99 a month!
Don't forget to smash that subscribe bell so we can send you push notifications to consume even more of your attention!
I think it is a bug. I had it happen to my account which I've gotten grandfathered from Google Music -> Red -> Premium. The app suddenly changed from saying Premium to saying Youtube in the upper left corner and I was completely blasted with ads for Premium. I contacted them through Google One and whoever they routed it to got it fixed.
As another data point, I'm also a subscriber since YouTube Red and I get those nagging "popups" in the lower left of the desktop site.
It may be that you aren't using many / any of the premium features and they are afraid you might cancel because you don't understand all the fabulous advantages you're getting by paying. Sort of like, if you purchased the winter package for your car the entertainment system were to boot up reminding you that your rear view mirrors are heated.
I hope it's clear I'm not defending them; just theorizing what sort of hamfisted reasoning might have gone into deciding to spam you.
I hope it's clear I'm not defending them; just theorizing what sort of hamfisted reasoning might have gone into deciding to spam you.
> YouTube Premium is literally the service HN wants: honest payment to support a Google service costs and creators publishing on it
Except that's not what it is. They've bundled Ad Free with YouTube Music and YouTube Originals, which I personally have no interest in. How much of that ridiculous price is going to the production of that original content and music licensing fees?
$15 a month is a big ask when I see zero value in 2/3 of the offer.
Bundling is what is driving cord cutting and piracy. People don't want to subsidize crap they don't want and didn't ask for.
\* I would probably think differently if I was a YouTube Red or Music subscriber and they gave me access to Ad Free and Originals as bonus for my subscription fee but I'm not and don't want to be.
Amazon Prime did something similar but by bundling Video and Music but I was already paying for Prime just for the free shipping so it was just extra.
Except that's not what it is. They've bundled Ad Free with YouTube Music and YouTube Originals, which I personally have no interest in. How much of that ridiculous price is going to the production of that original content and music licensing fees?
$15 a month is a big ask when I see zero value in 2/3 of the offer.
Bundling is what is driving cord cutting and piracy. People don't want to subsidize crap they don't want and didn't ask for.
\* I would probably think differently if I was a YouTube Red or Music subscriber and they gave me access to Ad Free and Originals as bonus for my subscription fee but I'm not and don't want to be.
Amazon Prime did something similar but by bundling Video and Music but I was already paying for Prime just for the free shipping so it was just extra.
> Amazon Prime did something similar but by bundling Video and Music but I was already paying for Prime just for the free shipping so it was just extra.
This is an interesting statement. Users are paying for Amazon Prime Video and Music one way or the other. I'd happily pay $79.00 instead of the current $120.00 a year for Amazon Prime without the Video and Music.
This is an interesting statement. Users are paying for Amazon Prime Video and Music one way or the other. I'd happily pay $79.00 instead of the current $120.00 a year for Amazon Prime without the Video and Music.
My usage of Prime has shifted pretty heavily. I no longer order much from Amazon however we watch as much Prime Video as we do Netflix and I use Prime Music regularly at home, work, and in one of our cars. I would pay $6 a month for either music or video so $120 a year is fine with me. The free shipping and discounts at Whole Foods are now the bonus.
Why do you care how they spend your fare? You should care if you are getting a fair value for your fare.
> Why do you care how they spend your fare?
Because I want to ensure the content creators I watch are supported, not just Youtube and the content creators it wants to support.
> You should care if you are getting a fair value for your fare.
As I said, I don't think it's a fair value for how I use it.
Because I want to ensure the content creators I watch are supported, not just Youtube and the content creators it wants to support.
> You should care if you are getting a fair value for your fare.
As I said, I don't think it's a fair value for how I use it.
As I said, I don't think it's a fair value for how I use it.
Do your preferred channels have Patreon? If so, then perhaps it would be a better use of your money to cancel YouTube premium and instead give the money directly to those creators.
Do your preferred channels have Patreon? If so, then perhaps it would be a better use of your money to cancel YouTube premium and instead give the money directly to those creators.
I never said I had Premium. I said I didn't think it was a good value.
This is why I have been paying for this since a while ago when it was called .. youtube red or something ? This has has so many names that I lost count.
Anyway, for the standard 10$ a month price, I get Play Music + Youtube without ads (while supporting creators and paying the platform for its infrastructure, unlike adblock).
Play Music is an ok music streaming solution. It has all the features I expect from such a service + I can import (and export) my own albums. This is the killer feature for me.
Getting Youtube without ads was just a cherry on top for me. At the time I was living in Europe where there were anyway not that many ads on Youtube.
It is very valuable now that I live in the USA where there are ads everywhere.
Now, all I want is :
- for Google not to fuck this up. I fear that Youtube Music will be a disaster and that I will lose some of the features I care about in Play Music. The very long transition is giving me some hope that they have enough time to carry things over.. but I am not too optimistic.
- I was going to write to remove tracking but I don't know how I feel about it. All the streaming services I know do track what you listen to in order to give you good suggestions and automixes. So that's pretty much a feature at this point and a way to discover new artists, although there is a tunnel effect in place. So as long as that info does not leave Youtube, I guess I am relatively fine with it until proven otherwise.
Anyway, for the standard 10$ a month price, I get Play Music + Youtube without ads (while supporting creators and paying the platform for its infrastructure, unlike adblock).
Play Music is an ok music streaming solution. It has all the features I expect from such a service + I can import (and export) my own albums. This is the killer feature for me.
Getting Youtube without ads was just a cherry on top for me. At the time I was living in Europe where there were anyway not that many ads on Youtube.
It is very valuable now that I live in the USA where there are ads everywhere.
Now, all I want is :
- for Google not to fuck this up. I fear that Youtube Music will be a disaster and that I will lose some of the features I care about in Play Music. The very long transition is giving me some hope that they have enough time to carry things over.. but I am not too optimistic.
