• HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    178
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/513049/alphabet-annual-global-income/

    Let’s pause a moment and just appreciate how much money Alphabet actually make net (after expenses). $73,795,000,000 last year - higher than the GDP of entire nations, in profit.

    The “bad” year, 2022 that drove all this change, they only made $59,972,000,000 net. Oh how terrible (!)

    5 years ago, they made $34,343,000,000 net, so they’ve more than doubled profits.

    Take a moment to appreciate that, and really consider if they “need” the money.

  • Lad@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    135
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s funny that free third party apps literally have more features and are more user friendly than the official app with premium.

    Why the fuck would I pay for less when I can get more for free?

    • okamiueru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Some years ago ago, I was a happy subscriber to Google Music. But, they added it to the graveyard, and instead grafted on some music playing functionality to YouTube and called it YouTube Music. So, I went back to Spotify.

      Then I started paying for YouTube Premium Lite. It wasn’t unreasonably expensive, although it was a bit annoying I couldn’t just have “YouTube” in the household, like with Netflix. So if wife would cast a video to the TV, it would play with ads.

      It was about a year ago, when Google starting cracking down on adblockers, that they also removed an option to pay for the service. I think YouTube Premium Lite wasn’t a thing in the US (correct me if I’m wrong), but they removed YT Premium Lite, and the only option left was a twice as expensive YouTube Premium bundle that included YouTube Music.

      Tldr: fucked up Google Music, then removed an option to pay for YouTube premium, leaving a fairly expensive alternative with the pile of shit they replaced Google music with. It’ll be a rough time if they manage to force ads. I won’t pay for it, out of principle.

      Edit: I looked at the numbers again. I’d have to pay more for YouTube than for the highest Netflix tier. It’s more than Prime and HBO combined. They also don’t have to front large sums to fund risky projects. If they didn’t include YouTube Music, I might have considered it. But with it, it just pisses me off, they can go get f.ed

    • frunch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think there’s a couple things at play:

      • You know enough to find a different app and make it do what you need it to. Not a hard thing, but something many non-tech savvy people could struggle with, or more likely–

      • People often will just use what’s there. We know we have options, we are aware of the privacy concerns… but many people simply aren’t and/or don’t care enough to do anything about it.

      We spend a lot of time here, so it seems to us like second nature to avoid intrusive apps… I find in my day-to-day life not many people are talking about that kind of stuff, or don’t have much knowledge/experience in that realm. (I realize that is anecdotal).

      I 100% agree with your statements–just trying to rationalize how so many people end up using/staying with these ever-worsening services/apps…

      • FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        To prove your point I am person #2, I know things liked invidious and piped exist but I just idk haven’t gotten around to it

    • Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      To be fair, one of the apps mentioned, [Re]Vanced, is literally just the stock app with extra features patched in and the premium features enabled for free (like no ads and downloads). It makes sense that it would be more user friendly. Allowing that modified version doesn’t get them any revenue though while still costing them to host and serve the content to those users.

      At least with NewPipe it supports multiple sites and is its own app with their own code and UI.

      • MrRazamataz@lemmy.razbot.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I don’t understand this argument because NewPipe still gets the video from YouTube (primarily), costing them to host…

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not really “funny”. The YouTube app is ass because it’s goal is to extract value from you and provide it to Google. Not the other way around.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      I pay $4/mo, mainly for YouTube music (I’m part of a friend’s family plan).

      It’s pretty convenient since you can use the background audio on an iPad as well - I don’t use it often but it’s nice when I do. And there’s no ads there it’s pretty insane seeing the level of ads when I try and use my work phone which I’m not signed into.

      Also, you can make channels within your single goggle account so I made one for my mom and bro so they get no ads aswell. They have to sign in to my acct which can feel a little sketch but I trust them since they’re just using the YT app on their TVs. They stay in their own user acct. and it doesn’t affect my history or anything

  • Ænima@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’ll give up on YouTube before I give up my ad blocks or 3rd party apps. Fuck off Google.

    • Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s likely what they want. If you’re not viewing their ads and your third-party app is even blocking all the tracking, then you are not providing any value to them to keep you as a ‘customer’. All it does is reduce their hosting and serving costs when you’re blocked or when you eventually stop using it.

      • monobot@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Thing is you also stop sharing and commenting and engaging with other users. If it wasn’t useful they would pull the plug long ago, nothing technical is preventing them.

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          kind of, i still use youtube normally without issues with firefox + ublock.

          they didnt succed in kicking me out just yet

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        LOL what are you talking about? The users had a hissy fit but after that Reddit got everything they wanted. The users mostly all returned a few days later and it was business as usual. Since then they opened up about selling user data and IPO’d and still nothing.

        It’s become abundantly clear now that there’s level of abuse these users won’t endure.

      • inetknght@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        79
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        OTA TV: with ads

        OTA TV: if you record you are pirating

        Cable TV: you pay a fortune to have no ads!

        Cable TV: now with extra premium stuff!

        Cable TV: now with ads!

        Cable TV: if you record, you’ll be prosecuted

        Cable TV: pray we do not alter the deal further

        Cable TV: why is everyone moving away from Cable TV?

        Youtube: your own videos!

        Youtube: your own videos are actually ours

        Youtube: our videos with ads!

        Youtube: now pay a fortune to remove ads!

        Youtube: pray we do not alter the deal further

        Youtube: if you download or remove ads you’ll be banned

        This isn’t the pattern you’re looking for. Move along.

        • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Oh, we’ll see at that point I would just like stop paying for it. That’s how I deal with services that no longer meet my expectations.

            • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              8 months ago

              Kind of, people are not quitting YouTube, I’m off them are still using it, but bitching that their free video streaming service needs to get paid.

              They are still using it and costing YouTube money in aggregate

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                18
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                They are still using it and costing YouTube money in aggregate

                The poor company only making $31.5 Billion a year has to eat the streaming cost for someone using as ad blocker? Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the billionaires?!

                • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  15
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Oh no won’t someone please think of the people so entitled they believe they should get everything for free.

                  Like, I just don’t understand the thought process behind people like you.

                  Do you ask for free everything else?

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        If the price was even relatively sane I would be okay with that honestly.

        But no, they need to keep driving the price up and up. I have to pay my part so that little Jimmy can host 297 hours of white noise on his account that no one wants to watch.

        They simply need to change their tactics a little. It cost you some small sane amount to host your videos there. If your videos don’t g gather watches and make money you should be the one paying for them.

        I want to pay about nine bucks a month for a family account it’s just b-f rate content. You can pay less to get actual well rated movies from other services.

        Also give me the option not to throw in Google music I don’t give a s*** about Google music.

      • Reawake9179@lemmy.kde.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        No ads? What is with sponsor #1-#5 planted all over each video?

        You’re just paying premium for free content, that doesn’t go away.

          • Reawake9179@lemmy.kde.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            No, i don’t care, because i don’t pay anything for it.

            They advertise ad-free access, when in fact the ads are in the video themselves.

              • Reawake9179@lemmy.kde.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                I’m not upset at all, if you want it written again.

                I don’t pay for shit and it will stay that way.

                At the meantime ads will get blocked and sponsors will get skipped, i’m not obliged to support anyone and i couldn’t care less.

      • RandomException@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        8 months ago

        Weird to see this downvoted. Youtube is actually a good service that also isn’t cheap to run, and it also pays good(?) money to the people producing popular content on the platform so why not pay for using it? Or, you know, live with the ad infestation. Businesses need money to run, and if you don’t pay for the content, then either it’s the ads or eventually the whole platform needs to be shut down.

        It is a separate discussion if Premium pricing is appropriate etc. But it’s quite horrifying to see people around the world having been taught into thinking that everything should be “free” even though at the same time everyone is complaining about privacy violation and ads being everywhere all the time.

        • daniskarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          8 months ago

          More things used to be free on internet 10-20 years ago.

          Also the rich used to be less rich, and the poor less poor.

          So clearly paying overpriced services for everything is not making anything better.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          8 months ago

          But it’s quite horrifying to see people around the world having been taught into thinking that everything should be “free”

          Maybe the businesses shouldn’t have created the expectation that everything was “free” then.

          YouTube used to be 1 skippable ad at the start of the video. Now it’s multiple unskippable ads throughout the video. If the 1 skippable ad wasn’t a viable business model then they shouldn’t have been pretending it was and then changing things later once people have gotten used to the “free” system.

          • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            8 months ago

            I timed it today on an hour video. It’s an ad every 3 minutes I got. This is fucking mental. 20 ads for an hour long video.

            I rarely watch YouTube on chromecast, I will be watching less going forward

            • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              8 months ago

              I was checking out Archer for streaming the other day and noticed the episodes were 22 minutes long, which means 8 minutes of commercials in that half-hour TV time slot, or 26.666% of the total time.

              That’s why I stopped watching TV in the first place, they’re essentially offering to “pay” you 22 minutes of entertainment for every 8 minutes of ads you’ll watch and that’s just completely not worth it to me. Would you pay $2 to watch an hour-long show? If so, to watch ads instead, you’d pay them 16 minutes of your time, and your labor would be paid at a tad less than 8 dollars an hour in entertainment as currency. If you’d only pay a dollar, halve that.

              I play games so that my entire 30 minutes is fun and I’ll pay for it with the money I make at my job rather than paying the TV industry in minutes of my time…the thing I have the least of. It’s this really weird setup that’s just become accepted where they pay us out in entertainment at near minimum-wage rates for time spent trying to program us.

              (Archer aside…on shit that ain’t even that entertaining)

              The whole fuckin thing isn’t worth it.

          • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            So you would like a plan that uses the same amount of bandwidth and power as they used back then, with one skippable ad, for free?

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yup.

              YouTube could easily avoid AdBlockers by simply having ad part of the video itself. Not pulling it from a different server, not hijacking your video player to prevent user controls, just part of the video like any other part of the video and AdBlockers would not be able to detect it. They’re not going to do that though, because then users won’t be forced to watch an ad they have no interest in.

              • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Do you realize how low quality your stuff would be?

                Then people would bitch that they can’t get the high quality version for free

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Do you realize how low quality your stuff would be?

                  YouTube makes $30 billion a year. They’ll be fine.

                  Then people would bitch that they can’t get the high quality version for free

                  Reducing the max resolution for people who aren’t on YouTube Red will come next once they stop focusing on AdBlockers.

                  “Service quality will continue to decrease until profits improve!”

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          But it’s quite horrifying to see people around the world having been taught into thinking that everything should be “free” even though at the same time everyone is complaining about privacy violation and ads being everywhere all the time.

          That is exactly the issue, but you are placing quite a bit too much of your disapproval on the audience.

          Google (and others) have built business models off of data mining because so many people didn’t give a shit for so long about it. They have monetized their users for the entire time they have owned the platform. They have trained their own users to feel like the product was free while using those people for advertising dollars.

          People have always hated ads, but you had generations of folks who were born before the internet who mostly just accepted the ads were going to be there, and also have never given a single thought to privacy. That slice of the pie is getting smaller, for various reasons.

          Now Google have decided since they can’t reliably exploit enough of their users, it’s time to start charging them directly. They are fighting against their own inertia. It is they who have trained users with “we aren’t asking you for $$, so don’t worry about how we’re paying for all this, trust me bro.”

          The modern audience is increasingly made up of people with both the will and capability to set up ad blocking and/or privacy protecting measures. Sorry Google, we aren’t going down quietly.

          • freebee@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I have the impression ad block literacy has declined a lot. 10-15 years ago I’ld be surprised if someone of friends, peers, same age group people didn’t have ad blocking. Now… I’m often surprised if they do, because it became less common to “put in the effort” of using ff with ublock.

