YouTube Will Monetize Videos Without Paying Content Creators(youtube.com)
youtube.com
YouTube Will Monetize Videos Without Paying Content Creators
https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
205 comments
I have YouTube premium/red/whatever and don't see ads. The natural state of YouTube is unbearable due to the profusion of ads. People watching YouTube either have high tolerance for ads or a method to avoid them.
One very effective method to avoid ads is to pay for the premium service. $10/month for far more content than any other streaming video service. Can not imagine trying to watch YouTube with ads.
Another very effective way is to use an adblocker like uBlock origin.
Personally I feel that the engineers at YouTube are doing a good job for me and I would like to reward them for that.
Not to mention the people that worked to create the videos. Both them and the engineers deserve to eat.
Unpopular opinion, but one might argue YouTube was a better place when people did videos out of passion and not to become an "influencer" and get money.
That's still the case though. YT is probably the only platform where you can be successful doing very niche without having to sell out or churn out influencer tier content for outreach. The revenue stream is embedded, the audience is huge and channels can be pretty well siloed (as opposed to say, reddit where you can have a niche community either get easily overrun, crossposted etc). Actually the only time I've had "influencer/Drama" type of content was when I chose to watch it, otherwise YouTube is still pretty good at not pushing content you just don't watch at all to your recommendations
(Even though the recommendation system is overall awful and I can't believe an army of engineers have actually been working on it for a decade, but I digress)
(Even though the recommendation system is overall awful and I can't believe an army of engineers have actually been working on it for a decade, but I digress)
Most people don't make (enough) money from YouTube though, and to get to the point where they could, they spend hundreds of hours of their time.
I'd say that's passion and i see nothing wrong with getting rewarded for doing something you like and other people enjoy watching.
I'd say that's passion and i see nothing wrong with getting rewarded for doing something you like and other people enjoy watching.
> and to get to the point where they could, they spend hundreds of hours of their time
However, this often results in videos that are unnecessary bloated to fulfil the requirements to place more ads, deceptive/misleading titles, or 10-minute-videos about something that could be explained in 30 seconds.
However, this often results in videos that are unnecessary bloated to fulfil the requirements to place more ads, deceptive/misleading titles, or 10-minute-videos about something that could be explained in 30 seconds.
Well, not anymore for the small publishers. Now they’re subsidizing the big publishers.
I don't mind ads in content by creators who are getting revenue from it. It maintains many interesting channels.
But ads on content where all the revenue goes to google without a penny being sent to the creator? That's not tolerable.
But ads on content where all the revenue goes to google without a penny being sent to the creator? That's not tolerable.
Do they now? Before Polymer (current YT framework) YT video page weighted somewhere around 50KB (10KB compressed) and was ordinary HTML + 1MB js player (400KB compressed). As soon as HTML part loaded the page was all there.
Now its 600KB (100KB compressed) JSON + additional 8MB desktop_polymer.js (1MB compressed) that needs to be compiled/interpreted before anything starts showing on the page - its all dynamically generated Client side. 1MB js player is on top of that.
Now its 600KB (100KB compressed) JSON + additional 8MB desktop_polymer.js (1MB compressed) that needs to be compiled/interpreted before anything starts showing on the page - its all dynamically generated Client side. 1MB js player is on top of that.
Will uBlock origin etc block ads on YouTube? My understanding it that videos/ads are served from the same domain. (Update: a quick test suggests this method works.)
That said, either youtube-dl or Invidious [1] will do the trick. The latter can be self-hosted and emulates a more familiar YouTube experience (minus the tracking/recommendations).
---
[1] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious
That said, either youtube-dl or Invidious [1] will do the trick. The latter can be self-hosted and emulates a more familiar YouTube experience (minus the tracking/recommendations).
---
[1] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious
which doesn't work on TV or mobile, of course
> Another very effective way is to use an adblocker like uBlock origin.
How does that work when you’re out on your iPhone and just want to check a video-link someone sent you?
Oh wait. It doesn’t.
How does that work when you’re out on your iPhone and just want to check a video-link someone sent you?
Oh wait. It doesn’t.
In this case, I use the super power of self control, and I wait to be home to watch the video on a bigger and better screen, and without ads.
Firefox is the only browser i know of where you can install adblocker on mobile. Don't know if you can install this on your iPhone but on android it works like a charm.
Another solution that seems to be Android-only: YouTube Vanced. Includes AdBlock, SponsorBlock (if enabled in settings), and other Premium features like picture-in-picture and listening to music in the background.
It can work but you need to do some preparation work.
First, choose to go out with a more open platform (if only by a bit) that at least allows you the freedom to install apps which don't necessarily come with a corporate overseer's approval.
Then, install the Youtube Vanced app.
First, choose to go out with a more open platform (if only by a bit) that at least allows you the freedom to install apps which don't necessarily come with a corporate overseer's approval.
Then, install the Youtube Vanced app.
Works great on Android with Firefox mobile.
AdGuard on mobile Safari usually blocks YouTube ads for me.
I am using "Youtube Vanced" to get rid of the ads and it works very well. I have created a separate account - just in case this account gets banned. NewPipe is another alternative and even supports downloading the video.
$10/month for no ads for a platform that just works, always?
Shut up and take my money
Shut up and take my money
Agreed. I just wish their entire account system wasn’t messed up. I can’t get YouTube premium family with my domain account (which I also setup emails for my kids on), so I need to use a second free gmail account for myself and my kids.
I didn't know that. I used to use Google for domain control until they went charged.
Technically, I signed up for Google Play Music way back when it was initially launched, and have since been upgraded to YouTube Red/Premium and have kept it.
Technically, I signed up for Google Play Music way back when it was initially launched, and have since been upgraded to YouTube Red/Premium and have kept it.
An even better method is to just install uBlock Origin. It will improve privacy too.
I love my YouTube Premium subscription
I've been using Brave on my phone/tablet for quite some time now.
Unfortunately, in recent several weeks I started to see an occasional ad even in Brave. As for now, these ads are really rare, don't think I get more than a couple a week. But boy are they annoying.
Even in such a mobile browser where all the videos are muted by default, these ads find a way to conveniently unmute themselves and delight your surroundings with loudest and cringiest lines/tunes.
YouTube must be actively making changes to their ads in attempt to bypass ad blockers. However, I still think that Brave is a great option as (based on their forum) ad filters are constantly being worked upon.
PS: I've also tried Firefox Mobile with uBlock Origin addon. As expected, ad blocking works just fine, but page loading times are way slower compared to Brave which is based on Chrome.
Unfortunately, in recent several weeks I started to see an occasional ad even in Brave. As for now, these ads are really rare, don't think I get more than a couple a week. But boy are they annoying.
Even in such a mobile browser where all the videos are muted by default, these ads find a way to conveniently unmute themselves and delight your surroundings with loudest and cringiest lines/tunes.
YouTube must be actively making changes to their ads in attempt to bypass ad blockers. However, I still think that Brave is a great option as (based on their forum) ad filters are constantly being worked upon.
PS: I've also tried Firefox Mobile with uBlock Origin addon. As expected, ad blocking works just fine, but page loading times are way slower compared to Brave which is based on Chrome.
