[twobitshifter]

The battle between ad platforms and users is going to be never ending. For YouTube, the _right_ thing to do is to pay for the premium option which removes ads. Otherwise as difficult as it is to say, you are getting something for nothing and people do make a living from YouTube videos.

Ok, maybe you can contribute to a patreon outside of YouTube, but you’re not going to do that for everyone and those videos are not served for free (even if Google is not short on cash)

[decasteve]

Serving videos without ads was how YouTube's monopoly was built. It became an ad platform later. That created an expectation that YouTube was a library in the public interest. Pre-2010 Google marketing had that public interest and internet stewardship angle to it.

Serving content over the web assumes that the content will be downloaded by a browser for rendering. Control over what and how that content gets rendered is controlled by the user. I think this aspect made, and still does make in the present tense, the web what it is. That's why the browser is called a user-agent--an agent that acts on behalf of the user.

YouTube could also move to another protocol, or develop a proprietary one to protect its interests. Otherwise it feels like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

[sangnoir]

> Serving videos without ads was how YouTube's monopoly was built. It became an ad platform later. That created an expectation that YouTube was a library in the public interest.

That's hard to believe, from my POV. Way before the Viacom lawsuit, and even before it got bought out, YouTube (the startup) was notorious for its sky-high burn-rate: serving video is not cheap. I don't think any reasonable person thought Google spent billions on YouTube without intending to recoup the costs (Google was already serving ads by then).

[topicseed]

You're mentioning the end user's learned expectation to get videos for free.

But what about the creator's expectation to get paid for their hard-earned views, to then pay for the gear purchased and the production of the entire video, including team members?

If you're really anti ads, don't take the content for free, find another piece of content that answers your ad-free philosophy.

[decasteve]

I'm saying platforms can't have it both ways. If they want to avoid ad-blockers and video downloaders then pick another medium, or invent one and create a new thing that achieves this objective. The web is not TV. Public content on the web is public and user-rendered. That's what made the web and YouTube what it is today.

YouTube has every right to create a proprietary YouTube client (which they do on mobile devices) and prevent browsers from accessing it. Don't serve files to my browser if you don't want me to use them.

Creators, for better or worse, are putting themselves at the mercy of YouTube, as serfs to feudal lords. I'm sympathetic, and happy to pay (and do) for your goods directly, but don't complain to me if your lord mismanages your affairs.

Even TV users had VCRs to save content "offline".

[topicseed]

Sure, it is all on YouTube/Google's fault if you decide to install an adblocker and not participate in the compensation of the creator who made the very video you are enjoying.

Definitely not illegal to do so, so do as you please, but don't turn yourself into a white knight by some mental gymnastics with the sementics behind what a user agent is. You want to enjoy the video without ads, regardless of the consequences on the creator who made that video — and accessorily, the service hosting it and streaming it to you!

[marderfarker2]

Most YouTube creators offer side channel donations via Patreon. Prefer paying the value generator than the middle man.

[manigandham]

Youtube provides the hosting and audience. That has value.

[wooger]

Well, a different middleman.

[mullingitover]

> If you're really anti ads, don't take the content for free, find another piece of content that answers your ad-free philosophy.

Google is in the process of breaking this deal themselves - they're now adding ads to videos which users did not opt to monetize, and they're keeping 100% of the revenue. Taking the content for free, if you will.

[topicseed]

They, at least, offer a free hosting service. Not ideal to monetize on the back of the creator's work, but it's not comparable with friendly piracy rationalised through semantics behind what User Agent means (as per parent comment).

[mullingitover]

Not free anymore - they're now adware that's monetizing your viewers after unilaterally changing terms and cutting you out of the deal. It arguably puts them on equal footing with people who unilaterally change the terms of the site usage deal and block their ads.

Remember, forcing you to watch ads means it's not free - it's you trading irreplaceable moments of your life for something. Unless your time is worth absolutely nothing, ads are extremely expensive to you.

[izacus]

Why are you constantly ignoring the fact that they also keep paying for all the bandwidth, encoder CPU use and development of playback platforms for any device brand capable of showing a video out there?

Try running a hosting platform yourself and you'll quickly see just how crazy expensive bandwidth is. It's just ridiculous to expect that someone will 100% subsidize your video bandwidth for free.

