YouTube Red, a $9.99 Site-Wide Ad-Free Subscription with Play Music
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
YouTube Red, Music Key, Google Android Play Music All Access Subscription, etc.
Don't get me wrong, the actual service they provide is good, and Music Key (advert free YouTube music videos) was a nice value add. This too will only expand Music Key into other videos.
I do worry a little bit that long term Google Music subscribers will wind up seeing price increases to pay for YouTube Red. If all I want is JUST Google Music, then all I should have to pay for is JUST Google Music, and that is fine today as there are no price increases, but ask me again when the first price rise is announced a few months from now.
"And we're thinking we'll call it Youtube Red"
"Uh........... yknow that's... it's... i heard once that... nevermind".
http://www.thewrap.com/youtube-exec-on-comparisons-to-porn-s...
"In a Q&A session with reporters Wednesday at YouTube Space Los Angeles, company executives were asked if they were concerned that consumers would confuse their new YouTube Red product with RedTube, an online porn platform.
“We did a lot of consumer testing, so we were comfortable with it,” Robert Kyncl, YouTube chief business officer, said of the name."
Maybe Google is ok with watching the awkwardness that will ensue, since it probably won't cause them any monetary harm.
In a professional setting, in the context of a marketing/naming discussion, I doubt anyone would have a problem saying "that's too close to the name of a popular porn site". Nobody whose humor has grown past a 12-year-old's will respond to that with "and how exactly do you know that?"; it's the job of the people in that room to know about myriad brands and products that they may or may not use, and the connotations of various names.
* The opinions stated here are my own, not necessarily those of my company.
Substantively, it seems that their is just one, with two different names: the announcement indicates that YouTube Red will include Google Play Music subscription, and vice versa, and the pricing is the same, so essentially there is one audio/video subscription service.
I guess it makes sense to merge offers into one big 'You probably want some of this' bucket - for the company.
Also plenty of people don't realize/know/care that youtube is owned by Google. They are still a pretty independent brand from a consumer perspective.
> And any creator who doesn’t sign the deal for YouTube Red will have their videos on the ad-free old-school YouTube hidden from view. That’s pretty harsh.
So YouTube is saying if you don't join their new subscription plan they will just not display your videos on YouTube?
Edit: Just heard back. Yes, this is exactly what happened, and it's now going into motion. If you are a YouTube creator and you don't agree to be a part of this new service, your channel will removed and your videos won't appear in search results. In other words, all of your videos are made "private" and you're pretty much dead.
How else could you implement this? If I buy a subscription for an ad-free site, it can't mean that it's ad-free except for videos posted by people who haven't signed the contract.
Edit: Apparently I was wrong. There is another article on the front page stating they will be hidden on all forms of YouTube.
Much better than the model that cable TV uses where when I look at the channel guide I can see all of the channels, including the ones that I haven't subscribed to, and it's not until I try to watch a show on one of them that I discover that I can't see it.
https://pando.com/2014/06/17/screwyoutube-people-are-finally...
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/04/youtube-in...
There's also many blog posts floating around, just search YouTube record label deals.
Obviously the real solution is GNU MediaGoblin and federation.
I mean one of the earliest complaints I remember about Music Key was that it forbids this, but not all other services do.
The sentence in the article is just ambiguously worded.
And as far as Grasswire goes, we're doing 500k uniques per month at this point, so even getting on the front page of HN wouldn't really move the needle for us. I mention it occasionally when I think it's relevant, but that's a tiny minority of my HN use.
Frankly I'm surprised Google hasn't preemptively gone after them for infringement.
The real problem is you never know when you'll be sued for going too far. The only way to find out is to go too far and hope it doesn't happen. (like, the existence of YouTube itself)
wow, can they do that? Any instances of past cases? So, does that mean if I create a social network with `Face*` name, they can sue me?
