Author Topic: EEVblog&some other YouTube channels, no longer free, at best (HD) quality levels  (Read 11932 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
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.

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.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14, Kim Christensen

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
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

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.
 

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
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.

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:

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.

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.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2023, 08:34:35 am by MK14 »
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
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).

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.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
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.

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.
 

Offline langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4857
  • Country: dk
They even dilute the petrol, before we even get it, rumoured to reduce the MPG we get (by adding Bio-Ethanol to it, so only some of the percentage of fuel we get is actual Petrol, around 95% or 90% is actual Petrol, I'm not sure).

the don't "dilute" the petrol, ethanol works as an octane booster and it is a helluva lot better than using MTBE or worse lead

There's no reason why octane has to be "boosted".   

the feedstock needs to be brought up to the standard octane level, why do you think MTBE and lead was used?

But he is right that adding ethanol lowers the mileage of the fuel.

of course, ethanol is less energy per volume
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
the feedstock needs to be brought up to the standard octane level, why do you think MTBE and lead was used?

I'm happy for Ethanol to be used, instead of (presumably) obnoxious, possibly harmful chemicals, such as lead (which IS harmful).  For the Octane part of the fuel.

But I originally thought it was used as an alternative fuel source, to the Petrol, can be grown/produced by farms, and seems to be considered greener and less harmful, as a fuel source.  I didn't know it was used to change (maintain) the Octane level of the fuel.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
It wouldn't make any difference to me, because my Internet connection often isn't fast enough for ordinary HD. I could pay more for a faster connection but it doesn't bother me.

I don't pay for any streaming services, or a TV licence.

The TV licence in the UK pays for the BBC. It's required to watch BBC iPlayer and  TV, as it's being broadcast live, irrespective of whether it's a BBC channel, or not. BBC channels do not have advertising, other than for their own shows.

I do watch quite a bit of YouTube, but I don't like Google, as a company, because of their censorship. They could allow more diverse content and make more money as a result. If people are willing to pay then good for them
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
It wouldn't make any difference to me, because my Internet connection often isn't fast enough for ordinary HD. I could pay more for a faster connection but it doesn't bother me.

You might be able to get a faster service, without paying anything more.  Especially when sooner or later, we all have to move over to fibre. Then you will have fibre to the premises.

Because, by a certain date, I think it might be December 2025, the 'old' land lines are going to be switched off, or you have to stop using them.  I'm not sure if it is a target, or a physical switch off for everyone.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
It wouldn't make any difference to me, because my Internet connection often isn't fast enough for ordinary HD. I could pay more for a faster connection but it doesn't bother me.

You might be able to get a faster service, without paying anything more.  Especially when sooner or later, we all have to move over to fibre. Then you will have fibre to the premises.

Because, by a certain date, I think it might be December 2025, the 'old' land lines are going to be switched off, or you have to stop using them.  I'm not sure if it is a target, or a physical switch off for everyone.
I already have fibre to my premiss. My ISP probably cripples my speed because I don't want to pay enough for the speed.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
I already have fibre to my premiss. My ISP probably cripples my speed because I don't want to pay enough for the speed.

That makes sense.  Your reasoning behind that decision, was probably similar, to why I'm not especially interested in a YouTube Premium subscription.  I don't especially care for it.

I only really see YouTube as something that gives some entertainment some of the time, not something I'd like to give lots of cash to, to make it better.

If I did suddenly go for subscriptions, stuff like Netflix/Amazon-Prime, would probably get to the top of the list.  Because I can appreciate that quality movies and shows, cost fair chunks of money when paying for them, when buying DVDs/Blu-rays, going to the Cinema or any other methods of watching block-buster movies and so fourth (recent ones, as opposed to the generally old ones, TV stations typically show, non-BBC ones, have adverts as well).
 

Offline pdenisowski

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 930
  • Country: us
  • Product Management Engineer, Rohde & Schwarz
    • Test and Measurement Fundamentals Playlist on the R&S YouTube channel
I only really see YouTube as something that gives some entertainment some of the time, not something I'd like to give lots of cash to, to make it better.

But for many people, YouTube is also an educational / instructional resource. 