[judge2020]

YouTube only had 100 million users in 2009[0] - not an insignificant amount, but even after introducing ads in the same year[1], they've gained 2 billion+ users.

0: https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2009/3/YouT...

1: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/infog....

[ziml77]

I think even with YouTube taking a large cut, people should really consider Premium if they use it a lot. It means that there will actually be something to back up the claim people make that they would pay to not have sites serve them ads.

Also Premium views are worth more to content creators than ad supported views, so it does help the people you love to watch. Not as much as through something like Patreon obviously, but it's a bit unreasonable to support every creator that way.

[that_guy_iain]

One of the reasons I justify spending money on Premium is that it supports the creators. I get a bunch of people who think it's silly I pay for Premium, but I really hate watching ads so for me that alone makes it worthwhile.

One channel I really like I have the youtube membership and pateron subscriptions. It's a UK true crime podcast that does every recording with professional camera and audio in a recording studio. Seems like it's expensive to do and I get a lot of entertainment out of them so seems fair to help them out a bit more, especially since most of their videos probably get demonetized.

[adamcstephens]

How do I find out what portion of a subscription goes to a creator?

[SpelingBeeChamp]

It's not clear to me what you are asking, but if your question has a definite answer and it relates to Youtube as a business, I can probably help answer. Youtube has been my full-time job for years.

About Premium generally, if you can afford it and you are considering it, there is no reason to hesitate. I say that both as a channel owner and as someone who pays for Premium every month. You never see an AdSense ad again, and you make that happen while still supporting the channels you enjoy. Pretty win-win, IMO.

Two things that most people don't know about Premium:

1. On a per-view basis, Premium views are actually 'worth more' than ad-watching views. We're talking tiny fractions of a cent, but they add up.

2. Most so-called "demonetized" views remain eligible for Premium revenue.

[blibble]

the amount matters to me

if the creators only get 1c/month from my premium and google get the lion's share I'll continue to block ads and support via patreon/merch instead

[that_guy_iain]

I doubt there is a set amount assigned. It would be weird and hard to calculate. User A watched 3 videos so their views are worth 1 dollar, user B watched 300 videos so their view is worth a cent. It’s far more likely that a premium user view is worth 1 cent and a normal user is worth .5 of a cent. So the amount going to creators would depend on how much you viewed (and how long)

[wooger]

Agree, in the UK the service is overpriced (exchange rate?) and bundled with Youtube Music subscription service for an extremely unpalatable 1.99 GBP per month.

How much of that money is just paying for music licensing I don't want or need?

[adamcstephens]

The subscription costs me $12/month. If my goal is to support creators, I’d like to understand what portion of that subscription is actually going to the creators, versus Google.

It sounds like the answer to that is “very little” since you mentioned fractions of a cent per view. So if I watch a few dozen videos from a single creator in a month, can I safely assume they’ll get a couple cents that month from me?

I get that it adds up, otherwise the creators wouldn’t bother creating for the platform, but I’m not sure that helps me justify paying Google another $11.96 a month.

[wooger]

Youtube premium in the UK is 11.99 GBP a month, and is bundled with youtube music service.

* I don't want a music subscription service, and I don't want to pay for it. * That price is the same as an actual full video streaming service like Netflix, but I get no new video content for my money. * Premium does remove the user-hostile block on background audio playback on iOS, but does not remove other user-hostile behaviour like blocking the iOS system wide Picture in picture from working.

I am extremely skeptical of the revenue sharing with creators that I like, and would rather give money to them in some direct way than trust google not to give my money to random music artists / their pockets.

The price is a joke, at least 4x what is reasonable. I shall continue using Firefox and uBlock Origin to get 100% of the features I want for free.

[csunbird]

But Google is going to use my data for advertising, with or without premium. An adblocker gives me the luxury of not seeing ads while keeping my data private.

[babypuncher]

I don't think any adblocker could realistically stop Google from tracking what you do on YouTube.

[cm2187]

Flushing browsing data regularly should, except of course if you have to login to youtube.

[sofixa]

Maybe it's only for the EU, but on adsettings.google.com you cab tell it not to use personalised data for ads.

[matheusmoreira]

Google still has the data though.

[csunbird]

Unfortunately, I do not trust this setting at all. They still have the data and they will hoard them, and use it for unknown purposes.

