YouTube Paid Service?

[threecy]

According to this Financial Times article, Google may be rolling out a pay service (no commercials) version of YouTube in a few months:
 
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ea6728e2-f568-11e3-afd3-00144feabdc0.html
 
I wonder how much they'll charge, if it's only for music (or if it's for ad-free viewing across all videos), and how unsavory they'll make the free version we all use today?

 

[Couperin47]

According to this Financial Times article, Google may be rolling out a pay service (no commercials) version of YouTube in a few months:
 
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ea6728e2-f568-11e3-afd3-00144feabdc0.html
 
I wonder how much they'll charge, if it's only for music (or if it's for ad-free viewing across all videos), and how unsavory they'll make the free version we all use today?

 
YouTube has commercials ? It's called AdBlock Plus ... why does anyone let themselves be subjected to that crap anymore ?

 

[mabrowndog]

 
YouTube has commercials ? It's called AdBlock Plus ... why does anyone let themselves be subjected to that crap anymore ?

 
I think he's referring to the use of embedded video ads that precede a viewer's selected clip.

 

[rembrat]

AdBlock takes care of that.

 

[HillysLastWalk]

I stopped paying attention to the fact that youtube had commercials until I was on someone else's computer.  Egads, download the damn ABP!  Though, when you do get commercials on youtube, you can skip after 5 seconds.  Which is reasonable and at least better than the recent explosion of shitty websites that want you to watch 30 second commercials for a 20 second video clip.  It's getting ridiculous at this point.

 

[Blacken]

YouTube has commercials ? It's called AdBlock Plus ... why does anyone let themselves be subjected to that crap anymore ?

Uh...because you understand that this stuff isn't free, no-strings-attached? It's not like YouTube is the one hurt when you block ads. AdBlock means they don't pay their content creators for that view.

Block the general web, sure. There are perf and security arguments for that. Block generally good citizens that provide you a lot of value, you're an asshole.

 

[Couperin47]

Uh...because you understand that this stuff isn't free, no-strings-attached? It's not like YouTube is the one hurt when you block ads. AdBlock means they don't pay their content creators for that view.

Block the general web, sure. There are perf and security arguments for that. Block generally good citizens that provide you a lot of value, you're an asshole.

 
How will Google ever survive economically unless I allow them to shove those ads in my face ? I'm grief stricken.. as for the rest, you spend a lot of time here calling people assholes...for the obvious reason.

 

[Blacken]

It's like you didn't read "they don't pay their content creators" or something.

But that's cool. Fuck them, you've got yours.

 

[Reverend]

I wonder if anyone with AdBlock on has visited BRef lately...

 

[HillysLastWalk]

I think Blacken has somewhat of a point, even though the delivery of it sucked.
 
ABP, what I use for, as he says, "the general web" unfortunately spills into the youtube.  I probably wasn't clear, but I didn't even realize youtube was slipping in ads until I was on another computer (though, I didn't really think much about it either way).  I've used ABP since ... forever it seems.
 
I'd definitely like to give revenue to "content creators", especially when google is pretty good about letting you skip the ad in 5 seconds.  That's reasonable.  But is it possible, to use ABP and let a specific site - say, youtube - display it's ads?  [The answer is yes]
 
Maybe that's where youtube needs to change the delivery of it's ads.  I don't think people are adverse to ads, it's just the web has taken it too far, since right around the time someone discovered how to pop-up ads.  For example, I have no problem with what tinypic does.  I go to upload a pic, it has me type in a message while an ad is playing, and I only listen to the commercial as long as it takes me to type.  In that time, if I'm truly interested, I will watch further.  Then, after a couple of times, if it's going to be the same ad, don't have me do it every time (I don't think tinypic forces you for each upload).  Of course, I haven't paid attention, but there's probably some utility blocking those tinypic ads as well.  But I know ABP doesn't.

 

[jayhoz]

You can whitelist domains in ABP (at least in chrome you can).

 

[Blacken]

The delivery of it was intentional. It's funny how so many people around here think of people who rip others off, but it's not comfy when it's applied to them.
 

I don't think people are adverse to ads, it's just the web has taken it too far, since right around the time someone discovered how to pop-up ads.

I used to work for a company that maintained detailed block metrics on the ads they served, before block-tracking was cool. Pop-ups and rollovers and video interstitials only exist because people blocked banners and blocks to such an extent that they couldn't make any money off of it. Nobody wants to compromise the user experience to get more ads in there, but somebody's got-ta pay. You pay with money or you pay with your eyeballs. The progression of ad tech has been because users weren't paying with their eyeballs.

This is a problem created by people Wanting Shit For Free. That want is natural, but being a basically functioning adult kind of means understanding that you don't always get what you want.

