http://youtube-global.blogspot.de/2015/10/red.html
Basically you pay $9.99 a month for ad-free content. Anyone gonna sign up for that?
Upvote
Upvoted
13
Downvote
Downvoted
YouTube Red
posted in
Off Topic
http://youtube-global.blogspot.de/2015/10/red.html
Basically you pay $9.99 a month for ad-free content. Anyone gonna sign up for that?
Basically you pay $9.99 a month for ad-free content. Anyone gonna sign up for that?
It's like adblocker that drains your wallet, hype!
It's like adblocker that drains your wallet, hype!
Adblock/uBlock already exists, I don't think many people are going to use it, unless Youtube starts paywalling some of their features
Adblock/uBlock already exists, I don't think many people are going to use it, unless Youtube starts paywalling some of their features
9.99 for no ads? rofl that's fucking stupid. I could see $2 maybe $3 tops for something like that.
-edit-
And as a special bonus - YouTube Red works with Google Play Music
And starting early next year, YouTube Red will get even better with member-only access to new, original shows and movies from some of YouTube’s biggest creators. You can read all about Originals coming to YouTube Red here.
This on the other hand might make it worth $10/month for some people
9.99 for no ads? rofl that's fucking stupid. I could see $2 maybe $3 tops for something like that.
-edit-
[quote]And as a special bonus - YouTube Red works with Google Play Music
And starting early next year, YouTube Red will get even better with member-only access to new, original shows and movies from some of YouTube’s biggest creators. You can read all about Originals coming to YouTube Red here.[/quote]
This on the other hand might make it worth $10/month for some people
-edit-
[quote]And as a special bonus - YouTube Red works with Google Play Music
And starting early next year, YouTube Red will get even better with member-only access to new, original shows and movies from some of YouTube’s biggest creators. You can read all about Originals coming to YouTube Red here.[/quote]
This on the other hand might make it worth $10/month for some people
while also letting you save videos to watch offline on your phone or tablet and play videos in the background
remember when these were actual features in the old app
[quote]while also letting you save videos to watch offline on your phone or tablet and play videos in the background[/quote]
remember when these were actual features in the old app
remember when these were actual features in the old app
Hmm, $9.99 to avoid doing what I can do by closing my eyes, or $9.99 to support 2 streamers on Twitch? Tough one.
Hmm, $9.99 to avoid doing what I can do by closing my eyes, or $9.99 to support 2 streamers on Twitch? Tough one.
I mean if they make it like hulu where it just blackscreens if you have adblock I would def buy it
I mean if they make it like hulu where it just blackscreens if you have adblock I would def buy it
I would only do this on the condition that I got to choose where the money went (i.e. people I'm subscribed to that I want to support). Otherwise, you know that most of this money is going to cancerous "epic prank" content creators.
I would only do this on the condition that I got to choose where the money went (i.e. people I'm subscribed to that I want to support). Otherwise, you know that most of this money is going to cancerous "epic prank" content creators.
I use ublock, but I don't feel good about it.
It's a war between advertisers and me. I want to support content creators by disabling ublock, but every time I do, I feel vaguely like my brain has been molested. Molested by ads. They're invasive and so distracting -- it's a conscious design choice by advertisers. Ublock stays on until advertisements get more tasteful.
It brings up some more broad feelings about the economy, too: the US savings rate is below 5%. We're entirely spent out. There's no pent-up demand waiting to be unlocked by advertising. Every dollar spent on advertising is a dollar wasted on re-shuffling pieces of our collective disposable income. It's not spent on R&D, not spent on wages, & not spent on actually improving any part of a product or service.
It's a big net loss on our economy.
This is a step in the right direction for YouTube though -- I would like to see a twitch.tv-esque sub button for each YouTube channel. Youtube can get some of my money that would typically go to ads, I could support a specific person I like on YouTube (rather than algorithmicly distributing my ad-view pennies to the 90% of YouTube that I don't care about).
I use ublock, but I don't feel good about it.
It's a war between advertisers and me. I want to support content creators by disabling ublock, but every time I do, I feel vaguely like my brain has been molested. Molested by ads. They're invasive and so distracting -- it's a conscious design choice by advertisers. Ublock stays on until advertisements get more tasteful.
It brings up some more broad feelings about the economy, too: the US savings rate is below 5%. We're entirely spent out. There's no pent-up demand waiting to be unlocked by advertising. Every dollar spent on advertising is a dollar wasted on re-shuffling pieces of our collective disposable income. It's not spent on R&D, not spent on wages, & not spent on actually [i]improving[/i] any part of a product or service.
It's a big net loss on our economy.
This is a step in the right direction for YouTube though -- I would like to see a twitch.tv-esque sub button for each YouTube channel. Youtube can get some of my money that would typically go to ads, I could support a [i]specific person [/i] I like on YouTube (rather than algorithmicly distributing my ad-view pennies to the 90% of YouTube that I don't care about).
It's a war between advertisers and me. I want to support content creators by disabling ublock, but every time I do, I feel vaguely like my brain has been molested. Molested by ads. They're invasive and so distracting -- it's a conscious design choice by advertisers. Ublock stays on until advertisements get more tasteful.
It brings up some more broad feelings about the economy, too: the US savings rate is below 5%. We're entirely spent out. There's no pent-up demand waiting to be unlocked by advertising. Every dollar spent on advertising is a dollar wasted on re-shuffling pieces of our collective disposable income. It's not spent on R&D, not spent on wages, & not spent on actually [i]improving[/i] any part of a product or service.
It's a big net loss on our economy.
This is a step in the right direction for YouTube though -- I would like to see a twitch.tv-esque sub button for each YouTube channel. Youtube can get some of my money that would typically go to ads, I could support a [i]specific person [/i] I like on YouTube (rather than algorithmicly distributing my ad-view pennies to the 90% of YouTube that I don't care about).
miwoI use ublock, but I don't feel good about it.
iirc doesent viewing someone's video also count towards money for them? like a cents per view or something though?
[quote=miwo]I use ublock, but I don't feel good about it.
[/quote]
iirc doesent viewing someone's video also count towards money for them? like a cents per view or something though?
[/quote]
iirc doesent viewing someone's video also count towards money for them? like a cents per view or something though?
from what i understand all revenue from videos is from ad impressions, so if they get 1000 views that theoretically 1000 people that saw an ad, and the uploader would get paid for those 1000 impressions.
but everyone uses adblock so they get less impressions on the ad and less money
from what i understand all revenue from videos is from ad impressions, so if they get 1000 views that theoretically 1000 people that saw an ad, and the uploader would get paid for those 1000 impressions.
but everyone uses adblock so they get less impressions on the ad and less money
but everyone uses adblock so they get less impressions on the ad and less money
indecencymiwoI use ublock, but I don't feel good about it.
iirc doesent viewing someone's video also count towards money for them? like a cents per view or something though?
no
Using adblockers is really a morally grey area for me because as a content creator I know how demotivating it can be to simply not having any return on your time invested, but as a viewer I also understand the need to not be bothered or bombarded by ads, in a perfect world people would always disable adblockers for the specific content creators/websites they like to watch or visit but that is just not the case 90% of the times.
[quote=indecency][quote=miwo]I use ublock, but I don't feel good about it.
[/quote]
iirc doesent viewing someone's video also count towards money for them? like a cents per view or something though?[/quote]
no
Using adblockers is really a morally grey area for me because as a content creator I know how demotivating it can be to simply not having any return on your time invested, but as a viewer I also understand the need to not be bothered or bombarded by ads, in a perfect world people would always disable adblockers for the specific content creators/websites they like to watch or visit but that is just not the case 90% of the times.
