SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Google describes YouTube Red as "the ultimate YouTube experience." The $9.99 subscription will cover all of YouTube products, meaning YouTube, YouTube Gaming, YouTube Kids, and the newly announced YouTube Music. The new service will let you watch YouTube videos without ads, save videos to watch offline on a mobile device, and play videos in the background on a mobile device.
There is a big catch about that $9.99 price: $9.99 will cover Android, desktop, and the mobile Web, but if you purchase a subscription via Apple's in-app purchasing on iOS, the price goes up to $12.99/month. Apple takes a 30 percent cut of all subscription revenue on its platform, and Google is passing that cost directly onto the consumer. (Most likely, customers will be able to bypass the higher price by paying $9.99 directly to Google and using the service across all platforms, including iOS, simply by signing into the app.)
YouTube won't talk about revenue sharing with content creators, but the company says it will pass on the "majority" of the revenue. In lieu of ad revenue, subscription revenue will be split up among creators by view time from Red subscribers. The subscription service changes things for YouTube creators, and anyone that doesn't agree to the new subscription terms will have their content set to "private" on YouTube.
darkfeline suggests the following specific points and topics for discussion:
1. iOS support costs extra, YouTube is passing the cost of Apple's cut directly to the consumer.
2. Up-to-date ad blockers and youtube-dl bypasses all YouTube ads to the best of my knowledge.
3. youtube-dl allows you to download videos for offline play.
4. How do you feel about exclusive paid content?
5. Who the heck is Pewdiepie and why does he make so much money? (How do you feel about YouTube "celebrities"?)
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday October 23 2015, @07:30AM
I'd do it, hell, I'd pay more than 10 bucks for it, as long as I could download ALL content rather than just selected content from few participating agencies. If I could download anything I wanted I'd probably pay thirty bucks a month if I could afford it. The peace of mind coming from it all being legit is the icing on the cake.
This is the perfect opportunity for Google to drag Big Media kicking and screaming into the present with regard to content accessibility.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by anubi on Friday October 23 2015, @08:26AM
Only if its in a .MP4 or equivalent format playable on a generic player. No DRM. None of this proprietary codec crap!.
I already take steps to keep my collection of stuff clean, often shunning paid sources because paid providers insist of wrapping what I want in something I do not want, and making it very difficult, if not impossible, to remove and discard the wrapper.
I would love to see a "Gags" episode of selling some RIAA execs a meal, but serve it in a damned near indestructible wrapper that takes at least ten minutes to remove.
Providing a paid service of cataloging content and making it available without irritative packaging will go a long way to killing off piracy.... I feel it would be far more effective than the "attack your customer" approach the **AA's have been taking.
If there is one thing people will pay for, its convenience. So far, a lot of groups have completely missed the boat on that one. If Google can pull this one off and serve up a menu of freely downloadable content and keep the rightsholders happy by sharing the proceeds of content that would have otherwise remained dormant, more power to them!
One thing Google ( YouTube ) has going for them - big time - is a veritable army of quite dedicated "YouTubers" which have done an excellent job of transcoding and uploading content to YouTube. Damn near everything that has ever been produced shows up there. I was really surprised to find that really old (1936) Chevrolet video on their production line on YouTube. My hat's off to all you guys who took your time to upload and share these gems.
Here's hoping Google and the rightsholders can come to terms, quit bickering, and give us all one big library where we can upload to or retrieve a copy of stuff.
And no, I do not expect to see first-run movies on YouTube, but I would expect ten year old movies to be left up - the DVD's of overruns of 'em are a buck at the discount stores anyway. But the DVD, for the reasons mentioned above, is not worth the trouble to mess with, and I leave them in the bin.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 23 2015, @06:02PM
I used to do the same thing for the CDDB database.
Then, the people that ran that closed it and started to charge for access to their content.
I learned a lot from that, because I cataloged many many things and often was the very first to do so. I made more new entries than corrections.
I for one am upset with a company that opts to sell and continually re-sell the results of my work that I had intended to have volunteered for the greater good. Being locked out and then expected to pay for access to the resources I provided was not part of that whole free work thing I expected to get rewarded with. karma yes. Paying to use the fruit of my efforts, when there was no reason to think I was going to pay for upkeep (such as a subscription here at Soylent)... no. They just locked people out and called it a crime to use the data without paying.
