"YouTube Red" Offers Premium YouTube For $9.99 a Month, $12.99 For iOS Users (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader writes: YouTube is launching a subscription plan in the U.S. called Red that combines ad-free videos, new original series and movies. The official blog post reads in part: "On October 28, we’re giving fans exactly what they want. Introducing YouTube Red -- a new membership designed to provide you with the ultimate YouTube experience. YouTube Red lets you enjoy videos across all of YouTube without ads, while also letting you save videos to watch offline on your phone or tablet and play videos in the background, all for $9.99 a month. Your membership extends across devices and anywhere you sign into YouTube, including our recently launched Gaming app and a brand new YouTube Music app we’re announcing today that will be available soon."

Comments

The name is too long

[jandrese]

I suggest they shorten it to RedTube.

Re:The name is too long

[sycodon]

Watch for Google to sue RedTube because of...Tube.

Re:The name is too long

[tripleevenfall]

Watch for Google to sue RedTube because of...Tube.

"Ted Stevens sues Google from beyond the grave for infringement on the distinctive likeness of his "Tube" catchphrase"

Re:The name is too long

[guestapoo]

In Google America YouTube Red!

Re:The name is too long

[s.petry]

I had to read that subject a few times because I kept seeing a redtube offering premium youtube.

Re:The name is too long

[R3d M3rcury]

Nah. Fee Waybill is still alive. He can do it...

Re: The name is too long

[bill_mcgonigle]

No, they'll sue youtube-dl and Xposed now, for cutting into their revenue. "Don't be Evil" is so last month.

Re: The name is too long

[mwvdlee]

It may be evil, but it's also "The Right* Thing".

* "right" as in "far-right extremist".

Fragmentation

[tripleevenfall]

With all the streaming services out there, it seems like the chance of getting any single service that is of very high quality will go down. Will we continue to see content split between many vendors with no place to get everything you want in one spot? Or worse, will we start to see these streaming services start trying to sign more and more exclusivity agreements for content to wall it off for people who use other services?

IMO, the idea of another service offering streaming movies and "new original content" is not an appetizing one. It's another subscription they are asking you to maintain, and how many are cost-cutting cord-cutters supposed to maintain at once?

Re:Fragmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

You cut the cord because you wanted a la carte pricing. Wish granted. Now you get to sleep in the wet spot.

Re:Fragmentation

[Old97]

Make some decisions. There isn't any video content I can't live without. There is more content available than I have the time I'm willing to allocate. So I'll prioritize and buy the content at the top of my list up to the budget - money and time - I've allocated for video content. It's not that hard.

Re:Fragmentation

[Holi]

Too bad my moderation points expired yesterday. Most insightful comment yet.

Re:Fragmentation

[Dutch Gun]

How much does cable cost per month? Probably between $50 and $60 for basic, and a lot more for premium packages. Assuming you're already going to pay for internet service, that's FIVE streaming services you can sign up for and not pay more than a basic cable package. Besides which, that's on-demand and commercial-free service, so I'd consider it a superior product anyhow.

I'm totally fine with this deal. I'm signed up for three streaming services, and it's more TV than I can realistically watch anyhow.

Re:Fragmentation

[sims 2]

Huh? assuming one person.
netflix $7.99/mo
amazon $8.25/mo
youtube $9.99/mo
crunchyroll $6.95/mo

That brings me to $33.18/mo
Still cheaper than basic cable.
And I can watch what I want when I want AD FREE.

Basic cable with 17 channels 11 of which are broadcast stations. Analog only.
$35/mo

Re:Fragmentation

[Harlequin80]

It's not the cost I have the issue with. It is the 100 different interfaces. It's the "is this on Netflix? Hulu? HBO? Damn I can't remember."

Re:Fragmentation

[dslauson]

...how many are cost-cutting cord-cutters supposed to maintain at once?

One. Or zero. Or five. Your choice. That's what the free market is all about.

If I didn't know better, I'd say it sounds like you're arguing against competition. If that's your thing, then just pay your money to Comcast or whoever, and ignore all the others. For myself, I'd prefer to use Netflix for now, and then if I get bored of their content, maybe try Hulu for a while, or Amazon, or maybe a couple of 'em at the same time...

The point is that I get to choose. I won't be choosing YouTube Red unless they bring more to the table, but I still welcome them to come and try to compete for my business.

Re:Fragmentation

[sims 2]

Roku seems to have that figured out better than the others. However I refuse to use a roku as looking at ad's on the main screen reminds me I am being screwed.

Re:Fragmentation

[Beat The Odds]

It's not the cost I have the issue with. It is the 100 different interfaces. It's the "is this on Netflix? Hulu? HBO? Damn I can't remember."

That's not 100, it's 3

Re:Fragmentation

[aaron4801]

But is that really any different than "is this on NBC? TNT? AMC? Damn I can't remember." As long as the service is supported on my player of choice, switching streaming channels is not terribly different than switching broadcast channels.

Re:Fragmentation

[zlives]

right.... because its not working out the way you thought it would!!

Re:Fragmentation

[Coren22]

Tivo does it well too, but it is quite expensive.

Re:Fragmentation

[Your.Master]

Yes it is. Different channels, sometimes with overlapping content, are offering their own services for separate prices, all of which can be ultimately displayed by the same end hardware.

That's exactly what a la carte pricing is. As opposed to bundles, which are many channels, or pay-per-view, where individual episodes or possibly TV series are charged for but not a channel of content.

Re:Fragmentation

[Your.Master]

It is when the search & selection interface differs greatly between Hulu/Netflix/HBO.

I like the Roku interface because it lets you cut through those distinctions and jump straight in, while also allowing you to navigate each service individually. I'm sure there are others that do the same (somebody mentioned tivo, somebody else mentioned a chromecast app).

Re:Fragmentation

[Your.Master]

It actually is. A la carte pricing, in TV terms, always referred to charging for individual channels. And channels were mini-bundles.

Re:Fragmentation

[Harlequin80]

Really? You wanted me to list all of them? Here you count - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Fragmentation

[danbob999]

With all the streaming services out there, it seems like the chance of getting any single service that is of very high quality will go down.

Good. We need more fragmentation, because it means more choice. The problem isn't fragmentation itself, it is the closed platforms such as Netflix. We need an open platform able to receive content from any distributor.

Re: Fragmentation

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is one of the hidden costs of supporting the copyright system - privatize the gains, socialize the losses. Good government, have a cookie.

Re:Fragmentation

[Harlequin80]

It is because with cable you have a centralised interface. You can usually go to the channel guide page, select the show you want and have it record it for you, or at the very lest pop up a notice when your show is about to start. When you are in Netflix you can't see what content is on Hulu or HBO etc. So it makes everything more cumbersome.

At the moment I have a kodi setup on ubuntu which is controlled solely by a remote control plugged into my tv. To get netflix functionality into that essentially means dual booting it and having a kb somewhere near it. The only support for netflix in linux is to run it in a browser so the amount of processor overhead goes up. It gets more and more messy if you want HBO with certain versions of flash not having the DRM signing included.

I appreciate that I can work around all of these issues, but when you have such an easy elegant solution in kodi for offline media it is hard to stomach the drawbacks that the streaming solutions bring.

