Google Planning New Ad-Free YouTube Subscription Service

[Strazdas]

any website that puts ads inside a video player window is not deserving of my money. Thus, youtube will get none of it.

I want to subscribe to the drunken peasants, jim sterling, total biscuit etc.
I DON'T want to subscribe to "youtube", hoping that google may or may not forward my subscription to the drunken peasants, jim sterling, total biscuit etc.
Googles track record of treating content creators doesn't make them trustworthy in that department at all.

Also I guess that means google will start blocking adblockers and possibly make ads even more obnoxious to "incentivize" people to subscribe to their "service" soon.
Fun times.

very much this. i want to support the authors, not a company that seems to be designed to fuck people over (newsflash: youtube is broken)

I don't want the internet turning into cable TV. Cable TV is currently failing.

the problem with cable TV is that you pay for it to have no ads and it STILL has ads. Also that its severely outdated where you not only cannot pick content you want to watch, you cant even pick channels you like.

 

[Yuuki]

I guess Google have never heard about adblock.

Also I guess that means google will start blocking adblockers and possibly make ads even more obnoxious to "incentivize" people to subscribe to their "service" soon.

That's one way to get people using Firefox instead.

 

[loa]

I guess Google have never heard about adblock.

Also I guess that means google will start blocking adblockers and possibly make ads even more obnoxious to "incentivize" people to subscribe to their "service" soon.

That's one way to get people using Firefox instead.

You can detect adblock regardless of browsers.
Blip tv used to do it and gave adblock users a 30 second timer, asking them to disable adblock.
That can also be used to fully deny adblock users access to videos or somesuch.

 

[Zontar]

I don't want the internet turning into cable TV. Cable TV is currently failing.

the problem with cable TV is that you pay for it to have no ads and it STILL has ads. Also that its severely outdated where you not only cannot pick content you want to watch, you cant even pick channels you like.

Cable has always had ads (with few exceptions), the point was never for there to be an ad-free channel, it was for programming that wasn't fit for national broadcast to have a place, as well as for there to be a syndication dump. Most of the series on television right now that are critically acclaimed are ones which can only exist on cable because of their nature.

Plus, it's a little hard to take the idea that it's somehow failing when we're living in what is being called by many the "platinum" age of television, something that's been driven almost entirely by cable and the influence it has had on broadcast television.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Yeah, OK. From what I've seen here, (you know. Because I'm somebody that MAKES youtube videos. I'm a nobody I guess, but a nobody with the inside info on what this looks like from the creator's side of things), I did read the announcement.

It's... I don't know how to take it. Google claims they're offering the same terms as advertisement based revenue. 55% of the money, based on the proportion and duration of views that people that have such a subscription use to watch your videos.

In that sense, it would appear to be a transparent swapout for advertising. I would still get paid (in theory. I don't have any monetized videos) based on the number of views and such, it's just coming from direct subscriptions rather than advertising.

Of course, this still leaves us at the mercy of google and it's 'content-ID' and general unfair, heavy-handed, biased nonsense when it comes to copyright issues, but... That's the exact same situation we have now, except with the money we might get coming from a different source.

Obviously, the big mystery in this is what is the payment rate for a view from a youtube paid subscriber? But that's about the only thing about this that meaningfully differs from advertising based revenue for the creators of content...

At least, as far as I can tell from the information I've been given about this as a verified partner (Not as impressive as it sounds, but that's how they describe it.)

 

[Strazdas]

Cable has always had ads (with few exceptions), the point was never for there to be an ad-free channel, it was for programming that wasn't fit for national broadcast to have a place, as well as for there to be a syndication dump. Most of the series on television right now that are critically acclaimed are ones which can only exist on cable because of their nature.

Plus, it's a little hard to take the idea that it's somehow failing when we're living in what is being called by many the "platinum" age of television, something that's been driven almost entirely by cable and the influence it has had on broadcast television.

Of course it was. the whole idea of Cable TV was that you would pay for the channels and they would be supported by you paying them and thus not require advertisement. it was made as a response to rampant[footnote]Back then 15 minutes of advertisement in 2 hour movie was considered rampant, heh[/footnote] advertisement on publicly broadcast channels.

