Somehow paying for Netflix is fine but god forbid I want to watch a 10 hour loop of the DS9 intro without ads.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    10511 months ago

    I think most people are angry with YouTube premium because it’s a service that doesn’t give you anything. It’s a service where they stop annoying you. But it doesn’t unlock anything new that you didn’t have before, doesn’t give you access to content or data you don’t have access to, it doesn’t improve the service. It just removes the annoyances they put there deliberately. So people are a little angry about it

    It’s a protection racket, for your attention and time.

    • @nnjethro
      link
      English
      52
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It includes youtube music. And creators you watch get more money than if you watched using the ad supported version.

      • @UPGRAYEDD
        link
        English
        27
        edit-2
        11 months ago
        • You also get to play video with a screen off on mobile

        • You also get to download for offline viewing

        • You also support the creators of the videos, not just google.

        • AND FFS YOU DONT GET ADS.

        Using adblock isnt some innate human right. They are well within their rights to block adblock.

        You get almost the whole worlds information for free in video form. You can be entertained or use it as a teaching tool. It is the best place at this point for product demos and reviews. It is a crazy wealth of information and infrastructure that everyone takes advantage of and somehow just expect to be free. If Google cancells it because it is not profitable, i would bet the efficiency of the entire human race takes a significant nose dive. It also probably runs one of the highest sets of data storage and encoding on the planet.

        • @K3zi4
          link
          English
          711 months ago

          Can do all of those things without premium if you have the right apps.

          But besides that, absolutely not. I remember when YouTube was free with no ads, I remember when the adverts first started appearing, and that’s when it became obvious that they were trying to annoy you into a pay model. It took a little longer than expected, but sure enough, they ramped up the ads until “YOUTUBE PREMIUM! PAY FOR NO ADVERTS!”

          Fuck that, I had no adverts before and they took that away. But the worst part is that they harvest my private data and make money from me already. As far as I’m concerned, that’s my subscription to their shit, in their perverse data selling.

          No fucking way I’m going to also pay them for the privilege to have my private data sold.

          • @UPGRAYEDD
            link
            English
            411 months ago

            So… you dont like the service… just dont use it at all anymore. Then they cant track your data as well.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          611 months ago

          You also get videos crammed full with sponsors. One might say that most videos on YouTube are ads themselves. YT Premium does not have Sponsorblock. Alphabet makes money by selling your data and they continue to do so when you pay them. I support a select few creators via Patreon. Fuck Alphabet, they’re not getting a single cent from me.

          • @UPGRAYEDD
            link
            English
            111 months ago

            Oh, ffs. You dont see that the reason you “need” sponsorblock is because we used adblock so much that the only way the creators could make a living was injecting their own adds into their own videos.

            The money youtube makes from selling your data does not cover the cost of running the business.

            What about all the creators of videos you watched that you dont support on patreon? They dont deserve anything for their work?

            • Johanno
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 months ago

              Ok a few points.

              1. Youtube is in their right to show ads and shove them in my face. They can also try to block my adblocker. Their platform their rules.

              2. Youtubers adding sponsors into their Video is because Youtube does not pay them for the ads that are shown, or at least not fairly. Also because people want to earn money with Youtube which is partially a problem in the first place.

              3. Yes youtube is expensive to run and they have been in the minus for years, but just as they make profit they go all the way and force you into Premium! They can try that but it’s in my right to use the Service with adblock and sponsorblock until they go to a subscription only Service.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 months ago

          Using adblock isnt some innate human right. They are well within their rights to block adblock.

          Well, they’re free to try

          • @UPGRAYEDD
            link
            English
            211 months ago

            Revanced pays the content creators and google for your usage?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 months ago

          So, some basic features that you can/used to get by just using a web browser, and soemthing that you can do directly via Patreon.

          Definitely value for money.

          • @UPGRAYEDD
            link
            English
            -211 months ago

            Not all creators have patreon. Also are you using patreon to pay google?

            Seems like premium with extra steps?

          • @SARGEx117
            link
            English
            -16
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            You’re arguing with one of three things.

            A employee of Google, a troll, or a child.

            Mostly I just want to believe that, because I want to believe there aren’t people who blindly shill for a company that neither knows nor cares they exist.

            Wow look at all the blind shills.

            • @UPGRAYEDD
              link
              English
              211 months ago

              Im neither. Im a software developer for a small tech company.

