I could tolerate 2 ads of 10 to 15 seconds each where one can usually be skipped but i started getting 3 longer unskippable ads. And the ads are always gambling, trash mobile games, or get rich quick scams. So now i use ad block.
I really wouldn't care as much about the ads if they weren't so garbage. If UA-cam/Google could let you filter out ads that you like or dislike, I would probably turn off my adblocker tbh. I just need it to stay sane.
They did this to themselves. Before UA-cam pushed video ads, normal image based ads were the standard. Advertisers don't have infinite money either, so normal non obstructive ads now earn them almost nothing. I find video ads unacceptable, full stop.
Yes this is something that many seem to forget about. Its not like platforms and services just didn't care about advertising generating revenue, its that they made a solid profit selling user data on to third parties, so didn't care about anything else. Almost every large platform has done this, and made plenty of money from it, either directly or indirectly. I think that at this point, the market for data aggregation has kind of stagnated, with so many services harvesting so much about everyone, the value of that data goes down massively when they're trying to compete with each other on the lowest prices for it.
Here's my take: the data they collect needs to be utilized somehow. Whether that's used for market research, or targeted advertisement (and everything in between). However, I believe targeted advertisement makes up a huge portion of the data's value. And Google is one of the biggest providers of advertisements. And so by this logic, if they stopped showing ads, the data would lose its value significantly. Google bought UA-cam and changed their strategy to this ad supported model, and its now come to bite them in the ass. I'm not sympathizing for them, but I just feel like they really need to figure their shit out. Charge people if you have to. But don't charge like 10 bucks a month or some shit like that. Platforms like Nebula have managed to be profitable just by having a $3 a month subscription. And to the best of my knowledge, I don't believe they sell data externally. So using this model can really be helpful for UA-cam.
I agree with Louis Rossmann's take on this. He had no problem paying for UA-cam Premium for 7 years until UA-cam made the Premium experience terrible e.g. preventing Loius from watching downloaded YT videos without going online. UA-cam can't help but make UA-cam terrible, even for the people who actual money to use it.
Holy shit, I just posted a comment saying I have experienced this exact same issue!!! Completely agree, they want you to pay for Premium but have actively made the Premium experience worse.
If ads aren't genuinly disruptive or scamming digital snake oil schemes then I don't have much of a problem. But for example the 7 full screen takeover ads on twitch I sometimes get is the wrong way to go about it.
Yes, the reason I use ad block on other sites (since I have premium) is that ads are sometimes too frequent, too loud, and too long with no option to skip. I also have run into ads playing multiple times in a row. If Google fixed the ad system, and ad makers made actual good ads, the use of ad block would go down a lot.
The reason ad block took traction 10 years ago, those annoying ads that were all over the place, hidden, random redirects and sound files that would play and we couldn't see. Sure, those ads aren't as much of a problem anymore, but now they moved to obnoxious YT vids.
Oh F twitch. I avoid that site like the plague. But when I need to see something on there the ads are so dumb. I haven't ran an ad blocker since the early 2000s but I might now for twitch. It's just so dumb that you can only bypass ads on a per streamer basis
If I can't watch my content creators showing mature content, I'm not watching youtube ads that constantly dismiss weird and obviously sexual ads for mobile games targeted for kids. It's so mind-boggling stupid and disturbing at the same time.
I agree, the ads for the survival or mafia games contain way to much content that I would deem extremely suggestive in relation to inappropriate content
Right! My 11 year old was appalled and showing me an ad yesterday of this horrifying "giant butts twerking" game that popped up on his UA-cam. He was genuinely shocked and was demanding to know why I couldn't turn it off because he felt it was inappropriate and didn't want to be looking at it. And like, I was really proud of him for not just being glued to it, but honestly the animation was super off putting so I don't blame him. But yeah, I wish I could set ad preferences, both for myself and for my kid, way more effectively. I don't mind ads, but he's getting sexual things, I keep getting inundated with horror movie stuff when I don't look at that sort of content at all, I just wish we had more control over type of ads.
The problem I have is that UA-cam Premium offers a lot of things that I just don't want. I just want the ads to go bye bye and I don't want to pay 12 USD a month for that. If there was a lower grade plan that just offered that for $2-$5 a month, I'd happily buy that by the year because I just want the ads gone, not anything else.
Me too buddy. Luckily someone offered to add me to their family plan. I'm golden until that goes away. When that inevitably stops, I'd happily pay multiple years of 2-5/month for no ads.
How about $8 dollars a month like twitter? $2 is definitely 2 low and 5 is ok, but some people watch a lot of youtube and things like background play and downloadable videos should cost a bit more. So would 8 be ok? 8 seems good v.v
Just make YT Premium configurable at that point. Starting price idk 5 bucks for only ad Removal, background play +1buck, downloadable videos +2bucks. And for the full product everything you pay a little less than all individual positions together. Tadaaaa
UA-cam's other problem is they keep spending tons of development time on actively worsening the experience. I'm in the process of migrating my media out of the Google ecosystem because I'm sick and tired of YT Music, they presumably spent millions on it and it's still worse than GP Music
I wholeheartedly agree with you. UA-cam Music is objectively inferior to GPM. Google killing off the latter motivated me to BUY my music again on CD and rip it to local files. Used CDs are *cheap* and collecting new albums can be a fun hobby. I save on mobile data usage and own my music again. It’s well worth the effort.
@@Azmodaeus49 Buy the music outright, the old-school way, specifically from somewhere other than Google. As for UA-cam, people will find ways around the adblocking
I've just straight up downloaded audio - not just music, I mean anything from sound effects to console startups, for years now. Saves me bandwidth altogether.
You won't but the people behind the browsers will . The people that implemented it will possibly fall on their swords because of Google dominance in the browser market.
If it weren't for driveby malware, really annoying ads (stuff like "click your age" for example), stuff that makes websites heavier, and privacy invasive trackers, I'd be fine with not using an adblocker. Meaning something from EthicalAds. Most of this can be avoided if money weren't something anyone needed to worry about, but there would still be malware and some sort of trackers like telemetry that bogs down websites and programs in general.
@@ShyguyMM Ads on UA-cam like the sidebar ones are distributed by Google AdSense, which has previously been abused for malvertising, and it still at least improves privacy somewhat by not having all those tracking sites seeing every page you visit. My issue with video ads is different: it simply makes me less likely to watch the video because I have to wait around for the ad to go away so I can watch the video I want to watch, and sometimes I lose all interest in the video as soon as a midroll ad shows up. I shouldn't have to sell my time or data just to use the Internet comfortably.
Not to mention everyone under the sun is aware that Google doesn't pay it's taxes and that's apparently just fine. They pay some but move billions out of the country to havens. ¯\(°_o)/¯ They literally don't pay their fair share into the world community but expect users to pay their fair share into their community.
Ultimately, the way I see this going is the same its always gone. UA-cam will crack down on adblockers, most common tools will stop working, most people who use them will shrug and either stop using youtube (lol), pony up, or deal with the ads. Meanwhile, a new adblock will be developed, and slowly disseminate out. For a while, we'll see only those who keep up to date with the scene using it, eventually it will hit widespread adoption, and when your parents finally are using it, we'll see another crackdown. Rinse, repeat, until the end of time.
That's not what usually happens. Usually adblockers put out a filter update and it works again. Eventually the company tries again, but adblock keeps on fixing it. I can think of only one site that has actually required a new addon to block ads. However, that addon got pushed pretty quickly because people having trouble with adblock working on a site will report it, and get told about the new addon. They do still occasionally try to change things up to stop it. But then the addon updates. The only new twist is the fear of Manifest v3 making it harder to update filter lists, since you have to update the entire addon, which has to go through Chrome's store. I do wonder if that will push people off of Chrome.
My 2 biggest issues with this are: Privacy invasive trackers. even with premium you bet I'm still using an adblocker. Some of the ads are just plain scams that even people in my family fell for. after my brother started asking me about get rich quick schemes and my father fell for a "pain cure with laser" and I had to lecture them both I just installed adblockers on every device we have in our house. And my father is a mechanical engineer, if he fell for it you bet a load of other people fell for it as well.
@@twanheijkoop6753 Definitely gonna do that later but since it doesn't work outside the house adblockers are also needed for their laptops for example.
The only problem I have with ads is when I'm already a few minutes in to a video but have to pause for whatever reason. I shouldn't be served more ads just because I paused a video.
Things were free because WE were the product. As far as I know we are still a source of data that they can sell, therefore either they stop selling ANY sort of data from their custommers or they keep it free and fair in the amount/length of the ads.
@@ShyguyMM Not entirely true. Data is analyzed in many ways to direct product placement, make sales predictions, design products, and so on. Information is power, as they say. Serving ads is just one little part.
@PXAbstraction then don't offer the service for free from the start. Its not entitlement, its what was offered to us at the start For example, you would be pissed if your rent increased.
It's not just that the free lunch is gone, it's that our whole economic model is steering towards collapse and companies are going haywire and destroying the good will of their users and community in order to squeeze a few pennies out of them.
yes! im getting destroyed on housing, healthcare, and education costs, but sure, let's pay for a service i already get for free just so maybe the company decides not to make it worse. the math ain't mathing.
It's not just that, it's that those same companies used funny money to **kill** alternatives, hard to ramp up a payment service on equal terms when the competitor can burn through hundreds of millions. Those companies habituated their users to free service so they could get as close to a monopoly as they could, and then they start squeezing.
For me UA-cam is completely unusable without an adblocker. If I wanna support a creator I will simply donate to them or join the channel and they get more money out of me that way instead of 0.005 cents for an ad I will waste my time watching for something I don't even care about.
And typically a donation will A - be substantially more than they would ever make from a lifetime of channel views, and B - creators I want to give money to receive much more of that amount external of UA-cam---the google tax gets thirded (almost quartered!) on patreon, yt takes 45%, where patreon takes 12%
Honestly if UA-cam comes after me when I use Ublock origin all it will do will result in me watching less UA-cam. The site is unusable to me in its current form with the amount of ads they inject.
Maybe ads just never worked, regardless of whether they are static or moving. I used to click on static side-bar ads if it looked interesting, but the more annoying an ad is, the more likely I won't even consider the product just out of spite. I probably wouldn't even have started running ad block except advertisers didn't vet their ads and you got malware from Flash ads. Just a few days ago, I clicked on a sponsored link from freakin' MSN's home page and it was promptly blocked by my virus protection. As long as this kind of thing happens, I won't even feel guilty for running ad block.
You should never feel guilty about running ad block.. There is too many sketchy ads around that you need it for your own protection. Even UA-cam has those shitty sketchy ads
Any moral high ground Google had with UA-cam went out the window when they made a policy change saying they could put ads on a creators videos and collect money from that and just not give them anything if they chose to not monetize a video. If they find some way to make youtube unwatchable with an ad blocker it isn't going to make me sign up for youtube premium, it will make me just stop using youtube entirely. The creators I like who make their videos available on a different platform I will watch on those and the rest I just won't see. I used the internet long before youtube was created and before google bought it and I and the internet will survive without it.
honestly i have 1 condition to subscribe to youtube premium. Make downloads accessible offline. It makes no sense for someone to have to be connected to their internet 24/7 in order to access content they should be able to with the features youtube has. provide a good service and i wouldn't hesitate to spend 10 or say 15 dollars a month
@@JL1 i wish i used to download stuff because i used to go offline for long stretches of time when going on a holiday. But whenever i download a video it would prompt me to get access to a connection after 72 hours give or take. I don't think youtube music is great either. Like it feels as though the features developed for youtube never achieve their full potential and just get canned or left half baked. Would still consider getting youtube premium if they at least fix the having to stay online thing.
