YouTube is increasing Premium prices in multiple countries, right after an ad-blocker crackdown | You either pay rightfully for the video content you consume, or you live with the ads.::Google is increasing the prices of YouTube Premium and YouTube Music Premium subscriptions in some regions, right after blocking ad-blockers.

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          They seem to be increasing in frequency. If this is only the second one you’ve seen in the last 24h then you’re lucky.

      • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I have a question for people using sponsorblock. Why? How do you expect a content creator to pay the bills? I use an adblock because fuck Google but content creators pick up sponsorships specifically because YT pays like shit.

        • Beefy-Tootz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m only speaking for myself here, and I’m certain you’re not going to like the answer I have to offer. That’s not my problem. I don’t like being advertised to. I don’t like others telling me what I’ll like or what to do. I’m a monster, I know, I also take pee breaks when commercials come on tv as well and I usually arrive late to movies so I can skip the previews.

          Seriously though, I really don’t care how they pay their bills, they’re a dancing monkey on the sidewalk that I enjoy for a couple minutes and move on. If they can’t afford to keep making content and quit, I’ll just move onto the next channel that’s still producing. It’ll never run out, just like there’s always going to be someone who sits through the ads or actually buys whatever their shilling. At the end of the day, it’s their responsibility to make sure their shits handled, not mine. If they can’t pay their bills, they should probably do something that offers a more steady income stream.im not obligated to give them my time in exchange for them getting money. They get my time in exchange for me being entertained, that’s it. Maybe if they made content for enjoyment instead of money, they’d make better content.

          Before we get to name calling, I am fully aware that this is a shit take, but it’s the truth. I’m a cynic and I’m not very fun at parties either

          • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            10000% this. I don’t give a shit how you make money. YouTube started out as a place to let people show off to the world. It was wholesome. It was a community. Then they started paying people for views and it got perverted into this capitalist hellscape we have now where the most popular channels are garbage spewed out by content farms that exist to game an algorithm. Where the highest earners can commit literal crimes and get a slap on the wrist because Google wants the ad revenue their views bring in. This is not a community of the “you” the end users who just want to share interesting hobbies and funny clips with the world. Put the “you” back in YouTube.

          • satan@r.nf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I am fully aware that this is a shit take, but it’s the truth. I’m a cynic and I’m not very fun at parties either

            I love basement dwellers. Moms cooking, pops paying the internet bills and he thinks he’s not going to see ads with his hands on cheetos, watching Netflix and ordering on food delivery app he subliminally remembers. But they were totally not from the ads.

            • Beefy-Tootz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s an awful lot of assumptions and insults coming through to someone who’s just answering the question honestly. I’m not naive enough to think I’m advertisement proof, I just get tired of them and avoid them where I can. I’m failing to see what your point is

              • rambaroo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Just because you’re honest doesn’t mean you get a cookie. Your take a isn’t just shit, you’re a fucking thief stealing from mostly ordinary people who are trying to find new ways to make money because the traditional economy fails us. You can take your whining and go fuck yourself as far as I’m concerned. If you don’t want to watch sponsorships that help people make more money then turn the fucking content off. Entitled twat.

                So many gigantic hypocrites on this site. Any time success for workers requires even a tiny amount of time all you hypocrites on this site suddenly turn into penny pinching fuckwads. bunch of fake leftist tools. It wasn’t enough for you to block ads so now you’re also blocking sponsorships, so that tells me you think you’re entitled to free work from others which makes you no different from some corporate capitalist shithead.