              My reasoning is 100% selfish. I dont want the content creators that i watch to stop creating things i find incredibly valuable. And i dont want google to cancel a service that i find incredibly valuable.

              Dont think that they wont do it. It just has to become unprofitable.

              They have already killed 14 services this year alone. https://killedbygoogle.com/

        • Dale'sDeadBug
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          People are ridiculous sometimes. These companies aren’t going to eat millions of dollars per day in hosting costs to appease the minority who expect everything to just be given to them.

        • AnonStoleMyPants
          link
          fedilink
          English
          011 months ago

          I kinda want Google to just cancel YouTube. Shit would be hilarious. Also sad and we would lose soooooo much information. But still I kinda just want to see what happens. What new players enter the game, will the monopoly be broken? Though I’m sure Microsoft, Amazon, and other big boys would roll their own versions of YouTube and effectively there would not be a difference, just a small amount of fragmentation.

          But still…

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            511 months ago

            According to the Lemmy community the folks over at selfhosting will just spawn an international CDN on their raspberry pis and deliver my 5 hour, 400GiB Starfield all categories speedrun recording for free out of good will. Right?

            • @UPGRAYEDD
              link
              English
              -111 months ago

              The fact the guy above you has been downvoted, and you are upvoted makes me think people dont see this comment is clearly sarcastic.

      • @mihnt
        link
        English
        18
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        deleted by creator

      • @EdibleFriend
        link
        English
        111 months ago

        I thought YouTube music was a separate subscription?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It is not, unless they perhaps have a YT Music-only subscription but I haven’t seen such.

          Edit: It looks like there is a YT Music Only subscription available, for $3/mo cheaper. I’d still say if you use YouTube any more than just on one-off occasions, its still worth picking up regular YT Premium if you’re grabbing the music one anyways, but at least the option is there.

          • @EdibleFriend
            link
            English
            211 months ago

            … I don’t know where I got this idea. And I just got another month of Spotify too. Isn’t there an easy way to transfer your playlists over there?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              411 months ago

              As far as I’m aware, none of the music services really have a direct transfer option available. You pretty much have to use a third party service to do so from what I found the last time I tried to do a major switch.

              Funnily enough, I feel like this is one of those things that are present day “AI” could probably help with, if it were integrated with these services. Realistically you’d just need something to do some OCR of images from your playlists, and match the results - I’m kind of surprised that’s not something Spotify, Google, etc have done yet.

          • WashedOver
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months ago

            There was a YouTube music only tier I was on when I moved from Google Play Music. Eventually I figured out about YouTube Premimum including the music so I changed to that

        • @nnjethro
          link
          English
          111 months ago

          deleted by creator

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The fact that they made it worse so they could lock what we had behind a paywall is what permanently killed YouTube for me. I will bend over backwards to make sure they never receive a penny at this point. They could have added or improved features but they just made everything shitty instead lol screw them.

    • @Delphia
      link
      English
      1911 months ago

      Thats one way to look at it.

      The other way is to compare it to the free netflix tier… which doesnt exist.

      IMO even being pestered to death I’m slightly amazed that its still free at all.

      • NaibofTabr
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2311 months ago

        The problem with this point of view is that Netflix either produces its own content or rents content from other producers. YouTube doesn’t produce its own content and also doesn’t rent content from producers… it only pays them a percentage of ad revenue (to be comparable to Netflix, YouTube would have to pay creators up front regardless of ad revenue they generate). YouTube profits from the content production of its users, and doesn’t actually pay a fair amount for it. For them to charge for access to that content is just… egregious.

        • @Delphia
          link
          English
          12
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          People post their content to YT for 3 primary reasons

          1. Hosting is free. (In which case they are implicitly giving YT permission to profit off them in return for not charging hosting fees.

          2. They want the largest possible potential audience. Which YT spent a mind boggling amount of money and effort to build. (Although I do wish they had some form of legitimate competition, cant argue that point)

          3. They want to make money off the advertising revenue. (Which aside from Floatplane, is next to impossible to do otherwise)

          There is nothing stopping content creators from hosting their own videos on their own servers they pay for but they dont. Because how do you generate the traffic? How do you get clickthroughs? How do you generate income, or just cover expenses?

          YT dont owe you anything for free. Its not egregious, its business.

          • @K3zi4
            link
            English
            011 months ago

            You’re not a musician, are you?

            Because what you just described is just the classic: “Oh, we’re not going to pay you for this gig. You’re getting paid in exposure. Sorry kid, just business.”

