YouTube Red, Music Key, Google Android Play Music All Access Subscription, etc.
Don't get me wrong, the actual service they provide is good, and Music Key (advert free YouTube music videos) was a nice value add. This too will only expand Music Key into other videos.
I do worry a little bit that long term Google Music subscribers will wind up seeing price increases to pay for YouTube Red. If all I want is JUST Google Music, then all I should have to pay for is JUST Google Music, and that is fine today as there are no price increases, but ask me again when the first price rise is announced a few months from now.
Okay, I'll say it. When I see "Red" and "Tube" so close together, my mind jumps to the porn site, RedTube. They can't possibly have been ignorant of this
I don't know how many marketers you know, but the ones I know would be perfectly comfortable bringing this up. It's kinda their job to know about this sort of thing.
Matt Cutts' wife used to pass out "porn cookies" if anyone found porn with safe settings on. Google's culture is very permitting, so I don't think it's much of a problem.
It won't be a problem - Alphabet will just "make them an offer they can't refuse" and within a year, RedTube will re-direct to Youtube Red. (The offer being, let us buy your domain name for a reasonable price, or we'll sue you out of existence.)
lol on what grounds could Google possibly sue RedTube? They don't own the word "tube", which has been a reference to television since the beginning. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
"In a Q&A session with reporters Wednesday at YouTube Space Los Angeles, company executives were asked if they were concerned that consumers would confuse their new YouTube Red product with RedTube, an online porn platform.
“We did a lot of consumer testing, so we were comfortable with it,” Robert Kyncl, YouTube chief business officer, said of the name."
Yeah, they may be comfortable with it in consumer testing with people familiar with YouTube, but what about the people who never remember what anything is called and say things like Faceplace for Facebook, or Foxfire or "The Internet" for Firefox? If YouTube Red becomes popular (which I assume is something Google wants), you know these same people will be calling it things like TubeRed or RedTube.
Maybe Google is ok with watching the awkwardness that will ensue, since it probably won't cause them any monetary harm.
Then I have to wonder what RedTube thinks about this. Mistakes could result in a lot of extra traffic, but is it worth it? I believe they're owned by the same company that owns 5 or 6 other similar sites, so maybe they won't be too concerned.
The web was already there once, like whitehouse.com, see the Wikipedia entry:
"Part of the controversy about whitehouse.com was that users (especially minors in most cases) wishing to visit the website of the White House (www.whitehouse.gov) could easily go to the adult website instead."
In a professional setting, in the context of a marketing/naming discussion, I doubt anyone would have a problem saying "that's too close to the name of a popular porn site". Nobody whose humor has grown past a 12-year-old's will respond to that with "and how exactly do you know that?"; it's the job of the people in that room to know about myriad brands and products that they may or may not use, and the connotations of various names.
This way of thinking reminds me of when everyone was shocked that Apple would call a product the iPad, dooming it to forever be mocked with feminine-hygiene references.
My immediate impression from the name (after I re-read the header and realized this is not about RedTube) - is Google/YouTube entering the adult video streaming market?
I believe Music Key at this point is dead (Youtube Red replaces it). Music Key was only ever in beta and not ever fully launched (as it was invite only). So as far as I'm aware there are only 2 music/video subscriptions now: Youtube Red and Google Play Music.
* The opinions stated here are my own, not necessarily those of my company.
> I believe Music Key at this point is dead (Youtube Red replaces it). Music Key was only ever in beta and not ever fully launched (as it was invite only). So as far as I'm aware there are only 2 music/video subscriptions now: Youtube Red and Google Play Music.
Substantively, it seems that their is just one, with two different names: the announcement indicates that YouTube Red will include Google Play Music subscription, and vice versa, and the pricing is the same, so essentially there is one audio/video subscription service.
Different websites on different urls with different giant Javascript application, also different mobile apps, and built by different Google business units. So two services.
Similarly, I can't believe the iOS App Store is still heavily under the iTunes umbrella (at least online, I don't really use iOS enough to know what the device experience is like).
