[psnehanshu]

> Premium subscription is just an antipattern of them removing options.

It makes sense only if you believe everything on the internet should be free.

> YouTube music is in no way better than Spotify.

I don't disagree. It's highly subjective.

> The benefits you site are possible without their premium, using other apps

Piracy is always an option. But if you choose not to do it, buying premium makes sense.

[isaacremuant]

>> Premium subscription is just an antipattern of them removing options.

> It makes sense only if you believe everything on the internet should be free.

I wish HN readers would try and stay away from strawmen and address what others say.

If a product offers something and suddenly makes it product progressively inferior as a means to make a distinction of "this is premium", then it's an anti pattern. It feels scummy since it didn't start with "first X are free" and shows a lack of upfront monetization strategy.

>> YouTube music is in no way better than Spotify.

> I don't disagree. It's highly subjective.

It's highly objective if you actually use arguments, which you don't.

>> The benefits you site are possible without their premium, using other apps

> Piracy is always an option. But if you choose not to do it, buying premium makes sense.

Using the term piracy here is playing into the game of anti competitive companies who continually lobby governments to get their way over the actual desires of citizens.

You haven't really supported your quasi marketing campaign claims about the YouTube experience.

Truth is: They had a product that was good. Made it shitty and told you to pay if you want what you had. You pay and laud it.

I mean, you do you but it's an unconvicing sell.

[psnehanshu]

> If a product offers something and suddenly makes it product progressively inferior...

The inferior experience in terms of YouTube is the increase in ads. I like to think of it as a price increase due to inflation.

> It feels scummy since it didn't start with "first X are free" and shows a lack of upfront monetization strategy.

That's a standard practice actually. I have seen new restaurants offer food for free on the day of opening to attract customers and then charge from next day onwards. They will also gradually keep increasing their prices to cope up with inflation and/or other reasons.

> It's highly objective if you actually use arguments, which you don't.

Treating your preference as objective just shows how much disconnected you are from the reality. In my country, YouTube is the goto choice for music. Moreover, YouTube ads are skipable, but Spotify ads aren't.

> Using the term piracy here is playing into the game of anti competitive companies who continually lobby governments to get their way over the actual desires of citizens.

Desires of citizens like you is to get everything for free. That's what I have understood.

> You haven't really supported your quasi marketing campaign claims about the YouTube experience.

Your happy customers are your best marketers.

> Truth is: They had a product that was good. Made it shitty and told you to pay if you want what you had. You pay and laud it.

I agree, they did make the product shitty for free users. But that won't make me and many others stop using it.

[isaacremuant]

>> If a product offers something and suddenly makes it product progressively inferior...

> The inferior experience in terms of YouTube is the increase in ads. I like to think of it as a price increase due to inflation.

It's a coping mechanism. Just like people who think their lives need to be worsened due to inflation and "that's due to exogenous characteristics" and not to do with their gov policies.

>> It feels scummy since it didn't start with "first X are free" and shows a lack of upfront monetization strategy.

> That's a standard practice actually. I have seen new restaurants offer food for free on the day of opening to attract customers and then charge from next day onwards. They will also gradually keep increasing their prices to cope up with inflation and/or other reasons.

I knew you'd go for this one. Transparency matters. Restaurants are usually upfront about this. Have a taste before buy is fine. Destroy the competition and then abuse a captured market while still actively destroying the competition (lobbying, attacking funding, purchase with intent to stop, etc).

Also, Just because something happens, doesn't mean it's ethical. People made money squatting on URLs like savehaiti.com after the hurricane and, even though it works, it's scummy and not something to laud.

>> It's highly objective if you actually use arguments, which you don't.

>Treating your preference as objective just shows how much disconnected you are from the reality.

It's not preference. You didn't state it initially as preference. There's also objective features to analyze or no product would be better than another.

This poor attack at me is funny seeing as you want to move the ballpark to play the victim and not have to defend bad claims.

> In my country, YouTube is the goto choice for music.

Which doesn't mean it's a better product. And did you think about everyone else's Country before making your statements or does it only work to excuse your lack of solid arguments?

> Moreover, YouTube ads are skipable, but Spotify ads aren't.

Suddenly we are talking about a free tier and not the product GPM/YM vs Spotify in their premium versions? More goalpost moves.

>> Using the term piracy here is playing into the game of anti competitive companies who continually lobby governments to get their way over the actual desires of citizens.

> Desires of citizens like you is to get everything for free. That's what I have understood.

"Citizens like me". You don't know me. You made a bad sales pitch for a product that abused customers and instead of recognizing that you start attacking anyone who points out the truth with poor strawmen.

You don't know how many services I pay for but you should have inferred that I pay for Spotify and that I paid for GPM/YM so your whole dishonest line of attack is moot.

>> You haven't really supported your quasi marketing campaign claims about the YouTube experience.

> Your happy customers are your best marketers.

Actually, you've massively failed as a marketer by being unable to point out advantages or defend why YouTube had deteriorated their product and demanded payment for it. And let's not even address the behaviour towards the creators who built the bulk or their content.

>> Truth is: They had a product that was good. Made it shitty and told you to pay if you want what you had. You pay and laud it.

>I agree, they did make the product shitty for free users. But that won't make me and many others stop using it.

No. You just acquiesced and got screwed over but think championing it is a good thing. It's hilarious but at least you agree on the core.

Good marketing, bud. They should hire you.