Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google To Offer Ad-Free YouTube - At a Price

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-up dept.

First time accepted submitter totalcaos writes YouTube announced today its plans for an ad-free, subscription-based service by way of an email sent out to YouTube Partners. The email details the forthcoming option, which will offer consumers the choice to pay for an "ads-free" version of YouTube for a monthly fee. The additional monetization option requires partners to agree to updated terms on YouTube's Creator Studio Dashboard, which notes that the changes will go into effect on June 15, 2015. We talked about the possibility of an ad-free model back in October.

152 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. ad blocker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My youtube ad blocker works perfectly. I never see advertisements while watching youtube.

    I'd happily pay for the ad blocker. I won't pay google for the joy of them not spamming me.

    1. Re:ad blocker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't mind the idea of a paid service to remove the advertisements. Unfortunately I would then need to log into Youtube and be subject to their tracking and profiling algorithms. For the time being I'll just stick with Adblock and an anonymous VPN.

    2. Re:ad blocker? by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      My youtube ad blocker works perfectly. I never see advertisements while watching youtube.

      I'd happily pay for the ad blocker. I won't pay google for the joy of them not spamming me.

      Does your ad blocker cope with the ads at the beginning of videos, you know the "you can skip this advert in 5 seconds" things?

    3. Re: ad blocker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      yep.

    4. Re: ad blocker? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Which blocker is it?

    5. Re: ad blocker? by Sir_Substance · · Score: 3, Informative

      I use ad block edge.

    6. Re: ad blocker? by itzly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I use firefox + adblock plus 2.6.3, and I don't see any ads either.

    7. Re: ad blocker? by fuzzywig · · Score: 4, Informative
      AdBlock Plus and uBlock both work, on the Flash and HTML5 versions.

      ABP works so well that I didn't realise for quite a while that they'd introduced advert videos until I went round a friend's house.

    8. Re: ad blocker? by Zappy · · Score: 1

      Youtube centre works

    9. Re:ad blocker? by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My youtube ad blocker works perfectly. I never see advertisements while watching youtube.

      I'd happily pay for the ad blocker. I won't pay google for the joy of them not spamming me.

      Aren't you worried about the ethical choices you are making there?

    10. Re:ad blocker? by Pieroxy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is another catch to it: I will not pay a fee to all websites I visit in order to avoid ads. Not even talking about the money spent, there is just no practical way for me to micro-pay for every site I go to... Even though I think it would be a nice way to avoid ads while still giving something to the sites I visit. After all, they provide value..

      In other words: it doesn't scale until there is a way to expand the model to the internet. As such, I will still have AdBlock installed for all the other sites I visit. So even if I don't pay for YouTube, I won't see any ads anyways, making the YouTube subscription of little value.

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    11. Re:ad blocker? by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      The ethical choice I make has to be weighed against the ethical choice of offering a "free" service in exchange for obtaining the metadata of every person connected to a one or a zero. At the end of the day, my own integrity means a lot more than however much "They" might choose to make off my expense. Am I worried about that choice? Excellent question.

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    12. Re:ad blocker? by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No moral or ethical problem is present... "won't somebody think of the marketers" LOL.

      The content creators get their slice from advertisements as well.

      If youtube is not able to sustain itself when faced with a swarm of 'freeloaders' like me, well, it just wasn't meant to... bye bye.

      And what gives you the prerogative to be the freeloader? Obviously not everyone can be.

    13. Re:ad blocker? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      My youtube ad blocker works perfectly. I never see advertisements while watching youtube.

      I'd happily pay for the ad blocker. I won't pay google for the joy of them not spamming me.

      So you don't recognize YouTube brings any value to you? Shouldn't they be able to decide how to monetize it? After all, it's their website.

      As for the spamming part, I don't see as spamming if you actually willfully go there al by yourself.

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    14. Re:ad blocker? by cinky · · Score: 1

      yeah, fuck all those content creators on youtube

    15. Re:ad blocker? by cinky · · Score: 1

      > I won't see any ads anyways, making the YouTube subscription of little value. Except you can feel good about supporting people who make the videos you watch. I will gladly throw a few bucks a month at youtube so I'm ad-free and channels like minutephysics get paid.

    16. Re:ad blocker? by itzly · · Score: 1

      Aren't you worried about the ethical choices you are making there?

      Not at all. Why should I worry ?

    17. Re:ad blocker? by xonen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Which ethical choices you mean, the ones made by me as consumer or by them?

      Spotify - 10 euro to get ad-free version
      Netfix - 9 euro, ad free
      HBO - 15 euro
      Youtube - ? euro.
      Torrents - free & ad free
      National television - tax. about 50 euro / year - and still loaded with ads

      So there are options, but they cost quite a bit, especially if you would want more than one. Having said that, maybe youtube will offer a really reasonable price (like $20 yearly) and i would consider it, but i doubt their pricetag will be that low.

      I can't help that the 'default' state is to bombard listeners or viewers with ads. With up to 10-30% airtime spend on ads on some commercial TV but also on our national (tax payed) radio. With 30 second ads to watch a 2 minute video. And webpages with 75% ads and 25% content. And worse: the most annoying kind of ads, the ones that makes you pull your hair and actively makes you mute or switch channel.

      If ads were not that obtrusive, no-one would bother to block them. However it became an arms race - where the blockers got better and the ads even more annoying.

      So, i have no idea why you find it unethical that i, or any other customer, protect myself from ads. Or is it unethical to wear a safety belt, or earplugs at a rock concert, or safety glasses when using machinery, because i see very little difference between physical and mental damage (annoyance). I have the right to protect myself from unwanted influences.

      I could even turn the argument and say no-one has the right to (un)consciously steer my (shopping) behaviour. Others would even make the argument that obesity and smoking addictions are largely caused by advertising. So again, who's being unethical here?

      --
      A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
    18. Re:ad blocker? by itzly · · Score: 3

      And what gives you the prerogative to be the freeloader? Obviously not everyone can be.

      It's technically possible to block ads, it's legal, and I don't like to watch ads. That's all I need to worry about. I have no control over everybody else. But in case everybody else does the same, then either the service will stop, or will implement technical/legal measures to force people to pay or watch ads. When that happens, I'll decide what I do.

