Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ troupo 5 days ago

I keep seeing people say this: "I pay for YouTube Premium. For my money, it’s the best bang-for-the-buck subscription service on the market" and I don't understand.

For me, Premium's only value proposition is removing ads. Recommendations are still the same (quite shitty). Search is unusable (4 relevant results then unrelated recommendations). Shorts are pushed aggressively no matter how many times you hide them. Search in history will often not find even something you just watched a few days ago.

It's the same Youtube.

▲55555 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes basically all it does is remove ads. Those of us who are happy with it are those of us who don’t feel entitled to unlimited video streaming for free. Most people think YouTube should just be free and have no ads for some reason, and they probably wouldn’t say Premium is such a great deal.

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The issue is you're still not paying for the content nor paying the creators.

You're paying YouTube to stop annoying you, and they then decide what to do with that money, incidentally paying some creators.

▲kalleboo 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Premium pays out to creators by minutes viewed (vs AdSense which pays out by ads viewed)

I've heard some creators say that in total, they make more money from all their Premium viewers than they make from all their AdSense viewers, even though the former are a small fraction of the latter.

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent [-]

This argument is repeated on other comments as well, but I think it's fundamentally a parralel fact.

YouTube giving some of the Premium money to creators doesn't make Premium a good product. If'm not that utilitarian to think any single additional penny going to some creators is good whatever YouTube takes in the process and the general impact on the the whole field.

▲frankchn 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

YouTube seems to be pretty explicit that it is paying 55% of revenue from watching videos to creators:

> If a partner turns on Watch Page Ads by reviewing and accepting the Watch Page Monetization Module, YouTube will pay them 55% of net revenues from ads displayed or streamed on their public videos on their content Watch Page. This revenue share rate also applies when their public videos are streamed within the YouTube Video Player on other websites or applications.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72902?hl=en#zippy=...

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent [-]

As you point out, that revenue split has a set of conditions, which also require a level of contract on Youtube and other requirements (not being DMCA stroke for instance)

So where does your Premium money go when you watch a very small creator ? where does it go for a demonetized video ? etc.

That might sounds like a subtle difference, but consider the gap with channel membership, super chats (which are also roughly 50% split I think?) or patreon for instance.

▲kalleboo 5 days ago | parent [-]

> where does it go for a demonetized video

A "demonetized" video is technically called a "limited or no ads" video in YouTube Studio - it means YouTube has determined that advertisers do not want their ads seen on the video for reputational reasons. Premium views still pay out for them since they are not paid through showing ads.

A DMCA strike is something else.

▲makeitdouble 4 days ago | parent [-]

Sorry I wasn't referring to videos the creator decides to forgo revenue, as you point there's a better term for that.

I was thinking about the videos that were supposed to make money but got shut off monetization for whatever reason. DMCA strike is one, YouTube flagging it as risque is another common one.

▲kalleboo 4 days ago | parent [-]

I was referring to your latter example - when YouTube decides a video is inconvenient, it means they're afraid advertisers don't like it. Those videos still get paid from Premium views.

▲msrp 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Youtube premium users on average give creators more revenue per view than non-premium users. 55% of the premium revenue is split between the creators you watch.

▲pembrook 5 days ago | parent [-]

Monetizing your marketplace monopoly with 45% rents is even more egregious than the App Store which people complain about at 30%.

In fact, it might be the highest monopoly tax in all of tech. Even Spotify only takes 30% from the same musicians who post the same music videos on each platform.

▲SXX 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Streaming video requires excruciatingly expensive infrastructure. It's one of reasons why there are no competitors to be seen.

▲pembrook 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It requires less expensive infrastructure than AI, and AI has tons of competitors.

YouTube simply enjoys a classic network effects monopoly, and that’s why their margins are high compared to any other business in the S&P500.

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There will be no competitors if one of the player in the field does it for free for enough time. We'd call that "dumping" if it was a manufacturer.

▲Jensson 5 days ago | parent [-]

It would be dumping if they took much less than 55%, but they actually do make profits so its not dumping.

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent [-]

YouTube has been in the red at least until 2010 under most estimations.

For reference that's around the point Vimeo started pivoting to different strategies and blocking long content as they couldn't pay for the infra.

That's also around that time that Dailymotion went down the pipes with the French gov stepping in to save the remains.

YouTube thrived from there as creators and advertisers had nowhere else to go at that point. That's the dumping part.

▲Ekaros 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Video especially with high-bit rates is most expensive medium to deliver and store. Well, I suppose Youtube could move to model where they charge for creators for both of those and drop their cut to 30%...

▲TheAceOfHearts 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

YouTube pays creators more for each Premium view.

▲mrheosuper 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't see why it's the issue. Youtube infrastructure is not cheap.

▲mystifyingpoi 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Well, it is not cheap if we look at the massive server racks they have, but in the scale of the world? Watching 1h of a video probably costs them like $0.00001 or something equally minuscule.

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How would you see it if your phone company spammed your calls and SMS and offered to remove the annoyances for some random fixed fee that is not tied to your usage of the service ?

If we care about Youtube's infra, the expected business structure should follow that assumption.

