I get ads in my youtube premium music. The support just said "yes".
I now pay for spotify so I don't get ads in music and still youtube premium for no ads in youtube documentaries. The second I start seeing regular ads I'll drop dropping them as fast as I can clickety click.
In a fury, I also managed to cancel all of our work google accounts. Only a few hundred but if enough do maybe someone at google might look up from their leetcode puzzle and listen to a customer.
Why so? You don't see ads in Google's enterprise products. The GP cancelled their business subscription because of an issue with their personal account. Also it's a very good product and the competition is Microsoft, which is not much better.
Spotify is actively trying to enshittify the podcast ecosystem, so you’ve jumped from one bad actor to another.
I’ve found that Apple Music and Tidal are both superior to it anyway (and you can automatically move your library between those three services, and more).
I prefer Tidal because the recommendations are ridiculously good for niche genres. I think they take things like producers, labels, etc into account.
You’ll have fun with the occasional „recommendation“ pop-ups Spotify shows to paying subscribers. Did you know you can pay them to rank higher in the algorithm and that a lot of the big playlists do the same?
Doesn't seem like anyone here is talking about exactly what ads these are, but as far as I can tell, these are banner ads for YouTube TV's NFL Sunday Ticket that show up on the home page when you are browsing for videos. To me, this is about as annoying as a recommendation I don't want, and I get plenty of those, especially for news content when something happens.
The headline (YouTube Premium Showing Ads) makes it sound like if you pay for YouTube Premium you are now getting ads in videos just like normal YouTube, but maybe a little less, but this does not seem to be the case.
it might be, but certainly sounds like a bit of history repeating.
i would say it is pretty dicey in that https://www.youtube.com/premium has "ad-free" in various places but then also has varying almost-definitions of it. I would not be surprised if the TOS has an ever-changing definition of what "ad-free" means, subject to change whenever the provider wants
I don't get the logic of showing ads here. Premium users are paying $14/mo, surely that should completely dwarf the fractions of a cent Google would earn by displaying an ad. Is this just a simple bug? Or are advertisers now paying orders of magnitude more in order to reach people who have enough disposable income to afford a $14/mo subscription? Or is Google that desparate and they see this as a way to earn slightly more than $14/mo from that user?
Everything eventually ends up as paying + ads. Cable TV started out justifying the $35/mo fee 2 ways: better picture quality and no ads (only local channels had ads). Now you pay for channels, bundles, and you get ads. The Internet is and will be exactly the same.
That's a way to either get me to cancel my paying subscription or opt-out of all form of ad personalization out of frustration. I respect the hussle and am paying you; respect my user experience.
I've been paying for Premium for a while, but I was behind a VPN when I signed up and apparently they charge you the rate for the country that your IP address resolves to instead of the country your account is actually associated with for some reason. I got an email just a couple days ago though saying that they're canceling my account since my payment method isn't also issued from that country (why they couldn't detect that when I first signed up is anyone's guess). I probably won't bother re-subscribing though. I've started self-hosting an Invidious instance instead, which not only strips Google's ads, but also has the Playlet app on my Rokus, which supports SponsorBlock to auto-skip sponsored ad reads in the videos themselves.
This is not likely to be a popular take but I think that YouTube premium should not only block banner ads, but also block in-video ads the way that sponsorblock does.
SponsorBlock is very configurable so that you can block only the kinds of native ads you want, while letting others play normally or only skipping them manually instead of automatically.
It's sad, but I don't see a future where Google doesn't close that loophole eventually. And probably sooner rather than later. Either by slipstreaming the ads into the content stream itself (most likely) or breaking support for Firefox (less likely, but perfectly doable with the abysmal market share it has these days).
But I think it’s an empty threat. Google cannot really do anything with it without hurting itself. It will lose all arms races because anti-ads anti-drm community incentives are high and will remain so. “Annoying the whole humanity even more” isn’t an easy business model.
slipstreaming the ads into the content stream itself
All that energy only for a user to see a black rectangle rendered over a video by sponsorblock.
