EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: MK14 on August 10, 2023, 05:27:05 pm
-
Presumably, this is (or later will be) for everyone, or just rolled out for me (and other randomly selected test candidates).
This would really annoy me, not being able to select the best/better screen resolutions, for my current setup(s).
£12.99 / Month seems rather pricey/expensive to me.
Screen shot, taken very recently:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/eevblogsome-other-youtube-channels-no-longer-free-at-best-(hd)-qualtiy-levels/?action=dlattach;attach=1848409;image)
-
Presumably, this is (or later will be) for everyone, or just rolled out for me (and other randomly selected test candidates).
This would really annoy me, not being able to select the best/better screen resolutions, for my current setup(s).
it is an extra option for those who want to pay for extra bandwidth
£12.99 / Month seems rather pricey/expensive to me.
premium also gives you no ads and more, I'm not going to waste time watching ads and someone has to pay YT and creators
don't you pay more for a TV license over there?
-
don't you pay more for a TV license over there?
UK TV licence is optional, if you don't watch live TV. I don't, so I don't pay it. Streaming like Netflix is not included, but services like BBC iPlayer are.
-
Presumably, this is (or later will be) for everyone, or just rolled out for me (and other randomly selected test candidates).
This would really annoy me, not being able to select the best/better screen resolutions, for my current setup(s).
it is an extra option for those who want to pay for extra bandwidth
From that point of view, you are right, and I have to agree with you (ignoring the psycological aspects of our brains and feelings).
But from a psychological point of view. NOT being able to select the top quality options, on videos, i.e. HD 1080P (Enhanced). That would be concerning and annoying.
£12.99 / Month seems rather pricey/expensive to me.
premium also gives you no ads and more, I'm not going to waste time watching ads and someone has to pay YT and creators
don't you pay more for a TV license over there?
Yes, the British (UK) TV licence, but only by about £0.26 (12 x £13.25 = £159) more per month, based on the £159 current yearly fee, for the BBC TV licence.
But in real terms, if YouTube premium was paid monthly and the TV licence paid yearly, the overall yearly costs, would be about the same.
But not everyone wants to (or even can) pay another bill of £12.99 more, each month.
-
Presumably, this is (or later will be) for everyone, or just rolled out for me (and other randomly selected test candidates).
This would really annoy me, not being able to select the best/better screen resolutions, for my current setup(s).
it is an extra option for those who want to pay for extra bandwidth
£12.99 / Month seems rather pricey/expensive to me.
premium also gives you no ads and more, I'm not going to waste time watching ads and someone has to pay YT and creators
don't you pay more for a TV license over there?
I realize it's a pain to some, but I've been paying for YT Premium for a long time now. As much time as I spend on YT (far more than on Netflix, Hulu, and the myriad of other streaming services my family subscribes to), enjoying it with no ads on any device or TV while supporting the content providers makes the monthly amount well worth it.
-
while supporting the content providers makes the monthly amount well worth it.
I'm all for supporting the content providers. Although I wonder how much (little?) of the amount people pay, actually ends up in the pockets of the actual YouTube creators.
Maybe something like £3.99 per month, would sound much more tempting, for me. £12.99 seems really, really steep.
Amazon Prime (which I don't currently have), I think is £95 per year, in the UK, which is £7.92 (£7.9167) per month (if paid annually, to save on the costs), sounds a lot better than £12.99.
But it gives Amazon Prime video content, speeded up and free (even for cheap, small items) delivery, same day delivery for some items, and access to other services, such as Amazon Fresh Food delivery service.
My dilemma, is I don't necessarily use YouTube enough to justify the cost. (Although I suspect I watch it way more than I realize).
-
As much as I like Dave, I'm not paying extra to see the pores on his face. ::)
-
premium also gives you no ads and more, I'm not going to waste time watching ads and someone has to pay YT and creators
don't you pay more for a TV license over there?
To pay for a TV license to watch channels that plays programs between ad breaks |O
No thanks, I'd rather pay directly for my media. But even if you would get this YT premium, there are lots of YT channels with baked in ads still. So it seems really there to cover YT's bill only. And maybe that's because management is now demanding that YT is going to make a profit. It seems that social media taking a hard turn this year on how "free" it really is.
-
As much as I like Dave, I'm not paying extra to see the pores on his face. ::)
Yes, but it could be extreme eye candy, electronics/computers and stuff, which a person might like to see, in all its full, high resolution (high bit rate), glory.
-
premium also gives you no ads and more, I'm not going to waste time watching ads and someone has to pay YT and creators
don't you pay more for a TV license over there?
To pay for a TV license to watch channels that plays programs between ad breaks |O
No thanks, I'd rather pay directly for my media. But even if you would get this YT premium, there are lots of YT channels with baked in ads still.
if a creator decides to put an ad in a video you can skip that video or creator
So it seems really there to cover YT's bill only. And maybe that's because management is now demanding that YT is going to make a profit. It seems that social media taking a hard turn this year on how "free" it really is.
nothing is free, and if no one wants to waste their time watching ads companies will have to find another way to pay the bills
afaiu YT pays creators more for a premium view than for a free viewer watching the ads, I'm sure Dave will know for certain
-
There is a difference between ads and in-video sponsors.
YT Premium (or an ad blocker, at least up until recently) will block the general YT ads that play before/during/after videos. Those ads generate impressions that the content creator gets a cut of (if only a penny per 100 impressions or something like that). You block those ads, or have Premium, the creator no longer receives that bit of income. My understanding was the YT shared a cut of Premium revenue with content creators to make up for that ad revenue loss, but I don't know details. I'm sure Dave could fill us in.
If a content creator has a sponsorship deal where they mention or shill products inside their video, then that's beyond the scope of Google and YouTube and is an agreement between the creator and the sponsor. Has nothing to do with Google/YT ads and what Premium does for you.
For me, Premium is worth cutting out all the annoying YT ads. For the creators I follow (and it's a lot, across a variety of subjects), the ones who are sponsored are not obnoxious about it, it's typically relevant to the content, and I can always fast forward past the ad portion since it's just part of the video -- unlike YT ads.
-
nothing is free, and if no one wants to waste their time watching ads companies will have to find another way to pay the bills
+1 Also storage space and bandwidth cost something too. As the saying goes, if you don't pay for something, that means you are the product being sold.
afaiu YT pays creators more for a premium view than for a free viewer watching the ads, I'm sure Dave will know for certain
I seem to recall he even said so in one of his videos. As I understand, YT allocates a certain portion of the monthly fee for creators and distributes it between creators you've watched weighted by the time you spent watching their content.
-
For me, Premium is worth cutting out all the annoying YT ads. For the creators I follow (and it's a lot, across a variety of subjects), the ones who are sponsored are not obnoxious about it, it's typically relevant to the content, and I can always fast forward past the ad portion since it's just part of the video -- unlike YT ads.
Yup... I prefer the in video product plug by the creator. Especially when they place a distinctive graphic at the end of the spiel. Then it's an easy matter of doing a quick mouse-over of the timeline and instantly skipping to the end of the ad.
-
For me, Premium is worth cutting out all the annoying YT ads. For the creators I follow (and it's a lot, across a variety of subjects), the ones who are sponsored are not obnoxious about it, it's typically relevant to the content, and I can always fast forward past the ad portion since it's just part of the video -- unlike YT ads.
Sponsor block: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-youtube/mnjggcdmjocbbbhaepdhchncahnbgone (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-youtube/mnjggcdmjocbbbhaepdhchncahnbgone)
I don't watch ads or sponsor spots. If you want you can just get it to highlight the timeline and not skip the segment as well.
I think my patreon bill is $50/month or so though.
edit: someone measured the difference here (https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/4/23820482/youtube-enhanced-bitrate-1080p-premium-desktop-web-living-room)
"not being able to edit comments is annoying.. its actually 10.9MB for regular 1080p and 25.6MB for premium 1080p"
So for that specific video it was about 141kB/s vs 332kB/s ?
-
Sponsor block: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-youtube/mnjggcdmjocbbbhaepdhchncahnbgone (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-youtube/mnjggcdmjocbbbhaepdhchncahnbgone)
I don't watch ads or sponsor spots. If you want you can just get it to highlight the timeline and not skip the segment as well.