- I was going to write to remove tracking but I don't know how I feel about it. All the streaming services I know do track what you listen to in order to give you good suggestions and automixes. So that's pretty much a feature at this point and a way to discover new artists, although there is a tunnel effect in place. So as long as that info does not leave Youtube, I guess I am relatively fine with it until proven otherwise.
Unfortunately, you will pay and still get the behavioral ad tracking. There was a time when cable television's premise was "TV with no commercials!"
Back in the old days, a telephone company listening in on conversations of their customers was a deadly sin. Perhaps we should just classify these big (e.g. >1M users) media companies as telecommunications companies (which they are), and let the law deal with them. This would also solve issues involving the network effect.
When using YouTube, who are you having a private conversation with?
That model seems appropriate for messengers and such, but not really for the site under discussion here.
That model seems appropriate for messengers and such, but not really for the site under discussion here.
No, it's literally the service a monopolist would naturally come to after it killed all competition. First, kill everyone in the field by offering a service for less than what it costs; once the field has been cleared, begin harassing people for their money. This is absolutely despicable. Break Google up, it's way past time.
Why can't we want to break up Google and fund creators without ads at the same time? Neither of these preclude the other.
Most Creators aren't making money from YouTube, if they were then most wouldn't be on Patreon, have merch stores, or put ads in their videos. Pretty much every channel I subscribe to does one or all of those things.
Many creators, AvE springs to mind, are pretty candid about how useless YouTube monetization is to anyone who isn't a PewDiePie with multimillions of subscribers.
Many creators, AvE springs to mind, are pretty candid about how useless YouTube monetization is to anyone who isn't a PewDiePie with multimillions of subscribers.
Most creators have other forms of income, because it's common sense to diversify your income when you can. For most YouTubers, they make most of their money from YouTube, and patreon, merch, and brand deals are just supplemental. Very few YouTubers actually do make most of their money from Patreon or Brand deals.
Content more generally marketable, such as comedy, or content targeting a different demo (such a Makeup/Beauty) have a very different make up, but are still heavily ad driven, and this is the type of content that broadly makes up YouTube. AvE, and his type of content, is relatively niche, and it's unsurprising he makes most of his money from Patreon. Patreon, in general, skews heavily to audiences that have discretionary income and can afford to pay peicemeal to their favorite creators.
Content more generally marketable, such as comedy, or content targeting a different demo (such a Makeup/Beauty) have a very different make up, but are still heavily ad driven, and this is the type of content that broadly makes up YouTube. AvE, and his type of content, is relatively niche, and it's unsurprising he makes most of his money from Patreon. Patreon, in general, skews heavily to audiences that have discretionary income and can afford to pay peicemeal to their favorite creators.
Supposedly YouTube Premium viewers are much more profitable for video creators than regular ad-watching users.
I fail to follow your logic? What's the scenario you want here: for Google to continue providing YouTube for free or that they rise prices so other competition can be cheaper?
What's your endgoal with the breakup?
What's your endgoal with the breakup?
The goal of the breakup is to end a monopoly and a undeserved power-grab. For democracy to thrive, nobody should have too much power. Particularly corporations.
if the app didn't constantly pop up modal dialogs trying to trick me into signing up for the trial I might have considered it
however I refuse to reward that sort of dark pattern, and yesterday created a new google account for youtube and installed youtube vanced on my phone
however I refuse to reward that sort of dark pattern, and yesterday created a new google account for youtube and installed youtube vanced on my phone
Google isn't going to stop tracking my every move and building/selling a secret advertising profile on me just because I pay them a monthly fee.
Back when I was deciding between spotify and youtube red (which included youtube music if I recall correctly) there was no way for me to give them my money, so I went with spotify. I haven't the foggiest if they allow reasonable non-creditcard payment these days, but they removed the automatically generated music playlist anyways so I'll stick with spotify as I can't be arsed to re-figure out how youtube works for half of my use cases.
Protip for big multinationals trying to get international customers for their service: Not everyone has a credit card, or a desire to get one specifically to pay you. Provide alternative payment methods.
Protip for big multinationals trying to get international customers for their service: Not everyone has a credit card, or a desire to get one specifically to pay you. Provide alternative payment methods.
I don't know if I'm missing some important detail here (correct me if so), but just my experience in the web over the last decade:
Any form asking for a credit card accepts debit cards. Same format anyway.
Any form asking for a credit card accepts debit cards. Same format anyway.
I switched to YouTube Premium recently and the one downside is it largely only pays for the delivery. The actual creator content itself seems to be inundated with in video ads or promotions. For something that costs nearly the same as the Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN bundle it's a bit disappointing I can't purchase what I really want to purchase still.
That being said it's a step in the right direction and that's the reason I decided to switch.
That being said it's a step in the right direction and that's the reason I decided to switch.
No one asked for constant nag screens.
edit: HN won't let me make any more replies.
I don't know why people are fine with someone accusing me of entitlement with no basis, while me calling them out on it with a level of civility they did not deserve is out of bounds.
I don't understand this place. This is ridiculous.
edit: HN won't let me make any more replies.
I don't know why people are fine with someone accusing me of entitlement with no basis, while me calling them out on it with a level of civility they did not deserve is out of bounds.
I don't understand this place. This is ridiculous.
izacus(3)
> It's like demanding that music authors just send you MP3s for free without paying for it at all.
That's exactly what should happen. Creators need to figure out how to get paid before the work is created. They need to get paid for the work of creating, not for the end result which should be public domain.
They should also publish a lossless FLAC instead of an MP3.
> I personally hope that more companies allow me to pay for their services instead of being plagued by behavioural ad tracking.
You are still being tracked. Also, the service isn't likely to remain free of ads. Cable TV was once ad-free but the opportunity to milk even more money out the audience was just too irresistible to pass up:
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...
That's exactly what should happen. Creators need to figure out how to get paid before the work is created. They need to get paid for the work of creating, not for the end result which should be public domain.
They should also publish a lossless FLAC instead of an MP3.
> I personally hope that more companies allow me to pay for their services instead of being plagued by behavioural ad tracking.
