[andrepd]

> Do you have a position on a better alternative business model

Sure! Thanks for asking. One idea I like is this: you pay a small, fixed subscription on top of your internet bill. This amount is then given proportionally to the services you visit.

This is nice for several reasons: even a small amount (~3-5$) gives a similar or higher revenue for content creators than ads do (a very rough back-of-the-envelope estimate based on youtube CPM). Plus, there's no problem with the friction of paying for things: you pay the same, regardless of watching 1 or 1000 videos (the netflix model, the cable tv model, heck any subscription model). Plus of course: no ads :)

[edmundsauto]

I think the catch is the amount would be 10-20x what you're estimating. FB makes something like $10/user/month by itself.

[Datsundere]

Ads should not exist period. Youtube worked without ads before and it can work without ads. I don't need to be paying a premium to use a service.

Why are ads the way to generate revenue? Like I don't care about buying a coffee grinder. Ads not only help contribute to needless purchases but also directly affect the environment cause of that.

[nl]

YouTube never worked before ads.

Prior to Google's purchase they were running at a massive loss, burning investment money. That's not working by any normal definition.

[joshuamorton]

Youtube only existed without ads for around a year. It's not clear that a youtube post, say 2008, could exist without ads or a subscription fee.

[0]: You can see what those looked like here https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/youtube-website. Youtube added its first advertisements in mid 2007.

[ThatMedicIsASpy]

youtube works without ads sure that means you the channel provider pays for the hosting and bandwidth.

tell me how you want to pay for 500h++ of video uploaded to a platform every minute