@@TheFlyingRonin interesting I had no idea! thank you for the info. I had only gone offline for about 24 hours off of wifi (cellular over a month) so I wasn't able to experience that. I agree with you on UA-cam music, I have both spotify and YT only since I get no ads on YT because of my premium, otherwise id switch back to spotify for some things such as automatic shuffled playlists and an easier liked playlist
UA-cam really needs to offer an ad-blocking only plan at a discounted price. They also do a terrible job (maybe on purpose?) of advertising their annual plans for UA-cam Premium, which would save users who stick around for over a year some money.
100%. A sort've mid-range plan (£5-6?) just to block ads would sell really well I expect. The current plan is £12 and that's just too much for me, especially when it's bundled in with crap I just don't want, a middling music streaming service, mobile features I'll never use etc.
the real problem is the way ads work, I used to see ads without problems, but how they are implementing it now, so disruptive in the experience, it's worth using ad blockers, but if you are forced to go premium or see add, going to an entire different platform is on the table, since "if you are going to pay anyway" you can go to the platform most suits you
I watched an 8min video the other day and got multiple unskipable ads every minute following the first 2 minutes. Until ads don't disrupt the view experience in such a jarring and annoying way, I'd say blocking is justified. That is also without touching the moral standpoint of privacy violations of UN human rights that should protect it's citizens, but don't thanks to loopholes of private companies. Throwing other shady ethics and practices of google, I'd say every user of a blocker is completely justified in acting for the purpose of privacy to an immoral disgusting company. Defence against intrusive services should never be considered immoral, so I do think what Linus said is wrong and needed to be explained in a different way. Give these companies and inch and they will take 10 miles then walk back 9.
There are 2 internets out there, one with adblockers and one with none, and the second is damn fricking horrible, there are some sites that without adblockers they are just impossible to navigate
Also tbh I think what youtube needs to do for premium, is get people to feel okay about giving them their money. Despite being miles better than the competition in equitable pay for creators, they have a huge PR problem with how often they misstep with tons of pointless or negative changes, it feels like they're constantly just making it worse for viewers, and who wants to support a platform like that? Not to mention the amount of issues with the copyright and demonitization system. Even if they're actually doing a lot of good for creators, significantly better than the competition, it feels like they're stopping themselves from building any good PR from it when it's a new bad thing every few weeks. Like mentioned, people are willing to pay for spotify premium, a lot of people. Spotify doesn't even pay artists remotely decently, it's terrible on that front, but they haven't really done much public facing change, they just keep their head low and do what they do well, so people don't even think twice on "do I really want to support this company??", whereas with youtube my gut reaction on thinking of giving them money is "Oh I don't wanna support this".
@@j100j Yeah, I wouldn't *want* to give money to a monopoly, but hey with steam I really don't feel wrong about it since they haven't wronged me and have actually shown consistent consideration for their users. If youtube were to actually get their act together consistently I'd probably feel a lot better about maybe buying it.
@@andrewroes7942 I wouldn't really consider steam a monopoly in the traditional sense anyway, there are competing store platforms on PC that game devs/publishers can put their games, it's just that valve has created such a solid ecosystem and gained the support of pretty much all PC gamers because of the way they operate and present themselves. It would only really be a monopoly if valve pushed the competition out of the market and became the only option for buying games, which will likely never happen because even they themselves wouldn't want that. Its better that they have the competition, users have the choice, and willingly use steam out of respect for their platform or for convenience. I recently bought a steam deck, and re-bought all the games I owned in other storefronts on steam during the summer sale, because I love what valve do and want to support them, and want all my games in one place. Also means i've paid more to the devs of games that I enjoy so they get something out of it too.
I refuse to yield. Google's server sends data to my computer. How my computer interprets that data and what data it discards is my business only. I will not be forced to watch ads. I support creators in other ways.
If UA-cam is going to force me to disable adblocker then I hope they force content creators to stop sponsored ads in videos, patreon shilling, merch sellling ect. The reason I use adblocker is because I’m tired of the overwhelming amount of ads coming on content.
UA-cam premium might give creators more money than watching ads, but I could also just support a few creators on Patreon or pay for Nebula and not have Google take a massive cut off other people's work. It seems like all the big social media companies are getting close to the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Yes but that could actually cost you more money depending how many creators you support on Patreon. With UA-cam Premium not only do you get no ads but also everyone you watch gets a bit more.
Not too sure how Patreon would cost you more if you're just consciously dividing what you'd spend on YT Premium up amongst the creators you want to support, let alone how the creators would somehow get more from it.
@@mr_ekshun What I'm saying is if you support 10 creators on Patreon for $5 then that's $50 a month. If you watch 20 creators on UA-cam then all 20 will get a bit more money from Premium then from ads. Yes they might get more money on Patreon but you have to choose how many creators to support. On UA-cam everyone will get a bit more even a random guy you only watched one video and don't follow. I hope I was able to explain what I meant.
That's when I hit "Mute" or take of my headphones and focus my attention elsewhere. I've done something similar when I was a kid in the 1980's when ads came on the TV and still do it today. You don't always need adblock, or sponsor block to skip this stuff. And you can't keep anyone from muting the sound or walking away for a minute or two.
How about instead of giving your users only 3 videos to play and then completely block playback, ask them a poll. "What would convince you to pay for UA-cam Premium?" Give a few options, but then also allow a blank entry. Sure they will get a lot of random BS too, but the ones that might actually pay if given a certain feature would feel heard if UA-cam were to offer that feature. They did that before but never actually listened to any of the users who answered.
I think it's cute that Google thinks they can stop ad blocking - they can't. Digital piracy gets easier by the decade, and that's never going to change.
I feel like the reason that Spotify is so successful with getting subscriptions is due to the fact that it is mostly mobile and much harder to block ads on. UA-cam being a website is much easier to bypass. I hated seeing ad but after I learned that creators only get adsense when someone is served an ad before or during their video, I got premium.
You're better off donating to that creator directly than them relying on your ad revenue. That few dollars donated will give them more money than you watching their videos.
spotify also has a much wider range of integrations on other devices for example i am a console gamer as well and while there is a youtube app on my playstation, if you want to play music while gaming then spotify is your only option
UA-cam premium costs like $23/month here. No god damn way am I paying that much for two slowly worsening platforms and no ads. Spotify premium on the other hand only costs $12/month and I happily pay for it. I'm not against paying for things if it means I get a better experience, but I won't be expected to pay up by a monopolistic company who is too lazy to make the platform any better. Even with the premium plan. And don't get me started on how unmoderated and ham fisted google ads truly are. You can't go five minutes in any video without having 2 un-skippable scams shoved down your throat.
There's a number of issues around this. One being, as mentioned in the video, stuff like this has been offered for free, for years uninterrupted, to the point it's regarded as the norm for it. Another being we're already in an era with a plethora of monthly subs, and people can only afford to pay for so many of them. Then once you start paying a monthly sub for something, it's only ever going to go up in price. I'd never get a YT premium, as it's far too much for very little. I'd be in principal interested in a "lite" version that simply disables ads, but the problem will be even if it's a small monthly fee, it will go up. The bubble has to burst and there needs to be some more centralisation, not back to the point of monoplies like Netflix when it started, but offering enough options to keep up competition, but not to where we are just now, of over-saturation.
My Bro-in-Law did rough maths to determine how much time YTP would save us and it was like 23.5 hours a year. And we felt that gaining a whole day of mind share back from no adds was well worth it to us.
Exactly. How do you think Amazon could afford to operate on a loss for decades on end? It's not that YT can't afford to serve adless content, it's that they don't want to. They would rather spend truckloads of money on destroying up-and-coming rivals.
My issue with this is that youtube premium doesn't block all ads. I'm not paying money to have sponsor ads built in to videos play at me. I don't have an issue with the sponsor reads inherently, but I'm not paying for an "ad-lite" services
It's really hard to speculate the alternative history where abusive invasive surveillance ads were not an option and more acceptable ads where the best option available on the market; it is possible good ads would pay well if ad companies didn't had the option of crossing the line.
Honestly it's not very difficult to imagine for me because I've seen it. I spend most of my time on the internet browsing the indieweb, and most people there source ads from companies like "ethicalads" which, as one might imagine, are non-tracking, non-intrusive, but still relevant because they're delivered on a selected-topic basis and managed by actual people.
14:00 that's because Spotify doesn't share profit with podcast creators, so ads within podcast episodes is the main, NORMAL way for podcasts to be sustainable.
@@bluefalconb5282 It's not hard to make non intrusive ads. What was wrong with ads on sides of the page? The current design for video ads whether it is on TV or streaming platform has been a joke since forever. The idea that if you bombard users with ads, they will eventually be interested is just plain wrong.
@@navinvent That's the thing, intrusive ads do not work. It's a matter of catching your potential customers attention, not force your product on them and waste their time. That just turns them away and makes them angry. I have clicked on way more ads on sides of web pages than video ads at the beginning of youtube videos. All I look at when they play is the countdown at the bottom of the screen. I have also become a master at figuring out where to skip in the video when sponsored segments are playing. I don't need a VPN and telling me about it for the 100th time is wasting advertiser's money. Cable TV style ads will always be nothing more than a pee break.
moral of the story: Ads (unlike some sponsor segments) are the scourge of humanity. They have to be blockable, easily skippable and not instantly offensive like sponsor segments, or they are objectively a terrible thing with no right to existence. And yes, paying for youtube is still better then youtube with no adblock, but right now, premium is for people with more money then me, not an accessible, low-cost subscription for the majority of users. And I still considered paying for it several times, just like I pay for spotify, because, again, ads are usually fucking terrible because they want absolutely nothing exept making me act against my self interest no matter the cost and that is not something I will just expose me to or accept as normal.
The main issue I have with any ad is that you're either considered the thief for blocking them, or the victim of a thief for how many of those ads aren't properly vetted to not have some form of malware in them. I'm only a few years younger than Linus, so I grew up at a time when the internet was finally becoming big, when the start of sites like this first began. I still remember the hassle of getting rid of viruses that even the antivirus software I had wasn't capable of yet dealing with, such as the old Win32 virus on my Windows XP system. That thing was one I had to manually remove because it was killing my antivirus process from the background and preventing its launch, as it was doing even with task manager, so you couldn't kill its process. The solution I had for something like that was something that only worked because of how slow the computer I had was: launch process explorer in place of task manager, since that was enough of a processing workload for my system to slow it down enough that I could then quickly scroll the processes and take screenshots in the, literally, 1 to 3 seconds before it was closed. After taking screenshots, I'd paste them in MS Paint and look for anything that was out of the ordinary, since I was incredibly familiar with background processes because of how frequently I'd run into a site that gave me a virus, back then. After I found the culprit, I had to quickly open process explorer, scroll to the correct spot, right-click it, and click pause process. After I paused the process, issues all stopped, process explorer wasn't closed, and I was then able to find the exe and delete it. However, that wasn't the end, because that virus had a secondary component which would replace itself when missing, so I had to repeat this process after first finding the one that replaced it, deleting both. It was weeks before the antivirus we had finally came up with a solution that worked to get rid of it and pushed the update to us. Long story short: if I'm either to be considered the thief, or the victim, I'll take the title of thief any day. Those auto-playing video ads are a major issue, and the number of ads plastered all over sites makes me not want to even bother with said sites, especially when those video ads have sound and are on a site where such sound shouldn't be playing, but it's the potential viruses that makes me refuse to allow them. Every form of malware must first become known to antivirus software creators before anything can be done to stop them, and such a thing tends to take time. That time is all it takes to put a user at risk, and I refuse to allow such a risk. The issue of the content of those ads is another matter entirely, and most of that is absolute trash that has no right to exist, and typically being some form of a scam "product" or useless garbage I don't care about or don't even need an ad for. If the ads were all things I didn't need an ad for, due to already being aware of it, or they were something which informed me of things I didn't mind, or whatever, something nonintrusive, including being silent and not a video, and more informative, without the viruses, and with the ability to skip them if they were in a video, and such lengths being no longer than 15 seconds, such as pre-roll video ads or other commercials, THEN I'd be fine with disabling adblock for the site in question. Unless those criteria are met, then I can't, and such criteria may never be met because such problems have existed for as long as I've been using the internet. So, I'd also need a guarantee that such problems are eliminated before giving any semblance of trust to a site. With how massive Alphabet/Google/UA-cam is, that's what they should be aiming to do, because there's no excuse for them to not guarantee the safety of their ads while also meeting the other criteria I've listed.