▲mrheosuper 5 days ago | parent [-]

> that is not tied to your usage of the service

Could you explain this more ?, i'm sure i only get Youtube Ads when watching videos, which is "usage of the service".

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent [-]

You pay the same fixed Premium fee per month whatever you do with YouTube.

You can quit YouTube for weeks or watch it 22h every day, you still pay the same. Same way you can exclusively watch non monetized streams or only watch top monetized creators, you'll be paying exactly the same.

The only difference will be how much YouTube gets to keep.

▲mrheosuper 4 days ago | parent [-]

> You can quit YouTube for weeks or watch it 22h every day, you still pay the same

This has always been in subscription model, like mobile data plan, or exclusive club membership. I won't argue if it's good or not, just saying it has been a thing for a long time.

> you can exclusively watch non monetized streams or only watch top monetized creators, you'll be paying exactly the same.

Well, the server do not care if the video's creator is paid or not, it still has to store the same data, and you have to pay for it.

▲jwrallie 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe some never experienced an ad because they have been using an ad blocker since before ads on Youtube became a thing?

▲notmyjob 5 days ago | parent [-]

Or used YouTube a lot in the years before it all went downhill.

▲GLdRH 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, we grew up in the Great Pirate Era

▲testaccount28 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why don't you use ad blockers?

▲e40 5 days ago | parent [-]

Don’t exist on Apple TV box.

▲55555 5 days ago | parent [-]

I likewise don't use one on my apple TV, but my friend recently told me there are proxy apps for Apple TV which use DNS-based ad blocking and which can get you the US Netflix library while abroad.

▲e40 5 days ago | parent [-]

Absolutely. I've been too lazy to do anything like this.

▲troupo 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh, I'm not against paying for a service. I'm willing to pay more, but that's the issue: companies will happily sell you their basic enshittified product and never provide you with an option of actual good usable one.

▲oneshtein 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I will happily pay YouTube for just one feature: dub all content I see into my native language.

▲beeflet 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I do feel entitled to unlimited video streaming for free. Since the invention of bittorrent there is no need to have a client-server middleman for distributing large files like videos.

If the bandwidth bankrupts them, then boo hoo. They take advantage of network effects so no one can go anywhere else.

Don't feed the bears. That's what I say

▲jhallenworld 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The new thing that YouTube Premium includes is the one button press to skip over "commonly skipped parts of the video"- typically the in-video promotions. This just showed up last week on my nVidia shield connected to my TV. So finally there is a way to remove ads for real. It would be nice if it did it automatically.

The creator is getting paid more from my Premium subscription, so I definitely do not want to see their own ads.

▲magospietato 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

YouTube music being included effectively replaces an additional music streaming service. From that perspective the family oriented plans in particular carry a lot of value.

▲kelseydh 5 days ago | parent [-]

My gripe with Youtube Music is that the bitrate quality of their music is lower than Tidal or even Spotify. YTM audio files that are actually on Youtube will only stream in 128kbps.

▲cung 5 days ago | parent [-]

I’m surprised to hear that. I just switched from Spotify to Youtube Music and found the audio quality to be way better, even though I had Spotify set to high.

▲Magmalgebra 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I imagine most people have the same value prop I do

1) I watch youtube more than any streaming service

2) I really really value not having ads in my life

So the price for ad-free youtube really seems phenomenal. None of the other features really matter to me - ad free dominates all value discussions.

▲syncsynchalt 4 days ago | parent [-]

> 1) I watch youtube more than any streaming service

I would amend that to say "any *other streaming service". To me Youtube provides more and better content than the other streaming services, and I don't think people should balk at $14 for youtube when they happily pay that for netflix, disney+, hulu, or spotify.

▲PrivateButts 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

On top of removing ads and giving you a couple extra minor features, it also has a way better rev split with creators (last I heard). Half of the sub gets divvied up to the people you watched that month, portioned out via watch time.

▲SchemaLoad 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You also get youtube music, instant skipping over sponsor sections, and the ability to play videos in the background

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Aside from Music, these are all negative features that are valuable only because YouTube is so obnoxious.

I'm in vehement agreement with parent to be honest. "We'll stop spitting in your soup if you pay us extra" isn't a nice value proposition.

▲tonyhart7 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

"We'll stop spitting in your soup if you pay us extra" isn't a nice value proposition

so you want people to freely watch videos without paying anything or watching ads ???

how this works then, creator need to be paid, bandwidth need to be paid, infrastructure is not cheap

it is a nice value proposition, if its not somebody would already make a better alternative that not require those 2 (without paying and without ads)

the fact there is not then its not possible

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent [-]

To stay in the metaphor, wouldn't see some other business model that would allow them to provide the soup to people who order without having to threaten to spit into it ?

▲tonyhart7 5 days ago | parent [-]

lol, there is no spit on it

it is the soup, people free to eat the soup or not

the fact that people always focusing on youtube flaw but never recommend alternative is simply saying that they are the best

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent [-]

That's the hallmark of a monopoly: people can complain about it as much as they want, it won't have any material difference.