Really I was speaking more of the website than iTunes itself. If you browse the App Store online it's all under the iTunes website (with plenty of iTunes branding thrown in). It makes no sense.
Google decided to rename Android Market to Google Play and along the way decided to rename the siblings apps as well :
Google Play Movies
Google Play Games
Google Play Books
Yep, maybe Bono has a trademark he can enforce? Seems like it was definitely a differentiated brand a while back which (YouTube)RED is now trying to piggyback on.
> Why not make it simple for people and just use one name?
Because YouTube Red is a brand targeted at people who are using YouTube now and want it to be ad free. Google Play Music All Access is a side benefit for that audience.
(Conversely, Google Play Music All Access is an existing product targeting people who want unlimited music streaming -- while the music use of YouTube is somewhat relevant to that audience, ad free YouTube viewing isn't a core benefit to that audience; so with the YouTube Red coming on board and including, and being included by, Google Play Music All Access, you've got one substantive product with two different brands targeted at different audiences.)
Weren't they trying to divide YouTube from "Google" as well, this kind of doesn't help, but I would either have gone with YouTube Plus or Play Plus, seeing as others pointed out "Red" and "Tube" sounding awful together.
> Weren't they trying to divide YouTube from "Google" as well, this kind of doesn't help
It might, in the long term. The next step after expanding the services offered under Google Play Music subscription and adding a new name for it (without immediately disrupting anything) might well be retiring the old name, moving the whole audio/video streaming product area under the YouTube brand.
I still feel like I'm the only one who thinks Surface Book sounds awful. Microsoft could of done one of those things where they just call it what it is and put "Microsoft" in front of it, Microsoft Book, but Microsoft Surface Book, even just Surface Book sounds weird to me. Maybe it's just me though.
Also, if Youtube Red wants to become some kind of Netflix competitor down the line, expect even more draconian "anti-piracy" moves from Youtube/Google to please the MPAA (which you just know they are going to ask for them before they make any deal).
> And any creator who doesn’t sign the deal for YouTube Red will have their videos on the ad-free old-school YouTube hidden from view. That’s pretty harsh.
So YouTube is saying if you don't join their new subscription plan they will just not display your videos on YouTube?
Edit: Just heard back. Yes, this is exactly what happened, and it's now going into motion. If you are a YouTube creator and you don't agree to be a part of this new service, your channel will removed and your videos won't appear in search results. In other words, all of your videos are made "private" and you're pretty much dead.
My understanding is, if you don't sign the deal, your videos won't show for people on the ad-free site.
How else could you implement this? If I buy a subscription for an ad-free site, it can't mean that it's ad-free except for videos posted by people who haven't signed the contract.
Looks like they are actually strong arming everyone into allowing the ad free version so this outcome does not happen...I understand their reasoning, but is also pretty hostile at the same time. I would definitely allow it, and can't think of a good reason not to, but not giving people a real choice could be a problem.
No, it means that to avoid the situation you just subscribed YouTube forced everyone to agree to be on the subscription plan or they'd effectively be kicked off of YouTube
If I were a content producer, I don't think I'd like that policy, but as a consumer, it makes the service more usable, since I know that anything I can see on the ad-supported Youtube site would be available on the paid site.
Much better than the model that cable TV uses where when I look at the channel guide I can see all of the channels, including the ones that I haven't subscribed to, and it's not until I try to watch a show on one of them that I discover that I can't see it.
If they agreed to share ad revenue, continue to share ad revenue. Subscribers don't see ads, so no ad revenue to share. Sign up to share subscription revenue at your convenience.
This was big news when it was first announced in 2014. This launch has been long in the making, you can find lots of articles that cover the complaints independents had about having their videos removed:
There was discussion here based on the contract presented to Zoe Keating. If you search her name here, there are a few articles that come up. Or, conversely, you could reach out to her and she may be willing to speak to her experience and understanding. (Note: I do not have any personal or professional relationship, I just followed her story somewhat as it was relevant to my status as an independent as well)
Zoe's seemed to be more about music specifically. As far as ads, she was going to be forced to have ads, not forced to remove them. http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i... Maybe this isn't the only thing she's written about YouTube though.