It's $12/month. And €12/month (= $15) in Europe.
Youtube Premium is $12/month now, in the US. $18/month for the family plan (up to 5 members).
I go a step further and use uBlock Origin to hide all the obnoxious recommendation spam overlays and video thumbnails on the right-hand side of the screen. Except for the one that is on the up-next in auto-play. It's wonderful.
>How upset would you be if ads started to appear on a channel that never ran ads? Would you stop watching videos on that channel or do you just run ad blocker anyways?
I would never be upset, but I may stop watching the channel. One thing I've noticed, at least in a few anecdotal cases, is that the format of a channel often changes when they begin seriously to monetize. This is often not necessarily bad, in any objective sense, but nonetheless changes the character of the channel. If you were in love with the channel before, you might say that the channel has become worse. Others might say that the channel has been improved. Regardless how it lands for you, it seems clear that channels without any pressure to monetize do produce somewhat different content than channels with pressure to monetize.
I would never be upset, but I may stop watching the channel. One thing I've noticed, at least in a few anecdotal cases, is that the format of a channel often changes when they begin seriously to monetize. This is often not necessarily bad, in any objective sense, but nonetheless changes the character of the channel. If you were in love with the channel before, you might say that the channel has become worse. Others might say that the channel has been improved. Regardless how it lands for you, it seems clear that channels without any pressure to monetize do produce somewhat different content than channels with pressure to monetize.
If interstitial ads (with the profits going to Google) started to appear in the middle of videos I would probably stop using YouTube for everything that requires some concentration to follow. Right now I only subscribe to channels that have ads only at the beginning or the end, but for now that is a choice that creators can make.
The barrier for that recently lowered from 10m to 8m so expect to see more of them.
Some creators only use one interstitial ad per monetized videos independent of the length. However if YouTube added more of them to pad their coffers, that would be quite different.
On the bright side, we'll get shorter videos with less padding and fluff to make the 10 minute mark. I guess that's a small consolation prize.
The blame for that lays with Google as well, since short videos are not present in the most effective discovery channels.
This has already started to happen.
I remember that years ago Bender, the 3D editor, had tutorials on YouTube without ads, but due to the volume of views they were forced to enable adsot sure if that has since changed
They've set up a PeerTube instance and moved their content there: https://video.blender.org/
I've noticed a definite shift towards content creators doing in-video advertisements and promotions. I wonder if YouTube will eventually crack down on such things. To my knowledge, there is no way for YouTube to demonetize some third-party deal between a content creator and some company trying to sell VPN services or bluetooth earbuds. But I wouldn't put it past Google to try.
As I mentioned in another comment, I view this as the largest deal breaker for a lot of people. You pay to remove the YT ads, but you still get a 2m plug out of a 10m video which is already stretched so that it gets in the upper echelon of adsense monetization. Even if you don't see YT-placed ads, the content you are watching has evolved due to the effects of that.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/...
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y...
Sponsorblock works incredibly well at blocking in video sponsored ads.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y...
Sponsorblock works incredibly well at blocking in video sponsored ads.
It seems like it would be easiest if YouTube just charged the content creators for hosting so they could work out their own sponsorship/advertising deals and pay YouTube at some sort of capitated rate for exposure. YouTube gets a bigger bank of content and more eyeballs in the site to see other ads and the content creators get to use YouTube for the built-in audience without needing to be subject to the vagaries of its monetization policies.
Presumably the content creators would also be able to designate spaces in their videos for ads to insert for their older videos so YouTube can still make money off them without a retired content producer needing to take them down to avoid being charged for views.
Presumably the content creators would also be able to designate spaces in their videos for ads to insert for their older videos so YouTube can still make money off them without a retired content producer needing to take them down to avoid being charged for views.
That would be pretty stupid (or at least risky) on YouTube's part.
Content creators earn much more money from product placements and ads within their videos than they do from the ad share that YouTube pays out. With a medium-sized German YouTuber, you easily pay 50,000 euros for a 30-second review of the product. And in the video, he talks about several products. To earn 100,000 euros just from views, the video must be clicked millions of times.
Content creators would immediately look for or build another platform if their most important source of revenue was blocked.
Content creators earn much more money from product placements and ads within their videos than they do from the ad share that YouTube pays out. With a medium-sized German YouTuber, you easily pay 50,000 euros for a 30-second review of the product. And in the video, he talks about several products. To earn 100,000 euros just from views, the video must be clicked millions of times.
Content creators would immediately look for or build another platform if their most important source of revenue was blocked.
Sure, it's risky. But how risky?
Content creators could move to a different platform, but that's also incredibly risky. Unless you're already hugely successful, abandoning YouTube probably isn't a great way to build a following. The same goes for building their own platform, with the added complication of it being prohibitively expensive to make a scalable, relatively ad-free video platform if you aren't a megacorp who generates billions of dollars from other revenue streams.
So I suppose there is a risk, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's a risk that Google would live with if sponsored content was undermining their entire monetization plan for YouTube. I have no idea if they'd care enough to do this or not, but I don't think a scattered collection of content creators have enough leverage to scare Google here.
Content creators could move to a different platform, but that's also incredibly risky. Unless you're already hugely successful, abandoning YouTube probably isn't a great way to build a following. The same goes for building their own platform, with the added complication of it being prohibitively expensive to make a scalable, relatively ad-free video platform if you aren't a megacorp who generates billions of dollars from other revenue streams.
So I suppose there is a risk, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's a risk that Google would live with if sponsored content was undermining their entire monetization plan for YouTube. I have no idea if they'd care enough to do this or not, but I don't think a scattered collection of content creators have enough leverage to scare Google here.
This is really starting to take the shine off of Youtube for me. When it's an explicit ad (this video is sponsored by Hello Fresh, more on that later) then fine - it's irritating, as a Premium subscriber who pays not to see ads, but I get it.
But if you follow anything DIY, maker, automotive or work related it's difficult to tell the sponsored posts from the non sponsored. Is this guy recommending Metallex because it's a good product, or because he was paid? Did the Mikita drill win this shootout because it's the better drill, or because they are the only manufacturer who supplied a tool free of charge? Are they putting a Garrett turbocharger into the car because that was the vision for the project, or because Garrett sent it to them?
But if you follow anything DIY, maker, automotive or work related it's difficult to tell the sponsored posts from the non sponsored. Is this guy recommending Metallex because it's a good product, or because he was paid? Did the Mikita drill win this shootout because it's the better drill, or because they are the only manufacturer who supplied a tool free of charge? Are they putting a Garrett turbocharger into the car because that was the vision for the project, or because Garrett sent it to them?
>as a Premium subscriber
Why would you willingly give money to Google? I would use a third party client or an ad blocker.
The best way for them to do this would be create a intermediary service as a way to "make it easier to connect advertisers and creators" by streamlining payment, terms, etc.
While it would likely be a great boon (think Stripe + legal service + getting paid on time), it would likely end up like PayPal; creators constantly getting their accounts shut down for "suspicious activity" and their money pocketed.
While it would likely be a great boon (think Stripe + legal service + getting paid on time), it would likely end up like PayPal; creators constantly getting their accounts shut down for "suspicious activity" and their money pocketed.