I think my patreon bill is $50/month or so though.
edit: someone measured the difference here (https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/4/23820482/youtube-enhanced-bitrate-1080p-premium-desktop-web-living-room)
"not being able to edit comments is annoying.. its actually 10.9MB for regular 1080p and 25.6MB for premium 1080p"
So for that specific video it was about 141kB/s vs 332kB/s ?
Thanks, that is amazing.
I didn't even realize, sponsored ad removal, was a thing, so wouldn't have sought it out. Now that I know it exists, it is food for thought, to use it.
On the other hand. Sometimes, because a particular YouTube video, is so relevant to ones own interests. A well considered (by the YouTube creator) sponsorship section or product placement, can actually be useful, interesting and helpful.
That bitrate increase sounds significant to me. Some content, doesn't really matter that much, if the bitrate is not as high as it can be, but other content types, can be noticeably nicer, to have the vibrant, detailed, high bit rate version.
E.g. A teardown video, where you want to see as clear as possible, views of the internal PCBs, components and things. Rather than a slightly fuzzy, lower bit rate version of the same video, making it harder to see component markings on ICs, and less eye candy, when seeing the original device in operation.
-
Sponsor block: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-youtube/mnjggcdmjocbbbhaepdhchncahnbgone (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-youtube/mnjggcdmjocbbbhaepdhchncahnbgone)
I don't watch ads or sponsor spots. If you want you can just get it to highlight the timeline and not skip the segment as well.
I think my patreon bill is $50/month or so though.
edit: someone measured the difference here (https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/4/23820482/youtube-enhanced-bitrate-1080p-premium-desktop-web-living-room)
"not being able to edit comments is annoying.. its actually 10.9MB for regular 1080p and 25.6MB for premium 1080p"
So for that specific video it was about 141kB/s vs 332kB/s ?
Thanks, that is amazing.
I didn't even realize, sponsored ad removal, was a thing, so wouldn't have sought it out. Now that I know it exists, it is food for thought, to use it.
On the other hand. Sometimes, because a particular YouTube video, is so relevant to ones own interests. A well considered (by the YouTube creator) sponsorship section or product placement, can actually be useful, interesting and helpful.
That bitrate increase sounds significant to me. Some content, doesn't really matter that much, if the bitrate is not as high as it can be, but other content types, can be noticeably nicer, to have the vibrant, detailed, high bit rate version.
E.g. A teardown video, where you want to see as clear as possible, views of the internal PCBs, components and things. Rather than a slightly fuzzy, lower bit rate version of the same video, making it harder to see component markings on ICs, and less eye candy, when seeing the original device in operation.
as long as the camera isn't moving much does the extra bit rate add anything?
-
It does sound significant.
But it also sounds like "1080p regular" is the same bitrate its always been.
It would be useful for people who don't have 4k screens, don't have hardware capable of processing 4k video.
More measurements here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/14xl8au/youtube_rolling_out_1080p_enhanced_bitrate_for/jro1ihw/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/14xl8au/youtube_rolling_out_1080p_enhanced_bitrate_for/jro1ihw/)
-
as long as the camera isn't moving much does the extra bit rate add anything?
Yeah you won't really notice much if its a mailbag video.
If its a football match or an action cam video, it is very noticeable.
-
I decided to pay for YT premium mostly for the feature of being able to turn off the phone screen and have the video keep playing. Or rather than audio keep playing without data cost of video. Love that feature so much, i use it on the train every day. And YouTube gives content creates way more money per view from a premium person vs an ad person. The lack of ads is of course great too. But i've not had YT ads in so long i've probably forgot how bad it is.
HD on youtube is a pretty low bitrate. Comparing high bitrate HD or 4K to YouTube HD of 4K is a huge difference. It's why HD videos on floatplane look so much nicer than Youtube.
So I'm all for YT premium allowing higher bitrates. But i'm worried they will efficiently just lower the bit rate for non-premium and keep it the same for YT premium :( or probably make it 1% higher just so they can 'say' it's higher.
-
What do they mean by enhanced bitrate? YT explain :-//
Seems rather like sticking a silver bow on a box of chocolates and calling it extra luxury delux chocolates. What benefit does the customer derive? By enhanced bit rate do they really mean, not rate limited?
-
Higher bitrate video has less macroblocking during motion and still scenes, so the image looks better. If you watch on a large screen it might matter to you, if it's just background interest while doing something else, you probably don't care.
-
Youtube have always provided a relatively low bitrate quality 1080p video to everyone.
Now they have a Premium option for a higher bitrate.
Existing user without Premium are NOT losing out, quality remains the same as it always has.
And this one works for 1080p 30fps video, not higher or lower bitrate. And not for 4k video that's downsampled to 1080p
-
as long as the camera isn't moving much does the extra bit rate add anything?
Not on my video with just waving hands or a talkng head.
-
Youtube have always provided a relatively low bitrate quality 1080p video to everyone.
Now they have a Premium option for a higher bitrate.
Existing user without Premium are NOT losing out, quality remains the same as it always has.
And this one works for 1080p 30fps video, not higher or lower bitrate. And not for 4k video that's downsampled to 1080p
You're right.
But on the other hand. Previously, free tier YouTube users had all available resolutions, quality settings, etc. Available.
Now they are changing that policy.
It could be the thin end of a wedge, and as time goes on, more and more features (either existing ones, or new features), get put into ONLY the premium service.
To many people (I think) and some countries, the £12.99 per Month, is not going to happen, as it is too expensive, compared to their available resources.
Edit: But if I partially answer my own post. It is a bit like everything else, e.g. super fast internet connections, can cost a lot of money per month, hence more well off companies/people, tend to get them.
So the concept that paying more money gets better/faster/more stuff, is well established. So the YouTube premium is just another example of the same concept. I.e. You pay more, you get something better.
-
To many people (I think) and some countries, the £12.99 per Month, is not going to happen, as it is too expensive, compared to their available resources.
That's the thing, YouTube have different prices for Premium in different countries. Here in the UK, our price is one of the highest. People are getting Premium for greatly reduced prices by using a VPN, etc and signing up as if they were in a different country. (It escapes me right now which countries have a much cheaper price - India? Turkey?)
For me personally, if Premium were more like £5-6 per month, I would pay for it, but not at £12.99.
-
On reflection, I think what has happened, is that some internet things, because the internet is still relatively new, compared to many things in life. Have started out free, so YouTube has been free for a very long time.
But really costs a lots of money to run, needing lots of computers/servers, man power, premises, taxes and other bills to pay, big electricity bills, and all sorts of other costs.
They were getting some money, from advertisers, but some sources seem to say that, that has been declining, for various reasons, over the years.
So just like many other things in life, such as electricity bills, Petrol/Gas for cars, etc. It needs paying for.
Not to mention, some of the YouTube producers, also want to earn money from the videos.
So I can't really insist or suggest, that it remains entirely free for ever.
-
To many people (I think) and some countries, the £12.99 per Month, is not going to happen, as it is too expensive, compared to their available resources.
That's the thing, YouTube have different prices for Premium in different countries. Here in the UK, our price is one of the highest. People are getting Premium for greatly reduced prices by using a VPN, etc and signing up as if they were in a different country. (It escapes me right now which countries have a much cheaper price - India? Turkey?)
For me personally, if Premium were more like £5-6 per month, I would pay for it, but not at £12.99.
That is exactly how I feel. £12.99 per month, just seems too much. But £5-6 per month, is a lot more palatable.
Given that Amazon Prime monthly rate (paying yearly would be cheaper, overall), seems to be currently £8.99 per month, I can't see how YouTube can justify the £12.99, as Amazon Prime has a Video service and much more, included with the Prime subscription.
Interesting idea, to use a VPN and sign up for (as if you were in) another country. I've heard about a similar concept for other thing(s), as well.
-
Would be interesting to see some analytics on the size of device screens channels are consumed on. For those with 82inch 8K media walls, resolution kills. But when most people are watching on tablets or max, a 27 inch monitor, regular HD is ample: Especially when they are watching for the content quality and not raging against the decompression artefacts on the edge of some building in the background. Premium is for a group of people with a specific use case. Maybe sports and gaming consumers with deep pockets? So will YT be expecting content makers to master in HD or 4K at 60fps?
-
That's the thing, YouTube have different prices for Premium in different countries. Here in the UK, our price is one of the highest. People are getting Premium for greatly reduced prices by using a VPN, etc and signing up as if they were in a different country. (It escapes me right now which countries have a much cheaper price - India? Turkey?)