    19. Re:ad blocker? by itzly · · Score: 1

      So you don't recognize YouTube brings any value to you? Shouldn't they be able to decide how to monetize it? After all, it's their website.

      Of course. If they want to reduce the value that YouTube brings, they can do that. I've seen mention of a fee of about $10/month. That would bring the net value for YouTube below zero, so I would probably stop watching it. I mostly watch it for entertainment anyway, and there's plenty of other entertainment available for free.

    20. Re:ad blocker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The content creators get their slice from advertisements as well.

      In case you haven't noticed most of the youtube partners are now also ebegging for money from their subscribers via Patreon. If you have a popular youtube channel the amount of free stuff that your fans are willing send you is staggering. I'm sure that they are reporting all this free swag as taxable income.

    21. Re:ad blocker? by spintriae · · Score: 1

      Why is the ethical responsibility on the end user? Does YouTube not benefit from the hard work of "content creators?" Keep in mind, there are plenty who YouTube doesn't compensate at all, who don't even have the option to display ads. There are a few ways they could level the playing field.

      1. Display ads on every video and give every channel the option to collect a portion of the total revenue based on how many views they generate. This way, YouTube partners who call their ad-blocking viewers "unethical, freeloading scumbags" won't feel like hypocritical assholes when they enjoy non-partner content on YouTube.
      2. Make the site paid-only and give every channel the option to collect a portion of the total revenue based on how many views they generate. This also eliminates the "unethical freeloading scumbag" problem. Of course, YouTube wouldn't do this because it would interfere with their oh-so-ethical data-mining operation.

      It appears that YouTube has chosen a combination of these options with ad-free subscriptions. So now, they get my money, partners get a portion, and the non-partners I watch with my paid subscription continue to get absolutely nothing. Now that's what I call ethical!

    22. Re:ad blocker? by dissy · · Score: 1

      And what gives you the prerogative to be the freeloader? Obviously not everyone can be.

      1) I just made $1500 in donations this month to my favorite four video streamers, with a fifth scheduled in a couple weeks (the one without paypal in another country, so takes a bit longer than normal)

      I'm quite interested in your personal definition of "freeloader" if that is what you call me for blocking ads yet ensuring money lands in the pockets of the content creators I wish to continue creating content.

      2) I have the same prerogative to be a "freeloader" as you have the prerogative to be a "script-kiddie hacker."

      Stop trying to repeatedly infect my computers via flash exploits delivered over your ads and we'll talk about me not blocking them.

      Until then, just remember that the unauthorized access to a computer act you perform is a very serious criminal act compared to the non-crime of blocking your ads that I do.

    23. Re: ad blocker? by TCM · · Score: 1

      I don't use an ad blocker per se. noscript + RequestPolicy somehow seem to prevent ads in videos. Maybe the ads come from different servers, I don't know.

      I've never seen an ad in front of a video in years.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    24. Re:ad blocker? by orasio · · Score: 1

      There is a way to expand the model to the internet.

      Say you pay a youtube subscription, and you get ad-free youtube, and for the same price, or for an additional, you get ad-free adsense.
      That means you won't ever see an adsense ad again. The sites will still have the adsense code, and google will just micro-pay, based on your usage of their site, from your subscription money.

      Doesn't look like a bulletproof strategy to me, but something like that might end up happening.

      Additionally, those who don't use adsense would be at a disadvantage, because youtube subscribers won't be able to make ads go away.

      Of course, the privacy implications of all this are huge, because you would be essentially logged in everywhere, and that's another service that google would be able to provide.

    25. Re:ad blocker? by gnupun · · Score: 1

      yeah, fuck all those content creators on youtube

      So is google planning on paying 50-70% of their subscription fee to content creators? After all, without content, YouTube is useless and distributors should not be making all the money, like on rest of the internet. Flickr does not pay its photographers, stackoverflow.com, etc others do not.

    26. Re:ad blocker? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      YouTube does not use Flash-based ads.

    27. Re:ad blocker? by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 1

      Pay them directly using Patreon or something similar. No reason to make your payments to YouTube/Google.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    28. Re:ad blocker? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      And what gives you the prerogative to be the freeloader? Obviously not everyone can be.

      But I want everyone to be a "freeloader". I want everyone to block ads, at least ads-as-they-are-now, intrusive and tracking. Then when the system falls apart we can replace it with something better. (And almost anything would be better. Perhaps a combination of non-intrusive and non-tracking sponsorships along with a fee charged every ISP and distributed to content creators via statistics sampled from a set of volunteers, a la the Nielsen ratings.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    29. Re:ad blocker? by gnupun · · Score: 1

      One makes art for the sake of art, and one does not expect to be compensated for it.

      That would be true if art were created and hidden from everyone (art for art's sake only). But in reality, art is created for the benefit and enjoyment of others, and often to feed the ego of the creator. So you think the consumers of art should benefit from art, but it's despicable for the creator to benefit from his own work? That's some self-serving, slave-driving bullshit.

      Calling the modern content garbage is an insult to garbage everywhere...

      And how many times a day do you stop doing everything and stare at garbage for 5-20 minutes?

    30. Re:ad blocker? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Aren't you worried about the ethical choices you are making there?

      [Citation]

      You're begging the question.

      You haven't defined ethical choices, and you are implying / assuming there are some when you haven't even proved there are.

    31. Re:ad blocker? by adolf · · Score: 1

      I use Adblock Edge on my PC, but also have a script that periodically downloads a magic list of hosts, tucks it into a format that dnsmasq likes, and runs on my Tomato-based router (there are a million variations on this).

      The latter hosts-hacking always catches Youtube ads on the PS3 and Chromecast, and usually* gets rid of them on other devices on the network.

      *Usually as in I see an ad so infrequently, and only on my Android phone, that I can't be bothered with doing anything more about it.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    32. Re:ad blocker? by adolf · · Score: 2

      It's OK when you do it, too.

      I don't care if you block ads, or use CSS overlays to give your Youtube experience an OMG Kittens theme, or molest yourself with a bristle brush.