Problem that UA-cam getting worse year by year even for premium subs. And it's battle of spear and shield, I think that youtube nearly impossible to beat this. it's just make more audience in alternative youtube clients and get worse for them
I will rather stop using yt all togheter than switch off adblock. For me this exactly same as with cable tv. Ads on all channels got so long and obnoxious that I just don't watch any tv anymore. YT slowly goes same way and using it without adblock resembles cable tv. Slowly, but surely. You call this stealing? So how do you call what's Google is doing with my data? Thousands of tracking attempts blocked on only ONE video! ONE! They are stealing my data and if you want me to have a reason, here have that. Not that I need any reason to block ads on one of the worst corpo there is...
You're right about stuff being free. These services can't run on goodwill alone, unfortunately. Simultaneously, these businesses should've had plans to smartly monetize in *some* way, if not immediately, then at some point later on down the line. But I suppose capitalism, at the very least capitalism in it's current form, doesn't allow for intelligent, longer-term thinking. I think if a company was blunt in its messaging, particularly in the beginning of its life, and go, "Hey, at some point we're going to have to monetize in order to continue this thing you like.", or even, "Welcome to this new service, you're going to have to pay to use it, blah, blah," many people would probably be ok with that. The value of a YT without ads is great so I'm happy to pay for Premium, considering how much I use it, but that's just me.
@@121dan121 I'm a nobody and my data is useless and irrelevant; on a personal level I don't really care. On a broader scale this type of thing is going to continue to happen regardless, until more governments grow some actual teeth and strangle these companies into line with effective, stringent regulations.
@@df_49 The point is, they're already profitable. They don't need your money. So the stuff about needing money is false. Sure, maybe some companies do need money. But then, if you tell me that ahead of time, that's just telling me to avoid you, because you don't think you can become profitable. The people who deserve your money are the creators, not the people who screw them over to become rich. Not a single one of these websites is started by someone who isn't rich.
12 dollars Canadian is 9 USD. UA-cam premium is 16 USD in the US. Why is there such a big discrepancy? I would feel a lot better about paying $9 than $16
Personally, I don’t care about ads but 1. Don’t give me two, 20 second unskippable ads. Any ad over 10 seconds should be skippable 2. The rise of short form content reduces the number of ads I personally see because one swipe will always be faster. I’ll happily hear any alternative views.
The free lunch will end eventually on short form as well. The difficulty monetizing short form content is why the big competitors are getting out of it and Tiktok is trying to get into long form.
I think I would play for UA-cam Premium if I could use it to download video or audio files. But right now the price is too high and it doesn't offer me much value. For the past year, I've taught myself to avoid sponsored products as they can lead to scams and faulty products. I don't know, I have the feeling that if a product needs much advertising, it's not a good product. I prefere to support creator through Patreon because, unlike the UA-cam membership, I can see exactly what I'm getting in return
The problem isn’t ads or payments. The issue is UA-cam’s service is just too user-hostile for people to want to pay for. The ads experience is terrible. The ads are intrusive and low-quality. The recommendation algorithm also degrades the experience by pushing clickbait and reducing user agency. Ultimately, the user feels disrespected and manipulated. That isn’t an experience that leads to customers giving you money.
It's not gonna stop, this is just gonna kick the ad-block arms race into overdrive. Ultimately the only thing we're gonna find out is how many of these services were sustainable to begin with and how many of them should have been a paid service to begin with. Hopefully YT will get its head out of it's butt and split music and barebones YT premium (no ads, ability to play videos with screen off on mobile) into separate paid services so I won't waste money on a music service I don't use and therefore a cheaper price.
Hot take. I think Google will end up requiring a UA-cam Premium subscription to upload videos in the near future. And maybe when most of us have a subscription, Google will start changing the terms of service into something like a cloud storage provider, culling videos beyond your subscribed limit, and end up offering a business subscription for unlimited uploads and hosting for people like Linus and Marquez. After all, people who upload content regularly are mostly in the content creation business.
very unlikely for them to go the vimeo route IMO. I see them charge or limit for 4k but not limit content which is the bread and butter of youtube. google is trying to get money from the users, not the creators.
@@vinny1641 On the other hand, where would people go? Unless an alternative appears (or maybe people started liking grass more?) this platform is not going anywhere. People will always consume more content, and those whose livelihood is tied to the platform will always make more videos. This would just push people to look for content outside their bubble, and with less competition for attention, those who paid to upload (even the obscure ones) will get more traffic, encouraging more to subscribe with the rationale that in case being a content creator doesn't pan out, at least you don't get ads in the videos you consume. It's a cycle I'm expecting to happen once Google's gather enough data to show that the reduction of ad revenue due to a decrease in the volume of new content breaks even with the amount they save from the reduction of overhead (storage, cooling, personnel).
@@vinny1641 Although they have a captive audience. People don't really have anywhere else to go, and the people making money from UA-cam don't have any where to go that's worthwhile. UA-cam's been pivoting to a more business-focused model anyway, so it seems like they could do that. The creators and professional channels can afford to pay, and probably will, if the price doesn't change.
Might be a hot take, the problem isn't services charging. The root problem is a lack of disposable income coming from general income inequality. If lower income people weren't hurting rn it wouldn't feel like such a slap in the face to them to have to pay a fee for these types of digital services.
I wonder how much you’d have to pay monthly to remove all ads you see on google entirely, obviously the more websites you visit a month the more you have to pay.
Honestly, you are right about the marketing about premium. I freaking hate ads, because so many are either irritating to listen to, or are outright spam/scam/stupid (YT happily taking money from scammers is a whole different conversation), so I use an adblock. I feel bad about getting it for free, but the few cents creators would get isn't worth my time to me. But I have always seen YT premium as a meme, and had honestly never really thought about it. You did a better promo for it, to the point where I am seriously considering it, than YT has ever done.
The main reason I didn't want to get premium is the god awful way in which YT badgers you with unskippable ads that clearly don't make their advertisers any money and are just there to annoy you and get you to buy premium. If they just disabled video playback and told me to get premium that honestly would have been a more respectful treatment.
@@seeibe I agree, it absolutely seems deliberate to be as annoying and obnoxious as possible. Its totally on YT for not doing a better job of coming up with other revenue sources. If they keep going with their increasingly obnoxious ads and schemes, it will eventually poison the platform and it will die off.
And UA-cam enters stone bleeding mode. Think of it this way, UA-cam only gets ads if advertisers see it worth it, and advertisers only see it worth it if they have a high enough conversion. 99.9% of all people using ad-block will NEVER convert with an ad. So this will just lower the CPM to reach the new equilibrium where everyone is making the same amount of money or maybe even less while making the experience worse for users. Also when it comes to Premium, one of the main features of downloading is worse than the free NewPipe alternative. Just ask Louis Rossmann.
For the purposes of music, every music streaming service is still leagues above UA-cam's consumer tools. Even if i bought premium, i think I'd still feel like i was the product and that the only thing I've received is "adblock absolution" (not having to feel guilty about using it elsewhere). Just managing a playlist is tedious (if you want to remove a video, you have to do it one by one; Spotify [and Deezer and Tidal] lets you do q quick select of a bunch of songs to remove them). Last i knew, premium only paid out a bit better than ad revenue (streaming services, especially tidal, have much better rates). The algorithm is always pushing down videos I don't enjoy, but watch because I'm bored. Theres no way to set up freemium or premium to just be *nicer*. On streaming services I am the curator, and the algorithms are set up as a set of tools built for discovering, not for feeding. If UA-cam does move towards pushing premium, I'd probably take measures to quit it and go to nebula, dropout, elsewhere. At least in those places it feels much more like a curated collection of content.
To summarize: AdBlocking is a bit more than just convenience, but also about trying to reject toxic, external influence. I like lots of the content creators on nebula. I'm most likely to head over there.
I think that while it is "entitlement" from users, I would still say that's entirely the fault of youtube (and other applicable services). If you want to build your business based on providing a service that is unsustainably better than others until they all sink and you're the only one standing, you get to deal with the consequences of having convinced your userbase this is something that can exist when it can't, and I won't feel bad for you. You can say "Oh but it's free! How can you feel justifiably entitled at that!" and yet what we've always been told is "Ads and data collection are what pay for it", so at the time I would assume that was simply the cost, and frankly when the ads weren't crazy I was fine with it, go ahead and have my data if I can have this! I was happy with that, but it turns out that was a big lie, one they knew from the start when they were staying alive off investor money, nobody to blame but themselves at that point.
@@hastyscorpion Most people don't use adblock. If they need to experiment with putting 10 video ads before a video, it's pretty clear it's not enough to make it profitable or sustainable even if people do watch them
Louis Rossman recently did a video where he advocates NOT paying for UA-cam as long as they provide a crappy experience. It sounds to me like you're having a crappy experience with their family plan. I don't know why you'd encourage them by paying for a broken product.
This will be bad for business and work environments. We use an ad blocker in the school I work for. What are we supposed to do? There is no business UA-cam option for an enterprise environment. It's also unreasonable to have a subscription for every facility member to have a subscription. Teachers use UA-cam a lot, we use ad block to protect students.
Analog cable was soooooo easy to steal back in the day and hope to have a "lost" (unreturned) descrambler box to view premium channels, you were set . . . and also back when the point of getting cable was to have networks with less (or even NO) advertising now cable networks often have MORE advertising than broadcast networks it's disgusting
Premium really doesn't give that many options - adblock, background playback(which used to be free), downloads and yt music(which I don't use) for me to consider giving my money to, when there's stuff like revanced that gives you 10x the features for free. And even if there wasn't, I'd still prefer to spend $5/month on some cretor's Patreon than for Premium. And also what Louie Rossman said: if you're making your service a worse experience for paying customers than for pirates, you've really f**ked up.
Well idk, shit also adds up. I live in the most expensive states in the USA. UA-cam Premium, Spotify, Disney+ Amazon Prime, Crunchyroll, Netflix, online video game services, w/e. I only use Netflix sometimes. Maybe people are entitled. We are used to our UA-cam content being pretty ad-free. But maybe people's money is also being stretched thin. I dunno, that's just what I see from where I live and I don't make a lot of money either. People are either subbed to 20 other things (especially when you have families), or have to find other ways to get their content. Which now thinking about it, maybe we have a market saturation (?) problem now with everything being a sub service. That's just what I see from where I live though. It's probably a small amount of the overall viewer population idk.
Adblocking = theft. It has always been the case. And every time a site has imposed anti-adblocking, people get mad, and go somewhere else, or steal the content another way. You have to realize that the nature of the web is that someone will steal your content, out of spite, because you put some hurdle in the way of seeing it immediately. We generally tolerate ads down the side/underneath some piece of content, because it doesn't impair the site enough, as long as the content you are there for, is there. But you throw a paywall, or a "subscrube now" on top of it, and now people will spitefully block the ads on the site. Don't double-dip. UA-cam is going to have to decide if they want to be Netflix or Tiktok. Because offering "premium" subscriptions without a way to put put all your youtube accounts under that premium service subscription means people are just never going to do so. It's too much of a pain in the behind to have to switch accounts to do something. This was so ever evident from the Stadia experiment, where Stadia was under account X and youtube was under account Y, and having to switch between them to do something in the same browser just made me opt to not use stadia as much as I would have, because I spent more time with youtube. UA-cam can not become "cable", because cable lost. Paying to access content that still has ads in it, means people do not see value in the premium being paid. So It's going to become a sore point for creators who do sponsored videos, who might be cut from YT "premium" revenue.