            • @Delphia
              link
              English
              10
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              So dont upload your stuff to that platform or make sure you use their platform to make the exposure work for you to generate money. If you can name another service that will put you in front of 122 million daily users and 2.7 BILLION global users I’d love to hear about it.

              Justin Bieber was discovered on YT, Linus Sebastian just rejected a $100,000,000 offer for the media company he built largely on Youtubes back and Mighty Car Mods makes an estimated $46k a month. Youtube is not a public service. If you dont like it, dont use it. If you do use it, make it work for you.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1011 months ago

          While I use piped myself I am k with their business model, its just degrading every year making the experience worse for everyone. YouTube can’t be compared to Netflix if you look at the bandwidth and the amount of users who don’t pay for it. Hosting such a huge video sharing platform for free will never be profitable and the only other way is to make it paid only like Netflix which is obviously not gonna happen. Yeah they have 0 morals, yeah google sucks ass, yeah they treat their users like pigs but wishing it should be completely free with no ads is just wishful thinking.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            411 months ago

            I want to bookmark this comment as my thoughts on this are basically the same but I’m sure I’ll forget it the next time I need to put it into words.

            Also, I don’t think wanting everything to be paid is a good idea in the world we live in, although I can’t think of a world where there’s only a paid option is a good idea. What I mean is that there was a time when I benefitted from the free access to information that the internet provided, now things have evolved to be a bad version of that with widespread misinformation and really egregious ads; but that old internet with ads only there to recoup the hosting costs and people sharing information for the joy of it will always be something I’ll argue for.

            P.S. I am not opposed to a better internet than what we had but for that there are changes needed to the rest of the world that won’t come any time soon, otherwise what we had was the ideal version.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              311 months ago

              I think there always will be free access to information in some form but video hosting specifically is simply too expensive when it grows to the size of YouTube. If you aren’t paying for something and it isn’t run by donations, you’re likely paying it with your personal info or time. I personally wouldn’t mind paying for a service like YouTube but the content I watch are simply nowhere else to find so piped is the closest thing I have now.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                311 months ago

                I pay for YouTube, so you won’t find disagreement from me. Optional paid versions are okay to me, though I do wish ads weren’t just so awful (scams, viruses, etc)

    • HobbitFoot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1611 months ago

      It’s a protection racket, for your attention and time.

      It is, but it is only between the free and paid versions. I can’t expect a service to exist for my use without some form of compensation. I’d rather pay with money than time.

    • aname
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1111 months ago

      it doesn’t improve the service.

      Doesn’t it do exactly that? It removes the ads whoch makes it way better.

      But it doesn’t unlock anything new that you didn’t have before

      It does give you access to higher quality streaming though, offline play, background play, video queue, picture in picture and youtube music premium. Do you even know what you are talking about?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 months ago

      There was some original content, there is offline play, ad removal, however they should allow premium to skip sponsor ads too if you ask me.

      I thought it was a decent deal for $15/mo for family of 3 using it for music and yt. $23 is pushing it.

      • @Delphia
        link
        English
        211 months ago

        I dont agree on the sponsor adds because that money is money the creator gets directly that isnt totally dependent on the policies that YT pushes. If those spots become worth less to the creators because they are skippable then they are more dependent on YT for their revenue.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          While I do get it, they shouldn’t need those sponsors if I’m paying to watch their videos. If YT is injecting ads to pay them.

          It’s two sources of ads for the viewer, who can only pay to remove one of them

          It’s a shitty model for everyone.

          • @Delphia
            link
            English
            111 months ago

            I think the flip side to that is then thats your issue with the creator. Its between you and them wether you’re willing to suffer their product placement.

            If you imbed sponsor spots AND I have premium theres no way on gods green earth I’m buying merch or joining your patreon. Not unless your content is accurate predictions of lottery numbers for subscribers.

    • @grue
      link
      English
      -3
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      And on top of that, Youtube’s annoyances are implemented client-side – in other words, by co-opting your own machine, your property that you own, and turning it against you to serve someone else’s interests.

      Youtube is free to choose not to serve me content in the first place, but once they do and it’s on my machine, it is my property right to control the computation of my machine however I want. I have just as much right to block ads as I do to write in the margins of a paper book I bought.