      What would not be OK is if my ISP or some other third party blocked ads on my behalf, used CSS overlays to give my Youtube experience an OMG Kittens theme, or molest me with a bristle brush.

      Do you see the difference?

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    33. Re: ad blocker? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      I've found uBlock to be the best (and most resource-friendly) for Chrome, and it's available for Firefox now as well.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    34. Re:ad blocker? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Let me explain then.

      YouTube allows you to watch videos in exchange of seeing some advertisements. This is the deal that they offer. If you use AdBlock, you drop your part, which is viewing those advertisements. My claim is that breaking the deal would be unethical, as you are being unfair towards the other party.

    35. Re: ad blocker? by Mahldcat · · Score: 1

      only problem is they are now injecting video ads in the middle of the videos (which drives me absolutely INSANE)....

    36. Re:ad blocker? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Actually that is a good counterargument. Also I extremely rarely buy something that I see on YouTube ads.

    37. Re:ad blocker? by dissy · · Score: 1

      Oh, so I'm a freeloader because I both directly pay the content producers I watch, and apparent DON'T block ads either?

      Good to know

    38. Re:ad blocker? by speedlaw · · Score: 1

      I'm sufficiently concerned that I use a private company for my mail. I could do it for "free", but prefer to pay for my work files not being data mined... You mean there are folks who don't ad-block ? Oh, and yes, I do FF commercials. The second thing I did with my Tivo was to activate the 30 second skip. That alone is worth the monthly subscription fee.

    39. Re:ad blocker? by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      Ethics my ass!

      There are some professions known for ethics, and marketing sure as hell isn't one of them. I'll turn off adblocking when it can be guaranteed that I won't acquire malware in the process.

      No, scratch that. I truly hate most ads. In their current state they are a blight on civilization. 99% of the time they are nothing but an involuntary time waster, like understaffed checkout lines and stop lights. Why the hell should I have to spend several seconds of my precious lifetime in order for some slimy marketer to make a buck?

      Fuck 'em. They can go find something to do that benefits society instead of wasting everyone's time.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    40. Re:ad blocker? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      There's a bit of a practicality problem there -- every website would need to reformat its layout to handle the "has ads" vs "doesn't have ads" contexts.

      And if they don't (and lets be honest, you have to expect that most of them won't,) the adspace will just have to be filled up with something else. So you're essentially replacing one waste of space with a different waste of space.

      I suppose if the different waste of space was at least not a link, it would save the occasional misclick taking you to some BS sales site and having to hit the back button.

    41. Re:ad blocker? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Then they need to give me a way to opt-out of ad-encrusted videos all together. Or better yet, make it an opt-in so that I'm consciously aware that I'm "paying" them by viewing ads.

      If it was money (rather than time) that they just arbitrarily siphoned out of me without my consent, they would be right the hell up shit creek. My time has value as well so why should they be allowed to take it without my consent?

      Even if that's only the couple of seconds it takes me to decide whatever video I'm trying to watch is or isn't worth the 30 seconds of ads, that's still 10-20% of the ad being shown to me -- and in the case that I decide its not worth it, that's a few seconds of my time that I've given to them that I got nothing for in return.

      Add that up over however many thousand Youtube videos a person is likely to browse in a year these days and that's quite a chunk of time blown without my consent and potentially without even the limited benefit to me of watching someone's cat being dumb.

      I don't mind Google's in-line ads. They're usually fairly unobtrusive and they at least try to customize them to the content I'm viewing at the time. But the Youtube video ads are more along the lines of the old Geocities-era flashing crap.. you know the exact same crap that Adsense mostly supplanted -- horribly obnoxious and completely unavoidable other than closing the window (or having an ad blocker.)

    42. Re:ad blocker? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Youtube actually offers quite a bit. I would gladly pay them to remove ads and keep the the things I want and use. The fact that AC needs Youtube all the time, uses an adblocker to get rid of the ads but will not pay Youtube even though they offer him stuff he likes and uses is pretty fucking stupid.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    43. Re:ad blocker? by martas · · Score: 1

      It's technically possible to block ads, it's legal, and I don't like to watch ads

      That doesn't make it ethical to block ads. Look, I use adblock too, so I'm not telling you to stop, but at least admit that it's ethically questionable.

      --
      weinersmith
    44. Re:ad blocker? by martas · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're using machinery that someone loaned you with the understanding that you wouldn't wear safety glasses and then his buddy would charge you to get the metal bits out of your eyes if you got any, then yeah, it's kind of ethically questionable for you to wear safety glasses.

      --
      weinersmith
    45. Re:ad blocker? by orasio · · Score: 1

      Lost of people seem to be happy with adblock.
      Think of it as as server side adblock, at the very least.

      Also, with responsive design and everything, this would be a problem, but not a big one.

    46. Re:ad blocker? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the web developer doesn't have an agreement with Adblock, whereas they DO have an agreement with Google.

      So Google has a higher responsibility to make sure things work "right" than adblock does. If adblock messes up a page layout somehow and you try to bring that up with the page developer they're going to go tell you to piss off. If its Google messing up their page however, things are a little hairier because there's an actual deal in place there.

    47. Re:ad blocker? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > YouTube allows you to watch videos in exchange of seeing some advertisements.

      First, allows, as in "not required."

      > This is the deal that they offer. If you use AdBlock, you drop your part,

      Second: You are failing to understand what a contract is. There is no obligation to something that was never agreed upon in the first place.

      You keep assuming that a user gave their tacit consent to this behavior. That is a fallacy.

      When a user watches a video there is no checkbox to agree to their obnoxious Terms of Service. Ergo, there is no "ethical choice" to be made, because there never was one in the first place.

      > you are being unfair towards the other party.

      Quick, somebody call the wambulance.

      Are you next going to arguing the stupidity of "someone closing their eyes for a youtube ad" is "being "unfair" and unethical" ??

      That horse has already left the barn. Closing the barn doors aren't going to work, no matter how hard they try. Trying to force users to watch ads they don't want is only idiotic and damages the YouTube brand. If their business model is broken and archaic they are being unfair to all their shareholders.

      When YouTube beings to pay my internet bill for _my bandwidth_ for their shitty ads THEN, maybe, they can talk. Until then, they are just wasting my time AND bandwidth.

