Hacker News Reader

Comment by suddenclarity | Hacker News Reader

I get that people hate companies but $7 a month for unlimited video on any device with 500 hours uploaded every minute. That's a decent deal. The only drawback is that you don't get Sponsorblock on smart devices. People seem to overestimate how much the average person care about online outrage. Netflix, Reddit, Twitter.. They all seem fine despite being declared dead numerous times.

View on HN

I remember people saying years ago that reddit's redesign is not a problem because it has API access and you can use third party clients...

The $7 is the current price, it does not reflect future changes. If the pool of potential customers is dry, they will try other means of increasing revenue, including increases of that price.

They might also turn the $7 into a requirement to watch YouTube at all, and show ads anyways.

> They might also turn the $7 into a requirement to watch YouTube at all, and show ads anyways.

Yep. All cable channels started out ad-free. When cable was introduced, the cost was $35/mo for all channels (there were no movie channels initially), justified by not having ads.

>$7 a month for unlimited video on any device with 500 hours uploaded every minute.

This is irrelevant. 99.9% of content is garbage and / or not relevant to me. Also, I really don't watch that much so why should I be paying ~8 EUR a month to watch a few videos without ads? Moreover, I don't earn that much, so even that amount is a noticeable loss.

> 99.9% of content is garbage and / or not relevant to

Then don't use it ? That's like saying you only like one show on netflix so they should give it to you for free

I'm not entirely convinced that youtube is actually worth $7 a month. Ofc, I'm also far away from saying it is worth nothing, but not gonna pay 7USD unless I'm getting something extra (I mean content, maybe movies???) than just no ads. Otherwise once blocked will switch to other platforms, eg. https://d.tube/, vimeo, etc...

I think I would pay for a respectful video service which also pays the people who make the videos.

Giving money to Google though, would hurt so much!

I'll consider it the day they stop the dark patterns company wide and commit to stop being ad-supported. Making the users pay for the service is a step in the right direction but I don't see them stop the ads company wide and I don't want to feed this.

YouTube is actually regarded quite high in terms of revenue sharing and Linus has praised them numerous times. It's for example partly (26% in 2020) why LTT have around 100 employees. YouTube do have a ton of other issues (spam, lack of support, content moderation, etc) but I don't believe revenue sharing is a big one.

https://twitter.com/BobDuckNWeave/status/1613846589482598403

https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/100fmgx/linu...

When I glance at https://youtube.com/premium it quotes $12 a month. Are you talking about the student offer?

Does it really change his point?

I don’t watch many YouTube videos. Maybe 1-5/month. And it depends on many factors so isn’t predictable.

I don’t want to pay$7/month so when I do get a link I don’t get annoyed by YouTube’s UX.

It's not their content though. Most people upload stuff without any intent to monetize or otherwise control it. YT, like other large sites, was built through mass-scale theft of what was supposed to be public domain works.

Sure it's their servers, but then it's their fault they don't allow redistribution via third party channels.

$7 sounds great, I’d pay that. They want £16 a month from me, that’s $20 a month.

it kind of boils down to a question of who is the actual customer? me or advertisers? if i'm paying a subscription to youtube, then i don't want post-adpocalypse censorship & sanitization.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com