      Edit: why the downvotes? Do y’all hate property rights or something?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -311 months ago

        Agreed. If you get the data you should be able to interpret it how you like

        I take the same philosophy for radio signals, if the signal’s going through my head physically, I should be able to listen to it

        • @Eylrid
          link
          English
          411 months ago

          That’s why we should have the right to listen to every phone call happening near us

  • @Rooty
    link
    English
    3811 months ago

    Youtube constantly demonitizes content creators, while protecting doxxers and content thieves. I will not be giving them a single red cent.

    • @regbin_
      link
      English
      1211 months ago

      Don’t give them viewership too.

    • @ours
      link
      English
      411 months ago

      You’re giving too much credit, Youtube doesn’t care and is running on AI autopilot. This benefits IP abusers, thieves, and trolls and hurts legitimate creators. But it’s not on purpose, it’s just indifference.

    • @UPGRAYEDD
      link
      English
      411 months ago

      If your reason is only moral, then you should also never use the service.

      • @Rooty
        link
        English
        17
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Moral reasons

        🙄

        A corporation can blatantly violate the law, bribe politicians, ignore its TOS whenever its suits them, but a second somebody wants to use a heavily subsidised service without being assaulted by advertising, a gaggle of concern trolls pop up to lecture about “stealing service”. Buddy, simping for Alphabet will get you nowhere.

        • @Anemia
          link
          English
          -211 months ago

          If you are against them on a moral basis then use another service, I imagine that has a more negative impact on them. If you just want no ads, pay for it.

          I hate ads as much as the next guy and use a variety of blockers but i’ll pay for any service with a reasonable payment method.

          • LaggyKar
            link
            fedilink
            English
            311 months ago

            What other service will let me watch YouTube videos?

            • @Anemia
              link
              English
              011 months ago

              Specifically youtube-videos? None. For similar videos there are a bunch of services, at least to watch for entertainment purpose.

          • @Rooty
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            The price of food items has gone almost 50% up during last year, the wages are not keeping up with inflation, and I already pay for utilities and internet. I ain’t paying shiiiiiiiit.

            • BraveSirZaphod
              link
              fedilink
              211 months ago

              Okay, so this actually has nothing to do with how YouTube “demonitizes content creators, while protecting doxxers and content thieves”. It’s actually just about you not wanting to pay for it.

              Which is fine! But why lie to yourself about it?

              • @Rooty
                link
                English
                211 months ago

                Why not both? I can disdain YouTube for shitting on creators while refusing to pay for subpar service.

                • @Anemia
                  link
                  English
                  011 months ago

                  Wouldn’t it be better then to instead watch those creators on a platform that treats the creators better?

    • @Rakonat
      link
      English
      311 months ago

      This right here. I did youtube premium one time to watch the first season of cobra kai. And then immediately dropped it when that same month 3 content creators I followed all came forward with videos of how they were getting obviously fraudulent copyright strikes, demonetized over things that they didn’t do wrong and youtube just screwing them over cause they could.

      A company that makes billions in profits could easily afford to put better content creator support in place and cover costs or disputes against content creators so none of the people who make their site profitable in the first place ever have to worry if they’ll still be paid for the hours and hours they devote to their channel only for a troll or bad faith actor to make a false claim on their videos and irrevocably remove income.

    • Rolivers
      link
      fedilink
      English
      011 months ago

      You Dutch? Pretty sure red cent is a Dutch saying.

  • @Potfarmer
    link
    English
    3211 months ago

    Paying for premium is fine, but premium users letting Youtube off the hook for their corporate greed is annoying. If YT ran reasonable ads like they used to in the olden days I wouldn’t use an adblocker. Don’t even get me started on their garbage search, a multi billion dollar company can and should do better. Then of course there’s the fiasco of their demonetization system, and rules that apply to some but not others. Simply put they don’t deserve to be paid for premium, if their grinch heart grows and they decide to do better as a company I’d honestly pay for premium.

    • ANGRY_MAPLE
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1311 months ago

      Tbh, I almost caved and got premium, but I have a lot of the same issues with Youtube that you have.

      A big YouTuber was doxxed recently by another big YouTuber, and Youtube did nothing about it. If I was him, I would be going to court.

      • @Sigh_Bafanada
        link
        English
        511 months ago

        YouTube is trash, and if a viable alternative were to exist then I would switch in a heartbeat.

        But I’m all about convenience, so until that alternative exists, if I have to give some money to YouTube to have that convenience, I’ll do it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      411 months ago

      While the monopoly that YT has as a video platform is definitely an issue, the cost of maintaining the content has definitely risen now. 480p vs 4k videos have a ton of difference in bandwidth, no matter how much Internet speeds have evolved over the years.