Your first time, you get both. ;)
But really, this is horrible branding by Google.
and now I will try to distract the reader by mentioning something about keystroke dynamics. I wonder if I type pornhub in a different way than any one else does
If you didn't know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystroke_dynamics
It's basically what you describe, but the payments are also weighted by user rating. I'm dealing with a chicken and egg problem on content, so there's not much there, but keep an eye on it over the next couple of months...
Yes, some kind of trial or even a free plan is where I'm looking.
It's got a HN-type karma system built into it, both the content and the comments. So if you boil it down to its essence, it's almost a reddit (preferably HN) for video with a netflix-esque interface.
So maybe it's free to post and view video links, free to upload content directly (which you can earn money from), but costs to view hosted content (which then pays the uploaders). Free user's views don't count towards payable totals, but paid user's do. That's the plan I'm leaning towards, actually.
I don't watch movies - but I do have a respect for beginning artists of any field. Anything that can help indie artists is a plus in my book.
One word of advice would be to move the Twitter logo away from your logo. I was mildly confused and honestly, Twitter has such a strong brand that I saw the Twitter logo before your logo.
How are you advertising? Chicken/egg is the kill or be killed of any social site - and especially one dependent on having content.
Good call re: twitter logo, I mainly want to make it clear that twitter is the way to connect with us (as opposed to email newsletter or facebook or whatever). I will probably move it to the right.
Re: advertising, right now I'm just talking to a lot of people that are making quality content and posting it to youtube or vimeo already, basically offering them an alternative monetization strategy and trying to get a read on what they really need. Customer development.
But I do have a better idea on what I need to change next, and I think it will remove a lot of friction in using the service (and getting content)
The real point is this is actually about having more ads, just like Google Contributor. This is Google working to tell the world, "if you want to get paid, even by people who donate directly to avoid ads, you must first accept showing our ads otherwise". So this is about increasing, amplifying, reinforcing the ads because there won't likely be a way to say "I want to get paid when people enjoy my work, but I don't want to push ads on anyone ever". Google wants people like that to not exist. If you want to be paid in any form, you have to accept using Google ads. That's their end-game here.
If you host videos on YouTube the price is taking ads or allowing Google to charge a subscription. Google will still organize and catalog your video if it isn't on YouTube.
It might be cool if video producers could charge per view on YouTube - but I feel that might cheapen the rest of the service as you could not go to YouTube expecting to find already paid for or ad supported value and it may lessen user engagement.
> YouTube Red will split subscription revenue with the rights holders of content people consume through the service.
[1]It's not completely ad-free, there is a small list of shows that they couldn't get the rights to play ad-free and those shows have an ad at the beginning.
> [1]It's not completely ad-free
So it's like an unlimited data plan, then.
I keep trying to remind myself that there really has never been a time when organizations were not abusing language in order to make bad ideas more palatable, but from a consumer's point of view, it's infuriating.
I'm fine with a company saying unlimited data with a note that says except for Thursdays from 4-7pm. The problem is when they say unlimited data, but it's not really unlimited at all for anyone. That would be more like hulu saying it was ad-free and then showing commercials after you watch more than 100 minutes.
When they transitioned from everyone seeing ads (free and paid users) to having an ad-free option they had to make a choice: keep the hold-outs and just play ads on their content, or strong-arm them (and lose some content).
YouTube is now strong-arming everyone with YouTube Red, "Sign our new deal or we're hiding all of your content from paying subscribers."
Hulu's decisions are driven by their investors who are direct competitors for recreation time (cable companies who can't realistically cut ads). Youtube doesn't have that -- if they can make equal or more revenue per person via paid subs vs ads, why not?
People are getting pretty pissed off at the gradual ad creep on something they pay for (subscription or otherwise...). Companies in their duties to their shareholders will have to make decisions on whether the potential loss from pissed customers who leave is offset by the increased revenue from the people who just whine about the ad creep but continue paying with their subscriptions and eyeballs.
Also, it is not always up to the streaming company. Hulu has shows that are excluded from the "No Commercials" bit because of their licensing agreements. So if you want to watch those, you still get ads.[1]
[1]http://www.slashgear.com/hang-on-hulu-ad-free-still-has-ads-...