    48. Re:ad blocker? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      You keep assuming that a user gave their tacit consent to this behavior.

      No, I don't. You are shifting the goalposts. We were talking about what is ethical and what is not. Not about literal agreements.

    49. Re:ad blocker? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > This is the deal that they offer. If you use AdBlock, you drop your part,

      Read what you wrote again.

      You keep assuming there is an obligation, namely, an ethical obligation.

      You are begging the question.

      There is no ethical obligation because there never was an agreement in the first place.

      Your ethical claim is meritless.

  2. I can offer the same thing for free by mlkj · · Score: 1

    Just download an ad-blocker.

    I wonder if they are planning some anti-adblocker measures, or if they are just unaware that their business plan is completely flawed.

    1. Re:I can offer the same thing for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they're safe in the knowledge that while most geeks might use adblockers, the overwhelming majority of the population don't.

    2. Re:I can offer the same thing for free by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      This is sort of true. However I'm seeing a lot of youtube ads lately, but on my TV. Now if I can convince Roku to add an ad blocker...

    3. Re:I can offer the same thing for free by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Google earns all of their money through Internet ads.
      That must mean not everyone uses adblockers.

    4. Re:I can offer the same thing for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I for one cannot wait to see the bloody war of Google vs AdBlock Edge. The only way they can win is to render the ads into the video itself.

    5. Re:I can offer the same thing for free by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You can block them at the router level. I don't have my settings to hand right now, but a quick google should find some suitable HTTP filtering rules.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:I can offer the same thing for free by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > The only way they can win is to render the ads into the video itself.

      The technical term is "Dynamic (content) Ingestion"

      That's what the cable industry does. Want to watch something on demand? Be prepared for a 30 second ad every 20 minutes.

      Fortunately Google hasn't figured this out, yet. They are still probably weighing the pro's and con's.

      That's the funny thing about the internet. Piss the mass community off too much and they will abandon ship for yet-another-site that offers the same functionality without the hassles.

  3. Given that adblock stops ads cold... meh by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    I turn my adblock off most of the time. However sometimes ads are really obnoxious. I saw one that came up on every little video I wanted to watch. The ads were like 30 seconds long and you couldn't skip it... and I had seen the exact same ad 10 times in a row. So I turned adblock on because I was done looking at that ad.

    I also turn it on whenever I really don't want to support the video or site. You know what I'm talking about. Sometimes you need to go to a site and hear them repeat their stupidity just so you know that whomever told you that information second hand wasn't exaggerating. And often as not they weren't and I'm quite happy they didn't get the penny or whatever they get from my click.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Given that adblock stops ads cold... meh by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Google may be testing adblock-blocking. Yesterday and today, Youtube stopped working from any device in my household in the evening. Everything else including other google services kept working fine, and nobody else on the internets seemed to be having the same problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Given that adblock stops ads cold... meh by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      I've tried to turn my blocker off a few times, but ads are so pervasive and annoying that I can't even last 5 minutes and re-enable them.

    3. Re:Given that adblock stops ads cold... meh by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      youtube is annoying youtubers lately. There is a possibility they'll be an exodus if they annoy them enough.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:Given that adblock stops ads cold... meh by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      There are dozens of video streaming sites that would sell both their testicles to have a fraction of youtube's traffic. And lets not pretend that anything youtube does is technically difficult in the 21st century. There are many competitors ready and waiting.

      Soundcloud is a good example. You might also want to look at vemo or whatever that one is called. Some youtubers replicate their videos across multiple services and if youtube really decides to strap razor blades to their cock and rape the community, then they have places to go and they'll leave.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  4. No Thanks1 by dohzer · · Score: 1

    I'll just keep muting the audio and reading another tab until the 30 seconds has elapsed.

    1. Re:No Thanks1 by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Except that all YouTube ads can be skipped after 5 seconds.

    2. Re:No Thanks1 by itzly · · Score: 1

      Then rewind back to the start of the video.

    3. Re:No Thanks1 by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Why?

    4. Re:No Thanks1 by itzly · · Score: 1

      Rewind if you waited too long and the real video already started playing.

    5. Re:No Thanks1 by dohzer · · Score: 2

      Not all. Occasionally I get ones that I have to wait the full ad.

    6. Re:No Thanks1 by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, I remember those now. In Finland ad pool those are extremely rare.

    7. Re:No Thanks1 by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Quit being a shill of ignoring the actual problem.

      Half-assed "solutions" are still "half-assed"

  5. HTML5 by Kunedog · · Score: 2

    Just download an ad-blocker.

    I wonder if they are planning some anti-adblocker measures, or if they are just unaware that their business plan is completely flawed.

    How fortunate that, as a browser maker (along with Microsoft and Apple), they've coincidentally pushed for DRM to become part of web standards.

    And that they obtained considerable financial influence over the browser maker thought most likely to resist (Mozilla).

    And that Mozilla gave in.

  6. Have they not heard by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

    ... of AdBlock?

    Why would anyone pay for this?

    --
    Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    1. Re:Have they not heard by Kohlrabi82 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From my experience and knowledge, browsers on mobile devices don't have ad blocker plugins, and certainly the youtube apps for mobile platforms don't have them. I guess that's the market they're aiming for.

    2. Re:Have they not heard by itzly · · Score: 2

      There's an adblock plus proxy server app that works for wifi connections. I've never looked for a 4G solution. My data plan is only 1GB/month, and youtube eats that too quickly.

    3. Re:Have they not heard by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      From my experience and knowledge, browsers on mobile devices don't have ad blocker plugins

      On Firefox for Android, I use the following extension "Bluhell Firewall" (ad blocker), "Clean Links" (converts those tracking links that embed URLs to actual URLs) and "I don't care about cookies" (gets rid of banners) and my password management tool. Firefox's extensibility makes it hard for me to even consider other browsers.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:Have they not heard by LoneTech · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They have heard of adblock. In fact, when I specifically requested to pay them so they could pay the content creators without showing me ads, they refused and even mentioned ad blocking. Note my motivation in that sentence; this is actually a feature requested by some of us. This announcement got my hopes up just a bit, but it remains to be seen if it's like the offline watching, which was riddled with strange restrictions, never worked properly, and was quietly removed. I see they're still talking about that in the future tense.