The amount of time and money I've saved by learning about things or how to do things on YouTube would be well worth what I pay a month for channels that are primarily entertainment (Netflix, Hulu, Max, etc.)
Test and Measurement Fundamentals video series on the Rohde & Schwarz YouTube channel:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKxVoO5jUTlvsVtDcqrVn0ybqBVlLj2z8
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline Kim Christensen

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1819
  • Country: ca
But for many people, YouTube is also an educational / instructional resource.

Now that Google owns Youtube, it seems like Youtube turns up in the search results more than it should. So something that could be explained by a single graphic or paragraph, now becomes a tedious 5-10 minute video. Don't get me wrong. For some things a video is a great format. But it seems that too much of it is all about feeding you ads while dispensing very little actual info.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
I only really see YouTube as something that gives some entertainment some of the time, not something I'd like to give lots of cash to, to make it better.

But for many people, YouTube is also an educational / instructional resource. 

The amount of time and money I've saved by learning about things or how to do things on YouTube would be well worth what I pay a month for channels that are primarily entertainment (Netflix, Hulu, Max, etc.)

That is true, and I quite often use YouTube for that very purpose (but forgot about it, when I wrote that).

If I want precise, specific, intricate details, I will often try and find a Text/Graphics, type of solution/aid.  But if I want a somewhat quick, easy introduction to that concept, a YouTube video can help.

E.g. Quick Sort.

If I want to implement it, then a text based description, would be more practicable to use, than a video.

But if I want to know why and how, Quick Sort is good, and an overview of how it works.  A relevant video, can be the way to do it.

Unboxing or review videos, can be useful, when choosing what to buy.

Also, while I think of it.  I'd prefer 90% to 99% of my money/donation, to go to the specific YouTube creator(s), I've chosen, if I was doing such a thing.

Rather than 1% to 10% (I just don't know, how much Google gives to the creators, because of the Premium Subscriptions), split between whatever Google thinks, the creators I made the most use of, that month.

I.e. It is a bit like going to a particular Petrol station, because a big sign on the forecourt, says "We give a percentage of our profits, to a charity".

Then me feeling all good and dandy, because I am contributing to charity, by using this Petrol station.  I.e. Small (maybe even tiny) percentages, are potentially cons or gimmicks, rather than a good way of contributing to things.
 

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
But for many people, YouTube is also an educational / instructional resource.

Now that Google owns Youtube, it seems like Youtube turns up in the search results more than it should. So something that could be explained by a single graphic or paragraph, now becomes a tedious 5-10 minute video. Don't get me wrong. For some things a video is a great format. But it seems that too much of it is all about feeding you ads while dispensing very little actual info.

I've noticed, similar.  What really annoys me, is that I do a search, for some problem, XYZ.  The top selections, may take me to websites that appear to give great answers, to XYZ.

But on visiting the first few (top) Google results, they can just insist you give them your contact details before continuing and are really just quick websites, made to appear to be answering your questions, when it really just took the Google search term, and created a title, making it look like it was a great answer, when it ends up being a big waste of time, on that website.

Similarly, I want (hypothetical), component ZX123456789ZB, and Amazon claim in Google results to have some.

So I click on it, and they DON'T have any, it was just something claiming to have it, based on your search terms.  Which is quite ridiculous really (as your search should be private, between you and google, not something the website uses to create a specific clickbait title, just to try and get advertising views/revenue, from you), and a waste of everyone's time.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2023, 04:31:59 pm by MK14 »
 

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
I'm sure I am using YouTube, considerably more, than I've been stating.  Because I'm using it for various things, without thinking about it.  Taking it for granted, and only weakly remembering I used YouTube.

But it is not just me.  There seems to be lots of controversy over people using ad-blockers, and websites not getting enough revenue as a result.  I don't really know what the solution(s) are going to be.

Youtube were suppose to get lots of ad revenue from me, but I use ad-blockers, preventing this.

The non-ad-blocking experience seems to be terrible these days, with adverts at the beginning, end, sometimes two adverts a time, some non-skippable, and a number of adverts while the video was showing.  Too much and too annoying.
 

Offline Veteran68

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 727
  • Country: us
Youtube were suppose to get lots of ad revenue from me, but I use ad-blockers, preventing this.

The non-ad-blocking experience seems to be terrible these days, with adverts at the beginning, end, sometimes two adverts a time, some non-skippable, and a number of adverts while the video was showing.  Too much and too annoying.