I would almost be willing to pay a subscription to an aggregation service that gave 1 polished interface for all the services I had signed up to.

Re:Fragmentation

[MobyDisk]

Plus $30-50/month for the internet access itself. That brings you back to the price of premium cable.

Re:Fragmentation

[mjwx]

It's not the cost I have the issue with. It is the 100 different interfaces. It's the "is this on Netflix? Hulu? HBO? Damn I can't remember."

Yeah, is that on channel 9 or 10 or Fox 8 or Disney or whatever.

Much like TV, this will be sorted out in time when someone builds a search aggregator for the various providers.

The biggest problem they have is the fact that Hulu, HBO and others aren't offered in countries where there's a lot of people who write very good software just for fun in their spare time.

Re:Fragmentation

[BoogieChile]

I don't know about the other services, but certainly with netflix, it's also multiple users over multiple devices, simultaneously. No extra charge for a second box.

Re: Fragmentation

[Dutch Gun]

It will be "fine" for a while, then when cable has sufficiently declined in popularity, the streaming prices will increase and the ads will begin to flow like water.

You think? That's one of the good things about the fragmentation - those multiple services are competing with each other. The problem with cable is it hasn't had much competition. In many areas of the country, there's only one cable provider, so they can pretty much charge whatever they please, and that can be a lot. And the streaming options for pro sports are either ridiculously restrictive or absurdly expensive, so sports fans are often limited to cable.

If streaming services start ratcheting up the prices and shoving ads in my face, I'll unsubscribe, simple as that. I went years without cable before streaming was viable for me, and if things go south with streaming, I'll kick them out of my house as well.

Re:Fragmentation

[Darinbob]

We wanted ala carte pricing but did not get it. Netflix is not ala-carte. Hulu is not ala-carte. Amazon is not ala-carte. This new youtube is not ala-carte. Ala-carte means we get one show to pick, or maybe four shows at max. Then we can mix and choose. That ala-carte per show should be much cheaper than $8-10 a month. The problem with picking multiple streaming providers is that you get an enormous amount of overlap. Most of the shows on Netflix are probably on the other services as well.

But may you mean ala-carte is "per channel". But streaming services don't really have the channel concept. What Roku calls a "channel" is an entire streaming service, some pay, some free, some convenient to use, some are inconvenient. But they're not the same as old style channels. So I get 95% of what want to watch is on Netflix for $8/month, but for that other 5% it means I pay another $8 or more just for one program, with no chance to try it out first to see if I like it, etc. So I skip that other 5%, I tell myself I didn't really want to watch it and besides I've got a decade of backlog to catch up on anyway.

Granted, after all is said and done, subscribing to four different streaming services is still much cheaper than subscribing to cable!

These new shows created exclusively for one particular service or another I can skip. I don't care enough for them to subscribe to a completely new service; just like I would never subscribe to just HBO for that one show where main characters die off at random and regular intervals. If streaming services all start migrating to exclusive original content and stop supplying the bulk of the content which were developed somewhere else, then I think they're going to have problems in the long run.

The new youtube service sounds pointless. You can already filter out the ads. And the quality on youtube is so extremely low to start with. User made videos, almost all amateur or wannabe pros (who get a few cents every now and then), low quality stuff overall. It's too huge a price to pay per month for something of so little value.

Re:Fragmentation

[Darinbob]

The ads are minor. Especially compared to in-your-face crap like Youtube. Roku only have ads for what is available on Roku. When I point out that HBO has ads I find a horde of fans telling me that I'm wrong because it only shows ads for its own shows. So if HBO gets off the hook for ads then Roku should get off the hook, and those Roku ads are much less intrusive than HBO ads because you're so rarely on the main screen.

However the 100 different interfaces problem applies to Roku also. There is no common interface. Netflix works one way; it has a look and feel, it remembers what you watched, you create your own playlist, etc. Pop over to other "channels" and they're different, some have no playlist at all, most won't remember any history of what you watched, etc. And while Roku lets you search across channels it's somewhat pointless since 99% of the hits are all expensive purchases; it doesn't have a global playlist or wishlist, etc. Netflix will sometimes send me an email when there's a new season of a show I watch, Roku never does that but it keeps sending me mail about expensive movies or premium subscription services.

But it's ok for Roku I guess, it does what it's supposed to do, provide easy access to various services in an inexpensive box with a remote control (none of that Chromecast your-phone-is-your-remote crap).

Re:Fragmentation

[Darinbob]

In a way yes. Because when I had satellite, my Tivo would tell me what channels things were on. It would even track when a program moved to a different channel. The same interface applied to every single channel.

Re:Fragmentation

[gfxguy]

Not if you're going to have internet access anyway. In fact, adding functionality to the internet service you're already paying for just amortizes it more across more uses. Not that I'm taking sides on the issues, here - I still find it easier to DVR everything and rarely use my Netflix or Amazon (for movies, anyway) subscriptions... but, like too many people, I'm just paying for all of it, so I'm just a big sucker.

Re:Fragmentation

[Harlequin80]

When there is a combined aggregator then yes the problem is solved. But it isn't the same as 9, 10, fox 8 etc as if you have foxtel you have an EPG which lets you browse all the channels you aren't having to log in to one, search, log out, log in to the second, search, log out etc etc.

While you only have 3 or 4 it is fine. But once you start adding more and more providers it starts getting painful.

Re:Fragmentation

[AK Marc]

Much like TV, this will be sorted out in time when someone builds a search aggregator for the various providers.

Like http://www.rabbittvplus.com/ ? You search for what you want. It embeds it if it can, or redirects you to the lowest-cost content provider that offers it.

Re:Fragmentation

[dgatwood]

Yes it is. Different channels, sometimes with overlapping content, are offering their own services for separate prices, all of which can be ultimately displayed by the same end hardware.

That's exactly what a la carte pricing is.

No, not really. True a la carte pricing doesn't generally allow for overlapping content. As soon as you have overlapping content, you aren't a la carte. When I go in a restaurant and order a la carte, I can order a burrito, or I can order a taco, or I can order both. As soon as there's an option that includes both a burrito and a taco, if there's another option that includes a taco and a chimichanga, that's not a la carte. It's bundled.

Similarly, what we have now are basically glorified cable companies, just over the Internet instead of over a fixed physical wire. One might provide shows from two networks, and another might offer shows from three networks, and both might overlap by one. As a result, you're forced to pay for two separate instances of one network in order to get content from all four. That's not a la carte; it is very much bundled.

Worse, unlike cable companies (which rarely originated their own content), these companies create their own original content in addition to aggregating content from other sources, which means the only way to get all the content is to essentially have more than one "cable" company, with massive overlap between them. That's pure insanity.

If Amazon provided a Subprime streaming service that provided only their original content, that would be true a la carte pricing. They would never do that, though, because then they would have to actually compete with Netflix instead of trying to convince everyone that they absolutely need both, even though the two services have something like sixty or seventy percent overlap.