    5. Re:Have they not heard by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      I use MxTube on (jailbroken) iPhone to store offline copies of youtube videos I want to watch, there are no ads left there except for the discreet bottom banner in the main menu of the app itself. I have to store the videos because my commute train goes through big no-reception zones most of the time and I only have a 2Gb/month plan anyway, I grab the videos at home from the wifi the evening before.

      I would so use an official Youtube app that would let me store the videos locally, even with the ads. I have no adblock on my browser - if the ads are annoying I just go read something else and never return.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    6. Re:Have they not heard by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Various ad blocker are available for Android. They fall into two categories, those that use passive blocking with the hosts file and those that set up a HTTP proxy running on the device and re-write HTML on the fly. The latter are pretty similar to how AdBlock works, only done in a proxy instead of in the browser's DOM.

      Both work with YouTube. I don't get YouTube ads on my phone.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Have they not heard by TCM · · Score: 1

      Encoding targeted ads in real-time into every video? Yeah, that'll work.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    8. Re:Have they not heard by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone pay for this?

      Because some of us don't take all of the pennies from the "Take a penny" plate, and we don't take all the free chips home.

      Servers cost money to buy, power, cool, and replace. Networks cost money. Getting that cat video to you isn't free, why do you expect that you get to take and give nothing?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    9. Re:Have they not heard by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 1

      [Have they not heard ] of AdBlock?

      Yes we have.

      Why would anyone pay for this?

      Because some people appreciate the value that YouTube and (some of) the content creators that post there provide and would like a safe and convenient way to kick back a few bucks to ensure that everyone involved is able to pay their rent.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    10. Re:Have they not heard by itzly · · Score: 1

      Getting that cat video to you isn't free, why do you expect that you get to take and give nothing?

      I don't expect anything, but as long as it works, I'll take it.

    11. Re:Have they not heard by adolf · · Score: 1

      There is a third category in the form of an Xposed module that eradicates Youtube ads on Android.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    12. Re:Have they not heard by Mahldcat · · Score: 1

      actually they are already doing this (saw this on my mobile, XBox, and PC, they break the video at mid cycle and inject an "interstitial" video ad, and then continue where they broke in....highly annoying

    13. Re:Have they not heard by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      They take a lot more than you realize.

      Unless you're actively masking them, they know what IP you're coming from. Your OS, etc. Their database can run a lookup and determine what your likes / dislikes are based on your browsing habits to other sites where their trackers reside. By visiting YouTube, you are simply giving them even more information about what you like / dislike.

      So, I assure you, they are coming out of this a bit rosier than you give them credit for.

      Don't believe it ? Turn all your counter-measures off and see how long it takes before you start seeing targeted ads.

    14. Re:Have they not heard by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      The same reason people pay for Netflix rather than downloading the same movies and shows from a torrent.

  7. Ultra low usage tier by Quick+Reply · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I like the concept of paying for content to support my usage instead of going through annoying ads, but I don't use Youtube all that often, usually only because someone else has given me a link to something in particular. Those 30 second ads which sometimes lets you skip after 5 seconds and sometimes don't let you skip at all are really annoying. I hope that they give a low-tier option. For example $1 per year which is good for ad-free (or no forced ads) up to 500 videos.

    The most important thing is that I hope that the subscription options are compelling enough that someone would WANT to use it over the use of an Adblocker without any Adblocking counter-measures put in place.

    If it is successful (for consumers) it would be great if an ad-free pass could be extended across any other websites too that participate, not just Youtube.

    I use Adblock because the quality of advertising is too invasive, not because I don't to deprive websites of revenue.

  8. Not for content people upload today by aepervius · · Score: 1

    More likely it is for syndicated or special content only available for paid subscription. IOW, films, tv series, shows, anime & cartoon, presentations, etc.... It is also most probably not in the interest of content producer to suddenly shift behind a pay wall : this would completely dry instantly revenue up. Far more probably some part of the content of higher quality would be behind a subscription, while the lower quality content to bait people would be publicly available.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  9. Re:For Google search too? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    I'd pay for a search engine which is regularly third party audited to make sure no advertising, tracking or logging.

    This search engine may meet your requirements and interest you:

    https://eu.startpage.com/uk/ab...

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  10. No thanks by vinaychittora · · Score: 1

    That was very generous dude. But no thanks, Adblocker works just fine for me.

  11. This doesn't help Partners. by REALMAN · · Score: 1

    Adblock plus negates the need for this service and furthermore the "additional" source of revenue is not really additional. It merely replaces the "monetized view" you would have been paid for anyway.

    --
    - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
  12. Re:TV vs YT by itzly · · Score: 1

    Depends on what a nominal amount is. I've heard $10/month. If that value is per user, I would pay $40/month for a family of 4, which would double my internet bill, just to watch a single website. That's not going to happen.

    How many of these same people have paid a couple of grand for a flat screen TV that broadcasts unavoidable ads for 1/4 of the time it's on?

    I got a free TV from a friend who just bought a bigger one. And I watch TV through a DVR that has a pause and skip button, so I don't see any ads.

  13. Yes, ads are evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Absolutely. Ads are corrupting our society, creating wasteful consumption, creating surveillance infrastructure, etc. Ads are evil.

    Ad blockers help you avoid the most immediate harm from the ads themselves, but they also detach you from the societal harm.

    We need ad blockers that log where the ads come from to discourage you if you ever try to buy anything online that someone tried to advertise to you.

    Just ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

    1. Re:Yes, ads are evil by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

      So, are content providers evil for wanting money for their work?

      This kind of service allows content providers to continue to get money, while at the same time delivering an ad-free experience to users.

      If you don't like ads, but you also don't want to pay for content posted on the web, well, that's not a very ethical position.

  14. Already there for music videos by wbr1 · · Score: 2

    If you subscribe to google play music, you tube music vids are ad free, and you can download for offline viewing on a mobile device. In addition you can finally listen to any youtube video with the screen off.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Already there for music videos by ruir · · Score: 1

      I have downloaded the tube vids for years now. Whats the point?