You are exactly describing why YT has a Premium offering. YT is a free service that costs a FORTUNE for Google to operate. Their only revenue stream was ads. Then you have the creators, without which (to Dave's point) the platform wouldn't exist, who also don't get compensated when ads are blocked. Premium solves both issues -- it provides a guaranteed revenue stream to both the platform and creators, and at the same time provides a much improved user experience to its users. I simply fail to see why people are complaining about a paid tier of service.
 
The following users thanked this post: langwadt, MK14

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
You are exactly describing why YT has a Premium offering. YT is a free service that costs a FORTUNE for Google to operate. Their only revenue stream was ads. Then you have the creators, without which (to Dave's point) the platform wouldn't exist, who also don't get compensated when ads are blocked. Premium solves both issues -- it provides a guaranteed revenue stream to both the platform and creators, and at the same time provides a much improved user experience to its users. I simply fail to see why people are complaining about a paid tier of service.

Researching it via google, the very first hit, seems to indicate that it is not offering anything outstanding, especially compared to the competition.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/youtube-red-worth-money-things-need-consider/

Summary:
Quote
Otherwise, there's not much of a draw to YouTube Premium. Originals are dead and most shows don't require a subscription to watch now—if you even care about any of them. Cobra Kai, arguably the biggest YouTube Original, is now on Netflix.

For a few more dollars per month, the Standard tier Netflix subscription provides far higher-quality shows and movies than YouTube Originals offers. Amazon Prime, which is roughly $12/month when paid annually, includes access to Prime Video, Prime Music, free shipping, and more benefits. That makes YouTube Premium look a lot less attractive in comparison.

Quote
Should You Join YouTube Premium?

The truth is that YouTube Premium is a mixed bag that will only appeal to certain people. If ads don't bother you, you don't need Premium. Unless you have lots of interest in checking out the YouTube Originals catalog, Premium isn't worth it. And if you don't use YouTube's mobile apps often, you won't appreciate all the Premium benefits.
 

Offline langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4857
  • Country: dk
The non-ad-blocking experience seems to be terrible these days, with adverts at the beginning, end, sometimes two adverts a time, some non-skippable, and a number of adverts while the video was showing.  Too much and too annoying.

afaiu the amount of ads and what type of ads is mostly upto the creator
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
afaiu the amount of ads and what type of ads is mostly upto the creator

I think it use to be like that, but over time YouTube changed their policies.  So, now, YouTube creators, have little or no say/control about it.  I'm not sure which.
 

Offline Veteran68

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 727
  • Country: us
You are exactly describing why YT has a Premium offering. YT is a free service that costs a FORTUNE for Google to operate. Their only revenue stream was ads. Then you have the creators, without which (to Dave's point) the platform wouldn't exist, who also don't get compensated when ads are blocked. Premium solves both issues -- it provides a guaranteed revenue stream to both the platform and creators, and at the same time provides a much improved user experience to its users. I simply fail to see why people are complaining about a paid tier of service.

Researching it via google, the very first hit, seems to indicate that it is not offering anything outstanding, especially compared to the competition.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/youtube-red-worth-money-things-need-consider/

Summary:
Quote
Otherwise, there's not much of a draw to YouTube Premium. Originals are dead and most shows don't require a subscription to watch now—if you even care about any of them. Cobra Kai, arguably the biggest YouTube Original, is now on Netflix.

For a few more dollars per month, the Standard tier Netflix subscription provides far higher-quality shows and movies than YouTube Originals offers. Amazon Prime, which is roughly $12/month when paid annually, includes access to Prime Video, Prime Music, free shipping, and more benefits. That makes YouTube Premium look a lot less attractive in comparison.

Quote
Should You Join YouTube Premium?

The truth is that YouTube Premium is a mixed bag that will only appeal to certain people. If ads don't bother you, you don't need Premium. Unless you have lots of interest in checking out the YouTube Originals catalog, Premium isn't worth it. And if you don't use YouTube's mobile apps often, you won't appreciate all the Premium benefits.

First of all, MUO is basically the tabloid version of a tech site. Not all that credible, their content is largely regurgitated crap, much of it wrong. Often the writers have no real clue what they're talking about.