[/quote]
iirc doesent viewing someone's video also count towards money for them? like a cents per view or something though?[/quote]
no
Using adblockers is really a morally grey area for me because as a content creator I know how demotivating it can be to simply not having any return on your time invested, but as a viewer I also understand the need to not be bothered or bombarded by ads, in a perfect world people would always disable adblockers for the specific content creators/websites they like to watch or visit but that is just not the case 90% of the times.
CondescendingCandlestickwouldn't that fuck over tech channels?
we measure that the average AdBlocking rate of our customers, which are premium online publishers, was 22% in the US, and reaching 55% for very tech savvy websites who are therefore losing more than half of their audience!
There is also a noticeable difference from male to female targeted sites/channels, because male adblock usage is higher in general
[quote=CondescendingCandlestick]wouldn't that fuck over tech channels?[/quote]
[url=https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-Internet-users-that-employ-AdBlock-Plus-or-similar-ad-blocking-plugins/answer/Frederic-Montagnon]it does.[/url]
[quote=]we measure that the average AdBlocking rate of our customers, which are premium online publishers, was 22% in the US, and reaching 55% for very tech savvy websites who are therefore losing more than half of their audience![/quote]
There is also a noticeable difference from male to female targeted sites/channels, because male adblock usage is higher in general
[url=https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-Internet-users-that-employ-AdBlock-Plus-or-similar-ad-blocking-plugins/answer/Frederic-Montagnon]it does.[/url]
[quote=]we measure that the average AdBlocking rate of our customers, which are premium online publishers, was 22% in the US, and reaching 55% for very tech savvy websites who are therefore losing more than half of their audience![/quote]
There is also a noticeable difference from male to female targeted sites/channels, because male adblock usage is higher in general
ill pay 10$ a month for them to put back the old youtube layout from 2006
ill pay 10$ a month for them to put back the old youtube layout from 2006
I don't like using ad blockers because it feels like I'm consuming lots of free content without giving anything back,
assuming some of the money goes towards content creators and not just YouTube's pocket then I might consider it.
Show Content
And maybe get access to stuff like this?
I don't like using ad blockers because it feels like I'm consuming lots of free content without giving anything back,
assuming some of the money goes towards content creators and not just YouTube's pocket then I might consider it.
[spoiler]And maybe get access to stuff like this? [img]https://i.imgur.com/PFL2bjV.png[/img][/spoiler]
assuming some of the money goes towards content creators and not just YouTube's pocket then I might consider it.
[spoiler]And maybe get access to stuff like this? [img]https://i.imgur.com/PFL2bjV.png[/img][/spoiler]
So did youtube music just get bundled under red? Im already pay for gpmaa but was thinking about cancelling, guess I'll wait and see if this comes to canada soon.
So did youtube music just get bundled under red? Im already pay for gpmaa but was thinking about cancelling, guess I'll wait and see if this comes to canada soon.
So already people are using third party softwares to remove ads like Adblock and uBlock, so obviously people who aren't using ad blocking programs would most likely be the ones to buy YoutubeRed, decreasing ad revenue even further for youtubers.
Money from people who bought YoutubeRed goes to content creators based on who the YoutuberRed user watches and time spent watched, so larger youtubers stand to make even more money than they were already making and smaller youtubers get even less money.
tl;dr Pewdiepie makes more money everyone else is dying of hunger
So already people are using third party softwares to remove ads like Adblock and uBlock, so obviously people who aren't using ad blocking programs would most likely be the ones to buy YoutubeRed, decreasing ad revenue even further for youtubers.
Money from people who bought YoutubeRed goes to content creators based on who the YoutuberRed user watches and time spent watched, so larger youtubers stand to make even more money than they were already making and smaller youtubers get even less money.
[b]tl;dr[/b] Pewdiepie makes more money everyone else is dying of hunger
Money from people who bought YoutubeRed goes to content creators based on who the YoutuberRed user watches and time spent watched, so larger youtubers stand to make even more money than they were already making and smaller youtubers get even less money.