                • Beefy-Tootz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I don’t think thief is the right word. Would you consider someone who stands by a busker listening to their whatever and not throwing a coin in the hat, a thief as well? I get your point, I just think you went about it the wrong way. Who has the better claim to entitlement, the person who already got paid for the sponsorship based on their existing performance metrics, or me and my time? Are you a thief for taking a piss during a commercial break? Are you a thief for arriving late to movies to intentionally skip the previews? Where’s the line here? I’m also not sure of where my hypocrisy comes in either. I have no fantasies about other people wanting to hear what I have to say, especially if it’s going to cost them time or money. I’m not blocking advertisements and expecting people to watch mine. I don’t have anything to advertise. If I wanted to make a shitty YouTube video to entertain people, I’ll do that, but I’m not going to pretend that it’s going to put food on my table. My real job does that. I’m not so vain as to think I deserve other people’s time and attention. What makes Linus tech tips entitled to my time, or Mr beast, or whoever else is churning out mediocre content purely for profit?

        • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          They’re already getting paid for putting it in their video. Sometimes the sponsorships are on a “per signups” basis and I have never once come across a YouTube sponsorship for something that I would actually have a use for. They’re either already getting paid or they weren’t getting my money anyway so I might as well skip it. I don’t need to hear a pitch for something I don’t want/need

        • Anemia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t care who’s serving the ads, I don’t want to watch ads period. I will pay for the content where possible though. I dont think youtube taking 45% considering the crazy infrastructure provided is that strange. Maybe 45% is still too much, but i don’t think 55% sounds like “shit”.

          • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I forgot that the people I watch are far less mainstream. They survive on Patreon and sponsorships because they’re constantly demonetized, thus my perception it pays shit.

            • Anemia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s fair enough. Didn’t think of that angle which is a pretty relevant one considering how easy it seems to be to get demonetized.

        • TDCN@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Most ads are for products in another country so even if I hypothetically wanted it I can’t get it so why waste my time on it. And if they are multinational companies I usually don’t want anything to do with it. I also just don’t want to be advertised to. It’s wasting my time because 99.99% of the time it’s irrelevant to me.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Counter-ask: how does watching the sponsored content help them?

          They’ve been paid initially, people who use sponsor block are way less likely to sign up for the service.

          Watching it does literally nothing for them if you don’t sign up… The sponsor won’t even see metrics of who skipped the sponsored portion

          • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It just seems like overkill to me tbh. The content creators I watch need sponsors to get by, so I’ll take a peek at what they’re offering in good faith. If I don’t like it I just skip to the end of the bit, or leave the video since a few put them at the end. You’re not messing with corporate profits or anything.

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Ok, but you can set it up to not auto skip. You could just get a button to skip to the end of the promotion - I think that’s the default even

              But I’ve literally only looked into a product sponsored by a creator once, and once I saw the price tag I clicked off. And that was after I installed sponsor block

        • Gladaed@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          YT does not pay like shit. A lot of the time sponsorships are much more targeted and interesting than YouTube ads.

          That being said I mainly dislike bad ads. Good, well targeted ads that don’t destroy your eardrums for products that interest me seem nice. But they don’t tend to exist.

          • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            This didn’t help me, I understand advertising. My questioning sponsorblock apparently didn’t properly convey that a huge part of my confusion is that you can just… Skip that part. It’s not like rolled ads and even then I already mentioned support for adblocker.

            Like it’s overkill, obsessive type feel to me “I hate advertising so much I want everything to be automatic so I don’t even process for a 10th of a second that I may have consumed an ad” while most people are like “Oh it’s the sponsor” click click and move on. And hey maybe I see a it’s a product I DO use like Displate, so the discount code is useful.

            • Beefy-Tootz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Is the question “why automate when you can manually do it?” I think that’s where the confusion may lie. Why wouldn’t you automate it if you were going to do it anyway?

    • Docus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      +1 for yattee on IOS. Until we can get ublock origin on iphones, but that’s another story

  • Mac@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Aww. Are the greedy megacorporations upset that consumers are being greedy in return? Poor megacorporations. :c

  • Quik@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Or you update your uBlock Origin blocklists and declare YouTube the war.

    • zerofk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I never see Vivaldi mentioned in these. Yes, it’s chromium based, but I have not seen a single YouTube ad since they implemented built-in ad block many years ago. Without the need for extensions, plug-ins, or user managed block lists.