You guys never talk about the safety aspect of ad block. UA-cam is full of malicious ads. I see ads all the time that want me to give up personal info to them in one way or another. For example I see fake Mr Beast free money ads constantly. Sure I know better than to click any of those but a lot of people don't and shouldn't have to pay Google to protect themselves.
Spotify is better, not just from features; but literally 15% of my Liked Songs, just plain aren't on UA-cam Music. Why would I pay more for less, especially with AdBlock being free anyways.
I pay for premium because I hate ads and view most of this on my TV, but I still ad-block on my browser to limit tracking, and to remove a lot of the obnoxious things I don't want and can't disable like the forced news section that keeps coming back even after I turn it off. I'm happy to pay for an ad-free experience, I just wish they wouldn't keep trying to still monetize in other ways off me.
I know what you mean about that news tab, they removed the ability to hide the shelf for UA-cam Shorts and it drives me mad. Was bad enough it kept coming back every 30 days.
UA-cam is not "too big to fail". You yourself called them obnoxious. To quote someone else "ridiculous to watch a 60 second ad for a 20 se one diy video". I know you and others want to use UA-cam as a business option, but if image ads aren't good enough then too bad. Honestly too bad. Ad creator spend so much money on psychology to get us hooked, then make image ads good enough. Because UA-cam is unbearable with ads. And that's not including the security/malware issues
I will not be paying for premium, nor will I be disabling adblock. I will however gladly quit using youtube entirely. There is not $15 a month worth of value from youtube premium.
Counter hot take? Ad providers have consistently paid less and less and become consistently more invasive. The issue isn't "user entitlement" or the company being greedy (well, at least not in this case), but the ad providers deciding to collude on ad payout decreases and being less and less scrupulous about who they sell ad space to.
My problem with YT Premium (and I do actually have YT Premium) is that some of the stuff offered used to be part of the free experience, or should be basic functionality. UA-cam saving your place in a video so you can come back and continue where you left off used to be a free function of the site. They just took it away one day, And the other thing is being able to play a video with your phone's screen off. Having audio continue playing should be a basic function of every phone, but they paywall it on YT. I like being able to play a playlist on a long drive with screen off so I can save a bit of power, and is the the main reason I caved and bought Premium. Those two things should not add to the price of Premium, nor should be behind a paywall. YT Premium should just be no ads and YT music. Make the price $8 - $10 and it becomes a much better price point. And there should be a payment option for just no ads, priced at $5 - $6. *Edit: Also, the main reason I used ad blocker before YT Premium and still use it on other sites is not because I hate seeing ads. It's to not see repetitive ads (the same ad showing up three times in a row), ads popping up every few seconds, and ads that are just plain bad or kill your brain cells. I think there would be much less ad block use if ad makers made actually good and varied ads.
I will gladly block any ads on my way, and never feeling sorry for them, they use our data to serve us good personalized ads, instead I get scams and spams 7-6 ads, there always a good middle solution but they choose non also if banners ads doesn't work then 6 unskippable ads doesn't if we return to the old 3 sec ad, about the drinks, food I love, those worked for me, ill remove the blocker if YT has competition they wouldn't dare to make this horrible ad experience, this is the price they pay for being the only top platform and not being competitive and consumer friendly
IMO biggest difference between YT (or similar) is that it is specifically about the creators themselves that you can support directly by either buying merch, following sponsor links or buying into their patreon. Spotify and other music services are more about access to the entire library, most people listen to hundreds if not thousands of songs by hundreds of artists and in most cases directly supporting those artists is impossible.
On Luke's take with UA-cam premium and Spotify premium, I think the main difference is vastly more people spend vastly more time with Spotify than UA-cam. Spotify is something you can have on all day doing mostly anything with no issue, whereas you spend a lot less time on UA-cam. Most people watch maybe a few videos in 1 day compared to a lot of people having Spotify just on at home or in the car or when playing games or doing chores or many other situations. On the side of UA-cam music, most people aren't even aware it's much of a thing and the people who do know about it would rather just use Spotify just for the ease of use.
You are 100% right. UA-cam can only dream of the usage Spotify gets. I work 12 hour days, and from the moment I turn on the key in my car, to the moment I get home Spotify is either cranking podcasts or music. That's nearly 14 hours of usage. Sure, most of it is downloaded and offline, but the fact remains that Spotify, for purely listening experience be it music or podcasts, is just plain superior.
I will use the better product. UA-cam premium doesn't even have sponsor block, interact block, intro and outro block. Free software online offers this along with the base adblock. It needs to at least be competitive in features with free products if it wants me to spend money on it.
Don't care if I sound entitled. Ads are infuriating. Yes, I hate them that much. And subscriptions are almost never worth it. Case and point, UA-cam premium. $15/m (AUD) for 1 of 3 perks that interest me is not worth it. Add support for one or 2 other accounts under the same subscription, maybe then I'll pay. Do better, UA-cam.
I'm perfectly fine if they implement this policy to everybody globally, enough people say 'no,' and UA-cam just shuts down completely. I'm a millennial. I grew up with no internet, and it forced its way into my life. I'm fine reverting back to the way things were, if that's what it leads to across all websites.
@@pedrofgmartins You say that, but look at Twitch. They started trying to prevent ad-blockers, and now there's Kick. Sure, it's not directly cause and effect - but it's stuff like this that creates an opening for competitors to get into the market.
I would have been happier about it 5 years ago. When it still seemed to me that Google was slightly better than the other big tech companies. Now they are just as bad as the rest and since they have more power over ads than anyone else it makes them extra suspect.
2:49 this is Linus misconception about how Internet history. Web was free from the beginning. It was created by passionate engineers. Then corporations came in, and used users attention, and private data to monetize anything they could. Now corporations cry that these sources of income are not enough. So they still will abuse our privacy, and monetize our data, but will require also your donations. I think it is best to take a fee from the users period. They should not be using any sort of ads. I think that if youtube premium pays off, you still will be seeing adds. Monopoly is abusive position in which you can do whatever you like.
I thought, due in part because of the revenue breakdowns featured on this channel and others, that UA-cam premium users contribute a larger revenue share per capita compared to ad viewing users? My general understanding was the ad viewing users didn't contribute much per view. Would this not suggest UA-cam premium is significantly overpriced if the intention is truly "Pay the same 'price' as ad viewing users are"? Linus specifically mentioned that "still ads" don't pay the bills, (with the implication that video ads do). But, this is not the false equivalence of "UA-cam wants you to watch ads or pay the equivalent", This seems much more like "UA-cam wants everyone to pay subscription based pricing" So UA-cam has effectively raised the price of entry to watch videos. Which is fine, buts its packaged like its the same old price, but you pay with money instead of watching ads.
A lot of what I use UA-cam for is background music during gaming. If uBlock Origin gets blocked on yt, I'm going back to iTunes. I genuinely do not care anymore. It used to be a single ad every few songs, now I literally managed to get mid-roll ads during music playback. I don't care if it makes UA-cam lose money, I'm done. If it's not free, it's not for me.
Quite a mediocre take. I pay for youtube premium, but: 1. I wish there was a more basic version, 2. I'm not paying the full price because of my university discount. UA-cam should do more marketing about "how great the youtube premium is and why you should buy it", kinda like what spotify does with its premium. This just seems too drastic, too fast and might end up with an unnecessary backlash.🤷 ps.: They should fix the issues Louis Rossmann talked about in his video.
I could tolerate 2 ads of 10 to 15 seconds each where one can usually be skipped but i started getting 3 longer unskippable ads. And the ads are always gambling, trash mobile games, or get rich quick scams. So now i use ad block.
I really wouldn't care as much about the ads if they weren't so garbage. If UA-cam/Google could let you filter out ads that you like or dislike, I would probably turn off my adblocker tbh. I just need it to stay sane.
this!
Come on, you are a computer person. There is a simple way around this, think!
@@madmanmax120 y'all ever see the youtube "ads" that were just an hour long+ video?
They did this to themselves. Before UA-cam pushed video ads, normal image based ads were the standard. Advertisers don't have infinite money either, so normal non obstructive ads now earn them almost nothing. I find video ads unacceptable, full stop.
I thought we could expect free services as long as we knew that we were selling our data.
Now they get our data and charge us for the privilege.
Severely underrated comment
Yes this is something that many seem to forget about. Its not like platforms and services just didn't care about advertising generating revenue, its that they made a solid profit selling user data on to third parties, so didn't care about anything else. Almost every large platform has done this, and made plenty of money from it, either directly or indirectly. I think that at this point, the market for data aggregation has kind of stagnated, with so many services harvesting so much about everyone, the value of that data goes down massively when they're trying to compete with each other on the lowest prices for it.
yeah but the argument that people pay for Spotify still stands. since Spotify collect huge amounts of data.
Here's my take: the data they collect needs to be utilized somehow. Whether that's used for market research, or targeted advertisement (and everything in between). However, I believe targeted advertisement makes up a huge portion of the data's value. And Google is one of the biggest providers of advertisements. And so by this logic, if they stopped showing ads, the data would lose its value significantly.
Google bought UA-cam and changed their strategy to this ad supported model, and its now come to bite them in the ass. I'm not sympathizing for them, but I just feel like they really need to figure their shit out. Charge people if you have to. But don't charge like 10 bucks a month or some shit like that. Platforms like Nebula have managed to be profitable just by having a $3 a month subscription. And to the best of my knowledge, I don't believe they sell data externally. So using this model can really be helpful for UA-cam.
And pretend like they aren't and if you try to take control of your data they get upset at you for not subscribing to their disgusting systems.
I agree with Louis Rossmann's take on this. He had no problem paying for UA-cam Premium for 7 years until UA-cam made the Premium experience terrible e.g. preventing Loius from watching downloaded YT videos without going online. UA-cam can't help but make UA-cam terrible, even for the people who actual money to use it.
> download
> going online
????? why do you need to be online for a downloaded video lol
I dont need internet to watch them. Might be a US issue?
Not only that, even if you pay they still use your data
Same thing here. I paid for UA-cam Premium until I just felt disgusted supporting a website making very questionable decisions.
Holy shit, I just posted a comment saying I have experienced this exact same issue!!! Completely agree, they want you to pay for Premium but have actively made the Premium experience worse.
If ads aren't genuinly disruptive or scamming digital snake oil schemes then I don't have much of a problem. But for example the 7 full screen takeover ads on twitch I sometimes get is the wrong way to go about it.
Yes, the reason I use ad block on other sites (since I have premium) is that ads are sometimes too frequent, too loud, and too long with no option to skip. I also have run into ads playing multiple times in a row. If Google fixed the ad system, and ad makers made actual good ads, the use of ad block would go down a lot.
And Twitch also upped Twitch Turbo to $12 a month when it was reasonably priced at $9 for so long.
@@Daxterous UA-cam Premium price also increased in most big countries this year as well
The reason ad block took traction 10 years ago, those annoying ads that were all over the place, hidden, random redirects and sound files that would play and we couldn't see.
Sure, those ads aren't as much of a problem anymore, but now they moved to obnoxious YT vids.
Oh F twitch. I avoid that site like the plague. But when I need to see something on there the ads are so dumb. I haven't ran an ad blocker since the early 2000s but I might now for twitch. It's just so dumb that you can only bypass ads on a per streamer basis
If I can't watch my content creators showing mature content, I'm not watching youtube ads that constantly dismiss weird and obviously sexual ads for mobile games targeted for kids.
