• WindowsEnjoyer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They should fucking do an experiment - 2€/$ a month for an ad-free subscription and 3€/$ a month for higher video quality+no ads subscription. I would fucking pour my money into it.

    Oh wait, that would not solve lack of sponsorblock. I guess I am not interested then…

    • DV8@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They literally had that experiment with Premium Light. €6 for ad free watching, it was all I needed. But they literally sent out a mail they were stopping this tier right before they started implementing more anti-ad blocking measures.

      • Exusgu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oddly enough, the “lite” subscription was introduced in some other countries during the time they shut it off in the launch countries.

        I wonder if they’re testing willingness to spend using the cheaper sub, then pulling it if it turns out people are likely to buy the pricier plan once the lower tier isn’t available anymore?

        • DV8@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I had the light subscription for over a year, not planning on paying for useless stuff like the music stuff though. Had it through a family plan years before and it was laughably bad compared to Spotify.

    • Sanyanov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not a penny to those bastards. Should YouTube and Google along with it rot to hell, I don’t care. Maybe we’d finally get better alternatives running at full capacity.

    • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      2€/$ a month for an ad-free subscription and 3€/$ a month for higher video quality+no ads subscription

      sponsorblock

      This is basically Nebula lol, minus the video quality tiering

      • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nebula can only afford to do that because basically nobody who subs to nebula actually watches the videos on it. They did a video about their revenue model and people treat it as a way to support the creators, not to actually watch content

        • Historical_General@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Could Nebula work as a Patreon-competitor. Patreon as a company is totally fucked iirc - the investors are treating the company like a piggy bank, which is a shame because it is easily a profitable and viable company.

      • sic_1@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nebula is pretty awesome and the type of content is great. I miss some light entertainment content though, so the network effect is at work. Still, nebula is the only streaming platform I’d consider subscribing as their policy is great and they do provide good value.

        • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not really certain what value nebula provides other than some creators uploading occasional content exclusively on nebula. Without nebula they’d just… Upload it to YouTube, which is free, so I’m not sure what the difference is

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Meh I had nebula a couple years ago and it had some missing features and fairly poor depth of content. The same few bits constantly being pushed. I’m hopeful it improves but I wasn’t using it.

    • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’d absolutely 100% be losing money with a $2 ad free tier. Ads make significantly more than that per user per month. Same with your “”“solution”“” for higher res video. Bandwidth is goddamn expensive.

      • Jrockwar@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree, but they’d get a large number of users to subscribe.

        And then maybe they wouldn’t complain when they raised the price to $3. And a few months later maybe $3.50. Then $5.

        A few years ago, people wouldn’t have paid over $15 for a standard Netflix tier without 4K. But the way to boil a frog is to make them nice and comfy in lukewarm water, then keep increasing the temperature slowly… So even if they lose money, maybe a low price for the ad-free YouTube could make sense, from a business perspective.

        • Sowhatever@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Every time Netflix rises prices it makes it to the news (let alone all the drama on twitter/reddit/etc), I don’t know what frog boiling you’re talking about.

          • Jrockwar@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yet they keep posting more and more profits. Subscriber count has only increased despite the content being lower quality and prices being higher. The fact that we don’t like them increasing the prices doesn’t mean it isn’t working for them.

            I’m not arguing it will work forever, but for now, it’s been a viable strategy.

      • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plus, no way would it ever stay at that price. Nothing ever does. The only service I pay for now is spotting, and that’s just to have ad-free music on my half-hour drive to work.

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I completely agree the price is far too high.

      I actually do subscribe but only because I get a deal through my mobile network that, long story short, cuts the price by two thirds.

      I can’t understand their pricing policy at all. And they’re doing a terrible job at explaining their cost basis if it’s actually what it costs to serve video to us (highly doubt it).