undefined | Better HN

0 pointsunshavedyak2y ago0 comments

I'd buy it, but $14/m is way too much for no ads imo. Especially since this is a "free" service where the justification for me paying X$/m is because i have to offset the ads i would have otherwise watched.

You're (Youtube, not OP hah) telling me i provided $14/m in ad revenue? Of course not.

I'd insta-buy if i could just pay to skip any ads i actually would have watched. Give me a stat showing me how many ads i missed, and how much i owe. Justify the cost you're forcing on me.

Instead i'll just drop youtube and give money to some other service that doesn't feel like it's focused on gaming me.

0 comments

lexh2y ago

> You're telling me i provided $14/m in ad revenue? Of course not.

Do you really think Google just set the price arbitrarily? That would be surprising.

My impression has always been that ad free tiers are actually less profitable for video providers.

mcpackieh2y ago

> Do you really think Google just set the price arbitrarily?

No, not arbitrarily. But that $14/mo bundles in the price of other services as well, namely Youtube Music. Youtube Music doesn't cost Google nothing, so obviously $14/mo isn't what they're getting from people in ad revenue. A comparable music subscription from spotify costs $11/mo, so subtract that from $14/mo. $3/mo is a fair estimate for what they expect to get for showing ads.

unshavedyakOP2y ago

> My impression has always been that ad free tiers are actually less profitable for video providers.

I'd be interested to see those numbers. More importantly though, i don't want to pay more than my share if we're actually talking a fair trade of services here. If the justification is cost of video hosting vs ads i'd see, then it should be variable.

Also, it's including a service i have zero interest in. So upcharging alone is insulting.

Thorrez2y ago

>I'd insta-buy if i could just pay to skip any ads i actually would have watched.

Google actually had a system like that in the past, but it wasn't for Youtube, it was for other ads around the web. I used it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor

Disclosure: I work at Google, but not speaking authoritatively.

huytersd2y ago

What kind of asinine pricing plan are you proposing. Just pay the $14 or don’t. Your proposition would be a development nightmare with its complexity.

unshavedyakOP2y ago

Yea, my issue is that it's bundled with other service(s) i don't use. This fight is about ads, so i'm replying in-kind.

paulcole2y ago

> Instead i'll just drop youtube

I’d pay $100 if there was some way to legitimately verify this because it’s nonsense IMO.

How is getting you to pay a reasonable subscription or watch ads in exchange for videos you ostensibly enjoy “gaming you”?

hkt2y ago

The data of rich profiles is enormously valuable to Google. They allow Google unparalleled ability to target ads elsewhere, too. That's the game.

paulcole2y ago

OK, but they make YouTube. They make the rules of the game. Pay for it with $$$ or by watching Ads, don’t watch YouTube, or pretend there’s some kind of morality in stealing it.

3 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsunshavedyak2y ago0 comments

You're (Youtube, not OP hah) telling me i provided $14/m in ad revenue? Of course not.

I'd insta-buy if i could just pay to skip any ads i actually would have watched. Give me a stat showing me how many ads i missed, and how much i owe. Justify the cost you're forcing on me.

Instead i'll just drop youtube and give money to some other service that doesn't feel like it's focused on gaming me.

0 comments

lexh2y ago

> You're telling me i provided $14/m in ad revenue? Of course not.

Do you really think Google just set the price arbitrarily? That would be surprising.

My impression has always been that ad free tiers are actually less profitable for video providers.

mcpackieh2y ago

> Do you really think Google just set the price arbitrarily?

unshavedyakOP2y ago

> My impression has always been that ad free tiers are actually less profitable for video providers.

Also, it's including a service i have zero interest in. So upcharging alone is insulting.

Thorrez2y ago

>I'd insta-buy if i could just pay to skip any ads i actually would have watched.

Google actually had a system like that in the past, but it wasn't for Youtube, it was for other ads around the web. I used it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor

Disclosure: I work at Google, but not speaking authoritatively.

huytersd2y ago

What kind of asinine pricing plan are you proposing. Just pay the $14 or don’t. Your proposition would be a development nightmare with its complexity.

unshavedyakOP2y ago

Yea, my issue is that it's bundled with other service(s) i don't use. This fight is about ads, so i'm replying in-kind.

paulcole2y ago

> Instead i'll just drop youtube

I’d pay $100 if there was some way to legitimately verify this because it’s nonsense IMO.

How is getting you to pay a reasonable subscription or watch ads in exchange for videos you ostensibly enjoy “gaming you”?

hkt2y ago

The data of rich profiles is enormously valuable to Google. They allow Google unparalleled ability to target ads elsewhere, too. That's the game.

paulcole2y ago

OK, but they make YouTube. They make the rules of the game. Pay for it with $$$ or by watching Ads, don’t watch YouTube, or pretend there’s some kind of morality in stealing it.

3 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse