YouTube is increasing Premium prices in multiple countries, right after an ad-blocker crackdown | You either pay rightfully for the video content you consume, or you live with the ads.::Google is increasing the prices of YouTube Premium and YouTube Music Premium subscriptions in some regions, right after blocking ad-blockers.

  • coffeewithalex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do you feel better after making fun of people who use other devices and not just a smartphone and browser? There are a hundred news that aren't your problem and you don't comment there, but you make sure to come in here and "rub it in" to people who care about this, by not providing an actual solution.

    Very noble.

    • EurekaStockade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sucks for them. This is what happens when you buy into the corporate, locked down, sanitised and monetised walled garden.

      Privacy first and FLOSS software have been out there the whole time for people willing to invest the time (and money, but often it's cheaper than the commercial option) to learn them and gain those benefits for themselves.

      But if people want a device so they pick up the one with the shiniest marketing and then wonder why it's shoving ads down their throat, well, that's what they get for not researching the options. There are alternatives, they've been posted many times over in this thread and similar ones.

      • coffeewithalex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So you're openly hating on people for being normal, without offering a single alternative of a video platform that's not all of those things that you labeled as evil.

        There are alternatives, they've been posted many times over in this thread and similar ones.

        The alternative to shopping isn't shoplifting. The usual things that people list are client side apps that circumvent intended operation of the platform, reaping as many benefits without paying the cost. But hosting isn't free. Running a business isn't free. And hating the people who literally subsidize your unauthorized use of the platform is hypocrisy.

        • gian @lemmy.grys.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The alternative to shopping isn’t shoplifting. The usual things that people list are client side apps that circumvent intended operation of the platform, reaping as many benefits without paying the cost. But hosting isn’t free. Running a business isn’t free. And hating the people who literally subsidize your unauthorized use of the platform is hypocrisy.

          We all know that Youtube need to get rid off of AdBlockers because they want to make more money than what they are making now. If they just need to cover business costs they could just make the service subscription only, make the fee high enough to keep the site running and earn something and allow to see only the first 10-15% of each video to not subscribed users and forget all this charade about AdBlockers.

          • coffeewithalex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            We all know that Youtube need to get rid off of AdBlockers because they want to make more money than what they are making now.

            Making money by charging for completely optional services is not only not wrong, but the very reason why we have most of the good stuff that we have.

            If they just need to cover business costs they could just make the service subscription only, make the fee high enough to keep the site running and earn something and allow to see only the first 10-15% of each video to not subscribed users and forget all this charade about AdBlockers.

            Awesome! Submit your resume or send it as a proposal. If they didn't think of this first and discarded it because of reasons that you haven't considered, this might be an opportunity to benefit everyone.

            • gian @lemmy.grys.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              We all know that Youtube need to get rid off of AdBlockers because they want to make more money than what they are making now.

              Making money by charging for completely optional services is not only not wrong, but the very reason why we have most of the good stuff that we have.

              And who said it is wrong ? I only said that they want to make more money, not that they cannot make money.

              If they just need to cover business costs they could just make the service subscription only, make the fee high enough to keep the site running and earn something and allow to see only the first 10-15% of each video to not subscribed users and forget all this charade about AdBlockers.

              Awesome! Submit your resume or send it as a proposal.

              Not interested, I leave it to you ;-)

              If they didn’t think of this first and discarded it because of reasons that you haven’t considered, this might be an opportunity to benefit everyone.

              The reason is that this way they would make less money while keeping the service in the black, people would realize that, after all, Youtube is not that important part of their routine, and the total number of users would be lower (by a long shot probably) so even less data to harvest and sell and less return in Ads. After all who would watch 2 minutes of ads in a 2.30 minutes long video ?

              Imagine Google doing it and then saying "we restructured out offer and this yeas we are 30% below the last year analysts' forecasts and we think that we will cut the earning by half while keeping the operational costs below the X % of the total profit". The next day the shares would be trash and all the management would be fired.
              The reality is that once you are quoted in Wall Street (but it is true in every other place) you always need to grow. The problem is that you need to grow faster than your userbase could grow so no way to add X million new users (eyeball to watch your ads) every year: at some point you would run out of people (or of people who would accept, which is the same)

              So the only thing you can do is monetize some more of what you already have. The only reason Youtube want to get rid of the Adblockers is that this way they can say to the advertisers "we increased the number of viewers of X % so you should pay us Y % more" so they can reach what the Wall Street analysts's forecasts were and the stock price increase. Nothing else, no server or bandwidth problems. Only stock prices.

      • coffeewithalex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Umm, actually it did. The solution to a problem is to first acknowledge it. The problem is being an asshole that can't let a day go by without rubbing something in.

        The YouTube problem? For me it's not a problem any more than anything else price-related. It's interesting to see who is affected by the change and whether it impacts actual customers. What's not interesting is seeing a long string of whinging and schadenfreude from people who strongly believe that it's wrong to pay for services and who have not spent a cent on this. That's ok, believe what you want, but don't be an asshole about it.