I have really, really mixed feelings about this. On one hand I understand that YouTube is a business and Google needs it to at least approach profitability. If nobody watches ads and nobody pays for premium, there's no profit. No profit means the adpocalypse gets worse to make up costs, or else the service gets shut down.

On the other hand YouTube is such trash compared to what it was even just a couple years ago that I also use an alternate front-end.

I don't want it to disappear because I really don't think anyone else has the resources to do what Google has done with YouTube. If we lose YouTube, especially if we lose it and aren't left with access to the data store of existing videos, we've lost an incredible amount of information. Millions of hours of tutorials and good information will be taken away from the world, not to even mention the billions of hours of entertainment. I don't want to lose YouTube and what it means for international informational accessibility. But I'm also not going to sit through twice as many ads as I have video.

I foresee YouTube going to a cable-TV-like subscription only model in the future. I don't like it. But I don't see how else they actually lift themselves out of this hole they've dug.

[–] MewtwoLikesMemes@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I would absolutely no problem with paying for YouTube Premium if it wasn't so goddamned expensive (and was ad-free). Like, seriously, I don't need all this extra crap. All I want is the same old YouTube I'm currently using but with zero ads. And I can't afford it anyway, but even I could I wouldn't pay 15–20 USD for just no ads (the only feature I'd actually use).

[–] Bluetooth@feddit.dk 1 points 4 months ago

Well if you, for instance, lived in Argentina and paid the local price it might just be 1 or 2 dollars. Not that I would know anything about that.

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 8 points 4 months ago

I foresee YouTube going to a cable-TV-like subscription only model in the future

Time to self host videos again, would be kinda cool. And a lot cheaper than 20 years ago.

[–] KingJalopy@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago

You make a very valid point and I actually agree with that. Kind of damned if we do and damned if we don't, I guess. I've had this Convo before for someone who argued I'm only hurting the YouTubers I watch because they receiving my revenue, but I argued if we simply gave money directly to the creators they might do even better. Even if only a small percentage actually paid through Patreon or whatever, but your point remains. Where would they host their content of YouTube went away? I suppose there's no easy solution to this problem and it is awesome to have all that info/entertainment in one centralized place. We need a billionaire who actually wants to do good to step up and just be like, "here world, here's a free server farm for whatever you need it for" but that's a pipe dream at best.

[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I'd be okay with ads I'd they met a few basic conditions

the ad is not a scam
more than 2-5 ads on repeat (give me at least 50 to cycle through)
mid-roll ads placed at natural breaks in the content (preferably set by creator), not in the middle of a sentance.
a proper add to watch time ratio, 10 minutes = 30 sec of ad.
if a video is demonotized, there should be ZERO fuckings ads.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

If YouTube can't be profitable with a single short skippable ad at the start of the video then they shouldn't have presented that as their service in the first place.

I have no sympathy for companies that operate at a loss in order to bring in users/customers and drive out competition, then cry when people don't like them moving away from the non-viable business model they sold them on.