Opinions are my own.
One of the positive effects of the recent AI wave is that it shows more folks are warming up to the idea of paying a subscription for tech. Perhaps, the next generation will grow up with tech that doesn't rely on addiction to earn ads money. The downside is that the gap between "folks who can afford tech" and "folks who cannot" might grow even more.
No, what will happen is they'll have a subscription and then also ads.
Let's be realistic. Most of the videos on hackertube.org wouldn't exist if it weren't for the enormous sums of money YouTube pays their creators because of...ads.
I would also be more impressed with it if they created their own video processing and serving stack.
This is verifiably not true. The majority of the value I get from youtube aren't even by monetized videos.
This is just outright wrong.
The vast majority of all yt content makers do NOT pay the bills with ad rev but sponsors.
These platforms are sucking every penny they can from everyone at every step because number must go up. That is what they are suppose to do being public.
A private company like steam with a sub pay model where creators still can do sponsorship videos throwing out the attention algos would be a better product and still be plenty profitable.
Not all companies should be public and often the best are not.
I (and millions of other people) literally had a netflix streaming subscription for 15 years (up until I cancelled it last year after 4 or 5 price hikes). The desire and ability to pay for stuff has always been there - but at the same time, there's a reason youtube has youtube content and netflix has netflix content.
> The desire and ability to pay for stuff has always been there - but at the same time, there's a reason youtube has youtube content and netflix has netflix content.
Funny thing is: I can subscribe to Netflix for one month a year, and watch everything that I want to watch within a week or two ... which is to say there isn't much there that interests me. With YouTube, I can typically find an hour or two of content to watch per week.
I'm not claiming that YouTube is better. It's simply a case of different people having different interests. While YouTube is almost certainly a poor option for higher budget productions, it seems to work out for lower budget productions where the producers are willing to seek out their own revenue streams.
Netflix was easy, switching to it meant saving money for all the TV addicts.
Compare it to the widespread refusal to pay for Youtube Premium even as ads get worse there.
My ad blocker still works on YouTube
YouTube Premium is a terrible deal.
It includes YouTube Music and it removes ads. Apparently it also marks where sponsorships end in videos (though I'm not sure that is Premium only). Seems like a great deal to me.
yt by default is basically free with ads so the public has viewed it as “that” kind of product, mass content of vastly dif quality level.
Netflix was pay to get high quality well known product along with new high quality content.
For well over a decade they were totally different. You cannot just flip a flag and change that. It isnt people refusing to pay, it is because yt is not netflix and never will be for as long as yt is in the name.
Businesses will seek out more than one revenue source for the same product. For example: newspapers and magazines had advertising, even though the customer paid for the product. Cable television had advertising, even though people paid for cable (and cable companies paid for the channels).
It isn't going to stop data collection either. If anything, it will improve the quality of the data collected.
Why would you be posting other people's opinions?