Will gladly pay for ad free.
If I pay the subscription fee on my desktop do I have to pay extra because I use iOS? That's not an in app purchase.
edit: and now the question becomes do I want to add showtime. hmm
My TV is getting expensive against
Netflix 8 HBO 15 Hulu 12 Showtime 9 AIV 99/year
52 dollars a month. Covers most of the shows I like though. Unlike Cable this (pretty much) ad free and on demand. I think it's worth it.
> Content providers may offer In-App subscriptions at whatever price they wish and they are not required to offer an in-app subscription simply because they sell a subscription outside the App Store as well.
At the time, there was a big hullaballoo over providers like Amazon and Comixology who have presumably placed their "best price" on an item, and simply could not afford to take a 30% loss to Apple's IAP. Apple, preferring to have services like Kindle and Comixology vs. not, capitulated.
2011 is (in internet time) a LONG time ago, so it's very possible that this has reversed course again, or even multiple times since then.
http://exstreamist.com/poll-79-of-netflix-subscribers-would-...
I don't watch YouTube much, but $10/month for no ads, with prime music sounds good, and I will probably sign up.
Yeah? I'll have to take another look at Hulu, ads were a major reason for me dropping my subscription.
When did this change?
The Apple Tax[0] strikes again!
They also charge a tax for apps on the Play Store but since they own YouTube they can just waive the fee to make it seem as if big bad Apple is charging a tax while Google is not.
If you sign up for this outside of the YouTube app on iOS you'll be charged the normal rate (and it will still work just fine on iOS).
See more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10429574
Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded from Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment, except:
* where payment is solely for physical products; or
* where payment is for digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g., buying songs that can be played on other music players).
See more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10429574
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pur...
And other big companies like Spotify have been doing it for years. I think I recall that this was in their TOS before though.
Apple forbids this. You are required to use their IAP features and pay them their 30%.
As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, see the difference between the Kindle app on iOS and the Kindle app on Android. On iOS, no store. On Android, full store.
> In-store purchases: Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play’s payment system.
> In-app purchases: Developers offering products within a game downloaded from Google Play or providing access to game content must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment.
> Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded from Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment
The only exception they allow is if you're selling physical goods (which is the same as Apple's policy).
[1]: https://play.google.com/intl/en/about/developer-content-poli...
And they have more labor costs associated with dealing with cash. Whether that's a net win for cash or net loss depends on the particular market that the retailer is in.
Plus there's a huge gap between a 2-5% fee and a 30% fee. I imagine if Apple took a smaller cut, Google wouldn't be doing this.
Retailers sell you an item for $x then charge you $x * (1 + tax%) at the checkout to cover local taxes. If you live in an area with high tax, you'll pay more. So in the app world, if you buy apps on the Apple store you pay more taxes.
2) Isn't that illegal? Or getting pretty close to it.
[1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of...
What on WinPho is a first class experience?
(Admittedly I've never actually tried YouTube in IE on WinPho, but the 3rd party MetroTube app is supposed to be good.)
Just something companies should watch out for. Even if campaign finance considers money to be speech and a founder or company might want to make a bold statement, doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions for acting unfairly toward competition.
>YouTube Red is available in the U.S. If you leave the U.S., you won’t be able to save videos offline, videos won’t play in the background, and you will see ads. Any videos that you’ve saved offline before leaving the U.S., will continue to be available offline for 30 days.
A lot of things do not properly de-localize, when you select English or no customization. Menu text, alt text, logos, etc. all remain localized. It's a terrible implementation.
Chrome was (is?) worse. It'd "auto detect" the language to use based on IP, then refuse to remove it once running. So you'd have an English OS, sending "en" in the Accept-Language language header, and Chrome would decide you actually wanted Spanish or Russian or whatever, using .ru sites, etc.
Thanks, but I'll keep sticking to my good ol' flacs.
In general you should probably allow people to opt out of alcohol ads.
