Hacker News Reader

I’m with you. I get a lot of value out of YouTube, mostly consume though the TV app. I pay for YouTube premium.

What is really annoying is the mobile app. The mobile app is constantly pushing shorts on me, I have no interest, that’s not why I use YouTube and if I only used the mobile app I don’t think I’d pay and instead use YouTube less. The mobile app Home Screen is junk content for me now where as the TV app brings relevant longer content…although they are sneaking in one or two shorts.

I installed Firefox on my phone originally just to get away from the awful Android YT UI.

> I don't get why people have no problem paying for Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc but are so stubborn about YouTube in particular, when myself and I know many others watch more YouTube than any streaming service.

I never used any of these platforms, but I can guess the reason: these platforms were always paid, which sets the expectation that one has to pay to get access to them. YouTube, on the other hand, has for a very long time been available as non-paid (and even logging in is optional, with rare exceptions). Furthermore, YouTube has for a very long time worked even when the user has an ad blocker installed and enabled (few people customize their ad blocker; if they installed it because they were annoyed with DoubleClick animated ads, or with DoubleClick tracking their every move across the whole web, they won't care what else the default lists of their ad blocker blocks). People are used to viewing YouTube without having to pay, and if they use ad blockers, without ads (and people who are not used to viewing ads are going to be more annoyed at excessive ads then people who are already used to watching some ads). It's natural to feel some anger at the other party altering the deal, and having to pray they don't alter it any further.

And beyond that, it has always been socially acceptable to ignore and/or reject ads; I might be showing my age with these examples, but things like going to the bathroom during the ads, muting the audio, pausing the recording during an ad break (or fast-forwarding through them during playback), and so on, were always acceptable, and nobody would scream that you MUST watch the ads or you're stealing from the TV station. Why should YouTube be any different (and it even has "Tube" in its name to make the analogy stronger)?

Netflix invests in content creation, as do other streaming platforms. YouTube piggybacks it's business on amateurs, largely paying them with "exposure" and some fractions of a cent per view.

Good, reliable video streaming is not cheap nor easy. I think they're providing a very valuable resource to creators.

Even with YouTube Premium, many YouTube videos contain sponsorship messages within the video. I know they're there for reasons, but having two types of advertising does make YouTube different than Netflix, Hulu, Disney+ etc.

YouTube isn't paying for server costs with the $0 they make on ad reads that go from the sponsor directly to the creator.

You can just tap right on your keyboard a few times to get past those anyway.

Netflix definitely has some "placed" products in some movies.

One of the episodes of Stranger Things took like a one-minute break to do a soda ad. Probably the most jarring and disruptive “produce placement” (but really, it was more of an embedded ad) that I’ve seen.

I’ve never seen Olivia Coleman turn round and say “what an amazing nights sleep with my foobar mattress, use code HRH for 3 months free subscription”.

I don't know who Olivia Coleman is, but I've seen stuff this blatant on Netflix. There was a reality show where they go looking for antiques and hidden gems in old barns. But on the way, they got real hungry and had to stop for a delicious SubWay™ sandwich, featuring this limited time promotional menu item that's amazingly tasty and filling.

I don't want YouTube, I want the content. YouTube has the content it has because it's public.

Netflix et al are simple models: they pay upstream providers like Hollywood studios for works and they charge viewers to access them. It is a private space; it's like showing a film in a cinema. They get to charge access, but they also have to pay for the films.

YouTube doesn't pay upstream providers anything, nor do they produce anything (of worth) themselves. They get their content for free because they are a public space. It's like a town square: they get performances for free, but they don't get to charge access.

Except they do want to charge access. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm not a compulsive viewer. It's simply not worth it to me to pay a subscription fee for something I use sporadically. That's why I don't pay for Netflix etc. or any other subscription I don't get value from.

A pay by usage model I would be more likely to get behind. In fact, I already do pay some uploaders via Patreon. But I would also expect to be able to download the videos and play them on repeat without incurring extra costs (after all, it's a waste of bandwidth to watch stuff on repeat and I have my own storage space). This way I could also be sure my payment is going towards worthwhile contributions and not the brain rotting garbage they seem to want me to watch.

Yeah I think youtube is well worth paying for. That said, there are other websites that immediately throw up anti-adblock gates asking for money before I've even read the site at all. I just instantly leave those sites.

No, I will not endure ads to "sample" your site. If you want to charge for it then great, I applaud you, but you need a way to let have a trial or some way to know if they want to sign up to pay, and also set the price right. Your little niche website is not the same value as youtube or netflix.