YouTube SHOULD charge for 4K. Hear me out.

[dogwitch]

52 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Thankfully IX/IXP are common enough that is pretty much required for at least regional ISPs to be sustainable. IX/IXPs are much cheaper per Gbps which alleviates the cost of Tier 1 or Tier 2 peerings.

 

Because most throughput is via IXs, this allows investing most bandwidth for IX peerings rather than spending a factor of 10 or more for even Tier 2. As a reference, even when exploring quotes from multiple Tier 2s, the monthly cost ranged from ~$1,000/gbps on the very low end to ~$2-4,000/gbps on the high end. This may sound cheap for a provider, but even smaller regional ISP will easily push 100gbps across peerings.

 

This results in strained paths during outages (such as emergencies) where their non-IX peering are severely oversubscribed.

 

This actually relates to this topic as it's a huge contributer to this problem. Streaming services and their rapid growth put quite a bit of strain on available bandwidth and while they had peering cost, it introduced cost to other parties.

 

There has already been discussion amongst regulators at bringing back the previous PSTN "source pays" model. Essentially it means that bodies that source traffic (Netflix, YouTube, etc) should be paying/contributing to the cost, not the receiver (consumer).

 

This argument makes sense because while YouTube is paying for their peering cost, all providers along the path to the consumer are not compensated, yet are forced to pay for additional bandwidth. When you take into account that just Netflix and YouTube alone are over 60% of traffic, this means that a chunk of what you pay for internet monthly, is to sustain their throughput.

 

Because of this ongoing discussion, this may be another factor they're anticipating in addition to my previous comment. If this comes to light, this would introduce a massive cost to companies sourcing high throughput services.

 

Being in the SP space, I agree with some of it because providers are not this magical gold mine people think they are and YouTube getting a "free ride", but there is a lot of that needs to be done to not introduce cost to specific consumers.

 

yes and no.  which  is why cdn became big in isp and such. but lets all be honest here. comcast,att,centurylink. will gouge both consumer paying for their Internet and content people to(netflix etc) .topics and news story have shown this time and time again.

[Kloud]

everyone is acting like this was intentional deceit.. the graph was straight from Statista, not them.

[Needfuldoer]

I can count on one hand the number of times I've watched 4K YouTube videos on a 4K display. Even then, it was for an "oh, that's neat". I don't see a huge difference at YouTube quality between 2160p and 1080p. Higher bitrates and HDR make a bigger visual difference, in my opinion.

 

I wonder if opinions on this differ based on age cohort. I'm in my mid-thirties, I grew up with standard def TVs and VHS tapes. Streaming any video you want, whenever you want, on a pocketable device, is one of those everyday miracles we've come to take for granted. I could see how someone who can't remember a time before HDTVs and 4k streaming might be more likely to feel like this is a rug pull.

[mynameisjuan]

1 hour ago, dogwitch said:

yes and no.  which  is why cdn became big in isp and such

CDNs/IXs were gaining steam prior to my point. Primarily due to latency and hardware at the time.

 

1 hour ago, dogwitch said:

but lets all be honest here. comcast,att,centurylink. will gouge both consumer paying for their Internet and content people to(netflix etc) .topics and news story have shown this time and time again

I'm not disagreeing with that, but their reasoning is focused on the 10,000s of other providers that are having to reallocate funds to maintaining traffic levels from an overall small set of sources. Many of which are still trying to resolve the strain starting back in 2020.

[Temple]

I watched the WAN show, and so I was looking out for this video while knowing I was going to probably be agreeing to most if not all of Linus' views on the subject. And so it was. I trust Linus' experience on the subject (although Floatplane also can't really be compared apples to apples with YouTube), and I am also one of the people who has never used YouTube's 4k feature before, because I never really needed to. When I watch YouTube, I'm usually doing it from my phone, which isn't 4k in the first place, and doesn't have the best of quality in terms of video even then. While I understand that a lot of users access the site from their computers, I find at least in my experience that using a phone is often way more convenient and also allows me to use my computer for other things simultaneously. An I feel like a majority of users are the same; never used the feature because they never felt like they needed to. 