[b]tl;dr[/b] Pewdiepie makes more money everyone else is dying of hunger
I still believe that using an adblocker is immoral/fucking stupid if you also insist upon having free content.
There are legitimate concerns like malware but with the giant push to get rid of flash those concerns are kind of moot. If you're accessing a service/website, you're costing someone money, unless you're viewing an ad.
People say "oh well I'll just remove it if the ads aren't intrusive." First of all, how will you know the ads aren't intrusive if you're using adblock? Further, ads have to be intrusive because people blocked the non-intrusive ones that had a lower CPM, so now websites have to get more annoying to break even with their ads because fewer people see them. It's a vicious cycle.
We're heading to a stage of the internet that I think nobody wants. Websites that previously relied on ads will have to find funding in other ways, or shut down. You'll have to either pay to access a journalism website, or that website will start creating articles that look like legitimate articles but are "sponsored" in the background by some advertiser.
All this could be avoided if people didn't fucking block ads.
I still believe that using an adblocker is immoral/fucking stupid if you also insist upon having free content.
There are legitimate concerns like malware but with the giant push to get rid of flash those concerns are kind of moot. If you're accessing a service/website, you're costing someone money, unless you're viewing an ad.
People say "oh well I'll just remove it if the ads aren't intrusive." First of all, how will you know the ads aren't intrusive if you're using adblock? Further, ads have to be intrusive because people blocked the non-intrusive ones that had a lower CPM, so now websites have to get more annoying to break even with their ads because fewer people see them. It's a vicious cycle.
We're heading to a stage of the internet that I think nobody wants. Websites that previously relied on ads will have to find funding in other ways, or shut down. You'll have to either pay to access a journalism website, or that website will start creating articles that look like legitimate articles but are "sponsored" in the background by some advertiser.
All this could be avoided if people didn't fucking block ads.
There are legitimate concerns like malware but with the giant push to get rid of flash those concerns are kind of moot. If you're accessing a service/website, you're costing someone money, unless you're viewing an ad.
People say "oh well I'll just remove it if the ads aren't intrusive." First of all, how will you know the ads aren't intrusive if you're using adblock? Further, ads have to be intrusive because people blocked the non-intrusive ones that had a lower CPM, so now websites have to get more annoying to break even with their ads because fewer people see them. It's a vicious cycle.
We're heading to a stage of the internet that I think nobody wants. Websites that previously relied on ads will have to find funding in other ways, or shut down. You'll have to either pay to access a journalism website, or that website will start creating articles that look like legitimate articles but are "sponsored" in the background by some advertiser.
All this could be avoided if people didn't fucking block ads.
i actually like the mini 15 second thing on youtube for ads, but most websites are so shitty without adblock.
yes X news website I enjoy reading an article and then halfway through i'm getting a pop out box AD to buy some crest toothpaste
i actually like the mini 15 second thing on youtube for ads, but most websites are so shitty without adblock.
yes X news website I enjoy reading an article and then halfway through i'm getting a pop out box AD to buy some crest toothpaste
yes X news website I enjoy reading an article and then halfway through i'm getting a pop out box AD to buy some crest toothpaste
Geel9I still believe that using an adblocker is immoral/fucking stupid if you also insist upon having free content.
There are legitimate concerns like malware but with the giant push to get rid of flash those concerns are kind of moot. If you're accessing a service/website, you're costing someone money, unless you're viewing an ad.
A few things:
1) Ad networks did this to themselves. Pop-unders, flash ads, allowing arbitrary javascript execution, full-screen modals covering content, automatic app-store redirects on iOS/Android devices. Screw all of that noise. Facebook is one of the only categorically non-terrible ad networks because they only allow static images.
2) If I'm on a mobile device, accessing a site is also costing me money. Every megabyte transferred costs the user orders of magnitude more than the pittance of bandwidth it costs the website hosting provider. According to this article, one single page load of CNN costs 14 cents, and 9 cents of that is just for the advertising payload!