For me personally, if Premium were more like £5-6 per month, I would pay for it, but not at £12.99.
That's like $16.50 USD, which does seem a little steep. I wonder if the differences in fees have to do with geographic tariffs, or buffers against exchange rate fluctuations.
Here in the US, I've been paying $11.99 USD for at least the last few years (maybe started at $9.99? Don't recall). They just announced a price increase to $13.99 effective on my next bill later this month, which I wasn't crazy about. But most all of my other streaming services have gone up recently too, so it's understandable and largely inevitable. As I mentioned before, we have a LOT of streaming services in my household. I'm paying somewhere north of $150/month for Netflix, Hulu+Disney+ESPN (no ads), HBO Max, Showtime, Shudder (my own guilty pleasure), Peacock, Paramount+, and probably some others I can't think of. That's NOT counting Amazon Prime since I've subscribed pretty much since its inception, long before they offered streaming, for its other benefits. And I rarely watch any of them other than YT. So I consider it a drop in the bucket for the value I get out of it.
Would be interesting to see some analytics on the size of device screens channels are consumed on. For those with 82inch 8K media walls, resolution kills. But when most people are watching on tablets or max, a 27 inch monitor, regular HD is ample: Especially when they are watching for the content quality and not raging against the decompression artefacts on the edge of some building in the background. Premium is for a group of people with a specific use case. Maybe sports and gaming consumers with deep pockets? So will YT be expecting content makers to master in HD or 4K at 60fps?
In my basement office at home, I have a 4x monitor setup on my main workstation consisting of 3x 27" monitors (2K+4K+2K) and a 43" 4K monitor on the wall above those 3 monitors. I do the vast majority of my YT viewing on that 43" 4K monitor while I'm working on other things. I also have a 75" Sony on the other side of the basement which I'll also watch YT on sometimes. So resolution is important to me. I will occasionally watch on my laptop/MacBook or iPad. I seldom watch YT on my phone unless it's just a lecture thing I can listen to, as I just can't get into postage stamp sized videos.
Side note: when we need to keep the dogs occupied in the basement (when we have a lot of company, for example), we'll turn on a pet-centric YT channel on that 75" Sony. It's fun to watch them sometimes get into a video of other dogs/animals. There's a surprising number of niche YT channels for odd things like this.
-
Over here in Canada they are increasing price to 12.99 CAD/month from September, before that it was 11.99 CAD/month
-
To many people (I think) and some countries, the £12.99 per Month, is not going to happen, as it is too expensive, compared to their available resources.
That's the thing, YouTube have different prices for Premium in different countries. Here in the UK, our price is one of the highest. People are getting Premium for greatly reduced prices by using a VPN, etc and signing up as if they were in a different country. (It escapes me right now which countries have a much cheaper price - India? Turkey?)
For me personally, if Premium were more like £5-6 per month, I would pay for it, but not at £12.99.
That is exactly how I feel. £12.99 per month, just seems too much. But £5-6 per month, is a lot more palatable.
Given that Amazon Prime monthly rate (paying yearly would be cheaper, overall), seems to be currently £8.99 per month, I can't see how YouTube can justify the £12.99, as Amazon Prime has a Video service and much more, included with the Prime subscription.
Interesting idea, to use a VPN and sign up for (as if you were in) another country. I've heard about a similar concept for other thing(s), as well.
here it is £13.80 at the current exchange rate, apperently by using a vpn to sign up with a ukraine postcode and payment in Ukrainian Hryvni you can get it for ~£2.80
-
here it is £13.80 at the current exchange rate, apperently by using a vpn to sign up with a ukraine postcode and payment in Ukrainian Hryvni you can get it for ~£2.80
That's crazy.
But I can understand, why they would want to vary the price levels, depending on the 'value' (how rich) particular countries are (or not).
If computers were £500 here (they can be), and identically specced somewhat high/medium end computers, were £90. If it was fully legal, I suspect I might be getting my computer from Ukraine, in the same way, some people get cheap stuff from China.
When searching about this YouTube Premium for this thread, I did come across (but didn't read it), mention of YouTube premium being split between cheap, low cost tiers and expensive, full Premium YouTube services.
Maybe that would be an affordable way around this, assuming the low cost version, gives enough functionality.
-
But I can understand, why they would want to vary the price levels, depending on the 'value' (how rich) particular countries are (or not).
It's a typical pricing strategy. Production costs put a floor under the price, but the consumer's ability and willingness to pay defines the upper bound.
-
But I can understand, why they would want to vary the price levels, depending on the 'value' (how rich) particular countries are (or not).
It's a typical pricing strategy. Production costs put a floor under the price, but the consumer's ability and willingness to pay defines the upper bound.
My impression, with other (usually physically for sale items) has been that although there are regional price variations between different countries. The price doesn't really change that much (as a percentage), especially when you take what features are included with the item(s), e.g. a car.
But these price variations, seem extremely wild to me. A ball-park peek 1,000% variation between some countries and the UK.
It is a bit like, when some (low end) Fluke multimeters, are (let's say) £175 in the UK, and an essentially identically looking and specced model (fractionally different model number, not thought to make a real difference in practice, except perhaps country of manufacture), is perhaps only £75 (equivalent) in China.
I.e. The so called grey market.
In the same way, I said that having the top 1080p resolution (bit-rate), being unavailable to non-premium YouTube account holders, can be annoying. Paying £12.99 per month, when others for exactly the same service and capabilities, can get it for only perhaps £1.50 or £2.50, would also be rather annoying.
I do concede the (currently) 20% VAT (UK sales tax if you like), does explain some of the price differences, between the US and UK.
-
But I can understand, why they would want to vary the price levels, depending on the 'value' (how rich) particular countries are (or not).
It's a typical pricing strategy. Production costs put a floor under the price, but the consumer's ability and willingness to pay defines the upper bound.
you can also look at it as the rich consumer subsidizing the poorer consumer
-
My impression, with other (usually physically for sale items) has been that although there are regional price variations between different countries. The price doesn't really change that much (as a percentage), especially when you take what features are included with the item(s), e.g. a car.
But these price variations, seem extremely wild to me. A ball-park peek 1,000% variation between some countries and the UK.
That's been like that forever. Most Steam games have regional pricing, which varies quite extensively between countries. Perhaps the most famous example of it is a "Big Mac Index". Another case is airplane tickets, where you can have two people sitting next to each other, who paid wildly different fares. The basic premise is the same - each business tries to sell a product or service for the highest price a customer will pay.
-
That's been like that forever. Most Steam games have regional pricing, which varies quite extensively between countries. Perhaps the most famous example of it is a "Big Mac Index". Another case is airplane tickets, where you can have two people sitting next to each other, who paid wildly different fares. The basic premise is the same - each business tries to sell a product or service for the highest price a customer will pay.
That is true.
Even within the UK, there can be quite a lot of price variation, for the same thing, in some, fairly rare circumstances.
E.g. Let's say someone is selling their car, privately.
In a well off (rich) part of the UK and/or where that particular car is regionally popular, it is rumoured that you can get a bit more for the car, compared to some of the less well-off areas and/or where that car is less popular.
If someone goes to a very expensive part of London, it can cost quite a bit, for a restaurant meal. But if you go to a much cheaper area (different part of UK), it can cost a lot less, for what is in principal identical meals.
On the one hand, I have to agree with you. But on the other, it just seems so unfair.
you can also look at it as the rich consumer subsidizing the poorer consumer
I have mixed feelings on that. In some ways, it is sort of fair (people paying what they can afford), but also somewhat unfair, at the same time.
-
But I can understand, why they would want to vary the price levels, depending on the 'value' (how rich) particular countries are (or not).
It's a typical pricing strategy. Production costs put a floor under the price, but the consumer's ability and willingness to pay defines the upper bound.
My impression, with other (usually physically for sale items) has been that although there are regional price variations between different countries. The price doesn't really change that much (as a percentage), especially when you take what features are included with the item(s), e.g. a car.
That depends.
The same physical goods that I know cost $25 Aussie dollars in Australia, 50 SGD in Singapore, and $190 in the US.
I am talking about a prescription medication. In Australia and Singapore, those are prices for the original brand. The US price is for the generic version.
I assume the Australian price could be subsidized by taxpayers, but in Singapore they do not do that. Singapore has a GDP per capita higher than that of the US and Australia.
