"YouTube Red" is YouTube's New, Ad-skipping $10-a-Month Premium Service

stormtrooper9091

New member
Jun 2, 2010
506
0
0
Oh this is absolute bullshit and I hope it backfires immensely. Basically they crapped on "vanilla" youtube on purpose so that they can now charge money for a regular youtube, that has always worked before THEY CRAPPED IT THEMSELVES.

Google are quickly becoming the new EA, hopefully they will keep Gmail running smoothly because otherwise,.. yeah
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Yeah, fuck you Google. There's enough nickle and dimeing in this world without you adding onto it.
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
Honestly? Fair enough. The Escapist does this, Spotify does this, a lot of places do. Content has to be paid for, someone has to keep the servers running. Someone has to pay the wages. And at the end of the line, someone has to profit (Unless we're talking overthrowing the capitalist system, in which case I AM WITH YOU... but that's not what you were talking about). Ads only go so far, and arguably have run their course (Seriously, ads are getting fucking ridiculous at this point). Allowing people to pay directly and not bothering them with ads? Fair enough.

People are annoyed because the service didn't used to be like this, but that's not quite true. Youtube's long had ads, and only recently cracked down on Adblock. That's not messing with their service-Adblock is circumventing their service, they serve advertisers by displaying their ads, and you're served the video. Circumventing one end just means they don't get paid.

Whoo, you'll need to stay on the bleeding edge of adblockers to avoid contributing to Youtubers, or Youtube, or pay up, or put up with ads. Oh the humanity. You could just mute the ad and switch to another tab, but that might take a second.

It's almost always in the interest of hosts and sites to try to stop you from adblocking etc, and it's well within their rights to do so.

Calling it:
"Bullshit"
"Nickel and dimeing"
"new EA" (That one was just funny)

Is just weak. I know in the age of the internet that paying for content, or even paying to see content without ads, is unfashionable, but come the fuck on, don't pretend that what Google's doing here merits those reactions. It's not a new idea, it's not an extreme idea. It's one that is still in use by THIS VERY SITE THAT YOU'RE USING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT ON. A site that also, once, did not have this program.

Personally, I'm more annoyed by Google's tax avoidance, and the fact that their ad service has decided thanks to the proximity of the AFL grand final to bombard me exclusively with online Betting app ads for a month and a half is a little more annoying than continuing to not pay $10 a month, while ads continue to run.
 

loa

New member
Jan 28, 2012
1,716
0
0
bluegate said:
Company uses ads to pay for its services and pay content providers, people complain about ads, company offers way of paying a little for no ads and supporting the company and its content creators, people rage because... because why exactly?
1) Youtube has a terrible track record of treating content creators.
It will very likely claim a large share of subscription funds out of this on the backs of content creators while keeping on doing what they have been doing to make their platform a more welcoming place for content creators so far: jack shit.
2) This incentivizes even more invasive advertisment. Literally monetizes it.
 

Synigma

New member
Dec 24, 2014
142
0
0
karloss01 said:
The problem I find with this 'service' is that most of the youtubers I watch have patreon accounts and have amassed enough income from it that they now disable the youtube ads in their videos.
If they were going to be smart about it they would actually add some innovation here. What about a system where the buy in is cheaper, say 5$, but you pay more and then divvy the extra out directly to the creators of your choice. Then Google can take their cut, a little less to divide to the average creator but creators that are good will get funded more directly from their followers. Then add another 3$ or whatever for the music streaming service if people want it. At the very least the service should give the lion share of your subscription fee to who you're subscribed to. This is the digital age so there is no reason we can't track this stuff and give money to the contributors that deserve it!

I want to like this service because I believe in supporting what you enjoy... but 'exclusive content' is a horrible idea because it's content that SHOULD be there for everyone. They should be building up the new service with new features not tearing down the old for it. Plus the heavy handed feel of it is... ominous.

"Google, you're breaking my heart! You're going down a path I cannot follow!"
 

Rastrelly

%PCName
Mar 19, 2011
602
0
21
Loonyyy said:
It's one that is still in use by THIS VERY SITE THAT YOU'RE USING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT ON.
IIRC, Escapist does not paywall out any content, it blocks HQ options, unlocks forum area and shows ads, but all content is available for everyone. Unlike YTR which will lock out certain content (which hopefully will lead to significant viewer drop for those who'll partake in such an activity).
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
And this is why monopolies are bad...the company with a monopoly gets to do whatever the fuck they want and there's very little you can do about it. Granted, YouTube doesn't have an actual monopoly, but they've still got enough clout to pull bullshit like this and if you don't like it...well tough titty.