  15. Re:Stupid-Tax by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Try to look it from the perspective of YouTube too.

    "It's our website and we are paying for our bandwidth, hosting expenses, staff and development costs.

    So no, you are not running AdBlock on your machine. We are not interested in your freeloading.

    End of discussion really."

  16. Re:Stupid-Tax by itzly · · Score: 1

    We are not interested in your freeloading.

    Then stop offering the material on a public server.

  17. Re:Adblockers by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    YouTube ads are only pictures, so there is no malware risk.

  18. Re:Stupid-Tax by McWilde · · Score: 1

    Wait, that can't be right. I am actually running AdBlock on my machine, so it's not really the end of the discussion. I don't see how their paying for bandwidth is giving them power over my machine. Also: by not requesting their ads I'm saving them bandwidth too. They can do whatever they like on their end, but they choose to still serve me and other freeloaders the video streams we request. Apparently they are interested in our freeloading.

    --
    Maybe
  19. Re:Stupid-Tax by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Facepalm...that's how ad-based websites work!

  20. Re:TV vs YT by stooo · · Score: 1

    >> people bitch and moan about YT ads

    Which Youtube ads ?
    I don't see any.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  21. Re:Stupid-Tax by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Why are you trying so hard to not play nice with them? YouTube lets you watch videos for free, provided that you watch these small advertisements every now and then. You are making various complex excuses to not agree with that simple deal.

  22. Re:TV vs YT by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    FWIW I don't have a problem paying for content. That said, I would imagine most people who do as you're suggesting also use a DVR for watching those TV channels that are 25%+ ads, making those ads very avoidable.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  23. Re:Stupid-Tax by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    That's like taking a job and telling your manager: "Gee...I'm not that interested in the work part, can you just pay me salary while I sip mojitos at home?"

  24. Useful in education by pjpII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I teach language classes, and this would be useful since I often use Youtube to show songs, listening exercises, etc. Sometimes I'm forced to use the in-class room computer, and nothing throws off a listening exercise like warming everyone up, getting their mental schemata activated, and then some ridiculous ad immediately preceding a listening. I hope that perhaps my university could get some sort of educational rate, since this is really for my work rather than my personal use.

    I'd also love to make the scourge of autoplay go away somehow - suddenly it's everywhere that shows videos.

    1. Re:Useful in education by cavebison · · Score: 1

      > some ridiculous ad immediately preceding a listening.

      For Firefox or Chrome, use the AdBlock Plus addon.

      > I'd also love to make the scourge of autoplay go away somehow

      For Chrome, google "stop html5 autoplay" there are a couple of addons for that.

      I use Adblock Plus in Firefox and never see ads in YouTube, ever. It's a must-have addon to bring sanity to the Web.

  25. Let's see... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Pay to get ad-free videosa (assuming Google gets the content owners to agree to it)

    OR

    Pay nothing and ignore the ads/use them as guide of who NOT to buy from....

    Hmmmmm.... tough choice (NOT)

    1. Re:Let's see... by cfalcon · · Score: 2

      Actually, that's incorrect. Here's your choices:

      Pay (or someone else does because they like you) to get ad-free youtube (and probably other perks)...

      OR

      Use an adblocker like you should be doing today (advertisements ONLY exist to hurt you, so ofc you should have one)

      OR

      Watch advertisements, have them become part of your subconscious, be more likely to buy things they sell you, be MUCH more likely to respond to your friend mentioning brand X with familiarity (thus rewarding your friend for buying brand X, as they value your presumably useful opinions, even your subconscious ones, and brand X being on your radar is important to them), be MUCH more likely to "join the conversation" about a brand...

      Advertisements are based on the idea that you are willing to spare a bunch of behavior and nerves to help their company AND MOST OF ALL THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS TO BE THE CASE / BELIEVE IT ISN'T REAL / THINK IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU.

      Ads work on you. They work on everyone. They don't pay just so that dumb people will see them, they pay for YOU to see them. You should be using adblock, adblock plus, adblock edge... something... today. Unless you don't value your time or money, and like having corporations make decisions for you (moreso than normal).

      Personally, I'll likely grab their Youtube Gold or whatever. I mean, if I'm going to sit and rant about advertisements (and hey, look, I just did!) I may as well support the business models that don't involve shitting in my mouth, right? But as for you, you should be using adblock today, and whether you like their offering in the future, well, future you will decide that. Likely based on advertisements, snerk snerk!

    2. Re:Let's see... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Wow, pretty narrow view there. I use advertisements mostly as a "what not to buy/who not to do business with" gauge. Sorry to hear you have sucj a weak mind that you buy whatever they tell you to ;)

      I do use ABP, so it's not an actual issue for me with YouTube, but ABP doesn't block all ads everywhere...

    3. Re:Let's see... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of being weakminded. It's a matter of numerous repeatedly verified weaknesses in the human psyche.

      Advertisers feel about "strong minded people who use advertisements to tell you what not to buy" the same way casinos feel about "people who are going to count cards in Vegas". They love em. The number of people who think they are (and thus are more willing to expose themselves) vastly outnumber those who can. Most likely, it means that you get the second most advertised solution. Or the one that amused you the most. Or something. Because you are a human.

      What brand of car did you buy? Where did you buy your clothes? What brand are they? Odds are, these are brands everyone has heard of, Because it turns out that "Jack's Handbuilt Cars" would be really hard to get people to buy, even if they were as good as a Ferrari and as cheap as a Kia. Cause who would know to do it.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Let's see... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Funny, never seen or heard an ad for "Falls Creek" jeans and slacks on TV or radio, just on the shelf in the store, nice try though

      Such a cute little sheep you are,

    5. Re:Let's see... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Funny, never seen or heard an ad for "Falls Creek" jeans and slacks on TV or radio, just on the shelf in the store, nice try though

      Sure you have. They advertise all over - at least - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. I mean, the fact that you don't think they advertise is just an excellent example.

      Oh, you don't believe me? Let me guess, you bought them at Meijer store, right?

      Such a cute little sheep you are,

      I'm someone who knows enough about bias and non-rational decision making that I don't trust myself. How or why that turns into a cliche "sheeple" insult, I have no clue whatsoever.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re:Let's see... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      No response. So you did buy your jeans at a Meijer?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Let's see... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, yeah. Now go be a good little consumer and buy what the TV and computer tell you to...