You are still being tracked. Also, the service isn't likely to remain free of ads. Cable TV was once ad-free but the opportunity to milk even more money out the audience was just too irresistible to pass up:
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...
>Creators need to figure out how to get paid before the work is created. They need to get paid for the work of creating
This has downsides too. After all, what are those paying for the creation getting in return?
I imagine creators, such as musicians, already get paid for the work of creating... In the form of embedded advertising.
Listen to any top song and you'll be barraged by the names of luxury brands.
Is this really the ideal world of music?
This has downsides too. After all, what are those paying for the creation getting in return?
I imagine creators, such as musicians, already get paid for the work of creating... In the form of embedded advertising.
Listen to any top song and you'll be barraged by the names of luxury brands.
Is this really the ideal world of music?
You could probably find people to make the argument that music went downhill after the end of the European patronage system.
I pay for YouTube premium but I'm still subjected to ads in the majority of videos I watch: the kind that are embedded by the creator directly in the video, eg, a one minute sponsored by Squarespace segment. I don't know how Google is framing YouTube premium (I get it through my Google play music subscription) but it is most assuredly not an ad-free experience.
You might be interested in using this extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/
Doesn't work 100% of the time but seems to do the trick for most popular videos.
Doesn't work 100% of the time but seems to do the trick for most popular videos.
Hah, that's a cool hack. It reminds me of the folks who were editing pirated Mythbusters videos so each myth was its own continuous segment, without the recaps ("before the break, we were watching...") and.. precaps? ("Stay tuned to see what happens!")
/r/smyths is what your looking for, and it's way better than original mythbusters
FWIW, the videos with sponsored content are frequently either not getting money from YouTube (such as the gaming segment), or not getting enough from the ads that do run (COPA affected and . The creators may also be futureproofing their livelyhood in fear that their segment will be the next one that YouTube demonitizes by default.
It’s not very profitable to be a content maker (outside the top .01%), and many content creators are paying a team to help them produce regular, high quality videos.
It’s not very profitable to be a content maker (outside the top .01%), and many content creators are paying a team to help them produce regular, high quality videos.
I don't dispute any of that. I'm saying that, as a YouTube premium subscriber, I'm not clear exactly what I'm paying for. I mean, I guess fewer ads is better than more ads but I think a paid service should be able to provide me with stronger guarantees.
To the extent that YouTube is just a user-generated content delivery platform, paying for premium makes them stop injecting their own ads. Ads that are part of the videos are outside their purview. It's a defensible, and I think reasonable position to take (and I say this as someone who hates advertising in general).
I mean, I get how Youtube works. I understand there is a distinction to be made, if I cared to make it, between Google's ads and creators' ads. My point is that Youtube premium is not ad-free and explaining how Youtube works doesn't refute that point. You may think it's fine that Youtube premium has ads because that's how Youtube works. I respect that. I still watch Youtube all the time myself.
I agree, but then the price is too high. They charge $12/month because much of the money is supposed to go to the creators - but that goes against the idea that they're just a dumb platform.
For decades, people have accepted ads in television, though it's a paid service.
And then they jumped at the first ad-free alternative. Which at first, was cable. After that ship sunk under the weight of ad-crap the Internet was the new thing.
For a while, people managed with ad-blockers until they became too easy to use and too popular so now... Netflix had a brief moment where there were no ads. Now they advertise (their own content, but still).
So from what I gather, people have spent decades running away from advertisement.
For a while, people managed with ad-blockers until they became too easy to use and too popular so now... Netflix had a brief moment where there were no ads. Now they advertise (their own content, but still).
So from what I gather, people have spent decades running away from advertisement.
It's the natural evolution. Everyone jumps on a great product, then it becomes heavily monetized and the user experience declines, and people run to the next firm's solution that has less ads, then once they have the eyeballs, they monetize it, it's cyclical.
For decades, we did not have the means to fight back. Now we have the technology to fight this abuse: ad blockers, DVRs that automatically delete ads in recorded video, radio ad/chatter filters, sponsorship segment skippers, etc.
What would a good solution for this be? Ask that creators upload a separate premium version of a video with no ads and with bigger payout for views?
I doubt there's a definition of "ad" that would be feasible target on a platform like Youtube. A trailer, for example, is an ad for a movie, but I think Youtube would be harmed if all of the upcoming movie trailers were removed.
As a consumer, I find it pretty easy to distinguish between a "wanted" ad and an "annoying" ad, but I don't think there's a way to enforce rules based on user value systems if for no other reason than every user's value system is going to be distinct.
As a consumer, I find it pretty easy to distinguish between a "wanted" ad and an "annoying" ad, but I don't think there's a way to enforce rules based on user value systems if for no other reason than every user's value system is going to be distinct.
I see two solutions, each from a different side:
* YouTube (Google) should be enforcing that ads aren't intentionally embedded in videos (intentionally so that videos with a logo on someone's shirt or some such contentious type of "advertising" isn't subject to videos getting taken down or demonitised).
* Content Creators should be handing together to unionise (which I think they're already doing) or band together to move to a different platform. Without its content YouTube is just a video uploading platform.
* YouTube (Google) should be enforcing that ads aren't intentionally embedded in videos (intentionally so that videos with a logo on someone's shirt or some such contentious type of "advertising" isn't subject to videos getting taken down or demonitised).
* Content Creators should be handing together to unionise (which I think they're already doing) or band together to move to a different platform. Without its content YouTube is just a video uploading platform.
Good luck with a message to creators that they can’t do their own ads in their content.
I pay for premium as well and those embedded ads bother me much less because I can always skip it manually and I understand the content creator needs to be rewarded. I much prefer embedded ads to some solution like paywalls that appeared on newspapers/news sites after growth of adblockers.
Welcome to the future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU3GzYcb1g8
Tech companies are an oligopoly with a few actors. Competitions do not offer enough pressure to make them change. Regulation is the only way forward if we do not want to end in a dystopia.
