495
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
495 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
4019 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is disappointing. I was thinking of subscribing since I heard content creators got paid more per premium view, and $10 didn't seem like a bad price. ~~But if this is the second price hike in a single year, that definitely gives me pause.~~
This is not the second price increase in a year. This was a misunderstanding on my part. I'm still uncertain on the $14 price point.
Youtube will never give their content producers a fair payout. Just get Nebula.
I have Nebula but it kinda sucks. Content is too narrow and too US focussed. I really want a YouTube alternative but until they start to let more creators on the platform, not sure this is it.
Nobody can afford to be a YouTube alternative. Upload whatever you want, as large of a video file as you want, entirely free for everyone (costs no money, not freedom free)? Nobody can afford to do that. If someone wanted to make something similar to YouTube without the resources of Google, they'd need to at least limit uploads. Potentially even charge for uploads. But this would be punishing for new creators, especially if their broke. Except new people are exactly who need the strictest limitations, because random people could use it as personal video storage, like many do with YouTube.
Then there's the matter of making money. Trying to get enough advertisers would be a pain in the ass, content moderation would be a nightmare and very costly however you decided to do it. If you tried to just make the platform a paid platform, then you're highly restricting viewership. To try and make a YouTube without Google's resources is nearly impossible. I'd love for it to be done, but not enough people care either. Most people who just say "why not just use YouTube" just like that insane masses sticking with Reddit.
I tried a trial a long time ago, and perhaps things have improved, but there was so little content on there that I didn't find any value in supporting it so broadly.
I've instead remained subscribed to YouTube Premium and make monthly contributions to four creators I especially like. (I especially love Climate Town, that is top notch content!)
This isn't the second price jack. There was one price increase, and then there is now the phasing out of grandfathered users. All users will have to pay the new price (which hasn't gone up again). Not defending YouTube, but just pointing out there isn't another price increase
Thanks for this, it made me go back and read through a second time. Just to explain my confusion, the article states that the price went up from $9.99 to $13.99 earlier this year, however, users that were subscribed through Google Play Music or YouTube Red were able to keep getting the old price for a little while longer. Then the article mentions "$9.99 – or even $7.99 – grandfathered users will now pay $13.99/month for YouTube Premium starting in January."
Somehow, my brain interpreted this all to mean that there was a $7.99 to $9.99 increase in July. I think maybe I was thinking that because it's odd to have an article about an old price increase. But really, the article is about the end of the grandfather period for Play Music and YouTube Red subscribers. All other users already had the price increase.