 

So, overall, while I do agree that it feels like shit having a feature randomly taken away, it's also true that it likely only affects a certain subset of a subset of users. If it kicks the "YouTube's plug getting pulled" can down the road for half a decade, why should we be complaining about it? Sooner or later, YouTube is gonna have to get profitable, despite it's enormous market share in user-generated video, and if it doesn't, Google'll throw it into the same bin it threw Stadia into. After all, Google is a publicly traded company, beholden to their shareholders. 

 

With all that being said, I'm not an IT professional so this is all just my own (minimally informed) initial thoughts. 

[Pitboy64]

Honestly, in the end I wont disagree with him, but for a different reason.

At home here, to save money we dont spend on unlimited data with our Telus optical line.
We have a hard cap (not sure but think its 300Gb/month) with upsteps after that, for successive $5 added on.

On our (two of us) 27 inch monitors, watching Youtube, I can drop quality right back to 480 usually, and unless I am looking at something (like still image quality tests or video image tests) that really benefit from a higher setting ... I leave it there.  Thats to keep the bandwidth usage down.  I dont need to watch Linus or other everyday youtube hosts at 4K, its just not worth the money.

So ... I very, very rarely use 4K, or even 1080 ... so Google can do whatever they like, I dont need it.

[swimtome]

4 hours ago, Nystemy said:

_{(I for one find myself putting off watching through everything that is pending until I find time, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is much such people around too.)}

I still haven't watched the Intel Fab videos cause I want to sit down and properly enjoy it...

[Motifator]

7 hours ago, Lord Szechenyi said:

Remember when 720p on youtube used to be HD?

 

So no, 4k is basically true 1080p at this point, we need it...

I remember Google Video, Youtube was not a thing back then. Google buys a lot of stuff out - they have a graveyard of stuff they shut down after buying, etc...

and yeah, the algo of Youtube video recommendations wasn't even up to the point of what you have today, back in Youtube's earliest phases. You got to see the same videos lots of times.

On the topic of charging for 4k, if YT does it... one can take the argument to a height of, why doesn't others like Vimeo? I mean, Vimeo does charge for Pro subs, but they had a free 500 meg or something limit. You could have a short, compressed 4k video around 500 megs. Clearly their servers are nowhere up to Youtube's, so why don't they charge BY DEFAULT? Or let's say, any other video company really. But I can't think of many now that Youtube is basically a monopoly.

[Ein0r]

One thing I dislike regarding the reasonability argument is the discrepancy between the two sides. On one side a company like Google is legally required to generate the maximum amount of profit, whereas on the other side the consumer/customer/viewer/paypig has to be reasonable. It's like fighting a military grade flamethrower with a Super Soaker.

 

In theory, Google's argument is right. But this is a discussion that can only be held in an academical ivory tower, where nothing is at stake.

 

Also give it five years, or maybe closer to ten, and 4k will be standard. How high is the chance that youtube is going remove the paywall from 4k content and only keep it for 8k and above? Or whatever the new high fidelity standard will be at that point in time. There'll just be another, higher paywall.

[swimtome]

9 minutes ago, Ein0r said:

One thing I dislike regarding the reasonability argument is the discrepancy between the two sides. On one side a company like Google is legally required to generate the maximum amount of profit, whereas on the other side the consumer/customer/viewer/paypig has to be reasonable. It's like fighting a military grade flamethrower with a Super Soaker.

 

In theory, Google's argument is right. But this is a discussion that can only be held in an academical ivory tower, where nothing is at stake.

 

Also give it five years, or maybe closer to ten, and 4k will be standard. How high is the chance that youtube is going remove the paywall from 4k content and only keep it for 8k and above? Or whatever the new high fidelity standard will be at that point in time. There'll just be another, higher paywall.

This honestly what I’m most curious about. Will it really become the standard?  Not without new codecs that’s for sure…

 

This is where Linus’s argument really points out flaws in marketing. No one needs 4K most of time. We only have it because it was flash everywhere and bigger number better. 
 

Im suddenly reminded of this Captain Disillusion video, I highly encourage the 5 minute watch to all. Note how marketing was using 1080p HD to its advantage when it sort of wasn’t completely true. 
 