[wayneftw]

I would pay to get rid of ads. The only problem is that I would need to log into YouTube to take advantage of that.

If I log into YouTube, that requires me to be logged into Google everywhere and I do not want that at all. The only solution is to use Firefox containerization or use separate browsers or separate browser profiles for things and I'm not going to do any of those because all of those options are annoying to me.

If my ad blocker stops working on YouTube and/or if they require me to login, I'll simply stop visiting YouTube. There's plenty of other things to do!

[sharps1]

I have a separate profile that is set-up for Google (In Brave). You could also use a container tab if using Firefox (Or even a profile, but FF profiles don’t work as well as Brave ones).

You can also see the YouTube creators who have BAT accounts set-up.

I do pay for YT premium family as well as I don’t want other family members to see ads.

Regarding FF profiles - if using more than one at a time, you need to set the others to -no-remote, and then opening links only ever opens up in the main windows. In chromium browsers when opening outside links whatever browser profile that had focus last opens the links).

[londons_explore]

Google Contributor allowed exactly this, and after setting it up you did not need to be logged in to use it.

It's closed down now due to internal politics.

[TedShiller]

Agreed. I’m happy to pay for youtube premium but I don’t want to log into google because google will ask for my phone number, and my YouTube activity will be tracked. I only use YouTube logged out.

[rchaud]

> If I log into YouTube, that requires me to be logged into Google everywhere and I do not want that at all.

You can use Firefox Containers to sandbox Google logins.

Alternatively, you can use a different browser when accessing Google-owned websites.

[TedShiller]

If you click on a YouTube link now will the browser know what container to open that in?

[wasmitnetzen]

Yes, you can configure it in a way that every Youtube link opens in the Youtube container.

[anticristi]

I would, but:

1. I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big. Compare that to Patreon, which takes 5%. Granted YouTube offers a lot more for their cut, but the difference feels too big, especially given point 2 below.

2. YouTube is extremely untransparent about revenue sharing, so it feels like I'm paying Google, not the creators.

So give me more transparency and take a smaller cut, and I'll be happy to disable my ad blocker and start paying membership.

[JohnTHaller]

> I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big

YouTube is offering up the tech behind streaming the videos, the storage, the bandwidth, the development work on both the client and server ends, and the ongoing payment processing. As well as the audience install-base. And this isn't a situation where the end users are paying for the software via buying hardware from Google (Pixels being the exception) like it would be with just an app store. YouTube provides far more than anyone else. And they make the money to do so via advertising. You're paying the money in place of YouTube's revenue stream in addition to the money going to the creators.

Patreon is mostly a payment processor and gatekeeper. They don't host videos or provide any of the other services mentioned above. To host videos, the creator pays another provider like Vimeo $84 a year for 5GB/week in uploads to $600 for unlimited video uploads. Live streaming is $900 a year.

[ska]

While this is all true, it doesn't obviously counter the GP's contention. It's a good argument as to why YouTube's cut isn't the same as Patreon's, but that doesn't mean that 45% isn't to high.

[sofixa]

Considering Youtube probably doesn't break even ( Alphabet don't list YouTube expenses separately, only revenues, which is suspicious), and the vast majority of content on YouTube is thoroughly unmarketable and unprofitable ( think vacation videos, school lessons, etc.), maybe, maybe not?

[ska]

I agree it's not clear.

[paxys]

Patreon has different plans which take anywhere from 5-12%. On top of that they charge payment processing fees and bank transfer fees. In terms of service you are getting nothing but a profile page. A flat 30% fee is considered standard for most online marketplaces.

Considering how much more complex and expensive video hosting is, and everything else YouTube offers, I don't think a 45% cut is unreasonable. In fact YouTube does have direct paid channel memberships (which is a much closer business model to Patreon), and for that they take 30%.

[falcolas]

YouTube subscription views are worth far more to the creator (some 10x (I've even heard 100x from some creators) more) than full ad views within the same video.

So, regardless of YouTube's cut, it's much more valuable to the creator, and valuable to you (no embedded ads). Win win, at least until an alternative arises.

[londons_explore]

I suspect in the big picture this is not true.

The kind of people with disposable income to give for paid subscriptions are far better targets for nearly all adverts, since they are far more likely to buy the premium products that have a far larger and budget, and therefore give the creator more per impression.