From what I understand, this only applies to people who are making money by displaying ads on their videos. So if you want to continue to make money on YouTube videos, you have to sign the new terms.
Just curious, but isn't this an understood risk as a publisher when your reach is almost entirely controlled by a single company? Do you guys have a Plan B if Youtube shuts you out?
It means that videos by "partnered" creators who had their videos on the old ad-free site will no longer be shown, until they are migrated over to the new ad-free site by agreeing to the deal.
The sentence in the article is just ambiguously worded.
This isn't the first time Youtube has dramatically changed their terms, and forced creators to basically accept them or leave, though... so it is pretty easy to assume the worst when it comes to Youtube.
Lol, HN literally came out with the "avoid excessive negativity" rule later that day, but I admit HN is an often-bad habit I keep getting sucked into.
And as far as Grasswire goes, we're doing 500k uniques per month at this point, so even getting on the front page of HN wouldn't really move the needle for us. I mention it occasionally when I think it's relevant, but that's a tiny minority of my HN use.
Fair enough, but I'm pretty sure you missed the implication that I intended, as in you're perfectly fine with coming to HN as a source to assist with coming up with material for your readership. It sure felt like fishing for help the way you phrased the OP. While this response may be construed as negative, I'd prefer the categorization as "functionally cynical" because there is a difference.
Oh, I see. No, generally I try to share what the people in our newsroom have learned instead of the other way around. My parent comment was genuine frustration. BTW, I don't see your comments as out of line or overly-negative at all.
All good, yeah I can see how something really hot like this story would be great fodder both for your outlet, and the desire to get it right / accurate would be well served by consulting the HN massive. Keep on keepin' on sir.
That is the obvious connection. The interesting part is does Redtube sue them for trademark infringement? Who gets the "red" and who gets the "tube" ? :-)
Frankly I'm surprised Google hasn't preemptively gone after them for infringement.
Facebook sues people for Face* names. Not an entirely unprecedented precedent.
The real problem is you never know when you'll be sued for going too far. The only way to find out is to go too far and hope it doesn't happen. (like, the existence of YouTube itself)
Ah yes. I may have inadvertently typed almost by habit o.O
and now I will try to distract the reader by mentioning something about keystroke dynamics. I wonder if I type pornhub in a different way than any one else does
What does this mean for content creators, I wonder? My understanding is currently, if I block youtube ads, then the creators don't get paid for what would have been a viewing. Does this mean if I sign up for $10/mo, then the creators do get paid, and I get to avoid ads? Sign me up.
You might be interested in a side project I've been working on: http://indiecult.tv
It's basically what you describe, but the payments are also weighted by user rating. I'm dealing with a chicken and egg problem on content, so there's not much there, but keep an eye on it over the next couple of months...
This looks awesome. I'm not sure if you've tried a limited trial already, but as someone on the creation side, I'd love to see & try the tools/system in place before entering my credit card and paying for a subscription. Maybe you can solve the content side of things by allowing filmmakers to earn credit through uploading content. Eg. If I upload 5+ shorts or 1 longer length video that pass a quick review, my next month is credited.
Yes, some kind of trial or even a free plan is where I'm looking.
It's got a HN-type karma system built into it, both the content and the comments. So if you boil it down to its essence, it's almost a reddit (preferably HN) for video with a netflix-esque interface.
So maybe it's free to post and view video links, free to upload content directly (which you can earn money from), but costs to view hosted content (which then pays the uploaders). Free user's views don't count towards payable totals, but paid user's do. That's the plan I'm leaning towards, actually.
I don't watch movies - but I do have a respect for beginning artists of any field. Anything that can help indie artists is a plus in my book.
One word of advice would be to move the Twitter logo away from your logo. I was mildly confused and honestly, Twitter has such a strong brand that I saw the Twitter logo before your logo.
How are you advertising? Chicken/egg is the kill or be killed of any social site - and especially one dependent on having content.
Good call re: twitter logo, I mainly want to make it clear that twitter is the way to connect with us (as opposed to email newsletter or facebook or whatever). I will probably move it to the right.