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if Google is so disorganized they are unable to close these loopholes. Any of the things you suggested could’ve already been done long ago, but haven’t
More popular the service is more difficult to make breaking changes . YouTube has a wide install base on variety of hardware like older TVs, most of it with no path for upgrades .
That means it will take many years if a not decade or more for YouTube to implement new protocols and drop old ones without it causing problems to significant user base .
If the user base that hacks around ads is < user base that will loose access by implementing something like above , economically it makes sense not to do so.
I think it's more like being annoyed at OTA television programs which are interrupted by ads put there by the broadcasters, because none of the funding comes from viewers/subscribers, it's all from ads
...so people who don't want ads are marketed to by cable TV companies, and invited to pay a subscription for TV with no ads, because _all_ the program's funding comes from subscribers
...and then either the cable TV people get greedy and start adding ads to programs already 100% funded by subscribers
...or the program makers get greedy and cut product-placement deals to get extra money on top of their 100% funding from subscribers
In either of these situations, subscribers can rightly ask: why the fuck did I agree to fund these people? They promised me no ads if I pay, and they've added ads.
The answer is: don't pay, make them lose revenue, and either they will respect the promises they made to subscribers, or they will abandon it completely and go back to free-to-air with ads, or they'll go bankrupt (or they'll keep conning people, and some portion of suckers will always fall for the "no ads! oh hey, i started adding ads to your no ads subscription, hope you like it! ka-ching!" approach, and they'll get by on duplicity)
Yes! When you watch a YouTube video, a part of your subscription directly goes to the YouTube creator, so you are actually paying for this content.
If you are using an adblocker or just watching for free, fair-enough, the ad can be baked-in into the stream, but when you just bought a movie and in the middle of the movie there is an ad, this is infuriating.
Not really? As the watcher I don't really care whether 2 minutes into the video it gets interrupted for 30s to tell me about square space or the video keeps playing and the host is telling me about square space for 30s. The only difference is who is doing the taking. If I'm paying for the ad-free experience I want an ad-free experience
My hypothetical ebay guy says the exact same thing. "If I'm paying for the ad-free experience I want an ad-free experience." Why is he being unreasonable and you're not?
Because eBay doesn't sell an ad-free premium version that removes ads but then still shows me sponsored ads as soon as I click on a listing or a seller's page. Neither does eBay intercept packages after you've made a purchase to drop their own ad flyers inside, or offer a premium tier that does prevent them from inserting an "eBay recommends square space for all your website building needs" flyer, but you end up with a "monkeybusiness78 recommends square space..." flyer in your package anyway
While #1 is definitely pedantic, YouTube has added a 'Jump Ahead' button that allows you to skip content that a majority of users have skipped. This usually lines up with sponsor segments.
To solve #1, you could use the Sponsorblock extension; it still works with YT premium. I don't since sponsor segments are skippable and I make a little game about guessing the exact amount of time to skip forward. Some creators are even kind enough to put timecodes there (but that feels like cheating).
I don't mind sponsor segments. Multiple unskippable ads in a row that have nothing to do with the topic are infuriating.
Youtube Win application with adblocking and sponsored content skip implemented + many other twraks like disabling recommended videos, autoplay or show dislikes. No need for google account, you can still subscribe.
It’s just too tantalizing. If you have the disposable income to pay for ad-free, advertisers want you more. AND the field is not crowded. They’re willing to shell out big time to reach you.
Was this an ad that showed up during the playback of another video, or was it an ad that showed up as a video on the home page or on the suggestions for some other video?
(I've never used YouTube Premium so I'm just assuming that it has a similar home page and suggestion format).
I noticed the other day when watching local fire coverage the live stream kept showing the ad overlay, but didn't show any ad. I wonder if my adblocker was blocking it but they were still trying to show? Either way not cool.
It's really funny how they basically advertised YouTube music to a customer emailing them with a frustration about being advertised to when they shouldn't.
To get ads after paying subscription is simply nonsense, but people are beaten into submission to simply pay the tax, get less, all with a shrug like good cattle led to slaughter.
