An inside look at YouTube’s new ad-free subscription service
theverge.com
theverge.com
Is YouTube really that popular on mobile? With Netflix and Spotify already having mobile apps I don't see many people paying $10 a month for the ability to skip ads and play YouTube music in the background. And as for "exclusive YouTube content" it makes zero sense to have the same monthly fee as Netflix and somehow think that PewDiePie is going to compete with Orange is the New Black or House of Cards.
I don't know how Google Play Music stacks up against the others, but it's something I would consider.
Also, being able to take videos "off line" seems like it could be pretty useful for some people.
The (mostly teenage) audience for Youtube celebrities is massive, and is probably mostly invisible to you if you don't know any kids. I don't know whether they'd be willing to pay for a subscription service, but regardless of whether you think Netflix is higher quality than Youtube, there are many millions of people who get their entertainment mostly just from Youtube.
The quality of the medium has gone up in 200 years; the quality of the message, down. This is documented. Read old literature, if you can. Its hard for us, with our 9 second attention spans, to follow the thread in old books with their page-long paragraphs. Not because they wrote badly; because we're no longer trained to understand complex ideas. Instead 4-minute songs with one lyric, distilled one-note thought pieces with sophomoric moralizing, videos pandering to the lowest emotion.
Folks reading this will dismiss it as maudlin ranting, misplaced nostalgia. The trend has exceeded a single lifetime. Generations decry the drop in standards, because the standards drop. They had a long way to go, and we near the bottom.
Its not about hair and noise. Its about the message. Which there's no longer any room for.
That in no way implies that high quality content has been pushed out. There's still great literature, music, and yes even online content that is as great as or greater than anything created 200 years ago. Let the noise not mislead you into thinking that there is no signal behind it.
Those who seek good content will still find it. Keep in mind that all these improvements in the medium have made content accessible to a much larger section of society than was possible a few hundred years ago, so society as a whole is better read, better educated, and more aware than this good old world of yore.
I read a bit of philosophy. It's a delicate balance, because while I feel philosophy cover the truly important questions, some philosophers feel the need to inspect points I don't care much about (and ignore the big points to do so).
Overtime, I came up with a theory - if you can't explain your theory in 2 pages, it's bullshit (or: the communication of it is bullshit). You might have a deep, layered theory, but every two pages I should be getting some jolt to my brain. Some pull it off, others do not.
Am I showing a lack of patience and respect? Or are they simply being poor or inefficient communicators? I consider the most likely scenario to be that both are in play. And the former, in moderation, is necessary to address the latter.
So while I strive to accept that my boredom or frustration is unjustified and should be reined in, I also (easily) accept that sometimes I'm right, and what's being done is longer/slower/off-topic too much.
Disposable pop culture has always been with us, we just have much poorer records of it precisely because it is disposable.
I have a particular interest in broadside ballads, cheaply printed song lyric sheets that were made between the sixteenth and nineteenth century. All the critiques of modern pop lyrics are equally applicable to music that is older than the American republic. It's all there - sex, violence, drunkenness, repetitive lyrics, rehashed old melodies.
For example, are you dismayed by the crass sexuality of "Anaconda" by Nicki Minaj? Take a look at "The Maid's Complaint", a charming ditty from the late 17th century that features lyrics like this:
For I am a Maid and a very good Maid,
and sixteen years of age am I,
And fain would I part with my Maiden-head
if any good fellow would with me lye:
But none to me ever yet proffer'd such love,
as to lye by my side and give me a shove
With his dil doul, dill doul, dil doul,
O happy were I, etc.
http://ebba.english.ucsb.edu/ballad/21716/citationThe impression most people have of history is mere propaganda, a self-aggrandising origin story. Our past was systematically bowdlerised by generations of puritans and reactionaries. By any conceivable standard, we have not degenerated from some halcyon ideal; rather, we have advanced greatly, becoming more educated, more civilised, more peaceful, prosperous and decent.
Pretty much any anthropologist is going to tell you that culture used to be hyper-local. And still is, in remote areas.
― Socrates
There will undoubtedly be kids "raised on LolCatz and FailzTeenThrob", but those will be a very tiny slice of humanity. And really, it's not anybody's place to say what someone else should or should not enjoy.
Find someone with a 12-year-old kid, and ask them about the popularity of using mobile devices to watch YouTube stars.
I'd be more likely to pay for that than the two services separately. This feels a little too close to the scenario where you're paying every advertising network in the world a subscription each month.
Actually I guess one way it could get skewed if the viewers of one channel on average watch more/fewer videos than the population at large. Hopefully they figure out how to weight the value of a given minute of "view time" for fix-it videos etc vs music videos which are running in the background.
I watch a few short series on youtube while working... it's a fine medium for content. 10 bucks seems steep to me... but I also don't pay for cable.
I can see this working.
Everyone knows that the next few years is about consumers "cutting the cord" from cable bundles so they can pay the same amount for bundled streaming services. So Youtube is joining the list of paid streaming services. Not surprising, or exciting.
Everyone already seems to acknowledge that paid streaming services will go the same way cable TV went: first you're paying for no ads, but in a few years you're paying with ads, too. This goes beyond "not exciting" and right to "bad for consumers."
The only big question for me is, if "information wants to be free" really is baked into the digital world... who's going to do to Youtube, what Youtube did to cable TV?
"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other"
The original context of this axiom was that information will tend towards making itself free of confines, not cost.
The free-beerness is a consequence of this liberation, not the goal.
1. http://techcrunch.com/video/youtube-red-strips-out-ads-but-b...