"it would end up like paypal" Am I mistaken, but doesn't Google/Youtube do this already? I mean they aren't a payment processor like PayPal, but they shut down accounts all the time for little to no reason and most users have no recourse.
PayPal waits to shut down your account until it has a substantial amount of money in it, and then when they do shut it down, they "freeze" (basically steal) it all.
Even if they don't go as far as creating a service to connect the two, they can just require the content creators to declare which products/services they are promoting. See it as a form of combating fake news or informing of bias in political posts. Google being google can connect the dots and squeeze more revenue out if that.
I don't expect they'll ban videos that are entirely ads, like re-posted TV commercials, and movie trailers. So I don't see why they'd ban videos that are part-ad. It's not like streaming TV shows and ordinary Hollywood movies don't do the same thing, double-dipping by charging for the content then putting anything from subtle product placements to actual, embedded ads complete with dialog in them. Cable has ads (didn't, at first) even though you pay for it. Books often have ads in them, even though you buy them—old pulp books have outright glossy-print ads in the middle, sometimes, and it's entirely ordinary for a publisher to advertise other books they sell near the front or end of a book.
YouTube videos containing ads even if you pay for the service just makes it the same as everydamnthing else.
YouTube videos containing ads even if you pay for the service just makes it the same as everydamnthing else.
It's funny. I've been using Nebula occasionally (terrible interface, slow as molasses, close to no discoverability of videos, but otherwise nice content), and it's always so weird how videos just get to the point and then end abruptly. I grew so used to pointless intros, stretched content, and sponsored outros that Nebula videos feel really off in contrast.
I actually find those far more pleasing, AND I pay attention to them. Something advertisers should pay a premium for. The shift towards doing short in-rolls at completely inane times just makes me annoyed and ignore the product entirely.
My question is: How has the best company in the world at adtech failed so hard on ads that content creators need to do this, and what implications does that failure raise.
Even if the rates were fair and consistent, I'd feel this is an inevitable venture (unless youtube forbade monetized content creators from having in-video ads). Why not make more money from a 2nd source if it doesn't dimish the first source much?
meanwhile, adverts probably have a much better ROI from working on a person by person basis than making a deal with google to cycle in x times per day. It's a win for everyone except the consumers (and it can be argued as an indirect win, since that 2nd source pushes many YTbers to go full time. So, more and more consistent content).
meanwhile, adverts probably have a much better ROI from working on a person by person basis than making a deal with google to cycle in x times per day. It's a win for everyone except the consumers (and it can be argued as an indirect win, since that 2nd source pushes many YTbers to go full time. So, more and more consistent content).
What do you mean "failed"? They're double dipping and earning twice the money. They get the YT advertising cut and the Patreon/paid adverts cut.
It's like your Cable TV or favorite newspaper charging you for subscription and then filling up the content with ads because they can earn FROM BOTH.
It's like your Cable TV or favorite newspaper charging you for subscription and then filling up the content with ads because they can earn FROM BOTH.
> They're double dipping and earning twice the money.
The advertising cut is not much at all and it's really hard to sustain anything on it.
> It's like your Cable TV or favorite newspaper charging you for subscription and then filling up the content with ads because they can earn FROM BOTH.
It's more like the flip of that, content having ads but you can subscribe too. If video makers had an easy way to disable ads for direct subscribers, I bet almost all of them would do it right away.
The advertising cut is not much at all and it's really hard to sustain anything on it.
> It's like your Cable TV or favorite newspaper charging you for subscription and then filling up the content with ads because they can earn FROM BOTH.
It's more like the flip of that, content having ads but you can subscribe too. If video makers had an easy way to disable ads for direct subscribers, I bet almost all of them would do it right away.
Because they use a pretty brutal demonetization AI that takes away a huge source of revenue for creators over an issue like using the wrong word or talking about a hot button issue. Not only that but when they appeal it can sometimes take days to get a response and they miss out on the monetization of 90% of their views which all happen in that first few days.
If your best friend tells you to buy a VPN or Bluetooth ear gadgets you take their recommendations on board. You believe them. If they have a referral code you take it.
If they actually use the product too then you are sold. Particularly if they remind you next time you see them.
Some people see their favourite YouTubers more than their friends. They see them as hero-friends.
This is very much the future of advertising, linear TV style adverts are not for every product.
If they actually use the product too then you are sold. Particularly if they remind you next time you see them.
Some people see their favourite YouTubers more than their friends. They see them as hero-friends.
This is very much the future of advertising, linear TV style adverts are not for every product.
Is there a comprehensive list of alternatives to Youtube?
To me it seems that monetization of content has led our culture to become deeply sensationalist and destructive, and I'd like to support non-monetized content platforms if I can
To me it seems that monetization of content has led our culture to become deeply sensationalist and destructive, and I'd like to support non-monetized content platforms if I can
Some content creators constantly advertise posting extended versions of their Youtube videos on Nebula[0], which apparently exists precisely to solve the dichotomy between high quality content vs monetization.
[0] https://nebula.app/
[0] https://nebula.app/
I have a Nebula subscription because I want to support some of the content creators on it, but the app is so slow and buggy I usually just watch on YouTube instead. It’s a shame because I really want to support what they are doing but YouTube has set the bar really high for the online streaming user experience.
I force myself to use the Nebula app, even if if glitches, freezes, the sound is sometimes off, etc. because i suppose that at the very least the number of views is used by content creators, and they probably get paid on that basis.
You are right. After service costs, the company behind Nebula (Standard) gets 50% of the revenue, and the creators split the other 50% of the revenue based on watch time. I suppose that I should start using the app.
https://nebula.app/faq
https://nebula.app/faq
50%, wow, Youtube takes only 45%.
In any case the main gripe i've heard content creators have with Youtube is demonetisation and derecommendation of "sensitive" topics ( e.g. history) more so than money directly
In any case the main gripe i've heard content creators have with Youtube is demonetisation and derecommendation of "sensitive" topics ( e.g. history) more so than money directly
It's only for a small list of selected channels though
How about LBRY / Odysee?
https://lbry.com/ https://odysee.com/
Supposed to be decentralized and can even "synchronize" your YouTube channel's content.
https://lbry.com/ https://odysee.com/
Supposed to be decentralized and can even "synchronize" your YouTube channel's content.
Is Lbry the one that pays you in its own crypto?
Dailymotion
Vimeo
But tbh nothing has the scope of YouTube.
Vimeo
But tbh nothing has the scope of YouTube.
Yeah, it sucks. The second advertisers show up the site is ruined, nothing is authentic anymore and suddenly there are real limits to what you can say and do. Unfortunately, once a site gets big enough they are guaranteed to show up.
PeerTube?
Peertube seems like a nice technical solution, but 90% of the content I could find was either French, social justice activism, furry-stuff or combination of the above. It was really overwhelmingly so.
And that leads to a chicken and egg problem. You can take your content there, but there won’t be a big audience, because the content which casual users will find there is quite literally content which serves more to repel a general audience rather than attract. And that won’t change until enough “normal” publishers start putting their stuff there. Which they won’t.
I’m honestly not sure what a good solution is, because the technical platform itself seems decent.