What we really need is a viable competitor against YouTube.
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
Rastrelly said:
Loonyyy said:
It's one that is still in use by THIS VERY SITE THAT YOU'RE USING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT ON.
IIRC, Escapist does not paywall out any content, it blocks HQ options, unlocks forum area and shows ads, but all content is available for everyone. Unlike YTR which will lock out certain content (which hopefully will lead to significant viewer drop for those who'll partake in such an activity).
It actually did for a while. It released exclusive videos (At least one that I recall), and kept the High Def stuff for Pub Club. I don't know if they're still doing it, but yeah, that was a thing.

I'm not under the impression that YTR is going to lock out content, I'm under the impression that some of these channels are going to make videos for it exclusively. Which is something you can take up with the channel. I'm really not sweating it if I miss some internet video. If I wanted to see it that bad, it would be ten dollars, and that's not that bad. It's on a level with services like Spotify and Netflix. Considering the utility I get out of it already, for free, that's pretty worthwhile.

There already will be a viewer drop for those videos, those who pay, vs those who don't. The thing is, it's moving away from a raw views revenue stream, to one based on subscription, and eh, I'm fine with that. We're not at the mercy of drying up ad revenue, and honestly, I wouldn't mind if it did away with the advertising and free viewing side entirely. Ads are shit, they're going to die, people block them, they're not a great way to do business. You stop people adblocking, they complain about monopolies, and ruining the system, look at that thread, look at the way this one's going. Honestly, I don't mind paying directly, and not dealing with that. Either that, or I go on as I am at present, avoiding the ads. They aren't so onerous to be intolerable, and I put up with sites with a lot worse advertising (Like this one).
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
The thing is Googles content creators subsist on advertising revenue. Not direct pay for services from YouTube/Google. As such, this devalues their product. By Google giving viewers a paid opt out to them, it devalues the desirability of the content to the advertisers, thus lowering rates and reimbursement to the bulk of the content providers. And we have seen nothing in any of this regarding subscription sharing to those content creator. What happens to the video creators ad revenue when a substantial portion of his viewers are paid opt outs? At first glance it would seem poorly thought out.
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
Creator002 said:
What if the exclusive content is videos. If so, with this system, you can download videos. And anyone can upload a video...
I see some people getting very upset once this takes off.
I was thinking the same thing. If there's one thing that the internet really can't sell, it's exclusive access to something on the internet. I mean, you can already download videos easily from Youtube, I don't know what this service would offer other than a big obvious button for those who don't already know how to do so.
Loonyyy said:
Did you follow the link @L3D posted, about how the service will affect current channels?

Youtube is twisting the arm of content providers by promising to block ALL THEIR VIDEOS from the public if they want to monetize without using the Red service (i.e. stick with just the ad-based model, voluntarily giving up any subscription fees). They are forcing channels to accept the deal or be cut off from their audience. And while they say it will provide a more steady revenue stream for the creators, there's no indication of what they stream would be. Currently Youtube only lets them keep 55% of money the ads generate, well behind the industry average of 70%.

I have no problem getting a subscription to The Escapist, Rooster Teeth, Something Awful, or any other specific site where I know the people who make what I like are directly receiving the money I'm giving them. Similarly, I don't mind paying for a subscription service like Netflix where they use the money to license a bunch of content, and also make their own. However, I don't want to write a check every month knowing half of it goes to a megacorporation who is strong-arming content creators into accepting the deal and setting up a two-tiered system where you still have to pay either way (either direct payments or through ads) but content is blocked off unless you pay the 'correct' way, and it's not at all clear whether other channels will be expected to also provide exclusive content down the line to maintain their Red status.

EDIT: Just looked at the Originals line-up. I don't know most of the companies, so I can't say for sure, but I know that the Lazer Team movie being offered by Rooster Teeth wasn't created specifically for Red; it was crowd-funded, produced, currently on the film festival circuit and they were looking for distributors. I'm greatly annoyed that they went with Red, as that service is only being offered in the U.S. starting in late October, and with no announced plans about international rollout, and I'm damn sure that Google set up deals so that they couldn't distribute it through other channels. Instead of spreading videos to more people, Red separates them based on national barriers that shouldn't exist on the internet.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Yeeeeeeeeeeah I'll pass Youtube. Your parents Google already make enough money in general. I'm not giving them a $10 fucking dollar subscription just to skip 5 second ads.

