True.
> shows content on commonly used education apps without distractions like ads, external links or recommendations
External links seem important on educational files, and I kind of like recommendations when I'm browsing educational stuff, but whoo, no ads on educational stuff? That's great!
> Next year, qualified creators can begin offering free or paid
There it is.
Google just wants that Nebula money.
The classes are advertised on the Nebula homepage to subscribers, but require additional payment.
By contrast, you now can chose between ads and no ads, both on youtube (and the former likely with algorithmic support).
That's a different calculus that - as it seems to me - should imply more paid content than before, contradicting your statement.
Media entrepreneurs set out to run a certain kind of business, revenue-engine-wise; and they choose their distribution channels by what will allow them to do the revenue model they have in mind. They don't compromise on their plans by choosing a channel with a larger reach but an entirely different revenue model. If they can't start a business with the revenue model they had in mind, then they just don't start that business. (They might start some entirely different business that does fit the revenue model of the channel; but that'd be a ground-up re-think, and probably have nothing in common with the original business.)
A TV-series creative planner doesn't "compromise" when they can't get their TV pitch greenlit, by turning around and making a Hollywood movie or "direct-to-VHS" miniseries instead. Those are entirely different revenue models, and so require entirely different development strategies — different budgets, different teams, even different content!
Same with educational content. You don't put the sorts of courseware videos you'd publish on Coursera, on YouTube as ad-supported recommendation-discovered videos. They don't belong there. People won't watch them, and you won't (currently) make any money. (For one thing — as another comment thread here attests — they aren't designed to be clickbait in the way that YouTube videos are, so they'll be ignored by the recommendation engine.)
If you're already creating that type of content, you're currently creating it for some other platform where it works, and ignoring YouTube. Now YouTube will be one more "platform where it works." That doesn't change anything about whether you will have made this type of content. It only (maybe) changes how much money you'll make doing it, and so moves a few people over from "not creating educational content at all" to "creating courseware on YouTube." Just like happens incrementally every time one of the other dozens of such courseware sites pop up.
Now, most (or even all) of those related videos will be replaced by "pay to watch" videos, and i'm 99.9% sure, that the algorithms will prioritize paid video over free content, so all the free stuff will get buried, and you're left with shitty paid content of worse quality than those old, free videos.
There are numerous channels with click bait titles that are little more than upsells to their paid courses. Quality courses (not referring to pre-recorded uni lectures) are not given away for free.
Have to open a laptop to replace the hard drive? No service manual? Just google "XY-123 laptop disassembly", and you'll get a video. Now, a "XY-123 disassembly course", only $1.99.
Solution proposed by Google: Lets charge customers who view this content so that we can pay creators more without losing revenue.
Solution proposed by Consumers: Lets give creators a larger share of youtube's profits. We're already paying for the service by offering our data, our youtube premium subscriptions, and other forms of MTX monetization.
TLDR; Youtube is double dipping in the guacamole bowl, despite having billions of pounds of guacamole.
I think that two things can both be true: creators should be paid for their work, commensurate with the value they provide, and learning should be free (or of negligible cost) to the person doing the learning. There are exceptions to the latter when there isn't a platform involved, like personalized tutoring or coaching, but in general.
YouTube can achieve both of those goals, and advertising is not the only solution. What bothers me most about this announcement is that they aren't doing anything _new_. This is basically a carbon copy of Udemy's value prop, leveraged by YT's existing massive scale. Other than the videos being hosted on YouTube, it doesn't do anything that other platforms haven't already been doing for years.
It isn't a big assumption at all because this is an external embedded player (so the user is not 1 click away from the youtube homepage, they will be in a completely separate app), with no watch-next recommendations or external links.
This is designed explicitly to not compel the viewer into continuing on to watch unrelated youtube videos.
> a new YouTube embedded player that shows content on commonly used education apps without distractions like ads, external links or recommendations.
We've determined by our standards that you have too much guacamole. But, we refuse to see the hypocrisy of this hand-wavy standard that we've got way too much guacamole ourselves compared to another arbitrary entity. We also think, based on our own subjective assessment that guacomole is bad for you and you must reduce consumption. Correct strategy according to our experts is that we need to coerce those who have too much guacomole (again based on our subjective assessment) must give it to those who we think do not have enough. It is morally approved by insert-current-virtue-thing.
Subjectivism has taken over objectivism.
If you're going to make a pitch that Google should pay more money to creators, there's got to be at least some justification for it. other than "i want more money". If google is underpaying creators, then creators should switch to other platforms. If platforms like nebula become a threat, they'll start paying more. as long as most youtubers can make more money on youtube than any other platform, there's no reason for youtube to pay more. that's how capitalism works.
Some community measure of the content quality perhaps? Something opposite of a Like button?
So pretty much, with launching a model where viewers might pay, Youtube is launching a Udemy competitor, no?
Good revenue stream, especially if they can get partnership deals with schools or other educational institutions. Imagine YouTube getting this sort of "guaranteed" revenue, like publishers do from textbooks, but getting schools to foot the bill instead of students; great business model.
That’s not an answer as much as it’s moving the question.
But otherwise isn't being able to charge directly a good thing assuming creators remove ads and any product placement?