And that leads to a chicken and egg problem. You can take your content there, but there won’t be a big audience, because the content which casual users will find there is quite literally content which serves more to repel a general audience rather than attract. And that won’t change until enough “normal” publishers start putting their stuff there. Which they won’t.
I’m honestly not sure what a good solution is, because the technical platform itself seems decent.
Have you tried multiple instances or searched for content on a PeerTube search engine like https://sepiasearch.org ?
Any idea why so much is in French?
Probably because:
> PeerTube is developed by Framasoft, a French non-profit popular educational organization on digital issues
> PeerTube is developed by Framasoft, a French non-profit popular educational organization on digital issues
[deleted]
The question almost no one knows the answer to is - is YouTube actually profitable?
My guess is no. We have this amazing resource with an amazing amount of content, yet it is probably subsidized by one of the largest companies in the world. It’s a big question whether YouTube can even exist without that subsidy.
My hunch is they need to do this kind of thing to somehow reach break even.
Edit: to the people downvoting and quoting numbers, alphabet has never broken out actual profitability numbers. Just because YouTube made $15bn last year doesn’t mean anything. Hosting costs, moderation costs, music license fees!!!, you have no idea how much YouTube costs to operate. It could be more than $15bn.
My guess is no. We have this amazing resource with an amazing amount of content, yet it is probably subsidized by one of the largest companies in the world. It’s a big question whether YouTube can even exist without that subsidy.
My hunch is they need to do this kind of thing to somehow reach break even.
Edit: to the people downvoting and quoting numbers, alphabet has never broken out actual profitability numbers. Just because YouTube made $15bn last year doesn’t mean anything. Hosting costs, moderation costs, music license fees!!!, you have no idea how much YouTube costs to operate. It could be more than $15bn.
Well, here are some numbers.
> On an annual basis, Google says YouTube generated $15 billion last year and contributed roughly 10 percent to all Google revenue.
> Overall, Alphabet made $46 billion in revenue in the quarter that ended December 31st, 2019, a 17 percent jump over 2018. Nearly $10.7 billion of that was profit, the company says. Google’s search business remains the big moneymaker of Alphabet’s sprawling empire, earning $27.2 billion for the quarter.
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-al...
> On an annual basis, Google says YouTube generated $15 billion last year and contributed roughly 10 percent to all Google revenue.
> Overall, Alphabet made $46 billion in revenue in the quarter that ended December 31st, 2019, a 17 percent jump over 2018. Nearly $10.7 billion of that was profit, the company says. Google’s search business remains the big moneymaker of Alphabet’s sprawling empire, earning $27.2 billion for the quarter.
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-al...
That's a lot of revenue, but revenue != profit. Any estimates as to how much YouTube costs to run, and whether that figure is greater or less than $15B?
[deleted]
I was thinking about that recently, and I'm not so sure either. The profit margin for Google Services which YouTube is a part of is 30%, but that also contains the ads division, which is hugely profitable. Also, you would expect if YouTube's profit margin was 30% as well they would disclose it, so you have to imagine it must be significantly less.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/02/03/google-revenue-pro...
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/02/03/google-revenue-pro...
At the beginning it wasn't but they sold to Google in order to help them scale and the Moore's Law kicked in with powerful CPUs and cheap memory my conclusion is it is very profitable.
HN: I hate ads
YT comes up with a premium offering.
Also, HN: I won't pay for YouTube Premium. Here is how I use adblock to block ads.
I really don't get this rationale. We pay for other services. YT is effectively a pipe which hosts and streams content for you, that does cost something.
I consider YouTube to be a repository of knowledge rather than just a specialised video hosting service like Netflix. As it has everything from how do I bake cookies, to something as niche as how do I fix the specific model of bike I have. It makes sense to just pay for it.
Content creators can earn money from Patreon or sponsorships but for it to be profitable to host these videos, YT will have to charge for them either via subscription or ads.
YT comes up with a premium offering.
Also, HN: I won't pay for YouTube Premium. Here is how I use adblock to block ads.
I really don't get this rationale. We pay for other services. YT is effectively a pipe which hosts and streams content for you, that does cost something.
I consider YouTube to be a repository of knowledge rather than just a specialised video hosting service like Netflix. As it has everything from how do I bake cookies, to something as niche as how do I fix the specific model of bike I have. It makes sense to just pay for it.
Content creators can earn money from Patreon or sponsorships but for it to be profitable to host these videos, YT will have to charge for them either via subscription or ads.
I would have paid for YT but they have demonstrated that they will shit all over independent creators, and smear them to justify it, while at the same time prioritizing the mainstream garbage I was trying to avoid by going there.
It is suffering from the problem of social media at large: to be a platform or a curator of content? Moderation is tough and largely unsolved, I get that, but it started as a platform and then it flipped over to heavily curating, effectively abusing their influence they built with the help of little channels.
Independent creators are the future of media (not just social) in my opinion, and I feel YT has betrayed them by constantly siding with mainstream legacy media, and doing so in a sneaky way... they pretended to be fair and after huge global success they flipped and have no problem manipulating the attention of the masses.
It is suffering from the problem of social media at large: to be a platform or a curator of content? Moderation is tough and largely unsolved, I get that, but it started as a platform and then it flipped over to heavily curating, effectively abusing their influence they built with the help of little channels.
Independent creators are the future of media (not just social) in my opinion, and I feel YT has betrayed them by constantly siding with mainstream legacy media, and doing so in a sneaky way... they pretended to be fair and after huge global success they flipped and have no problem manipulating the attention of the masses.
Yup. For context, YouTube/Google pulled off an utterly scummy one-two punch where they initially upped the minimum requirements to monetize videos with ads and removed that ability from anyone who didn't meet the new requirements, under the pretext that they couldn't check if smaller channels were suitable for advertising - and then readded ads to all those channels except with Google keeping 100% of the money.
The ideal future is Peertube or simply chucking video files on Cloudfront and slapping the standard HTML5 video tags onto a web page. Creators of videos should one their own web presence, letting the internet be distributed as intended instead of siloing large swathes of content in the hands of a few large companies.
If you’re producing videos as a business, depending on a third party to provide a free service, you’re going to have issues sooner or later.
If you’re producing videos as a business, depending on a third party to provide a free service, you’re going to have issues sooner or later.
> Creators of videos should one their own web presence.
The problem is that nobody wants to pay for it. They want to own their own web presence but on free servers.
The problem is that nobody wants to pay for it. They want to own their own web presence but on free servers.
That is not true. I create content for YouTube as my all the time job (and the jobs of my employees). I have no issue with self-hosting. The problem is that YouTube has the audience. For channels that receive a lot of traffic, only ~15% or of our watch time comes from subscribers. And even less comes from notifications.
While you might not own peertube, you control your content on your channel.
And I’m happy to share in the hosting that way. Bandwidth and spectrum aren’t like oil. If we don’t use it, it’s lost forever.
Worked for how we consumed internet video before Netflix/youtube: Torrents.
And I’m happy to share in the hosting that way. Bandwidth and spectrum aren’t like oil. If we don’t use it, it’s lost forever.
Worked for how we consumed internet video before Netflix/youtube: Torrents.
Cloudfront is a large corporate silo though.
[deleted]
> Also, HN: I won't pay for YouTube Premium. Here is how I use adblock to block ads.
