Eventually Premium will have ads too. It’s just a matter of time.
I feel the outrage against the free YT, the free Spotify, and probably other services is misplaced, since these providers offer fair subscription prices that make the UX completely normal. I don't see why we, as users, should fight this. This fight could be allocated to actually pressing issues, or used as energy to give to the content itself that we get from these services.
But I guess this is something that is up to each individual.
No, it's not misplaced.
But the outrage here is not about these, but about how "Stuff is pretty unwatchable now without them.", them being ad blockers.
One can decide that "okay, if you're not nice to me, I won't be nice to you as well". And that's fair. But then, the complaints of one party giving more hurt to the other doesn't make sense - they were in a fight to begin with. Then it's the name of the game. Ad blocking is a cat and mouse game in the first place, so if it looks like that the cat upgrades, so should the mouse.
Or, make all of this headache go away with YT Premium.
> The YouTube Mobile app allows you to download videos for offline consumption if you have a YouTube Premium subscription. However, the app's DRM prevents you from watching downloaded videos, unless the app has "phoned home" in the last 48 hours. This caveat is not clearly disclosed on the main YouTube Premium page, instead requiring the user to navigate support articles to discover this limitation.
Imagine the disappointment of users who thought that "offline" meant "not online" instead of some Googlespeak nonsense, paid for YT Premium before going on a trip to a place with poor internet connection, only to find out that the video won't actually play. It's a trip ruined and money wasted.
YT Premium doesn't make the "headache go away," it just adds more.
Personally it just feels kinda like buying time, so I’d rather have a more permanent solution.
The enshittification seems inevitable.
I understand the yearn for stability, but it's futile. With services, there is no permanence, and so it's unreasonable to expect such. Even the very legal and social structure that underpins it all is constantly shifting. I suggest a hybrid solution: really take part in systems that you find worthwhile, like YouTube. Pay for it so that you can feel you did your part. And take care of yourself with a plan B, in case plan A betrays you. For example, keep a public playlist with the videos you really don't want to lose, and sync them to your hard drive from time to time with yt-dlp.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626035
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36807803
- that they start applying per-person based costs to other searches (just because gmail is free for me, maybe your account has ‘reached a maximum usage’ and now you must pay, or they just drop storage limits of free to 500kb)
- that they plug that data into their analytics platform and sell the information that you personally will purchase services if nagged enough
Should I continue?
To add, I think the biggest difference here is google is actively engineering detection mechanisms for ublock, and then nagging users who use ublock, most of the people who use ublock probably wouldn’t pay for premium. I’d sooner pay for floatplane than do that.
I think when people are actually vulnerable is when they are using an account-based service, for free. In your example, Gmail. If Google is being a bitch about my Premium service, I will just not pay it, and move on with my life. What does someone do when Google is being a bitch to them with Gmail? Do they change their email at all 100 places they have given their email to, just to resist a small monthly subscription for example, or ads or whatever? So if talking about risk, I'd rather look there.
Wrt ublock, similar deal. They would do that anyways. It's just unimaginable that such a power position as Google's wouldn't get abused.
Bottom line, I don't see how it's a bad thing paying them when they actually offer a paid service. I rather wish that these venture capital magic money free services would go away instead. Services should have a cost, and users should pay those costs as directly as possible. The weird things happen from all the indirections providers employ.
> And whatever VPNs, crypto and scams the content creators peddle is up to the viewer. I barely get VPNs, and no crypto and no scams.
Come on, let's not resort to baseless shaming and blame shifting. The whole point of Premium is supposed to be about getting rid of ads. It demonstrably doesn't do that, making Premium a charity for the richest company in the world. It's 100% on Google for failing to provide any value with Premium.
>By subscribing to Premium, you make that job easier for them than when you browse the web without signing in to YouTube, and by extension, Google.
That has nothing to do with paying for YouTube Premium, but rather, with having signed in with the browser into the Google account, and using that to browse the internet as well. There are many cases where this doesn't happen. For example, if the user logs in on their phone, or smart tv, or uses separate browsers or Firefox Containers or such on PC. Also, google tracks without logging in at all, via Analytics, and by other means as well. Premium is the least of the concern here.
>Come on, let's not resort to baseless shaming and blame shifting.
Nah, you come on. Those ads were embedded in the video stream by the content creator, were they not? The onus is entirely on the uploader.
YT Premium is not charity, but a rather cheap subscription to a great service. It makes the Google ads go away, and with that, lifts a mental burden, because advertising is often plain evil.
Subscribe to Premium, and the Google ads are gone. I think it's only fair, given how vast and complex YouTube is as a service.