▲tonyhart7 4 days ago | parent [-]

"That's the hallmark of a monopoly"

but there is no monopoly ???? are you saying that you simply cant use another website/platform ????

this is ridiculous

if its android/ios then I can understand why its monopoly. but we have bazillion other video/streaming website

Youtube are simply the best, deal with it

▲SchemaLoad 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not a particularly crazy idea that free users get a lesser experience. I'm perfectly happy to pay for youtube since it provides by far the best content and the price is reasonable.

The fact that people can get all of that for free with some minor limitations is fairly generous.

▲godshatter 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> It's not a particularly crazy idea that free users get a lesser experience.

Agreed, but it's the difference between a restaurant serving a mid-tier soup for cheaper versus giving customers a really good soup that the chef spit's in to encourage people to pay for the more expensive version of it.

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> fairly generous.

Is Google "generous" ?

▲Magmalgebra 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It feels bad as a consumer, but the alternative is usually worse.

The "stop spitting in your soup if you pay us extra" is really efficient market segmentation. If you don't do that you need to find actual value props that separate the market in just the right way to generate the financials that allow the product to keep going as is. 9 times out of 10 the result is that failing PMs totally fuck up the product and everyone loses.

It's the SSO kerfuffle in a different package - terrible, but the right choice surprisingly often.

▲SanjayMehta 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There’s an excellent free ios app called “Unwatched” which lets you make playlists, set defaults per channel such playback speed, and lets you play videos in the background. I use it for “podcasts” which are video only.

And you don’t have to log in.

▲hdjrudni 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You also get >2x playback speed and higher bitrates on some videos.

▲marcyb5st 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Full disclousure: I work for Google, but nowhere near YT/YT music. Opinions are my own and I am actually a customer as I pay for YT premium with a family plan for me, my wife, and our son.

While I agree YT without Ads is great, you also get YT music which is really good and for us it replaced Spotify completely.

Personally, though, I don't have a problem with search (maybe because I set a lot of channels as "do not recommend/show"). Shorts, however, they are really annoying.

▲troupo 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Personally, though, I don't have a problem with search (maybe because I set a lot of channels as "do not recommend/show").

Previously search was just search. It wasn't great, but it wasn't too bad.

Now it shows 5-7 results from actual search (often really bad results).

The next section is "People also watch" which quite often has very passing relevance to what you look for.

Then there are shorts.

Then there's "explore more" which may or may not be relevant to your search, and it has "+N more" underneath.

And then there's the rest of the search which, again, may or may not be relevant to your search at all.

---

I think it was slightly fixed recently, so the results are a bit more relevant, but it still is just ... weird

▲MinimalAction 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I use Brave and it's the premium experience already.

▲carabiner 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You should be paying (or taking some other action) to extricate ads from your life as much as possible.

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent [-]

Paying to remove ads is negotiating with terrorists.

YouTube stays in the dominant position either way, it's not like tomorrow you'll go watch Nebula exclusively (you'd already have done it at this point). They're not providing anything materially, so the amount you pay is bound to nothing except how much you're willing to pay. And how much you're willing to pay depends on how much you're annoyed.

So YouTube's main incentive for this program is to annoy you as much as you can tolerate to optimize the most money you get extracted.

▲smt88 5 days ago | parent [-]

It sounds like you're arguing that YouTube should be free and also ad-free, which makes no sense.

YouTube is expensive to operate. They give me an option of paying by watching ads or paying money. That's much better than my options most other places, which is just to be forced to see ads.

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent [-]

I'm arguing that youtube should be paid for actual features. For instance membership and super chats are clearly labeled as extra content. Member only content is the same.

You pay for a specific thing that is produced by a creator and provided by Youtube. "Pay to remove the ads we're pushing" is none of that.

On Youtube being free, this is their business choice, and also the way they crush the competition and cement a near monopoly on the market. If it was a public service NGO I'd see it from a different angle, but it's not.

▲cung 5 days ago | parent [-]

Would you then argue for Youtube to take the Netflix path and not provide non-paying users anything?

▲makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent [-]

I'd argue that regulators should have a serious look at the effect of Youtube on that specific market, and if the only solution is the Youtube free tier disappearing I'll be fine with it.

We're in a skewed situation with a near monopoly that only companies at the size of Bytedance can challenge, and I'm not sure why we should see the status quo as something to be protected or encouraged.

▲jryle70 4 days ago | parent [-]

> if the only solution is the Youtube free tier disappearing I'll be fine with it.

That'd be something most people wouldn't agree with. People always ask for free link anytime a paywalled article posted.

▲DimmieMan 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Absolutely, If premium sorted out all those problems and generally treated creators better i'd have a subscription.

I come to youtube for the *creators*, the actual platform where I have watch history off and use extensions to block the aggressively pushed slop as it currently stands is not something I want to put money towards.

I'm already a patreon to a few creators and have a Nebula subscription; adding it up it's probably slightly more than a premium subscription.

▲kelseydh 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The other useful Youtube Premium feature is the ability to offline download videos to your device. Useful for long plane rides and elsewhere where internet is limited or nonexistent.

▲jojobas 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah it's hard to compete with Ublock Origin and youtube-shorts-block.