I pay for YT premium, because I got sick of all the preroll and mid-video ads.
What am I greeted with now? A bunch of "Sponsored Content" during videos - the kind of thing I specifically paid to get away from.
I pay for YT premium, because I got sick of all the preroll and mid-video ads.
What am I greeted with now? A bunch of "Sponsored Content" during videos - the kind of thing I specifically paid to get away from.
check out sponsorblock if you hadn't heard of it before. it's a crowdsourced browser add on to skip sponsored segments
How can that even work?
amazingly well! you get a few extra buttons to mark the beginning / end of a segment when watching a video, you upload the segment to a database along with a category (sponsor, self promotion, asking for engagement, etc) - everyone else with the addon will now have that segment be auto-skipped. a little option to unskip pops up when this happens and you can downvote bad segments, but so far I've never had a false positive
Unfortunately if you’re using the YouTube app on iOS/Android...
...or could it work for those by using iOS/Android’s accessibility+automation services?
...or could it work for those by using iOS/Android’s accessibility+automation services?
YouTube Vanced has integrated support for sponsorblock and in my experience it just works, you just have to turn it on! I've not watched a single sponsored segment in at least half a year now, it's really amazing. Even very very recent or niche videos usually have their ads properly tagged.
(make sure you install Vanced from the right website, go on the subreddit for the always updated link)
(make sure you install Vanced from the right website, go on the subreddit for the always updated link)
I'm not sure but maybe it's a database of videos and time intervals to be skipped.
Crowdsourced timestamps
[deleted]
I’m in the same boat and would love to be able to filter out videos with embedded sponsor shilling.
Disclosure: I do pay for premium because I do not like ads.
However, I find myself more sympathetic to the issue you’ve described. Perhaps if people felt that the “content creators” would revive a fair shake of those premium monthly charges I pay they would be more likely to enter into such an agreement. As it stands this is simply not the case and the same holds true for most all content streaming services. The provider and about 1% of contributors get the real lions share, the rest are fighting for scraps (often at the mercy of YouTube’s moderation algos, e.g. getting banned, having videos removed or demonetized because a computer doesn’t really know what it’s looking at.)
On top of that YouTube uses my demographic and video watching data to serve me ads everywhere else, my email, my browser, etc. not exactly a fair trade off in simply removing ads from the videos themselves.
It truly is not an egalitarian system, therefore the erosion of trust, and as a consequence the unwillingness of its consumers to “play ball”, is simply a product of their own making.
However, I find myself more sympathetic to the issue you’ve described. Perhaps if people felt that the “content creators” would revive a fair shake of those premium monthly charges I pay they would be more likely to enter into such an agreement. As it stands this is simply not the case and the same holds true for most all content streaming services. The provider and about 1% of contributors get the real lions share, the rest are fighting for scraps (often at the mercy of YouTube’s moderation algos, e.g. getting banned, having videos removed or demonetized because a computer doesn’t really know what it’s looking at.)
On top of that YouTube uses my demographic and video watching data to serve me ads everywhere else, my email, my browser, etc. not exactly a fair trade off in simply removing ads from the videos themselves.
It truly is not an egalitarian system, therefore the erosion of trust, and as a consequence the unwillingness of its consumers to “play ball”, is simply a product of their own making.
> The provider and about 1% of contributors get the real lions share, the rest are fighting for scraps
This is a good point and a much bigger issue than I was initially thinking. Even if 100% of my YouTube ad money and premium subscription went directly to the creators I watch, proportioned by how much time I spent on each channel, I wouldn't do it. That's because there's a weird inequality created by virality. If you're really successful, you can make millions of dollars a year solo. If you don't get past the algorithm or your content is niche, you might have a team of 5 people and make less than 100k a year in total (and obviously there's a very long tail of people trying to make a career of YouTube who are currently failing to do even that).
At the end of the day, I think this is ... bad. It may seem "fair" for people to be paid linearly with how much their creations are consumed, but the nature of digital media is such that if something is mainstream enough, boring enough, safe enough, it can scale basically forever with no added costs. (It's why Disney movies can make a billion dollars.) If someone whose work I follow is already making six figures a year, I'd much rather continue watching their content for free (which comes at no cost to them because digital media can be copied), while supporting niche creators who are trying to make rent at the end of the month instead. It may not be "fair" (ad blocking is only a step removed from piracy, they're both effectively copyright subversion), but copyright and endless remuneration based on popularity is creating a bad media landscape. I want to see a better one.
This is a good point and a much bigger issue than I was initially thinking. Even if 100% of my YouTube ad money and premium subscription went directly to the creators I watch, proportioned by how much time I spent on each channel, I wouldn't do it. That's because there's a weird inequality created by virality. If you're really successful, you can make millions of dollars a year solo. If you don't get past the algorithm or your content is niche, you might have a team of 5 people and make less than 100k a year in total (and obviously there's a very long tail of people trying to make a career of YouTube who are currently failing to do even that).
At the end of the day, I think this is ... bad. It may seem "fair" for people to be paid linearly with how much their creations are consumed, but the nature of digital media is such that if something is mainstream enough, boring enough, safe enough, it can scale basically forever with no added costs. (It's why Disney movies can make a billion dollars.) If someone whose work I follow is already making six figures a year, I'd much rather continue watching their content for free (which comes at no cost to them because digital media can be copied), while supporting niche creators who are trying to make rent at the end of the month instead. It may not be "fair" (ad blocking is only a step removed from piracy, they're both effectively copyright subversion), but copyright and endless remuneration based on popularity is creating a bad media landscape. I want to see a better one.
I produce content for YouTube as my full time job and I am 100% sure (at least as of a year or so ago) that Premium views are more valuable than ad-watching views on a per-view basis. Moreover, so-called demonetized videos remain eligible for Premium revenue, despite earning relatively nothing from ads.
I think that the issue people are having is that (a large portion of) the content on YT also does sponsorships. Also, 'like and subscribe and bell'. So you might pay for YT, but I don't think that the quality of the service improves that much (say like Spotify).
Until YT improve their algorithm and stop with the arbitrary 10m time marks for monetization, I think YT is going to have a problem with people seeing a premium variant as a good option opposed to just adblocking.
I get that the counterpoint to my point is that YT isn't paying that much and that people are free to do whatever in their videos, but that doesn't make it less annoying. Spotify doesn't pay great, but I don't have to hear a band saying 'buy our tshirts!' after listening to a song/album.
I think that the many community scandals, coupled with the, what I view as, changes in monetization strategies has put YT in this position.
Until YT improve their algorithm and stop with the arbitrary 10m time marks for monetization, I think YT is going to have a problem with people seeing a premium variant as a good option opposed to just adblocking.
I get that the counterpoint to my point is that YT isn't paying that much and that people are free to do whatever in their videos, but that doesn't make it less annoying. Spotify doesn't pay great, but I don't have to hear a band saying 'buy our tshirts!' after listening to a song/album.
I think that the many community scandals, coupled with the, what I view as, changes in monetization strategies has put YT in this position.
> I think that the issue people are having is that (a large portion of) the content on YT also does sponsorships. Also, 'like and subscribe and bell'. So you might pay for YT, but I don't think that the quality of the service improves that much (say like Spotify).
To expand on what you said, a large proportion of YouTube's content is just clickbaity garbage as well. The whole platform is designed, from the ground-up, as a mechanism to shove intrusive ads in your face. Simply removing the ads and putting in a subscription fee doesn't address a lot of the other noxious effects the ad-centric focus has had on the content environment, the UI, the recommendations, etc.
I would much rather subscribe to the YouTuber offshoot services, like CuriosityStream or Dropout or Nebula. They have a clear offering and the services are designed around a clear subscription model.
To expand on what you said, a large proportion of YouTube's content is just clickbaity garbage as well. The whole platform is designed, from the ground-up, as a mechanism to shove intrusive ads in your face. Simply removing the ads and putting in a subscription fee doesn't address a lot of the other noxious effects the ad-centric focus has had on the content environment, the UI, the recommendations, etc.
I would much rather subscribe to the YouTuber offshoot services, like CuriosityStream or Dropout or Nebula. They have a clear offering and the services are designed around a clear subscription model.
I pay for YT Premium, and it really is a lot nicer than ad-supported YT (without an adblocker). In-video sponsorship messages can still be annoying, yes, but at lesat they're fairly skippable. And despite all Google's other misdeeds, they hardly have primary responsibility for YouTube's in-video hustling. If they rolled out a way to make it easier for viewers to skip in-video sponsor segments then uploaders would be very unhappy.
What YT could do is to have content creators mark those sponsored blocks and autoskip them for paid subscribers (with monetization cut of course). It's in their best interest to make paid experience good and keep people around.
Ideally they could also offer paid content hosting so organizations like Blender or hospitals could host ad-free content and pay for the hosting/bandwidth costs directly.
Ideally they could also offer paid content hosting so organizations like Blender or hospitals could host ad-free content and pay for the hosting/bandwidth costs directly.
Why is the latter ideal for anyone? Right now people just use Vimeo for that. And it’s not ideal for YouTube because they make money by serving ads. They are a business. They are not just trying to cover their costs of delivering content.
Agreed, but I think as a principle, I would want YouTube to dictate less on how I can monetize my video. If I am influential and brands want to do product placement with me, it should be upto me.
The ideal scenario is, YT takes a fee like they do with Premium for hosting and discovery. The content creator can choose to take a cut if he wishes or can just do his own monetisation. It is upto him, whether he does no monetisation, puts merchandise links in description or outright shows the product in between a video. YouTube can make other integrations for content creators to monetise but they should have freedom of their own as well.
The good thing about competition is, if some content creator is being obnoxious with promotions or product placement, users can find someone who is doing a better job.
In the past some YouTubers have noted that they get more dollar return from a premium viewer watching their video than an ad one, so content creators can choose to forego on promotional placements and compete on a better experience.
The ideal scenario is, YT takes a fee like they do with Premium for hosting and discovery. The content creator can choose to take a cut if he wishes or can just do his own monetisation. It is upto him, whether he does no monetisation, puts merchandise links in description or outright shows the product in between a video. YouTube can make other integrations for content creators to monetise but they should have freedom of their own as well.
The good thing about competition is, if some content creator is being obnoxious with promotions or product placement, users can find someone who is doing a better job.
In the past some YouTubers have noted that they get more dollar return from a premium viewer watching their video than an ad one, so content creators can choose to forego on promotional placements and compete on a better experience.
I think it could be cool if YT started their own Patreon. Anyone who is a 'member' of the channel, for some basic tier fee even, should not even get the plug as part of the video, or at least have that part skipped by default.
This would be a step closer to like someone else here mentioned YT being the intermediary between the companies and the creators and taking a cut from that as well.
This would be a step closer to like someone else here mentioned YT being the intermediary between the companies and the creators and taking a cut from that as well.
There are channel memberships, but their main offering is access to members-only content.
I'm ready to pay, I pay for a lot of stuff: netflix, audible, dynalist, pycharm, etc.
But with youtube you pay twice, once with your money, and the second time with your private life. And Google's track record clearly shows it's not a good idea to trust them with it.
Google is the only one responsible for my total defiance toward them. They catered to it year after year. Now they are just harvesting the result. They can't have their cake and eat it.
But with youtube you pay twice, once with your money, and the second time with your private life. And Google's track record clearly shows it's not a good idea to trust them with it.
Google is the only one responsible for my total defiance toward them. They catered to it year after year. Now they are just harvesting the result. They can't have their cake and eat it.
I would argue you also pay with your time, what percentage of total view time is wasted on long intros, sponsored plugs and telling people to do all the typical social media stuff which has nothing to do with real content.
Thankfully, there is a wonderful extension for that: https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/
Try it, and you will for a brief moment feel like when you installed a regular adblocker the first time 15 years ago: "WOW". With this + ublock origin + youtube enhancer, the site is a completely different experience.
It's the experience I would happily pay for, if it wouldn't mean giving away my whole life to Google's monster AI.
Try it, and you will for a brief moment feel like when you installed a regular adblocker the first time 15 years ago: "WOW". With this + ublock origin + youtube enhancer, the site is a completely different experience.
It's the experience I would happily pay for, if it wouldn't mean giving away my whole life to Google's monster AI.
I am willing to pay to get rid of ads, but that also makes it easier for Google to track me, since now I have to login a Google account. What's worse for me is, because I use private/incognito browser sessions by default, it will take even more time if I have to login to the account every time I visit youtube.com than just playing the ads.
And the worst experience is when I am on my phone, where logging in my Google account in one Google app means I am logged in on all other Google apps. I am sure they put a lot of effort to make it difficult to logout. I remember last time I accidentally logged in to Google Maps app a few month ago, I had to revoke the app's auth token from web management dashboard because I couldn't figure out how to logout within the app.
And the worst experience is when I am on my phone, where logging in my Google account in one Google app means I am logged in on all other Google apps. I am sure they put a lot of effort to make it difficult to logout. I remember last time I accidentally logged in to Google Maps app a few month ago, I had to revoke the app's auth token from web management dashboard because I couldn't figure out how to logout within the app.
I had a similar issue with the NYT - every time I subscribed (and during my subscription period) I found it impossible to avoid getting on their spammy email lists if I ever logged in to read articles. The only workable solution I found is to pay my 1-year subscription fee, immediately cancel the subscription, and then use the NYT in incognito mode thereby stopping them from caching my read article count and avoiding having to login (I would always accidentally login if I maintained the subscription). It’s annoying, but I want to give them money while also avoiding being harassed by dozens of emails every month. Sadly there is no similar work around for youtube.
youtube.com. was heaven for me before they fixed it[1].
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23581118
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23581118
But they're still going to keep doing all the tracking and whatnot.
It's unfortunate that the Youtube subscription is bundled with a music subscription. It inflates the price a lot if you're not interested in the latter.
I pay for youtube premium and I absolutely love it. Sure creators will do ads, but 10 second fast-forward works really well and its matter of a click or two and I am skipping the entire ad for the video. And there are more than a handful of great niche channels not big enough to have ad reads yet.
Television and radio ads I find more obnoxious. Some random celebrity pushing some credit card or the same repeat radio read for the 1,000th time that only ensures I will under no circumstances use their product.
