YouTube to remove free videos if creators don't publish them to the subscription based platform too.

[Wauthar]

 

 

YouTube wants to get paid in a new way, and Chief Susan Wojcicki is pushing ahead despite questions about the plan.

Wojcicki, a veteran of Google advertising who took the reins at YouTube in early 2014,announced an ad-free, subscription version of the streaming video service almost a year ago.  Since then, critics have questioned aspects of the effort, especially a requirement that content owners make their videos available for both the ad-supported and paid versions.

 

If some partners hold out, YouTube is willing to drop their videos from both versions of its platform, Wojcicki said. She hopes that doesn’t happen but wants to avoid a situation where viewers who pay for an ad-free YouTube end up with a smaller selection of videos.

 

“It’s important that there is parity, meaning that all content that was on the ad-supported service is available for our users on subscription,” Wojcicki said. “It doesn’t make sense from a user perspective to pay and then get less.”

 

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/24/youtube-chief-pushes-ahead-with-subscriptions-despite-questions/

 

Youtube seems to be pushing its subscription based version really hard now. If partners don't agree to show their videos on the paid side, they face to have their videos removed from the side we all know.

I don't really know how to feel about this, surely it wouldn't be smart to launch a paid platform with less videos than the free one has, but to remove everything when creators don't comply seems a bit rigorous to me.

 

I'd like to hear other's opinions about it.

[Mug]

One rule for the rich one rule for the poor...

 

Linus advocating the broken models he criticised on WAN show with vessel too

 

 

 

Gah! He is a mug!

[DarkBlade2117]

Well what are they gonna do if no one does? RIOT RIOT RIOT.

Honestly if only a few did they can't shut down all of YouTube.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Once again Google reminds us all they care about is money 

 

 

hahaha

[Wauthar]

Well what are they gonna do if no one does? RIOT RIOT RIOT.

Honestly if only a few did they can't shut down all of YouTube.

The article does state that "90% of the partners has already signed". I don't know how many people are involved, but those 10% can be a very large crowd.

[Guest]

So, they're going to remove videos all together if the don't go over to the subscription side, to prevent a lack of content for the subscription side? 

 

That's seems like a complete marketing fuck-up in my eyes... 

[Wauthar]

 

So, they're going to remove videos all together if the don't go over to the subscription side, to prevent a lack of content for the subscription side? 

 

That's seems like a complete marketing fuck-up in my eyes... 

 

If you're paying for something (an ad-less YouTube in this case), you'd want to see all videos ad free, no? 

I can understand this, but removing the ones that don't agree to the new policy seems indeed like YouTube (or Google) is slamming its fist down.

[shujin]

why don't they just install a sort of extension that block ads on your browser for the users that pay the subscription (youtube subs extension which would be a reskin of adblock ^^)

[SurvivorNVL]

This is one of the reasons why building yourself on anothers land is risky.  Now Google can threaten to take away peoples livelihoods if they don't comply.  They can alter the deal.

[Deletive]

If they're talking about mobile then I don't see a problem. I completely see why they would remove free videos on the subscription service with no ad's and offline viewing (which is what I assume they're talking about) 

 

[Eric The Tech Guru]

why don't they just install a sort of extension that block ads on your browser for the users that pay the subscription (youtube subs extension which would be a reskin of adblock ^^)

There's a whole different platform that has to be constructed around how creators get paid when there aren't ads being served.

 

Currently, the advertisers pay both google and the creator.

 

Just blocking the ads would eliminate the revenue without passing on the subscription pricing to the creators.

 

Creators also have to have new contracts for this kind of deal.

[dragosudeki]

Google is able to do so much, yet it sounds like they can't just bring over the free versions of the video to the subscription based version? I thought you were suppose to work hard to push your new model, not get content creators to do extra work so that your new model can thrive. Hell, they got self driving cars, and they can't get their systems to bring over the free version content to the subscription version content. It doesn't make sense that content creators have to do your work...

[Eric The Tech Guru]

Google is able to do so much, yet it sounds like they can't just bring over the free versions of the video to the subscription based version? I thought you were suppose to work hard to push your new model, not get content creators to do extra work so that your new model can thrive. Hell, they got self driving cars, and they can't get their systems to bring over the free version content to the subscription version content. It doesn't make sense that content creators have to do your work...

Again, there have to be contracts signed and consent given by the creators to do that.

 

This is a legal issue, not one of what Google is or isn't willing to do.

[Sidiox]

I can see issues with this. But it really depends on how much money the creator gets for the subscription views. If he gets a lot less money I can see how it is a poor deal for them 

[zMeul]

already discussed ?!

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/411654-google-has-trouble-signing-up-tv-networks-for-upcoming-youtube-paid-service/

[Wauthar]

already discussed ?!

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/411654-google-has-trouble-signing-up-tv-networks-for-upcoming-youtube-paid-service/

Oh hey, I see it now.

But that doesn't specifically state that non-cooperating creators might have their videos removed.

[kuddlesworth9419]

Google doesn't understand how the internet works. (I thought I would never say that). We are just using Google when Google thinks it's using us. We do it to every platform ever, we will just move, it's quite easy.

[dragosudeki]

Again, there have to be contracts signed and consent given by the creators to do that.

 

This is a legal issue, not one of what Google is or isn't willing to do.

They would just have to update the user agreement to state that uploaders must allow Youtube to put their content on both versions. Then you either agree to those terms or decline and can't use it (which is exactly what is posted here). That easily covers the consent of all publishers. Then, there could be contracts signed beyond that. The quote makes it sound like content creators have to publish it on both versions, but I suppose youtube will probably share the content between versions.

[zMeul]

Oh hey, I see it now.

But that doesn't specifically state that non-cooperating creators might have their videos removed.

if you read the Bloomberg source, it's very much implied

[Delusional Phil]

Well somebody is gonna get fired for making these poor decissions ... I hope it's Wojcicki ... 

[Trik'Stari]

Google doesn't understand how the internet works. (I thought I would never say that). We are just using Google when Google thinks it's using us. We do it to every platform ever, we will just move, it's quite easy.

We can only hope..

[Misanthrope]

Nice to see youtube's popularity already went right to their fucking insane, money craving heads.

[jaggysnake57]

am i missing something......what's the problem?

[Yoinkerman]

Looks like YouTube wants to commit suicide

[Mister Snow]

Why are you all angry about this? It's a completely valid business model.

They aren't removing add supported content nor making exclusive content for paid costumers. Why would anyone be against this when nothing changes except for having an option to watch ad free content for a fee if you want to.

 

And those of you saying, "oh, google is greedy, money grabbing sobs and etc", how do you think yt should work? Maybe google should provide all the bandwidth, storage and tools from the goodness of their heart and go under within a year leaving you with the other paid services that you are against when it comes to yt. If you don't wan't to pay then don't and keep using yt as you did until now. Only problem would be if content providers were getting less money from subscribers than from views but we don't know anything about that yet.

 

If I am missing something please enlighten me.