Similarly, if Netflix let you choose which TV networks' shows to include, so that you could exclude the ones that overlap with Hulu, that would be true a la carte pricing. Of course, the networks don't want this, because they like getting paid twice for the same content, so they'll fight any attempts at true a la carte pricing with predatory licensing agreements.

So no, we do not have a la carte pricing in any meaningful sense of the word. What we have is market fragmentation with massive overlap and major gaps in coverage from each of the various providers. That's not the same thing; in fact, they're pretty much polar opposites. :-)

Re:Fragmentation

[KGIII]

No. I cut the cord because television sucks and I never watched it so it was useless to keep around. On the other hand, I did this quite a while ago. I've only actually had television for a few short periods of my life. Well, connected television. I have a TV but I don't get any stations. I am not sure there are any available? I have one here in my hotel room but I've only turned it on twice - there wasn't anything on. I've got the internet. Why would I need TV? I've got people to help, people to talk to, and a person right here in the room with me (she's sleeping) if I get too bored. I don't have time for TV but I do like passive documentaries playing in the background or as I sleep. The internet is great for that.

Re:Fragmentation

[dgatwood]

No, it's actually the exact opposite of what we asked for. Channels are mini-bundles of content, true. However:

• If I buy access to three individual TV channels in an a la carte fashion, although there might be some overlap of older, syndicated shows, I can be reasonably assured that there will be zero or near-zero overlap of new content (unless two of those channels are Disney and ABC).
• Netflix and Amazon Prime and Hulu, by contrast, are more like entire cable companies. They each try to carry as much new content as possible. So there's a huge overlap of new content. It is mostly the older, back catalog content where these providers differ greatly.

In fact, the new companies are effectively doing exactly what the old companies did—creating relatively expensive packages of content from dozens of different networks, in an all-or-nothing fashion. The only real difference is that now, each of the individual cable packages comes from a different company, and there's no "give me everything" option without paying for the same content twice.

Re:Fragmentation

[dgatwood]

We have that now. It's called iOS 9. Developers like Netflix and Amazon and Hulu just have to make their content searchable using Core Spotlight.

Re:Fragmentation

[GNious]

kat.cr and done?

Re:Fragmentation

[antdude]

You forgot live sports. :P

Re:Fragmentation

[stephanruby]

You should get an Android TV then. The indexed content of all those apps is available through one search box (or one voice search).

Re:Fragmentation

[Harlequin80]

Really? Any particular ones you would recommend?

Re:Fragmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand his frustration but this is the a la carte pricing we wanted. Did anyone think we would be able to just pick and choose different channels or services for really cheap?

I cut Comcast out of my life completely and now I just pay for a cheaper and more than adequate DSL connection and Netflix. I think HBO would be worth paying for too but between Netflix and all the content that I can view for free (from non-copyright infringing sources) I haven't even bothered to torrent anything since Breaking Bad ended.

There are shows and movies I wish I could see but more and more I'm finding I could see them if I were to pay a relatively small fee and more often than not it's not worth it. I can wait to see it. It will be available somewhere in the future. While that isn't true of many older titles I'm not too worried about the things I'm missing right now and want to see disappearing anytime soon.

I'm not really finding the wet spot all that bad.

Re:Fragmentation

[AmiMoJo]

You don't really need to subscribe to them all for 12 months of every year anyway. I subscribe to Netflix for a month a year, and during that time I can easily get through the two series I'm actually interested in (Daredevil and House of Cards).

That's the advantage of on-demand services. No need to subscribe at the time of year when they are broadcasting what you want, for months on end while they spool episodes out once a week. A month is all you need, even a weekend is enough to binge through a short series.

Re:Fragmentation

[danbob999]

Last I checked, iOS is not open. It is the most closed and locked-down mobile OS out there.

Re:Fragmentation

[beanpoppa]

In actuality, you could get Netflix, binge watch all the shows you want to over a period of a few months, then cancel netflix and get huluplus, binge watch all the shows on that service that you want for a few months, repeat repeat repeat. There's no reason to maintain an active subscription to all of them at once.

Re:Fragmentation

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

And it's not important for a content-viewing device. Do you also complain you can't change the software on your cable/satellite box?

Re:Fragmentation

[plague911]

No its still bundling. Just smaller bundling. If I want GOT and Hannibal and I can have two services. One provides GOT and The Black List while the other provides Hannibal and The Black List I still have a imperfect bundle situation. "a la carte" is if I had one services that provides all three but I can pick which ones I pay for.

Re:Fragmentation

[godefroi]

Absolutely agree 100%. We need a standardized VOD platform/api/whatever. Then, start signing me up for all these.

Re:Fragmentation

[macs4all]

Ad free *for now*. You know what else charged you money to be ad-free? Cable TV. You'd pay a fee and there'd be no ads.

Anyone remember just how long *that* lasted?

Let's be real honest here. Youtube wants to charge us 10$ a month to give us what they used to give us for free. The ads won't be far behind, just more targeted thanks to subscription.

Exactly!

I have talked about the "Remember when Cable TV didn't have ads "Because that's why you pay for it" with several friends old enough to remember when. No one has a good explanation except "greed" as to why that changed.

But speaking of RedTube, or YouRed, or whatever it's called: Why are iOS users being dissed in the pricing model? Did Apple give Google the middle finger when they came calling, asking for a license fee or somesuch?

Anybody have a rational explanation for this? Does this mean I soon won't be able to stream YouTube videos on my Macs and iOS devices; or that I will be forced to suffer longer and/or more Ads?

I guess Google needs to change its catchphrase to "Be as Evil as Possible".

Re:Fragmentation

[danbob999]

Do you also complain you can't change the software on your cable/satellite box?

Hell yes. I despise them. Also, they serve no purpose. I'd rather have the cable directly connected to my TV, and one less remote.

Re:Fragmentation

[balbus000]

how many are cost-cutting cord-cutters supposed to maintain at once?

One.

Rotate through the streaming services. Pay for a month of Youtube, then cancel it. Pay for a month of Netflix, etc. Most of the popular services have more than enough programming to keep you occupied for the full month. Doesn't work for Prime though, because you have to sign up for a year at a time. Bonus savings if you skip a week or two in between having a service active.

I also buy current seasons for a few shows I care about and get to watch them the day after they air. Overall, it's much cheaper than having cable.

Re:Fragmentation

[sims 2]

Suddenlink removed the tv guide channel have to check online now to see what's on.

Re:Fragmentation

[sims 2]

1amazon $8.25/mo
2cbs $5.99/mo
3hbo now $14.99/mo
4hulu $7.99/mo
5netflix $7.99/mo
6crunchyroll $6.95/mo (not on the wikipeda list?)
7youtube $9.99mo

If it requires a cable sub or does not charge a subscription fee I did not include it in this list if I missed any please let me know.

This was written yesterday while /. was 503

Re:Fragmentation

[sims 2]

Wish ours would go digital only the analog part of their system is falling apart and they aren't bothering to fix it some of my channel's flash on and off every 30 seconds or so and have been for the last year or so. Mostly required carry broadcast stations. We have 2 cable co's in town both still offer analog even though neither should.

Unless you want to count twitch I've never bothered to look to see if any of them had any sports content.

Also all prices I quoted were before taxes and fees.