I don't think YouTube reveals to creators enough information about which audience members generated which revenue for them to make that connection.

[falcolas]

You would be wrong.

A simple google search revealed the following topical article.

https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-p...

The relevant quote: “... a Red view is on average worth 20x that of a normal ad view.”

Another youtuber i follow recently said that this is still true today.

[londons_explore]

But not all ad views are the same... An ad view from someone likely to subscribe to Red might be worth 20x an ad view from someone not likely to subscribe to Red.

[namdnay]

Now give me a bit of slack here, because I'm arguing a position I don't necessarily 100% believe in, and I don't pay for youtube red myself. But your argument sounds a bit to me like someone saying "I think this supermarket takes a too big cut on these apples, maybe if they split the price 50-50 with the growers I'd be happy to pay, but as it is I think I'll just take them for free"

[anticristi]

While I do agree that I deprive Google of some revenue, not watching ads is not stealing. Otherwise, whole US would be in jail for going to the toilet during Friends commercials. :) Ad blockers simply automate that process for me.

I love supporting creators via Patreon. I hate feeding a giant that will any day turn against both creaters and viewers.

Not sure if I'm rationalising or defending creators.

[ipaddr]

Your pretending to care about creators but giving them nothing. If you stopped visiting youtube but used other platforms and gave sure.. but it doesn't sound like that is happening.

[anticristi]

I'm not pretending. I support my favourite creators via Patreon. Feels more than "nothing". :)

[Silhouette]

The arguments that blocking ads are somehow unethical or depriving a business providing a hosting service of its cut of ad revenue hold very little weight for me.

If a service wants to ensure viewers pay, it would be easy enough for any organisation with the resources to offer large-scale video hosting in the first place to put the content behind a paywall and earn revenue actively from giving access to that content. That way, access without paying would be more difficult and, in most places, probably illegal.

But these services typically don't do that. Why? Presumably they have made a decision that offering the content openly is in their interests, even if they then have to rely on passive revenue channels such as ads, affiliate/referral payments, or promoting associated brands.

In that case, I don't think they have much right to complain when a lot of people access the content they make freely available in legal ways but without contributing to indirect revenue streams when they have no obligation to do so.

[thrwawy12345]

Eh, it's more like the grocery store is firing apples off into public airspace, wrapped in invoices. Many people pay the invoiced amount but some don't.

[creato]

> 1. I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big. Compare that to Patreon, which takes 5%. Granted YouTube offers a lot more for their cut, but the difference feels too big, especially given point 2 below.

You can't be serious with this comparison. Patreon's bandwidth, storage, and processing needs are a rounding error compared to youtube, even after adjusting for the number of users.

[heavyset_go]

> I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big. Compare that to Patreon, which takes 5%. Granted YouTube offers a lot more for their cut, but the difference feels too big, especially given point 2 below.

Agreed. If we look at the Bandcamp model, they only take 10% to 15%, and that's still high compared to Patreon.

[JohnTHaller]

Bandcamp starts at 15% and goes down to 10% after you cross $5,000 per year in digital sales. Payment processing fees are separate and an additional 4-6% according to Bandcamp. So fees start at 19%-21% and go down to 14%-16% once you exceed $5,000 in sales per 12 month period.

[ipaddr]

I understand I pirate software. You shouldn't have to justify why you are not paying them anything. You clearly want it for free.

I would rather pay them nothing and complain how much someone else is takin as well.

[graftak]

3. It includes a music subscription that makes it more expensive than Netflix, I find this quite insane considering they’re in the business of hosting user generated content.

[manigandham]

Do you hold the same opinion about Apple's app store? Do they have a right to their 30% cut?

[_Algernon_]

YouTube has the right to send or not send the file to my computer. My browser has the right to process the video on my behalf, including not showing it to me if it is an ad.

My right to decide what my purchased computer does trumps YouTube's right to make a few cents by showing me ads.

[cpeterso]

I watch YouTube on my TV and the ads are annoying enough that I actually looked into subscribing to YouTube Premium to make the ads go away (and better support the content creators I follow). But I'm not ready to pay YouTube $12/month just to make ads go away. I would probably pay $5/month. Netflix's basic plan only costs $9/month.