Tech companies are an oligopoly with a few actors. Competitions do not offer enough pressure to make them change. Regulation is the only way forward if we do not want to end in a dystopia.
Agree. We need some old school style trustbusting.
I originally succumbed to YouTube premium because of the bundled music. I remembered thinking at the time this bundling put Spotify at a disadvantage. When for unrelated reasons I started degoogling sure enough I went straight to Spotify.
Can someone explain where the boundary here is for antitrust?
Can someone explain where the boundary here is for antitrust?
We’re fortunate to have some politicians and officials who believe in anti-trust measures in the European Union. Margrethe Vestager is the current champion and I’m glad I’m under her wing rather than her American counterpart, Ajit Pai.
I’m optimistic that regulations will come, sooner or later.
I’m optimistic that regulations will come, sooner or later.
How would antitrust here look like? It's a subscription for a direct service... what's the monopoly solution here? Ordering Google to store and serve videos for free?
How about breaking up Google? Seems like that'd solve a lot more problems than it'd create.
Which problems mentioned in the original article would that solve? Concretely? Would stand alone YouTube not want payment for their service?
If YouTube were an independent company, they would have less leverage in the marketplace overall since they no longer are backed by Google's resources, no longer a part of Google's walled garden. Google will no longer have reason to give YouTube preferential treatment in ranking, advertising, etc. There's a lot of foundational things that will be shaken up, things which will force YouTube to actually be competitive, and actually provide value to users. Competitors will actually have a chance to dethrone them, and then the competitive forces of the marketplace, much like evolution, will lead to the crappiest business practices (like this premium spam) dying off and the market power shifting over to the users/customers.
That's of course assuming there's sufficient competition, and the power doesn't just shift over to Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft or some other anti-competitive giants.
That's of course assuming there's sufficient competition, and the power doesn't just shift over to Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft or some other anti-competitive giants.
Which is why you can’t just break up one component of an oligopoly.
For a moment I read that as truthbusting and got a little frightened
It's not about competition or regulation. Someone needs to find a way to drive down the cost of bandwidth.
Disclaimer in bio.
Disclaimer in bio.
I have the feeling that if you drive down the cost of bandwidth, the businesses that rely on it will say "Thank you" and change nothing, merely pocketing the bigger margin themselves.
The number of ads isn't proportional to bandwidth cost, it's about what their research shows they can get away with.
The number of ads isn't proportional to bandwidth cost, it's about what their research shows they can get away with.
High bandwidth costs are an advantage for big players like YouTube because their economies of scale allow them to pay less than smaller competitors. The more bandwidth costs the bigger their advantage.
Lower bandwidth prices would both increase service provider competition and decrease costs. The provider competition would then push the cost savings away from providers and toward either paying creators more or attracting viewers by showing fewer ads (or both).
It might not solve the entire problem but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.
Lower bandwidth prices would both increase service provider competition and decrease costs. The provider competition would then push the cost savings away from providers and toward either paying creators more or attracting viewers by showing fewer ads (or both).
It might not solve the entire problem but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.
The solution to that is more regulation to foster competition. Break up the giant monopolies and the market will naturally improve, and life will get better for everyone.
I don’t really see how the cost of bandwidth is the main factor. What would change by lowering said cost? The corporations of the oligopoly would also benefit and I feel they would just have larger margins allowing them to keep their dominance.
I’m no expert though, so I’m more curious than in disagreement.
I’m no expert though, so I’m more curious than in disagreement.
IMO the main reason a YouTube competitor fails to spawn is bandwidth costs and lack of advertisers making it immediately really unprofitable.
Bandwidth isn't really the problem. Vimeo exists, and they serve considerably higher bitrates than YouTube. The problem is that YouTube is entrenched, and has network effects on its side.
A fresh new competitor to YouTube would face a combination of a lack of advertisers, and a lack of content seeking ad-funding.
On the other hand, when it comes to pay-to-watch content, there's space in the market for new competitors to arise, as the network effects are less significant there.
https://rakuten.tv/ and https://chili.com/ for instance, are far smaller than Amazon and Google.
I guess bandwidth costs are, in a sense, the problem. If if were easy to run a very-large-scale video-hosting site, that would help, sure. Ads wouldn't have to be worth much to make the business work.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market
A fresh new competitor to YouTube would face a combination of a lack of advertisers, and a lack of content seeking ad-funding.
On the other hand, when it comes to pay-to-watch content, there's space in the market for new competitors to arise, as the network effects are less significant there.
https://rakuten.tv/ and https://chili.com/ for instance, are far smaller than Amazon and Google.
I guess bandwidth costs are, in a sense, the problem. If if were easy to run a very-large-scale video-hosting site, that would help, sure. Ads wouldn't have to be worth much to make the business work.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market
Have you researched this, or are you making assumptions? Hosting videos is pretty cheap, and while getting the same amount of traffic as Youtube would get very costly very fast, it could also be very profitable if monetization is done right.
Plus technologies like PeerTube can significantly reduce bandwidth expenses if that's really an issue. Google wouldn't use something like that because the federation threatens their monopoly, but a competitor with a different business model definitely could make it work for them.
Plus technologies like PeerTube can significantly reduce bandwidth expenses if that's really an issue. Google wouldn't use something like that because the federation threatens their monopoly, but a competitor with a different business model definitely could make it work for them.
> Google wouldn't use something like that because the federation threatens their monopoly
They don't need to, they have caching servers on most ISP's internal networks. Popular stuff (that consumes most bandwidth) just needs to be sent once from the mothership.
They don't need to, they have caching servers on most ISP's internal networks. Popular stuff (that consumes most bandwidth) just needs to be sent once from the mothership.
a 49 mb video watched a million times is 49 tb bandwidth.
1 tb bandwidth cost of aws is 236 usd a month.
1 tb bandwidth cost of aws is 236 usd a month.
A 10Gbit connection at HE is going to cost you roughly $2,000/month, or about $65/day.