I used to use adblock, sponsorblock, others, but still the youtube random garbage and ads for asian/russian brides and latest disposable Chinese garbage resellers. Finally the US election nonsense got me to switch to using Freetube for any youtubing. I'm far less annoyed by it now, less doom-scrolling, I forget it's youtube all together without everything I hated about it. All content, no filler.
Do yourself a favor and set up Freetube, stop paying for (or just watching even) commercials.
I’ve noticed Disney+ showing “ads” as well despite being on the Disney+ and Hulu (No Ads) bundle. They claim it’s “promotional content” not ads, and they are all Disney related. Regardless it feels scummy.
It will be much worse than cable. Since the first DVR came out in 1999 you haven't had to watch a commercial on cable if you didn't want to. Streaming brought us unskippable ads and surveillance.
But it's not like there was an ad-powered version of cable that you paid to get out of. The entire point of premium is to not see ads, why would anyone still pay for premium if it had ads?
Or is it like the free users see 40min/hour ads and the premium users see 20min/hour? But then why wouldn't they just let me pay extra to see 0min/hour? Like that's what Prime Video did. It ended up just being a price increase in their case.
> the most valuable customers are those that will pay not to see ads
Yes like me, but the point is, I would always be willing to pay them more not to see ads than they would've ever made from me watching the ads in the first place.
> But it's not like there was an ad-powered version of cable that you paid to get out of. The entire point of premium is to not see ads, why would anyone still pay for premium if it had ads?
that was the point of cable.
Regular TV over the airwaves was "free", supported by the ads, but you could pay cable providers for their "premium" channels that had no advertising.
Until they did. Just a few at first, but it went on from there, as these things always do.
edit: I didn't even notice the second part of your message:
> I would always be willing to pay them more not to see ads than they would've ever made from me watching the ads in the first place.
This plus infinite gullibility is the only reason why they have a business model. They will keep making it worse and worse and still raising the price forever, and it's only because people keep handing them more money whenever they ask.
I thought you paid for the premium content, like there wasn't a free ad-powered version of HBO I thought?
> This plus infinite gullibility is the only reason why they have a business model. They will keep making it worse and worse and still raising the price forever, and it's only because people keep handing them more money whenever they ask.
That's a separate argument, the assumption was that they will no longer give you that option, to pay for ad-free YouTube and I still don't see that happening.
But also yes obviously, eventually everyone who is willing to pay for premium is paying but they still have to make more profit so they going to raise prices indefinitely. Duh.
My kids generally watch stuff on my Plex server, but occasionally we have to go over to Hulu or Amazon for something new/something I haven’t yet acquired. It makes me so proud how angry they get when they see an ad lol
When we took my 3 year old on her first vacation and stayed in a hotel, she would have a meltdown every time there was a commercial. Her mind could not comprehend because she had literally never had any content interrupted before. I wish I would’ve recorded it.
Anyway, we now have a fire stick that lives in our luggage.
Ha ha, same here. The only ads my daughters ever saw on TV growing up were the ones between PBS shows. Staying in hotels was a real eye-opener for them.
Of course now that they are adults I get the blame for their having missed out the cultural touchstone that was apparently Sponge Bob Squarepants.
I love that story. I have a similar or related one: When I was driving with my nephew's a song came on the radio that they liked, we left the car and when we came back they were annoyed why the song didn't resume playing. Broadcast media is as good as dead.
Cute but by that logic the implication is that you're entitled to everything for free. While Youtube might not be one of them, there are things in this world that are worth financially supporting so that they can continue to produce content. (Like the Economist for example)
I get ads in my youtube premium music. The support just said "yes".
I now pay for spotify so I don't get ads in music and still youtube premium for no ads in youtube documentaries. The second I start seeing regular ads I'll drop dropping them as fast as I can clickety click.
In a fury, I also managed to cancel all of our work google accounts. Only a few hundred but if enough do maybe someone at google might look up from their leetcode puzzle and listen to a customer.
There’s no chance anyone at google will ever listen to a customer.
Their end users aren't the customer. Of course they won't listen to them.
