this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
704 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
3184 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Asking genuinely, if you were in charge of YouTube, and you don't think anyone should pay for YouTube, and you don't think you should run ads, how exactly would you go about paying for the massive amount of engineers and infrastructure needed to keep the lights on?

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (25 children)

For me personally, I would rather pay for a service than with my time via ads.

That said, the services provided these days are unreliable, gatekept, metered and not enjoyable. Why should I pay for shitty service?

Therefore I’m only left with one option and my wellies are strapped tight! 🫡

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I...honestly don't think you're particularly honest about this.

Mainly because Youtube red exists and it's main sell is removing ads, but we already know the answer to that. (Most people don't actually want to buy the service)

And it's not like it's shitty service. It's Youtube without ads.

[–] kobra@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don’t need music, I just want ad free YouTube. There isn’t an option for users like me.

[–] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

yt-dlp A bit of an inconvenience, but if it comes to having to sit through ads to see it on YT, I will download the video to prevent that. I already archive a couple of channels I love.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...?

Just use the ad free youtube...and don't use the music section?

That's what I do 90% of the time....

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The price reflects including the music service whether you want it or not.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How much do you really think they would take off of the price tag if you didn't have music? most similar subs are within the same price range....

I always figured youtube music only existed to make the sub more incentivizing. It probably doesn't even cost them anything they aren't already spedning on youtube.

[–] kobra@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

It needs to be about half the price, if not less tbh. At its current price it’s rivaling netlflix, paramount, etc which are full studio’s producing the content, not just hosting it.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Honestly?

Not my monkeys, not my circus.

I don't care what YouTube wants to do or how they do it, they need viewers and if they can't figure out how to keep em, ah well. They gotta create a service that caters to my behavior, not the other way around.

[–] deranger@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s a flippant response when you were asked specifically to pretend they were your monkeys.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Well, actually, they have to create a service that caters to people who bring them revenue. If that isn't you, they don't have to, and actively shouldn't, cater to you at all.

You're just saying "I don't have an actual answer" in a roundabout way.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Well, I don't, but it isn't my problem.

Google makes enough money as is, I don't really care if the make poor decisions and end up with an unviable business model. I'll do other things with my time.

I don't really care about Google's wellbeing. I pay directly to the content creators I like and I hate seeing ads anywhere in my life and I'm willing to put in time and effort to make sure I see as few as possible.

If they say that the marketing data they scrape from user activity isn't enough for em, well, sucks to suck I guess.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] drkt@feddit.dk 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The reason I don't bring them revenue is because they continue to make the experience worse. Paying isn't going to make that stop, it's just going to temporarily shift the bar a little; the bar is however still moving towards a shittier experience for all.

Why would I look at this and go "Yes, I'll pay!" There are a lot of services I would genuinely pay for if I didn't have an impending dread that the service is just about to get worse again regardless of if I pay or not. It's not like paying is a magic bullet, either, it comes with a ton of different issues like privacy. They still sell your soul to advertisers if you pay them.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] roo@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

I paid for Lynda.com, and it could have easily taken in more business if YouTube wasn't working so hard for Google ads. There are a lot of paid (and free) services that suffer because of YouTubes ad-money business model.

Netflix could use the extra business. There are plenty of services failing to thrive while YouTube exists. Peertube would be wide open if YouTube went the way of most of Google's stable of apps. PeerTube is wide open even if YouTube doesn't go away anyway.

People genuinely hate ads. It's a high degree of enshitification. YouTube could divide into paid content and free content in a simple Freemium model.

Or, add third tier with ads, which any user can opt out of in the same way contributers can. I'd be happy to click subscribe on an ad free experience with less content available to me.

Or, add an option for a couple of free tier items per month, week, or day. Like Medium's business model.

It's not hard to stop sucking!

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

well its not my problem

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 9 points 1 year ago

In 2022, Youtube was getting $14 ARPU for free users (from ads) and $120 ARPU for premium users. With premium users contributing so much more to their bottom line, one would think they would strive to keep those users subscribed, but instead YouTube started raising prices and even stopped honoring the grandfathered price points their long term subscribers (like myself) were at. I would have kept paying for my family subscription indefinitely at that price point - which is still several times higher than the revenue they would get from me as an ad-consuming customer - but they opted to not allow that, so they lost all the revenue they’d been getting from me entirely.

Youtube specific stats are hard to find, but Alphabet is one of the most profitable companies worldwide, with a profit of just under $80 billion in 2022, so your question is honestly irrelevant. The status quo would have been more than enough to keep the lights on. This isn’t about making ends meet; it’s about getting as much profit as they can.

Even so, the person you replied to didn’t say YouTube shouldn’t run ads or charge for a subscription. They were talking about themselves and their willingness to watch ads or subscribe.

And because enough people aren’t like that person or like me, YouTube is going to continue to grow their revenue and their user base - for now, at least.

[–] rebul@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

I don't mind paying for YouTube content. I do mind their data harvesting, however. Figured out that my life isn't diminished at all without Youtube.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You think it costs $30b a year to run YouTube?

There's a middleground between reckless profiteering and not making any money at all. And yet YouTube discontinued their $5 tier. But no, it's the kids who are out of touch.

[–] Usernameblankface@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Not OP, but I personally would like to see a variety of options for how I see ads. Not what ads I see, but how they're delivered. I imagine several less intrusive options and the option to continue ads as they are now. I would need two or three less intrusive options combined to cover my viewing, or I could take only the current annoying interrupting ads on their own.

On second thought, YouTube would just end up turning on all options and stopping playback for anyone who finds the options list.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m perfectly fine if commercial platforms like YouTube go out of business. This will create space for smaller platforms run by users as a hobby instead of a business, which I think would lead to a healthier media ecosystem. Additionally, advertising is not a healthy activity for society. Spending resources to manipulate people is not really beneficial to humanity as a whole. If it were up to me, it would be banned.

[–] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Subsidise it with your other services

[–] Nilz@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why would they? It's not like it's going to be bringing customers to their other services and Google isn't a charity.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

They’re not a charity, they’re a monopoly. So fuck them I don’t care how people circumvent their increasingly shitty service

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From a financial standpoint, that doesn’t make any sense though. Why would you continue to run a service that is a net drain on the rest of your business? Unless it can offer some meaningful, tangible benefit to the company, why continue to operate it at all? If a service needs to be subsidized to survive, why does it need to survive?

Google has basically used it to increase their tracking capabilities across the web. They know when you visit any site with an embedded YouTube video. But that’s only possible because they’re already a massive company. And it’s not reasonable to expect them to continue subsidizing it out of the goodness of their hearts. After all, if you’re willing to ask them to subsidize it, why aren’t you willing to help by paying for premium? It’s easy to say “just subsidize it” when it’s not your money.

To be clear, I don’t pay for premium and probably never will. But this thread has a lot of emotionally charged “because I want it” responses, which aren’t really grounded in reality. YouTube has operated at a loss for a decade, and only continued to operate because it had the backing of a tech giant. But if that tech giant wants to stop subsidizing the site and finally make the site profitable, that’s their prerogative. Yes, it’s the final step in the enshittification process. Yes, it means free users will have a worse experience. But ultimately, the company isn’t required to care about the free users.

If YouTube operates at a loss and they decide to ditch their service its their problem, not mine. I'm not here to save google

load more comments (1 replies)