 

[AlNipper49]

It's a real problem here.  If Adblock didn't exist then we could probably do away with subscriptions

 

[mt8thsw9th]

Adblock should start charging users and distributing cash money to each site whose ads are blocked.

Make it happen, Theo.

 

[dirtynine]

If web ads were acceptable blocking them would be a non-starter. I can handle ads between innings, because it works within expectation. Pre-roll ads before video content don't work. They break the acceptability contract. And it's not on people using Adblock to stand down. It's in the sites (Google, et al) to figure it out. Or, deal with Adblock. Or, shut down the service.

 

[Blacken]

It is the responsibility of people using ad-blocking software to do so conscientiously while understanding the ramifications of their decisions. Just like it's their responsibility to purchase from ethical companies and to understand that spending their money is not just an economic but a moral transaction.

But that's hard, so let's just eat Doritos.

 

[Jake Peavy's Demons]

I wonder if anyone with AdBlock on has visited BRef lately...

I went to look at Tony Gwynn's stats on BRef just yesterday (may he RIP) & I got that funky notification that didn't let me see the sheets. I went ahead and whitelisted their domain (along with basketball, hockey, & football reference's sites). And of course, I went later and whitelisted SoSH too.

 

[johnmd20]

It is the responsibility of people using ad-blocking software to do so conscientiously while understanding the ramifications of their decisions. Just like it's their responsibility to purchase from ethical companies and to understand that spending their money is not just an economic but a moral transaction.

But that's hard, so let's just eat Doritos.

 
On this, we agree very much. The conscious effort people make when going online to avoid paying anyone for anything is something I find unseemly. Just because you're online doesn't mean you have the right to take and see what you want without cost.

 

[Marceline]

Do you guys also watch all the commercials if you DVR a TV show? Because that's just about the same thing.
 
I use adblock for all my web browsing. I also pay for subscriptions to sites I use regularly when given the option, because I'd rather pay than have to look at obnoxious advertisements.

 

[Dehere]

Do you (or your employer) pay for your internet access? If you do then you're already paying for the content you view on YouTube. The fact that your internet provider doesn't share any of that revenue with Google/YouTube, and therefore virtually nothing gets passed on to content creators, is a flaw in the YouTube business model. It's not really people wanting shit for free. You're paying Comcast in part for access to YouTube content, and then Comcast is keeping all that money. As a paying customer you're not IMO under any obligation to also pay for YouTube content with your time by watching ads.

 

[Blacken]

Do you (or your employer) pay for your internet access? If you do then you're already paying for the content you view on YouTube. The fact that your internet provider doesn't share any of that revenue with Google/YouTube, and therefore virtually nothing gets passed on to content creators, is a flaw in the YouTube business model. It's not really people wanting shit for free. You're paying Comcast in part for access to YouTube content, and then Comcast is keeping all that money. As a paying customer you're not IMO under any obligation to also pay for YouTube content with your time by watching ads.

This is wrong at a fundamental, don't-understand-the-Internet level. You are paying Comcast for transit, not content. You pay Comcast to get your bits to the destination. (This is why net neutrality is a thing--because Comcast wants to prioritize their bits over everybody else's.)

But good try.

 

[HillysLastWalk]

Do you guys also watch all the commercials if you DVR a TV show? Because that's just about the same thing.
 
I use adblock for all my web browsing. I also pay for subscriptions to sites I use regularly when given the option, because I'd rather pay than have to look at obnoxious advertisements.

 
I was about to come in here and post something very similar.
 
I appreciate Blacken's contributions, and he makes some good points, but ... damn, he disparaged Doritos.  Doritos!!
 
I mean he's not using any type of ad blocking software of any type, or other type of filters and pop-up blockers (if so, why do you get to pick and choose who you steal from)?  No DVR's?  Never copied any friends CDs/MP3s/files of any type?  And the list goes on.

 

[Dehere]

This is wrong at a fundamental, don't-understand-the-Internet level. You are paying Comcast for transit, not content. You pay Comcast to get your bits to the destination. (This is why net neutrality is a thing--because Comcast wants to prioritize their bits over everybody else's.)

But good try.

 
If that's the case then why does Comcast pay cable networks for their content but they don't pay YouTube for theirs?

 

[timlinin8th]

Do you (or your employer) pay for your internet access? If you do then you're already paying for the content you view on YouTube. The fact that your internet provider doesn't share any of that revenue with Google/YouTube, and therefore virtually nothing gets passed on to content creators, is a flaw in the YouTube business model. It's not really people wanting shit for free. You're paying Comcast in part for access to YouTube content, and then Comcast is keeping all that money. As a paying customer you're not IMO under any obligation to also pay for YouTube content with your time by watching ads.

When you buy a car, the auto manufacturer doesn't pay the petroleum companies. You have to pay for that separately. Likewise, just having internet delivery service doesn't mean you are entitled to content that exists out on the internet that is the intellectual property of a corporation. It is for the content provider to figure out a business model that allows them to profit and if they jam it down your throat that is their right.