Their customers are the ones that pay for ads and buys end user data.
They're not the customer they're the product, their customer is clients who purchase advertisement space.
> They're not the customer they're the product
If you are a free Gmail/YouTube/etc user, sure. But a company who pays for a couple hundred Google Mail users is definitely a customer:
> I also managed to cancel all of our work google accounts.
> But a company who pays for a couple hundred Google Mail users is definitely a customer:
I see your point
But I think it should say: "But a company who pays for a couple hundred Google Mail users is a sucker"
Why so? You don't see ads in Google's enterprise products. The GP cancelled their business subscription because of an issue with their personal account. Also it's a very good product and the competition is Microsoft, which is not much better.
As a paying YouTube Premium subscriber, they damn well better consider me a customer.
You are a customer who bought then advertising space to keep it blank.
Spotify is actively trying to enshittify the podcast ecosystem, so you’ve jumped from one bad actor to another.
I’ve found that Apple Music and Tidal are both superior to it anyway (and you can automatically move your library between those three services, and more).
I prefer Tidal because the recommendations are ridiculously good for niche genres. I think they take things like producers, labels, etc into account.
You’ll have fun with the occasional „recommendation“ pop-ups Spotify shows to paying subscribers. Did you know you can pay them to rank higher in the algorithm and that a lot of the big playlists do the same?
Luckily, I don't really find a lot of the recommendations bad. Maybe it's my bad taste in music.
> Did you know you can pay them to rank higher in the algorithm
I can't find this info on Spotify for Artists, care to share where exactly they offer this service?
I get ads on Premium Spotify while listening to Joe Rogan. Serves me right, I guess.
There were always ads on podcasts, Spotify Premium never promised no ads for podcasts.
Doesn't seem like anyone here is talking about exactly what ads these are, but as far as I can tell, these are banner ads for YouTube TV's NFL Sunday Ticket that show up on the home page when you are browsing for videos. To me, this is about as annoying as a recommendation I don't want, and I get plenty of those, especially for news content when something happens.
The headline (YouTube Premium Showing Ads) makes it sound like if you pay for YouTube Premium you are now getting ads in videos just like normal YouTube, but maybe a little less, but this does not seem to be the case.
Wait, this is all over a banner ad?
it might be, but certainly sounds like a bit of history repeating.
i would say it is pretty dicey in that https://www.youtube.com/premium has "ad-free" in various places but then also has varying almost-definitions of it. I would not be surprised if the TOS has an ever-changing definition of what "ad-free" means, subject to change whenever the provider wants
I don't get the logic of showing ads here. Premium users are paying $14/mo, surely that should completely dwarf the fractions of a cent Google would earn by displaying an ad. Is this just a simple bug? Or are advertisers now paying orders of magnitude more in order to reach people who have enough disposable income to afford a $14/mo subscription? Or is Google that desparate and they see this as a way to earn slightly more than $14/mo from that user?
Netflix ad plans are more profitable than premium plans:
https://colemaninsights.com/coleman-insights-blog/advertisin...
Everything eventually ends up as paying + ads. Cable TV started out justifying the $35/mo fee 2 ways: better picture quality and no ads (only local channels had ads). Now you pay for channels, bundles, and you get ads. The Internet is and will be exactly the same.
Maybe just someone paid enough to punch through how much Google value users choices :>
Or possibly it's attempt at degrading no-ad's to less-ad's. Would be quite standard for degrading-in-progress company - "altavisting" :)
I think it is to normalize advertising.
if you got rid of ads completely, people would expect to never see an ad, ever.
That's a way to either get me to cancel my paying subscription or opt-out of all form of ad personalization out of frustration. I respect the hussle and am paying you; respect my user experience.
I've been paying for Premium for a while, but I was behind a VPN when I signed up and apparently they charge you the rate for the country that your IP address resolves to instead of the country your account is actually associated with for some reason. I got an email just a couple days ago though saying that they're canceling my account since my payment method isn't also issued from that country (why they couldn't detect that when I first signed up is anyone's guess). I probably won't bother re-subscribing though. I've started self-hosting an Invidious instance instead, which not only strips Google's ads, but also has the Playlet app on my Rokus, which supports SponsorBlock to auto-skip sponsored ad reads in the videos themselves.