-
That's been like that forever. Most Steam games have regional pricing, which varies quite extensively between countries. Perhaps the most famous example of it is a "Big Mac Index". Another case is airplane tickets, where you can have two people sitting next to each other, who paid wildly different fares. The basic premise is the same - each business tries to sell a product or service for the highest price a customer will pay.
That is true.
Even within the UK, there can be quite a lot of price variation, for the same thing, in some, fairly rare circumstances.
E.g. Let's say someone is selling their car, privately.
In a well off (rich) part of the UK and/or where that particular car is regionally popular, it is rumoured that you can get a bit more for the car, compared to some of the less well-off areas and/or where that car is less popular.
If someone goes to a very expensive part of London, it can cost quite a bit, for a restaurant meal. But if you go to a much cheaper area (different part of UK), it can cost a lot less, for what is in principal identical meals.
The restaurant's rent and cost of labor is probably quite different too ..
On the one hand, I have to agree with you. But on the other, it just seems so unfair.
you can also look at it as the rich consumer subsidizing the poorer consumer
I have mixed feelings on that. In some ways, it is sort of fair (people paying what they can afford), but also somewhat unfair, at the same time.
ignore the amount of money and see it as how minutes/hours someone has to work to pay that amount
-
That depends.
The same physical goods that I know cost $25 Aussie dollars in Australia, 50 SGD in Singapore, and $190 in the US.
I am talking about a prescription medication. In Australia and Singapore, those are prices for the original brand. The US price is for the generic version.
I assume the Australian price could be subsidized by taxpayers, but in Singapore they do not do that. Singapore has a GDP per capita higher than that of the US and Australia.
Yes, that does sound a lot like, some business(s) are ripping people off in some countries.
It makes me feel that the governments, of those (apparently extortionately priced countries), should do a lot more, to fix the situation.
YouTube could theoretically, in the future, make a bigger and more forceful push, into getting users to join the paid Premium Service. E.g. Limiting free access, to just a few videos, per IP address, per day or week, and stuff like that.
-
If someone goes to a very expensive part of London, it can cost quite a bit, for a restaurant meal. But if you go to a much cheaper area (different part of UK), it can cost a lot less, for what is in principal identical meals.
The restaurant's rent and cost of labor is probably quite different too ..
Very true. In that respect, it wasn't a very good example, on my part.
I have mixed feelings on that. In some ways, it is sort of fair (people paying what they can afford), but also somewhat unfair, at the same time.
ignore the amount of money and see it as how minutes/hours someone has to work to pay that amount
That's also a good point.
On the other hand, the very, very poor country, maybe should accept that their buying power, is a lot less effective, than the buying power, of a very, very wealthy country. So, some kind of difference between the hours/minutes work, needed for stuff, is therefore relatively acceptable.
Otherwise, we would end up turning the entire world, into some kind of communist/socialist singularity.
-
If someone goes to a very expensive part of London, it can cost quite a bit, for a restaurant meal. But if you go to a much cheaper area (different part of UK), it can cost a lot less, for what is in principal identical meals.
The restaurant's rent and cost of labor is probably quite different too ..
Very true. In that respect, it wasn't a very good example, on my part.
I have mixed feelings on that. In some ways, it is sort of fair (people paying what they can afford), but also somewhat unfair, at the same time.
ignore the amount of money and see it as how minutes/hours someone has to work to pay that amount
That's also a good point.
On the other hand, the very, very poor country, maybe should accept that their buying power, is a lot less effective, than the buying power, of a very, very wealthy country. So, some kind of difference between the hours/minutes work, needed for stuff, is therefore relatively acceptable.
Otherwise, we would end up turning the entire world, into some kind of communist/socialist singularity.
google says average hourly wage in Ukraine is ~£2.80
if the price of YT premium was £13, more than half a days work, you are probably not going to sell any
what people can and will pay for something, sets the price
-
As you say, it depends on what people can pay. Or at least, what 'utility' they place on what they are buying at a given price. Territory pricing strategies might seem a little asymmetric, but that's what happens when businesses are trying to increase a share in a country. Ukraine is not such a good example as their economy is screwed right now. Although they do have very fast internet, I hear.
So what makes this 'service' any different from those from Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple TV or even Bloomberg? Is there anything different, new or exclusive about the vlog content? Or is it just a marketing segmentation for tech bunnies with big pockets - and cheap electricity. Maybe we are looping back to the glory days when movies on Blue Ray cost far more than ordinary DVDs because, "you can watch Top Gun in full high definition on your brand new wall mounted plasma." Instead of watching in DVD or VHS bootleg quality on a cathode ray cube. Same movie, different television.
8) I HAVE A NEED FOR SPEED
-
google says average hourly wage in Ukraine is ~£2.80
if the price of YT premium was £13, more than half a days work, you are probably not going to sell any
what people can and will pay for something, sets the price
I guess there is not a perfect answer, that would make everyone happy, all of the time.
Some companies, would fix their prices (exchange rate and laws aside), to be exactly the same, regardless of which county was involved. Others, would change their prices, to reflect the needs of each individual country, just like the figures you just gave.
I suspect, when it is an actual physical item, such as an aeroplane, which costs significant time, money and resources to manufacture. The prices would be much more similar. Possibly using things like significant variation in what features are and are not, included, probably would change though, which changes the overall price.
E.g. Big expensive engines for rich countries, and smaller, less powerful, but cheaper engines, for less well-off countries, along with minimalistic feature sets, rather than a full set of pilot and navigation aids, which can add to the overall cost.
-
I assume the Australian price could be subsidized by taxpayers, but in Singapore they do not do that.
Yes, we have mostly subsidised medicine under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)
https://www.pbs.gov.au/pbs/home (https://www.pbs.gov.au/pbs/home)
I just picked on drug at random:
https://www.pbs.gov.au/medicine/item/8300W (https://www.pbs.gov.au/medicine/item/8300W)
$982 down to $30
Aspirin:
https://www.pbs.gov.au/medicine/item/10590J-8202Q (https://www.pbs.gov.au/medicine/item/10590J-8202Q)
$15 down to $7.30
-
I think returning to P2P would be the best alternative to Youtube. Full master quality and it scales very well even to a huge number of users.
-
I think returning to P2P would be the best alternative to Youtube. Full master quality and it scales very well even to a huge number of users.
But then there would potentially be at least seven major problems, with such a system:
- All sorts of possible security risks. Because you would effectively have, direct IP to IP address communications, between 'random' users
- The personal information of the users could leak out, especially their IP address, hence country and possibly other information
- It would put a drain on each users internet and computer device, which wouldn't be ok, for everyone. E.g. Mobile device users
- Copyright holders, could sniff out users who are accessing their copyright claimed stuff. Then complain to the authorities. Possibly then writing nasty letters, possibly from solicitors, about them accessing the copyright holders stuff, along with fines. As I understand it, this has happened before
- Governments, Political Activist and Hackers, could attempt to hijack and take over the entire eco-system, especially in certain countries. Perhaps with a strong political agenda
- The original company (YouTube etc), could lose control of the whole thing (network), in all sorts of ways. Which also relates to point 1 above (Security)
- It maybe could be manipulated/hacked/used to spread illegal files, out of the control of the original company, with various techniques. This also relates to item 1 (security)
-
See Tor and I2P for secure P2P protocols. It is a solvable problem.
Another way that scales up readily is IP multicasting.
-
See Tor and I2P for secure P2P protocols. It is a solvable problem.
Another way that scales up readily is IP multicasting.
As I understand it, Tor is not a P2P network, it uses other techniques.
One possible source:
https://tor.stackexchange.com/questions/4762/is-tor-a-p2p-network
But in principal, if done right and well. I think you have got a good point. There are a number of modern techniques, which if properly handled and executed, could reduce a number of the issues, I mentioned above.
Edit:
But on the other hand. Video content, can need a huge amount of data bandwidth, there can be a crazily huge amount of data storage involved, overall. Especially including long, very rarely watched videos.
I don't even want to try and imagine, how vast the storage space needed to store every single video on YouTube, would actually be.
Also, at peak times and/or when an extremely popular video, has just come onto the respective platform. I think it needs some serious computing, storage, networking and software horse power. To completely smoothly, handle such situations, without the slightest frame being dropped, here and there.
Sometimes, it is way too easy to take such giant, and highly complicated technical achievements, too much for granted.