Or violent films.
It's weird that the film has an age rating; the ad has an age rating; the content has a much younger age rating; but YouTube can't see that many parents don't want an 18 / 15 movie ad on content they're showing to their children.
And in general, stupid content is far, far more worrying than "inappropriate" content. I'd rather have my kids see some nudity than many of the "kids" shows out there.
Many television broadcast regulators limit the amount and type of advertising presented to children (including the very liberal FCC), and in some cases even prohibit such advertising altogether (e.g. the province of Quebec in Canada). So far, regulations have not caught up with the Youtube generation, even though many parents treat streaming media equivalently to broadcast in how it is used by their children.
Deleted comment
Does this mean that if I subscribe, I will see less content on YouTube?
Also, 'Red' is a much better name than 'Music Key.'
It'd be interesting if they UI of this got good enough to employ it as a streaming replacement.
What a joke. This should be a standard feature.
iOS users: You can play audio in the background by playing a video in Safari, swiping up to open control center, pressing play, and then double-tapping the home button to go to another app. The only restriction is that you can't use Safari while the video is playing.
If I upload a video to YouTube under the pretense that based on ad clicks I make money, how does YouTube showing my videos ad-free get me paid? I have read the official press release and a few articles but am not finding any news on these details.
> "YouTube Red will split subscription revenue with the rights holders of content people consume through the service. YouTube managed to sign-on most of the independent creators, record labels, TV networks, and movie studios to the program. A YouTube exec told reporters at today’s launch event that YouTube is paying out “the vast, vast majority of revenue”."
...for now. You don't boil a frog by turning the heat up all the way. Once you get people fully locked in and dependent on your platform by having both content AND viewership, you can have much greater ability to change agreements/pricing until there is a viable competitor.
Producers: Upload content to new service -> Change comments on youtube videos and post an explanation of the change soon to occur -> hope your audience likes your brand enough to trust/use another website
Consumers: Search google or yahoo or duckduckgo for your favorite producer when you don't find them on youtube -> find them on other site -> watch
This adds a lot of value to Youtube for me and has solidified my move to Google's services - being able to easily stream a playlist of youtube videos ad free during parties and support creators without viewing ads is a benefit.
It does not go directly with Google's mission to catalog all the world's information - or at least in the way of making that information more accessible to everyone (since some content producers will be put off by this).
Prominent YouTubers also make quite a nice buck through in-video promotions and sponsorship as well as being paid for creating videos, and non-YT activities.
> "As an added bonus, your YouTube Red membership includes a free subscription to Google Play Music, with access to its extensive catalog of music. If you’re already a Google Play Music subscriber, you’ll receive a free YouTube Red membership."[0]
That's an interesting way to bootstrap their paying userbase.
It's not advertising. It's advertracking. YouTube red removes the "advertising" part, but the "tracking" part stays. (Yes, Google could, and probably do, track you through an adblocker while you are on YouTube. But why tracking easy for them and everyone else?)
I thought Apple specifically didn't allow this.
Also practically what could Apple even do? Kick YouTube off of the AppStore? That'd just hurt Apple as well.
I installed uBlock a few weeks ago and only recently realized I haven't seen a single youtube video ad since then.
Or, you know, do this: "And starting early next year, YouTube Red will get even better with member-only access to new, original shows and movies from some of YouTube’s biggest creators." [0]
(Alternatively, since it can be viewed functionally as just adding an additional brand and a bunch of new services to the existing Google Play Music subscription, its already taken off.)
The top discussion in this thread is about their poor branding. Chromecast? Google Cast? Android TV? Nexus Player? Google TV? What is it? I have Android TV and even I'm confused.
My guess is this goes alright in the short term, in the long term they cluster fuck it, lest we not forget the Google+ fiasco. Probably won't muck it up enough to spawn rivals, but close. They really just won't be able to help themselves.
Still, give them credit: making money off other peoples content is a lucrative business, as apple has shown.