That will serve your 49MB video roughly 2 million times a day.
Let’s go with 50% average utilization, and say that means we need to monetize roughly 0.0065 cents per view to cover the bandwidth cost.
I think YouTube charges something like 10 cents per ad view, but won’t charge if the user clicks Skip in that 5 second window. I’m not sure what percent of views result in a billable ad, but anecdotally I’ve heard it’s surprisingly high.
I would assume storage is a much bigger cost factor, to say nothing of paying the engineers to develop and support the infrastructure.
That will serve your 49MB video roughly 2 million times a day.
Let’s go with 50% average utilization, and say that means we need to monetize roughly 0.0065 cents per view to cover the bandwidth cost.
I think YouTube charges something like 10 cents per ad view, but won’t charge if the user clicks Skip in that 5 second window. I’m not sure what percent of views result in a billable ad, but anecdotally I’ve heard it’s surprisingly high.
I would assume storage is a much bigger cost factor, to say nothing of paying the engineers to develop and support the infrastructure.
I don't think that's quite right. 1TB/mo of CloudFront bandwidth is $90/mo (per [1]). Also, that's the on-demand price. The price with volume discounts is much lower.
[1]: https://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html#s=CloudFront&...
[1]: https://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html#s=CloudFront&...
I guess sure even with your calculation that is still a considerable expense while on youtube the user might be getting some money for their video
> Disclaimer in bio.
Honest question: why not just write "I work for Google" instead of asking people to click through first? It's not significantly longer if that's what you're trying to avoid.
Honest question: why not just write "I work for Google" instead of asking people to click through first? It's not significantly longer if that's what you're trying to avoid.
You have a fair point - I usually write the full sentence.
This will not help any competition. Google has its caches and own fibers all over the world. I can go and connect now in any IX and most data centers with Google AS and exchange traffic for free, which makes Google cost of bandwidth to most consumers in developed countries almost non-existent.
Good luck competing with that as a startup. Google is using this infrastructure not only for Youtube. So unless you have billions to invest in your own infrastructure, Google will always have cheaper bandwidth than you.
>Regulation is the only way forward if we do not want to end in a dystopia.
but what kind of regulation? The Access Act?[0]
[0]: https://www.scribd.com/document/431507473/GOE19968
but what kind of regulation? The Access Act?[0]
[0]: https://www.scribd.com/document/431507473/GOE19968
Good ol' friggin' Sherman Act. Break them up, all of them, to small pieces.
Yes, the internet promised to be a place where everybody could be an independent broadcaster, yet this turned out to be a pipe dream.
The problem was that it’s true without it being enough.
It’s not hard to serve your own video streams. But good luck getting enough eyeballs to make it worthwhile.
It’s not hard to serve your own video streams. But good luck getting enough eyeballs to make it worthwhile.
Sort of the equivalent of being able to transmit your own VHF signal, but having enough power to get it in getting off enough people to pay for it....
You can't actually (legally) transmit your own VHF signal, though.
I always thought Amazon would build a YouTube killer. They're really the only company perfectly placed to do so. And yet while I'm pretty sure they've talked about it they've never acted on it.
What would the "killer" part be? Just being not-from-Google is not enough of a value proposition for most people.
Dunno if it's a regional thing or what but the last month of Android YouTube has been just insane with ads. I used to only get video ads, then earlier this year got a little banner below the video that was about the ad that played before the video.
But now I have entire blocks of totally unrelated traditional-style ads for nothing YouTube or video related (like women's shoes) in the suggestions section.
But now I have entire blocks of totally unrelated traditional-style ads for nothing YouTube or video related (like women's shoes) in the suggestions section.
Nope, same here. They used to have either one 5s ad or a skippable 20s+ ad. At some point they've started to roll two 5-10s ads back to back, or unskippable 10-30s ads, and only the 30s+ are skippable. The topmost video in the app is always an ad as well, in addition to all the text ads you mentioned. I get that video hosting costs beaucoup bucks but the amount of ads is getting ridiculous..
Its happening on other sites in other ways as well (either dark patterns or vast amounts of ads) and it has gotten me to the point where I actively take pleasure in extracting the maximum value for me as customer (so blocking ads, using VPN to pay in rubles or rupees, etc) as most companies these days see you as nothing but entities to suck as much profit out of as possible, with no regard for a reasonable middle ground. Sucks for them, that's a two-way street.
Its happening on other sites in other ways as well (either dark patterns or vast amounts of ads) and it has gotten me to the point where I actively take pleasure in extracting the maximum value for me as customer (so blocking ads, using VPN to pay in rubles or rupees, etc) as most companies these days see you as nothing but entities to suck as much profit out of as possible, with no regard for a reasonable middle ground. Sucks for them, that's a two-way street.
It's gotten so bad that I installed Newpipe instead.
Basically I tolerated Youtube ads up to a point, but now that I'm using Newpipe instead, neither Youtube nor the creators get anything.
I wish there was a better way, since it's not pracitcal to contribute to all channel's patreons.
Basically I tolerated Youtube ads up to a point, but now that I'm using Newpipe instead, neither Youtube nor the creators get anything.
I wish there was a better way, since it's not pracitcal to contribute to all channel's patreons.
youtube has served me an hour + ad. The non skippable ads keep getting longer as well. But the ad AI is so bad it won't take a full watched ad as a signal, rather it keeps pushing things I want have previously skip over/ simular where they will be skipped.
You have to press report and select irrelevant, or not interested, it helps after a while, it is not immediate. I used to get tons and tons of mobile game ads but after doing this to 10-15 of those amount of those is almost none. I get one occasionally, so it definitely works in a way.
I don't think it is possible to get no ads by banning all the categories this way, it will just become random at that point I guess.
I don't think it is possible to get no ads by banning all the categories this way, it will just become random at that point I guess.
Most companies are trying to find the "second act" and need to bump up ad impressions and revenue until they find that next source of revenue. For Google, it's been cranking up the number of Youtube ads displayed per video and also making various changes to the way Google search results are displayed (the ads seem to blend more into the results than before). But I've definitely noticed this myself.