E.g. Tor has got a bad reputation for being rather slow. So I don't know, how well it or something similar, could cope with (what I expect), would be huge demands, on anything like a YouTube network.
-
Plain old Bittorrent is plenty good for most of the content. Add some sort of cryptocurrency on top of it that's "mined" by seeding the torrents and it will effectively provide incentives to seed. Make the amount of reward dependent on demand and it will automatically scale as needed.
-
Plain old Bittorrent is plenty good for most of the content. Add some sort of cryptocurrency on top of it that's "mined" by seeding the torrents and it will effectively provide incentives to seed. Make the amount of reward dependent on demand and it will automatically scale as needed.
That sounds like something, which would work to gradually or quickly, download YouTube like videos, onto your computer.
But not necessarily something which would have the reliable, anytime of day, high speed (as necessary), consistent, instant watch videos now. That YouTube currently offers, for most people, on reasonable or better internet connections.
If the YouTube replacement or competitor, could only be watched by first downloading the entire video. I suspect, some or a lot of YouTubes, appeal would be lost.
-
Presumably, this is (or later will be) for everyone, or just rolled out for me (and other randomly selected test candidates).
This would really annoy me, not being able to select the best/better screen resolutions, for my current setup(s).
it is an extra option for those who want to pay for extra bandwidth
£12.99 / Month seems rather pricey/expensive to me.
premium also gives you no ads and more, I'm not going to waste time watching ads and someone has to pay YT and creators
don't you pay more for a TV license over there?
What is a TV license? <done with my best Maggie Smith impression>
-
If the YouTube replacement or competitor, could only be watched by first downloading the entire video. I suspect, some or a lot of YouTubes, appeal would be lost.
A workaround could be for subscribed feeds, have the option to download new videos ahead of time so they'll be ready.
-
If the YouTube replacement or competitor, could only be watched by first downloading the entire video. I suspect, some or a lot of YouTubes, appeal would be lost.
A workaround could be for subscribed feeds, have the option to download new videos ahead of time so they'll be ready.
Yes, in some cases, your suggestion could fix that issue. But if someone wants to access, things they don't currently subscribe to and/or past content. There would then typically be a big delay. If they need or want the video immediately, either as a need (they are in the middle of fixing something specific, and need a repair video, immediately) or badly want to watch or listen to something. They would have to wait.
Which would not be so good.
Also, since YouTube (i.e. Google/Alphabet, presumably) wouldn't be running the show. It could end up with lots of undesirable to many, videos on it.
Potentially causing it to eventually be banned in certain or many countries and/or heavily restricted and/or it being harmful to use, for some people.
Edit: Typo
-
Have some sort of database for moderating videos. Most users would subscribe to some in order to keep the junk away. But if the moderators of that database misuse it to block videos that shouldn't be blocked, the users can just switch over to another one without that shortcoming.
-
Have some sort of database for moderating videos. Most users would subscribe to some in order to keep the junk away. But if the moderators of that database misuse it to block videos that shouldn't be blocked, the users can just switch over to another one without that shortcoming.
Why would any moderator block any videos? This would only serve to reduce their... whatever it is they get by being moderators.
When you say, "block videos that shouldn't be blocked", what does that mean exactly??? Which videos should be blocked?
-
Why would any moderator block any videos? This would only serve to reduce their... whatever it is they get by being moderators.
When you say, "block videos that shouldn't be blocked", what does that mean exactly??? Which videos should be blocked?
Basically illegal content, and sometimes harmful stuff. Such as drug misuse, how to perform some serious crimes videos, certain levels and types of XXX videos, very significantly 'wrong' content (misinformation), such as 'there is no such thing as Corona Virus ...', misinformation, deliberate cons, some types of hacking videos, illegal items for sale, dictatorship (leaders/countries) generated propaganda, and all the various things, in between.
I.e. Just like the sort of things, that Twitter (under their old management), Facebook and YouTube currently block.
An example of a 'rogue' moderator, would be like someone who blocks (bans) any videos, with any meat or animal harm, of any sort in them (which are NOT against the rules of the video organisation). Because of their personal beliefs.
Alternatively, they block lots of things (needlessly), to make a big protest about something (such as the fairly recent Reddit actions), or the plague of UK sports (and other venues) events disruptions, by certain groups that want to just gain attention, by almost any means.
-
Why would any moderator block any videos? This would only serve to reduce their... whatever it is they get by being moderators.
When you say, "block videos that shouldn't be blocked", what does that mean exactly??? Which videos should be blocked?
Basically illegal content, and sometimes harmful stuff. Such as drug misuse, how to perform some serious crimes videos, certain levels and types of XXX videos, very significantly 'wrong' content (misinformation), such as 'there is no such thing as Corona Virus ...', misinformation, deliberate cons, some types of hacking videos, illegal items for sale, dictatorship (leaders/countries) generated propaganda, and all the various things, in between.
I.e. Just like the sort of things, that Twitter (under their old management), Facebook and YouTube currently block.
An example of a 'rogue' moderator, would be like someone who blocks (bans) any videos, with any meat or animal harm, of any sort in them (which are NOT against the rules of the video organisation). Because of their personal beliefs.
Alternatively, they block lots of things (needlessly), to make a big protest about something (such as the fairly recent Reddit actions), or the plague of UK sports (and other venues) events disruptions, by certain groups that want to just gain attention, by almost any means.
I did not make myself clear. Why would anyone want to be a moderator? It has got to be the biggest PITA job ever created. What's in it for them? What's their motivation? Why would they care what is posted and what is blocked?
-
I did not make myself clear. Why would anyone want to be a moderator? It has got to be the biggest PITA job ever created. What's in it for them? What's their motivation? Why would they care what is posted and what is blocked?
In some respects I agree with you. The commercial, profit making aspects of the likes of YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and so on. Allow them to pay for a large team of moderators.
But, if as another poster in this thread, may be suggesting. It is purely as a volunteer, no pay involved at all. Then there could be some takers, in the same way forums, such as this one. Can find volunteers to act as the moderation team.
I think some people get a 'buzz' out of doing stuff like that, and they perhaps feel good, to do free stuff to help the forum community out as a whole.
-
don't you pay more for a TV license over there?
What is a TV license? <done with my best Maggie Smith impression>
A phenomena in some european countries when you pay to be brainwashed.
-
I did not make myself clear. Why would anyone want to be a moderator? It has got to be the biggest PITA job ever created. What's in it for them? What's their motivation? Why would they care what is posted and what is blocked?
One reason would be mislabeled videos. There was a tactic used on torrent sites by film studio contractors to upload fake torrents with just noise/blank/different to frustrate pirates. Then they'd use a botnet to upvote their torrent.
As to "why"... Why does EEVBLOG exist and why does it have moderators? Some people just want to help out and volunteer.
-
don't you pay more for a TV license over there?
What is a TV license? <done with my best Maggie Smith impression>
A phenomena in some european countries when you pay to be brainwashed.
exponents would argue that it does the opposite by providing independent news,information, coverage of events, cultural content without
being dependent on commercial interests or advertisers
-
don't you pay more for a TV license over there?
What is a TV license? <done with my best Maggie Smith impression>
A phenomena in some european countries when you pay to be brainwashed.
I was going for a bit of humor, but it seems there are no viewers of "Downton Abbey" here. Maggie Smith had one of the best lines of the entire show. "What is a weekend?" It's much, much better in context.
https://youtu.be/TVMtffzbAwk?t=30
-
I did not make myself clear. Why would anyone want to be a moderator? It has got to be the biggest PITA job ever created. What's in it for them? What's their motivation? Why would they care what is posted and what is blocked?
One reason would be mislabeled videos. There was a tactic used on torrent sites by film studio contractors to upload fake torrents with just noise/blank/different to frustrate pirates. Then they'd use a botnet to upvote their torrent.
As to "why"... Why does EEVBLOG exist and why does it have moderators? Some people just want to help out and volunteer.
I'm just not getting it. Someone will volunteer to enforce posting guidelines that they may not agree with? No, I'm not getting this at all.
-
exponents would argue that it does the opposite by providing independent news,information, coverage of events, cultural content without
being dependent on commercial interests or advertisers
That's the well intentioned theory.
In practice (without turning one of my own threads into a political one), it seems the team of do gooders at the top, running it all, such as the BBC. Throw out their own agenda, for everyone to accept. With potentially significant apparent differences, to the general populations ideas on how society should be and act.