$34.95/mo gets you a 10mbps down uncapped fiber connection here.

Never used any service that charged extra for use on a tv however I have never been able to get google play to work on my tv for any price.

Streaming quality? Sd is fine for ipad and my 48" 5 year old plasma tv maxes out at 720p anyhow. Otherwise 10mbps should be enough for hd for at least one person on any of the services I mentioned. Just be sure your provider isn't oversold so badly your connection ever dips below 5mbps.
If you can't watch netflix in hd at anytime of day its time to switch.

With my current cable co I can get 15mbps cable added for $35/mo more so basic (17ch) and 15mbps $70/mo with usage cap

If I switched companies I could have 10mbps and expanded basic with 60 or so channels for $81.95/mo uncapped.

This was written yesterday while /. was 503.

Re:Fragmentation

[Harlequin80]

I think you only counted US options. Immediately in AUS I add.

Presto
Stan
Quickflix
Foxtel
Fetch

Re:Fragmentation

[bingoUV]

Sometimes you just have to accept the analogy has broken down and start talking about the real stuff. Such times have come. Here it is all about the granularity of the a la carte.

Both burrito and taco contain many common ingredients and some common tools are used to make both - so that is not a la carte either.

Re:Fragmentation

[Tukz]

Never watched a single episode, and I'm still alive.

* In before "that's not living".

Re:Fragmentation

[dgatwood]

Last I checked, iOS is not open. It is the most closed and locked-down mobile OS out there.

It is open in the "anyone can write software for it" sense of the term, and in the "all of these streaming companies already support these platforms" sense of the term. And I think Google has a similar API for Android.

My point is that the last thing we need is some new web-based open platform. We already have all the platforms we need. In ten years, I doubt that a significant percentage of video streaming will still involve the web. It's a terrible experience compared with native apps. And the major mobile OSes provide app search APIs already.

Re:Fragmentation

[danbob999]

We don't want dozens of applications and a single "search" field that allows to search within all of them. What we need is standardized APIs for delivering video content, so that a single application can list from many different sources.
Such application could be open source, and the API wouldn't be controlled (or even approved) by Apple, it wouldn't require an Apple product to watch its content, it wouldn't require a Mac to develop, and it wouldn't require paying Apple any developer fee.

Re:Fragmentation

[dgatwood]

Why? The main problem, as presented, is having a single place to find content, with links directly to the video, without having to worry about what app it is in. With minimal changes, the content distributors (Netflix et al) can make that possible. With a little effort, they can probably even provide a way to provide structured data for things like TV shows, with seasons containing episodes, though that may require enhancements to the API. (I haven't looked at the API very closely; if it doesn't provide sufficiently rich structure, that's what enhancement requests are for.)

By contrast, there's vanishingly little benefit to having a single player UI, because most of the time, users never even touch the actual player UI except to pause playback occasionally. Solving the search problem (and, potentially, the browsing problem) is trivial. By contrast, a unified player is unlikely to ever happen because of DRM requirements from the content providers.

Re:Fragmentation

[danbob999]

Why? The main problem, as presented, is having a single place to find content, with links directly to the video, without having to worry about what app it is in.

Nope. The problem is not to find content. The problem is to see what content is offered. I don't want to browse dozens of different applications just to see what is new and what I could like.

With minimal changes, the content distributors (Netflix et al) can make that possible.

Netflix is not going to list content from competitors. Anyways we can't trust a single corporation with this task.

By contrast, there's vanishingly little benefit to having a single player UI, because most of the time, users never even touch the actual player UI except to pause playback occasionally.

Again, you forget the browsing. That's an important part. Often my wifi watches a movie we already have on Netflix. Why? Because she was browsing Netflix and it was more convenient to re-download a movie we already have than to switch to the other application / optical disk player.

Solving the search problem (and, potentially, the browsing problem) is trivial.

If so trivial, why doesn't it exists?

By contrast, a unified player is unlikely to ever happen because of DRM requirements from the content providers.

It doesn't need to be an unified player, but we need an unified content browser (not only a search field). It could be acceptable if it launched the content provider's application, although I would prefer a single player because it will be faster, and having dozens of different UIs to change audio language suck.

Anyways DRM suck, and content is still pirated from Netflix (House of cards is pirated as soon as it releases on Netflix and nowhere else), so this is a bad excuse.

Re:Fragmentation

[nbritton]

So what you need is a search engine for media?

That's weird...

[Anonymous Coward]

I already enjoy Youtube without ads.

Re: That's weird...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are probably in for a nice surprise soon.

Re: That's weird...

[Darinbob]

On my PC with adblock I never see youtube ads. With youtube on my TV though I do see ads. And amazingly annoying stupid ads. "You can skip this commercial in 6 seconds..." Stupid because often I can skip them before the movie trailer even gets off of the logo for production company. Some of those ads are so annoying that I just stop and don't continue and never watch the actual video itself. I'm sure I can configure some router to block all these ads but that's a hassle.

Recently, CBS started demanding that I watch ads when I see Big Bang Theory, stating clearly that I need to stop using adblock. They are long ads, no fast forward like you can with a DVR, even if I switch to another window to browse the web while waiting I still hear the annoying audio in the background, then once the show start up I have to rewind it a bit. All the annoyance of old school TV but without the mitigating effects of DVRs and VCRs, and added annoyance that it is only available on computer and not on my TV. So yes, it's a show I like and I may stop watching it altogether because of ads.

$9.99?!

[N1AK]

I have no issue with Google trying to launch a premium video service but I'm really surprised by the price point. When Netflix is $8.99 (I think in the US) and Amazon bundles its service with prime for $99 I can't imagine Google is going to be providing a service that is worth notably more than either of these quickly.

Re:$9.99?!

[SirMasterboy]

Netflix is actually $9.99 in the US now.

Re:$9.99?!

[governorx]

The price point does seem astronomical. I think price point reflects more the potential income loss for google per subscriber (from ad revenue) instead of a real market value for amateur video.

-govx

Re:$9.99?!

[sims 2]

In April 2008, the number of videos on Youtube was 83.4 million.

Compare that to number amazon/netflix or hulu may quote. Not one of them has even 1 million....Not even combined.

Re:$9.99?!

[governorx]

Yes there is quite a bit more cheap crap on youtube than on netflix. What is your point?

Re:$9.99?!

[sims 2]

$7.99 gets you one netflix SD stream

Re:$9.99?!

[Dutch Gun]

Apples and oranges. Not all videos are created equal. Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu have full TV shows (entire series) and movies. Youtube has a bunch of user content I mostly don't give a crap about.

I currently subscribe to three different streaming services (in lieu of cable), so I'm not averse to paying for content. It just feels like they'll need an awful lot of premium content to catch up to the other services for that price point.

Re:$9.99?!

[sims 2]

It's much much easier to find things to watch for hours on youtube than netflix. Even if its lower quality stuff overall.
My point is any exclusive content is just thrown in crap it's not the selling point.
Like amazon's prime instant video and prime music service they both have a crap selection and poor recommendation service. Amazon prime is selling 2 day free shiping everything else they throw in is just junk....
Think prime members will get ad free twitch someday?

Re:$9.99?!

