• @neatchee
      link
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The hell are you talking about? Premium is $13.99/mo, removed all ads, includes YouTube Music with all it’s licensed music, among other things. What exactly does your math represent? The amount of hours you’d need to watch to generate revenue equal to the cost of the service? That’s a ridiculous thing to base your calculation on. If you think watching ads is such a better value than Premium then watch the damn ads?

      Like, this is basic supply and demand economics. They know that there is less tolerance for ads in terms of exchange of value so the “cost of the service” when payment is in ad viewing time is less than the upfront cost if you get premium. That is really simple economics.

        • @neatchee
          link
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You are describing supply and demand. Not much more to it than that. Demand for ad free services is greater than demand from advertisers. What’s your point?

          You’re free to be indignant about the ad industry and other people’s willingness to pay for services at this or that price point but at least call a spade a spade.

          I have premium for YouTube Music, and because they have certain music I can’t get elsewhere, so I get a better YouTube experience and a music streaming service for about the same price I’d pay for just Spotify. I’m satisfied with my purchase and the value I get from it.

            • @neatchee
              link
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Except American medication prices a) aren’t supply and demand; they involve manufactured scarcity among other serious problems and b) are a matter of life and death in many cases; they deal with necessities

              There are many things that should not be capitalist: education, healthcare, prisons, to name just a few

              The pricing of funny Internet videos et al is not one of those things, and it’s frankly inappropriate to make that comparison here. You think the ethics of lifesaving medication and YouTube videos are comparable? Gimme a break

                • @neatchee
                  link
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  There is a difference between monopolies and anti-trust. It is not, nor should it be, illegal to be the only serious contender in a given category.

                  If I make widgets for arcade machines so well that I drive all the other arcade machine widget makers out of business, that’s normal commerce.

                  Antitrust is when I gain and maintain that advantage through specific practices detailed in the legal code

                  Monopolies are only broken up when it is of grave public interest to do so. There are industries I believe have monopoly/duopoly problems and should be broken up. “Hosting videos on the Internet” is not one of them.

                  Again, trying to say “pharmaceuticals shouldn’t be an oligarchy/monopoly, which is proof that nothing should be” is not good logic

                  You should look into the history and breakup of the Bell telephone company for context on when a monopoly is broken up and why

                  How are you defining “should be” anyway? Your personal opinion? What profit margins should be considered okay and for which products or services?

                  You need to pick which things are important enough to forcibly break up, and everything after that is fair game, regardless of what you think is healthy for the market. Otherwise you’re just talking about “I don’t like the leadership of that company, they’re bad people” at which point your problem is about, like, specific people’s ethics.

                  I hate that those people succeed, and there are things I think we can do to mitigate those problems, but “Google bad, don’t let them secure their products or help others secure theirs” ain’t it homie

    • Dark Arc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s a fact that YouTube pays out more to creators per view for a subscriber than for an ad user, and in the words of LinusTechTips (despite the current backlash he had literally no reason to lie), it’s “a lot more.”

      It may actually be the case that it’s a pool of money that’s distributed based on what parts of the YouTube service you use. So if you watch 100% Mr. Beast, 55% of your subscription goes to Mr. Beast… I really don’t know how that works, it’s not to my knowledge clearly explained.

      If you don’t believe Mr. Beast deserves 7.7/mo or so, then you’re welcome to use ads or see if Mr. Beast will upload his content somewhere else.

      The fact of the matter is though, it really isn’t a scam for creators where YouTube just milks them for profits in an unfair exchange. They get an entire professionally hosted platform for free the entire time they grow, they get their old videos hosted indefinitely, and they pay nothing for that service. They could quit tomorrow, start losing YouTube money on heaps of 4k video, and be on the hook $0.