It's so mind-boggling stupid and disturbing at the same time.
I agree, the ads for the survival or mafia games contain way to much content that I would deem extremely suggestive in relation to inappropriate content
Right! My 11 year old was appalled and showing me an ad yesterday of this horrifying "giant butts twerking" game that popped up on his UA-cam. He was genuinely shocked and was demanding to know why I couldn't turn it off because he felt it was inappropriate and didn't want to be looking at it. And like, I was really proud of him for not just being glued to it, but honestly the animation was super off putting so I don't blame him. But yeah, I wish I could set ad preferences, both for myself and for my kid, way more effectively. I don't mind ads, but he's getting sexual things, I keep getting inundated with horror movie stuff when I don't look at that sort of content at all, I just wish we had more control over type of ads.
The problem I have is that UA-cam Premium offers a lot of things that I just don't want. I just want the ads to go bye bye and I don't want to pay 12 USD a month for that. If there was a lower grade plan that just offered that for $2-$5 a month, I'd happily buy that by the year because I just want the ads gone, not anything else.
Premium lite
background play has to included as well, frankly it has to be enabled by default.
Me too buddy. Luckily someone offered to add me to their family plan. I'm golden until that goes away. When that inevitably stops, I'd happily pay multiple years of 2-5/month for no ads.
How about $8 dollars a month like twitter? $2 is definitely 2 low and 5 is ok, but some people watch a lot of youtube and things like background play and downloadable videos should cost a bit more. So would 8 be ok? 8 seems good v.v
Just make YT Premium configurable at that point. Starting price idk 5 bucks for only ad Removal, background play +1buck, downloadable videos +2bucks. And for the full product everything you pay a little less than all individual positions together.
Tadaaaa
UA-cam's other problem is they keep spending tons of development time on actively worsening the experience. I'm in the process of migrating my media out of the Google ecosystem because I'm sick and tired of YT Music, they presumably spent millions on it and it's still worse than GP Music
So where are you going to go? Tidal? Lol
I wholeheartedly agree with you. UA-cam Music is objectively inferior to GPM. Google killing off the latter motivated me to BUY my music again on CD and rip it to local files.
Used CDs are *cheap* and collecting new albums can be a fun hobby. I save on mobile data usage and own my music again. It’s well worth the effort.
@@Azmodaeus49 Buy the music outright, the old-school way, specifically from somewhere other than Google. As for UA-cam, people will find ways around the adblocking
@@bosstowndynamics5488 I'm done buying artists albums & tracks dude, Spotify is where I go if I want music. Not UA-cam
I've just straight up downloaded audio - not just music, I mean anything from sound effects to console startups, for years now. Saves me bandwidth altogether.
Adblocker protects my devices from certain malicious ads, and there is no way I'm giving up that protection.
You won't but the people behind the browsers will . The people that implemented it will possibly fall on their swords because of Google dominance in the browser market.
@@Azmodaeus49The browser wouldn't matter if you're using something like pie-hole which I think everybody should use
@@jt3000owhen I used pi-hole, I got a ridiculous amount of false positives. How do you mitigate that?
For me, Adblocker does a better job at protecting my PC then actual paid antivirus software.
That's a fact. I've tested it.
@@2raddude so it all depends on what block list use
If it weren't for driveby malware, really annoying ads (stuff like "click your age" for example), stuff that makes websites heavier, and privacy invasive trackers, I'd be fine with not using an adblocker. Meaning something from EthicalAds. Most of this can be avoided if money weren't something anyone needed to worry about, but there would still be malware and some sort of trackers like telemetry that bogs down websites and programs in general.
This. I run Firefox and ad blockers on my phone just so websites actual load in a timely manner. I have an old phone.
@@ShyguyMM Ads on UA-cam like the sidebar ones are distributed by Google AdSense, which has previously been abused for malvertising, and it still at least improves privacy somewhat by not having all those tracking sites seeing every page you visit. My issue with video ads is different: it simply makes me less likely to watch the video because I have to wait around for the ad to go away so I can watch the video I want to watch, and sometimes I lose all interest in the video as soon as a midroll ad shows up. I shouldn't have to sell my time or data just to use the Internet comfortably.
If using adblock is piracy, then advertising scams is fraud.
That was always true
Scams were always fraud
Not to mention everyone under the sun is aware that Google doesn't pay it's taxes and that's apparently just fine. They pay some but move billions out of the country to havens.
¯\(°_o)/¯
They literally don't pay their fair share into the world community but expect users to pay their fair share into their community.
Ultimately, the way I see this going is the same its always gone. UA-cam will crack down on adblockers, most common tools will stop working, most people who use them will shrug and either stop using youtube (lol), pony up, or deal with the ads. Meanwhile, a new adblock will be developed, and slowly disseminate out. For a while, we'll see only those who keep up to date with the scene using it, eventually it will hit widespread adoption, and when your parents finally are using it, we'll see another crackdown. Rinse, repeat, until the end of time.
Literally like piracy😂😂😂
And all of this cost UA-cam's money...
Play stupid game, win stupid prize.
@@konokiomomuro7632 Well its better then getting ads for viruses
@@villager736 I mean UA-cam is playing stupid games. I've never seen a virus ad from UA-cam in my country tho.
That's not what usually happens. Usually adblockers put out a filter update and it works again. Eventually the company tries again, but adblock keeps on fixing it.
I can think of only one site that has actually required a new addon to block ads. However, that addon got pushed pretty quickly because people having trouble with adblock working on a site will report it, and get told about the new addon.
They do still occasionally try to change things up to stop it. But then the addon updates.
The only new twist is the fear of Manifest v3 making it harder to update filter lists, since you have to update the entire addon, which has to go through Chrome's store.
I do wonder if that will push people off of Chrome.
My 2 biggest issues with this are:
Privacy invasive trackers. even with premium you bet I'm still using an adblocker.
Some of the ads are just plain scams that even people in my family fell for. after my brother started asking me about get rich quick schemes and my father fell for a "pain cure with laser" and I had to lecture them both I just installed adblockers on every device we have in our house.
And my father is a mechanical engineer, if he fell for it you bet a load of other people fell for it as well.
Maybe take a look at something like a pi-hole instead of having to install it separately for every device
@@twanheijkoop6753 Definitely gonna do that later but since it doesn't work outside the house adblockers are also needed for their laptops for example.
The only problem I have with ads is when I'm already a few minutes in to a video but have to pause for whatever reason. I shouldn't be served more ads just because I paused a video.
Or sometimes you missed something that was said so you go back to listen again and get an ad.
Things were free because WE were the product. As far as I know we are still a source of data that they can sell, therefore either they stop selling ANY sort of data from their custommers or they keep it free and fair in the amount/length of the ads.
@@ShyguyMM Not entirely true. Data is analyzed in many ways to direct product placement, make sales predictions, design products, and so on. Information is power, as they say. Serving ads is just one little part.
Louis Rossmann is absolutely correct about this.
Don't rely ads, donate a dollar to your favorite creator.
Use your ad blocker, but hit that join button.
@@TomSidProductionsSimple as that.
@@TomSidProductionsdoes that donation give Google some money though? otherwise they still won't be happy lol
@@blasiankxngwhichever platform you use to donate takes a cut, simple as that.
Don't give money to people that openly hate you.
UA-cam ads violate my terms of service
chef's kiss
💯😁
Damn right!
Then pay for it. A family account isn't that costly
@PXAbstraction then don't offer the service for free from the start. Its not entitlement, its what was offered to us at the start
For example, you would be pissed if your rent increased.
It's not just that the free lunch is gone, it's that our whole economic model is steering towards collapse and companies are going haywire and destroying the good will of their users and community in order to squeeze a few pennies out of them.
yes! im getting destroyed on housing, healthcare, and education costs, but sure, let's pay for a service i already get for free just so maybe the company decides not to make it worse. the math ain't mathing.
Destroying good will because they're trying to be solvent?
It's not just that, it's that those same companies used funny money to **kill** alternatives, hard to ramp up a payment service on equal terms when the competitor can burn through hundreds of millions. Those companies habituated their users to free service so they could get as close to a monopoly as they could, and then they start squeezing.
For me UA-cam is completely unusable without an adblocker. If I wanna support a creator I will simply donate to them or join the channel and they get more money out of me that way instead of 0.005 cents for an ad I will waste my time watching for something I don't even care about.
And typically a donation will A - be substantially more than they would ever make from a lifetime of channel views, and B - creators I want to give money to receive much more of that amount external of UA-cam---the google tax gets thirded (almost quartered!) on patreon, yt takes 45%, where patreon takes 12%
Honestly if UA-cam comes after me when I use Ublock origin all it will do will result in me watching less UA-cam. The site is unusable to me in its current form with the amount of ads they inject.
Same.. I'll just move to back to watching things from my Plex or watching Netflix. Especially when majority of the ads are really sketchy too
Wouldn't be too bad if I can't access youtube anymore. I'm wasting enough time on this platform anyway.
Maybe ads just never worked, regardless of whether they are static or moving. I used to click on static side-bar ads if it looked interesting, but the more annoying an ad is, the more likely I won't even consider the product just out of spite.
I probably wouldn't even have started running ad block except advertisers didn't vet their ads and you got malware from Flash ads. Just a few days ago, I clicked on a sponsored link from freakin' MSN's home page and it was promptly blocked by my virus protection. As long as this kind of thing happens, I won't even feel guilty for running ad block.
You should never feel guilty about running ad block.. There is too many sketchy ads around that you need it for your own protection. Even UA-cam has those shitty sketchy ads
Any moral high ground Google had with UA-cam went out the window when they made a policy change saying they could put ads on a creators videos and collect money from that and just not give them anything if they chose to not monetize a video.
If they find some way to make youtube unwatchable with an ad blocker it isn't going to make me sign up for youtube premium, it will make me just stop using youtube entirely. The creators I like who make their videos available on a different platform I will watch on those and the rest I just won't see. I used the internet long before youtube was created and before google bought it and I and the internet will survive without it.
honestly i have 1 condition to subscribe to youtube premium. Make downloads accessible offline. It makes no sense for someone to have to be connected to their internet 24/7 in order to access content they should be able to with the features youtube has. provide a good service and i wouldn't hesitate to spend 10 or say 15 dollars a month
I think they are? I was able to watch downloaded videos offline while in an airplane if that's what you mean
You have to connect to the internet at least once in 30 days. Still bad tho..
@@JL1 i wish i used to download stuff because i used to go offline for long stretches of time when going on a holiday. But whenever i download a video it would prompt me to get access to a connection after 72 hours give or take.
I don't think youtube music is great either. Like it feels as though the features developed for youtube never achieve their full potential and just get canned or left half baked.
Would still consider getting youtube premium if they at least fix the having to stay online thing.
@@TheFlyingRonin interesting I had no idea! thank you for the info. I had only gone offline for about 24 hours off of wifi (cellular over a month) so I wasn't able to experience that. I agree with you on UA-cam music, I have both spotify and YT only since I get no ads on YT because of my premium, otherwise id switch back to spotify for some things such as automatic shuffled playlists and an easier liked playlist
Have a feeling someone just parrot words from Louis and never really encounter it themself
UA-cam really needs to offer an ad-blocking only plan at a discounted price.
They also do a terrible job (maybe on purpose?) of advertising their annual plans for UA-cam Premium, which would save users who stick around for over a year some money.
The annual plan option is not even accessible in the app
@@arthurcoser that is so strange, their pr team are really bad at marketing YT premium
100%. A sort've mid-range plan (£5-6?) just to block ads would sell really well I expect. The current plan is £12 and that's just too much for me, especially when it's bundled in with crap I just don't want, a middling music streaming service, mobile features I'll never use etc.