[lgw]

Apples and oranges. Not all videos are created equal. Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu have full TV shows (entire series) and movies. Youtube has a bunch of user content I mostly don't give a crap about.

I spend enough time watching stupid user content on YouTube that I wouldn't mind paying a subscription, but not at $10/month! There's just less content there, and less quality. At $5/month, it would be appleaing.

Re:$9.99?!

[Darinbob]

They grandfather people in on the earlier price I think, though I suspect they'll bump that up eventually.

Re:$9.99?!

[SirMasterboy]

Yes, they bump them up next year.

But the point is both services for new people right now is the same.

Re:$9.99?!

[Darinbob]

That's a huge amount of ad revenue for one person over one month using only youtube. Either there's are a lot of people out there highly influence by ads who spend an enormous amount of money, or they're inflating how much a view of a 3 minute video is actually worth. In one month I am not generating $10 in additional profits just because I watched youtube, I didn't change my laundry detergent, I didn't buy a new car, I didn't go see any movies, I didn't try a new brand of beer, etc. The big purchases where it might matter are rare and I do my own research before buying.

This all feels too much like the broken economic model during the dotcom era, the "new economy" where they valued each advertisement view much higher if it was on the internet versus views from radio, television, or print. I think companies are overpaying the advertisers and they're not measuring exactly how much they gain from each dollar paid out to an advertiser.

Re:$9.99?!

[Darinbob]

So? 83.3 million of those Youtube videos are garbage that aren't worth watching.

Re:$9.99?!

[Darinbob]

Seriously? I can find stuff on Netflix easily. Search by title, author, etc. I don't have to filter out the top 25 hits for being irrelevant like I do on youtube. Netflix gives me suggestions of things I might like and it's not too far off (though often it's things I've already seen prior to Netflix). Youtube is still convinced that I want to see some Kanye video just because it's popular amongst other people who aren't like me. I watch some game videos, then Youtube thinks I want to see a thousand different minecraft videos for some stupid reason. My friend at works says to watch this funny video, I watch it, am not amused, then Youtube thinks I want to see more of that junk.

Re:$9.99?!

[N1AK]

I think you're rather missing the point; the choice isn't between Youtube and Netflix, it's between Netflix & Youtube vs Youtube Red. I can already see all that Youtube content on Youtube for free, what's my $9.99 gonna get me that makes it more appealing than Netflix.

Re:$9.99?!

[byornski]

Both use cases are Taylor Swift

Re:$9.99?!

[thisisauniqueid]

If you read TFA, you'll know that for $9.99/mo, you get (1) YouTube Red, (2) YouTube Music, and (3) Google Play Music All Access. It's a pretty darned good deal compared to the competitors.

Re:$9.99?!

[AmiMoJo]

There is a lot of good stuff on YouTube. Not the stupid "reaction" videos and crap like that, but things like DIY/woodworking, electronics, music lessons/chat, retro gaming... Basically anything hobby related, there is someone who has done some interesting videos about it.

Having said that, I wouldn't pay $9.99 for it, especially when blocking YouTube ads is trivial.

HBO started like this

[turkeydance]

pay us...no ads...well, until we change our minds.

Re:HBO started like this

[Smidge204]

I'm old enough to remember the entire premise of "Cable TV" was that you paid a monthly subscription to get ad-free television.

=Smidge=

Re:HBO started like this

[bws111]

You're apparently old enough to be senile, because there never was such a time. The original cable TV (60s) was just retransmission of OTA broadcasts, including the ads. The 70s introduced premium channels like HBO. They didn't, and still dont, have ads. The 80s brought 'superstations', complete with ads, and 'cable-only' channels like MTV, which had ads from day one.

Re:HBO started like this

[Darinbob]

HBO has ads though, it advertises its own shows! You may not call them ads, but that's what they are even if you're already a subscriber.

Re:HBO started like this

[raymondcamden]

I'm not disputing what you are saying, but what would you recommend they do between shows? For example, movie 1 ends at 2:38PM and move 2 starts at 3:00PM.

Re:HBO started like this

[seinman]

Hardcore pornography would be my recommendation.

Anywhere you sign into YouTube?

[laie_techie]

Your membership extends across devices and anywhere you sign into YouTube

If that's the case, why do they charge more if you use iOS devices?

Re:Anywhere you sign into YouTube?

[ADRA]

Because clearly:
  1. Apple takes a cut of recurring revenues, so YouTube passes the cost on to the consumer
  2. YouTube thinks Apple people are sheep who will surely pay extra for the same thing everyone else pays less for
  3. All of the above

Re: Anywhere you sign into YouTube?

[ustolemyname]

It's only more of you subscribe through an iOS device, as they must use Apple's built in in-app purchase hooks (as opposed to other platforms where you can connect to a third party payment provider).

Re:Anywhere you sign into YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube thinks Apple people are sheep who will surely pay extra for the same thing everyone else pays less for

I mean, they already do that every time they buy an iDevice.

Re:Anywhere you sign into YouTube?

[dslauson]

I kind of like the 30% iOS premium, if only because it makes it more visible that Apple is taking 30% off the top on services sold through their App store, which is pretty exorbitant, IMO. Google trying to pass that along to the consumer directly is kind of ballsy in that regard.

Of course, I'm not planning on using this new service, and I don't own any iOS devices, so I have no skin in the game there.

Re:Anywhere you sign into YouTube?

[Trolan]

Alas, Google takes the exact same 30% on apps and IAPs. They're just willing to eat it on their own platform for their own service.

https://support.google.com/goo...

"For applications and in-app products that you sell on Google Play, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the price."

Everything loves jumping on Apple for the 30%, but misses that it's the norm.

Re: Anywhere you sign into YouTube?

[0123456]

I think the people who flock to Apple's products have already proven your second point by overpaying for second rate hardware.

We're not paying for the hardware, we're paying for the software. My Nexus tablet has much more powerful hardware than my girlfriend's iPad, but the Nexus is far more sluggish because of Android's software overhead that requires much more RAM and CPU for the same performance.

Not to mention that I still can't download Android 6 to get any meaningful security permissions on the Nexus.

Re:Anywhere you sign into YouTube?

[Trolan]

Because they want to stick it to Apple. Whereas Netflix opted to eat the 30%, Google would rather recoup it. Additionally, whoever wrote the article is being a little disingenuous, since Google takes the same 30% on app and IAP sales. They can just ignore that for Red as it's their store, their service.

Re:Anywhere you sign into YouTube?

[TheRaven64]

Google Play also takes a cut. Of course, Google doesn't care because it's just going to a different bit of Google. Antitrust regulators may have a different opinion, as this is a cross-subsidy between business units, where Google is the dominant player in both markets and is attempting to use their influence in one market to affect another.

Re:Anywhere you sign into YouTube?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

4. A dig at apple reminding consumers of the App Store cut.

I don't agree with #2, i think the "Apple Sheeple" trope is just that, a trope. Removing that, the list above collapses to just 1.

Of course Google has a cut of anything sold on Google Play,but is willing to eat that cut, or take it out of pretend revenues from Irish leprechauns or something. (not that Apple doesn't pretend the iPad was invented by Irish Leprechauns, for tax purposes)

Re:Anywhere you sign into YouTube?