          • RandomException@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            You are absolutely right! Part of the horribleness is exactly companies like Google who were the ones teaching people that everything should be “free” as in usable without explicit money transaction, and now they are the ones who are (thanks to EU I guess) trying to revert that and make the business model viable through subscription.

            So I do get why the problem exists and I feel no empathy for the companies that are to blame for that. But, I do worry that we have a whole generation of people who think that stuff should just exist and have no monetary value like it just materialized out of thin air without anyone working on it before and neither having to keep it running. That is not a healthy mental model and it will contribute to predatory companies being able to harvest data out of these people in the future meanwhile privacy-first companies can’t get them as customers because they have to actually ask for money for their services.

            • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              But, I do worry that we have a whole generation of people who think that stuff should just exist and have no monetary value like it just materialized out of thin air without anyone working on it before and neither having to keep it running. That is not a healthy mental model and it will contribute to predatory companies being able to harvest data out of these people in the future

              I see where you are coming from there, and I don’t disagree with your opinion, but I do still think that while that may objectively be a mindset that is potentially harmful, I feel the net impact in this context is more likely to be increased contribution to and support of things that really are Free (gratis and libre), nudging reality closer to a place where a lot of those sorts of services are free or donation-supported, and less likely to be in corporate hands unless those corporations improve their behavior.

              A hard to summarize version of that sort of path and mindset is what initially pushed me away from Windows, but over more than a decade I’ve developed lots more reasons than cost for why I’d never go back, and for why I’ve become a Free Software enthusiast and advocate.

        • verdigris@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Stuff should be free. We live in an age where every one of us could be living a life of comfort and reasonable luxury with a modicum of work. In the meantime those of us who aren’t being showered by the excesses of capitalism are fully entitled to stand in the splashes.

          • RandomException@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Well I mean stuff always has some costs assigned to it. Even if we are talking about Google or software in general, there are still people needed to create and maintain the software itself for the products, who in part also need to put some food on the table and get a roof above their heads. Then there are the infrastructure costs which are enormous on a global video streaming service like Youtube. Now, I do acknowledge that Google engineers are usually insanely well-paid, but that’s the way life is when you absolutely need the people working for you. Other companies might choose to cut features while searching for cheaper developers but it is what it is. In the end, nothing is free and you always end up paying for services in a way or another. And I’m not sure if I would like to continue on the “free” services path that we saw in the last 15 years.

        • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Is it downvoted? I’m on kbin so I can’t see anything but kbin votes and I have nothing but upvotes. lol

          Edit: downloaded to downvoted

          • monobot@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            It is, it has -9 points right now. While unpopular opinion, I agree with it if you like the content.

            I use it, but I am trying to move to podcast and other platforms as much as possible.

  • 0x1C3B00DA@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s funny how this comes after Chrome’s switch to Manifest V3, which makes ad blocking not possible on Chrome and was purely for security reasons and not for disabling ad blockers. Now that Chrome users can’t block ads on the first-party site, they’re going after third-party clients. Such coincidental timing.

  • i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    8 months ago

    Are they going to officially allow third party apps at all? The stock app is terrible, and not just because of excessive, unskippable advertising and bizarre restrictions around background play. When you search for anything, at least half of the results are completely unrelated to what you searched for in an attempt to increase user engagement metrics. It keeps trying to get you to watch shorts in its bad TikTok clone. Sometimes it recommends unrelated shorts with disturbing thumbnails in the middle of your search results. It keeps autodetecting that the video quality should be 360p on a connection easily capable of 4k, and resetting back to 360p at the start of every new video. The UI for live streams puts things on top of other things that are more important.