Install Firefox. Add uBlock Origin. No more ads on Youtube.
Also install SponsorBlock to skip native ads.
https://sponsor.ajay.app/
https://github.com/ajayyy/SponsorBlock
I do not mind these bits because:
1) There is no tracking done, my privacy is not violated
2) At least the YouTuber is willing to debase themselves for the ad.
My main gripe for blocking ads is privacy and in-video segments where the presenter says stuff does not violate my privacy.
This is not likely to be a popular take but I think that YouTube premium should not only block banner ads, but also block in-video ads the way that sponsorblock does.
SponsorBlock is very configurable so that you can block only the kinds of native ads you want, while letting others play normally or only skipping them manually instead of automatically.
I do mind those bits because they are ads, and I despise ads. I won't subject myself to psychological manipulation if I can help it.
It's sad, but I don't see a future where Google doesn't close that loophole eventually. And probably sooner rather than later. Either by slipstreaming the ads into the content stream itself (most likely) or breaking support for Firefox (less likely, but perfectly doable with the abysmal market share it has these days).
with the abysmal market share it has these days
It just has no killer features. Once it will have that one, https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+people+use+ad+block...
But I think it’s an empty threat. Google cannot really do anything with it without hurting itself. It will lose all arms races because anti-ads anti-drm community incentives are high and will remain so. “Annoying the whole humanity even more” isn’t an easy business model.
slipstreaming the ads into the content stream itself
All that energy only for a user to see a black rectangle rendered over a video by sponsorblock.
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if Google is so disorganized they are unable to close these loopholes. Any of the things you suggested could’ve already been done long ago, but haven’t
More popular the service is more difficult to make breaking changes . YouTube has a wide install base on variety of hardware like older TVs, most of it with no path for upgrades .
That means it will take many years if a not decade or more for YouTube to implement new protocols and drop old ones without it causing problems to significant user base .
If the user base that hacks around ads is < user base that will loose access by implementing something like above , economically it makes sense not to do so.
netflix already doesnt work for me on firefox. not sure why.
Or uBlock lite in Chrome
Maybe this is what it looks like when corporate doublespeak and AI hallucinations merge.
Is that support rep implying that we won't get extra ads on top of our ad-free experience if we opt out of ad personalization google-wide?
While you pay for an ad-free experience, it:
1) doesn’t remove in-feed/sponsored ads
2) can occasionally still show you ads (seen it myself)
1) is like being mad that you payed for an ad-free ebay experience, but then you used it to buy some old magazines and there were ads in them.
I think it's more like being annoyed at OTA television programs which are interrupted by ads put there by the broadcasters, because none of the funding comes from viewers/subscribers, it's all from ads
...so people who don't want ads are marketed to by cable TV companies, and invited to pay a subscription for TV with no ads, because _all_ the program's funding comes from subscribers
...and then either the cable TV people get greedy and start adding ads to programs already 100% funded by subscribers
...or the program makers get greedy and cut product-placement deals to get extra money on top of their 100% funding from subscribers
In either of these situations, subscribers can rightly ask: why the fuck did I agree to fund these people? They promised me no ads if I pay, and they've added ads.
The answer is: don't pay, make them lose revenue, and either they will respect the promises they made to subscribers, or they will abandon it completely and go back to free-to-air with ads, or they'll go bankrupt (or they'll keep conning people, and some portion of suckers will always fall for the "no ads! oh hey, i started adding ads to your no ads subscription, hope you like it! ka-ching!" approach, and they'll get by on duplicity)
Yes! When you watch a YouTube video, a part of your subscription directly goes to the YouTube creator, so you are actually paying for this content.
If you are using an adblocker or just watching for free, fair-enough, the ad can be baked-in into the stream, but when you just bought a movie and in the middle of the movie there is an ad, this is infuriating.