@@Palo_dinsome countries have youtube premiun lite, its 6,99 euros a month, it just does not contain youtube music, the rest is included
the real problem is the way ads work, I used to see ads without problems, but how they are implementing it now, so disruptive in the experience, it's worth using ad blockers, but if you are forced to go premium or see add, going to an entire different platform is on the table, since "if you are going to pay anyway" you can go to the platform most suits you
I watched an 8min video the other day and got multiple unskipable ads every minute following the first 2 minutes. Until ads don't disrupt the view experience in such a jarring and annoying way, I'd say blocking is justified. That is also without touching the moral standpoint of privacy violations of UN human rights that should protect it's citizens, but don't thanks to loopholes of private companies. Throwing other shady ethics and practices of google, I'd say every user of a blocker is completely justified in acting for the purpose of privacy to an immoral disgusting company. Defence against intrusive services should never be considered immoral, so I do think what Linus said is wrong and needed to be explained in a different way. Give these companies and inch and they will take 10 miles then walk back 9.
I know a lot of stuff in germany cemented the leagality of ad block and the FBI recomends ad block in the USA so given that
Come on, you are a computer person. There is a simple way around the checker, just think!
@@tonyburzio4107 CSS/JS bypass?
Agreed
There are 2 internets out there, one with adblockers and one with none, and the second is damn fricking horrible, there are some sites that without adblockers they are just impossible to navigate
I will allow ads on youtube if every ads are skippable and no countdown timer, if i want to watch the ad, i will watch it
Also tbh I think what youtube needs to do for premium, is get people to feel okay about giving them their money. Despite being miles better than the competition in equitable pay for creators, they have a huge PR problem with how often they misstep with tons of pointless or negative changes, it feels like they're constantly just making it worse for viewers, and who wants to support a platform like that? Not to mention the amount of issues with the copyright and demonitization system. Even if they're actually doing a lot of good for creators, significantly better than the competition, it feels like they're stopping themselves from building any good PR from it when it's a new bad thing every few weeks. Like mentioned, people are willing to pay for spotify premium, a lot of people. Spotify doesn't even pay artists remotely decently, it's terrible on that front, but they haven't really done much public facing change, they just keep their head low and do what they do well, so people don't even think twice on "do I really want to support this company??", whereas with youtube my gut reaction on thinking of giving them money is "Oh I don't wanna support this".
Also why would I want to give money to what is practically a monopoly.
You're absolutely right. I want to support creators but I have no love for UA-cam as a platform.
@@j100j Yeah, I wouldn't *want* to give money to a monopoly, but hey with steam I really don't feel wrong about it since they haven't wronged me and have actually shown consistent consideration for their users. If youtube were to actually get their act together consistently I'd probably feel a lot better about maybe buying it.
@@andrewroes7942 I wouldn't really consider steam a monopoly in the traditional sense anyway, there are competing store platforms on PC that game devs/publishers can put their games, it's just that valve has created such a solid ecosystem and gained the support of pretty much all PC gamers because of the way they operate and present themselves. It would only really be a monopoly if valve pushed the competition out of the market and became the only option for buying games, which will likely never happen because even they themselves wouldn't want that. Its better that they have the competition, users have the choice, and willingly use steam out of respect for their platform or for convenience. I recently bought a steam deck, and re-bought all the games I owned in other storefronts on steam during the summer sale, because I love what valve do and want to support them, and want all my games in one place. Also means i've paid more to the devs of games that I enjoy so they get something out of it too.
I refuse to yield. Google's server sends data to my computer. How my computer interprets that data and what data it discards is my business only. I will not be forced to watch ads. I support creators in other ways.
If UA-cam is going to force me to disable adblocker then I hope they force content creators to stop sponsored ads in videos, patreon shilling, merch sellling ect. The reason I use adblocker is because I’m tired of the overwhelming amount of ads coming on content.
Come on, you are a computer person. There is a simple way around this, think!
UA-cam premium might give creators more money than watching ads, but I could also just support a few creators on Patreon or pay for Nebula and not have Google take a massive cut off other people's work. It seems like all the big social media companies are getting close to the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Then you have Patreon take a huge cut 😉
@@st2udent_650 Yeah but as far as I know, Patreon is much less toxic toward creators. Not saying they're perfect.
Yes but that could actually cost you more money depending how many creators you support on Patreon. With UA-cam Premium not only do you get no ads but also everyone you watch gets a bit more.
Not too sure how Patreon would cost you more if you're just consciously dividing what you'd spend on YT Premium up amongst the creators you want to support, let alone how the creators would somehow get more from it.
@@mr_ekshun What I'm saying is if you support 10 creators on Patreon for $5 then that's $50 a month. If you watch 20 creators on UA-cam then all 20 will get a bit more money from Premium then from ads. Yes they might get more money on Patreon but you have to choose how many creators to support. On UA-cam everyone will get a bit more even a random guy you only watched one video and don't follow. I hope I was able to explain what I meant.
Linus unironically be like "Using adblock is bad because it makes us lose money, but we'll never lose this segue to our sponsor!"
Oh no, a guy wants to be paid for his work, somebody call the police
@@Matt_9523 which Bible verse says this?
@@jb76489 He's being paid well enough without my ad money. In fact I wouldnt mind him being paid less.
That's when I hit "Mute" or take of my headphones and focus my attention elsewhere. I've done something similar when I was a kid in the 1980's when ads came on the TV and still do it today. You don't always need adblock, or sponsor block to skip this stuff. And you can't keep anyone from muting the sound or walking away for a minute or two.
@@jb76489 Dude's gettin' paid. I wouldn't worry.
How about instead of giving your users only 3 videos to play and then completely block playback, ask them a poll. "What would convince you to pay for UA-cam Premium?" Give a few options, but then also allow a blank entry. Sure they will get a lot of random BS too, but the ones that might actually pay if given a certain feature would feel heard if UA-cam were to offer that feature. They did that before but never actually listened to any of the users who answered.
I think it's cute that Google thinks they can stop ad blocking - they can't. Digital piracy gets easier by the decade, and that's never going to change.
I feel like the reason that Spotify is so successful with getting subscriptions is due to the fact that it is mostly mobile and much harder to block ads on. UA-cam being a website is much easier to bypass. I hated seeing ad but after I learned that creators only get adsense when someone is served an ad before or during their video, I got premium.
You're better off donating to that creator directly than them relying on your ad revenue. That few dollars donated will give them more money than you watching their videos.
Even for Spotify there is a way, we just don't talk about it.
spotify also has a much wider range of integrations on other devices
for example i am a console gamer as well and while there is a youtube app on my playstation, if you want to play music while gaming then spotify is your only option
... there are tools made to cut that out and record + save the music. I wont reccomend it. But in some countries this is actually even legal.
UA-cam premium costs like $23/month here. No god damn way am I paying that much for two slowly worsening platforms and no ads.
Spotify premium on the other hand only costs $12/month and I happily pay for it.
I'm not against paying for things if it means I get a better experience, but I won't be expected to pay up by a monopolistic company who is too lazy to make the platform any better. Even with the premium plan.
And don't get me started on how unmoderated and ham fisted google ads truly are. You can't go five minutes in any video without having 2 un-skippable scams shoved down your throat.
There's a number of issues around this. One being, as mentioned in the video, stuff like this has been offered for free, for years uninterrupted, to the point it's regarded as the norm for it. Another being we're already in an era with a plethora of monthly subs, and people can only afford to pay for so many of them. Then once you start paying a monthly sub for something, it's only ever going to go up in price. I'd never get a YT premium, as it's far too much for very little. I'd be in principal interested in a "lite" version that simply disables ads, but the problem will be even if it's a small monthly fee, it will go up.
The bubble has to burst and there needs to be some more centralisation, not back to the point of monoplies like Netflix when it started, but offering enough options to keep up competition, but not to where we are just now, of over-saturation.
It almost sounds like we should treat the Internet like a public utility...
My Bro-in-Law did rough maths to determine how much time YTP would save us and it was like 23.5 hours a year. And we felt that gaining a whole day of mind share back from no adds was well worth it to us.
In the time taken to do the maths he could have downloaded an adblocker.
It wasn't free. Allot of government handouts went to these tech companies. 😢😢😢
Don't forget Google owns all your data and profits from it
ALLOT
Exactly. How do you think Amazon could afford to operate on a loss for decades on end? It's not that YT can't afford to serve adless content, it's that they don't want to. They would rather spend truckloads of money on destroying up-and-coming rivals.
My issue with this is that youtube premium doesn't block all ads. I'm not paying money to have sponsor ads built in to videos play at me.
I don't have an issue with the sponsor reads inherently, but I'm not paying for an "ad-lite" services
It's really hard to speculate the alternative history where abusive invasive surveillance ads were not an option and more acceptable ads where the best option available on the market; it is possible good ads would pay well if ad companies didn't had the option of crossing the line.
Come on, you are a computer person. There is a simple way around this, think!
Honestly it's not very difficult to imagine for me because I've seen it. I spend most of my time on the internet browsing the indieweb, and most people there source ads from companies like "ethicalads" which, as one might imagine, are non-tracking, non-intrusive, but still relevant because they're delivered on a selected-topic basis and managed by actual people.
14:00 that's because Spotify doesn't share profit with podcast creators, so ads within podcast episodes is the main, NORMAL way for podcasts to be sustainable.
Whatever you say, the biggest issue is still present: Ads are annoying. As GabeN once said, piracy is a service issue.
What do you propose? It costs a ton of money to run UA-cam. It can’t be ad free…
@@bluefalconb5282 It's not hard to make non intrusive ads. What was wrong with ads on sides of the page? The current design for video ads whether it is on TV or streaming platform has been a joke since forever. The idea that if you bombard users with ads, they will eventually be interested is just plain wrong.
@@foufoufunadvertiser's want adds you engage with. Intrusion is the point. No one wants to pay for adds no one else sees.
@@navinvent That's the thing, intrusive ads do not work. It's a matter of catching your potential customers attention, not force your product on them and waste their time. That just turns them away and makes them angry. I have clicked on way more ads on sides of web pages than video ads at the beginning of youtube videos. All I look at when they play is the countdown at the bottom of the screen. I have also become a master at figuring out where to skip in the video when sponsored segments are playing. I don't need a VPN and telling me about it for the 100th time is wasting advertiser's money.
Cable TV style ads will always be nothing more than a pee break.
@@bluefalconb5282 charge for uploading.... people would have to upload less and rely on external money
moral of the story: Ads (unlike some sponsor segments) are the scourge of humanity. They have to be blockable, easily skippable and not instantly offensive like sponsor segments, or they are objectively a terrible thing with no right to existence.
And yes, paying for youtube is still better then youtube with no adblock, but right now, premium is for people with more money then me, not an accessible, low-cost subscription for the majority of users. And I still considered paying for it several times, just like I pay for spotify, because, again, ads are usually fucking terrible because they want absolutely nothing exept making me act against my self interest no matter the cost and that is not something I will just expose me to or accept as normal.
The main issue I have with any ad is that you're either considered the thief for blocking them, or the victim of a thief for how many of those ads aren't properly vetted to not have some form of malware in them. I'm only a few years younger than Linus, so I grew up at a time when the internet was finally becoming big, when the start of sites like this first began. I still remember the hassle of getting rid of viruses that even the antivirus software I had wasn't capable of yet dealing with, such as the old Win32 virus on my Windows XP system.
That thing was one I had to manually remove because it was killing my antivirus process from the background and preventing its launch, as it was doing even with task manager, so you couldn't kill its process. The solution I had for something like that was something that only worked because of how slow the computer I had was: launch process explorer in place of task manager, since that was enough of a processing workload for my system to slow it down enough that I could then quickly scroll the processes and take screenshots in the, literally, 1 to 3 seconds before it was closed. After taking screenshots, I'd paste them in MS Paint and look for anything that was out of the ordinary, since I was incredibly familiar with background processes because of how frequently I'd run into a site that gave me a virus, back then. After I found the culprit, I had to quickly open process explorer, scroll to the correct spot, right-click it, and click pause process.
After I paused the process, issues all stopped, process explorer wasn't closed, and I was then able to find the exe and delete it. However, that wasn't the end, because that virus had a secondary component which would replace itself when missing, so I had to repeat this process after first finding the one that replaced it, deleting both. It was weeks before the antivirus we had finally came up with a solution that worked to get rid of it and pushed the update to us.
Long story short: if I'm either to be considered the thief, or the victim, I'll take the title of thief any day. Those auto-playing video ads are a major issue, and the number of ads plastered all over sites makes me not want to even bother with said sites, especially when those video ads have sound and are on a site where such sound shouldn't be playing, but it's the potential viruses that makes me refuse to allow them. Every form of malware must first become known to antivirus software creators before anything can be done to stop them, and such a thing tends to take time. That time is all it takes to put a user at risk, and I refuse to allow such a risk.
The issue of the content of those ads is another matter entirely, and most of that is absolute trash that has no right to exist, and typically being some form of a scam "product" or useless garbage I don't care about or don't even need an ad for. If the ads were all things I didn't need an ad for, due to already being aware of it, or they were something which informed me of things I didn't mind, or whatever, something nonintrusive, including being silent and not a video, and more informative, without the viruses, and with the ability to skip them if they were in a video, and such lengths being no longer than 15 seconds, such as pre-roll video ads or other commercials, THEN I'd be fine with disabling adblock for the site in question. Unless those criteria are met, then I can't, and such criteria may never be met because such problems have existed for as long as I've been using the internet. So, I'd also need a guarantee that such problems are eliminated before giving any semblance of trust to a site.
With how massive Alphabet/Google/UA-cam is, that's what they should be aiming to do, because there's no excuse for them to not guarantee the safety of their ads while also meeting the other criteria I've listed.
People acting like unskippable commercials on TV haven't been a thing for decades
Problem that UA-cam getting worse year by year even for premium subs. And it's battle of spear and shield, I think that youtube nearly impossible to beat this. it's just make more audience in alternative youtube clients and get worse for them
I will rather stop using yt all togheter than switch off adblock.
For me this exactly same as with cable tv. Ads on all channels got so long and obnoxious that I just don't watch any tv anymore. YT slowly goes same way and using it without adblock resembles cable tv. Slowly, but surely.
You call this stealing? So how do you call what's Google is doing with my data? Thousands of tracking attempts blocked on only ONE video! ONE! They are stealing my data and if you want me to have a reason, here have that. Not that I need any reason to block ads on one of the worst corpo there is...
You're right about stuff being free. These services can't run on goodwill alone, unfortunately. Simultaneously, these businesses should've had plans to smartly monetize in *some* way, if not immediately, then at some point later on down the line. But I suppose capitalism, at the very least capitalism in it's current form, doesn't allow for intelligent, longer-term thinking.
I think if a company was blunt in its messaging, particularly in the beginning of its life, and go, "Hey, at some point we're going to have to monetize in order to continue this thing you like.", or even, "Welcome to this new service, you're going to have to pay to use it, blah, blah," many people would probably be ok with that.
The value of a YT without ads is great so I'm happy to pay for Premium, considering how much I use it, but that's just me.
Google and youtube are massively profitable thanks to your data.
@@121dan121 I'm a nobody and my data is useless and irrelevant; on a personal level I don't really care. On a broader scale this type of thing is going to continue to happen regardless, until more governments grow some actual teeth and strangle these companies into line with effective, stringent regulations.
@@PXAbstraction UA-cam has been making a profit for over 5 years now, so that's just wrong. And yes I mean specifically youtube.
@@df_49 The point is, they're already profitable. They don't need your money. So the stuff about needing money is false.
Sure, maybe some companies do need money. But then, if you tell me that ahead of time, that's just telling me to avoid you, because you don't think you can become profitable.
The people who deserve your money are the creators, not the people who screw them over to become rich. Not a single one of these websites is started by someone who isn't rich.
@@ZipplyZane I agree.
12 dollars Canadian is 9 USD. UA-cam premium is 16 USD in the US. Why is there such a big discrepancy? I would feel a lot better about paying $9 than $16
Personally, I don’t care about ads but
1. Don’t give me two, 20 second unskippable ads. Any ad over 10 seconds should be skippable
2. The rise of short form content reduces the number of ads I personally see because one swipe will always be faster.
I’ll happily hear any alternative views.
The free lunch will end eventually on short form as well. The difficulty monetizing short form content is why the big competitors are getting out of it and Tiktok is trying to get into long form.
The enforced "watch a minimum of 5 seconds" needs to go as well.
I think I would play for UA-cam Premium if I could use it to download video or audio files. But right now the price is too high and it doesn't offer me much value. For the past year, I've taught myself to avoid sponsored products as they can lead to scams and faulty products. I don't know, I have the feeling that if a product needs much advertising, it's not a good product. I prefere to support creator through Patreon because, unlike the UA-cam membership, I can see exactly what I'm getting in return
The problem isn’t ads or payments. The issue is UA-cam’s service is just too user-hostile for people to want to pay for. The ads experience is terrible. The ads are intrusive and low-quality. The recommendation algorithm also degrades the experience by pushing clickbait and reducing user agency. Ultimately, the user feels disrespected and manipulated. That isn’t an experience that leads to customers giving you money.
It's not gonna stop, this is just gonna kick the ad-block arms race into overdrive. Ultimately the only thing we're gonna find out is how many of these services were sustainable to begin with and how many of them should have been a paid service to begin with.
Hopefully YT will get its head out of it's butt and split music and barebones YT premium (no ads, ability to play videos with screen off on mobile) into separate paid services so I won't waste money on a music service I don't use and therefore a cheaper price.
I commonly superchat and join memberships. If I can't use AdBlock then I'm never gonna spend another dime.
Come on, you are a computer person. There is a simple way around this, think!
I mean, Google takes like 50% of all that. You're basically paying for Premium already.
Google could care less if people are mad about adblocker ban on UA-cam. Most of Google's revenue isn't from UA-cam.
They need to make the experience better for people without adblockers… don’t give us MORE and MORE ads
They want more money and not comfor your feelings
I am getting that notice, and I am not using an ad blocker. I see ads!
Hot take. I think Google will end up requiring a UA-cam Premium subscription to upload videos in the near future. And maybe when most of us have a subscription, Google will start changing the terms of service into something like a cloud storage provider, culling videos beyond your subscribed limit, and end up offering a business subscription for unlimited uploads and hosting for people like Linus and Marquez. After all, people who upload content regularly are mostly in the content creation business.
very unlikely for them to go the vimeo route IMO. I see them charge or limit for 4k but not limit content which is the bread and butter of youtube. google is trying to get money from the users, not the creators.
@@vinny1641 On the other hand, where would people go? Unless an alternative appears (or maybe people started liking grass more?) this platform is not going anywhere. People will always consume more content, and those whose livelihood is tied to the platform will always make more videos. This would just push people to look for content outside their bubble, and with less competition for attention, those who paid to upload (even the obscure ones) will get more traffic, encouraging more to subscribe with the rationale that in case being a content creator doesn't pan out, at least you don't get ads in the videos you consume. It's a cycle I'm expecting to happen once Google's gather enough data to show that the reduction of ad revenue due to a decrease in the volume of new content breaks even with the amount they save from the reduction of overhead (storage, cooling, personnel).
@@vinny1641 Although they have a captive audience. People don't really have anywhere else to go, and the people making money from UA-cam don't have any where to go that's worthwhile.
UA-cam's been pivoting to a more business-focused model anyway, so it seems like they could do that. The creators and professional channels can afford to pay, and probably will, if the price doesn't change.
@@techno1561 The vast majority of the content on UA-cam is not provided by people who actually make money, though.
big channels will use that for views then continue uploading as usual without caring
Might be a hot take, the problem isn't services charging. The root problem is a lack of disposable income coming from general income inequality. If lower income people weren't hurting rn it wouldn't feel like such a slap in the face to them to have to pay a fee for these types of digital services.
In truth ads don't pay anyone to begin with 🤣
I wonder how much you’d have to pay monthly to remove all ads you see on google entirely, obviously the more websites you visit a month the more you have to pay.
Honestly, you are right about the marketing about premium.
I freaking hate ads, because so many are either irritating to listen to, or are outright spam/scam/stupid (YT happily taking money from scammers is a whole different conversation), so I use an adblock. I feel bad about getting it for free, but the few cents creators would get isn't worth my time to me. But I have always seen YT premium as a meme, and had honestly never really thought about it. You did a better promo for it, to the point where I am seriously considering it, than YT has ever done.
The main reason I didn't want to get premium is the god awful way in which YT badgers you with unskippable ads that clearly don't make their advertisers any money and are just there to annoy you and get you to buy premium. If they just disabled video playback and told me to get premium that honestly would have been a more respectful treatment.
@@seeibe I agree, it absolutely seems deliberate to be as annoying and obnoxious as possible. Its totally on YT for not doing a better job of coming up with other revenue sources. If they keep going with their increasingly obnoxious ads and schemes, it will eventually poison the platform and it will die off.
And UA-cam enters stone bleeding mode. Think of it this way, UA-cam only gets ads if advertisers see it worth it, and advertisers only see it worth it if they have a high enough conversion. 99.9% of all people using ad-block will NEVER convert with an ad. So this will just lower the CPM to reach the new equilibrium where everyone is making the same amount of money or maybe even less while making the experience worse for users.
Also when it comes to Premium, one of the main features of downloading is worse than the free NewPipe alternative. Just ask Louis Rossmann.
For the purposes of music, every music streaming service is still leagues above UA-cam's consumer tools.
Even if i bought premium, i think I'd still feel like i was the product and that the only thing I've received is "adblock absolution" (not having to feel guilty about using it elsewhere).
Just managing a playlist is tedious (if you want to remove a video, you have to do it one by one; Spotify [and Deezer and Tidal] lets you do q quick select of a bunch of songs to remove them). Last i knew, premium only paid out a bit better than ad revenue (streaming services, especially tidal, have much better rates). The algorithm is always pushing down videos I don't enjoy, but watch because I'm bored. Theres no way to set up freemium or premium to just be *nicer*. On streaming services I am the curator, and the algorithms are set up as a set of tools built for discovering, not for feeding.
If UA-cam does move towards pushing premium, I'd probably take measures to quit it and go to nebula, dropout, elsewhere. At least in those places it feels much more like a curated collection of content.
To summarize: AdBlocking is a bit more than just convenience, but also about trying to reject toxic, external influence.
I like lots of the content creators on nebula. I'm most likely to head over there.
You have to pay for nebula btw. Their priceing is currently at $5/mo or $50/yr.
@@DenastusYeah, I know. I do have it, rn. But my point is if UA-cam starts to directly compete with nebula, I'm going to choose nebula over UA-cam.
The ad-based internet was never a viable business model, advertisers just had enough money to pay corporate welfare.
I think that while it is "entitlement" from users, I would still say that's entirely the fault of youtube (and other applicable services). If you want to build your business based on providing a service that is unsustainably better than others until they all sink and you're the only one standing, you get to deal with the consequences of having convinced your userbase this is something that can exist when it can't, and I won't feel bad for you. You can say "Oh but it's free! How can you feel justifiably entitled at that!" and yet what we've always been told is "Ads and data collection are what pay for it", so at the time I would assume that was simply the cost, and frankly when the ads weren't crazy I was fine with it, go ahead and have my data if I can have this! I was happy with that, but it turns out that was a big lie, one they knew from the start when they were staying alive off investor money, nobody to blame but themselves at that point.
