Creators don’t pay for YouTube, though, but rather get a share of the revenue. This still applies under Red.
But Red subscribers will be paying to get YouTube ad free, not just some part of it.
And I think making services that earn money through ads and user data into services one can pay to get them ad free and hopefully in the future also with less tracking and data collection will benefit the privacy concerned users.
100% agree with Bastian here. This is the exact opposite of evil. This is making sure that people who pay the subscription fee to get all of YouTube actually get all of YouTube.
The only other option would to market Red as “pay a subscription fee to get most of YouTube”. Who’s going to do that.
I compare this to the outraged backlash against Hulu. They charged for an ad free level of service…and yet much of the content still has ads. Which is exactly the situation YouTube would have been in. Some of the content would only have been available on the ad tier…so you’d lay for ad free, but still wind up with ads.
most of YouTube”. Who’s going to do that.
I compare this to the outraged backlash against Hulu. They charged for an ad free level of service…and yet much of the content still has ads. Which is exactly the situation YouTube would have been in. Some of the content would only have been available on the ad tier…so you’d lay for ad free, but still wind up with ads.
So instead they fixed that.
Good on them, I say.]]>
Why force their hand, though? If there are no ads, those creators simply won’t earn revenue from Red subscriber views. Why not just make that clear rather than force them to sign?
Because of they don’t sign then red subscribers won’t have access to them ad free.
They’d have to access them the ad way…which means paying for ad free but not getting ad free…getting just mostly ad free. Which would cause an even bigger riot.
Presumably they’d need to sign a different agreement to let youtube use their videos without showing ads, as I imagine it’s currently prohibited by the contract they have?
….it’s cute that you want us to believe you don’t know what Redtube is, Mark. 😉
I have not been keeping up with this, but if the bottom line is “pay a small fee and never see ads on youtube again”, I’ve been saying I’d be down for that for years.
But wouldn’t it be more evil to not let me watch videos ad free despite me paying for just that service?
Bastian Flinspach Would it? It seems a lesser evil; an inconvenience, really.
This was probably the only way to make it work besides offering an extremely good deal to content producers.
Also: Google stopped the “don’t be evil” thing in practice several years ago, minimum.
Creators don’t pay for YouTube, though, but rather get a share of the revenue. This still applies under Red.
But Red subscribers will be paying to get YouTube ad free, not just some part of it.
And I think making services that earn money through ads and user data into services one can pay to get them ad free and hopefully in the future also with less tracking and data collection will benefit the privacy concerned users.
100% agree with Bastian here. This is the exact opposite of evil. This is making sure that people who pay the subscription fee to get all of YouTube actually get all of YouTube.
The only other option would to market Red as “pay a subscription fee to get most of YouTube”. Who’s going to do that.
I compare this to the outraged backlash against Hulu. They charged for an ad free level of service…and yet much of the content still has ads. Which is exactly the situation YouTube would have been in. Some of the content would only have been available on the ad tier…so you’d lay for ad free, but still wind up with ads.
So instead they fixed that.
Good on them, I say.
most of YouTube”. Who’s going to do that. I compare this to the outraged backlash against Hulu. They charged for an ad free level of service…and yet much of the content still has ads. Which is exactly the situation YouTube would have been in. Some of the content would only have been available on the ad tier…so you’d lay for ad free, but still wind up with ads. So instead they fixed that. Good on them, I say.]]>
Why force their hand, though? If there are no ads, those creators simply won’t earn revenue from Red subscriber views. Why not just make that clear rather than force them to sign?
Because of they don’t sign then red subscribers won’t have access to them ad free.
They’d have to access them the ad way…which means paying for ad free but not getting ad free…getting just mostly ad free. Which would cause an even bigger riot.
But why not show those videos ad-free, and say, hey, we can show these ad-free and not pay you, or you can sign on to the program.
I won’t deny this is kind of a sticky wicket.
Presumably they’d need to sign a different agreement to let youtube use their videos without showing ads, as I imagine it’s currently prohibited by the contract they have?
Only an assumption, but that would be mine as well.
Mark Delsing Google officially dropped that motto when it became Alphabet .
Alphabet .]]>
The real question is, how many grandmas are going to end up on Redtube by mistake when trying to watch little Joey’s 3rd birthday party?
Dave Michalak huh?
….it’s cute that you want us to believe you don’t know what Redtube is, Mark. 😉
I have not been keeping up with this, but if the bottom line is “pay a small fee and never see ads on youtube again”, I’ve been saying I’d be down for that for years.
Dave Michalak Well, I know now.
(Thanks!)
now. (Thanks!)]]>