 

[SumnerH]

If that's the case then why does Comcast pay cable networks for their content but they don't pay YouTube for theirs?

Because cable and Internet are completely different technologies.  You pay your Internet provider for bandwidth, not for content.
 
It's like saying that you shouldn't have to pay Amazon for stuff because you're paying shipping to UPS.

 

[timlinin8th]

 
If that's the case then why does Comcast pay cable networks for their content but they don't pay YouTube for theirs?

Because having Comcast not allow access to YouTube in order to avoid paying Youtube would essentially destroy that site? The delivery system has the leverage in that one.

Now could Google charge Comcast $x per sub per month to allow access from Comcast domains to the entire suite of Google owned sites? They could, and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up happening at some point.

 

[Dehere]

When you buy a car, the auto manufacturer doesn't pay the petroleum companies. You have to pay for that separately. Likewise, just having internet delivery service doesn't mean you are entitled to content that exists out on the internet that is the intellectual property of a corporation. It is for the content provider to figure out a business model that allows them to profit and if they jam it down your throat that is their right.

 
Well, that's true, and when I buy a TV Samsung doesn't pay my cable bill. I'm not really arguing that the hardware manufacturer should have any role in paying ongoing costs for the utility of the product.
 
Your internet provider is a middleman, just like your cable provider or any brick-and-mortar store. In every other industry the middleman shares revenue with the producer of the product. Why is the internet different? Connectivity has no value without content and yet in the internet world revenue overwhelmingly flows to connectivity while content providers struggle.
 
Edit - Just to be clear, I'm genuinely curious as to why this is. My business is TV content, not online content, and the difference between internet models and TV models has never totally made sense to me.

 

[timlinin8th]

Your internet provider is a middleman, just like your cable provider or any brick-and-mortar store. In every other industry the middleman shares revenue with the producer of the product. Why is the internet different? Connectivity has no value without content and yet in the internet world revenue overwhelmingly flows to connectivity while content providers struggle.
 
Edit - Just to be clear, I'm genuinely curious as to why this is. My business is TV content, not online content, and the difference between internet models and TV models has never totally made sense to me.

I think it is based on the way the two mediums evolved. TVs origin was that content production was limited, costly, and the producers also did the content delivery (OTA)... Because of the sheer cost of doing these things, a few private entities controlled the development of the medium. Middleman delivery systems such as cable and satellite evolved later and paid a premium to be able to piggyback on the existing model. The internet originally started out with the delivery system being the hurdle, as speeds were marginal. "Content" was free, public domain, such as BBS and Usenet. Only in the very recent past has the internet evolved to a field where it was a relevant medium on which private content would flourish.

All that said, as I stated in a post above, I wouldn't be surprised if some VERY large content provider like Google started to flip the script a bit. They would have to be careful in doing so however, as such a move would challenge status quo and is not without risks (could open the door for other competitors to step up and steal some market share)

 

[dirtynine]

From my perspective, the consumer has zero incentive to help corporate entities. In our system, consumers are essentially farmed by corporations - in a free market, their role is to be a dumb monetary lubricant. Asking consumers to protect corporations would be like asking a stalk of corn to think about if the blade that cut it down was compassionate enough. That is to say, different corporate models can emerge to serve the consumer, but it's on the corporation to act (or perish).

This isn't hard - it's been solved in most consumer sectors. Commercials on TV work fine - they are accepted. Commercials before internet video don't. Perhaps a model will emerge that works, but it's not on consumers to find it.

 

[Blacken]

Most of the content people consume on YouTube isn't corporate. Google doesn't miss the revenue. The people making the stuff you're watching do.

Next?

 

[Brohamer of the Gods]

Another next step could be adding the ads to the videos themselves and killing fast forward, like the previews and ads on some DVDs.

 

[Couperin47]

Most of the content people consume on YouTube isn't corporate. Google doesn't miss the revenue. The people making the stuff you're watching do.

Next?

 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101656179
 
None of them seem to be hurting, and most are either playing games or playing with toys...it's probably pretty frustrating to thousands of others doing the same thing that they can't get any traction...that's how life's lotteries work.
betting pretty much only a statistically insignificant portion of these viewerships have any clue what Adblock is. The pillars of capitalism are NOT threatened.

 

[Reverend]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101656179
 
None of them seem to be hurting, and most are either playing games or playing with toys...it's probably pretty frustrating to thousands of others doing the same thing that they can't get any traction...that's how life's lotteries work.
betting pretty much only a statistically insignificant portion of these viewerships have any clue what Adblock is. The pillars of capitalism are NOT threatened.