 Since this video is pretty accurate at 3 years ago, it’s now 12 years since YouTube supported 4K. And it certainly doesn’t feel like there’s been much growth. 
 

@LinusTech I think you’ll love this video and almost wish you had included it. If nothing else 3:55-5:08 is a good chunk of your points. 
 

 

 

[dogwitch]

7 minutes ago, swimtome said:

This honestly what I’m most curious about. Will it really become the standard?  Not without new codecs that’s for sure…

 

This is where Linus’s argument really points out flaws in marketing. No one needs 4K most of time. We only have it because it was flash everywhere and bigger number better. 
 

Im suddenly reminded of this Captain Disillusion video, I highly encourage the 5 minute watch to all. Note how marketing was using 1080p HD to its advantage when it sort of wasn’t completely true. 
 

 Since this video is pretty accurate at 3 years ago, it’s now 12 years since YouTube supported 4K. And it certainly doesn’t feel like there’s been much growth. 
 

@LinusTech I think you’ll love this video and almost wish you had included it. If nothing else 3:55-5:08 is a good chunk of your points. 
 

 

 

lets just be honest here 4k (real deal stuff )that has proper bit rate. Scale very well . on massive screens.

but consumer dont have a full story or higher walls to take advantage of it.

i always laugh about 4k for gaming. its nothing more then pr.

also happy so ee another person ref said channel.

[Quackers101]

4K gaming can help... if its worth it? maybe not yet. Also depends on what you are using it for and how often you get to use it.

But think its more of an "hot take" that one has to defend or attack in this situation? like why? because clicks? :U

[maskmcgee]

4 hours ago, lieutent said:

Google isn't just going to continue to eat the cost just as Amazon won't keep eating the cost of Twitch. Change WILL happen, one way or another.

Either nationalise or legislate. That's the change.

[Ein0r]

57 minutes ago, swimtome said:

This honestly what I’m most curious about. Will it really become the standard?  Not without new codecs that’s for sure…

The Nokia 3310 released in y2k, and 10 years later we had the Iphone 4. Maybe the jump won't be as big, but I assume 4k will at least be the upper standard. 1440p will be the new 720p and 4k the 1080p. I have no clue what improvements the future holds.

 

My parents who are not really big into tech consider buying a 4k tv with a reasonable size this christmas. They also have the hardware and bandwith to watch and stream 4k stuff. And if I would scrape some money together I could also afford 4k tv, albeit a smaller one. The prices for 4k devices have dropped significantly enough that even lower income people like me can slowly afford those devices, let alone in 10 years. 

 

Yes, limiting the argument of: "now I have a 4k device but can't use it", just to Youtube's unwillingnes of offering free 4k resolution is a bit unfair, when you can also watch 4k stuff on other streaming devices. But given Youtube's enormous share of the content market, this demand is not entirely unreasonable.

[lieutent]

43 minutes ago, maskmcgee said:

Either nationalise or legislate. That's the change.

Governmental intervention isn't the answer here man. It makes zero sense to legislate 4K+ YouTube.

[Spotty]

Seems reasonable to me. I'm surprised Youtube did not do it sooner. I normally watch youtube videos in 4k purely for the bitrate benefit but it wouldn't be a huge loss to me if I could only watch in 1440p.

I would also say that Youtube should go further and restrict 4k uploads to accounts that are eligible to receive adsense, or some other threshold such as 10k subscribers.

 

This video is only available on youtube in 1080p, while other LTT videos are normally available in 4k. Was that to make the point that you don't need 4k, or is the video actually available in 4k and I'm just part of Youtube's trial limiting some videos to 1080p?

[Psittac]

This was well put, even though I don't watch anything at 4k (ultra wide for life or until qdoled is in a 4k large monitor) I fully support every last point made in this video.  I am a youtube premium member but the majority of my youtube consumption life, I have been free tier.  My main reason is I just hate ad's in all capacity other than sponsored spots.  I consider myself a self-aware consumer of media, I almost never enjoy placed ad's and rarely become influenced by them however a sponsored spot is one that I will watch every time if it is new and if it's a spot I have seen a million times I will seriously ponder whether or not the product or service fit's into my life as I skip ahead.  Example: Jackery was always a cool idea but I haven't had a use for it, until I bought a 4x4 toyota as my daily that I plan on camping with.  Now that brand is in the front of my brain and will be a purchase unless I try to DIY something, those are my two options.

