Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw_nbvc1234 | Hacker News Reader

You're not just paying Youtube/Google for the ad, you're paying the content creators as well. You can always buy the music directly from artists if you don't like Spotify's revenue model. Or ditch Spotify and use the free Youtube Music subscription you get with premium, maybe combined it'd be worth the $14 to you.

View on HN

> You're not just paying Youtube/Google for the ad, you're paying the content creators as well.

That would only be true if Youtube proportionally split my subscription to the videos i watch.

If anything, i'm advocating for exactly what you said - more than Youtube is. Ie show me how much i owe, and then whatever money i give youtube goes to content creators and the service provider. It's proportional to the service i consume, and is ultimately fair.

Instead what we get is something (in my view) massively upcharged. Bundled with service(s) i don't use, and set at a price point that i suspect well exceeds my usage of the service.

Youtube music is actually pretty remarkable. I'm a jazz musician. One of the remarkable features of YouTube is that if you're looking for a particular recording of a jazz tune (e.g. Lou Donaldson's The Masquerade Is Over, on the Blues Walk album, 1953), it's just there. The depth of the collection is quite amazing.

And as an added bonus, if you subscribe you get no ads on youtube! :-P

If YT music is so great they could make it optional instead of making me pay for a second music streaming service that I don’t want or need.

I hope they get a big fat EU fine for (illegal here) joint sales.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com