• daisy lazarus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    $5 a month and you can share with 5 other users. That’s 90c per person. Why would anyone not have YouTube premium?

    • metaStatic@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 months ago

      first and foremost you’re paying for a worse experience than just installing an adblocker.

      Paying for convenience isn’t the same as paying to not be inconvenienced.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        I pay for Premium for a few different reasons:

        1. I don’t need to even think about fighting with ad block blockers.
        2. I also get YouTube Music, so I no longer need to pay for Spotify.
        3. Premium views pay creators more than regular views.
        • metaStatic@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          3 months ago

          There is clearly a value proposition or no one would pay for it. I personally don’t like to reward any company using the pay to not be inconvenienced model

          A lot of people would rather fight adblockers (idk, literally never been an issue for me), use xManager (oh right spotify is free) , Pay creators you like through patreon (or buy their shitty amazon links or merch or whatever)

          Premium is just rewarding youtube for making their platform worse in order to sell premium and fuck that noise.

        • henfredemars@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          For me it’s a way to help support content creators, along with donations/merch, although admittedly not having to even try to block the ads is a nice bonus.

          I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a YouTube fan, and it will be something I continue to evaluate.

      • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Youtube premium gives you a higher bitrate option as well.

        I think it’s only for lower resolutions (other than 4k) but if the video was uploaded with an absurdly high bitrate you can see a slightly less destroyed version.

        • The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Skippable and short ads were fine. No one asked for annoying ads and a “premium” service. And it was already profitable. Greedy Google wanted more money.

          • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Most of their ads are still skippable, aren’t they? And can you prove no one asked for a premium service? I certainly recognize ads are a way to pay content creators and would like an alternative way to pay them in exchange for not seeing ads, so that already disproves your claim.

            And what does YouTube being profitable have to do with paying content creators, anyway? YouTube, who were known for running at a loss for years at the start, needs a way to pay content creators as well as pay for server costs to host YouTube videos.

            Sure, they are also greedy, but watching content without paying the creators is not the actual way to fight that, is it? If you disagree with how Google runs YouTube, just stop watching YouTube instead of punishing the content creators. Go watch them on alternative platforms where you can directly pay for their content like Patreon or Ko-Fi.

            • The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Most of their ads are still skippable, aren’t they?

              In my experience, no.

              And can you prove no one asked for a premium service? I certainly recognize ads are a way to pay content creators and would like an alternative way to pay them in exchange for not seeing ads, so that already disproves your claim.

              I said annoying ads and premium service. If ads were not annoying and you still wanted to support your content creators without watching ads; that’s fine, premium service sounds a good solution to you. But Google chose the asshole way. They bombarded us with ads if we wanted not to pay. Even though I hate ads I am not against them. They should be short and not annoying.

              And what does YouTube being profitable have to do with paying content creators, anyway?

              If it’s profitable they can pay content creators.

              YouTube, who were known for running at a loss for years at the start, needs a way to pay content creators as well as pay for server costs to host YouTube videos.

              Google is known for killing their services if they don’t bring money. Let’s assume what you said is true, so you are telling me that Google paid from their pocket and waited patiently till they became monopoly so they can execute their asshole plan?

              Sure, they are also greedy, but watching content without paying the creators is not the actual way to fight that, is it? If you disagree with how Google runs YouTube, just stop watching YouTube instead of punishing the content creators.

              Google built an empire by tracking us through the web sites before ad blockers are a thing. I’m punishing Google not content creators. If Google cared about content creators they wouldn’t behaved like this in the first place. Why would care about content creators when their employer Google does not give a f**k about them?

              Go watch them on alternative platforms where you can directly pay for their content like Patreon or Ko-Fi.

              I haven’t heard about Ko-Fi before . I’ll take a look at that.

              And finally I should add that Google is a danger to the internet. With this “pay for premium or you’ll watch more ads then the content” bullshit they are becoming a role model to other streaming services.

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, that’s how YouTube works: you don’t pay for individual videos

          If someone wants to go that route for their content then there are sites for that

          • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            When did I say you pay for individual videos? You pay for access to those videos by watching ads or paying for premium.

            If someone wants to watch videos without dealing with ads or payments, there are sites for that, too. Why aren’t you going to those sites, instead?

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Trying to avoid fingerprinting often results in easier fingerprinting.

        Your browser might have a common fingerprint, but other points of configuration (screen size, window size, webrtc, etc) belie those.

        Usually it just gets you put in the “People who don’t like ads” advertising bin. They have specific ways to try to target us.

        Relevant Bill Hicks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXi-9kA4ERM&t=75s

        I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now, too.

        “Oh you know what Bill’s doing? He’s going for that ‘anti-marketing dollar.’ That’s a good market, he’s very smart.”

        • davel@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          ther points of configuration (screen size, window size, webrtc, etc) belie those.

          Those are also part of the fingerprinting that I’m talking about, and browsers like Tor and Mullvad take some or all of them into account.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s £20 ($26.33) per month here. You are either lying or are in an exceptionally cheap country.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        They speak of sharing with others, so they’re talking about the family plan, so it’s actually £20 in the UK.

    • Matriks404@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I can think only for one legitimate reason:

      • Google bought out YouTube and operated it at loss for most of its life, effectively making it a monopoly in the process, and only started to earn money on it when there was no way any other alternative would come up and endanger it.

      If you ignore this, YouTube Premium is a pretty good offer. And I personally like the fact that I support content creators, without the need of watching ads that are nothing more than cancer for society.

      That said, I would still prefer YouTube to return to its roots and separate from Google, since it’s pretty much possible for it to stand on its own right now, I guess.

    • tomsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      In Germany, the family plan costs €23.99, but the worst part is that even when you pay for it, there are still ads from the creators within the videos. Essentially, you’re paying for nothing, not to mention that they are much more expensive than all other video platforms.