But just look at that statement: if you don't mind ads, if you don't use mobile apps, if you don't like their programming, then Premium may not be for you. Well, duh! That's the whole point of Premium. If I don't want Netflix 4K programming, why would I pay the extra fee for it?

You were complaining how unfair it was for YT to charge for things that people use for free. Other than that on its face being wrong (as Dave said, Premium isn't removing anything from the free tier, it's adding to the paid tier). We were explaining all the reasons that Premium makes sense to people who are bothered by ads. To people who want to watch/listen offline. To people who (now) want higher bitrates.

If you don't want any of those things, then you don't pay for Premium and you're in absolutely the same place you were before this thread. I do not understand why you keep trying to justify why YOU don't want to pay for Premium but talk as if you're entitled to anything at all from YT.
 
The following users thanked this post: langwadt, MK14

Offline MK14Topic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
You were complaining how unfair it was for YT to charge for things that people use for free. Other than that on its face being wrong (as Dave said, Premium isn't removing anything from the free tier, it's adding to the paid tier). We were explaining all the reasons that Premium makes sense to people who are bothered by ads. To people who want to watch/listen offline. To people who (now) want higher bitrates.

If you don't want any of those things, then you don't pay for Premium and you're in absolutely the same place you were before this thread. I do not understand why you keep trying to justify why YOU don't want to pay for Premium but talk as if you're entitled to anything at all from YT.

We seem to be going round in circles.

My desire to not have to pay or have any subscriptions (ideally), seems to trigger negative responses, in this thread.  Not everyone likes subscriptions, perhaps because of paying for them, the accumulating costs, and feeling pressurised into using the paid for services, each month.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
But for many people, YouTube is also an educational / instructional resource.

Now that Google owns Youtube, it seems like Youtube turns up in the search results more than it should. So something that could be explained by a single graphic or paragraph, now becomes a tedious 5-10 minute video. Don't get me wrong. For some things a video is a great format. But it seems that too much of it is all about feeding you ads while dispensing very little actual info.
Instructional videos with rubbish music are the worst ones. It's often very loud and the video is too slow. I often have to watch them muted at 1.5 or double speed.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline gnuarm

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2247
  • Country: pr
But for many people, YouTube is also an educational / instructional resource.

Now that Google owns Youtube, it seems like Youtube turns up in the search results more than it should. So something that could be explained by a single graphic or paragraph, now becomes a tedious 5-10 minute video. Don't get me wrong. For some things a video is a great format. But it seems that too much of it is all about feeding you ads while dispensing very little actual info.
Instructional videos with rubbish music are the worst ones. It's often very loud and the video is too slow. I often have to watch them muted at 1.5 or double speed.

Then there are the ones that run too quickly with the full 4K screen jammed into the video display.  Those I run even faster, with the Benny Hill theme song playing. 
Rick C.  --  Puerto Rico is not a country... It's part of the USA
  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
You were complaining how unfair it was for YT to charge for things that people use for free. Other than that on its face being wrong (as Dave said, Premium isn't removing anything from the free tier, it's adding to the paid tier). We were explaining all the reasons that Premium makes sense to people who are bothered by ads. To people who want to watch/listen offline. To people who (now) want higher bitrates.

If you don't want any of those things, then you don't pay for Premium and you're in absolutely the same place you were before this thread. I do not understand why you keep trying to justify why YOU don't want to pay for Premium but talk as if you're entitled to anything at all from YT.

We seem to be going round in circles.

My desire to not have to pay or have any subscriptions (ideally), seems to trigger negative responses, in this thread.  Not everyone likes subscriptions, perhaps because of paying for them, the accumulating costs, and feeling pressurised into using the paid for services, each month.

As Veteran68 said, nothing at all has changed for you. In fact things have only improved in terms of what Youtube has offered you for free over the years.

I use and like Premium because it means I don't get any ads at all, and (majority of) that money gets divided up among the videoa I watch that month without me having to keep track of who I subscribe to etc. If a creator doesn't make any videos that interest me that month they automatically don't get any of my Premium money because I didn't watch any of their stuff.
As a user I just wish there was more transparency over where my Premium money went that month instead of "trust me bro".
 
The following users thanked this post: langwadt, MK14


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf