Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by inChargeOfIT | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

inChargeOfIT

I still see dislikes but will be cancelling my premium the second they go away.

View on HN

With YouTube Vanced, there's no reason for premium

Supporting creators?

Yeah exactly. I hate ads and 15$ is nothing to me. I'm not a poor college student anymore.

adblocker? exception being mobile..

And TV

Ublock origin + Firefox seems to block ads on mobile fine for me, the mobile browser interface to youtube does leave something to be desired though.

NewPipe on Mobile all the way

Yup, I was surprised when I found out it had Sponsorblock integration. Immediately ditched Youtube Vanced in favor of Newpipe at that moment.

YouTube Vanced also has it integrated btw. You have to enable it in your settings

I'm aware. I simply prefer Newpipe because it has roughly the same functionality, is more lightweight and is open-source (+ it's on F-Droid so I can easily update it along with all my other apps).

Anything you’re aware of for iOS?

I only use a phone for watching stuff if I don't have a monitor or laptop around. That said newpipe is fantastic when mobile is the only available platform.

YouTube Vanced. It's the YouTube app with an ad locker built in.

Brave browser also blocks ads.

> I hate ads

Then you should definitely use Vanced. It eliminates sponsored parts within videos, which are not removed even if you pay for youtube red.

How does it manage that? Crowdsourcing?

Yes, people click a button to indicate start and end of sponsored segments in a video. Those time markers are sent to a DB, and every subsequent viewer will use that to skip the ad portion.

that is one horrific way to guarantee the content creators you enjoy don't get money.

If content creators don't provide ways for paying them besides ads then that's on them.

no, it's not on them, it's on you for choosing to take money out of their pocket. They have chosen the monetization revenues that they are comfortable with, circumventing the way people make money while watching their content is highly unethical. You don't show up to a local course or theatre production and use a fake credit card because you dislike the fact that they use visa.

Side note, what’s the etymology of ”Vanced”? Is it meant to hint at “advanced”?

They are so anti-ad that they even removed the ad from their own app's name.

So many better ways than funnelling your money through Google.

The Patreon or buying merch route doesn't really work for wide scale though. I can do that for a handful of the very top channels I watch regularly but I can't chip in a buck a month for all 400ish channels I'm subscribed to. Supporting a few creators is easy but giving a trickle the a wide field is kind of the sweet spot for ads.

It'd be really nice to have a way to say spread say $10 a month among the channels I watch, with maybe some options to weight towards smaller channels too.

Like if Humble Bundle and Patreon had a content creator baby together.

Yeah a way for me to not pay much, but still more than my measly ad views would be to a creator, without individually giving them a few pennies every month or a bit at the end of the year. A bit problem is this kind of micro payment is expensive to process unless you can aggregate them at the scale of a platform.

Most people who post more than once a year seem to have a Patreon or something set up.

Not my problem to solve.

This always comes back. It's supporting creators as much as the pennies creators get on Spotify. Only creators with millions of views make money. The rest, if you want to support them, you use alternative channels for that. The main profit maker is Youtube in any case.

That's not true. YouTube gets 45% of the money your videos generate and you get 55%. If a viewer buys a YouTube subscription then 55% of the price of that subscription gets shared among the channels that the viewer watches.

Any source for this?

>Under YouTube’s standard revenue-sharing terms for YPP, partner channels keep 55% of the money generated from ads on their videos.

https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/youtube-partner-progra...

Subscriptions are not the same as Premium. Paying for YouTube Premium basically does nothing to help creators, so you have the extra layer of Subscriptions to individual channels and YouTube get you twice by expecting you to ALSO pay for Subscriptions.

No, YouTube premium revenue is also shared to the creator. As a creator you even get a breakdown of how much you earned from ads and how much from YouTube premium.

I actually forgot that YouTube had rolled out the Join button. You get 70% of the revenue of the Channel Membership (join button). YouTube gets 30%.

Seems great for Android but no iOS or desktop versions sort of limits it as a replacement for Premium, no?

Is there anything similar for iOS/Apple TV.

Still seeing downvotes in my country, but if they remove this imo important metric, I’ll have to cancel my subscription.

On HN ? Unless you are a student you are making enough money to afford premium without thinking much about it and if you are using it enough to notice ads it makes sense to pay for services you use.

This is exactly why the internet is in the situation where it is - nobody wants to pay for stuff so they have to monetise tracking and advertising.

People _want_ to pay for stuff in exchange for not being tracked. But the business of tracking users and selling their data is much more profitable. Even when small businesses and startups create attractive tools to gain market share, they are (sometimes unknowingly at the moment) following their main agenda which is to get users' data and sell it multiple times to other buyers.

