General > General Technical Chat
EEVblog&some other YouTube channels, no longer free, at best (HD) quality levels
EEVblog:
--- Quote from: Veteran68 on August 18, 2023, 09:43:03 pm ---But the fact is YT is not denying you access to the platform or content. They're limiting bitrate/resolution and requiring ads unless you pay a modest fee.
--- End quote ---
To be clear, this is the exact same bitrate Youtube has always offered for free. It's NOT being lowered, it's just that Premium subs now get a higher bitrate that's never been available to anyone before.
MK14:
--- Quote from: langwadt on August 18, 2023, 09:29:45 pm ---just admit it, you want stuff for free or other people to pay for it, that's not how it works, YT is not a charity
and car manufacturers don't make cars that can't handle fuel that is sold at the pump, it would be stupid. That +20 year old cars could maybe, sometimes, have minor problems with some modern fuel is a non-issue, there are old cars that can't handle lead-free fuel
--- End quote ---
On your first point. If something is offered for free, e.g. EEVblog forums and Videos. Anyone, me included, is free to use those services and view the videos. You can't start calling them names, or complaining if the respective owners of the business and/or individuals involved, have genuinely offered, free methods of accessing their goods and services.
If e.g. EEVblog facilities, were to change from a free model (where you can voluntarily contribute to EEVblog, by helping out on the forums, sometimes, watching or clicking on adverts sometimes, buying EEVblog branded items, and other ways of contributing, such as Patreon).
So, if in my example, EEVblog facilities, decided to become a paid subscriber only service and wanted £12.99 per month, in the UK. We could all make our own decisions, as to if to pay for the subscription or do without EEVblog, and its (possible) benefits, for the individuals involved.
On your second point. An older car, can be perfectly serviceable (i.e. usable/functional), and perhaps liked by people, who perhaps are retired, not that young, and it copes with all their typical driving needs, just fine.
Why should they be potentially forced to change it, because the powers that be, have decided to change the formulation of Petrol?
These days, changing a car, especially to a brand new one, can be extremely expensive. Even used cars, have become extremely expensive (relatively speaking). So I can well understand why some people would want to keep and run their older car.
I maybe should point out, Petrol without too much Ethanol (10%, E10), with at least 95% real Petrol in it (I think it is called 'Premium'), is continuing to be sold (but it might be phased out sooner or later, I'm not sure). But I've heard it costs a fair amount more, than what is now standard Petrol.
On balance, it probably is a reasonable change (Petrol), but I'm not 100% sure. Different people seem to say different things. E.g. Does the new Petrol, really lower MPG, or not?
Does it really damage cars?
I'm not really sure (without spending lots of time on the issue, which I don't want to do), it is difficult to know who to believe.
MK14:
--- Quote from: Veteran68 on August 18, 2023, 09:43:03 pm ---But the fact is YT is not denying you access to the platform or content. They're limiting bitrate/resolution and requiring ads unless you pay a modest fee. If you want to enjoy high bitrate and no ads, you pay for that. Simple. It's how a capitalist system works. You pay more for Hulu or Peacock or HBO Max without ads than with ads. You pay more for 4K Netflix than for lower resolutions. Back in the early days of HDTV you paid a significant premium for HD content, if you could get it all.
YT is a private business, and they do have competitors even if they're small by comparison. But many creators, including Dave and Defpom, simultaneously post their content to multiple platforms, such as Odysee, for those that don't like YT.
--- End quote ---
You're right about the concept of paying for resolution. A good analogy, would be typical media prices.
For a particular, hypothetical movie.
The used VHS tape at low resolution, might be £0.50, from a charity shop.
The DVD, at 480p (or whatever it is), might be £3.
The 720p old Blu-ray version, might be £4.50.
The new 1080p Blu-ray version, might be £7.50.
The very high resolution, 4k Ultra HD Blu-ray Discs, might be £20.
So to answer you and another post, at the same time:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on August 19, 2023, 05:57:40 am ---To be clear, this is the exact same bitrate Youtube has always offered for free. It's NOT being lowered, it's just that Premium subs now get a higher bitrate that's never been available to anyone before.
--- End quote ---
You're (both) right, I agree. The bitrate is NOT being lowered.
I think that is REASONABLE (to NOT offer the improved bitrate 1080p Enhanced, to 'free' users), but I'm not delighted with the situation, and worried it might be the thin end of a wedge. Where YouTube (Google etc), gradually up the ante, and keep on making things/features/capabilities that YouTube currently has for 'free' users, onto something which is only available to paid subscribers (premium users).
Additionally/similarly, most/all new features/stuff added to YouTube, may either go to the paid subscribers first, or permanently remain, only accessible to paid subscribers.
EEVblog:
--- Quote from: MK14 on August 19, 2023, 08:32:48 am ---I think that is REASONABLE (to NOT offer the improved bitrate 1080p Enhanced, to 'free' users), but I'm not delighted with the situation, and worried it might be the thin end of a wedge. Where YouTube (Google etc), gradually up the ante, and keep on making things/features/capabilities that YouTube currently has for 'free' users, onto something which is only available to paid subscribers (premium users).
--- End quote ---
Then complain when that happens. I don't see this as the thin edge of the wedge, it's just Youtube finally offering something extra for Premium paying users that doesn't impact existing free users at all.
They should be congratulated for it IMO.
Same way I'd be happy to see extra stuff for creators. We are the ones that contribute all the content that makes the platform what it is and they can't even give us for example, protection from having our channel automatically deleted by a bot.
MK14:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on August 19, 2023, 09:13:21 am ---Then complain when that happens. I don't see this as the thin edge of the wedge, it's just Youtube finally offering something extra for Premium paying users that doesn't impact existing free users at all.
They should be congratulated for it IMO.
Same way I'd be happy to see extra stuff for creators. We are the ones that contribute all the content that makes the platform what it is and they can't even give us for example, protection from having our channel automatically deleted by a bot.
--- End quote ---
You raised some very good points, and I agree with them all.
It does seem like the YouTube (Google etc), team took great care in deciding to roll out the 'Premium Only', Enhanced 1080p service. Whereby, existing 'free' tier YouTube users, would still be able to do everything that they could, before.
Creators wouldn't have to do anything, as the new, enhanced resolution, would be produced automatically by computer (as I understand it).
And Premium subscribers, would get added value for the money they pay out, every month.
Maybe YouTube should create a new, optional paid subscription, which pays out all of the money, ONLY to YouTube creators. Based on a defined 'algorithm', with precisely defined ways in which it pays out, depending on how those subscribers, view the creators stuff.
Creators would benefit from the extra money.
YouTube would benefit, as better quality videos could be produced, as a result.
YouTube themselves, should benefit, indirectly, because it uplifts their platform and its contents.
'Free' tier users, would also benefit, from the better quality content.
I've heard about those automatic channel deletions, and I'm rather disappointed in YouTube (Google). For NOT creating systems which reliably handle such situations. There should be enough actual 'humans' in the system, and robust safety checks, that mistaken channel deletions should be an extremely rare occurrence, indeed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version