[laie_techie]

1. Apple takes a cut of recurring revenues, so YouTube passes the cost on to the consumer

Apple famously (infamously?) takes an uncompromising 30%. And, adding to your list, don't forget that YouTube is owned by Apple's largest competitor in the mobile space (from a software perspective). It is very convenient that Google also get's to paint a major competitor as the expensive option.

What happens if we sign up from our laptops and access YouTube from our iDevice?

"phrasing!!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

youtube red... redtube

Nah, no one is going to mistype it and get a surprise.

Re:"phrasing!!!"

[thegarbz]

Reminds me of the days of mistyping www.hotmail.com. At least that's what the kid the class claimed.

Re:"phrasing!!!"

[nvm_my_comment]

in the late 90s' www.whitehouse.com was porn as well.

Translation:

[r-diddly]

Guaranteed secure monthly income for us, without worrying about having to sell ads.

This is how it starts

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon it's going to be just like tv. Pay up for crap we don't want to see, and watch 20 minutes of commercials for every 1/2 hour show. The ads are only gone until they have their subscriber base. Then the ads will come back and anyone not subscribed won't be able to use youtube at all. I've seen this movie before.

Re:Already do those thanks

[sims 2]

I Would love to know what you use for batch downloads.

Red+

[dysmal]

They should have gone with YouTube+ which makes a lot more sense (anyone notice Google is trying to distance themselves more from G+?). This minimizes confusion with RedTube and the uproar when "innocent" kids go there "accidentally" instead of YouTube Red.

Re:LOL

[pr0fessor]

I was thinking this meant it would start giving me a please disable your add blocker or purchase a subscription message.

YT will also remove videos that don't play ball

[vivaoporto]

A better headline (and interestingly missing from ./ summary) comes from techcrunch: YouTube Will Completely Remove Videos Of Creators Who Don't Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

YouTube made its top video creators an offer they literally couldn't refuse, or they'd have their content disappear. Today YouTube confirmed that any "partner" creator who earns a cut of ad revenue but doesn't agree to sign its revenue share deal for its new YouTube Red $9.99 ad-free subscription will have their videos hidden from public view on both the ad-supported and ad-free tiers. That includes videos by popular comedians, musicians, game commentators, and DIY instructors.

It's a tough pill to swallow that makes YouTube look like a bully. Though turning existing fans into paid subscribers instead of free viewers could earn creators more than the ad revenue, forcing them into the deal seems heavy-handed.

Google says the goal is to offer consistency, so people thinking about subscribing to Red don't have to worry about their favorite content not being available in the ad-free service. But there's no explanation why it couldn't just flag videos of those who don't sign the deal as "Not On Red", and instead had to go with a sign-or-disappear strategy.

According to Chief Business Officer Robert Kyncl at today's YouTube Red launch event, 99% of content consumed on YouTube will be still available, noting that the vast majority of creators signed the deal. But they didn't have much choice, otherwise they'd lose out on both the previous ad revenue, the new subscription revenue, and the connection with fans.

Re:YT will also remove videos that don't play ball

[cayenne8]

A better headline (and interestingly missing from ./ summary) comes from techcrunch: YouTube Will Completely Remove Videos Of Creators Who Don't Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

Did this "offer" go out to just the YT partners that make a LOT of money? I have a monetized channel but never received this notice...nor anyone else so far that I know that has monetized their YouTube channel.....

Re:YT will also remove videos that don't play ball

[Kjella]

From Techcrunch:

But there's no explanation why it couldn't just flag videos of those who don't sign the deal as "Not On Red", and instead had to go with a sign-or-disappear strategy.

Really? They expect Google to sell YouTube Red as the ad-free* version of YouTube only to have paying subscribers find that their favorite channel opted out? I'd be totally pissed if this was only 50% or 80% of YouTube because it would feel like Google was double-dipping by charging you a subscription and showing ads at the same time, it's not like you'd get a rebate watching non-Red videos. It's like learning that your all-you-can-eat buffet is actually only half of what's on the table and the rest is extra. As long as the new revenue model isn't more skewed in favor of Google, I'm totally in their corner. I'm not sure if freelance journalists ever have revenue sharing, but imagine they do and the newspaper decides to go from an ad model to a subscription model. You expect the freelancers to have a say? To have a right to have their articles published in a "free" paper piggybacking on the rest? Hell no. The business model is changing and you can either be part of that or the business partnership is ended. It's hardly the time for Darth "Pray that I don't alter it further" Vader.

Re:YT will also remove videos that don't play ball

[r-diddly]

"It's a tough pill to swallow that makes YouTube look like a bully." I know huh? Good thing YouTube and Google are totally not bullies though, otherwise acting exactly like one might be mistaken for being one.

Re:YT will also remove videos that don't play ball

[TranquilVoid]

Agree, but removing the videos seems excessive. If they opt not to sign up for the Red model, they could just be moved into the same category as the average person's cat videos, where Google put their own ads around it and you get no cut.

However, I imagine this might be contractually difficult for the same reason they can't automatically put everyone on Red deals.

Re:YT will also remove videos that don't play ball

[gnupun]

It's a tough pill to swallow that makes YouTube look like a bully.

So are these "partners" going to see 1 cent from this $9.99 subscription plans? It's not clear from the post...

Re:YT will also remove videos that don't play ball

[dgatwood]

Yup. This is the difference between doing the right thing [for their bottom line] and not being evil.

April Fools Day? Or did Marissa jump ship?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> YouTube to launch TubeRed, not to be confused with RedTube

My only two thoughts are 1) Are we celebrating April Fools' Day early? and 2) Or is Yahoo's CEO now running YouTube?

Either way, this is dumb and funny on many levels.

Holding basic features hostage.

[KerPow]

Offline video, background playback, and music/audio only are features that are relatively trivial and are frequently implemented by third party YouTube players. It seems they are launching this in a poor way by even including these as "features."

Ten Ways To Make a GREAT YouTube Video!

[sycodon]

1. Sound. Make sure it is waaay too lound or waaay too soft. Keep'm guessing.

2. Make sure your camera jiggles everywhere. Clear pictures are way over rated.

3. Make sure the action takes place right near the bottom. that's where Google places its Ads so we can't see anything.

4. Put up lots of those stupid text boxes with links to stuff we should watch instead of what we wanted to watch, subscribe messages, or even better, just be fucking blank.

5. If do just one of the text boxes, make sure it's right where all the action is so people can't see.

6. If you do multiple text boxes, cover the whole screen with them. If you are really good, you can do them so hat we can't close them.

7, Make sure your Title is completely unrelated to the actual content. Misleading is even better.

8. If you do something controversial, turn off the comments so we can't tell you what a fucking ass you are.

9. If possible, have the video go for about 5 minutes before whatever we wanted to see shows up.

10. Use a thumbnail with pictures of tits. Everyone ALWAYS click on tits.

Re:Ten Ways To Make a GREAT YouTube Video!

[Spy Handler]

You didn't mention the biggest one: hold the phone vertically while filming so the viewers sees a vertical video with lots of empty space to the left and right. This is a must.