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      And all of those come down to money

      Search shows you random videos because “the algorithm” is hoping to drive you through to videos that are the most monetized and the most likely to keep you on the platform based on their data

      The shorts thing is because they can pack more ads into 15 second bits of content while using less bandwidth and they’re hoping to hijack your attention with an “endless stream” of short clips a la TikTok or instagram reels

      The video bandwidth drops to low every time because they’re hoping people will still watch, see the ads, and not bump the quality up, saving Google on bandwidth costs

      The live streams thing is just more advertising revenue again

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        None of that applies if you’re a paying customer like me, and I see all the same bs. So no, it’s really just bad design, it’s not trying to do any of the stuff you mentioned.

        • kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          Even that’s just a monetary decision. They are choosing not to spend money to build a custom “premium” experience for paying customers and instead just stripping ads, keeping the existing engagement/monetization driven UI in place. A customized UI takes more dev time, costs more in engineering labor, etc

      • i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        The live streams thing is not about advertising. Problems like putting the hearts button on top of the chat instead of next to the chat or having the chat cover up the entire left side of the stream every time a single message is sent are just because they don’t care.

    • datavoid@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      As soon as I have to see shorts, YouTube is dead to me. I hate the format with a passion.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      bizarre restrictions around background play

      there’s nothing bizarre about it - the free version is shitty on purpose

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    8 months ago

    Please download and archive your favorite channels and videos!

    Host them yourself to watch them locally.

    Especially do this for educational material, share it wide and far!

    We are entering a very dark age of techno-dystopia, we need to fight it with everything we have. Pirate, seed, screen-record, download, archive, share, never give up.

  • Shurimal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    8 months ago

    Third party apps: “OK. We’ll show ads. Muted. Behind a black overlay. If we really can’t find a workaround.”

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    8 months ago

    They’ve been trying for a minute. Must be different now that they’re saying it!

    Checks notes

    Nope, revanced still works.

  • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    8 months ago

    As soon as 3rd party clients don’t work as they do anymore, I am stopping going to YouTube. Simple as, I know it doesn’t matter as a singular thing, I am just one user. Was the same with reddit, now I am here but reddit is still going (how well we don’t need to debate now).

    • penquin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      You’re not alone. Don’t think that. A lot of people will do the same. I’m right there with ya. Fuck YouTube

        • huginn@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think Google engineers drag their feet on this.

          Like - Google’s pre-installed corporate Firefox and Chrome both have ad blockers. Ublock origin is installed by default on Firefox (I can’t remember what was installed on chrome, I only used it for the work suite/cloudtop and did everything else on FF).

          Nobody I worked with at Google liked ads… But I didn’t work at YouTube. So maybe it’s different there.

          But I suspect the engineers are doing it just to show management that they’re doing something but it’s half hearted.

          Real efforts and real threats of it getting locked down, sure, but half hearted effort.

      • fossphi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        There’s already a patch for comments in the release candidate for the new version

  • Adalast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Gotta love this shit. Conservatives/companies: “Let the market decide!” The market: “We are tired of you cramming ads down our throats and fundamentally do not want it and will actively fight you on it.” Companies: “Waaaaaa, they are fighting us.”

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        “A company should be able to decide not to do business with individuals for ideological reasons.”

        Twitter, Facebook, etc. start filtering misinformation and banning offenders.

        “Mah freedoms are being infringed!”

  • Onihikage@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The problem with YouTube Premium is the pricing tiers are completely out of touch with what people are willing to pay and what services they’re willing to pay for.

    Let me compare to Discovery+. For $9 a month, loads of shows that ran on TV for decades can be streamed at 1080p (or whatever resolution they were available in), on up to four devices at the same time. They still have some original shows that they spend money to make. This service does not have ads.

    Let’s also compare to Nebula, which like Discovery+ also has original content funded by the platform. Every content creator there is also an invited owner of the platform, so their cost structure is a bit different, but they still have to sustain the costs of running a streaming platform while compensating the creators of said content for views. Nebula is a microscopic $5 a month per user with no ads.

