Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by diebeforei485 1350 days ago
This is reasonable. However, I don't like being forced to also pay for their music streaming service because I already pay for (and prefer) a different service.
3 comments

If you watch a lot of youtube video's it's worth it for just the ad-free experience alone. I actually did some math a while back and figured out based on my hourly bill rate that it's technically costing me money to not pay for YT premium (that is the time spent watching ads times my bill rate was greater than the monthly subscription cost).
Firefox gives me a great ad-free YouTube experience.
If I only watched YT on the browser sure. But I mainly get it so I can go without ads on mobile and on my TV. Yes I know there are apps like Vanced but I personally find it worth it not have to always look for workarounds.
I'm referring to watching it on mobile. Firefox lets me run YouTube in the background too.

I don't watch YouTube on the TV. The experience is horrific.

Yes but then creators and YouTube don’t get paid.
I don't care about YouTube getting paid, but apparently YT Premium is lucrative for the creators (in comparison to ads). It's a very cheap way to support the people who make the content that you enjoy.
I honestly was fine before when there was only one ad, but now that YouTube ads are as long as some of the clips I watch I generally avoid it.

When people use YouTube, I'll use Firefox.

You're not really, it just doesn't cost YouTube any more in terms of licensing the music for their music streaming service than it does to clear the rights for YouTube Premium, so they literally may as well include it.

A YouTube Premium lite is available in a few territories, but where it isn't that's because the music situation means it could cost single cents a month less than the full service and therefore isn't worth doing.

The Premium Lite subscription doesn’t include Music.
Seems to be a pilot and it available in all regions.
Not available in my region (USA).