2160p resolution is now premium feature on YouTube
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
Is there a newspaper out there that allows you to pay in one click and doesn't make you fill out a long form with all kinds of private info?
People are not going to spend 5 minutes filling in a form and creating yet another account if running the link through archive/etc takes 30 seconds instead.
Privacy is also another problem - if you block ads for privacy reasons, why would you then volunteer that info and your money? You may as well just deal with the ads - privacy impact is the same, but at least you don't pay.
BTW what is kind of annoying is the "double ads" model in a lot of YT videos, where it's both YT showing you ad clips and then the youtuber editing in short commercials as well. You can pay YT premium to remove the first kind, but you can't do anything about the second kind...
My dislike for ads does not come from general disregard for the idea of advertising in the first place, but from the fact that most actual ads are "small e evil" - i.e. disingenuous, manipulative, gaudy, appealing to human weaknesses etc. They make the world a worse place.
I sadly have to agree with this.
I think twitter did a great job of dealing with "small e evil" ads by allowing replies to ads - ads are just promoted tweets, that you can reply to, like other tweets. However, now twitter allows everyone to hide replies to their tweets. I still sometimes see ads on twitter with hostile replies, but that's probably only because they don't understand twitter as a channel, they treat it like any other channel where you don't have to worry about that. If they had someone ready to hide all critical replies that wouldn't happen.
I think reddit had a similar model, with promoted posts?
You can argue that it is a premium content feature and NetFlix would certainly agree. But today you can shoot 4k on a new mid-tier cellphone, or for even less money on an older used flagship phone, and edit 4k video on just about any used business laptop of the last 5-8 years. It feels weird to call this premium with how accessible creating 4k video is.
Personally, I'm more annoyed at their increase in ads recently than at this limitation. I don't know what the acceptable limit is, but 5-10 ads at the beginning is clearly way too many and much more of a problem. I really want reasonable competition. I don't consider Floatplane or Vimeo to be that competition.
You can, but you aren't really gaining any substantive clarity on a cellphone because the lens is the resolution limiter more than the sensor.
That's pretty much what I'm arguing, really. From a sensible viewing distance (8-10ft), 1080p and 2160p do not have huge differences in quality, and a lot of these TVs have some form of upscaling that achieves varying degrees of success in making lower-resolution content look better. Of course, it's not "4k" 4k, but I feel really this marginal gain is pretty much the perfect kind of thing to put behind a premium paywall.
> Personally, I'm more annoyed at their increase in ads recently than at this limitation.
Agreed, that is awful.
> Floatplane
is a competitor to Patreon if anything, in my opinion.
Vimeo is just too far behind to ever be serious competition.
I've always thought that just as a matter of "manners" one should attempt to use as little of a limited resource as possible - especially when using perhaps internet or worse, cellular data or radio spectrum.
Back when Google did the whole "we will set the default resolution lower" thing at the beginning of the pandemic, were YouTube users en masse pissed off at the lower quality, or did they even notice? I would argue that most people would not be scrutinizing the video, especially if they were not full screened, at which point the resolution may as well be wasted.
I'm not necessarily defending paywalling the feature, but I do think there is validity into pushing users into a lower qulity funnel for reasons beyond simple greed.
On the other hand, I watch most of the videos I watch in windowed theater mode in 1440p on my 4K screen. I find that 1440p is the best quality that does not cause frequent seeking in the video to lag, and I tend to do this a lot to skip for example, sponsor segments and other "fluff” manually. I'm on fiber internet, so it's probably got something to do with either YouTube or my computer's video decode pipeline
The reply further down was "I'm streaming it from my phone to my TV" which would be a definite use case for wanting 4K on a phone.
It's also how it works with Airplay 2 on iOS now.
There isn't really a use case for wanting a higher resolution to cast it elsewhere.
Why not just put a a full width banner at the top of the website calling anyone with the gall not to pay for premium a second class citizen? They're gonna pitch a shit fit anyway, might as well hasten the process.
> bandwidth
Last time i looked, youtube will give you 4k even at 100kbps.
a-Shell supports Apple Shortcuts, so you could, for example, make a shortcut that runs ‘ yt-dlp -x -f bestaudio -o "% (playlist_index)s - %(title)s.%(ext)s" <PLAYLIST URL>’, which downloads a playlist and maintains the order (e.g 1, 2, 3 and so on).
On a side note, a-Shell can help you get around tethering limits using iOS-SOCKS-Server (3) or an equivalent. On Android, PDANet is great for this, but on iOS it takes a little more work.
1: https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp
YT's censorship of certain political content needs to stop, but they instead remove the "Dislike" counts.
YT's search is broken and everyone knows it, but they instead focus on making it even harder to consume quality content at high-resolution (like this link suggests).
They took a great idea and turned it into a giant cesspool with some gold here and there. No wonder people don't want to go Premium.
But other political content is ok, isn't it ?