Re: advertising, right now I'm just talking to a lot of people that are making quality content and posting it to youtube or vimeo already, basically offering them an alternative monetization strategy and trying to get a read on what they really need. Customer development.
But I do have a better idea on what I need to change next, and I think it will remove a lot of friction in using the service (and getting content)
I'm interested if they changed the model on this too. The current model encourages lots of low quality videos instead of encouraging well-produced, high quality video. If this simply pays the content creators in the same way that ads on youtube work, then I'm probably not very interested in the fee.
But this is just rewarding them for using ads in the first place while we ought to be most supporting those who treat us better by not using obnoxious ads at all.
The real point is this is actually about having more ads, just like Google Contributor. This is Google working to tell the world, "if you want to get paid, even by people who donate directly to avoid ads, you must first accept showing our ads otherwise". So this is about increasing, amplifying, reinforcing the ads because there won't likely be a way to say "I want to get paid when people enjoy my work, but I don't want to push ads on anyone ever". Google wants people like that to not exist. If you want to be paid in any form, you have to accept using Google ads. That's their end-game here.
YouTube cannot be expected to be run as a charity nor would it get contributors to make money.
If you host videos on YouTube the price is taking ads or allowing Google to charge a subscription. Google will still organize and catalog your video if it isn't on YouTube.
It might be cool if video producers could charge per view on YouTube - but I feel that might cheapen the rest of the service as you could not go to YouTube expecting to find already paid for or ad supported value and it may lessen user engagement.
an interesting business model to support the grandparent's use case is for video owners to pay google not to show ads, and then hope that the subscribed viewer income is greater than the hosting fee.
Get ready to get burned folks. It starts ad-free, just like Hulu. And then they add one or two ads during christmas time. And then during black friday. Then they add a small skippable add at the beginning of movies. This is how google is going to get you to pay for the same service they offer for free today. It won't stay ad free forever.
Hulu always had ads, and now they offer an ad-free version[1]. So they've moved in the opposite direction of what you're describing.
[1]It's not completely ad-free, there is a small list of shows that they couldn't get the rights to play ad-free and those shows have an ad at the beginning.
I keep trying to remind myself that there really has never been a time when organizations were not abusing language in order to make bad ideas more palatable, but from a consumer's point of view, it's infuriating.
It's ad-free except for 7 shows. It's not even like it's the 7 most popular shows, it's just the ones they couldn't get the rights to play ad free.
I'm fine with a company saying unlimited data with a note that says except for Thursdays from 4-7pm. The problem is when they say unlimited data, but it's not really unlimited at all for anyone. That would be more like hulu saying it was ad-free and then showing commercials after you watch more than 100 minutes.
Yeah I mean you can look at it that way of you really want to but be realistic. Hulu wants to get all the content they possibly can.
When they transitioned from everyone seeing ads (free and paid users) to having an ad-free option they had to make a choice: keep the hold-outs and just play ads on their content, or strong-arm them (and lose some content).
YouTube is now strong-arming everyone with YouTube Red, "Sign our new deal or we're hiding all of your content from paying subscribers."
This seems pretty unlikely. I don't think they expect to convert more than 10% of their users into paid users, at least short-term. And if it's ads vs ads, there won't be any reason to use it.
Hulu's decisions are driven by their investors who are direct competitors for recreation time (cable companies who can't realistically cut ads). Youtube doesn't have that -- if they can make equal or more revenue per person via paid subs vs ads, why not?
Because they could potentially make more net revenue by doing subs + ads.
People are getting pretty pissed off at the gradual ad creep on something they pay for (subscription or otherwise...). Companies in their duties to their shareholders will have to make decisions on whether the potential loss from pissed customers who leave is offset by the increased revenue from the people who just whine about the ad creep but continue paying with their subscriptions and eyeballs.
Also, it is not always up to the streaming company. Hulu has shows that are excluded from the "No Commercials" bit because of their licensing agreements. So if you want to watch those, you still get ads.[1]
For now. Perhaps sometime soon when they need to increase ad revenue they will have two ads before the show and after. Or something else. It is a slippery slope indeed.