Yeah this feels quite right with what I'm experiencing. Surely it must risk creating an opening for competitors to show up with far fewer ads.
I think the problem here is that YouTube alone isn’t profitable. I think the only thing keeping it going is as an additional vector of ad placements for Google. YouTube is an extremely expensive service to run as well. No one really has a chance to compete with the sheer volume of content and inertia of YouTube.
What I would like to see instead is a return of self-hosted videos from creators’ own websites plus a site like YouTube that is really just an aggregator of those videos. That way you can also have smaller businesses that provide YouTube-like services for those that don’t want to self-host, but those videos still get included in that aggregator. I think that would be the best ecosystem for competition.
However, I have no idea how feasible that is. It’s just an idea that came to mind.
What I would like to see instead is a return of self-hosted videos from creators’ own websites plus a site like YouTube that is really just an aggregator of those videos. That way you can also have smaller businesses that provide YouTube-like services for those that don’t want to self-host, but those videos still get included in that aggregator. I think that would be the best ecosystem for competition.
However, I have no idea how feasible that is. It’s just an idea that came to mind.
Just /s/YouTube/Peertube (a federated video host) in your second paragraph, and it turns out to be a thing already:
"What I would like to see instead is a return of self-hosted videos from creators’ own websites plus a site like Peertube that is really just an aggregator of those videos. That way you can also have smaller businesses that provide Peertube-like services for those that don’t want to self-host, but those videos still get included in that aggregator. I think that would be the best ecosystem for competition."
"What I would like to see instead is a return of self-hosted videos from creators’ own websites plus a site like Peertube that is really just an aggregator of those videos. That way you can also have smaller businesses that provide Peertube-like services for those that don’t want to self-host, but those videos still get included in that aggregator. I think that would be the best ecosystem for competition."
You’re right. PeerTube is sort of what I was imagining. Thank you for mentioning it.
I use Firefox on Android. YT app is unbearable.
vanced.app
The author throws Apple under the bus pointing out a forced full screen modal message advertising Apple TV+. IMO this is an unfair comparison, because the Apple TV+ modal ad came up exactly once and never again (once per Apple TV device). Whereas YouTube is nagging and interrupting the author every day, multiple times a day.
I wish there was a YouTube alternative. I dislike their Apple TV YouTube app enough that I loathe to explore videos. Yet the content creators I watch only distribute on YouTube. I won’t pay for YouTube Premium because I know the quality of the app is still the poor same.
I wish there was a YouTube alternative. I dislike their Apple TV YouTube app enough that I loathe to explore videos. Yet the content creators I watch only distribute on YouTube. I won’t pay for YouTube Premium because I know the quality of the app is still the poor same.
I use RSS to keep track of my subscriptions and Invidio.us to watch them.
RSS is IMO waaay better than the sub-box because they are in the same place as all my other news.
Invidio.us doesn't have the best interface, but it offers all the necessary features and let's me do picture-in-picture on iPad.
RSS is IMO waaay better than the sub-box because they are in the same place as all my other news.
Invidio.us doesn't have the best interface, but it offers all the necessary features and let's me do picture-in-picture on iPad.
On the other hand, Apple does spam me with an ad for Apple Music every couple of weeks. It happens when I launch the music app on my phone.
Even if you pay for YouTube Premium you’ll then get reoccurring pop-ups to sign up and pay for YouTube TV.
Yo’ve pulled out your wallet. Perfect time for a neat upsell.
That’s the absolute worst. I’m paying for YouTube Premium and I hate that I get pop-ups for YouTube TV and YouTube Kids and whatnot. Peace and quiet was one of the things I paid good money for.
I don't see these? Maybe it isn't available where I am, or maybe I set a switch that disables promos?
Maybe you guys are getting lost in multiple logins? I've had Youtube Red/Premium almost as long as it's been available, and I never see ads of any kind. I love it.
I can't remember if it was on YouTube or not, but the other day, I wanted to watch a video about an Acura concept car, and it forced me to watch a Honda ad. I quit in disgust. People insist that online advertising works, but it's just too much to swallow any more.
4 ads every 12 minutes was quite common on TV. I’ve always thought Youtube would ramp it up to this level one day. It’s only a matter of time until VoD does it too (Netflix? for 7$?).
It was quite common in the US. We Europeans always considered US TV as totally unwatchable, because of the horrible, constant ad interruption.
I'm not sure it was always common in the US, I'm sure I heard a rumor that in olden days, cable didn't have ads, or had fewer ads because you paid for it. Some places in Europe pay for OTA TV so that could be connected with the quantity of ads, rather than the inherent superiority of the citizenry in all respects.
I think this has more to do with inherent superiority of the consumer defence laws.
BTW ads are an almost unmitigated nuisance: when France banned ads after 8PM on its public channels, their audience numbers soared (so the project which was an obvious gift from Sarkozy to his media mogul friends, badly backfired).
BTW ads are an almost unmitigated nuisance: when France banned ads after 8PM on its public channels, their audience numbers soared (so the project which was an obvious gift from Sarkozy to his media mogul friends, badly backfired).
Banning ads was a failure, because it harmed the media? I thought the media was who sold ads.
Also, public television in the US doesn't have the same level of ads as other channels.
Also, public television in the US doesn't have the same level of ads as other channels.
The idea was to ban ads on public TV to augment the price of ads for the private channels by reducing the market size. But instead people watched the no-ads channels more, so the price of ads on the private channels didn't soar but fell instead.
It's not the quantity of ads overall, it's that the content I want to watch is frequently essentially an ad anyway, and in this case it was for the same entity, and yet I can't watch it uninterrupted.
With Netflix you're already hard pressed to go five minutes without product placement.
Someone not spending money and being indignant at the same time is generally not too interesting. Ask any business operator.
