Used VPN for cheaper YouTube Premium? Congrats, your subscription has been canceled
Used VPN for cheaper YouTube Premium? Congrats, your subscription has been canceled
YouTube is canceling Premium subscriptions of members who used a VPN workaround to get Premium at cheaper rates than applicable. Read on!
You're viewing a single thread.
I'd rather not use youtube than give them money for it or even sit through their intrusive ads. There are infinite ways to entertain myself.
I mean... that is the point.
Pay for premium, watch ads, or don't watch at all. You and Google are both in agreement.
Yeah, I’m not sure I agree that YouTube wants their platform to shrink. Even if you don’t watch ads you are still giving them your data which they can monetize.
Personally I would be willing to pay for YouTube premium but not under the current terms. 1. If I’m paying for the service they should no longer collect and sell my data. 2. Allow me to have a YouTube-only account not connected to other Google services and 3. The current pricing is a bit high.
They can offer these terms or I’ll continue to use them logged out with Adblock. Or they can continue to enshitify and eventually their platform will start to shrink which will make the data they sell to advertisers less valuable.
Their platform won't shrink. You and I may care enough to stop using it (very skeptical personally tbh) but 99.9999999999999999999999 percent of people don't give a flying fuck and there's more users being born every day.
I was actually offered by Google to separate my Google Services and their associated data from each other. I immediately took that offer, of course. Might just be an EU thing tho, idk.
Google should have thought of that before trying to paywall the zeitgeist.
If there's a bouncer holding culture hostage, I'm going to sneak in the backdoor.
That'd be well and good if they didn't have a monopoly.
It's not a pure monopoly by choice. While it's true Youtube has a monopoly in terms of number of creators, viewers and content, it's still not a profitable venture. I heard it was burning through money to keep up with the sheer amount of content they have to deal with. Youtube is doing all this monetization now because they have ran out of VC money and upper management decided that it needs to be self-sustaining. Even the obscene amount of data Alphabet is gathering from Youtube does not create enough revenue to generate profit. But it's a "too-big-to-fail" product now so Alphabet will continue to invest. Competitors saw all of this and just noped out.
Other commercial video services, like Nebula, have popped up but they are subscription-oriented right from the get-go, like Netflix. This means they have a very small audience and it will take years to build up an audience like Youtube. So I don't see them growing, at least in the near future.
This very much feels like disloyal competition. If you burn through your money in the hopes of sweeping out the competitors, and then you have to dial back on your competitor's practices, it's a dead giveaway you've done something fishy
Yup, but that is quite literally the name of the game in Silicon Valley.
they have ran out of VC money
You know YouTube is owned by Google, not VC firms right?
Big companies sometimes keep a division / subsidiary less profitable for a time for a strategic reason, and then tighten the screws.
They generally only do this if they believe it will eventually be profitable over the long term (or support another part of the strategy so it is profitable overall). Otherwise they would have sold / shut it down earlier - the plan is always going to be to profitable.
However, while an unprofitable business always means either a plan to tighten screws, or to sell it / shut it down, tightening screws doesn't mean it is unprofitable. They always want to be more profitable, even if they already are.
it's still not a profitable venture
Source? My understanding is that Google doesn’t publish Youtube’s expenses directly but that Youtube has been responsible for 10% of Google’s revenue for the past few years (on the order of $31.5 Billion in 2023) and that it’s more likely than not profitable when looked at in isolation.
I guess, no one NEEDS a video streaming platform. It's not like a transportation or a food or power company monopoly, it's one specific form of entertainment. Try going outside?
I guess, no one NEEDS a video streaming platform.
Nobody NEEDS social media, but when a social media does something harmful, they need to be regulated.
I specified intrusive ads. They could have non-intrusive ads, like a little banner or something. Instead they put up multiple video ads before and during videos. No thanks.
I use VPN on all my personal devices and 100% block all of Google but my work computer is either company VPN or straight “normal” Internet.
From time to time I have to check out YouTube from the work computer and since they’ve got no data on my home IP address, it’s wild seeing the content of the ads shift from irrelevant (non-targeted) from my home IP to highly targeted on the work VPN (it’s clear they target the demographics of my company).
Don't forget after! Man I hate that when I have to sit through an ad if I don't realize the video is all the way over yet, or I don't change it in time
I mean, it is great that you have very specific rules in terms of what kind of ads you will tolerate. You should write a letter to John Google about that.
But also? We have been through all this before. Back in the day, ads on websites were incredibly unobtrusive. A small png at the top of the page that everyone skimmed past. But people still wanted to block those because only the evil sites were sellouts who needed to pay for hosting and blah blah blah. Which more or less started the ad war we have going to today. First they were simple jpegs. Then they were animated gifs. Then they were annoying animated gifs. Then they became flash ads. Then they became flash ads about how this shitty age of empires ripoff totally has boobs. And so forth.
Because if people aren't looking at ads? The people who buy ads know that. So we get ads that are harder to look away from. Until they are ads we can't look away from because they are embedded in the videos themselves.
And, until we live in a post scarcity society where energy is infinite, it is going to cost money/resources to host web content. Ads are still the closest thing to an "effective" way to pay for a lot of that. And that means a war to have ads that get past ad blockers and ensure eyes get on them.
But people still wanted to block those because only the evil sites were sellouts who needed to pay for hosting and blah blah blah.
Bullshit. Most users were fine with unobtrusive ads until they started to be so obtrusive they affected the browsing experience.