No, I think you only pay $12.99 if you subscribe via iOS. If you subscribe on Desktop then access it via your iOS device on the same account, you already have a subscription.
I don't know if this is current, but as of 2011, they changed course on In-App Purchases to:
> Content providers may offer In-App subscriptions at whatever price they wish and they are not required to offer an in-app subscription simply because they sell a subscription outside the App Store as well.
At the time, there was a big hullaballoo over providers like Amazon and Comixology who have presumably placed their "best price" on an item, and simply could not afford to take a 30% loss to Apple's IAP. Apple, preferring to have services like Kindle and Comixology vs. not, capitulated.
2011 is (in internet time) a LONG time ago, so it's very possible that this has reversed course again, or even multiple times since then.
Not if Google wants to experiment with moving into Netflix's territory. Experimenting with alternatives to advertising are going to drive a lot of development in the coming quarters.
Hulu is now ad free. I don't use Hulu much, but I pay $12/month to not get any ads. I want to reward the major networks, the owners of Hulu, for offering their material to be viewed whenever I want to watch it.
I don't watch YouTube much, but $10/month for no ads, with prime music sounds good, and I will probably sign up.
I don't think the online content providers will be able to get away with this kind of thing. There's way too many competitors out there. Try to cheat on the ad-free part much, and your paid customers will go to your actually ad-free competitors. It kinda worked like that with Cable, IIRC, when there wasn't much in the way of competition, and switching was expensive.
This isn't the issue, this is something that Google is doing intentionally.
They also charge a tax for apps on the Play Store but since they own YouTube they can just waive the fee to make it seem as if big bad Apple is charging a tax while Google is not.
They only charge the tax if you use Play's IAP feature. On Android there is no requirement that you do so (see the Kindle App debacle -- it includes a store on Android but not on iOS). Apple does not allow purchases within apps that don't use the IAP feature.
If you sign up for this outside of the YouTube app on iOS you'll be charged the normal rate (and it will still work just fine on iOS).
Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded from Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment, except:
* where payment is solely for physical products; or
* where payment is for digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g., buying songs that can be played on other music players).
Hmmm, except I can't play YouTube videos outside of YouTube and Play Music doesn't give me access to the raw MP3 files, therefore the second point wouldn't apply. I think the difference is that Google isn't proactively enforcing this rule so for example, the Kindle app can link to the Kindle store even though that's technically not allowed.
You can use the youtube app on your phone, or the browser on your laptop, or the youtube app on your tv. So it isn't content that can only be consumed in the app on your phone.
The difference is that Google allows you to sign up for things in apps without using the Play store IAP integration. Apple does not. This is why you cannot buy Kindle books from the Kindle app on iOS, you must go to Amazon's site on your own. On Android the Kindle app includes a full store (not just on Amazon's Android devices).
The google play in-app-purchasing mechanism charges 30%, just like apple does. However, Google play allows you to use your own payment processor for "digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself", when the app is not a game. Apple requires that all purchases, no matter what, go through their IAP process so apple gets a cut.
Don't Apple take a 30% cut if someone signs up via them? So this isn't an anti-Apple play, this is Google charging Apple users the same as everyone else (from Google's perspective, they get $9.99 from Apple/non-Apple users), essentially they're passing on an Apple "convenience fee" to Apple's users.
Whats amusing is they charge the same 30% tax to every developer on Google Play/Android store but for Youtube Red since its their own property, they can give themselves the 30%.
You have the choice, as a developer, to not use the IAP functionality of the Play store. You can do your own credit card processing and order/subscription management.
Apple forbids this. You are required to use their IAP features and pay them their 30%.
As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, see the difference between the Kindle app on iOS and the Kindle app on Android. On iOS, no store. On Android, full store.
No, this is incorrect. Google requires that you use their payment system (which takes 30%) [1]:
> In-store purchases: Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play’s payment system.
> In-app purchases: Developers offering products within a game downloaded from Google Play or providing access to game content must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment.
> Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded from Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment
The only exception they allow is if you're selling physical goods (which is the same as Apple's policy).
What I particularly love is that you didn't actually read the rest of the bullets in the ToS, and you completely ignored my citation of the Kindle app which I intentionally provided as an existence proof.
It's odd that you cut&pasted so many references to IAP, but totally missed the 2nd clause (immediately following the one about physical goods): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10429681
I think he's referring to how some services just push you to sign up on their mobile web page and then it avoids the 30% hike. It's fairly easy to do, the only concern being potentially confusing new sign-ups, but I don't think it's that confusing.
> If you pay cash vs credit card you usually pay the same amount, but the seller makes less money from the credit card sale because of fees.
And they have more labor costs associated with dealing with cash. Whether that's a net win for cash or net loss depends on the particular market that the retailer is in.
Retailers sell you an item for $x then charge you $x * (1 + tax%) at the checkout to cover local taxes. If you live in an area with high tax, you'll pay more. So in the app world, if you buy apps on the Apple store you pay more taxes.
I have to admit that I was also wondering about the anti-trust aspects of this. Given that YouTube is a dominant player (73.1% market share in the US according to [1], probably higher in many European countries where there are fewer alternative players on the market), one could argue that Google is abusing their market power in Internet video to push their own mobile OS. Since Google does not offer an app for Windows Phone, their YouTube Red service is basically 9.99$ for Android users and 12.99$ for all other supported mobile platforms. And - as others have pointed out - the 30% cut for Apple is not mandatory (see Netflix et al).
But YouTube is usable on WinPho using IE though, isn't it? Sure it's not a first class experience, but talking as someone with a fair bit of WinPho experience...
What on WinPho is a first class experience?
(Admittedly I've never actually tried YouTube in IE on WinPho, but the 3rd party MetroTube app is supposed to be good.)
In an anti-trust sort of way. A $2-$3 mark up is essentially inconsequential and could be due to the store cost or infrastructure, but if it were $9.99 for Android and $1,000.00 for iOS then there would be a pretty good case that Google isn't engaging in "fair competition."
Just something companies should watch out for. Even if campaign finance considers money to be speech and a founder or company might want to make a bold statement, doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions for acting unfairly toward competition.
What's the difference between charging a super high amount versus simply not shipping for that platform? Should Google be forced to develop apps using Apple's tools for Apple devices? For Microsoft? Blackberry?
I don't know, what do you think? What would happen if Google only ever released software for Android? Or if Google didn't allow anyone else to develop software for their devices? These are opposite examples, but there are more cases on that side.
I'm a lawyer (No I'm not), so I know that under competition law it's illegal for a company to engage in abusive behavior. Fixing prices in that way seems unfair.
And anyway I'm not concerned about the particular pricing because I won't pay for this product for either platform.
The current anti trust laws as written mean Google could be broken up if they only release a YouTube player for Android or even limit a single feature to only Android. Not that we actually enforce the law in the U.S. when dealing with powerful companies.
>YouTube Red is available in the U.S. If you leave the U.S., you won’t be able to save videos offline, videos won’t play in the background, and you will see ads. Any videos that you’ve saved offline before leaving the U.S., will continue to be available offline for 30 days.
Which also means not always available inside the US, as Google's geo IP has to be the worst I've experienced. In Denver, they located me as being in France. After a while that got fixed. Now Google thinks I'm in Hungary. Despite multiple requests to fix it, it remains the same over months They could even automate it to some extent just by pinging. Use speed-of-light to determine that my system definitely cannot be in Europe.
A lot of things do not properly de-localize, when you select English or no customization. Menu text, alt text, logos, etc. all remain localized. It's a terrible implementation.
Chrome was (is?) worse. It'd "auto detect" the language to use based on IP, then refuse to remove it once running. So you'd have an English OS, sending "en" in the Accept-Language language header, and Chrome would decide you actually wanted Spanish or Russian or whatever, using .ru sites, etc.
And even for those who live in the US, it doesn't seem that you can really download music to listen offline with your favourite player - you're stuck with DRM'd music and their own player.