Re: Ten Ways To Make a GREAT YouTube Video!

[bill_mcgonigle]

why can't your monitor handle rotation? Is it a 60lb VGA display?

Re: Ten Ways To Make a GREAT YouTube Video!

[serviscope_minor]

why can't your monitor handle rotation? Is it a 60lb VGA display?

Well, no, but it does have a keyboard attached rather firmly to the bottom if it which makes rotation a little awkward.

Re:Ten Ways To Make a GREAT YouTube Video!

[Darinbob]

11. Start and end each video by reminding viewers to subscribe and to watch your hundreds of other misleading videos.

Re: Ten Ways To Make a GREAT YouTube Video!

[Darinbob]

I tried rotating the monitor, but then the picture was on its side.

Re:Ten Ways To Make a GREAT YouTube Video!

[KGIII]

You need Magic Actions for YouTube. Also, AdBlock Plus. You can get rid of all those annotations, set a default bit rate, etc... It's pretty good, actually. I believe there's a Firefox version. I use Opera and I know there's a version for Chrome.

Re:Ten Ways To Make a GREAT YouTube Video!

[macs4all]

Reminds me of an old skit (don't remember if it was SNL or MadTV) where they were parodying MSNBC at the time with more and more overlays appearing on screen, at one point a newsreader stops and says "Can we get The Terminator on here as well" and then continues reading the news with a giant overlay of the T-800 obscuring most of him.

It was SNL. The sketch was called MSNBC News Force. I remember the sketch vividly. It was hysterical. Here it is.

Re:Already do those thanks

[Harlequin80]

Flexget can be configured to handle them.

Uh, Youtube Had This Before Google

[Kneo24]

So they're essentially going back to Youtubes roots, just that they're charging for it.

Buffet style, not ala carte

[swb]

I would argue that the "ala carte" model we're ending up with (at least 6+ streaming services) isn't really ala carte, but more like buffet style. It's all you can eat, but not every buffet serves every item you want, so you have to buy multiple buffets to get a meal.

I'd rather see them come up with per show or per movie pricing, where I pay for every episode or movie I actually watch.

I suspect that even at the inflated Amazon (non-prime) Instant or iTunes pricing, it's getting to the point that unless you have a shedload of time to watch TV, you'd probably be better off not subscribing to a streaming service at all and just buy the content you want as you watch it. At least then you'll only be paying for what you actually watch and not subsidizing (again) the equivalent of 100 channels with nothing on.

Amazon Instant and Netflix seem to have gotten worse in terms of movie selection. I use the hell out of Prime, so I don't care (as much) about it Amazon Instant, but if my kid didn't watch Netflix I would consider dropping it entirely. Plus I seem to remember where Netflix lost/didn't renew a distribution deal with somebody lately, taking away another block of content, leaving even more D grade movies. I occasionally find myself suckered into one them by the description and I'm often baffled how such awful content gets generated with what often amounts to pretty decent production values. It's like they paid for everything but writers, director and actors.

Re:Buffet style, not ala carte

[sims 2]

Buffet style is actually much more correct. I think I will call it that from now on.

I can't ever seem to find anything on prime that I want to watch but like you I use the 2 day shipping constantly so it's easily worth it. Netflix has a much larger selection of things I like.

I take advantage of the $1 no rush shipping credit on things I don't need in a hurry. So I usually have enough to rent a couple of movies on amazon instant every other month or so. I read through the leaving netflix selection every month I haven't missed anything I wanted to see yet.

I doubt the price of the amazon instant videos will go down anytime soon but I wish more of them were available for rental. Most of the newer releases are purchase only.

I also want to find a service that will let me convert all my dvd's and blurays to digital copies for a reasonable rate.
Keeping in mind I only paid $1 each for my dvd's and $2 each for my blurays. Buying second hand saves quite a lot.

Re:Buffet style, not ala carte

[Harlequin80]

Is there any particular reason you don't just rip them yourself?

Re: Buffet style, not ala carte

[HappyDrgn]

I had around 600 or so DVDs and blurays when we switched to all digital. I ripped them myself, but it was a long and painful process! If there was some service I'd do that in a heartbeat.

Re: Buffet style, not ala carte

[Harlequin80]

Fair enough. I had a similar number. I ended up just having a dedicated machine that did it. Pulled the name directly from the dvd / bluray and passed it through handbrake. I would just come in, see the disk was ejected and drop the next one in....

I don't think you will find a provider as it probably counts as commercial breaching of copy protection schemes and I would expect falls foul of any safe harbour / fair use provisions.

Re:Buffet style, not ala carte

[swb]

Can handbrake rip copy protectet blurays?

I kind of liked having a digital library of my DVDs, but when bluerays came around it got much more complicated. I had been using a combination of dvdshrink and/or dvddecoder to rip DVDs, and then handbrake to make m4v, but blueray got complicated and I sort of gave up.

Re:Buffet style, not ala carte

[ucfjeff]

Rip with MakeMKV, recode with Handbrake. It is a bit of a pain, but it works.

Re:Buffet style, not ala carte

[Harlequin80]

I use AnyDVD by Slysoft. It removes the copy protection from the DVD / BR and lets handbrake have full access.

Google (in some areas) has universal media search

[Phil Urich]

It's not the cost I have the issue with. It is the 100 different interfaces. It's the "is this on Netflix? Hulu? HBO? Damn I can't remember."

The recent update to the Chromecast remote app for Android includes universal search, so you can just search there and then click on whatever comes up and it'll launch that over on your TV or whatnot. I can't really go into any more details than that because for some dumb reason (and this is sadly routinely the case, for example with the YouTube subscription service being talked about here) it isn't available in Canada. You're in luck if you live in the US or UK, though, or happen to live in the part of North America above the main bulk of the United States that's labeled "Alaska".

Good videos don't have ads

[tomhath]

The videos I watch are the amateur productions of interesting stuff. Professionally produced videos that have ads always seem to be clickbait fluff anyway.

Re:Good videos don't have ads

[Jesrad]

Professionally produced videos that have ads always seem to be clickbait fluff anyway.

CrashCourse ? MinutePhysics ? Vsauce ? I think you might have taste issues, or we don't have the same definition of "professionally produced".

Google's 30% is less encompassing than Apple's

[Phil Urich]

Alas, Google takes the exact same 30% on apps and IAPs.

Well, that's kindof true; note the exact wording though, "applications and in-app products that you sell on Google Play". If an app uses a non-Google Play mechanism for in-app purchases, it doesn't apply, and unlike Apple they don't (last time I checked) have a policy for their app store against publishing apps that offer non-"official" methods of IAP. Apple does have such a policy, though, so app developers can't opt out of the 30% overhead.

This is why the Android Kindle app allows purchasing directly within the app, but on iOS you have to use the web browser to buy books. Amazon isn't willing to pay a 30% overhead, and on Android they can choose to forgo the provided APIs and use their own infrastructure for purchasing within apps, but they can't on iOS.

Re:Tired of this shit...

[Merk42]

That's 10 cents per video, this is $10 for "unlimited" a month. Unless you want to deal with the CC charges of a micropayment of .10 for every single video you play, it's not really comparable.