If you want to get rid of pop-ups, ads, and other annoyances, try Newpipe on Android, and SmartYouTubeTV on FireTV / Android TV
https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe
https://smartyoutubetv.github.io/
https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe
https://smartyoutubetv.github.io/
I’d kill for a YouTube client for AppleTV or to go back to the old one before Google decide to trash the UI with immaterial design everywhere. YouTube has the worst UI on AppleTV by far.
Yes, literally only useable because of the voice input on the remote / mobile app
The website, and roku channel are not much better. Seems to get worse with every update.
Also available is YouTube Vanced which is essentially the official YouTube app repackaged with privacy in mind.
you can get your whole Google account suspended by using newpipe:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21247759
No idea how common this is, but that particular case seems to most likely be fabricated.
While I was also under the impression that this is probably not true (since you can't actually log in with Newpipe), I've been waiting for them to crack down on it from the day I learned of it. Wouldn't surprise me if it stopped working when enough people start to use it.
Related, a few weeks ago they cracked down on Yalp (a Play Store front-end: basically an open source implementation of their internal APIs). I'm not sure if/when they're going to ease up on that, but until then, it looks like I'm stuck with whatever selection of apps (and versions) I've got at the moment.
Related, a few weeks ago they cracked down on Yalp (a Play Store front-end: basically an open source implementation of their internal APIs). I'm not sure if/when they're going to ease up on that, but until then, it looks like I'm stuck with whatever selection of apps (and versions) I've got at the moment.
I would pay a monthly subscription fee to Google to have the Play Store be ad free.
I'd also happily pay for a store that isn't based on Google's usual profit model (tracking you) or contributes towards a monopoly (Alphabet and Internet services in general). Heck, at this point I'd be happy to pay Microsoft for apk hosting and search since they're not a monopoly in online services or own Android or anything.
NewPipe has no way for you to login or any thing like that, so if your account does get suspended on this premise, then people should be way more worried about Google's practices than they are.
"It’s a pointless subscription that Google is trying to lazily ram down my throat instead of improving its offering,.."
It's now fashionable to shit on google on HN, but Youtube premium is one of the best investments I've made, and I'm glad google is giving that choice. How many times have I not read comments like 'give me an option to pay instead of showing me ads' on HN.
There are tons of videos on youtube that I listen to as podcasts while commuting (and there aren't enough good podcasts in that sector).
It's now fashionable to shit on google on HN, but Youtube premium is one of the best investments I've made, and I'm glad google is giving that choice. How many times have I not read comments like 'give me an option to pay instead of showing me ads' on HN.
There are tons of videos on youtube that I listen to as podcasts while commuting (and there aren't enough good podcasts in that sector).
I actually disagree with this. I am being provided 1080P video streaming into my house 24/7 with virtually no interruption. If they want to spam their premium stuff at me, that's a small price to pay.
I will complain to high heaven about misuse of personal data, but it is perfectly within their right to show pop up ads for their own premium product on the free version. I would be a lifelong subscriber if I didn't think they were abusing my data in the first place.
If there's anything I would complain about, is that the ads don't have enough variety. I see the same damn advertisements over and over. This is part of why I can't stand TV advertising either. Yes, it's patronizing and intrusive in my show, but but it's also repetitive. At least keep it interesting and tell me about some different products...
I will complain to high heaven about misuse of personal data, but it is perfectly within their right to show pop up ads for their own premium product on the free version. I would be a lifelong subscriber if I didn't think they were abusing my data in the first place.
If there's anything I would complain about, is that the ads don't have enough variety. I see the same damn advertisements over and over. This is part of why I can't stand TV advertising either. Yes, it's patronizing and intrusive in my show, but but it's also repetitive. At least keep it interesting and tell me about some different products...
Same here, would buy a in a second if I believed it would make me the customer.
I ditched the YT iOS app last night as the web interface is finally quite usable in Safari (iPad). Fullscreen works fine, quality and speed settings work fine, PIP mode works out of the box…
Both on my Pi-hole-powered internal network and my nextdns.io based mobile setup the experience is so. much. calmer. I recommend giving it a shot. If pi-hole is not an option for you, check out NextDNS. Solid tracker & ad blocking either way.
Both on my Pi-hole-powered internal network and my nextdns.io based mobile setup the experience is so. much. calmer. I recommend giving it a shot. If pi-hole is not an option for you, check out NextDNS. Solid tracker & ad blocking either way.
Seconded. I've never seen a single one of the popups from the OP myself, which I thought was curious until the author mentioned they were using the Android app, whereas on mobile I only use Youtube from within Firefox, which is perfectly serviceable (and apparently less annoying).
Well, I got rid of the native iOS app because the modal nag dialogs had become so annoying that I didn't want to put up with it anymore.
Yes native android app gives you popup to enable premium trial once a week or so, from my experience.
YouTube Vanced or Peertube don't show ads. They do show stories, which are stupid as well. Just as the recommendations are shit lately. Just more of the same instead of new interesting things.
If I can't block ads then I'll stop using YouTube. Did for half a year when I was on ios where adblock in the app didn't work.
If I can't block ads then I'll stop using YouTube. Did for half a year when I was on ios where adblock in the app didn't work.
I use NewPipe on mobile. No nagging pop-ups, background play, free software.
The edge YT has over its competitor music streaming providers is that I get access to both licensed and blatantly pirated material. I’ve been listening to 70s Japanese Rock, Apple Music has v little, YT has everything, none of what I’m listening to is licensed.
[deleted]
For those annoyed by the YouTube app or website bloat: https://invidio.us is an AGPL alternative front end for YouTube that truly feels premium. It doesn’t have pop up ads and even plays videos without javascript.
Source is here: https://github.com/omarroth/invidious
Source is here: https://github.com/omarroth/invidious
I’m a premium subscriber but I do agree that the pop-ups on non-paying users are too much. It’s a poor proposition to make users subscribe to your service to get rid of annoying pop-ups. It’s like an airline company telling customers to pay a fee to get rid of spikes on their seats.
