YouTube Red is struggling to get subscribers.

[Mihle]

2 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

if they dont appeal to you then why are you on their website? you either compensate them by viewing the ads or dont use their service 

True, Why should any site care about people that dont make them any money?

[AlTech]

3 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

i dont think people like you understand economics. hosting a website costs money. if you wont pay or have ads then how do you suggest that they make their money?

Allow people to donate if they like the content....... there, get rid of 90% of YouTube and then i'd donate to the actual content creators I want to support.

[vorticalbox]

On ‎03‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 8:22 PM, ZacUAX said:

YouTube Red will get my money when it's 5 bucks a month and not bundled with anything else. I'd never use Google Play music, and asking 10 bucks a month just for no ads and exclusive content is stupid. Especially when we're all just using adblock anyways. 

ad block doesn't give you access to the exclusive content, problem is that the content is probably rubbish.

 

You really should turn ad block off when watching videos of people you want to support.

[spartaman64]

8 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Allow people to donate if they like the content....... there, get rid of 90% of YouTube and then i'd donate to the actual content creators I want to support.

but google needs to make money also. and google are the people running the servers and its their website

[spartaman64]

8 hours ago, Mihle Gaming said:

True, Why should any site care about people that dont make them any money?

not even considering the website just a personal moral perspective. most people would say stealing is wrong right? but then they do stuff like this. its a double standard in people's morals

[SpaceGhostC2C]

42 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

not even considering the website just a personal moral perspective. most people would say stealing is wrong right? but then they do stuff like this. its a double standard in people's morals

Which is not stealing. Otherwise, it would be ilegal, like, well, stealing.

 

44 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

but google needs to make money also. and google are the people running the servers and its their website

They don't have to. They want to, and if they do, they'll stay in business. If not, they'll shut down.

 

You see, the true  message of economics is that costs don't determine who gets paid, demand does. You may enjoy something at zero costs, but not enough to still consume it at some positive price. People producing it are not forced to: in the case of Youtube, they can stop making videos, they can make subscription-only videos, or they can make free to watch videos. It's their choice. Installing extensions in your browser is your choice. You can try to morally belittle those who use certain extensions, but that won't make it a universal true, nor would make them hypocrites.

Browser extensions exist, that is a fact, and it's a user's prerogative to use them or not. Companies are free to make their supply decisions taking that account. There is no moral reason why the google ad business model (or any other) has to be viable. I don't think adblock can do much about the in-video advertisement LTT has, by the way - and just like traditional TV advertisement, there is no guarantee that you will actually watch it, but there it remains.

If you stop watching when the tunnelbear or whatever ad starts, is it also immoral? And if you zap around during TV commercials, are you stealing?

[DevilishBooster]

I hope they don't cancel YT-Red. I actually really like it a lot - the no commercials without having to use adblock is nice, plus the download for offline playback, and on top of that it include the Google Play Music subscription. I feel like it is well worth the money.

[spartaman64]

8 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Which is not stealing. Otherwise, it would be ilegal, like, well, stealing.

 

They don't have to. They want to, and if they do, they'll stay in business. If not, they'll shut down.

 

You see, the true  message of economics is that costs don't determine who gets paid, demand does. You may enjoy something at zero costs, but not enough to still consume it at some positive price. People producing it are not forced to: in the case of Youtube, they can stop making videos, they can make subscription-only videos, or they can make free to watch videos. It's their choice. Installing extensions in your browser is your choice. You can try to morally belittle those who use certain extensions, but that won't make it a universal true, nor would make them hypocrites.

Browser extensions exist, that is a fact, and it's a user's prerogative to use them or not. Companies are free to make their supply decisions taking that account. There is no moral reason why the google ad business model (or any other) has to be viable. I don't think adblock can do much about the in-video advertisement LTT has, by the way - and just like traditional TV advertisement, there is no guarantee that you will actually watch it, but there it remains.

