The people saying “just pay for premium” don’t seem to understand that in the beginning YouTube was free and had no ads. When google purchased it they promised to keep it that way. Then they slowly started with ads. At first they were pretty unobtrusive banners, then a short skippable preroll then multiple preroll then unskippable preroll. The reason I refuse to pay for premium is because Google created this issue and is now selling the solution. I refuse to be a part of that. It has nothing to do with the creators.
The cost of hosting YouTube itself doesn’t pay for itself unfortunately. They could get away with it back then because the internet itself wasn’t that big. Therefore, we need to KICK THE NORMIES OUT OF OUR INTERNET. WE WERE HERE FIRST, REEEEEE
The people saying “just pay for premium” don’t seem to understand that in the beginning YouTube was free and had no ads were born after the 2008 housing crash
Yes, it is. Start by offering unsustainable ad-free video. Drive competitors out and monopolize the market. Start turning the screws. Classic tech bro bait and switch.
But you yourself literally just argued the impossibility of it running ad free indefinitely. If you attract customers by knowingly offering a level of service at a cost you know with absolute certainty that you can’t maintain, then yes, it’s a bait and switch. It’s deception and manipulation. Classic bait and switch. Youtube isn’t special. They’re just Walmart.
And you’re just wrong. There’s no other reason to offer a service temporarily for free than to use it to drive out competitors. That strategy only has any value as a means of driving out competition.
I don’t think this is as simple as “they’re too young to know”! I’m a 30+ year old man, and I was around 15 when YouTube first came out. I was a huge fan of the early days, when YouTube was free!
I am absolutely fine with paying a monthly/annual fee for ad-free access to perhaps the best compilation of human knowledge and entertainment which has ever been compiled in one place. One reason I’m cool with it is that premium views pay the content creator more than the equivalent ad view.
Sure, YouTube “created the issue” of ads. But if it means supporting the creators and removing a barrier to videos, I’m fine with the price.
The people saying “just pay for premium” don’t seem to understand that in the beginning YouTube was free and had no ads. When google purchased it they promised to keep it that way. Then they slowly started with ads. At first they were pretty unobtrusive banners, then a short skippable preroll then multiple preroll then unskippable preroll. The reason I refuse to pay for premium is because Google created this issue and is now selling the solution. I refuse to be a part of that. It has nothing to do with the creators.
The cost of hosting YouTube itself doesn’t pay for itself unfortunately. They could get away with it back then because the internet itself wasn’t that big. Therefore, we need to KICK THE NORMIES OUT OF OUR INTERNET. WE WERE HERE FIRST, REEEEEE
Google reported an annual gross profit of $240.3 billion last year.
They can fucking pay for YouTube
It’s even worse, their net was $132 billion
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOGL/alphabet/net-income
So even after expenses, the profit of alphabet group was obscene.
It’s even worse, they laid off approximately 12,000 employees in 2024 alone.
So even after everything, the profit of alphabet group was obscene.
I would totally pay for youtube if it was even remotely decently priced.
You can get multiple concurrents on disney+, Hulu or Netflix with blockbuster content for the same price as youtube’s slop filled premium family.
Seriously, the service is worth maybe $9 a month. I don’t want their music, i won’t use it, the quality is crap.
Ftfy.
I mean, as it grew the hosting/staffing costs went up as well. There’s no way it could have continued to be completely free.
That’s still a bait and switch though.
No, it isn’t.
Yes, it is. Start by offering unsustainable ad-free video. Drive competitors out and monopolize the market. Start turning the screws. Classic tech bro bait and switch.
That’s really not what happened. YouTube wasn’t created to drive out competitors and monopolize the market.
It may have ended up doing that, but a bait and switch is an intentional action.
But you yourself literally just argued the impossibility of it running ad free indefinitely. If you attract customers by knowingly offering a level of service at a cost you know with absolute certainty that you can’t maintain, then yes, it’s a bait and switch. It’s deception and manipulation. Classic bait and switch. Youtube isn’t special. They’re just Walmart.
And you’re just wrong. There’s no other reason to offer a service temporarily for free than to use it to drive out competitors. That strategy only has any value as a means of driving out competition.
But, sure, keep simping for the evil megacorp.
I don’t think this is as simple as “they’re too young to know”! I’m a 30+ year old man, and I was around 15 when YouTube first came out. I was a huge fan of the early days, when YouTube was free!
I am absolutely fine with paying a monthly/annual fee for ad-free access to perhaps the best compilation of human knowledge and entertainment which has ever been compiled in one place. One reason I’m cool with it is that premium views pay the content creator more than the equivalent ad view.
Sure, YouTube “created the issue” of ads. But if it means supporting the creators and removing a barrier to videos, I’m fine with the price.