Since when do we only care about the pillars of capitalism and not the actual human beings trying to make a living who are the very basis of why we pursue capitalism?

It's a utilitarian scheme, not a religion for chrissakes.

 

[Couperin47]

Since when do we only care about the pillars of capitalism and not the actual human beings trying to make a living who are the very basis of why we pursue capitalism?

It's a utilitarian scheme, not a religion for chrissakes.

 
who claimed it's a religion ? and on the basis of who's doing the best, apparently it's a crapshoot mostly depending upon having a very particular ineffable blend of inane content at just the right time. No evidence whatsoever that rampant Adblock use is depriving anyone of a livelihood.

 

[dirtynine]

Most of the content people consume on YouTube isn't corporate. Google doesn't miss the revenue. The people making the stuff you're watching do.

Next?

If those people making stuff are in business, and they don't find YouTube working for them, they should move to or found a platform that works. Businesses exist to serve at the whim of the consumer, not the other way around.

 

[uncannymanny]

 
Well, that's true, and when I buy a TV Samsung doesn't pay my cable bill. I'm not really arguing that the hardware manufacturer should have any role in paying ongoing costs for the utility of the product.
 
Your internet provider is a middleman, just like your cable provider or any brick-and-mortar store. In every other industry the middleman shares revenue with the producer of the product. Why is the internet different? Connectivity has no value without content and yet in the internet world revenue overwhelmingly flows to connectivity while content providers struggle.
 
Edit - Just to be clear, I'm genuinely curious as to why this is. My business is TV content, not online content, and the difference between internet models and TV models has never totally made sense to me.

Connectivity has no value without content? Ever sent an email?

 

[Reverend]

 
who claimed it's a religion ? and on the basis of who's doing the best, apparently it's a crapshoot mostly depending upon having a very particular ineffable blend of inane content at just the right time. No evidence whatsoever that rampant Adblock use is depriving anyone of a livelihood.

 
But, if unconsidered use of AdBlock were preventing people from making a livelihood through offering us creative content that we would enjoy but do not get because the business model is not viable because of AdBlock, we would never know--there would, as you say, be no evidence.
 
The meaning of an absence of evidence is not always clear. BRef, at least, has been asking us to unblock the ads on their site, so there's that, for example.

 

[Couperin47]

 
But, if unconsidered use of AdBlock were preventing people from making a livelihood through offering us creative content that we would enjoy but do not get because the business model is not viable because of AdBlock, we would never know--there would, as you say, be no evidence.
 
The meaning of an absence of evidence is not always clear. BRef, at least, has been asking us to unblock the ads on their site, so there's that, for example.

 
All we can try is some really crude guesses. Wikipedia claims Adblock used on 18 million Firefox browsers, curiously no figures for Chrome or IE, and then there are a few similar things like Admuncher which have small but loyal followings... would 40 Million total be realistic ? and assume every last one of them is lazy and doesn't whitelist a single site ? Total users of the Web currently estimated to be 3 Billion.
 
Of course this is impossibly simplistic, Billions are not and will not in our lifetimes ever be serious 'consumers' in any reasonable sense of the word, but then many/most payment schemes are also based on sheer volume of looks or clicks. It's a reasonable guess that more sophisticated and real consumer types tend to even be aware of Adblock, but absent data that it's users are all bunched in the top 5% of income, it's hard to see how it can be having a real impact on the Net... now perhaps it may be in the future...

 

[Reverend]

I don't think this needs to be an existential conversation about the nature of economies. The root point is a lot simpler than that:
 
I think it's worthwhile to let people who might not have realized it that by turning ads back on, we can kick a few bucks that aren't even out of our own pockets in the direction of small, independent content producers we like.

 

[Couperin47]

I don't think this needs to be an existential conversation about the nature of economies. The root point is a lot simpler than that:
 
I think it's worthwhile to let people who might not have realized it that by turning ads back on, we can kick a few bucks that aren't even out of our own pockets in the direction of small, independent content producers we like.

 
I'd like to think that if you're aware enough to actually find, download and implement something like AdBlock, then you understand this. I realize that leaves out every parent, grandparent and clueless friend any of us have ever helped 'set up' a computer.

 

[Reverend]

 
I'd like to think that if you're aware enough to actually find, download and implement something like AdBlock, then you understand this. I realize that leaves out every parent, grandparent and clueless friend any of us have ever helped 'set up' a computer.

 
I have to strongly disagree here. I don't expect people to think about the business models of enterprises that don't affect them (as far as they know). We have examples of smart people in this thread misapprehending differing business models.
 
To get the plug-in, all you need is someone to tell you, "Dude, get this plug in." Not everyone who does that explains the broader economic implications of all of this. People like that don't get invited to a lot of parties.
 
Being in an "in the know" bubble can be just as weird as being in an "ignorance bubble." Technology making shit weird, yo.