If you stop watching when the tunnelbear or whatever ad starts, is it also immoral? And if you zap around during TV commercials, are you stealing?

you are using a service without paying for it which is the same morally as stealing even though its not the same legally. also im not looking at the ad companies im just looking at google as the ad companies are not providing the product google is. and you are saying that google shouldnt be paid even though they are the ones providing the platform and you expect them to run servers for you for free. not viewing ads or paying directly while still using the service is like not paying taxes while still sending your kids to public school and calling the police when you get robbed

[SpaceGhostC2C]

11 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

you are using a service without paying for it which is the same morally as stealing even though its not the same legally. also im not looking at the ad companies im just looking at google as the ad companies are not providing the product google is. and you are saying that google shouldnt be paid even though they are the ones providing the platform and you expect them to run servers for you for free. not viewing ads or paying directly while still using the service is like not paying taxes while still sending your kids to public school and calling the police when you get robbed

I never said Google "shouldn't be paid", I'm not the fan of the word "should" here. 

And no, it's not morally the same at all, just like it's not legally the same either. You are not paying for a service because the provider decided to do it for free, it has nothing to do with stealing. You're not hacking YouTube Red to watch it free, you're watching free YouTube free. Even if you watch every ad, you still aren't paying. Advertisers are paying for advertisement, and they are being advertised. It doesn't matter how much you insist, the viewer is not part of that contact, other than being part of the aggregate number of viewers they use to negotiate. 

 

But if you are so convinced that paying for a product /services and watching ads (hence being the product) are the same thing (they aren't), why don't you answer my previous question? Tell me, is zapping dieing commercials immoral? Can going to the toilet or preparing tea during TV ads be considered as stealing? What if I join the WAN show after they finished the sponsors' segment, should I stop watching as soon as I realize to avoid "stealing"? 

 

[Mihle]

3 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I never said Google "shouldn't be paid", I'm not the fan of the word "should" here. 

And no, it's not morally the same at all, just like it's not legally the same either. You are not paying for a service because the provider decided to do it for free, it has nothing to do with stealing. You're not hacking YouTube Red to watch it free, you're watching free YouTube free. Even if you watch every ad, you still aren't paying. Advertisers are paying for advertisement, and they are being advertised. It doesn't matter how much you insist, the viewer is not part of that contact, other than being part of the aggregate number of viewers they use to negotiate. 

 

But if you are so convinced that paying for a product /services and watching ads (hence being the product) are the same thing (they aren't), why don't you answer my previous question? Tell me, is zapping dieing commercials immoral? Can going to the toilet or preparing tea during TV ads be considered as stealing? What if I join the WAN show after they finished the sponsors' segment, should I stop watching as soon as I realize to avoid "stealing"? 

 

You are paying when watching adds, but you do not pay with money, you pay with time.

[OptimisticRealist]

On 11/3/2016 at 4:20 PM, Weird Face said:

I have no idea what Youtube Red is and have never heard of it outside of LTT. It probably is a US-only thing, like most things. About to verify this myself.

 

Edit: Was partially right - only available in Australia, Mexico, New Zealand, and the United States. No wonder, I use Youtube every day and have zero idea what Youtube Red is.

This is very interesting. I wonder why Youtube Red is only on these countries? What would be the harm in YouTube just showing their optional Premium model?

 

In my case, I sit with most people, I find it really hard to pay for something I've had for free for so many years. If they really want users to pay, they need to make it really cheap and offer some great exclusive content.

[spartaman64]

13 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I never said Google "shouldn't be paid", I'm not the fan of the word "should" here. 

And no, it's not morally the same at all, just like it's not legally the same either. You are not paying for a service because the provider decided to do it for free, it has nothing to do with stealing. You're not hacking YouTube Red to watch it free, you're watching free YouTube free. Even if you watch every ad, you still aren't paying. Advertisers are paying for advertisement, and they are being advertised. It doesn't matter how much you insist, the viewer is not part of that contact, other than being part of the aggregate number of viewers they use to negotiate. 

 

But if you are so convinced that paying for a product /services and watching ads (hence being the product) are the same thing (they aren't), why don't you answer my previous question? Tell me, is zapping dieing commercials immoral? Can going to the toilet or preparing tea during TV ads be considered as stealing? What if I join the WAN show after they finished the sponsors' segment, should I stop watching as soon as I realize to avoid "stealing"? 

 

they are not doing it for free. they are doing it with the expectation that you watch the ads which brings them money. they are providing you with a service and you provide them with a service and if you dont provide that service then you are not holding up your end of the bargain. not watching tv ads is not immoral because i pay for the tv service and linus doesnt have an expectation for us to watch the ads or else why do you think he puts most of them at the end of the video.