    8. Re: Let's see... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You don't think it's odd that I could identify where you bought you jeans from the brand name? That apropos of nothing I knew the geographic area you lived in and the common regional chain you shop at? It wasn't random. Falls Creek jeans, which you claim you never saw ads for, has a rielationship with that store for effective and subtle ads. I still don't know why you insist avoiding ads because I know they are effective implies I am a sheep or whatever.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re: Let's see... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Let's see, wealk into store, go to clothing section, see signs saying "SALE!"

      You are a fucking moron, not a sheep like I thought at first

    10. Re: Let's see... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Signs that say "sale" in a store are a form of advertising. All the more so if you're buying the store brand. All the advertising the store does is also advertising the brand. They reinforce that with sale signs, to insure you buy their brand. There would be no reason to be embarrassed about the fact that store ads drove you in, and then you were sold the store brand... except that you think ads don't work on you. I'm just trying to get you to admit that smart people with tons of money to research it, education and experience can influence your behavior (our get you to explain some flaw in what I am saying). Ads work, and being cocky doesn't really change that. Not does being rude to me.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  26. Re:It won't work by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Didn't cable TV start as "Pay money for TV with no ads and no censorship!"

    We all KNOW how that turned out....

  27. Re:Stupid-Tax by itzly · · Score: 1

    The difference is that I signed a contract with my employer.

  28. Re:Stupid-Tax by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    I didn't agree to view ads, why should I?

    No legal requirement, so no obligation either.

  29. Re:Stupid-Tax by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    If youtube wants to stop freeloading, they can detect and ad-blockers and prevent using the site with one, just like hulu and a bunch of other websites do.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  30. Re:Stupid-Tax by TCM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Correction: That's how marketing scum wants it to work.

    As was said, it's my machine. It runs code and downloads data _I_ want, not you. Don't like it? Go invent your own Internet with your own protocols that grant you more control and stop freeloading on the open protocols we already have!

    --
    Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
  31. Re:Stupid-Tax by Wootery · · Score: 1

    No legal requirement, so no obligation either.

    No legal obligation.

    You're still a freeloader.

  32. Re:Adblockers by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    Whenever I get the "please remove my viruses and why is google now some odd page I've never heard of" request, the computer is left with full on ad and flash blockers, with instructions on how to use them.

  33. Re:Stupid-Tax by itzly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No legal obligation.

    No other obligation either.

    But suppose I watch the ads, do I then have an obligation to change my buying patterns, or is it okay to freeload on the creative effort it took to make the ad, and the bandwidth required to serve it ?

  34. Would Google also stop tracking me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If I pay for YouTube would Google also stop tracking me? I see nothing wrong with offering a paid ad free YouTube. But given the history of Google and ads. I would say eliminating the physical ads in videos is only a part of the ad issue. I do not watch that many YouTube video's so for me I would pass on any kind of costs associated with YouTube. I am fine with ads for what little I access YouTube. Although for me the annoyance of ads is far more apparent on small screens like a smartphone then on my notebook.

  35. Re:Stupid-Tax by pla · · Score: 1

    Facepalm...that's how ad-based websites work!

    Yes and no. You have it basically correct, but have omitted a key fact in this particular situation - Youtube can only exist by virtue of the fact that its users give them the vast majority of their content.

    It sounds great, as a business model, to get paid for reselling something you can get for free, but not all of your audience will quietly put up with the fact that they count as the product.

  36. Re:Adblockers by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Proof?

  37. Log into Google? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    To use this, I would have to log into Google and stop blocking Google cookies? And pay money?

    There's a reason I have Sylpheed set to connect to pop.gmail.com multiple times a day. No thanks!

  38. Monetized videos by Toshito · · Score: 1

    So, if I monetize my video and all the viewers pay the monthly fee and don't see the ads, will I still receive money?

    --
    Try it! Library of Babel
  39. Re:Who would? by olau · · Score: 1

    I probably would. I don't have a TV, and when I need to find something to watch with my small kids, it's usually on Youtube, e.g. the renowned Lego Police Chase Part 3. The ads are annoying, especially when you have an angry 3-year old, and we've had some long stretches where adblockers don't work (currently they seem to do).

    Likewise, with two small children I don't really have the time and energy to play computer games, but I still sometimes watch a let's play - it's easier to just watch an episode or two and then fall asleep. For me, it's a bit like watching a friend play a game, except I can turn it on and off as I wish. :)

    I realize for many people, Youtube is mostly a bunch of stupid cat videos, but there are a lot of different niches in there, some of which have high-quality content of a different sort than what you'd find on commercial TV channels. Provided the fee isn't absurd, I wouldn't mind giving something back to the creators.

  40. Re:Stupid-Tax by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

    They wanna have ads reach me, they can put up a static banner and be just as effective, and ABP has an option where those can be viewed without being blocked. At times when I'm on a system without ABP installed, I've yet to see a pertinent ad video that appealed to me. The really funny part is when they show an irrelevant ad video before I can view another ad video that I'm actually interested in watching (usually a movie trailer or tech demo).

  41. It won't JUST be ads- "youtube gold?" by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    Rest assured, google knows that you, I, and everyone else who is slashdotting use adblockers. They know we only see youtube ads at ludicrously rare situations.

    So:
    A premium mode that offers things they can't normally (specifically, anything that involves per-viewer resources that would open them up to DOS style attacks if they allowed it for just any account) is definitely something I'm interested in. And I'm sure free ads would be part of that.

    I bet it's "youtube gold"- something you can gift to commenters who don't call you racist names ("...so, none of them?"), turns off advertising, etc. (based on "reddit gold", a model that reddit uses- google would have their own take on it, of course)

  42. Re:Adblockers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here you go... first 3 hits on asking our favourite search engine:

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/youtube-has-an-ad-malware-problem-heres-how-to-avoid-it/

    http://labs.bromium.com/2014/02/21/the-wild-wild-web-youtube-ads-serving-malware/

    http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/youtube-ads-lead-to-exploit-kits-hit-us-victims/

    No doubt you'll protest that this is so last year and nothing like this could possibly happen in this day and age. So my question to you is... how much are you being paid to astro-turf this thread shill boy? Seriously, shills are usually much harder to spot than this.