You aren't sites like Crunchy Roll. I'd rather use that money for Netflix.
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
Fox12 said:
loa said:
Why would I support google of all things tho?
They basically antagonize content creators with their policies that get abused left and right and general apathy.
Why would I support that?

I don't give a damn about google, it's the content I like and you bet google will get the lion's share out of this whole redtube or whatever deal while doing exactly nothing to improve life for content creators on the platform they provide. So screw that.
It's a good idea in theory. The content creators get a 55% cut of the profits made from subscriptions, which is the same amount they make from ads. The difference is that it's guaranteed income, since they don't have to worry about ad-block. If they treated their content creators with respect then this would actually be a decent system.

Unfortunately youtube treats its contributors like shit, so...
But how is it divided. Does everyone who uploaded a video on youtube ever get a share of the revenue? Does it depend on which people i watch how my money is distributed? Does it depend on which people i am subscribed to?

And btw. 10 dollars is way to much. 10 dollars just to skip adds? Thats way too much. Netflix is cheaper than that and Netflix only has professionally created content that i don't get to watch otherwise.
 

Mister K

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
bluegate said:
Mister K said:
I wonder why do I think that Super Best Friends Play won't get a single cent from my 10 USD, while Google'll become 10 USD richer?
Answer; because you're a cynical dolt.

Funny to see all this knee jerking here though. Company uses ads to pay for its services and pay content providers, people complain about ads, company offers way of paying a little for no ads and supporting the company and its content creators, people rage because... because why exactly? Where is the harm in all of this?

Don't want to pay for this service? Fine, don't use it, keep using your ad block if you so desire. What is the big evil here...

If content providers start gating off their content behind the subscription, complain with them, not the platform they are using.
Well, sweetie, here are the things:
1. I personally strongly oppose using AddBlock on any site that has prooved that it doesn't send viruses and such to my computer, with such sites being, for instance, Youtube and our very own Escapist, because I AM aware of the importance of advertisment on such sites;

2. Youtube is not known for treating it's content providers properly, with paying them something like half a cent for 1 minute of content (if, of course, I am not mistaken);

3. I personally am mostly subscribed to people who treat their audience with respect and, as far as I am aware, do NOT plan to hide content behind paywall (such as earlier mentioned SBFP, Maximillian and many others). Heck, even Escapist, while having about the same system, doesn't hide, for example, reviews behind paywall. Those 10 "elites" I am not interested in, so if I for some reason, subscribe to Redtube... Uh, sorry, Youtube Red, those people that I actually like won't get a cent. Yes, I won't see adds, but to be perfectly honest, I am not in the least bothered by them. And all other features I care not about.

4. Live where I live your whole live and don't become cynical. I dare you, I double dare you.
 

Elfgore

Your friendly local nihilist
Legacy
Dec 6, 2010
5,655
24
13
My favorite YouTube channels already have subscriptions on their website. I'd rather pay them money directly than let YouTube take it... also explains why they allow ads throughout a video now. Building up for this lovely little reveal.
 

Spaceman Spiff

New member
Sep 23, 2013
604
0
0
I don't even use redtube and my first thought was "Youtube Red? Like the porn site?"

KoudelkaMorgan said:
I thought Grinding Gear Games aka GGG aka German Goo Girls was bad enough.
Is that a real thing? I'll google it later, only for research obviously.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Souplex said:
...Did nobody in google's marketing department google that name?
It's very similar to a very popular porn site.
Yeah, that was my first thought. I mean, statistically, 200% of the people who work there watch porn, so how could they not know?
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
Thunderous Cacophony said:
Loonyyy said:
Did you follow the link @L3D posted, about how the service will affect current channels?

Youtube is twisting the arm of content providers by promising to block ALL THEIR VIDEOS from the public if they want to monetize without using the Red service (i.e. stick with just the ad-based model, voluntarily giving up any subscription fees). They are forcing channels to accept the deal or be cut off from their audience. And while they say it will provide a more steady revenue stream for the creators, there's no indication of what they stream would be. Currently Youtube only lets them keep 55% of money the ads generate, well behind the industry average of 70%.
That's some extra information. Yeah, ok, that's kind of unfair. That said-it's for partners, people who are making money off their ads on videos. I would expect that to have an no ad feature for the site, you'd need everyone who puts ads on videos on board. I'm not sure why I'm meant to be annoyed that they're being "strongarmed".

