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

[marldorthegreat]

Meh. They have a monopoly, what can we do?

[NAP51DMustang]

doClickVideo()
{
    if(viewer.sub() = true)
        doSubPlayVideo();

    else{

        doAdPlay();

        doPlayVideo();

     }

}

doSubPlayVideo()
{
    creator.incrementSubClickCount();

    doPlayVideo();
}

something like that would solve all this (hope autoformat is nice to me)

[Eric The Tech Guru]

doClickVideo()

{

    if(viewer.sub() = true)

        doSubPlayVideo();

    else{

        doAdPlay();

        doPlayVideo();

     }

}

doSubPlayVideo()

{

    creator.incrementSubClickCount();

    doPlayVideo();

}

something like that would solve all this (hope autoformat is nice to me)

Either you're joking, or you don't understand anything about web development and software stacks.

[Technous285]

Dunno about you guys, but I don't want my videos to be forced behind a paywall for my (few) subscribers if they're already monitized with ads or are not monitized at all (the second covers all my videos currently).

[-CLASSIFIED-]

This sounds like it'll backfire , Google should remeber not to bite the hand that's feeding them

[ManWithBeard1990]

I'm not sure I understand. Surely subscribers can also see the free videos?

[NAP51DMustang]

Either you're joking, or you don't understand anything about web development and software stacks.

its called pseudo code.....

[dalekphalm]

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 

What? How does this make sense at all? Their free content is not going away - their ad sharing agreements for the free ad-supported videos is not going away. This is literally ONLY GOOD for YouTubers.

 

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.

 

I also have no idea why people are freaking the fuck out over this. It damn well makes sense. Google wants their entire Catalog available for paid subscribers - and if I were to subscribe, I would demand the entire catalog too.

 

YouTubers can only benefit from this. Either they get a bunch of new paid subscribers that watch their videos - which will increase their income -OR people continue to watch their free ad-supported videos, and they receive the SAME INCOME as before.

 

What's the problem?

Are people just losing their shit because some people are just staunchly opposed to 100% entirely optional subscription services? It's far far superior to using AdBlock Plus, and fucking the YouTuber out of all of his money.

[spartaman64]

why is this bad for people who dont like ads google is offering an ad free paid subscription and it would be annoying if not all videos are available. and for people thinking google is making huge money off of youtube they clearly are not in fact they are probably sustaining huge losses

[Sidiox]

-snip-

How is it only good for them? I do not know the business model. If I pay x amount to get no ads on the entirety of the YT catalogue, then how does that money gets distributed. I presume the YT-ers I watch get a certain percentage of x amount depending on the views I give them. But I don't know what that percentage is or what kind of cut YT is taking. Perhaps the money that I give to the creator is more than the money that they would earn with ads, perhaps it is not. I don't know and that is my issue with it.

 

If I pay 10eu/month, and I watch nearly 300 vids per month (that is just a wild guess, but I presume I watch many more) then that is say .03 per viewed vid. If 100% of the money goes to the creator.  There are about 12 or so ads on a single video. I don't know the normal CPM( or CPV as is sometimes used on YT). But I've seen figures that range from 2 dollar CPM to 10 dollar CPM (this is per ad). If it is 2 dollars, then the money per view would be: (2*12)/1000: 0.024. So the subscription model pays more. If it is 10 dollar CPM then:  (10*12)/1000: .12 so the ads pay way more than the subscription model. 

Now, just to be clear, I do not at all know if this math is correct, maybe the subscription model works differently, maybe my CPM's are way off. Or I'm forgetting other factors. Regardless, it is just to show that the compensation for the creator is the important thing and I don't know if the subscription model helps

 

(I'm also not taking in consideration the adblocking crowd, but I also don't have statistics on those)

[MoonSpot]

So is the issue having baked in ads by the creators in the videos that those who are paying for ad free content get stuck watching?

I don't think I understand the issue if that isn't what google is concerned about.

[shujin]

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

1. it was actually a joke I know it's stupid 

2. as they need to be connected to use the extension youtube could track what they see and split the content creator share of the subscription payment between the different content creator by a percentage of view on each channel

[shujin]

its called pseudo code.....

oh yeah I learned that in school all forgot tho you code or you don't I don't see any usage for pseudo code. 

[dalekphalm]

How is it only good for them? I do not know the business model. If I pay x amount to get no ads on the entirety of the YT catalogue, then how does that money gets distributed. I presume the YT-ers I watch get a certain percentage of x amount depending on the views I give them. But I don't know what that percentage is or what kind of cut YT is taking. Perhaps the money that I give to the creator is more than the money that they would earn with ads, perhaps it is not. I don't know and that is my issue with it.

 

If I pay 10eu/month, and I watch nearly 300 vids per month (that is just a wild guess, but I presume I watch many more) then that is say .03 per viewed vid. If 100% of the money goes to the creator.  There are about 12 or so ads on a single video. I don't know the normal CPM( or CPV as is sometimes used on YT). But I've seen figures that range from 2 dollar CPM to 10 dollar CPM (this is per ad). If it is 2 dollars, then the money per view would be: (2*12)/1000: 0.024. So the subscription model pays more. If it is 10 dollar CPM then:  (10*12)/1000: .12 so the ads pay way more than the subscription model. 