Thanks, but I'll keep sticking to my good ol' flacs.
If you purchase individual tracks, you can download them as mp3s, no DRM involved. It's only tracks that you have access to via subscription but haven't individually purchased that can't be downloaded (which sort of makes sense, to avoid someone just downloading the entire catalog and then cancelling the subscription).
If I subscribe, will it remove the preroll ads while watching YouTube on Apple TV? Because I like to occasionally set up playlists of educational content for my kids to watch for a bit, but far too often an inappropriate ad has played in the middle of the playlist, driving me nuts.
Got this reply from Google when asked over chat "Yes, you wouldn't see any ads that come with the video if you're subscribed to YouTube Red and watching it on a Apple TV."
Sometimes there are ads for alcohol or gambling on video clearly aimed at children. This is probably not legal in UK, and it's something I'm going to raise with regulators next year.
In general you should probably allow people to opt out of alcohol ads.
Or violent films.
It's weird that the film has an age rating; the ad has an age rating; the content has a much younger age rating; but YouTube can't see that many parents don't want an 18 / 15 movie ad on content they're showing to their children.
Any ads are inappropriate for my kids (and myself, for that matter). It's distracting, misleading. There's zero benefit, only potential negatives to thought processes and attention. I don't subscribe to any ad-based services and make sure they have ad-block properly setup on any devices (on Android this means Firefox with uBlock).
And in general, stupid content is far, far more worrying than "inappropriate" content. I'd rather have my kids see some nudity than many of the "kids" shows out there.
Depending on the age of the child in question, _all_ advertising may be inappropriate: children under ~7 tend to lack the executive function to differentiate between entertainment and advertising, and to reason about any agenda the advertiser might have.
Many television broadcast regulators limit the amount and type of advertising presented to children (including the very liberal FCC), and in some cases even prohibit such advertising altogether (e.g. the province of Quebec in Canada). So far, regulations have not caught up with the Youtube generation, even though many parents treat streaming media equivalently to broadcast in how it is used by their children.
IT means you will see the same amount. The reason they're strong-arming the creators (who have already signed up to monetize their videos via ads) is so the service is actually ad-free and still has all the content available.
The fact that this is included with Google Play Music is awesome, and really represents a great value for ten bucks a month (or $8 for long time customers).
Also, 'Red' is a much better name than 'Music Key.'
The real killer app here is the ability to play videos in the background as music for your phone. Most of my favorite music isn't available on Spotify/Apple Music/etc, but quite a bit of it is on Youtube.
It'd be interesting if they UI of this got good enough to employ it as a streaming replacement.
You can sort of do this today on ios by clicking play on the slide up after it stopping. I never knew it was trying to prevent listening because it works once you hit play.
There are Android apps that can do this, too. Or at least, there were up until about a year ago. Mine stopped working, perhaps intentionally by Google? Not sure.
>YouTube Red will also offer Background Play, so you can close the app while continuing to listen to the audio of whatever you were watching as you use your phone.
What a joke. This should be a standard feature.
iOS users: You can play audio in the background by playing a video in Safari, swiping up to open control center, pressing play, and then double-tapping the home button to go to another app. The only restriction is that you can't use Safari while the video is playing.
I believe it's that way because of the rights issues. They can show ads while songs are playing to pay the copyright holder of the song but if your display is off then there is no ads and thus no revenue to share.
Indeed. Android should be able to play audio from videos while the screen is off by now. But Google doesn't even allow the Read Aloud feature in Play Books to work while the screen is off. I don't get that one at all.
Agreed, it's really the only feature I care about. I used a third party app exactly for this but it broke about half a year ago. I wonder if it broke intentionally because of Google.
How does this new ad-free version of YouTube pay content creators?
If I upload a video to YouTube under the pretense that based on ad clicks I make money, how does YouTube showing my videos ad-free get me paid? I have read the official press release and a few articles but am not finding any news on these details.