-
I'm just not getting it. Someone will volunteer to enforce posting guidelines that they may not agree with? No, I'm not getting this at all.
I wouldn't volunteer to moderate a "pro-Trump" blog because my beliefs do not align with that ideology at all.
But I might volunteer to moderate a "pro-repair" blog.
I'm sure there are many people who would be happy in either role above, so me not wanting to moderate one of them is not a problem at all.
Most people volunteer for things they are passionate about. Not for things they have no interest in or hate. Unless they are a masochist or something.
Imagine the most disgusting thing you can think of. There is someone out there who likes it. >:D
-
Maybe not a popular stance, but on an HD monitor 480 is often acceptable for common content, and 720 for content with drawings and other fine details.
-
Maybe not a popular stance, but on an HD monitor 480 is often acceptable for common content, and 720 for content with drawings and other fine details.
If you have got a genuine, very high or full, bit rate 720p source. It can look rather good.
The thing is, not all 720p sources, give enough bitrate to get the best out of 720p.
On the other hand. I have found that only some people can reliable notice and appreciate, higher resolutions and the improved details they can give. Some people, don't seem to be able to tell the difference.
I think as people get older, the resolution matters, less and less. Maybe because eyesight, can go a bit downhill, as people get older.
-
Maybe not a popular stance, but on an HD monitor 480 is often acceptable for common content, and 720 for content with drawings and other fine details.
Bitchute is still only 480p, and all my HD content that gets automatically posted on there is only shown as 480p, and it's totally useful for anything that involves a screen capture for example.
-
Most of my YT (and similar) uses are not full-screen anyway. I very rarely watch a YT video in full screen (maybe very occasionally on my TV set), so 720p looks fine. 480p can be ok if there's no text to read (or only large stuff), but otherwise not too great.
With that said, yes the coming trend with "free" online services is to add more subscription options and make the free access more and more limited. That's not just with YT - they are all doing it.
And yes, many if not most of these services make too little or even lose money - at some point shareholders and investors are past the hype period and they start wanting to get some ROI. This time's coming.
-
And yes, many if not most of these services make too little or even lose money - at some point shareholders and investors are past the hype period and they start wanting to get some ROI. This time's coming.
I've heard that, conventional advertising revenues (such as with adverts shown between chunks of YouTube content, before it starts etc), have been declining over the years. Partly because of the trend of increasing number of users using Ad-Blockers, but also for a number of other reasons.
Costs are tending to go up, inflation, Brexit (especially for the UK and EU), war(s) and their effects, increasing interest rates, people in general having less money to spend, post Covid slowdown/recession (opinions and what exactly it should be called vary, but the general consensus is things are going a bit down-hill for businesses at the moment).
The internet is also becoming more of a standard commodity, rather than a new, shiny novelty item.
So, it is sort of inevitable, that there may be changes (possibly big ones), afoot on the internet in other areas.
-
Most of my YT (and similar) uses are not full-screen anyway. I very rarely watch a YT video in full screen (maybe very occasionally on my TV set), so 720p looks fine. 480p can be ok if there's no text to read (or only large stuff), but otherwise not too great.
And see, I'm pretty much the opposite. I watch the vast majority of my YT content full screen, mostly on my 43" 4K monitor (the 4th monitor in my desktop setup, as I described earlier). Which was mainly the reason for adding it as my 4th monitor, so I could enjoy streaming content without tying up one of the three 27" monitors, all of which get constant use in my daily workflow. So I do appreciate the higher resolutions, and can definitely tell the difference between 1080P and 4K content (and appreciate the latter when it's available). I consider 1080P a minimum for my tastes, especially when there's visual content to focus on versus just a talking head.
With that said, yes the coming trend with "free" online services is to add more subscription options and make the free access more and more limited. That's not just with YT - they are all doing it.
And yes, many if not most of these services make too little or even lose money - at some point shareholders and investors are past the hype period and they start wanting to get some ROI. This time's coming.
I agree. While it's easy to lament the commercialization of previously "free" internet resources, especially for those of us old enough to remember the early internet and its predecessors, the quality, quantity, and richness of information available today dwarfs those early days of free content, and wouldn't be possible without the massive servers, storage, and bandwidth to support it all. Add in the fact that commercial entities accountable to shareholders, as you point out, expect not just break even revenues but some degree of profits (otherwise why spend these resources for the "good of the people" when they could be put to higher revenue-generating purposes), and it's logical to see how we got to this point.
So now I will have to pay for the content that has value to me, and I will tend to drop or find free alternatives to those that don't bring value. Kind of how a capitalist market works (not that I think capitalism is perfect -- no socio-economic model is -- but it's the one I live in and prefer over some of the alternatives).
-
don't you pay more for a TV license over there?
UK TV licence is optional, if you don't watch live TV. I don't, so I don't pay it. Streaming like Netflix is not included, but services like BBC iPlayer are.
Not quite. You need a license to use iPlayer, even for non-live programs.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ291# (https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ291#)
-
I think as people get older, the resolution matters, less and less. Maybe because eyesight, can go a bit downhill, as people get older.
Or maybe it's because "older" people remember analog television with over-the-air reception and/or VHS tapes and have much lower standards than people born and raised in the internet age :)
-
I think as people get older, the resolution matters, less and less. Maybe because eyesight, can go a bit downhill, as people get older.
Or maybe it's because "older" people remember analog television with over-the-air reception and/or VHS tapes and have much lower standards than people born and raised in the internet age :)
That could be a factor as well. Expectations, potentially gradually change over the years (across a whole age connected generation).
Ironically, I have fond memories of analogue TV and video tape recorders. Because, somehow they seems to have a sort of infinite resolution, to the picture. Which doesn't seem to be reproduced these days. As long as there isn't a problem with the source, such as weak/noisy TV signals, worn out or poorly recorder tape and/or low quality video equipment, such as in some cases, rather cheap, bottom end equipment.
Another factor though, could be a humans minds ability, to make things that are from the past. Look shinier, more glossy, perfect and better, than perhaps they really were or would be these days.
Certainly, many are glad to see the back of the overly massive glass CRT tubed, TVs and monitors. Which could be in massive packages, and be extremely difficult to lift.
I can't remember exactly. But I think some of the older (past TV generations), wide screen, big screened TVs. Weighed something crazy, like 80 kgs, and could need at least two people to lift or move them (safely). They weren't even that good really (opinions can vary). The wide-screen ones, I mean, not the CRT concepts.
Maybe because in that era, only some of the content was for wide-screen TVs, the rest was for the almost 'square' (not really, but compared to the wide-screen ones, they partly are) TVs.
-
Well some may consider me "old" at 55, and I certainly remember CRTs. I've owned everything from 9" B&W CRTs to 32" Sony Trinitrons (damn those were some heavy beasts for their size) before getting into DLP, Plasma, and LCDs. Also grew up with rabbit ears and later VHS/Beta. And I can't say I have fond memories of any of them, LOL.
Despite my age, I'm a tech/gadget geek and I appreciate new technology. I'm also a resolution addict with still good eyesight for closeup work (wear glasses for distance though), so I'm one of those people who use 27" 4K monitors with native font scaling where many people are scaling to 150-200% just to be able to read it. I like my pixels and fine details!
-
Or maybe it's because "older" people remember analog television with over-the-air reception and/or VHS tapes and have much lower standards than people born and raised in the internet age :)
Do you remember RealPlayer? That was even worse than VHS. However, around that time it was possible to stream SD video (1-1.5 Mbit/s) over the internet, of course not for consumers with dial-in access.
-
Well some may consider me "old" at 55, and I certainly remember CRTs. I've owned everything from 9" B&W CRTs to 32" Sony Trinitrons (damn those were some heavy beasts for their size) before getting into DLP, Plasma, and LCDs. Also grew up with rabbit ears and later VHS/Beta. And I can't say I have fond memories of any of them, LOL.
I remember taking the tubes out of the TV and going down to the hardware store to test them so I could get back to watching shows that started with "In Technocolor" at the bottom ... good times. :)
True story: when I was a poor grad student, I once had some people over at my apartment and one of them asked what the rabbit ears on my TV were for. I said that I used them to watch TV because I was too broke to pay for cable, to which my guest responded "Is that .... legal???" :-DD
-
True story: when I was a poor grad student, I once had some people over at my apartment and one of them asked what the rabbit ears on my TV were for. I said that I used them to watch TV because I was too broke to pay for cable, to which my guest responded "Is that .... legal???" :-DD
:D
It's like watching a Gen-Z's first time with a rotary dial phone. Blows their mind that we could live like such primitive savages.