Netflix (as well as HBO, and many others) already has commercial free streaming movies. HULU (as well as others) now has commercial free streaming tv. Content wise, what YouTube brings to the table is the user generated content, and YouTube Red does not seem to be centered around user generated content. I'd say user generated content is caught up in the mix, if anything. Google could index HULU and Netflix instead of creating YouTube Red.
Also, it is a false choice to say, given the assumption of ad-free services, I should either have to pay for ads or Google should take a loss in revenue. There are many other business models, such as P2P, that could facilitate ad-free user generated content channels.
The rub? P2P doesn't work too well with commercial content generation. And so, we find ourselves back to ads vs subscriptions, and back to the revenue grab.
When talent at Google is working on YouTube Red, it's not working on other problems. I can think of many other problems I'd rather see Google working on, given their core competencies.
YouTube Red seems less like a "profit grab" and more like a defensive move. I'm sure Google would love to continue its current model of 50% of all ad revenue. From what I've gathered its (1) Google's top creators exploring other options such as Vessel (subscription music service) and (2) YouTube's need to provide a regular/more predictable revenue stream to their partners. The Ad model doesn't seem to work well if your most of your viewers are outside the United States.
footnote regarding all: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-targeting-all-the-worlds...
Spotify is a dedicated music app in comparison, and is designed that way. The catalog isn't as big as YouTube's, but YouTube isn't designed for the user to catalog their personal music.
Youtube provides ad-free video, but I don't think the ad's are very intrusive for videos compared to listening to music, where it can definitely be annoying.
OTOH, Google Play Music is also a music app, and designed for the user to catalog all their personal music, and is already free, and the subscription that includes unlimited streaming of the Google Play Music catalog is rolled included with the new Youtube Red subscription.
How Pewdiepie became a billionaire and everyone making a
living off 1M views a month went broke.
I wish Netflix had music videos channels, and for an extra $5/month optional Spotify audio channels built in.
Certainly this is also an attempt to curb the pervasiveness of adblocking by providing the ad-free option.
[1] https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/home/youtube-red-bl... [2] https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/youtube-originals/y...
Google Play movies, TV, and books is getting to be convenient enough so I am using it more (I just bought the BBC 'Worricker Trilogy', one of the best shows we have watched in years).
While subscribing to a service like this, plus Hulu no commercials version, Internet version of HBO Go, and Netflix may seem a little expensive, it basically covers all entertainment costs except for buying books.
I certainly hope so. Enough with the ad torture...
Over time, and via the Sony hack, I think being suspicious of distribution platforms and major labels is warranted. So far, they tend to like non-disclosure based agreements which freeze out independents as much as possible.
Considering the "artists hate streaming" bad publicity that seems pretty consistent, I think if YouTube Red was going to be a real improvement and fiscally more rewarding for artists, they should put that in big type somewhere.
Of course, Google has a pretty solid process for low-amount online payments, though.
If that's true, it looks like someone in google got their math wrong.
Apple will take 30% of $12.99, i.e. $3.90, leaving google with only $9.09, not the $9.99 they're expecting.
The correct price to "cover Apple’s in-app purchase tax." is $14.27.
Deleted comment
People don't want to see ads, and they don't with this. Google makes the money they were already making from ads. And content creators are getting the money they would have gotten from ads. They probably make even more since people are not ad blocking and cutting down their income.
It seems less profit motivated, and more motivated at giving people what they want. If people don't want to pay they don't have to.
This move is good in general. When big sites offer ways to pay, I think the idea becomes more mainstream and it'll be easier for new services to actually charge enough to survive.
Ok good. This is simply a bonus feature for me then.
Deleted comment
Deleted comment
I just fear the majority is never going to take the short hop over to Google Music (or whatever app Google offers strictly for music), and I'm going to get stuck needlessly using YouTube related apps/platforms.
I hope this wasn't too harmful to the conversation, though it seems to have caused damage to the sensibilities of multiple people already. I'd edit, but I think at this point it's hardly worth the effort.