this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
603 points (98.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54746 readers
309 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is such a better use of their time and dollars versus improving their service to make it more attractive to customers.
If this is the change that really sets them financially straight, then I would say they have a failing business model.
Making their service more attractive to customers is precicesly what they're trying to do.
It's just that an advertising agency's customers are not the folk who watch, read or hear the ads, it's the folk who pay for the ads.
I am not sure if it will work out like this though. The amount of ads they are forcing down peoples throat is isane. Eventually it will make people consume less videos and with that less ads overall.
Sure, could be - but keep in mind that they have all the relevant usage data at hand. Any decrease in service popularity among users (or indeed any kind of user behavior) is immediately visible to them. They have the means to know exactly what annoyances the market will bear.
And considering that YouTube still holds a de-facto monopoly on video discoverability within the entire anglophone internet I feel like it's safe to say that the market will likely bear a lot more annoyances :P
And thus the enshittification cycle completes
You are not the customer. You are the product.
Yes, but if they destroy their products (aka drive users away) their real customers (ad companies) will pull out.
Just ask Twitter/X or what's left ot it.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Less viewer numbers to show to advertisers.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
If premium cost $5per month I'd pay for it, u use YouTube all the time
No way in hell it's worth $15 a month though, their pricing is completely brwindead
I agree. It’s around $22 NZD and that is just too steep. They have a slightly cheaper one but you can’t background play with it. I’m sick of being nickel and dimed at every possible opportunity and then hearing about how these companies are making record profits.
Just make a (digital) trip to India and get family of 5 accounts for about 1$ a month per account. This the way I did it.
I won't give a penny to the evil google.
It's $25/mo for family. I hate that I pay for it, but I use music, and I mostly watch YouTube on a streaming device, so I've never been able to use ad blockers. $15 for the fam felt worth it, but $25 has me rethinking. Maybe I can configure YT-DL to get the shows I care about on my Plex
Any android based streaming device can run SmartTube (formerly SmartTube next). On an Android phone you can patch the YouTube apk with revanced, which also gives you full access to yt music.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Nope, not available her ein the states.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/premiumlite
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
From what I read on their own report, less than 2% use adblocks.
That is depressing
Agreed. Sadly, agreed.
So you know that the people watching YouTube aren’t really considered “customers” by google in the traditional sense, right?