Now, just to be clear, I do not at all know if this math is correct, maybe the subscription model works differently, maybe my CPM's are way off. Or I'm forgetting other factors. Regardless, it is just to show that the compensation for the creator is the important thing and I don't know if the subscription model helps

 

(I'm also not taking in consideration the adblocking crowd, but I also don't have statistics on those)

I will agree that it is definitely not as clear as it should be.

 

I very much doubt that the YT creators will earn less money via the subscription. Especially since their CPM is ridiculously low as it is. Basically, unless you get 1000 views to start, you make zero money. And each amount you get per thousand is a few bucks tops. Each view is worth like $0.0001.

 

If they can take your $10/mo subscription, and give the Content Creator $0.001 per view instead, then they've already had a vast increase per view in money.

[dalekphalm]

So is the issue having baked in ads by the creators in the videos that those who are paying for ad free content get stuck watching?

I don't think I understand the issue if that isn't what google is concerned about.

No, it has nothing to do with that. If a content creator (Such as LMG) bakes in an ad, and you pay the subscription fee, and you don't like the baked in ads, you simply don't watch that channel anymore.

 

LMG pays YouTube a cut of their baked in sponsorship, so YouTube sure won't say no.

[NAP51DMustang]

oh yeah I learned that in school all forgot tho you code or you don't I don't see any usage for pseudo code. 

its just a device to relay the concept of an idea. I've thrown pseudo code out before that had around 10 lines in it just to give a better idea of something I was talking about that ended up being around 800 once actually coded.

[dalekphalm]

its just a device to relay the concept of an idea. I've thrown pseudo code out before that had around 10 lines in it just to give a better idea of something I was talking about that ended up being around 800 once actually coded.

Indeed the whole point of Pseudo code is to show the basic very general outline/structure/idea of a piece of code, without having to write the whole thing line by line.

 

Personally, I always hated Pseudo code when I was in College, but I understand the concept at least

[Sidiox]

I will agree that it is definitely not as clear as it should be.

I very much doubt that the YT creators will earn less money via the subscription. Especially since their CPM is ridiculously low as it is. Basically, unless you get 1000 views to start, you make zero money. And each amount you get per thousand is a few bucks tops. Each view is worth like $0.0001.

If they can take your $10/mo subscription, and give the Content Creator $0.001 per view instead, then they've already had a vast increase per view in money.

That is the CPM. Cost per 1000 views/impressions. And those are not below 0.3 for their ads, unless they have really bad ads. So that makes I guess about a 3 dollar CPM for them. So no, it's not 0.001 unless they have some really poor deals, I guess.

[dalekphalm]

That is the CPM. Cost per 1000 views/impressions. And those are not below 0.3 for their ads, unless they have really bad ads. So that makes I guess about a 3 dollar CPV for them. So no, it's not 0.001 unless they have some really poor deals, I guess.

I thought it was obvious that the figures I made up were completely arbitrary and only used to make a generalized point?

 

They definitely don't make $3 per view though, that's for damn sure. Not even PewDiePie would make that, else he'd be a multi-billionaire. A good CPM would be $3 per thousand views, which would be $0.003 per view. So my numbers were off, but they weren't intended to be accurate, just pose a position and idea.

[Sidiox]

I thought it was obvious that the figures I made up were completely arbitrary and only used to make a generalized point?

 

They definitely don't make $3 per view though, that's for damn sure. Not even PewDiePie would make that, else he'd be a multi-billionaire. A good CPM would be $3 per thousand views, which would be $0.003 per view. So my numbers were off, but they weren't intended to be accurate, just pose a position and idea.

Fixed that. Should have been 3 dollar CPM. and yeah my numbers are estimates, but I presume mostly accurate based of what I've seen in the ad market. But I see you get my idea at least. It very much depends on the implementation on how good it is for the content creator

[dalekphalm]

Fixed that. Should have been 3 dollar CPM. and yeah my numbers are estimates, but I presume mostly accurate based of what I've seen in the ad market. But I see you get my idea at least. It very much depends on the implementation on how good it is for the content creator

Oh I fully agree. If they pay Channels less per view for Subscriber views, then it's a total money grab, and a direct slap in the face to the channels.

 

But that's pure conjecture. I see no reason why YouTube would do that. They don't want channels jumping ship to places like Vessel - which might not be a threat now, but can definitely become a huge threat if there is an exodus.

 

Google isn't stupid. They want to please YouTubers, and I feel that this will be beneficial for both YouTubers and Google.

[Doobeedoo]

Companies are to full of them selves. People can just move on, but thing is, many are just sheep, mass is a sheep. That's why you'll hear people crying over stupid stuff about everything when they can simply turn the other way, yet they choose not to cause they're addicted little sheep.

[Whorax]

Good thing I spend most of my time on Twitch now anyways.

[GenghisJohn]

Why is this an issue? It doesn't seem like this would affect creators in any way. In video ad spots are still an option if creators are passionate about certain products right? And this would just mean the people who pay get to the same content quicker. The creator is still getting paid the same.

What am I missing?

[Techhog]

While the way that Google is handling this is a bit extreme, their reason for it makes sense at least. There really isn't a good reason for anyone to refuse to comply other than principles. It's also not really greedy.