I don't see what they lose from the deal, to be frank. So long as they're getting at least the cut they're getting. If someone points out that they're getting shafted on their earnings, I'll get my pitchfork. Until then, it's business as usual.

And that pay gap would be a far better reason to be annoyed, but I'm curious as to where exactly that comes from. EDIT: It looks like a spitball from the TechCrunch article, but that's not an average, nor is it particularly comparable.
I have no problem getting a subscription to The Escapist, Rooster Teeth, Something Awful, or any other specific site where I know the people who make what I like are directly receiving the money I'm giving them. Similarly, I don't mind paying for a subscription service like Netflix where they use the money to license a bunch of content, and also make their own. However, I don't want to write a check every month knowing half of it goes to a megacorporation who is strong-arming content creators into accepting the deal and setting up a two-tiered system where you still have to pay either way (either direct payments or through ads) but content is blocked off unless you pay the 'correct' way, and it's not at all clear whether other channels will be expected to also provide exclusive content down the line to maintain their Red status.
I disagree. On the user's end (Which is where the complaints I was addressing were), it's the same. And I'm honestly perturbed by the attitude I see around here. And I don't really view it as strong-arming either-if you want ads, you'll need to agree to Red, because that involves ads. You can still upload, you need to accept Red to monetize. That makes sense.

At the moment, there already is a that system, you're just stuck in the bottom tier, the shit tier, watching ads. They haven't made that worse (Apart from going after Adblock, which you shouldn't be using, and shouldn't enter into discussion).

I don't think there's any particular reason to speculate that channels will be required to make exclusive content-I suspect that Google wants that content to incentivise their service. I would expect that they're probably being incentivised by Google to do so. There are so many YouTube channels, I doubt that Google is going to want regular, exclusive content from all of them. And again, I'm not going to lose any sleep over missing a Youtube video or two. There are fucking millions of them. I'll miss a collegehumor skit, I do it all the time. I'll miss something Roosterteeth does, whoop. I'll miss a Pewdiepie video, lord save me, I think I shall live.

If we want to talk giving money to megacorporations for profit, might I point out that SOPA was in great part, the work of the MPAA, and they're making money from all of us as we speak. I just don't think that's a part of people's motivation and thinking process at all.
EDIT: Just looked at the Originals line-up. I don't know most of the companies, so I can't say for sure, but I know that the Lazer Team movie being offered by Rooster Teeth wasn't created specifically for Red; it was crowd-funded, produced, currently on the film festival circuit and they were looking for distributors. I'm greatly annoyed that they went with Red, as that service is only being offered in the U.S. starting in late October, and with no announced plans about international rollout, and I'm damn sure that Google set up deals so that they couldn't distribute it through other channels. Instead of spreading videos to more people, Red separates them based on national barriers that shouldn't exist on the internet.
Yeah, that is a dick move. From Roosterteeth. They went and crowdfunded a movie, and then they decided to sell it as exclusive content on Red. I'll put it right next to Zack Braff crowdfunding his godawful movies and then selling them.

Looking at this list I note a few things:

-Nothing I want to watch is on there
-Google is actually funding content
-This directly flies in the face of the "They're might just take videos away".
-From the executive producers of-Don't make me fucking laugh.

They're actually making movies, and serieses out of things, so it's not even going to be that I'm missing anything, I'm not going to miss a "premium" episode of something and wonder what the fuck happened. So even that little slippery slope isn't the case.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
KoudelkaMorgan said:
If I were Redtube, I'd have my lawyers handy.
Redtube should have their lawyers handy? If companies could actually successfully sue over the use of one word they should indeed. YouTUBE and redTUBE do actually have a word in common already. RedTUBE may in fact lend some of their popularity to YouTUBE for their popularity. YouTUBE RED might actually increase REDTUBE's popualarity.

Now let's just pretend for a moment you were Redtube and yo did decide to sue Google over the use of the word red. Why shouldn't Google sue you over the use of the word tube?
 

BadNewDingus

New member
Sep 3, 2014
141
0
0
I can see this as not a real big deal.

But if this does cause a rift in the community, I'm sure another "YouTube" will pop up.
 

kat-pottz

New member
Jan 25, 2011
64
0
0
if it was 5 dollars a month maybe but 10 dollars is a bit much for the amount of services they are providing in my opinion.