[a1369209993]

> I actually looked into subscribing to YouTube Premium to make the ads go away

Please don't; this gives money to (and thus rewards and encourages) advertisers; use something like http://youtube-dl.org/ instead.

[luma]

YT Premium also includes YT music, and the creators you want to support get extra from Google when Premium users subscribe. For me, it’s worth the price and has almost entirely replaced TV for me (still need my F1 races...)

[wooger]

A totally unrelated service that you have to pay for ( and more expensive than rivals) is not a positive.

[shultays]

I am using https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTubeNext and it is pretty good.

[benhurmarcel]

The price of Youtube Premium is high because it's bundled with a music subscription. That's a shame and is also the reason I don't subscribe.

[wooger]

Me too.

And the fact that even with premium, PiP on iOS is still deliberately broken on web & in their app.

[cm2187]

It also enables tracking of what I watch by the company I trust the least in the world with tracking me.

[wooger]

THen the right thing to do is not bundle that premium feature with other youtube music bullshit and inflate the price to 5x what it should be.

And also, stop user-hostile behaviour on iOS to block OS level features (PiP, background audio) from working, even if you pay up.

I would rather block ads and use Firefox exclusively than pay that much for a still-compromised experience.

[heavyset_go]

> For YouTube, the _right_ thing to do is to pay for the premium option which removes ads.

Even if you pay for premium, you'll still get sponsored ads in the content.

[namdnay]

Yeah and when you pay for a cinema ticket you still have to see the actors drinking conveniently angled cans of coke

[heavyset_go]

There's a difference between product placement and intrusive ads that interrupt content for minutes at a time. YouTube Premium customers paid to get rid of the latter.

[paxys]

YouTube Premium customers paid to get rid of ads placed by YouTube. A simple solution for channels that embed ads in their videos themselves (or have any other kind of content that you don't like for any reason) is to simply unsubscribe.

[Dah00n]

Yes but that is like not visiting a site after you found out it uses tracking or like peeing in your pants for warmth. It only work if you never see videos you haven't already subscribed to beforehand.

[throwaway3699]

All of that started because people were ad blocking in the first place. More competition and less eyeballs meant CPMs have been crashing for decades now.

Sure, you can do it (piracy is okay too) but let the creators support themselves somehow.

[patrickyeon]

No ad blocking is going to get rid of that though, until you run something analyzing the actual video/audio content and not just the source of streams or how they're loaded.

[phantom784]

There's an extension called SponsorBlock that does exactly that. It uses user-submitted timestamps.

[heavyset_go]

This exists and was posted on HN recently[1]. If an extension developer can detect when sponsored ads play on YouTube, so could Google.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26886275

[ziml77]

SponsorBlock doesn't detect sponsored segments. Users mark the segments and submit them to a database.

If Google did try to automate it, you can be sure that people would just move to integrating the sponsorship into the content. Those are the worst kind of videos and I don't want to encourage more of them.

[twobitshifter]

There are some programs/videos that are only available on premium and do not include sponsored content.

[wooger]

There are? Name some.

I know Cobra Kai started out that way, but has now been solved off to Youtube as they abandoned that model.

They certainly don't mention exclusive content as a region to pay for Premium.

[falcolas]

That's on the creator, and no ad blocker will stop sponsored content.

[Dah00n]

SponsorBlock will. It does require someone to flag the ads first though but so does most ads on adblocker lists.

[heavyset_go]

Google could certainly detect when sponsored ads start in YouTube content and skip them to honor their "no ads" agreement with YouTube Premium customers.

That, or they could pay content creators fairly so that they don't have to shill for NordVPN in every video they release.

[falcolas]

I'm not confident any automated system could properly detect a sponsored segment. Some creators are quite sly with how they're worked in.

> pay content creators fairly so that they don't have to shill for NordVPN in every video they release.

I'm with you on that.

[heavyset_go]

> I'm not confident any automated system could properly detect a sponsored segment. Some creators are quite sly with how they're worked in.

SponsorBlock does it, and Google could make it part of their policy for content creators to mark sponsored ad segments in their videos so that they can be skipped.

[afavour]

[deleted]

[weird-eye-issue]

They didn't say they don't have a premium option. They said that for users buying Premium is the right thing to do if you don't want ads.