If blocking ads means a shift in the way the web is monetized, that's fine with me. At least it means websites won't be able to track my browsing habits, steal my bandwidth, and waste my time by loading and rendering junk I didn't ask for and don't want to see.
[quote=Geel9]I still believe that using an adblocker is immoral/fucking stupid if you also insist upon having free content.
There are legitimate concerns like malware but with the giant push to get rid of flash those concerns are kind of moot. If you're accessing a service/website, you're costing someone money, unless you're viewing an ad. [/quote]
A few things:
1) Ad networks did this to themselves. Pop-unders, flash ads, allowing arbitrary javascript execution, full-screen modals covering content, automatic app-store redirects on iOS/Android devices. Screw all of that noise. Facebook is one of the only categorically non-terrible ad networks because they only allow static images.
2) If I'm on a mobile device, accessing a site is also costing [i]me[/i] money. Every megabyte transferred costs the user orders of magnitude more than the pittance of bandwidth it costs the website hosting provider. According to [url=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/01/business/cost-of-mobile-ads.html]this article[/url], one single page load of CNN costs 14 cents, and 9 cents of that is just for the advertising payload!
If blocking ads means a shift in the way the web is monetized, that's fine with me. At least it means websites won't be able to track my browsing habits, steal my bandwidth, and waste my time by loading and rendering junk I didn't ask for and don't want to see.
There are legitimate concerns like malware but with the giant push to get rid of flash those concerns are kind of moot. If you're accessing a service/website, you're costing someone money, unless you're viewing an ad. [/quote]
A few things:
1) Ad networks did this to themselves. Pop-unders, flash ads, allowing arbitrary javascript execution, full-screen modals covering content, automatic app-store redirects on iOS/Android devices. Screw all of that noise. Facebook is one of the only categorically non-terrible ad networks because they only allow static images.
2) If I'm on a mobile device, accessing a site is also costing [i]me[/i] money. Every megabyte transferred costs the user orders of magnitude more than the pittance of bandwidth it costs the website hosting provider. According to [url=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/01/business/cost-of-mobile-ads.html]this article[/url], one single page load of CNN costs 14 cents, and 9 cents of that is just for the advertising payload!
If blocking ads means a shift in the way the web is monetized, that's fine with me. At least it means websites won't be able to track my browsing habits, steal my bandwidth, and waste my time by loading and rendering junk I didn't ask for and don't want to see.
MasterKuniGeel9I still believe that using an adblocker is immoral/fucking stupid if you also insist upon having free content.
There are legitimate concerns like malware but with the giant push to get rid of flash those concerns are kind of moot. If you're accessing a service/website, you're costing someone money, unless you're viewing an ad.
A few things:
1) Ad networks did this to themselves. Pop-unders, flash ads, allowing arbitrary javascript execution, full-screen modals covering content, automatic app-store redirects on iOS/Android devices. Screw all of that noise. Facebook is one of the only categorically non-terrible ad networks because they only allow static images.
2) If I'm on a mobile device, accessing a site is also costing me money. Every megabyte transferred costs the user orders of magnitude more than the pittance of bandwidth it costs the website hosting provider. According to this article, one single page load of CNN costs 14 cents, and 9 cents of that is just for the advertising payload!
If blocking ads means a shift in the way the web is monetized, that's fine with me. At least it means websites won't be able to track my browsing habits, steal my bandwidth, and waste my time by loading and rendering junk I didn't ask for and don't want to see.
That was something that annoyed me.
In between classes I would relax in my car and try to nap or dick around on my phone (android device), whenever I would try to come onto teamfortress.tv it would automatically open my appstore and direct me to a random popular game like Words with Friends.
That shit is fucking obnoxious.
[quote=MasterKuni][quote=Geel9]I still believe that using an adblocker is immoral/fucking stupid if you also insist upon having free content.