We might be living in plantinum age of television, but what is clear in recent headcounts is that cable is loosing houses fast. ISPs that provide cable services are in panic because people order internet but not cable because they get everything on internet nowadays and dont need a TV anymore. they panic so hard that they offer cable bundled for free just so you get hooked on it.

Cable is dieing. its not dead yet, sure, but you can see its skin turn yellow and its teeth falling off. It has been poisoned by a masterfully crafted poison called internet. Sure, it will not go extinct. but it will become very much like radio - no longer a primary entertainment service but something to compliment the package.

 

[HardkorSB]

I think that the vast majority of people who watch Youtube do it because they can do it for free.
If this thing goes through, I predict that 90% (or more) of Youtube viewers will stop using the website.

If it's ad-free for the paid subscribers and ads for the rest, I think that would be fine.

 

[GAunderrated]

If I'm paying a subscription you better do more than block ads Google. You need to fix a lot of things going wrong with YouTube such as the bs copyright issues that are rampant. I'm a proud Adblock user though it is unpopular to say so. I support the channels I like though patreon, twitch subscriptions, merchandise, and any other method that doesn't subject me to ads plus knowing how much goes to the content creator. Google is not big on transparency with their monetization specifics on YouTube which leads me to believe this program will screw content creators until proven otherwise.

 

[PMAvers]

Neat. While I have adblock installed, it's only on for a couple of sites that have ads that crash my browser. I'll probably end up getting it, just like how I have a Twitch Turbo account since I use both a ton and might as well chip in to help pay for bandwidth. They've gotta go through a *crazy* amount of it.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Ad-Free? Wait.. there are Adds in You... oh right I forgot.. Adblock.

 

[FalloutJack]

Oh, come on. I don't pay money for HERE. Why would I pay the disfunctional frigging youtube?

 

[Blazing Hero]

Um, how about a big NO to this. I watch ads on video's I want to support and turn off adblock. But at the same time there are a LOT of monetized garbage that you click on and end up being happy you didn't give the channel owner revenue. Things like troll vids with misleading descriptions I do not want to provide a single penny too. That actually is the primary reason I keep adblock on. If I signed up for this subscription I would be worried that my money would be equally divided among both good content creators and trolls.

 

[Glaice]

Youtube is forgetting that a good portion of the working population simply do not have the luxury of bothering to pay for this while there are free alternatives to it.

 

[lordofpowies]

Of course, adblock still exists, so...
Good try, though.

 

[Rack]

So whats to stop Youtube from slamming us with ads after ads after ads (even more than they do now) to artificially give this service more value?

And who determines who gets the money? Does youtube compensate those whose ads were legally blocked/skipped through the service?

Sounds like this is putting even more power in the hands of google, who are totally trustworthy given the state of the copyright strike system.

Oh well, guess we will have to see how it goes.

Same thing that stops them slamming us with ad after ad now for the revenue that gives.

Don't know how they'll structure this though, it's likely to be FAR too expensive for people who just watch an occasional video, while not enough to replace the ad revenue of most people who sign up.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

So what YouTube is pitching is an ability to turn off ads for a certain fee. I guess we have to give them some props for not making it an annual or a monthly fee?

However, if you run Adblock like 90% of the Internet, I can't imagine anyone being interested in this. For the other 10% (like me) that don't, I'm sure that 90% of that 10% would rather:

1) Skip the ads.
2) Open another tab.
3) Do something else on a phone or a handheld device.

than pay money to disable ads.

So... who is this supposed to appeal to again?

 

[Creedsareevil]

hahaha. no.

I tab out until the ad is over. This is not worth money to me.

 

[ryukage_sama]

Well, this will help me with ads on my phone. I've been supporting my favorite channels with Patreon, but I can't afford to give $1 every month to EVERY channel I'm subscribed to. I'll have to see what the ad-free rates will be and what content creators get out of it. If the creators get a good share, I might switch my Patreon money over to YouTube, otherwise I'll keep cherry picking my favorites.