      I used Google Play Music (RIP) and moved into YT Music for my music streaming needs. The cost of YT premium was marginally higher so I switched for it.

      The major issue with YT Premium is that they still collect the data from YT to show targeted ads, but I use also use uBlock, so that doesn’t really bother me as much.

      Point is, video hosting services are expensive. The quantity (not quality) of content on YT is way higher than any othet streaming service, and maintaining that for free is pretty close to impossible. The only possible alternative would be a government backed video platform and that’s definitely worse.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -7
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Us premium users have no obligation to help non premiums.

      At the end of the day Youtube or Google offer no ads experience for us and we get it. Transaction is completed.

  • teft
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2711 months ago

    Meanwhile I’m over here like:

  • @LesserAbe
    link
    English
    2611 months ago

    I’ll pay to not be exposed to ads. I’ll also pay to support a service I get value from. So I’m paying for YouTube premium, Netflix, Hulu. etc. When a service with media I want that has a more desirable corporate structure becomes available I’ll pay for that and maybe get rid of other services. I also occasionally sail the high seas if the thing I want isn’t available on any of the services I’m already paying for.

  • AphoticDev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2311 months ago

    And here I am, getting the same thing and paying nothing because I’ve got uBlock Origin.

    • Maven (famous)
      link
      English
      1011 months ago

      This works fine but the main reason I personally have premium is to support the YouTubers I watch. Adblock gets rid of their revenue while premium pays them MORE than just ads do and now I don’t have to worry about it on any platform.

      • AphoticDev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        811 months ago

        Premium still gives them hardly anything. Subscribing to their Patreon is better because they get all your money, minus the small fee.

        • Maven (famous)
          link
          English
          1011 months ago

          True but I can afford premium. I can’t afford every single persons patreon.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          011 months ago

          It gives them a loot more than ad watchers though. Especially on longer videos (it’s based on watch time)

    • @pissclumps
      link
      English
      911 months ago

      How do you run that on a smart tv?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        811 months ago

        Seriously, this is why I eventually got it. Plus my android vanced stopped working and I didn’t know there was a way to fix it

      • AphoticDev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        Smart tube, or I’ve been told a pi hole works as well. I haven’t bothered with that though, because I don’t like watching YT on TV myself. Out of the two, the pi hole is probably the better option since it works with all your devices.

    • Paul_Stuhl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      I also have No ads, because I use NewPipe. There I can watch all Videos from YouTube, cccBerlin, pearTube and it is also possible to Listen to Music from Bandcamp and Soundcloud.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Unless you’re on an iPhone, setting up Revanced takes less than 10 minutes and very rarely breaks anything. If you want to support your YouTube creators, then sure pay for premium, but it baffles me how someone could have the technical prowess to set up a Lemmy account, but then balk at something like this. If anything, mobile might be one of the last frontiers now that they’re starting a war against adblock.

      • Skull giver
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        [This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 months ago

          I use adblock on Firefox on my phone. Used to be fun to jailbreak and install my own apps and stuff, just getting lazier as I age I think

    • Subverb
      link
      English
      14
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Trigger warning:

      I have an HP inkjet printer attached to my Windows 11 machine playing YouTube Premium in Chrome without an ad blocker.

      Edit: it’s a joke, people.

      • @Eylrid
        link
        English
        511 months ago

        How else are you supposed to print out your favorite videos?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        611 months ago

        Eh, HP has always worked fine for us. I have two sitting here, actually - one is an all-in-one from ~2009 that we printed our wedding programs on when it was new, and it still works fine, but ink is getting harder to find for it, and we had a scare with the irreplaceable print head a few years ago (I got it working, using HP’s “try this if you’re out of options, but it’s unlikely to work” directions, but we realized it was probably time to consider replacing it).

        The other is a few years old and is one of the ones with the subscription service. We’ve had a good experience with it, and I spend less on ink than I did with the old one, but that upsets a LOT of people.

          • Aa!
            link
            English
            311 months ago

            For what it’s worth, all of HP’s business hardware is very good, whether it’s printers or PC systems. It’s just the cheap consumer-oriented products that suck.

            Same thing with Dell

        • Skull giver
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          [This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months ago

            First, it’s nice to get a reasonable response to my comment. Most of the responses about HP printers are people foaming at the mouth. Even a few here, in a thread meant to be funny, generated some of that.

