YouTube may introduce premium subscription model in the spring
2. cripton805 posted on 29 Jan 2013, 11:38 4 4
I agree. They should make another branch off of Youtube maybe. Like a brother website. Not Youtube though. I will ditch youtube if I start getting money pop ups everytime I try to watch videos.
I already get forced ads that are longer and more annoying every year.
8. bizwhizzy posted on 29 Jan 2013, 12:06 7 9
Oh boo hoo! I get access to millions of hours of video, but I don't want to help Google actually make money to cover the costs of running YouTube by watching an ad here or there), and I sure as hell don't want to REWARD THE CONTENT CREATORS FOR THEIR WORK (with a paid subscription).
I want EVERYTHING FREE! I DESERVE everything to be free!
You guys should be ashamed.
9. MichaelHeller posted on 29 Jan 2013, 12:17 7 1
A bit over the top, but I do agree that content creators should get compensated for their work.
YouTube channel creators should get the choice to monetize as they see fit. Maybe some don't want to put ads on, and would rather have subscription fees. As Google said, content creators have asked for it, so Google is looking into it.
14. cripton805 posted on 29 Jan 2013, 12:40 1 2
Hey Michael. Do you get paid? Does PA get paid? Do you guys charge an access fee?
You make it seem like if they dont make money off of their work. Car dealerships reviewing cars get more customers, etc... Its a media site based on sharing.
17. MichaelHeller posted on 29 Jan 2013, 12:59 3 0
Yes, but ad support isn't the only valid way to do things, and given the DNA of Google and YouTube, I'm simply not jumping to the conclusion that a subscription automatically means a paywall, and an end to sharing.
11. wando77 posted on 29 Jan 2013, 12:29 3 1
Pretty much how I was gonna put it
12. cripton805 posted on 29 Jan 2013, 12:29 0 2
If I get annoying pop ups for money thats good enough. Pop ups and blocks for paid service?
Wth? So double dipping or what?
Lay off and respect my opinion. Youtube has been succesful on advertising and making profit.
I wont be paying to watch a Moto GP channel or Vivo.
From the article... "each subscription from $1-$5 a month" That is per subscription!
I will find it super annoying and frustrating to come across blocked videos over and over again with $1-$5 subscription to subscribe to that user.
That is if this catches on and everyone starts switching to this "Subscription fee"
13. MichaelHeller posted on 29 Jan 2013, 12:40 2 0
YouTube as a whole has only just started turning a profit, but that doesn't say how many content creators are turning profits.
BTW, if you subscribe to cable TV, you pay for the service, and you get served ads. When you go to a movie, you pay to get in the theater, and most movies have some sort of product placement (aka ads). Double-dipping is the way visual media works.
15. cripton805 posted on 29 Jan 2013, 12:45 0 2
Of course Youtube was created for profit, but its been based on sharing and making money on advertisements.
If they want a paid subscriber customer base, they should make a brother website based on subscription fees and channels. Like Hulu for example.
16. MichaelHeller posted on 29 Jan 2013, 12:56 2 0
I understand that it's always annoying when something that was previously free (or ad supported) changes that system, but I just thunk that subscriptions are a good way to make sure creators get paid and not just the distributor (Google).
Besides, we don't know how this would work. It could be that a paid subscription just removes ads, and there would still be the ad-supported option. Or, it could be that the subscription will just be for bonus or extended content.
It just seems a bit early to judge the move, since there are so many unknowns.
18. mikel45365 posted on 29 Jan 2013, 16:02 2 0
if everyone starts switching I guess you'll just have to pay the measly $5 or put up with it...
19. MichaelHeller posted on 29 Jan 2013, 16:18 2 0
A few will switch to it, but there is no chance that everyone will. That's simply not going to happen. Look at news websites. Some put up paywalls, and there are still tons that simply rely on ads. The same will happen with YouTube.
26. cripton805 posted on 29 Jan 2013, 22:12 0 0
Measly $5 per subscription...
29. bon24x7 posted on 30 Jan 2013, 03:34 0 0
Well it was free until Google bought them...So NO..!!
3. blingblingthing posted on 29 Jan 2013, 11:46 0 0
Playstation Network is still free on a basic Level while they do offer a premium subscription service. No need to guess only premium subscribers can watch videos from now on.
4. nb2six posted on 29 Jan 2013, 11:55 2 0
I see this as either a really bad or really good idea, especially in the essence of live events. It could be another step towards actual WebTV. It's probably a pipe dream but I would definitely pay a premium to get live sports streamed through youtube.
5. nak1017 posted on 29 Jan 2013, 11:59 2 0
I'd pay $2/mo to avoid those annoying ads at the beginning of a video, or more if they'd put TV shows or something like that on there (a la Hulu), but changing core features of YouTube itself can only hurt...
6. Fallout09 posted on 29 Jan 2013, 11:59 0 0
I might be game for $1 if it gets rid of those stupid "Your video will start momentarily" and all those annoying ad that pop up when watching videos and all those 15000 embedded link windows layered on top of the playing video.
7. sats.mine2k4 posted on 29 Jan 2013, 12:00 1 0
If youtube can host tv channels at a premium (knowing Google they would charge less than half of what comcast and Verizon do...)...am in...
10. MichaelHeller posted on 29 Jan 2013, 12:18 1 0
Cable providers would never let networks do it, but I'm sure that's Google's dream for Google TV.
27. nak1017 posted on 30 Jan 2013, 01:44 0 0
Networks might not have a choice in the next few years.
Cable providers are becoming less and less relevant, and internet based content is becoming better and better. Wasn't too long ago broadcast networks were the only ones with original content...
20. pongkie posted on 29 Jan 2013, 16:40 1 0
I have like 200 subscriptions on my youtube account. if each of them enabled a dollar fee then I would pay $200 bucks a month? That would be worst than hulu
21. MichaelHeller posted on 29 Jan 2013, 17:02 0 1
Not that there's much chance that all 200 would institute a subscription fee, but I'd assume that Google would also have some sort of all-you-can-eat plan for users like you.
23. pongkie posted on 29 Jan 2013, 17:24 0 0
I hope so if not I would be forced not use youtube at all. Other pre-youtube-pay/view copycat sites will pop up if this happens.
At least they should have started charging by 1 - 5 cents for ordinary youtube channels not 1 - 5 bucks that is just too greedy.
look how the mmorpg are now they are forced to use the f2p model or say goodbye to their fanbase.
22. papss posted on 29 Jan 2013, 17:09 1 0
I never am on YouTube these days but understand that google not only wants to sell my personal info but also wants to charge? Right... I guess we will see what the actual real structuring is when they announce details
24. samsungcaptivateglide777 posted on 29 Jan 2013, 19:25 1 0
Don't worry google will lose revenue from the millions of people who'll stop watching YouTube, they'll pull it with in the first month...
28. scriptwriter posted on 30 Jan 2013, 02:40 0 0
i would pay for youtube but only if youtube would release an update enabling us to multitask with the youtube app. in other words, let us play the audio of the video in the background whilst doing something else.
30. pliskin1 posted on 30 Jan 2013, 23:42 0 0
How about, pay youtube a subscription, and then be ad-free?