Maybe instead of (or as an option to) subscribe. You'd have a credit of $X and every video you watch would chip away $.X. Run out/low and refill.

Re:Region Locking is stupid.

[erapert]

Have you asked your government if there are any laws that make it onerous, unprofitable, or unreasonable for companies to provide service to your country?
I hear Australia has similar problems getting electronics for reasonable prices and getting video games which might depict violence.

No more need to ad block!

[Merk42]

Because the only reason you all block ads is security, right? With this model, you'll totally pay the subscription so as to not have ads, right? You wouldn't continue to keep blocking ads because the real reason you do it is because you all feel self entitled to free content and just use the security/privacy of ads as a scapegoat for your behavior, right?

Re:No more need to ad block!

[Darinbob]

This is youtube. It has had no worthwhile content in the past, and it's not about to start now. Youtube is free content now because that's the only thing it is worth. $10 a month is ridiculously expensive for something of such low quality and value.

We use adblock because of security AND because we find ads annoying AND we find advertisers to be evil leeches who suck blood while contributing nothing in return (and I won't apologize for insulting your chosen profession).

Re:No more need to ad block!

[AmiMoJo]

Depends, does paying to get rid of ads also stop all the tracking and profiling? And do I watch enough of it to be worth paying $9.99/month, or was I blocking more like $0.10/month of ad revenue and they want a 100x increase?

Re:No more need to ad block!

[Merk42]

Where did you get the "$0.10/month" figure?

Re:No more need to ad block!

[AmiMoJo]

It's a guess based on typical internet advertising rates, the fact that I always mute and then skip ads as soon as they allow etc.

Re:Google (in some areas) has universal media sear

[Harlequin80]

Interesting. But unfortunately I am in Australia. Which means chromecast suck ass and is completely crippled to the point of being useless.

And this is the best Google can offer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is generally famed for hiring the best, and this is the BEST they can come up with?
YouTube Red? Hello? Are you f_cking kidding me? Even RedTube was cleverer (except it was taken.)

Still cheaper

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

$10 dollars for a couch potato is still cheaper than a branded bottle of lube.

The Big Pay Off for Making Mozilla Their Bitch

[Kunedog]

No, they'll sue youtube-dl and Xposed now, for cutting into their revenue. "Don't be Evil" is so last month.

As I said last time this came up, browser-integrated DRM is as much about ads (especially for Google) as it is about content. Stopping you from reading/recording a video stream necessarily stops you from altering it.

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

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.

Damn, am I ever so happy (as always) that the proven tech leader was ousted as Mozilla's CEO in favor of the former head of marketing.

Re:The Big Pay Off for Making Mozilla Their Bitch

[gl4ss]

I thought it was always blatantly obvious why google decided to put money into creating a browser.

it was just around the time adblockers were starting to look like they might ship by default on some popular browsers - at that time it would have only needed IE and firefox to start doing that and it would have been a disaster for google adwords(since then ms has dabbled in the search and advert biz too..).

also, thats why they were paying mozilla to not make firefox better in the ways that it could have been better(instead of adblocking they decided to ship with friggin skins)

Re:The Big Pay Off for Making Mozilla Their Bitch

[dave420]

It's about having your company's browser able to run the sites and services people want to use. If they don't support DRM the users will use a browser that does. Pushing for DRM isn't a bad thing in itself, as as long as we have commercial content providers providing the content, the choice is either "Their content with DRM" or "No content". As soon as content providers stop crapping the bed every time the discussion turns to not DRM-ing their content, browsers will be less likely to have it.

I guess if that teach leader CEO spent more time being the CEO and less time actively funding organizations which seek to deny basic human rights, he might still be there...

Strawman argument

[Okian Warrior]

Really? They expect Google to sell YouTube Red as the ad-free* version of YouTube only to have paying subscribers find that their favorite channel opted out?

Um... I think he meant that paying subscribers would see no ads, but non-payers would see the ads as normal.

I can tolerate ads on YouTube because I can ignore them, but it's never been worth that much to me.

The signal to noise ratio is very low, and on top of that you will have to deal with Google's tracking and harvesting your information.

For $10 a month I can do without YouTube.

saving videos

[kdayn]

"..while also letting you save videos to watch offline on your phone or tablet and play videos in the background."
I am already doing that before viewing any lengthy video to avoid any interruptions, I wonder if they will change the way playback is working to prevent that, rigth now I just open page info->media and viola!

Re:saving videos

[goose-incarnated]

"..while also letting you save videos to watch offline on your phone or tablet and play videos in the background." I am already doing that before viewing any lengthy video to avoid any interruptions, I wonder if they will change the way playback is working to prevent that, rigth now I just open page info->media and viola!

It plays a sound recorded from a stringed instrument? :-)

Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the techcrunch article "YouTube Will Completely Remove Videos Of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal", and I have to say that it actually seems to make sense to me.

Basically YouTube wants the service to be "consistent" (to use their word). If content providers are allowed to say "No, I want people who pay for Red to still see ads when they watch my content," that would undermine the entire service. You pay for Red, and then you go to watch and you get an ad. Wouldn't you be pissed off? YouTube can't simultaneously guarantee you ad-free service AND let some creators show you ads anyway, can they?

Creators are losing the ad revenue from those views, but it's being replaced with direct revenue from YouTube. I guess the only question is whether this is more/less/the same. Assuming it's more/the same amount of revenue, what's the problem? Am I missing something here?

Not much loss

[Chris Johnson]

The funny thing is, more and more I'm seeing Youtube 'broadcast quality' decline to shit tier. I'm not sure what the criterion is for being allowed decent transcoding, but I do think it's getting rarer and rarer.

So you end up with all the garbage ever, and even if there's something good somebody made, it's probably being bandwidth throttled to death.

Abandoning YouTube is becoming not much of a loss. I can put on a simple DVD and it's shocking how much better it is. Perhaps this is the fate of all streaming, especially free consumer streaming where the consumer's actually the product for a declining advertiserbase.

0. Purchase a VGA webcam and desklamp

[Not-a-Neg]

Keep it old skool with a VGA webcam and a desk lamp for lighting. For added effect keep your door open just enough for your cat to walk into the room and jump up on your desk to walk in front of the camera. Also, wear headphones, big ones!

Re:0. Purchase a VGA webcam and desklamp

[beastofburdon]

I'll second keeping the door open for the cat. I only watch youtube for the cats anyway... (almost not joking, the internet only exists for porn, cat pictures, and cat videos)

But will my purchased videos disappear ?

[frog_strat]

I am not against this option since 99% of my screen time is youtube documentaries. But I had purchased two years of the Moonshiners series, and last I checked they are gone. And good luck trying to get any customer service.

I'm the target demographic

[Jesrad]

I've been waiting for precisely this kind of subscription-based thing from Youtube, with cross-device, ad-free, offline playback, for more than a year. Unfortunately I was expecting less fluff (I care little for the premium content) and half the price tag.

"weâ(TM)re giving fans exactly what they want

[wardrich86]

But they're charging for it... so it's nothing at all what I want. I don't need another subscription service, either. These things are wallet leaches.