  • dack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is why Google has been using their browser monopoly to push their “Web Integrity API”. If that gets adopted, they can fully control the client side and prevent all ad blocking.

    • Jolteon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      Thankfully, Firefox is still a thing. If that comes out, it’s going to be a hell of a lot more popular.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        … and dependent on Google ; they may either push that API into FF or push something different so bad that FF would lose even more users.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Google also said they would cancel there plan to roll out FLoC after significant pushback a while ago, only to renamed it as Ad Topics and roll them out anyway when no one is looking. If Google do the same with web integrity API, I wouldn’t be surprised anymore.

        • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          To be fair, FLoC had signifient issues and could be used to fingerprint users. Google’s whole point of FLoC was to get rid of third party cookies, to stop sites from fingerprinting users and tracking them throughout the web, so FLoC didn’t really solve the problem in that regard. With Ad Topics, only a limited subset of topics are presented to the advertisers, and fake data is injected, making that fingerprinting less likely.

  • nl4real@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Still haven’t gotten any on Firefox with Ublock Origin. The usual explanation is that it rolls out in stages, but I’ve nothing weeks later.

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nah there was an article that said that it’s fully deployed now.

      Your ad block solution must be filtering it out appropriately.

      I’ve had to do the full purge and refresh filters thing.

    • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      I just have all my YouTube subscriptions feeding into an RSS feed. Haven’t gotten a single ad.

        • Gunpachi@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          You can use a rss reader app that works on the desktop like Fluent Reader or if you want to go all out - setup something like freshrss / miniflux on a selfhosted server.

          As for getting Rss feeds from Youtube. I think there are some browser extensions you can use. If you have the newpipe app on android , you can visit any Youtube channel and it will have an option to get the Rss feed on the top right. You can copy that link to your RSS reader and it will start showing new videos.

    • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Are you logged in to YouTube on Firefox? Anonymous visitors with ublock origin doesn’t seem to get the nag.

      • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        11 months ago

        Enshittification, also called chokepoint capitalism, is a term coined by Corey Doctorow (sp?) that lays out a common pattern with platforms in a capitalist system where:

        1. Platform builds a product to entice users to it for little to no cost to the user (Google search, Facebook, Amazon shopping, etc)
        2. Once users are locked in, make the experience worse in ways that increase profits for business partners (Google ads partners, etc)
        3. Once business partners are locked in, screw them over to rake back as many profits for the platform owner.
  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Kinda glad my uBlock Origin is still working.

    This should be illegal, actually in Europe it’s about to be…

    • sergih@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      what is illegal? Havinadblockcks, cracking down onadblocks or upping the price on the software after ““forcing”” people to move to it.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Anti Ad-Blocking Software would be (and arguably, already are) illegal as not only do ads count as a form of malware, but Anti-AdBlocks run scripts on YOUR machines without your consent, and thus are ALSO malware.

  • Xero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    uBlock Origin and ReVanced users: I missed the part where that’s my problem.

    • minstrel@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      i know my problem: besides im almost immune, my family isnt, my devices connected in the same network could be affected by a malware sponsor on 1st search result, besides im the one who got to fix anything that could go wrong in their devices, etc

    • coffeewithalex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      Do you feel better after making fun of people who use other devices and not just a smartphone and browser? There are a hundred news that aren’t your problem and you don’t comment there, but you make sure to come in here and “rub it in” to people who care about this, by not providing an actual solution.

      Very noble.

      • EurekaStockade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Sucks for them. This is what happens when you buy into the corporate, locked down, sanitised and monetised walled garden.

        Privacy first and FLOSS software have been out there the whole time for people willing to invest the time (and money, but often it’s cheaper than the commercial option) to learn them and gain those benefits for themselves.