            Yeah, I might go with a laser next time. I’ve read that Brother makes a pretty good laser printer, and I see color models are like $250, which isn’t bad. We’ll see. No major rush right now. I would miss the flatbed scanner; I do use that (maybe as much as the printer) for random things.

            Oh…haha…I just went to Brother’s site to look at one, and oh look, there’s a toner subscription service!

            • Skull giver
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              [This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

    • Blackout
      link
      fedilink
      411 months ago

      No way, Only Brushes and paint for me. Of course I steal it cause why should I pay for it?

    • @[email protected]
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 months ago

      Using an HP printer is like playing Russian Roulette with a ton of loaded bullets. I say this as someone with multiple HP printers.

  • Jo Miran
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1711 months ago

    I subscribe to YouTube Music and have since the Play days (R.I.P.). Watching videos without ads is just a perk.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      411 months ago

      This is basically my stance. Its also one of a very few subs I use, I don’t really care to watch streaming services or to pay for the slightly (maybe?) better other music streaming services.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      I still have Premium but could never accept YT music as a former Play user. Why did they end the best music streaming service for this unusable trash?

      Spotify is still worse than Play was, but at least it’s good at recommending music. YT music is worse in every regard. Except for smart watch integration maybe.

      • Jo Miran
        link
        fedilink
        English
        011 months ago

        Play was the best, especially in the early days with the professionally curated (by humans) play lists. I discovered so much new music. AI generated playlists are terrible.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1611 months ago

    I just find the cost of Premium to be too high.

    Here in Sweden it costs about 120SEK/month, that is far too much, I’d happily pay 60-70SEK/month, that would be worth it to me.

    And would still give rhem more money than me not watching ads

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      611 months ago

      They really do fuck us in the Nordics. It’s DKK179 (SEK281, USD26) for the family plan here in Denmark. Granted that’s the whole family getting YouTube Premium and Music, but that’s also I think the highest price anywhere in the world.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      411 months ago

      Only service where I’ve done the region thing. Paying 15 kr a month because I signed up through Argentina.

    • @WhiteHawk
      link
      English
      411 months ago

      The price is insane just for getting rid of ads. Amazon Prime is cheaper than that and gives you a ton of benefits.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        Eh, I watch a lot of youtube to and from the office, for me 60SEK/month would be worth it

        • @WhiteHawk
          link
          English
          011 months ago

          Yeah, I’d also be fine paying half the price they charge right now

  • Osa-Eris-Xero512
    link
    fedilink
    1411 months ago

    I pay for it so my kids’ accounts don’t have ads. They’re too young to sort out all the edge cases that aggressive ad blocking generates and for a bonus we get youtube music.

  • @ranoss
    link
    English
    1211 months ago

    I think I’m more ok with people playing for YouTube premium. It still helps the creators on YouTube more directly than Netflix

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -111 months ago

      except it helps scammers and content thieves more than it helps actual legitimate creators…

  • Teritz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1111 months ago

    Youtube does not offer Content instead they offer space to publish Videos and have Youtube Music.

    The Price they are deamding is too high as if they Produce own Content and Music.

    Youtube Premium would only be viable for me if i can be anonymous to buy it and removes age restriction,perma bann for YT Shorts the worst they done.

    I cannot give a Company money that it this rotten.

    Monopoly of YT is just sad.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      Back when it was still called YouTube Red, they actually used to create exclusive content (or at least fund the creator). It was a selling point at the time. Now they just increase the number of ads to make not paying for it hurt more…

      • Queen HawlSera
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        Oh yeah didn’t they have a conclusion movie for Smosh about Anthony dying and becoming Ian’s ghost roommate?

    • Queen HawlSera
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      Someone needs to find a way to make it cheaper to host videos on a server, because the second you do that second a viable YouTube alternative can show up

  • The Barto
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1011 months ago

    I believe it’s someone else’s hard earned money, if they want to throw money to have what is objectively a better viewing experience, then it’s not my problem.

    • @UPGRAYEDD
      link
      English
      -411 months ago

      Im confused. Whos the somone elses hard earned money? And who is the they?

    • Blackout
      link
      fedilink
      211 months ago

      I’m constantly in bob eisner’s trash, he throws away a lot of profitable things. Got a crate of self-sealing stem bolts the other day. Just need to find a buyer.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        No, it is a scumbag move tho to complain a out people who pay for premium.

        Freebies cannot bitch