Not really? As the watcher I don't really care whether 2 minutes into the video it gets interrupted for 30s to tell me about square space or the video keeps playing and the host is telling me about square space for 30s. The only difference is who is doing the taking. If I'm paying for the ad-free experience I want an ad-free experience
My hypothetical ebay guy says the exact same thing. "If I'm paying for the ad-free experience I want an ad-free experience." Why is he being unreasonable and you're not?
Because eBay doesn't sell an ad-free premium version that removes ads but then still shows me sponsored ads as soon as I click on a listing or a seller's page. Neither does eBay intercept packages after you've made a purchase to drop their own ad flyers inside, or offer a premium tier that does prevent them from inserting an "eBay recommends square space for all your website building needs" flyer, but you end up with a "monkeybusiness78 recommends square space..." flyer in your package anyway
https://sponsor.ajay.app/ Sponsor skip
While #1 is definitely pedantic, YouTube has added a 'Jump Ahead' button that allows you to skip content that a majority of users have skipped. This usually lines up with sponsor segments.
I think the main problem is with 2) since 1 is entirely up to the content creator's discretion.
I will not be surprised if YouTube figures out a way to make content creators pay a portion of their sponsored content.
They’re already going after sponsor reads.
On iOS with YouTube premium, I get a button prompt asking if I want to skip a commonly skipped sections.
9/10 it’s the sponsor read. The remaining 1/10 is patreon
I haven’t seen much about it so I’m not sure if im in an A/B test
Didn't Twitch try to do this?
The backlash from Twitch's attempt may well be why Youtube isn't doing it
To solve #1, you could use the Sponsorblock extension; it still works with YT premium. I don't since sponsor segments are skippable and I make a little game about guessing the exact amount of time to skip forward. Some creators are even kind enough to put timecodes there (but that feels like cheating).
I don't mind sponsor segments. Multiple unskippable ads in a row that have nothing to do with the topic are infuriating.
https://freetube.io
Youtube Win application with adblocking and sponsored content skip implemented + many other twraks like disabling recommended videos, autoplay or show dislikes. No need for google account, you can still subscribe.
https://freetubeapp.io/
Old url is not working.
It’s just too tantalizing. If you have the disposable income to pay for ad-free, advertisers want you more. AND the field is not crowded. They’re willing to shell out big time to reach you.
Just waiting for the premium-premium tier.
That'll be YouTube+
Was this an ad that showed up during the playback of another video, or was it an ad that showed up as a video on the home page or on the suggestions for some other video?
(I've never used YouTube Premium so I'm just assuming that it has a similar home page and suggestion format).
I have canceled every video service (all in'd the *arrs + plex) but still pay for youtube premium, spotify, and twitch turbo.
If I notice anything resembling an ad I'm out. If I pay for a product I expect no ads - end of story, no exceptions.
I noticed the other day when watching local fire coverage the live stream kept showing the ad overlay, but didn't show any ad. I wonder if my adblocker was blocking it but they were still trying to show? Either way not cool.
It's really funny how they basically advertised YouTube music to a customer emailing them with a frustration about being advertised to when they shouldn't.
This is the inevitable evolution of every paid ad-free tier, from Prime Video all the way back to cable TV.
To get ads after paying subscription is simply nonsense, but people are beaten into submission to simply pay the tax, get less, all with a shrug like good cattle led to slaughter.
I used to use adblock, sponsorblock, others, but still the youtube random garbage and ads for asian/russian brides and latest disposable Chinese garbage resellers. Finally the US election nonsense got me to switch to using Freetube for any youtubing. I'm far less annoyed by it now, less doom-scrolling, I forget it's youtube all together without everything I hated about it. All content, no filler.
Do yourself a favor and set up Freetube, stop paying for (or just watching even) commercials.
I’ve noticed Disney+ showing “ads” as well despite being on the Disney+ and Hulu (No Ads) bundle. They claim it’s “promotional content” not ads, and they are all Disney related. Regardless it feels scummy.
Some people call this phenomenon "the enshitification of services and web".