Television and radio ads I find more obnoxious. Some random celebrity pushing some credit card or the same repeat radio read for the 1,000th time that only ensures I will under no circumstances use their product.
I love Newpipe.
https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe
And libgen. And private trackers.
YouTube is largely shit tier mental junk food anyway.
https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe
And libgen. And private trackers.
YouTube is largely shit tier mental junk food anyway.
YouTube is largely shit tier mental junk food anyway
Maybe the stuff you watch. There's heaps and heaps of longform content about every subject under the sun.
Maybe the stuff you watch. There's heaps and heaps of longform content about every subject under the sun.
Newpipe's "skip silence" feature is absolutely incredible with lectures and public meetings too. It's just an all around better experience.
You can pay for high quality video knowledge without ads in Curiosity Stream (https://curiositystream.com/).
They also tend to do deals for subscriptions to Nebula, which is a site run by a bunch of YT "creators" which streams their YouTube stuff plus sooner extra content. It seems like a pretty good way to consume their content without touching Google.
I have no reason to believe that premium YouTube won't get ads once it's been around for a while.
Paying customers are the best people to show ads to.
Besides, my current experience is to watch an ad in order to watch an ad in order to watch a video. Getting rid of one layer of ad doesnt mean I'm not watching ads anymore, and I'm not going to pay money to watch ads.
Paying customers are the best people to show ads to.
Besides, my current experience is to watch an ad in order to watch an ad in order to watch a video. Getting rid of one layer of ad doesnt mean I'm not watching ads anymore, and I'm not going to pay money to watch ads.
the thing about youtube is that it fucking sucks and i hate it. the only good thing about it are the videos it hosts
Ok but netflix charges £8/month for my wife and I to watch its content ad-free, while youtube premium is £11/month per person or £18/month for a family subscription despite all of youtube's content being given to it for free. Youtube premium is horrible value for money for most people.
I subscribed to Youtube premium as it has a couple of great channels for me, but the upgrade was easy to justify also because I fully replaced Spotify with it. With Youtube premium you could run the Android Youtube app in the background without stopping the music.
[deleted]
At this point does it matter if youtube goes out of business? Influential content creators can post very optimised and compressed videos on their sites, and a search engine can aggregate top creators.
Yes it matters. those creators are "influential" because of youtube. almost noone will follow N creators on N different platforms. The agregation is the main reason why people keep using Youtube or Netflix or Spotify etc. I don't have time to log on 20 different sites to see content When I can log in one and have 20 subcription lists right there.
The aggregation is just a search engine with thumbnails. It will do the same job as youtube - a search engine for videos, without hosting any.
Its thanks to youtube that I can read HN, it is also probably thanks to youtube that I can afford premium.
I just wish we could choose which series to fund for youtube originals, like a big contest or something.
I just wish we could choose which series to fund for youtube originals, like a big contest or something.
Of all the services we pay for, our family derives the most value and enjoyment from the YT Premium program. This includes Netflix, Disney, Curiositystream, Hulu, etc.
I tried paying for the premium offering, but YouTube fucked it up: it wasn't simply YouTube w/o ads, it was a different set of content/recommendations.
I hate ads. But I do pay. And my views end up being worth about 20x that of a comparable ad view.
Absolutely worth it, given how much entertainment it provides.
Absolutely worth it, given how much entertainment it provides.
[deleted]
I refuse to pay money to a company that deletes the videos I like to watch over copyright issues nobody cares about. Also, paying money just makes you even more valuable to advertisers and it's not like it will make Google turn off all the spyware.
I agree, but I think most of us will always remain averse to subscription models. Especially now that everyone seems to be asking for them. While I MIGHT in the future consider paying for premium youtube, I certainly won't be doing it for the various newspapers, like the NYT, who paywall their articles after X reads. I'm just not interested in being tied down like that and incentivized to consume more of their content than I already do. It's a shame that the micro-payment systems that have been theorized about on here for the last decade still haven't come to fruition. I'd pay 5 cents to read an interesting article, or a couple cents to watch a video. Maybe a layer 2 protocol with no transaction fees sitting on top of a cryptocurrency can finally solve this before another decade goes by.
Both are reasonable.
I would say that the problem is in the order: It is not OK for YT to be a healthy company, it needs to grow. It is like a car that is not allowed to max out at a speed.
I would say that the problem is in the order: It is not OK for YT to be a healthy company, it needs to grow. It is like a car that is not allowed to max out at a speed.
If you really have a problem with that, use an alternative like Peertube, Odysee (https://odysee.com/), DTube (https://d.tube) or BitChute (https://www.bitchute.com).
https://sepiasearch.org can search most of peertube
https://tilvids.com/ is a great peertube instance for education stuff
https://sepiasearch.org can search most of peertube
https://tilvids.com/ is a great peertube instance for education stuff
Everyone is on YouTube though. But thankfully, since I use NewPipe they can't make money off me. Then again, neither can the original creators but what can you do?
I pay Youtube Permium 18€/month so that they support content creators without bothering me with ads. Wondering now if they were ever doing that job correctly.
The data is a couple years old, but CGP Grey mentioned that Premium subscribers result in more $ per view than ad subscribers do. Obviously there are some variables (it is split among everyone you watch by watch time) but that is how it generalized at the time he was commenting on it.
Every report I've seen is that it's roughly 10x the revenue.
YouTube is going to eventually stop paying content creators. It's been in the making for a while. They really have no incentive to profit share.
Then why would the content creators stay?
Because there's no serious competitor, and many (most?) creators rely on other revenue streams than YouTube ads
I feel like we are about a year away from a twitch pivot that could change this. Honestly, they are probably the only company that could compete.
Where are they going to go?
Because YouTube has an audience.
They sent an email out regarding this:
> YouTube’s right to monetize: YouTube has the right to monetize all content on the platform and ads may appear on videos from channels not in the YouTube Partner Program.
So... "you can't just upload unlimited videos for free and expect us to host them for free and show them for free and not have ads". Seems pretty reasonable to me.
This isn't really surprising. Google is finally trying to get their storage usage under control. And they've been giving away unlimited storage in so many products for so long that people are like "whoa, you're not allowed to do that!"
> YouTube’s right to monetize: YouTube has the right to monetize all content on the platform and ads may appear on videos from channels not in the YouTube Partner Program.
So... "you can't just upload unlimited videos for free and expect us to host them for free and show them for free and not have ads". Seems pretty reasonable to me.
This isn't really surprising. Google is finally trying to get their storage usage under control. And they've been giving away unlimited storage in so many products for so long that people are like "whoa, you're not allowed to do that!"
They must be serious about it because I've received tons of email notifications about this addressed to things like [email protected] and other random things I didn't know made a youtube account
I'm a member of a social community of helpful people online. It's motto was free forever and and it never would become a premium service. As a result, the acquired tons of interest and people created content on the site.
Last year the owner set an email that read (from memory): "Fifteen years ago we promised that we would stay free forever and never require a subscription. Now we break that promise. From now on, membership will cost XX kr/month."
And that was that. Not like anyone could do anything about it.
Last year the owner set an email that read (from memory): "Fifteen years ago we promised that we would stay free forever and never require a subscription. Now we break that promise. From now on, membership will cost XX kr/month."