  43. Re:Stupid-Tax by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    Except you str ignoring the facts that YouTube was started in 2005 and adverts didn't show up until 2006.

    * The Internet domain name "youtube.com" was activated on February 14, 2005.
    * Advertisements were launched on the site beginning in March 2006.

    And before you whine about Wikipedia, this graphic confirms ads didn't exist at first either.

    Giving something away for free and then switching to "mandatory viewing" is classic bait-n-switch.

  44. Re:Stupid-Tax by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

    Why is YouTube not being respectful of my time?

    > YouTube lets you watch videos for free, provided that you watch these small advertisements every now and then.

    You keep using this word "Free." It doesn't mean what you think it means.

    Free means: "No Strings Attached"

    Not "First you need to fulfill this requirement."

    Quite hijacking "free" and perverting its definition.

  45. Re:Stupid-Tax by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Too bad your opinion doesn't count...

  46. Sorry Google ... F.A.I.L. by stevez67 · · Score: 1

    I can't think of a single thing I see on youtube that I would pay even a penny for.

    1. Re:Sorry Google ... F.A.I.L. by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      i once watched a guide on how to change the screen on my phone. i remember thinking i'd actually pay for that. but that was it. it was about 5 years ago. every other video i could happily live without.

      what makes youtube so ubuquitous is that it's a kind of pastebin for videos. you don't need to care about storage cost even if only 2 people view your video in a year and you don't need to care about bandwidth if 10000 people decide to watch your video at the same time. youtube is just there and ready for any kind of load.

  47. Not everyone's an ass by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1

    Hey, not everyone is. I'm dismayed by the negativity in the comments here, 'cause personally I read this and thought "oh, finally, I can put my money where my mouth is!"

    --
    I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
  48. Re:Adblockers by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

    "Aw yeah, finally, they are adding a non-intrusive way to view Youtube! Now I can disable my adblocker and pay for it instead of seeing stupid ads all the time!"

    Said nobody ever.

    That's funny, since that's exactly what I did for Pandora. AdBlock Plus makes Pandora pretty much ad-free, but when I started using it more I decided that I wanted to support companies which offer a way to pay for their service aside from advertising (which I find completely unacceptable and have no compunctions blocking). Pandora isn't the only company whose service I pay for, but it's surprisingly hard to find companies who offer a reasonably priced subscription model. Many expect you to shell out 50x as much money as they'd make off you via advertising, and even more completely ignore that for an ad-blocking user, their gain via conversion to a subscriber is 100%.

    You adblocker fucks are hypocrites. You DO want a free lunch.

    Ad blockers are simply a form a civil disobedience against the corporate marketing and advertising asshats who are trying to redefine and take over the Internet. It isn't illegal and isn't immoral. The fact that it improves the online experience (your "free lunch") is just a nice side effect.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
  49. There are ads on YouTube? by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

    I never noticed...uBlock must do it's job VERY well.

  50. Re:Ask yourself these questions... apk by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    We've had this discussion already APK. My adblock actually works quite well. Though if matters to you, I do add sites to my hosts file every now and then. I also use the spypot immunization list.

    Your program is likely pretty cool but it is sort of a hassle to install. That is why I haven't gotten around to trying it yet.

    Anyway... regards :D

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  51. Re:AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Please explain how and what is required for the upkeep of the Host file compared to adblocker..say ad blocker edge.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  52. ...but without ads, is Google still 'evil'? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

    If this were to happen, would Google still track your activities at the various sites using AdSense? And if they did - but didn't sell ads based on it, would the "Google is evil" crowd finally accept that Google doesn't "sell your info" to advertisers?

    Once they stop showing you ads, the only reason to track your activity is the original one - to provide you with 'better' (i.e. customized) search results at the main Google site. Those better results also have a revenue generating function for Google - to the extent that some of those results will be search ads, for which they charge the advertiser when you click on them. I suppose they could also let you buy your way out of seeing those too - though I find them useful when I'm actually searching for something commercial...

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  53. Let me see if I got this right by tehlinux · · Score: 1

    So they want me to be logged in whenever I view a youtube video AND they want me to pay them for it?! Yeah right, google!

    --
    Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
  54. Re:Stupid-Tax by martas · · Score: 1
    But the server is their machine. They serve you data under the unspoken understanding that you see their ads. By breaking that, you become the farmer whose cattle graze on public land (so am I, by the way, because fuck ads).

    stop freeloading on the open protocols we already have

    It's semantically impossible to freeload on an open protocol.

    --
    weinersmith
  55. Re:Stupid-Tax by TCM · · Score: 1

    But it is possible to freeload on... publicly served data? You're not making any sense.

    I request, they serve. I can do whatever I want with their data on my machine. There's not even a contract here.

    "Unspoken understanding" in the context of a multi-million dollar faceless corporation. That actually made me chuckle. They're the first ones to break the unspoken understanding of paying proper taxes for example and I'm supposed to let them infest my machine with bullshit? GTFO.

    Go and make me sign a contract or don't serve your shit freely. Easy.

    --
    Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
  56. Re:Stupid-Tax by martas · · Score: 1

    I request, they serve. I can do whatever I want with their data on my machine. There's not even a contract here.

    You seem to be confusing legality and technical feasibility with ethics.

    "Unspoken understanding" in the context of a multi-million dollar faceless corporation. That actually made me chuckle. They're the first ones to break the unspoken understanding of paying proper taxes for example and I'm supposed to let them infest my machine with bullshit? GTFO.

    I don't see what one has to do with the other.

    --
    weinersmith
  57. YouTube just couldn't resist... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    Those dirty rotten filthy stinking pricks have gotten greedy. They saw an opportunity, and they just couldn't control themselves. It started when they just had to have COMMERCIALS in their videos!

  58. Re:Stupid-Tax by Wootery · · Score: 1

    do I then have an obligation to change my buying patterns

    No.

    I've used AdBlock too on occasion, but there is a point to be made that 'overuse' of it would be bad for the web.