There may be more exciting details to it, but I have to admit I simply avoided things like that going forward. I have found a few other free ones, but do I contribute to them? Not as much as I could. It only took one bad apple to ruin that barrel.
What google is doing in this case is different, but there is no doubt that for this, and for many other things, they are being rewarded handsomely for being the self-appointed gatekeepers to numerous and varied types of content they have received mostly for free.
Maybe they are in the business now of making quality stuff and wanting to make a buck off it, but only chumps broadcast on TV for free I guess. Google can now own (in select markets) :
The content
the server its on
the distribution network to deliver it end to end
the set top box to display it
the router in the home to stream it
the OS on the devices that use the streams
and one ID to tie it all together
How this relates to anything I am not sure, but it's part of the reason I don't want to pay for their content. It seems like they already have enough influence into the system already.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Friday October 23 2015, @06:04PM
What's stopping you from downloading anything now? Aren't there utilities for that?
Whenever I visit youtube with Flash disabled I get served an HTML5 version of the video which causes a WEBM file to appear in my browser's cache directory. After restoring some missing bytes from the file's header it will play in VLC.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday October 23 2015, @07:35AM
Everyone is falling for Google's misdirection here. This is not a new service, it is a sweetener for Google Play Music since a subscription to one gets the other and the price isn't changing. They needed a way to make it clear they had the superior deal vs the others rolling out $10/mo (Like say, picking one totally at random... Apple) music. People simply would never pay $10/mo to skip the preroll ad on YouTube videos and the other perks aren't worth it either, the only possible way this makes sense is as a bonus. Hulu Plus only gets a couple bux upcharge to eliminate all ads and they stick ads in the shows as well as a preroll.
And passing through the Apple fee is pretty much required if they expect to pay the royalties and make a buck, you simply can't have some customers getting the same service and lose 30% to a competitor off the top. The fact they can manage to get the media to correctly report why they are doing it and thus stick it to Apple in the bargain is gravy. Normally you couldn't get the media to say a bad word about Apple if you put a gun to their kid's head, guess Google is able to get things done these days.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lemming on Friday October 23 2015, @08:39AM
Obviously Google also takes a 30% cut on everything sold via the Google Play store, but in this case the seller is also Google.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @08:39AM
You mean redtube?
(if you're using windoze, be careful visiting that site as you might get more malware to your collection...)
(Score: 2, Funny) by xorsyst on Friday October 23 2015, @08:50AM
https://grahamcluley.com/2015/10/difference-youtube-youtube-red-redtube [grahamcluley.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @08:53AM
"Who the heck is Pewdiepie and why does he make so much money? (How do you feel about YouTube "celebrities"?)"
Does it matter? I don't really think about him/her - he's around, and I stumble over his name, and his videos from time to time. I know who he is, but don't really know him. He is entirely peripheral to everything that I go to Youtube for.
Did you watch Serenity? (Dumb question, huh? Anyone who hasn't watched it and Firefly probably doesn't visit sites like this.) "You can't stop the signal!" Lonely half-retarded geek living at the edge of settled space, all alone, has to build a robot for company. But, he's connected to everything in the known universe. That's how I see Pewdiepie.
Posting AC from a computer I don't control - how many of you recognize me?
(Score: 2) by AnonymousCowardNoMore on Friday October 23 2015, @11:54AM
Sounds fun. I'm going with Phoenix666. Did I win?
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 23 2015, @05:45PM
I haven't seen any of that or him, but you described mystery science theatre, except there was a plot in that the protaganist was fed the worst movies his employers could find. (I am a fan of Gamera, myself..)
That model of content distribution, the "keep circulating the tapes", doesn't look like that is how this pewpewdie thing is supposed to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @06:37PM
Haven't watched it.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Friday October 23 2015, @10:13AM
I watch a fair number of youtube videos, especially Let's Plays which as of late have had more and more commercial breaks, and I've long wanted a way to subscribe to get out of ads. But $10 a month is steep to say the least. Many LPers depend on the revenue brought in by Google, and its not clear how those people are compensated for the lack of ad views this would introduce.