 

My point is that as is with most thing's people are just jerks and prefer to complain while RARELY being self-aware.  The general public is full of smooth brains that enjoy band wagoning.  I would hope that a higher percentage of regular youtube consumers who can consume 4k would also be in the position to pay for their content.  $12/mo really isn't much for this type of consumer.

[yolosnail]

I generally just use 1440p. The quality is an absolutely massive jump up from 1080p, which looks like absolute dogshit most of the time. People who say they can't tell the difference are either lying, or they need glasses! The difference between 1440p and 4K, however, is marginal.

 

Even on my phone with a 1080p screen there's a clear difference in clarity between 1080p and 1440p. Although, I mostly leave my phone set to 1080p since I'm usually half asleep when I'm watching it anyway, or I'm just watching a podcast. I generally don't drop down below 1080p as, on my phone at least, the audio sounds noticeable worse at lower resolutions, even though they're supposed to use the same audio bitrate. But maybe that's just the YouTube app being the YouTube app!

 

As for Floatplane 1080p, I find it's generally on part with YouTube 1440p in terms of quality, and I've yet to actually hear a difference in audio quality despite how much Linus and Luke go on about it. Maybe it's just LMG's audio isn't good enough to tell the difference?

 

 

[Alcarin]

I generally just watch videos in 720p or 1080p for the most part. Sometimes I'll watch in 1440p, but I occasionally run into buffering problems, and I still have a data cap to deal with. I never watch content in 4K, and even if I had the internet connection and display to cope with that resolution, I probably won't use it.

[Ashleyyyy]

8 hours ago, W.D. Stevens said:

Despite having 4K Floatplane for the last year (cut it back due to rising expenses in my country) I wasn't able to watch it for most of that time due to the outside of spec resolution they were using up until a couple of months ago so I had to watch at 1080 and it was always really blocky which I found surprising.

 

I had always heard that Floatplane 1080 was supposed to be analogous to YouTube 4K. And it really isn't. I would watch fully sponsored videos like Intel XTU on YouTube since there were no cut out sponsors anyway and it really was quite an obvious jump over the quality of 1080 Floatplane. And that really would be down to the bitrate.

i don't have an issue with FP's 1080, but my main complaint is that you basically need it even on a 720p display

[Arika]

couldn't care less. i have a 4k TV but still watch youtube at 1080p.. rest of my devices are 1080p

[Guest]

Or, as suicidalfranco once said: "THEIR PLATFORM, THEIR RULES"

 

I know, it's always a very hard pill to swallow the most obvious fact that Google always does like what all Fortune 500 corporations always does and always will. But on the bright side, there is an option to leave YouTube... just kidding.

[BuckGup]

I think people forget Youtube did this to themselves by promoting longer videos to be more profitable and having a multi minute ad roll in the video doesn't help either. They also launched Reels so to think it's okay for Youtube to charge is absurd. Maybe they could spend millions on making a better codec or platform that doesn't rely on 30 minute videos to be non advertiser friendly 

[BhairavPardiwala]

7 hours ago, Spotty said:

Seems reasonable to me. I'm surprised Youtube did not do it sooner. I normally watch youtube videos in 4k purely for the bitrate benefit but it wouldn't be a huge loss to me if I could only watch in 1440p.

I would also say that Youtube should go further and restrict 4k uploads to accounts that are eligible to receive adsense, or some other threshold such as 10k subscribers.

 

This video is only available on youtube in 1080p, while other LTT videos are normally available in 4k. Was that to make the point that you don't need 4k, or is the video actually available in 4k and I'm just part of Youtube's trial limiting some videos to 1080p?

I got that video in 4k..
 

[thekingofmonks]

YouTube's encoder is so bad that even 4K on native looks like crap