    YouTube is a platform with entirely user-generated content (costs YT nothing except bandwidth) that is already supported at the free tier with a gratuitous amount of ads. This service has been available completely free with ad support for nearly two decades. The lowest “premium” tier they offer is $14 a month for one person to stream ad-free, at a better 1080p bitrate, be able to download videos or watch them in the background in the official app, pay creators for every view, and have a music streaming app thrown in for good measure. The only other tier is all the same stuff in a $22 monthly family plan for six users, but they all have to be in the same “household” or you’re technically breaking TOS, so in practice it’s often more like $22 for three people, and heaven forbid any of you travel for work.

    Two of the “premium” features should be free anyway. You can’t watch a video without downloading it at least once, so the bandwidth cost is the same. If you download it and play it more than once, that actually saves YouTube bandwidth, and therefore cost. Any video that’s played more than once is probably going to be played a lot more than once, so this would add up, especially if the app downloads the ad spots ahead of time. Background play doesn’t cost them any bandwidth at all and is a trivial feature to implement, so it’s put behind a paywall as an artificial restriction for no other reason than to annoy users for not paying. Both of these are anti-features; to charge for them is anti-consumer. They engender spite in users, making them less willing to pay for Premium and more determined to find alternatives.

    Instead of trying to figure out what people are actually willing to pay for, which is the expected behavior of a market actor, Google continues to behave like a monopoly that can dictate terms to its users. This is why people refuse to pay for Premium. If they made the anti-features free, and introduced a Premium tier that is $7 a month to one user for nothing more than better bitrate streaming with no ads, people would sign up in droves. There could be a $9 tier for streaming boxes like Roku or Chromecast that offers Premium service for any account viewed from that one specific device, without having to sign up each individual account for premium, which satisfies another niche. The $14 tier could remain for those who also want music streaming (an extra $7 is still much cheaper than Spotify premium), and the $22 tier could still be a significant value proposition for actual families.

    It’s not that the price offered for the $14 premium plan isn’t reasonable for what it offers - the issue is that what it offers doesn’t match the actual needs of many people who use adblockers or third-party clients, on top of insulting users with anti-features. Until YouTube management can be made to understand this, they will continue to screech impotently about ad-blockers while driving users away and leaving potential revenue on the table.

    • EddoWagt@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      Ofcourse you always get youtube music with the subscription, which they claim ads extra value. But I dont want youtube music, I already pay for another service. So for me it would be a waste of money

      • PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I pay for the family plan and they use google music. I use pandora because my station is older than my 16yo niece that’s on my yt plan.

  • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Fuck them. I’d rather donate quadruple the money for premium to my favourite creators directly than give a single penny to this parasitic mega corporation.

    The issue is not only the ads, it’s the stupid shit it throws you to keep you hooked, it’s the stupid shorts that literally no one asked for, it’s every stupid little thing that fights for your attention. Basically the app doesn’t work for you, it works against you. That’s not the case with third party apps, they have you, the user, in mind, not their profits.

  • Hucklebee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’ve been using youtube on Firefox with ublock since the premium price raise. Even on android. The experience is not great, but that makes sure I don’t have ads at all.

    Also discovered unhooked addon yesterday. Is desktop only, but great for going into less youtube rabbit holes that waste my time.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Howso? You think even in the event this wasn’t being scraped, that there isn’t a single dev from YouTube, or a YouTube adjacent team possibly here?

          There’s a large (relative) tech worker user base on Lemmy.

          • Hucklebee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            It was a joke.

            And I think they are very much aware of uBlock. Unhooked got recommended to me by a Youtube video.

            They know.

          • priapus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            If they’re going to find it on lemmy they’re going to find it anywhere. Also, they already know about ublock origin, and its unlikely they’d even care about unhooked, since it doesn’t block ads.

            • GBU_28@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              “there’s all this litter on the ground I’ll just throw my litter”

              • priapus@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Not a remotely relevant comparison, and even if it was, completely ignores my second point.

                • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  If you suck at critical thinking sure

                  Edit I’m not obligated to address every point, this aint debate club