But I also think the shrill tone of the article diminishes the message.
But I also think the shrill tone of the article diminishes the message.
I'm using Youtube via Chrome browser with UBlock Origin. I can't remember seeing even a single ad in several years. I'm amazed that Youtube has not figured out how to prevent this, but at the moment it's a fantastic experience.
I've had YouTube Premium/Red for years (the only thing I pay for to watch video content), but I'm about to cancel it because they now show ads on videos if those videos are embedded in other web sites. Most of the content I watch is on other web sites that curate content, and now the benefit of YouTube Premium is gone.
Can the embed detect your logged in state? Privacy settings may have changed in the browser.
Yes I am starting to suspect it has to do with changes in Chrome. I can't find out how to modify site settings to make it work though.
[deleted]
ublock origin on desktop, youtube vanced on android.
I agree with every word in this article. I understand adverts but being hit on the head with the google advertising tack hammer at every view is annoying. Makes me want to look for a new platform.
I'm sure someone already mentioned this, but I would pay for YouTube premium at a lower price just to remove ads. I have no interest in their music service.
That's what YouTube Red was. Did you subscribe to it?
If you did, why aren't you now grandfathered into YouTube Premium at that old price?
If you didn't, why not? It was after all exactly the product you now claim to have wanted.
If you did, why aren't you now grandfathered into YouTube Premium at that old price?
If you didn't, why not? It was after all exactly the product you now claim to have wanted.
> If you didn't, why not?
Not the poster you asked the question to originally, but YouTube Red was never available in Canada.
Not the poster you asked the question to originally, but YouTube Red was never available in Canada.
> Get background play with YouTube Premium.
Are you shitting me? I get background play with Firefox...
Also, I value my mobile transfer limits so... youtuble-dl it is.
Are you shitting me? I get background play with Firefox...
Also, I value my mobile transfer limits so... youtuble-dl it is.
To each their own but YouTube premium is one of the few subscription services where I feel I get my money's worth. YouTube's content library drawfs everyone else's and I use it a ton for education as well as entertainment. So much so I think I'm going to cancel Netflix as it gets too little use to justify its price in my house. YouTube on the other hand is wildly more popular in my family.
YouTube Premium is worth it IMO. No adds, the ability to minimize, and downloading videos locally, all within the same app are killer features.
> the ability to minimize
It's sad that a basic element of computing is now considered a privilege people need to pay for.
It's sad that a basic element of computing is now considered a privilege people need to pay for.
> It's sad that a basic element of computing is now considered a privilege people need to pay for.
Just like it's sad that being asked to pay the creator and service provider is now something we need to write whole articles to whine about.
How do you thing we'll get rid of personal data tracking and collection if you don't even want to pay a pittance for service you're using?
Just like it's sad that being asked to pay the creator and service provider is now something we need to write whole articles to whine about.
How do you thing we'll get rid of personal data tracking and collection if you don't even want to pay a pittance for service you're using?
My problem is not with paying. My problem is that I am being asked to pay not for the content itself, but to remove bullshit limitations that shouldn't be there in the first place.
Also, it's very naive to think Google will suddenly stop tracking you just because you're paying for Premium... quite the opposite actually, as you've now given them a valid credit card and billing address.
Also, it's very naive to think Google will suddenly stop tracking you just because you're paying for Premium... quite the opposite actually, as you've now given them a valid credit card and billing address.
Everything a paid service doesn't give you until you pay is a "bullshit limitation" right? Is all always arbitrary. Why do you refuse to pay for the features if you want them? Why do you feel they should serve you for free?
There’s a difference between a service not giving me something and a service explicitly breaking platform conventions.
When I open a browser tab with audio in it I expect to be able to switch to a different app and the audio keeps playing. YouTube explicitly uses hacks to break that on mobile. I consider it very nasty to get out of your way and interfere with browser & OS features like that.
When I open a browser tab with audio in it I expect to be able to switch to a different app and the audio keeps playing. YouTube explicitly uses hacks to break that on mobile. I consider it very nasty to get out of your way and interfere with browser & OS features like that.
Even better if you have Google Play Music All Access (or whatever the premium version is called now). You get YouTube Premium included along with unlimited streaming of millions of songs.
[deleted]
You know what? I’m not going to pay google to stop harassing me with ads. YouTube was actually usable as little as a month ago. I see so many ads now you’d think this was some sketchy app, but we’re talking about YouTube. How is the answer, “paying them $10/mo is worth it,” in the context of there being an ad problem an acceptable answer?
You went to their house. They have ads there. You knew that.
YouTube Premium is the best $ I pay for streaming. YouTube has incredible inde music and background play makes consuming it possible.
Got youtube premium so I can watch videos on my commute. NYC subway, no wifi, no 2g,3g,4g or 5g
...or use youtube-dl (or newpipe on your phone), which does the same for free
Yeah there's a cheaper way. But like using Spotify versus ripping CDs or piracy, the convenience of the tool is the value.
Convenience seems to be a slippery concept. From my perspective, the convenience of mpv+youtube-dl cannot be beat. Neither the official web player nor the official mobile applications have the features I expect or desire.
For instance, I use text-to-speech to read aloud the subtitles of foreign language content. With mpv that's straight forward, but I wouldn't even know where to start with getting that to work using any of the official frontends of youtube.
For instance, I use text-to-speech to read aloud the subtitles of foreign language content. With mpv that's straight forward, but I wouldn't even know where to start with getting that to work using any of the official frontends of youtube.
So pirating videos and not supporting creators is the solution?
I understand the complaints some folks have but this isn't the solution.
I understand the complaints some folks have but this isn't the solution.
+1 for youtube-dl nifty little cli
And yet, it seems like the author of this piece still feels entitled to complain about being asked to pay the price of service and these comments are full of people advertising products that still use the service without paying the asking price. It's like demanding that music authors just send you MP3s for free without paying for it at all.
I personally hope that more companies allow me to pay for their services instead of being plagued by behavioural ad tracking.