-
Hi Guys,
I now pay the equivalent of $3.99 for YouTube Premium, since Spotify refuses to take
my money for their programming. Corporations and corporate politics can be incredibly
stupid ....
Sure, I am not to happy with that, but since it also covers my daily music needs, I am
ok with it ...
Cheers,
luudee
-
I now pay the equivalent of $3.99 for YouTube Premium
Absolutely NO offence to you. But I find that so annoying, it very significantly stops me from wanting to subscribe to their service(s).
I also can't really see the benefits of YouTube Premium. (Possible extra help to content creators, aside).
Sorry, I know we have already discussed this. But, I'm sort of coming back to it, and just posting my immediate thoughts.
We use to have this situation, to some extent (going back decades), where it was often considerably cheaper to buy high tech goods, in America, compared to buying them in the UK.
I can't remember exactly. But it was something like a particular hard disk would be $135 equivalent here, but only $100 in America.
One reason for the discrepancy though, was the prices here get (what is currently) 20% VAT (sales tax) added to the prices. I.e. The adverts and price display in general, would have to include the VAT. Whereas in America, the sales tax, as well as often being a lot less (such as 6%), is only added to the total, afterwards, and is NOT included in any displayed or advertised prices, in general.
I.e. In America it might say something is $10, but sales tax, still needs to be added to it, such as 6.25%.
Example:
A while back (less so these days), Petrol/Gasoline prices, were hugely different, between the UK and America, by a very large amount. Maybe something crazy like a factor of x3 to x7 times cheaper.
-
We use to have this situation, to some extent (going back decades), where it was often considerably cheaper to buy high tech goods, in America, compared to buying them in the UK.
Used to?The just swap the $ for £ and add some tax exchange rate seems still fairly common,and not just high tech goods
-
It's like watching a Gen-Z's first time with a rotary dial phone. Blows their mind that we could live like such primitive savages.
If you really want to blow a young(er) person's mind, demonstrate* hook-flash dialing (i.e. "dialing" a number on a traditional phone by manually pulsing the hook switch with your finger instead of using the dial or buttons).
*Assuming you can still find a POTS phone and line somewhere ....
-
I also can't really see the benefits of YouTube Premium. (Possible extra help to content creators, aside).
It includes YouTube Music as was posted, however I don't use it for that (I mainly use Apple Music and Amazon Music). My subscription is entirely for ad-free purposes. Yes I could use an ad blocker and did for quite awhile, but the content creators lose out on that. Considering how much YT I consume, paying for Premium gives me something (no-ads) while rewarding creators in some small way. It's worth it to me, but YMMV.
We use to have this situation, to some extent (going back decades), where it was often considerably cheaper to buy high tech goods, in America, compared to buying them in the UK.
I can't remember exactly. But it was something like a particular hard disk would be $135 equivalent here, but only $100 in America.
One reason for the discrepancy though, was the prices here get (what is currently) 20% VAT (sales tax) added to the prices. I.e. The adverts and price display in general, would have to include the VAT. Whereas in America, the sales tax, as well as often being a lot less (such as 6%), is only added to the total, afterwards, and is NOT included in any displayed or advertised prices, in general.
I.e. In America it might say something is $10, but sales tax, still needs to be added to it, such as 6.25%.
I served in the US Army in the late 80's and early 90's, including a posting in Germany for nearly 3 years. My wife had an American friend who was married to a German Air Force officer. I remember taking him as a guest to our Post Exchange (PX), basically a big retail store for US servicemembers and families that sold everything at US prices with no VAT of course. We were allowed to bring guests. He bought a stereo, VCR, and a number of other consumer electronics items. He explained that they were SO much cheaper than German retail prices plus it saved the 17% VAT.
Example:
A while back (less so these days), Petrol/Gasoline prices, were hugely different, between the UK and America, by a very large amount. Maybe something crazy like a factor of x3 to x7 times cheaper.
[/quote]
Yes, we in the US like to complain when our gas prices go up, but I remind those who have never been overseas that they don't realize how cheap we have it over here. Our gas prices do vary wildly from state to state, as each state can tack on their own taxes and fees to every gallon. Looking at some current stats, California has the highest average gas prices at $4.81/gal (USD) vs $6.07/gal a year ago. Mississippi has the cheapest at $2.99/gal vs $4.18 a year ago. I can remember back in the late 80's in Germany, gas was around $5-6/gal (adjusted for currency and measure). Fortunately we had ration cards that let us buy our gas on US military bases at US prices. Same with cigarettes -- I knew guys that used to pay their rent to their German landlords in cigarettes since they didn't use their rations. Germans always said American cigs were far better and cheaper than German (I wouldn't know, I never smoked).
-
It's like watching a Gen-Z's first time with a rotary dial phone. Blows their mind that we could live like such primitive savages.
If you really want to blow a young(er) person's mind, demonstrate* hook-flash dialing (i.e. "dialing" a number on a traditional phone by manually pulsing the hook switch with your finger instead of using the dial or buttons).
*Assuming you can still find a POTS phone and line somewhere ....
I can do you one better. I had some family members in very rural areas who were on a party line. Everyone in the nearby vicinity shared a phone line. You'd pick up the phone to make a call and listen in other people's conversations, LOL.
-
I also can't really see the benefits of YouTube Premium. (Possible extra help to content creators, aside).
There are two reasons why I chose Premium:
1. It allows me to listen to shows on a locked phone, which is very handy when I am on the go or in a car. I listen to 95+ percent of YouTube content without watching.
2. It is ad-free.
-
I also can't really see the benefits of YouTube Premium. (Possible extra help to content creators, aside).
There are two reasons why I chose Premium:
1. It allows me to listen to shows on a locked phone, which is very handy when I am on the go or in a car. I listen to 95+ percent of YouTube content without watching.
2. It is ad-free.
Occasionally, that would be a benefit for me as well, but nowhere near £12.99 / months, worth of benefit though.
I try and block adverts, but, just as in your case, I'm sometimes on things which don't easily block adverts. But on the other hand, if a person is really determined, they can still block a lot of them using other means. I.e. At the home router (doesn't apply if it is a mobile phone carriers internet access).
I don't want to give YouTube ideas. But what would have really tempted me, is if they had a fair amount of extra content (a bit like some YouTube channels only offer if you pay them monthly subscriptions, as I understand it, there are various ways of achieving it, some of which don't then use the YouTube platform, for showing those paid for only videos).
Also, if they somehow resolved these massive price discrepancies between countries.
As already mentioned, I can't see how I'd be happy to be paying £12.99, when exactly the same service, is available for a tiny fraction of that price, to a number of countries.
I'm also rather confused, as to how legal and morally right or wrong, accessing YouTube Premium via a VPN and 'pretending' (if I understand things correctly), to be living in another country.
I was also interested in their download/offline options, until I checked into it, and sure enough (as expected). They have almost totally ruined it by 48 hour timeout limits (although, confusingly 29 days limit, is also mentioned, I'm not sure which applies and when/how), before you have to go online, and (dreaded by many people) DRM.
-
I served in the US Army in the late 80's and early 90's, including a posting in Germany for nearly 3 years. My wife had an American friend who was married to a German Air Force officer. I remember taking him as a guest to our Post Exchange (PX), basically a big retail store for US servicemembers and families that sold everything at US prices with no VAT of course. We were allowed to bring guests. He bought a stereo, VCR, and a number of other consumer electronics items. He explained that they were SO much cheaper than German retail prices plus it saved the 17% VAT.
Example:
A while back (less so these days), Petrol/Gasoline prices, were hugely different, between the UK and America, by a very large amount. Maybe something crazy like a factor of x3 to x7 times cheaper.
Yes, we in the US like to complain when our gas prices go up, but I remind those who have never been overseas that they don't realize how cheap we have it over here. Our gas prices do vary wildly from state to state, as each state can tack on their own taxes and fees to every gallon. Looking at some current stats, California has the highest average gas prices at $4.81/gal (USD) vs $6.07/gal a year ago. Mississippi has the cheapest at $2.99/gal vs $4.18 a year ago. I can remember back in the late 80's in Germany, gas was around $5-6/gal (adjusted for currency and measure). Fortunately we had ration cards that let us buy our gas on US military bases at US prices. Same with cigarettes -- I knew guys that used to pay their rent to their German landlords in cigarettes since they didn't use their rations. Germans always said American cigs were far better and cheaper than German (I wouldn't know, I never smoked).