And that was that. Not like anyone could do anything about it.
I got premium maybe 6 months ago now and can't imagine going without it, now. I partner it on desktop with SponsorBlock (fantastic free, open source browser add-on) to get rid of the sponsorships for a classic experience. I started contributing time-blocks as well when it hasn't been done for something I watch. If I'm not mistaken the Premium viewers give a better revenue-per-view to producers than just watching with ads which pleases me as well.
There’s a bigger issue at play here and I think it’s that overwhelmingly subsidized costs in tech have trained people to not respect the cost of so many engineering efforts that we’ve lost entire subfields of product competition.
I feel that the only way to combat it is to raise prices, offer a legitimate good or service and be unwavering in that stance.
I feel that the only way to combat it is to raise prices, offer a legitimate good or service and be unwavering in that stance.
I wonder where we would be right now if YouTube never came about and people had to pay for the bandwidth if the video quality they offered back in the pre-youtube days. I'd be curious to know if we'd even bother with high res monitors and screens seeing as few videos would benefit from the resolution.
They're rapidly heading toward becoming an ad funded file hosting/recommendation site. The reasons for continuing to upload there are dwindling. If I were a serious creator I'd have torrents for all my videos available by now and probably have them on at least one or two other services.
> If I were a serious creator I'd have torrents for all my videos available by now-
nobody on youtube does or would ever do this.
perhaps one can make a service that does this for them.
nobody on youtube does or would ever do this.
perhaps one can make a service that does this for them.
Statements like these are bizarre - all the most prolific YouTubers are there because they earn a lot of money from YT. YouTube handles the ad deals, encoders, storage and content delivery and they get a cut of the ad revenue. They add a bit of product placement and Patreon and make a decent living.
Why the heck would they switch to Torrents which will earn them a small fraction of revenue... if any?
Why the heck would they switch to Torrents which will earn them a small fraction of revenue... if any?
Linus tech tips did an enlightening breakdown video of their earnings and YouTube ads make up around 25% of their revenue.
I think they have to upload to YouTube because that’s where their audience is (IIRC it’s the world’s second largest search engine). There are lots of channels that I’ve only discovered as related videos to other videos I’ve watched.
https://youtu.be/-zt57TWkTF4
I think they have to upload to YouTube because that’s where their audience is (IIRC it’s the world’s second largest search engine). There are lots of channels that I’ve only discovered as related videos to other videos I’ve watched.
https://youtu.be/-zt57TWkTF4
Please anyone doing youtube videos, migrate to LBRY or something else and take your viewers with you.
I wonder how much each ad pays YouTube, and whether any company like YouTube would consider simply deducting an amount from a running balance I hold with them in exchange for not running ads. When the balance reaches zero, ads appear again, until I top it off.
I presume this is not desirable for other reasons? Companies paying for their ads to display would strongly prefer ads display and not allow users to hid them in exchange for payments? (Gaining a new customer after displaying an ad perhaps is worth more than the cost of an ad?)
I presume this is not desirable for other reasons? Companies paying for their ads to display would strongly prefer ads display and not allow users to hid them in exchange for payments? (Gaining a new customer after displaying an ad perhaps is worth more than the cost of an ad?)
That's what YouTube premium is, except it's fixed rather than top-up.
Maybe GP was talking about video _uploaders_ paying YouTube to host their unmonetized videos with no ads? Seems like that could be a useful service to offer now that it's no longer going to be free. (Though I believe Vimeo and others already offer competing services in that space, so if YouTube doesn't do it it's not a huge loss.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
I guess creators who don't want to ads to appear in their videos need to start putting some stuff from https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en to all of their videos (but be sure that they don't go against community guidelines or the adsense publisher policy).
I'm not sure why Google simply doesn't prevent people from watching videos if they have ad-blockers. It must be within their capability. I am a heavy user of ad-blocking technology, and I never quarrel with a website for preventing me access. They don't have a right to show me ads, but I don't have a right to view their website, either.
Here’s my question: will they also deprioritize videos they feel won’t earn them as much money? How will we know if they do? If you have 10 small channels of nearly equal content, but 1 has slightly better videos that get slightly more views…doesn’t this now incentivize YouTube to show that channel more?
Library of Congress should make a free platform that serves the same role. It is one of the duties of congress.
Patreon should host videos instead of letting YouTube do it for them. I have 4 Patreon subscriptions and would happily pay for more. I am not willing to pay for a YouTube subscription when they ban content whenever it is politically convenient for them to do so.
"don't be evil"
Why did people flag this thread? Strange one to flag.
It is strange isn't it ...
What is next?
- Google will monetize Apps without paying to the developers
- Apple will monetize Apps without paying to the developers
- Spottily will monetize songs without paying to authors
Brave New World ... :)
- Google will monetize Apps without paying to the developers
- Apple will monetize Apps without paying to the developers
- Spottily will monetize songs without paying to authors
Brave New World ... :)
It will be very jarring to be watching a video on spiritual exercises that will be suddenly interrupted by beer commercials.
well, content creators doesn't have to pay the infrastructure/storage cost either.
I haven't put anything on YouTube since Google acquired it. My stuff is on Vimeo.
This is downright obscene. I could understand YouTube demonetizing creators whose content doesn't align with YouTube's advertisers, but now they want to syphon off most of the revenue that supports the creation of that content?
This is not about demonetizing anyone.
YouTube is planning to monetize videos that are not monetized by the creators (and thus currently don't have ads).
YouTube is planning to monetize videos that are not monetized by the creators (and thus currently don't have ads).
tl;dr copied from the TOS email that got sent out:
A summary of the changes:
- Facial recognition restrictions: The Terms of Service already state that you cannot collect any information that might identify a person without their permission. While this has always included facial recognition information, the new Terms make that explicitly clear.
- YouTube’s right to monetize: YouTube has the right to monetize all content on the platform and ads may appear on videos from channels not in the YouTube Partner Program.
- Royalty payments and tax withholding: For creators entitled to revenue payments, such payments will be treated as royalties from a U.S. tax perspective and Google will withhold taxes where required by law.The title of this submission doesn't match the title of the page.
But it's not clear if this new TOS change affects everyone or only folks not eligible for their partnership program.
For example if you're a channel creator who could monetize but chooses to hit no, will YouTube be able to run ads on your videos now? It sounds like a yes based on the TOS wording since it doesn't explicitly mention a type of creator and includes "your" (which is a blanket statement to include everyone).
This sounds like it'll affect me directly. I have 12k subs and I've chosen not to run ads on any of my videos because I'd rather someone watch my videos without interrupt even if that means losing out on ad revenue. But moving forward it sounds like I'll enable ads on my videos because if YouTube is going to potentially run ads on them them I might as well benefit from it too.
As someone most likely affected by this I'm not really upset at YouTube over it. Hosting and streaming video isn't cheap. Sure I'd prefer not to have ads forced upon watchers of my content but at the same time I can't blame Google for wanting to make money off a platform we're all benefiting from. I've learned so much over the years from various YouTube videos and that mostly comes down to having easy access to find high quality videos.
How upset would you be if ads started to appear on a channel that never ran ads? Would you stop watching videos on that channel or do you just run ad blocker anyways?