> This is exactly why the internet is in the situation where it is - nobody wants to pay for stuff so they have to monetise tracking and advertising.

This is just as oblivious as the "nobody wants to work" rhetoric that's currently popular. It ignores the fact that a lot of products wouldn't be used, and content wouldn't be consumed, if they weren't free.

No, the reason people wouldn't use Facebook if they had to pay for it isn't because they're cheapskates, it's because Facebook isn't offering a product that's actually worth paying for.

Netlfix et al. show that people are willing to pay for things on the internet if they're actually worth spending money on.

Besides, even when you pay for things on the internet, most companies will still show you ads and track you.

>It ignores the fact that a lot of products wouldn't be used, and content wouldn't be consumed, if they weren't free.

This is why I said we are on Hacker News. People here should probably value their time more than 15$/month if they spend nontrivial amount of time watching YT, yet still refuse to pay, freeloading is a common thing unfortunately.

I’m no more a freeloader watching ads on YouTube than I am a freeloader watching broadcast TV or listening to FM radio in my car.

Maybe he meant to say freeloader while complaining or blocking the ads.

I think you missed the point the person you are replying to is talking about - if you are watching youtube normally and seeing ads you aren't a freeloader. They are saying those that would use apps like vance or newpipe instead of just paying for premium are the freeloaders

Ah. You’re right and thanks. I had read that post, but from the use of the trademark assumed that YouTube Vanced was some other YouTube offering that I also didn’t care about, not that it was a 3rd party app that bypassed ads.

I put a book on a table in a library and every time someone reads it, it costs me a penny.

However, every time someone reads it I am also paid 2 pennies by a dude that wants to tell people about his new book.

People were fine with that, so I also found another guy to pay me 2 pennies to talk about the book he wrote as well.

A negligibly small fraction of those people have started wearing earplugs. How unfair!

So I found a third guy to pay me 2 pennies to talk about the book he wrote as well, and more people started wearing earplugs! What the heck!?!

I'm imagining someone in 1990 hearing you say that being able to instantly start watching almost any music video or filmed lecture/talk ever made isn't "a product that's actually worth paying for". I would've given anything to have that.

>I'm imagining someone in 1990 hearing you say that being able to instantly start watching almost any music video or filmed lecture/talk ever made

Imagine going back and mentioning that this would also be a way for the company (Google) to snoop on your conversations and censor dissenting thougth.

A free way to stream any video sounds nice, but it doesn't once you mention the fact that it actually limits the type of content you are able to enjoy.

We should be trying to build a better infrastructure for FOSS video streaming instead of trying to rationalize shitty business models.

No one is censoring thoughts and any conversations that are snooped on are ones you allow to be snooped on by using a free service.

>any conversations that are snooped on are ones you allow to be snooped on by using a free service

I don't think the innocence of the people who don't know the difference between proprietary and free software should be the thing we attack here, specially since the company in question has gone through great efforts before to restrain the spread of the FSF.

That's debatable. Any company that analyses large amounts of data produced by you in the form of posts, likes/dislikes, follows etc are effectively reading your mind.

You just described what the internet enables.

Someone in the 90s wouldnt have a clue about how much garbage there is to sift through, nor the narcissistic culture that all social media, but especially the type focused on videos, brings.

All the grifters, charlatans, anti-fact, political blowhard, fake, plastic, garbage that litters the whole site from left to right to non-political.

I hope the service fails, frankly.

So stop tracking and use good old-fashioned sleuth work like “he's watching a video about fixing plumbing, let's show him some tools or possibly DIY products for homeowners”.

> you are making enough money to afford premium without thinking much about it

This is a broad assumption, what makes you think everybody on this site can afford £12 a month for something they can get completely for free with uBlock Origin and YouTube Vanced?

"On HN ? Unless you are a student you are making enough money to afford premium without thinking much about it and if you are using it enough to notice ads it makes sense to pay for services you use."

That's simply not true.

I spend exponentially more money on content now than I ever did in the past. Both in digital services and physical media.

Not everything is worth my money and Google can kiss my ass.

Not all HN users live in the West. I know YouTube Premium is available in some low-income locations as well, although I concede I don’t know how much they adjust the price.

Currently I pay for

* Breaking Points (10/mo) * 3 substacks (5/mo each) * ProtonMail (5/mo) * StandardNotes (10/mo) * netflix * hulu * prime * boomerang * shudder * disney+ * hbomax * sometimes pandora

This is on top of the fact I buy about 20 records a year and roughly average about 20 dvds/blurays a year and about 10 books a year.

I dont care if Google doesn't get some money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com