Thanks, that was very interesting. In the past, those price savings were rather noticeable, so I can well understand why they happily bought all that equipment, such as the VCR, and why people like to save money on the Petrol/Gasoline, if given half a chance.
I didn't know that military bases, could sell goods, from their home country, at home country prices.
It is a bit like getting anyone who is holidaying in America, or coming from America to visit the UK. To (legally) bring back cheaper or much cheaper goods (I think there are limits on how much VAT, can be legally ignored, on a per person basis).
On top of all that, there are the complications of the exchange rates. E.g. Some countries, have extremely good exchange rates, so that people from the UK, can effectively visit there, and have huge buying power, especially for locally produced stuff or services, rather than imported stuff.
E.g. A meal at a restaurant might cost £20 or more, here in the UK, but might only be a few pound, in some other countries (exchange rate permitting). I'm not sure, how cheap or not such things are currently, but in the past, they could be extremely lucrative.
-
At food courts in malls food is much cheaper and better than in most of restaurants here. Like 3-4 times cheaper. No i am not talking burgers.
-
I didn't know that military bases, could sell goods, from their home country, at home country prices.
If the nafi in germany had tried that in the 90's they'd have been riots,think it was 1 deutsche mark for a beer,about half the price of the uk.cigarettes were also much cheaper,even compared to than the duty free price.Needless to say any spare space in the van was soon was filled with packs of fags.
-
At food courts in malls food is much cheaper and better than in most of restaurants here. Like 3-4 times cheaper. No i am not talking burgers.
Yes, but if you're in a foreign to yourself country. Many people prefer to eat out and neither have the inclination or cooking apparatus available, to make meals. E.g. A standard hotel room, without cooking equipment.
-
At food courts in malls food is much cheaper and better than in most of restaurants here. Like 3-4 times cheaper. No i am not talking burgers.
Yes, but if you're in a foreign to yourself country. Many people prefer to eat out and neither have the inclination or cooking apparatus available, to make meals. E.g. A standard hotel room, without cooking equipment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_court
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_court
Yes, I misunderstood their reply. I think they are still somewhat rare in the UK, and that term, seemed to cause confusion with me. As I was thinking of Food Halls, such as Marks & Spencers, food selling area(s), from quite a while back.
Some UK motorway service stations and airports, can have things which are similar to these Food Courts.
-
Moving back on-topic, and updating this thread with my latest thoughts.
As I see it, this YouTube Premium subscription, currently only seems to be suitable to a minority of the people who use YouTube, everyday.
It could be that the people involved, are at the lower end of the income bracket, or retired, or in education. They may not be especially interested in much of what TV/Movies can offer. So for these and many other reasons, many, many people, WON'T be getting a YouTube Premium subscription.
So, I'm disappointed that YouTube are limiting YouTube's features and capabilities, in some respects, for non-subscribers.
Thinking out aloud. Another fundamental, method of working it, would be having an internet money system. Where, when people pay access fees to go on the internet (broadband monthly connection charges, mobile phone charges, internet cafe charges etc). They could charge one amount, but it could be split into two parts (a bit like taxation systems).
So, a percentage of the bill, e.g. 25%, could go towards paying people/things/websites, depending on what percentage and amount of the overall worlds internet traffic, they process.
E.g. A bit like how some countries (in theory), pay for their expensive road infrastructure by adding a tax for the sale of Petrol/Gasoline, that fund (tax) can then be used to pay for better/new roads and similar. (In practice governments tend to just see it as a new way of stealing obtaining money from hard working people, and then using it for their own agendas).
So in the UK, we have pot-holes in some roads, which damage our cars (in some cases) and we have to pay big bills to get the car fixed (because of the pot-holes), and we have to pay ever increasing bills for car tax (disc's, although paperless now), and Petrol/Gasoline fuel duties, which are sky high, percentage wise.
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).
So that world wide 'internet tax', could be distributed, to help pay for things like YouTube. The fact that, that payment would also go to competitors of YouTube. I think, would be a good thing.
But there would be potentially bad things, from what I suggest. Bandwidth consumption, doesn't actually equate to good quality content. If you don't agree, then please watch YouTube shorts for 24 hours, without a break, and see if you do, after that.
-
Moving back on-topic, and updating this thread with my latest thoughts.
As I see it, this YouTube Premium subscription, currently only seems to be suitable to a minority of the people who use YouTube, everyday.
It could be that the people involved, are at the lower end of the income bracket, or retired, or in education. They may not be especially interested in much of what TV/Movies can offer. So for these and many other reasons, many, many people, WON'T be getting a YouTube Premium subscription.
So, I'm disappointed that YouTube are limiting YouTube's features and capabilities, in some respects, for non-subscribers.
they are offering a free and paid service, deal with it. if you don't like service you can stop using it
Thinking out aloud. Another fundamental, method of working it, would be having an internet money system. Where, when people pay access fees to go on the internet (broadband monthly connection charges, mobile phone charges, internet cafe charges etc). They could charge one amount, but it could be split into two parts (a bit like taxation systems).
So, a percentage of the bill, e.g. 25%, could go towards paying people/things/websites, depending on what percentage and amount of the overall worlds internet traffic, they process.
Otherwise, we would end up turning the entire world, into some kind of communist/socialist singularity.
and now you want some elaborate tax system???
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
-
they are offering a free and paid service, deal with it. if you don't like service you can stop using it
But they have cornered the 'YouTube' market, and become the main/primary go to place, for watching or precenting your own, videos. I.e. They are effectively a monopoly. So it is all very well to suggest, stopping the use of YouTube. But if the competition, only has a tiny fraction of the video content, and if putting ones own videos up on a competitors platform, meant it would get hardly any views or revenue.
So, 100% ignoring YouTube, would seriously mess up that capability/option in life.
and now you want some elaborate tax system???
I don't want to be a one party problem solver, who always sticks to the Left, Right or Middle ground of politics. If something seems to be a viable solution and good idea, that is probably more important than the ideas political leanings.
I'm suggesting a percentage of (something like 25% of the total charges for internet) what are already being paid for internet connection charges. Not a new dictatorship, which grabs 100% of everyone's earnings.
On the other hand, starting off things like that on a small scale, can eventually lead to massive political monoliths. E.g. The original EEC, which was just to start out with a common market for certain limited food stuffs, nothing else. Eventually became the EU, with proposals for it to have its own army.
tthe 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 seem to be suggestions, on the internet, that it can cause the Petrol to attract/absorb too much water, and then corrode certain parts of the car, such as the fuel tanks, and hence damage cars. There are also suggestions, that some older cars, especially ones from before 2010 (and especially older than 2000). May not be able to use the higher percentage (such as 10%, E10), Ethanol containing Petrol/Gasoline.
-
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
-
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.
-
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". But he is right that adding ethanol lowers the mileage of the fuel.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.)
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/youtube-red-worth-money-things-need-consider/)
Summary:
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.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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/ (https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/youtube-red-worth-money-things-need-consider/)
Summary:
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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".
On reflection, I think increasing the bitrate for Premium Enhanced 1080p videos, by around (depending on original file format) 52% to 72% (from a very quick glance by me, at an article(s) about it). Makes Premium, significantly more tempting, especially when anyone is using better (higher resolution) monitors/TVs etc.
I'd be even more tempted, if rumours about them creating a cheaper version (tier) of the Premium subscription, with less (not sure what it loses), but at more like £7.50 per month, rather than £12.99.
Blocking adverts, has its own set of drawbacks, so not needing to do it, for YouTube, is an advantage, as well. E.g. Some devices (or other peoples equipment, because they don't want it interfered with), don't readily support ad blocking.
If YouTube can offer, more value (benefits/advantages) for the Premium Subscriptions and/or lower its monthly cost, I'd be even more tempted to get it.
-
If YouTube can offer, more value (benefits/advantages) for the Premium Subscriptions and/or lower its monthly cost, I'd be even more tempted to get it.
The app gives the ability to continue to play videos when your phone is locked. I use this daily.