Paying with ads and data only works if people …. watch the ads.
@@hastyscorpion Most people don't use adblock. If they need to experiment with putting 10 video ads before a video, it's pretty clear it's not enough to make it profitable or sustainable even if people do watch them
If you’re a student, Spotify is worth it imo. Comes with Hulu and some other stuff and the cost is only 6$
Louis Rossman recently did a video where he advocates NOT paying for UA-cam as long as they provide a crappy experience. It sounds to me like you're having a crappy experience with their family plan. I don't know why you'd encourage them by paying for a broken product.
This will be bad for business and work environments. We use an ad blocker in the school I work for. What are we supposed to do? There is no business UA-cam option for an enterprise environment. It's also unreasonable to have a subscription for every facility member to have a subscription. Teachers use UA-cam a lot, we use ad block to protect students.
I personally pay for UA-cam premium.
I just don't want ads, gimme a no ad tier. I don't care about the other Premium Features. Or add a "mute audio for ads" in the free version.
I would be okay with ads if they are not LOUD AF.
Analog cable was soooooo easy to steal back in the day
and hope to have a "lost" (unreturned) descrambler box to view premium channels, you were set
. . .
and also back when the point of getting cable was to have networks with less (or even NO) advertising
now cable networks often have MORE advertising than broadcast networks
it's disgusting
Premium really doesn't give that many options - adblock, background playback(which used to be free), downloads and yt music(which I don't use) for me to consider giving my money to, when there's stuff like revanced that gives you 10x the features for free. And even if there wasn't, I'd still prefer to spend $5/month on some cretor's Patreon than for Premium.
And also what Louie Rossman said:
if you're making your service a worse experience for paying customers than for pirates, you've really f**ked up.
Well idk, shit also adds up. I live in the most expensive states in the USA.
UA-cam Premium, Spotify, Disney+ Amazon Prime, Crunchyroll, Netflix, online video game services, w/e. I only use Netflix sometimes.
Maybe people are entitled. We are used to our UA-cam content being pretty ad-free. But maybe people's money is also being stretched thin. I dunno, that's just what I see from where I live and I don't make a lot of money either.
People are either subbed to 20 other things (especially when you have families), or have to find other ways to get their content. Which now thinking about it, maybe we have a market saturation (?) problem now with everything being a sub service.
That's just what I see from where I live though. It's probably a small amount of the overall viewer population idk.
Adblocking = theft. It has always been the case. And every time a site has imposed anti-adblocking, people get mad, and go somewhere else, or steal the content another way. You have to realize that the nature of the web is that someone will steal your content, out of spite, because you put some hurdle in the way of seeing it immediately.
We generally tolerate ads down the side/underneath some piece of content, because it doesn't impair the site enough, as long as the content you are there for, is there. But you throw a paywall, or a "subscrube now" on top of it, and now people will spitefully block the ads on the site.
Don't double-dip. UA-cam is going to have to decide if they want to be Netflix or Tiktok. Because offering "premium" subscriptions without a way to put put all your youtube accounts under that premium service subscription means people are just never going to do so. It's too much of a pain in the behind to have to switch accounts to do something. This was so ever evident from the Stadia experiment, where Stadia was under account X and youtube was under account Y, and having to switch between them to do something in the same browser just made me opt to not use stadia as much as I would have, because I spent more time with youtube.
UA-cam can not become "cable", because cable lost. Paying to access content that still has ads in it, means people do not see value in the premium being paid. So It's going to become a sore point for creators who do sponsored videos, who might be cut from YT "premium" revenue.
You guys never talk about the safety aspect of ad block. UA-cam is full of malicious ads. I see ads all the time that want me to give up personal info to them in one way or another. For example I see fake Mr Beast free money ads constantly. Sure I know better than to click any of those but a lot of people don't and shouldn't have to pay Google to protect themselves.
Spotify is better, not just from features; but literally 15% of my Liked Songs, just plain aren't on UA-cam Music. Why would I pay more for less, especially with AdBlock being free anyways.
I pay for premium because I hate ads and view most of this on my TV, but I still ad-block on my browser to limit tracking, and to remove a lot of the obnoxious things I don't want and can't disable like the forced news section that keeps coming back even after I turn it off.
I'm happy to pay for an ad-free experience, I just wish they wouldn't keep trying to still monetize in other ways off me.
I know what you mean about that news tab, they removed the ability to hide the shelf for UA-cam Shorts and it drives me mad. Was bad enough it kept coming back every 30 days.
I recommend you get a pihole soon if they go ahead with the changes.
UA-cam should work on putting back the function to disable miniplayer on PC.
UA-cam is not "too big to fail". You yourself called them obnoxious. To quote someone else "ridiculous to watch a 60 second ad for a 20 se one diy video".
I know you and others want to use UA-cam as a business option, but if image ads aren't good enough then too bad. Honestly too bad. Ad creator spend so much money on psychology to get us hooked, then make image ads good enough. Because UA-cam is unbearable with ads.
And that's not including the security/malware issues
I will not be paying for premium, nor will I be disabling adblock. I will however gladly quit using youtube entirely. There is not $15 a month worth of value from youtube premium.
If UA-cam were to disable adblockers and drive people to another platform, that platform would probably need even more ads to stay afloat financially.
Counter hot take? Ad providers have consistently paid less and less and become consistently more invasive. The issue isn't "user entitlement" or the company being greedy (well, at least not in this case), but the ad providers deciding to collude on ad payout decreases and being less and less scrupulous about who they sell ad space to.
My problem with YT Premium (and I do actually have YT Premium) is that some of the stuff offered used to be part of the free experience, or should be basic functionality. UA-cam saving your place in a video so you can come back and continue where you left off used to be a free function of the site. They just took it away one day,
And the other thing is being able to play a video with your phone's screen off. Having audio continue playing should be a basic function of every phone, but they paywall it on YT. I like being able to play a playlist on a long drive with screen off so I can save a bit of power, and is the the main reason I caved and bought Premium.
Those two things should not add to the price of Premium, nor should be behind a paywall. YT Premium should just be no ads and YT music. Make the price $8 - $10 and it becomes a much better price point. And there should be a payment option for just no ads, priced at $5 - $6.
*Edit: Also, the main reason I used ad blocker before YT Premium and still use it on other sites is not because I hate seeing ads. It's to not see repetitive ads (the same ad showing up three times in a row), ads popping up every few seconds, and ads that are just plain bad or kill your brain cells. I think there would be much less ad block use if ad makers made actually good and varied ads.
This hits the Goldilocks zone for me
Exactly, they are creating a problem and selling the solution. And I for one refuse to pay for that.
Isn't saving your place in a video just having video history on?
I will gladly block any ads on my way, and never feeling sorry for them, they use our data to serve us good personalized ads, instead I get scams and spams 7-6 ads, there always a good middle solution but they choose non
also if banners ads doesn't work then 6 unskippable ads doesn't
if we return to the old 3 sec ad, about the drinks, food I love, those worked for me, ill remove the blocker
if YT has competition they wouldn't dare to make this horrible ad experience, this is the price they pay for being the only top platform and not being competitive and consumer friendly
You will always find a technological way to block advertising. Even back then there were VHS recorders that recognized and cut out advertising.🤷♂
IMO biggest difference between YT (or similar) is that it is specifically about the creators themselves that you can support directly by either buying merch, following sponsor links or buying into their patreon. Spotify and other music services are more about access to the entire library, most people listen to hundreds if not thousands of songs by hundreds of artists and in most cases directly supporting those artists is impossible.
On Luke's take with UA-cam premium and Spotify premium, I think the main difference is vastly more people spend vastly more time with Spotify than UA-cam. Spotify is something you can have on all day doing mostly anything with no issue, whereas you spend a lot less time on UA-cam. Most people watch maybe a few videos in 1 day compared to a lot of people having Spotify just on at home or in the car or when playing games or doing chores or many other situations.
On the side of UA-cam music, most people aren't even aware it's much of a thing and the people who do know about it would rather just use Spotify just for the ease of use.
You are 100% right. UA-cam can only dream of the usage Spotify gets. I work 12 hour days, and from the moment I turn on the key in my car, to the moment I get home Spotify is either cranking podcasts or music. That's nearly 14 hours of usage. Sure, most of it is downloaded and offline, but the fact remains that Spotify, for purely listening experience be it music or podcasts, is just plain superior.
I will use the better product. UA-cam premium doesn't even have sponsor block, interact block, intro and outro block. Free software online offers this along with the base adblock. It needs to at least be competitive in features with free products if it wants me to spend money on it.
The transaction is simple.
I give Google all my data and Google give me stimuli.
Don't care if I sound entitled. Ads are infuriating. Yes, I hate them that much.
And subscriptions are almost never worth it. Case and point, UA-cam premium. $15/m (AUD) for 1 of 3 perks that interest me is not worth it.
Add support for one or 2 other accounts under the same subscription, maybe then I'll pay.
Do better, UA-cam.
Come on, you are a computer person. There is a simple way around this, think!
I'm perfectly fine if they implement this policy to everybody globally, enough people say 'no,' and UA-cam just shuts down completely. I'm a millennial. I grew up with no internet, and it forced its way into my life. I'm fine reverting back to the way things were, if that's what it leads to across all websites.
Rest in piece, UA-cam. I hope some other competitor uses this opportunity to wipe the floor with you.
If I had a nickel... lol
@@pedrofgmartins You say that, but look at Twitch. They started trying to prevent ad-blockers, and now there's Kick. Sure, it's not directly cause and effect - but it's stuff like this that creates an opening for competitors to get into the market.
Tbh I'm kinda ok with ads, but I've had websites tell me to disable Privacy Badger, which I find inexcusable.
I would have been happier about it 5 years ago. When it still seemed to me that Google was slightly better than the other big tech companies. Now they are just as bad as the rest and since they have more power over ads than anyone else it makes them extra suspect.
2:49 this is Linus misconception about how Internet history. Web was free from the beginning. It was created by passionate engineers. Then corporations came in, and used users attention, and private data to monetize anything they could. Now corporations cry that these sources of income are not enough. So they still will abuse our privacy, and monetize our data, but will require also your donations. I think it is best to take a fee from the users period. They should not be using any sort of ads. I think that if youtube premium pays off, you still will be seeing adds. Monopoly is abusive position in which you can do whatever you like.
I thought, due in part because of the revenue breakdowns featured on this channel and others, that UA-cam premium users contribute a larger revenue share per capita compared to ad viewing users? My general understanding was the ad viewing users didn't contribute much per view.
Would this not suggest UA-cam premium is significantly overpriced if the intention is truly "Pay the same 'price' as ad viewing users are"?
Linus specifically mentioned that "still ads" don't pay the bills, (with the implication that video ads do).
But, this is not the false equivalence of "UA-cam wants you to watch ads or pay the equivalent",
This seems much more like "UA-cam wants everyone to pay subscription based pricing"
So UA-cam has effectively raised the price of entry to watch videos.
Which is fine, buts its packaged like its the same old price, but you pay with money instead of watching ads.
A lot of what I use UA-cam for is background music during gaming. If uBlock Origin gets blocked on yt, I'm going back to iTunes. I genuinely do not care anymore. It used to be a single ad every few songs, now I literally managed to get mid-roll ads during music playback. I don't care if it makes UA-cam lose money, I'm done. If it's not free, it's not for me.
Quite a mediocre take.
I pay for youtube premium, but: 1. I wish there was a more basic version, 2. I'm not paying the full price because of my university discount.
UA-cam should do more marketing about "how great the youtube premium is and why you should buy it", kinda like what spotify does with its premium.
This just seems too drastic, too fast and might end up with an unnecessary backlash.🤷
ps.: They should fix the issues Louis Rossmann talked about in his video.