There are legitimate concerns like malware but with the giant push to get rid of flash those concerns are kind of moot. If you're accessing a service/website, you're costing someone money, unless you're viewing an ad. [/quote]
A few things:
1) Ad networks did this to themselves. Pop-unders, flash ads, allowing arbitrary javascript execution, full-screen modals covering content, automatic app-store redirects on iOS/Android devices. Screw all of that noise. Facebook is one of the only categorically non-terrible ad networks because they only allow static images.
2) If I'm on a mobile device, accessing a site is also costing [i]me[/i] money. Every megabyte transferred costs the user orders of magnitude more than the pittance of bandwidth it costs the website hosting provider. According to [url=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/01/business/cost-of-mobile-ads.html]this article[/url], one single page load of CNN costs 14 cents, and 9 cents of that is just for the advertising payload!
If blocking ads means a shift in the way the web is monetized, that's fine with me. At least it means websites won't be able to track my browsing habits, steal my bandwidth, and waste my time by loading and rendering junk I didn't ask for and don't want to see.[/quote]
That was something that annoyed me.
In between classes I would relax in my car and try to nap or dick around on my phone (android device), whenever I would try to come onto teamfortress.tv it would automatically open my appstore and direct me to a random popular game like Words with Friends.
That shit is fucking obnoxious.
There are legitimate concerns like malware but with the giant push to get rid of flash those concerns are kind of moot. If you're accessing a service/website, you're costing someone money, unless you're viewing an ad. [/quote]
A few things:
1) Ad networks did this to themselves. Pop-unders, flash ads, allowing arbitrary javascript execution, full-screen modals covering content, automatic app-store redirects on iOS/Android devices. Screw all of that noise. Facebook is one of the only categorically non-terrible ad networks because they only allow static images.
2) If I'm on a mobile device, accessing a site is also costing [i]me[/i] money. Every megabyte transferred costs the user orders of magnitude more than the pittance of bandwidth it costs the website hosting provider. According to [url=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/01/business/cost-of-mobile-ads.html]this article[/url], one single page load of CNN costs 14 cents, and 9 cents of that is just for the advertising payload!
If blocking ads means a shift in the way the web is monetized, that's fine with me. At least it means websites won't be able to track my browsing habits, steal my bandwidth, and waste my time by loading and rendering junk I didn't ask for and don't want to see.[/quote]
That was something that annoyed me.
In between classes I would relax in my car and try to nap or dick around on my phone (android device), whenever I would try to come onto teamfortress.tv it would automatically open my appstore and direct me to a random popular game like Words with Friends.
That shit is fucking obnoxious.
lol i haven't seen a YouTube ad in years
almost forgot they existed
lol i haven't seen a YouTube ad in years
almost forgot they existed
almost forgot they existed
MrFahr3nheitThat was something that annoyed me.
In between classes I would relax in my car and try to nap or dick around on my phone (android device), whenever I would try to come onto teamfortress.tv it would automatically open my appstore and direct me to a random popular game like Words with Friends.
That shit is fucking obnoxious.
should be fixed after I did this: http://www.teamfortress.tv/post/495749/issues-with-mobile
are you still getting redirects on mobile?
[quote=MrFahr3nheit]That was something that annoyed me.
In between classes I would relax in my car and try to nap or dick around on my phone (android device), whenever I would try to come onto teamfortress.tv it would automatically open my appstore and direct me to a random popular game like Words with Friends.
That shit is fucking obnoxious.[/quote]
should be fixed after I did this: http://www.teamfortress.tv/post/495749/issues-with-mobile
are you still getting redirects on mobile?
In between classes I would relax in my car and try to nap or dick around on my phone (android device), whenever I would try to come onto teamfortress.tv it would automatically open my appstore and direct me to a random popular game like Words with Friends.
That shit is fucking obnoxious.[/quote]
should be fixed after I did this: http://www.teamfortress.tv/post/495749/issues-with-mobile
are you still getting redirects on mobile?
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.