Until that's clarified, I can't in good conscious subscribe to it.
Still always moving
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday October 23 2015, @12:15PM
I'm not tempted. Yes, $10/month is way too high. $10/year is more like it. But even at under $1/month, there's another big issue at stake: YouTube is a private company, and I am wary of elevating any such business to the position of gatekeeper of all video content. Our public libraries should take on this task, and we should send our monies to them so they can.
As to the ads, adblock is excellent at blocking them even on YouTube. I really have to have adblocking, to save my time and bandwidth.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday October 23 2015, @08:35PM
Libraries are *also* pushing the envelope with supporting TOR. Of course the FBI/NSA whined like little entitled self-righteous bitches that libraries were now helping facilitate pedophilia, terrorism, human trafficking, and the bruising of fruit everywhere. Thankfully, the librarians took a second to deliberate, and then put the TOR connections right back up.
I'm very much interested in supporting libraries now. I like the cut of their jib, so to speak.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @09:10PM
You've built quite an impressive mountain out of the molehill of one small library.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday October 24 2015, @12:54AM
Mountain out of a molehill? What's your definition of "Pilot Program"? Everything starts somewhere, and the initial library participating didn't exactly originate the idea...
Library Freedom Project [libraryfreedomproject.org] "You can even see the implied phases in the link URL"
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @01:34PM
I don't know what Let's Plays are, but have you tried drag-and-dropping the youtube URL into VLC?
It plays all non-restricted videos with no ads.
You can step it up and use youtube-dl which downloads nearly everything, and not just from youtube either. Its a very sophisticated python script.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @01:36PM
discussion/praising of youtube-dl:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8647943 [ycombinator.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday October 23 2015, @11:04AM
Exclusive paid content ... call it what it is, an attempt to introduce artificial scarcity into a frictionless system. You can only get this special content at Google. Or Apple. Or whatever. So they want you to pay more for it. That only works if the content really is special, and it's almost never too special. Some random YouTube celebrity will find that artificial scarcity just makes the crowds move on to something else. There's essentially infinite content right now, and putting some content behind a paywall doesn't decrease the total amount of content available.
What is working? Not artificial scarcity. Here are some things that are working:
The Kickstarter model - patronage - have people pay up front to have content created that otherwise wouldn't be, and then distribute it in a frictionless way.
The Disney model - get a lot of people to torrent your cartoons, comics, etc worldwide so they'll buy tangible stuff like that Darth Vader toaster. Disney essentially uses their cartoons and comics and so on to sell other stuff.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Friday October 23 2015, @02:10PM
My issue with Kickstarter is that you have to pay for a product before it is created, so you can never be really sure of what you're getting. Patreon doesn't seem to have the same problem - a creator can create, then put a Patreon link up on the download page. Sure, it means that the creator has to work on something with no guarantee of getting paid for it, but it's a much better deal for the consumer. (Although Patreon, obviously, would not be a good choice for things that require industrial production, while Kickstarter is a relatively good platform for that.)
Also - how I am supposed to e-mail you for a pizza roll when your e-mail isn't shown publicly?
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @05:07PM
I can see the email just fine. It is hunter2@example.com
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 23 2015, @04:59PM
Usually, when I get excited about someone offering me something, that something better not have a price tag, or it is no offer.
It's a sales pitch.
Sure places have products on offer, but if i offer you a job, you aren't paying me for the opportunity to do work for me, unless I need my fence whitewashed or something and you're being exploited.
Anyway -- exclusive paid for content is shitty. pirate that and give it to me so I can save it without even watching it, just to make the powers that be upset that there are people getting their special content for free.
If a company came out with something like that on occasion, ok fine maybe it's a boxed set of something I wanted and only they are doing it because there is not much demand etc. But online? as part of the distribution model? Do their video tapes only play in special google vhs machines, too, that require on-line authentication to prevent me from fast forwarding past the FBI warning since the firmware updates will disable the forward and back buttons until the content begins after these words from our sponsors?
Let's get one thing straight -- I might pay to avoid ads. But I won't pay an ad company for exclusive content.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @12:12PM
I used to have a Youtube account. I got my account deleted for not signing up with Google Plus.
If I were to sign up for this, would they allow me to do so without an account? Or would they restore the account they deleted years ago?
If the answer is "neither", they are giving me an incentive to NOT sign up for paid Youtube. I guess they didn't think about that when they decided to delete my account.
I'm guessing I'm not the only one who didn't sign up for Google Plus.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday October 23 2015, @01:27PM
They already know people that accidentally delete their own accounts probably shouldn't be paying sub fees. So that's okay.
Also - though I may be wrong about the ease of use - they're not requiring G+ accounts anymore. Which kind of pisses me off since I can't figure out how to disconnect mine and just change my youtube name back to what it should be.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @03:14PM
I did not accidentally delete my account. They did, because they wanted to punish people for not joining their Facebook clone. It didn't work, people are still using Facebook. But it may back to bite them now, as many of those people they kicked out might have considered upgrading to a paid Youtube account - if they still had one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @06:52PM
They never automatically deleted youtube accounts. YOU deleted it.
I have several youtube accounts and none of them are connected to G+. They were set up anywhere from last year to ten years ago. NONE of them were ever deleted or threatened to be deleted by youtube.
If your account was deleted it was by your incompetence or reading comprehension failure. Not google's malice.
(Score: 1) by CaTfiSh on Friday October 23 2015, @07:30PM
I'm not familiar with the Google+ thing, but my YT account was deleted because I refused to associate it with a Gmail account. I was harangued with warnings prior, but forcing users to utilize your services across the board is just wrong. The benefit to them is great with the enrichment of personal data.
If there were viable alternatives, I would block all of Google at the DNS level. For now, I simply mitigate damage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @07:47PM
That's all fine and dandy, but ultimately you deleted your youtube account by clicking the "Delete my account" button when given the choice to add a bogus gmail account or not. I have not been forced to make that choice for G+ for any of my youtube accounts. The GP has likely not been forced to make that choice either, so they are dumb, disingenuous, or can't read.
The gmail thing is not a big deal, and I say that with my tinfoil hat on pretty tight. It doesn't have to be an existing account or ever actually used. It just has to exist. All of my youtube accounts have gmail accounts but I don't use any of them. They have no (accurate) personal information and are never used to send or receive email. The accounts are never logged into from the same browser or a non-"private" session, and no cookies are shared or allowed to persist. Flash isn't installed either.
(Score: 1) by CaTfiSh on Saturday October 24 2015, @07:35AM
That's not accurate. It was deleted by YT after repeated warnings they were going to do so if I didn't associate it with an account. I never clicked anything, it just wasn't there one day. You can argue that my unwillingness to attach an account was my consent to them deleting it, but the fact remains that it was coercion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @12:40AM
LOL at "coercion" for something you got for free. Methinks you doth not knoweth what that word means.
(Score: 1) by CaTfiSh on Monday October 26 2015, @07:59AM
According to a quick dictionary search, "use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.". The messages expressly stated that I would lose my account, subscriptions, etc., unless I complied.
Methinks you are of the personality type to not relent despite facts that may be presented and argue a point into the ground. Good luck propping that ego up over the coming years.
(Score: 5, Informative) by KritonK on Friday October 23 2015, @12:39PM
They aren't passing all of it. It is a common mistake to think that, since adding 30% to 10, you get 13, then subtracting 30% from 13, you must get 10. Actually, if you subtract 30% from 13, you get 9.1, and if you want 70% of the retail price to equal 9.99, you have to sell at 14.27.
Perhaps there are Google-haters, who will gladly pay Apple 3 dollars per month, to deprive Google of 90 cents of income per month.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @05:15PM
Ah the old inclusive vs. exclusive way of calculating price percentages. That is the same type of confusion they are using with the FairTax proposal of 23% when the normal people way of counting it, it is 30%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @11:17AM
why pay when you can already avoid ads and download for free? only takes two plugins. I didn't even know there were ads on youtube until I saw it on someone else's device.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:52PM
Let me know when they announce YouTube Blue.
1702845791×2