Production, sure. Operational costs, not so much zero. I don’t understand how people think video streaming on any scale can be supported without any income. I don’t think they’re recent pricehike is reasonable, but to think anyone deserves to be able to stream 4k video (albeit low bit rate) without any sort of compensation is beyond me.
I pay for Youtube Premium, because I get a legit way to bypass ads and the creators I watch gets payed more than if I watched ads, but I also use an adblocker pretty much everywhere because they are intrusive and annoying. However I’m not under any illusion that doing so does directly hurt the income of the sites I visit.
I mean that it costs them a lot of money? Yeah sure. But how much is that per viewer and per view?
Making a good youtube video can take hours, days and sometimes month, depending on the content and production effort. All of this labor is free for youtube and similiar to reddit i would say it is far exceeding the value provided by the company.
There is no guarantee that your video that took you days to make even gets 10 viewers.
Even though, you don’t pay anything for YouTube to make it available in different resolutions and to start playing within a second after the viewer pressed play. Also all of that at an service availability of 99.99%.
While there are creators that does quality content there way more junk creators publishing their work on YouTube.
If your argument was valid there would be competitors to YouTube that quality material creators would move to when they got demonitized by bullshit reasons.
If your argument was valid there would be competitors to YouTube that quality material creators would move to when they got demonitized by bullshit reasons.
Thats the problem with platforms. They tend to form a monopoly.
I’m completely aware of the financial issues YouTube is facing, but they got themselves into this mess (and most other companies as well, who provide a service for “free”). They make users accustomed to a level of service, build a userbase and ride on investments with the expectation that they’ll figure out how to make money when they reach mass adoption.
The fact that youtube premium took years to even conceptualize is a massive failure on their part. Or how 1080p+ video wasn’t a paid feature to begin with. Making your users get used to a level of service, then making their experience more miserable and selling a solution to the problem they made does not bode well with people who have been on the platform before “things turned to shit”.
It also doesn’t help that the first course of action was to increase the amount of ads, increase retainment, “enshifficate” the platform in order to increase the time people spend on the site (=more ad revenue). Now I’m at a point that I can’t use YouTube without uBlock, sponsorblock, return youtube dislikes and Revanced (includes the latter two extensions for mobile), turning useless features off (or with the case of dislikes, back on) and stopping the bombardment of ads.
Youtube premium would still provide me with a worse experience, so why would I switch? They should figure out how to provide people additional value for their money, and shouldn’t have accustomed people to a level of service that they 100% knew wouldn’t be sustainable.
The big issue I see with YouTube premium (though I’m a paid subscriber) is that the bitrate is still far too low. Vimeo provided much better quality a decade ago for paid users and so do Nebula, Floatplane and all the other competing sites nowadays
I pay for YouTube premium, but it’s a lot of money given they have $0 production cost.
Production, sure. Operational costs, not so much zero. I don’t understand how people think video streaming on any scale can be supported without any income. I don’t think they’re recent pricehike is reasonable, but to think anyone deserves to be able to stream 4k video (albeit low bit rate) without any sort of compensation is beyond me.
I pay for Youtube Premium, because I get a legit way to bypass ads and the creators I watch gets payed more than if I watched ads, but I also use an adblocker pretty much everywhere because they are intrusive and annoying. However I’m not under any illusion that doing so does directly hurt the income of the sites I visit.
People doesn’t really seem to understand how costly and difficult it is to offer a service with 99.99% availability.
I mean that it costs them a lot of money? Yeah sure. But how much is that per viewer and per view?
Making a good youtube video can take hours, days and sometimes month, depending on the content and production effort. All of this labor is free for youtube and similiar to reddit i would say it is far exceeding the value provided by the company.
There is no guarantee that your video that took you days to make even gets 10 viewers. Even though, you don’t pay anything for YouTube to make it available in different resolutions and to start playing within a second after the viewer pressed play. Also all of that at an service availability of 99.99%.
While there are creators that does quality content there way more junk creators publishing their work on YouTube.
If your argument was valid there would be competitors to YouTube that quality material creators would move to when they got demonitized by bullshit reasons.
Thats the problem with platforms. They tend to form a monopoly.
I’m completely aware of the financial issues YouTube is facing, but they got themselves into this mess (and most other companies as well, who provide a service for “free”). They make users accustomed to a level of service, build a userbase and ride on investments with the expectation that they’ll figure out how to make money when they reach mass adoption.
The fact that youtube premium took years to even conceptualize is a massive failure on their part. Or how 1080p+ video wasn’t a paid feature to begin with. Making your users get used to a level of service, then making their experience more miserable and selling a solution to the problem they made does not bode well with people who have been on the platform before “things turned to shit”.
It also doesn’t help that the first course of action was to increase the amount of ads, increase retainment, “enshifficate” the platform in order to increase the time people spend on the site (=more ad revenue). Now I’m at a point that I can’t use YouTube without uBlock, sponsorblock, return youtube dislikes and Revanced (includes the latter two extensions for mobile), turning useless features off (or with the case of dislikes, back on) and stopping the bombardment of ads.
Youtube premium would still provide me with a worse experience, so why would I switch? They should figure out how to provide people additional value for their money, and shouldn’t have accustomed people to a level of service that they 100% knew wouldn’t be sustainable.
The big issue I see with YouTube premium (though I’m a paid subscriber) is that the bitrate is still far too low. Vimeo provided much better quality a decade ago for paid users and so do Nebula, Floatplane and all the other competing sites nowadays
I just got an email saying the subscription will go up by 60% in April (I’m on a grandfathered premium plan).
Why do you pay for a free service? To thank them for fucking everyone over?