158
YouTube Premium announces 100 million subscribers
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
158 points (85.0% liked)
Technology
60082 readers
3184 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If it wasn't as freaking high as it is there would be a lot more premium users. Every other streaming service is full of professionally made movies and TV shows. YouTube is absolutely chock-full of berate crap where they're barely paying anybody but the top 1%. It's a grift. It should be priced with the absolute cheapest services out there.
The price makes a little more sense if you factor in it also includes YouTube music, which puts it more on par with a premium Spotify subscription, with the benefit of no ads on YouTube. Which is basically how I got YouTube premium, I was already paying a monthly fee for Google Play music as it was at the time, and the upgrade to add YouTube premium was only £2 extra a month.
Sure but a LOT of us don’t want the music service and have never used it once. People like me aren’t costing them a penny on music and if they offered a plan without music I’d jump in an instant.
This is my issue. I have and love Apple Music and do not want to pay for another music service. If YT gave me an option for an ad-free YT without music for only like $3 or $5 a month, I’d jump on it. For now, I’ll continue using uBlock Origin and SmartTube.
I own my music though, I don't want to rent it.
I agree with this sentiment completely. Not sure if they still do it or not, but YTM started out letting you upload your own music and then being able to access it across any device through the app. YTM doesn't have the best catalog now, let alone when they started so i think the upload feature was a way of acknowledging that. I uploaded both local bands that are defunct and literally nowhere online and artists that didn't embrace the internet age and restricted their catalogs. I can still listen to the music i uploaded back then through the app or a browser. That feature set it apart from the other options available at the time. I guess I'm trying to say that i also want to own my own music, but i dont hate the convenience of some of it floating in the cloud waiting for me to pull it down. Speaking of... ownCloud is dope and what i'm transitioning to for my media. When in doubt, roll your own solution.
Wow they do! Throwback to Google Play Music days. Thanks!
As long as it own cloud doesn't do what next cloud did and try to rename all of my files on import then only retain their names and databases. Currently holding my own with Plex /jellyfin
Yeah, that's what made me get premium. Even before the adblocker crackdown, the prospect of supporting creators and being able to ditch Spotify's horrible artist compensation model made it a simple choice.
I was in the same boat for ages and was happy paying as I kept the original rate. Then they bumped it by almost 50% end of December. Quit before the change took effect and have been using ad block ever since. The ONLY thing I miss is YouTube music as I’ve gotten too lazy to rip the remixes/soundtracks that aren’t on other streaming services.
While YouTube doesn’t commission, much, content it does store disproportionately more data. A streaming site has maybe 1,000,000 hours of content. That amount of content is uploaded to YouTube every day. It’s a totally different business model.
And, I don't think I should be the one paying for that.
They should charge minor storage fees to the creators and uploaders. You pay to put your content up there if people watch it you get paid back as many multiples as necessary. It would be a fantastic method to reduce the amount of trash video stored up there that nobody ever watches.
It turns out creators don't want to pay for the storage.
I'd say we're at an impasse, but if I don't buy premium and I don't watch ads in their content, they're not getting paid.
If they paid a pittance to keep their storage and it pushed their quality up and push the price of premium down more people would watch and they'd make a hell of a lot more money.
But let's be honest, you'd probably block their ads if they self hosted.
I only started blocking the ads when yt started allowing 2 back to back 15 second advertisements and creators started putting in mid rolls.
This crap they're pulling is downward spiral. They can't get 20% more yoy by squeezing people to pay Netflix prices for crap. And most of the creators need patrion to even survive.
I truly hoped something like Odyssey could survive and we could just dht our likes. But it just becomes a sesspool.
It would be a hard-sell these days to charge someone to gamble on whether or not their content is going to get any views. My guess is that the conent economy et al is like an iceburg, it takes a lot to float it but only a little bit is worth seeing the light of day. Ie, you have to host a ton of garbage to be able to sift out the gems.
Hard sell maube but they're the only game in town. I suspect it's not a matter of if but when.