I try to see it as an opportunity for creators and entrepreneurs.
well yeah, the most valuable customers are those that will pay not to see ads
like cable, youtube premium will eventually be 20 minutes/hour of ads
it is inevitable
It will be much worse than cable. Since the first DVR came out in 1999 you haven't had to watch a commercial on cable if you didn't want to. Streaming brought us unskippable ads and surveillance.
But it's not like there was an ad-powered version of cable that you paid to get out of. The entire point of premium is to not see ads, why would anyone still pay for premium if it had ads?
Or is it like the free users see 40min/hour ads and the premium users see 20min/hour? But then why wouldn't they just let me pay extra to see 0min/hour? Like that's what Prime Video did. It ended up just being a price increase in their case.
> the most valuable customers are those that will pay not to see ads
Yes like me, but the point is, I would always be willing to pay them more not to see ads than they would've ever made from me watching the ads in the first place.
> But it's not like there was an ad-powered version of cable that you paid to get out of. The entire point of premium is to not see ads, why would anyone still pay for premium if it had ads?
that was the point of cable.
Regular TV over the airwaves was "free", supported by the ads, but you could pay cable providers for their "premium" channels that had no advertising.
Until they did. Just a few at first, but it went on from there, as these things always do.
edit: I didn't even notice the second part of your message:
> I would always be willing to pay them more not to see ads than they would've ever made from me watching the ads in the first place.
This plus infinite gullibility is the only reason why they have a business model. They will keep making it worse and worse and still raising the price forever, and it's only because people keep handing them more money whenever they ask.
> I would always be willing to pay them more not to see ads than they would've ever made from me watching the ads in the first place.
You cannot afford it. There’s an advertiser willing to pay more than your net worth on a campaign.
I thought you paid for the premium content, like there wasn't a free ad-powered version of HBO I thought?
> This plus infinite gullibility is the only reason why they have a business model. They will keep making it worse and worse and still raising the price forever, and it's only because people keep handing them more money whenever they ask.
That's a separate argument, the assumption was that they will no longer give you that option, to pay for ad-free YouTube and I still don't see that happening.
But also yes obviously, eventually everyone who is willing to pay for premium is paying but they still have to make more profit so they going to raise prices indefinitely. Duh.
> But it's not like there was an ad-powered version of cable that you paid to get out of.
It was called "broadcast television".
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/11/us/advertisers-look-close...
I think it's free users see 20 mins a hour, and YouTube premium users see a banner ad for NFL Sunday.
Yet another situation where piracy delivers a much better user experience than trying to pay for content.
My kids generally watch stuff on my Plex server, but occasionally we have to go over to Hulu or Amazon for something new/something I haven’t yet acquired. It makes me so proud how angry they get when they see an ad lol
When we took my 3 year old on her first vacation and stayed in a hotel, she would have a meltdown every time there was a commercial. Her mind could not comprehend because she had literally never had any content interrupted before. I wish I would’ve recorded it.
Anyway, we now have a fire stick that lives in our luggage.
Ha ha, same here. The only ads my daughters ever saw on TV growing up were the ones between PBS shows. Staying in hotels was a real eye-opener for them.
Of course now that they are adults I get the blame for their having missed out the cultural touchstone that was apparently Sponge Bob Squarepants.
I love that.
Although, I prefer not to be reminded they will grow up. I would freeze time if I could.
"Partly hate to see you grow / And just like your baby shoes / Wish i could keep your little body / In metal."
I love that story. I have a similar or related one: When I was driving with my nephew's a song came on the radio that they liked, we left the car and when we came back they were annoyed why the song didn't resume playing. Broadcast media is as good as dead.
I know it's cliche, but seriously: If you're not paying, you're the product. If you are paying, you're still the product but you're also a sucker.
Cute but by that logic the implication is that you're entitled to everything for free. While Youtube might not be one of them, there are things in this world that are worth financially supporting so that they can continue to produce content. (Like the Economist for example)
> there are things in this world that are worth financially supporting
The fact that there are things in the world worth financially supporting does not excuse capitalism.
It does not mean that we cannot find better ways of organising our affairs to have happy fulfilling lives.