        But if people want a device so they pick up the one with the shiniest marketing and then wonder why it’s shoving ads down their throat, well, that’s what they get for not researching the options. There are alternatives, they’ve been posted many times over in this thread and similar ones.

        • coffeewithalex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          So you’re openly hating on people for being normal, without offering a single alternative of a video platform that’s not all of those things that you labeled as evil.

          There are alternatives, they’ve been posted many times over in this thread and similar ones.

          The alternative to shopping isn’t shoplifting. The usual things that people list are client side apps that circumvent intended operation of the platform, reaping as many benefits without paying the cost. But hosting isn’t free. Running a business isn’t free. And hating the people who literally subsidize your unauthorized use of the platform is hypocrisy.

          • gian @lemmy.grys.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The alternative to shopping isn’t shoplifting. The usual things that people list are client side apps that circumvent intended operation of the platform, reaping as many benefits without paying the cost. But hosting isn’t free. Running a business isn’t free. And hating the people who literally subsidize your unauthorized use of the platform is hypocrisy.

            We all know that Youtube need to get rid off of AdBlockers because they want to make more money than what they are making now. If they just need to cover business costs they could just make the service subscription only, make the fee high enough to keep the site running and earn something and allow to see only the first 10-15% of each video to not subscribed users and forget all this charade about AdBlockers.

            • coffeewithalex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              We all know that Youtube need to get rid off of AdBlockers because they want to make more money than what they are making now.

              Making money by charging for completely optional services is not only not wrong, but the very reason why we have most of the good stuff that we have.

              If they just need to cover business costs they could just make the service subscription only, make the fee high enough to keep the site running and earn something and allow to see only the first 10-15% of each video to not subscribed users and forget all this charade about AdBlockers.

              Awesome! Submit your resume or send it as a proposal. If they didn’t think of this first and discarded it because of reasons that you haven’t considered, this might be an opportunity to benefit everyone.

              • gian @lemmy.grys.it
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                We all know that Youtube need to get rid off of AdBlockers because they want to make more money than what they are making now.

                Making money by charging for completely optional services is not only not wrong, but the very reason why we have most of the good stuff that we have.

                And who said it is wrong ? I only said that they want to make more money, not that they cannot make money.

                If they just need to cover business costs they could just make the service subscription only, make the fee high enough to keep the site running and earn something and allow to see only the first 10-15% of each video to not subscribed users and forget all this charade about AdBlockers.

                Awesome! Submit your resume or send it as a proposal.

                Not interested, I leave it to you ;-)

                If they didn’t think of this first and discarded it because of reasons that you haven’t considered, this might be an opportunity to benefit everyone.

                The reason is that this way they would make less money while keeping the service in the black, people would realize that, after all, Youtube is not that important part of their routine, and the total number of users would be lower (by a long shot probably) so even less data to harvest and sell and less return in Ads. After all who would watch 2 minutes of ads in a 2.30 minutes long video ?

                Imagine Google doing it and then saying “we restructured out offer and this yeas we are 30% below the last year analysts’ forecasts and we think that we will cut the earning by half while keeping the operational costs below the X % of the total profit”. The next day the shares would be trash and all the management would be fired.
                The reality is that once you are quoted in Wall Street (but it is true in every other place) you always need to grow. The problem is that you need to grow faster than your userbase could grow so no way to add X million new users (eyeball to watch your ads) every year: at some point you would run out of people (or of people who would accept, which is the same)

                So the only thing you can do is monetize some more of what you already have. The only reason Youtube want to get rid of the Adblockers is that this way they can say to the advertisers “we increased the number of viewers of X % so you should pay us Y % more” so they can reach what the Wall Street analysts’s forecasts were and the stock price increase. Nothing else, no server or bandwidth problems. Only stock prices.

                • coffeewithalex@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Stock prices are one element of what makes business possible. Youtube would not even exist without this mechanic.

                  It’s like complaining that people have sex.

                  It’s a core facet of running a business. It’s a requirement and an expectation. This is part of “keeping the lights on”.

        • jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          For whatever reason Google has decided not to push forward with the current Web integrity standards. That doesn’t mean they’re giving up, doesn’t mean they’re committing to an open web, they’ve delayed a bit, and they’ll push it out under a different name, slowly. It’s not going away, it’s delayed. We need to work hard now to maintain an open web forever, and we need to work hard everyday

  • a rose for me @lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I will never watch 20 ads in a 15 minutes video, it’s worse than television.

    Make it a reasonable number of ads and I might consider it

    Some youtubers are so greedy it’s unreal, you barely see the red line because it’s way too filled with yellow spaces

    • Gladaed@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is misleading : a substantial part is distributed to the content creators. Traditionally the YouTube cut is alleged to be rather low.

    • coffeewithalex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Because it costs nothing to run data centers, employ thousands of people, distribute exabytes of data.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Unpopular opinion: this is a good thing.

    (Waits for down votes… )

    This is healthy for the ecosystem, it makes it possible for other video platforms to compete, and be sustainable. Google providing the loss leader in video streaming makes it difficult for other platforms to exist, and sustain themselves, because they don’t have Google’s war chest.

    So it’s going to be a difficult transition, but now there is wiggle room for other platforms to exist. And with 1 gigabit, and 10 gigabit home internet connections becoming more common globally, we have options for more interesting gorilla distributed video streaming.

    • CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Will the gorillas go door to door with a pad or something with a video on it, or are you thinking memory sticks?

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        More like IPFS. If you have a bunch of gigabit residential internet connections distributed globally. That’s a reasonable approximation of a video streaming platform.

        I’m not saying I have a good solution for today, but all the components are there to build a competitor to YouTube, and now if the price barrier going up, there’s room for whatever organization competes with YouTube to get some sustainable income

    • thechadwick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      You’re right I hope. Especially about gorillas sharing video! We need a guerilla movement to get these gorillas some cell phones and I’ve been saying it for years!

      • Kazumara@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        64.75 Swiss Franks per month from my ISP, it’s the same price as their 1 Gb/s and 25 Gb/s plans.

        I’m currently still on 1Gb/s because buying the faster router, switch and network cards to make use of more is kind of expensive

        • Sparrow_1029@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Wow that’s nice! I get 600/25mbps for $80USD in the US, coax 😞 wish fiber-to-the-premise was a possibility in my neighborhood

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Even that’s twice what I get. The prices here are disgusting… I get 300mbps for $100… Yay monopolies!

    • BURN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Significant portions of the US are still on copper cable or DSL, I don’t think there’ll be widespread fiber, let alone 10G for at least 10-15 years

      • AmosBurton_ThatGuy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Agreed, I’m in northern Canada and only the capital city of my territory has cable internet, the outskirts of the city and the smaller communities are stuck with ancient and capped (300GB per month) DSL at 15 Mbps while I get unlimited 100/10 Mbps for $140 per month. I’d kill for symmetrical 100/100 so I could access my plex server outside of my house, let alone 1 Gbps fiber internet.

        I’d guess we’re a minimum of 5-10 years away from fiber internet sadly, we just don’t have the population to make it profitable enough for the greedy ass telecom companies, even with the extra government funding the telecom gets for serving our low population territory.

    • ddkman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      No, not really. I get what you mean but the truth is, that unsustainable practices should’ve been capped, and made illegal BEFORE there was a monopoly. Now that there is one, they can do what they want. Google aren’t idiots. They know FULL well they can do this. All of this is calcualted.

    • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is what I’ve been saying, youtube providing the service for free is what’s been preventing competitors to exist.

  • tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yeah, no… it’s already overpriced.

    Paramount + £6.99 Netflix £10.99 (standard) Youtube £12

    Makes no sense… they don’t have anything like the production overheads. Stuff like Star Trek and Stranger Things are expensive. ‘10 greatest cat videos’ is not.

    • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      Heck, they don’t even pay a good fraction of their bandwidth because they put caching box in your ISP location to reduce loads. This is a huge privilege as ISPs won’t let any random companies run equipments for free in their network, which is one of a huge barrier for any YouTube competitors.

      • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        They might be allowing them to run the boxes for free, but the ISPs are saving money on bandwidth, too.

        Get enough users for the ISP to care and they’ll work with you. Otherwise, you probably don’t have all that many users to begin with, so the overhead that maintaining and distributing these boxes would create wouldn’t be worth it anyway.

    • nnjethro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Youtube expenses is revenue share with creators and hosting untold hours of video, over 500 hours uploaded per minute, that others just don’t have to deal with.

      • Lord_Logjam@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        YouTube Music is included with YouTube Premium though so no need for Spotify if you have YTP.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      It “makes sense” in that, unlike those two, YT has to deal with thousands of hours of video being uploaded to their servers every minute. What they don’t pay in streaming rights, they pay in storage and bandwidth costs, plus a couple of peanuts for “moderation”, which is probably more expensive in the long run

    • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Depends on how much you use it. I watch Youtube pretty much every day for at least an hour, while using Netflix or other streaming services about once evey few months. I use Spotify every day too, just because I like their app more in some ways.

    • ChronosWing@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Well it also includes a streaming music service which are normally $10/m on their own.

      • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I already pay for Spotify. They knew exactly what they were doing when they lumped that shit in YouTube premium

        • kirk781@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          IIRC, YouTube Music is also offered as a standalone service, Atleast in some countries. However, the difference b/w YouTube Premium and just the Music service comes out to be miniscule, so folks just pay for the former.

          • indianactresslover@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            No, I want Premium without Music, because I don’t want their music. It’s not offered anywhere.

            Same thing with Amazon. I want Prime without Prime Video. It’s not offered either.

            • kirk781@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Oh, I understand now, especially the second one. The only thing from Amazon’s product line worth using to me is the Prime delivery service. I can’t give two hoots about their Prime Music( which I lost respect for after it denied to run for me on any browser on Linux for some reason) or Prime Video.

      • tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I can’t see the value in using youtube for music… it’s not like I can watch music videos in my car. That’s worth $0 to me, and I imagine the majority. Spotify is better… or apple music if you’re on the fruit side.

        • ChronosWing@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Youtube music doesn’t have music videos, not sure what you are talking about. It’s just a clone of play music after they shut it down.

        • KepBen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          If you’ve already got a solution for ad-free music in your car, sure, obviously. Not everybody has that though.

  • zingo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The way Google is starting to abuse its position of power to crackdown on its users, its really comes to show the cracks in its armour.

    It’s the beginning of the end for Google.

    Long live open source software!

    • cjsolx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Google isn’t going anywhere. We are the minority. People who know what “open source” even means are the minority. The vast majority of people will just put up with it because they don’t know any better. You are highly highly overestimating the tech literacy (and motivation level) of the average person.

      • zingo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well, more crazy things has happened. Do you think that Google is going to be here forever?

        It’s the little things that corrodes a company. Hence the "crack in the armour.

        I like to think that most people surf the Internet with an ad blocker. Simple because the Internet is just riddled with ads and the experience is frustrating without one.

        So if you see your grandma has a bad experience online, you are likely to install an ad blocker to help her out. Most people knows how to do this, at least one person in the family. That is what hurts Google the most.

        It’s the annoyance factor that is a great driver of change. The way people do things. Even if they are used to do things in a certain way.

        I personally have notest the Google maps are much more inaccurate nowadays than it used to be. It has become an annoyance.

        • cjsolx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Google is a trillion dollar company. It’s not Digg. Google going down would be the single most sensational thing to have happened in the history of the Internet. Even Twitter is still kicking after everything they’ve done.

    • Debs@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If we are going to do this capitalist market thing than we need competition.