What really started the ad war was the endless drive for greater profits. Let's say I accept youtube's terms and sign up for premium. Sooner or later they will introduce ads into premium as well. We've seen this process happen with many other services before. I didn't start using an ad blocker until quite a bit after pop-ups were rampant and malware-infested ads became an issue. There's a point where it becomes too much and people will seek out alternatives. An entire generation grew up with convenient streaming services and they're generally less knowledgeable about piracy than the generation before them. That will likely change as those streaming services continue to jack up prices while making the experience worse all in the name of profit.
Again, there is an endless supply of entertainment these days. If companies think they can endlessly jack up prices and/or worsen the experience, they're contending with practically infinite supply, the consequences of which are obvious in when it comes to supply vs demand.
Were the ad companies interested in increased profits? Of course they were. But they also aren't a charity. And when they are buying ad space for a web comic but having zero impressions, they are going to be pissed. They aren't running a charity (well... some actually ARE but that is a different mess).
Again, this has been going on well before subscription models were even a thing.
That said, I do agree that it is a generational "problem". Youtube has been around for almost 20 years and, arguably, in its current form for almost 10. Significant parts of the internet have no memory of anything else. Like, my niece and nephew literally throw tantrums when they see tv commercials when their father is watching a football game. Whereas my sister and I remember the fights over who got to use the downstairs bathroom during the second commercial break in The Simpsons that week.
But... I am an old. I remember heartfelt blog posts from some of my favorite webcomics and gaming news sites that were basically "Look. Hosting costs money. Especially as we are getting a lot more popular. I go out of my way to curate what ads we run on this site and have an inbox set up in case a company sneaks a bad one in. Please whitelist me in your ad blocker so I can keep doing this in the evenings".
And... I dunno. It is just REALLY frustrating to watch people pretend they care about... anything all while dicking over "the little guys". Because Google is going to get their cut. The pewdiepies of youtube will also get their cuts because they have literally been doing this for years in the form of sponsored videos. But the low/mid tier creators? They aren't getting the massive sponsor deals (unless they want to do raid shadow legends or better help) AND are going to not be getting their ad revenue or youtube premium money because no ads were run.
Not quite. Google doesn't want competition or content creators to be elsewhere.
There is nowhere else. The only other companies that can consider a YouTube scale product already noped out.
A decentralized apporch: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerTube
Yeah...
How often do images "not load" when browsing lemmy? How often do sites get hugged to death even now? And that is kilobytes of data.
Video is a mother fucker. It always has been. Those of us who are old enough to remember will understand WHY youtube was such a revelation (or why so many porn sites still have a huge thumbnail archive...).
And it is why the various "youtube alternatives" like Nebula or (sex pest adjacent) floatplane don't have free video. EVERYTHING is paywalled because free video would make their hosting costs increase exponentially.
And yes, in theory, distributed hosting can lessen that burden. Anyone who has played a listen server heavy online game will already understand why that is a pipe dream.
I feel like the true decentralised approach to video that may work... Are torrents. Don't know if PeerTube works that way, but if you're allowing people to eat your bandwidth with direct streaming, you're gonna run into problems sooner or later.
Have you ever tried to torrent something less popular? One seed with shit upload getting ganged up on by ten leeches. Five of which disconnect the second they hit 100%.
Regardless, a torrent-like approach would work for large creators like Michael Reeves where thousands of people are going to be willing to act as seeds indefinitely. Someone like Matt Yuan might be lucky to have enough seeds for the latest two videos.
And it also doesn't work for anything live. And becomes a huge mess for premiers where people need to wait for the upload to propagate. MAYBE the latter could be handled with pre-seeding with an unlock coming at the release time but... it is a matter of minutes until a kick level creator nopes out by uploading CSAM "for the lolz"
Oh, I know the experience pretty well. The fun fun fun of having something stuck at 98% for a week or more :D
I was thinking, if the creator themselves would seed their stuff it could work - although I admit it'd have to have some kind of seed schedule and maybe some heuristic to see which videos were still available or not. There'd be problems with bandwidth, but I think it would at least allow a decentralised video network to exist, even if it would feel a bit more like watching anime in year 2010.
And yeah, fair point. I don't really do live streams so I didn't think about them. Honestly don't know what a solution for that even could be, in terms of "everyone hosts a little bit to spread the load and price".
Don't really think it'd be that big of a mess for premiers, but then again I don't see a big issue in waiting a day to get good content. Y'all are spoiled with cdns and social media /s :D! In my experience torrents propagate pretty quickly so it could still work. Think the bigger issue would be the fact that people have preference for different resolutions, so you'd end up with massive torrent downloads that have 4k, 2k, 1080p, 720p, etc. Or multiple torrent files for different resolution. The worst outcome would of course be "creator just dumps 8k 60fps content on the network and tells you good luck".
Either way, I won't pretend like torrent net could match the service of youtube right now - but I do think it could actually make a video network actually work, without prohibitive costs for the hosters and subscriptions for the basic users. It'd still be nice to support creators and the trackers but those aren't as big of an ask as "host hundreds of 4k videos per creator forever".
[edit] as a last minute thought - I think I know another reason why torrents may not work so well. You'd have to have an app or a browser extension to use them, which limits the accessibility compared to "open url and watch".
What types of games are listen heavy?
A lot of smaller multiplayer games and older live games. Also a not insignificant number of fighting games.
If you ever noticed rubber banding or games straight up being broken if the wrong player is the host: That is your friendly reminder of how shitty most people's internet setup actually is. People piggy backing off the starbucks on the first floor is a meme for a reason.
There are free alternatives like odysee, but creators have no incentive to move there