> "YouTube Red will split subscription revenue with the rights holders of content people consume through the service. YouTube managed to sign-on most of the independent creators, record labels, TV networks, and movie studios to the program. A YouTube exec told reporters at today’s launch event that YouTube is paying out “the vast, vast majority of revenue”."
...for now. You don't boil a frog by turning the heat up all the way. Once you get people fully locked in and dependent on your platform by having both content AND viewership, you can have much greater ability to change agreements/pricing until there is a viable competitor.
Yup. The content creators will be an audience subject to exploit that cannot simply jump ship: a year or two from now, they'll make less and google will make more, because that's capitalism folks.
The cost of switching is very low for both viewers and content producers.
Producers: Upload content to new service -> Change comments on youtube videos and post an explanation of the change soon to occur -> hope your audience likes your brand enough to trust/use another website
Consumers: Search google or yahoo or duckduckgo for your favorite producer when you don't find them on youtube -> find them on other site -> watch
This adds a lot of value to Youtube for me and has solidified my move to Google's services - being able to easily stream a playlist of youtube videos ad free during parties and support creators without viewing ads is a benefit.
It does not go directly with Google's mission to catalog all the world's information - or at least in the way of making that information more accessible to everyone (since some content producers will be put off by this).
Probably the same way that "MCN's" do based on the amount of views and content created.
Prominent YouTubers also make quite a nice buck through in-video promotions and sponsorship as well as being paid for creating videos, and non-YT activities.
Yes, great question. I have two guesses: (1) simply "it doesn't". I'm sure most people will opt to watch ads rather than pay. That presumably much larger user base supports content creators (2) A fraction of the total subscription revenue is distributed to content creators weighed by views (a la Spotify)
> "As an added bonus, your YouTube Red membership includes a free subscription to Google Play Music, with access to its extensive catalog of music. If you’re already a Google Play Music subscriber, you’ll receive a free YouTube Red membership."[0]
That's an interesting way to bootstrap their paying userbase.
I've been using this service for a little bit and it's been fantastic. Ad-free viewing on my desktop has increased my YouTube viewing by probably 50% because I know I'm just going to see the content I want to see. Other notable features include Chromecast no-ads support (makes your YouTube parties much better) and offline downloads of long videos (finally can catch up on all those feature-length amateur films).
I like to support content creators. And no, I don't want to have to sign up for the Patreon accounts of every single YouTube user I like the videos of.
Unless you really liked being tracked, cataloged and analyzed, I recommend you use ad blocking even though you're using YouTube Red.
It's not advertising. It's advertracking. YouTube red removes the "advertising" part, but the "tracking" part stays. (Yes, Google could, and probably do, track you through an adblocker while you are on YouTube. But why tracking easy for them and everyone else?)
I don't think Apple gets a say over it. The already got sued & lost about price fixing on eBooks, I don't think they're going to try their hand at price fixing again.
Also practically what could Apple even do? Kick YouTube off of the AppStore? That'd just hurt Apple as well.
> They're going to have to do something about uBlock Origin blocking youtube video ads flawlessly before this ever takes off imho.
Or, you know, do this: "And starting early next year, YouTube Red will get even better with member-only access to new, original shows and movies from some of YouTube’s biggest creators." [0]
(Alternatively, since it can be viewed functionally as just adding an additional brand and a bunch of new services to the existing Google Play Music subscription, its already taken off.)
I install adblock because ads annoy me. It doesn't mean I don't want to pay for services. I think I will be subcribing to this despite the fact that I've basically never seen an ad on youtube.
Instead of paying $9.99 monthly (forever) why not just buy one of those "TV on a stick" devices [0] (a one time purchase) and run a web browser+uBlock?
The top discussion in this thread is about their poor branding. Chromecast? Google Cast? Android TV? Nexus Player? Google TV? What is it? I have Android TV and even I'm confused.
Overall this is a good idea - the fact that google is the one behind it doesn't give me any fuzzies though. They will always want to make more money from it - that's why they started with ads in the first place, and are now trying to go subscription.
My guess is this goes alright in the short term, in the long term they cluster fuck it, lest we not forget the Google+ fiasco. Probably won't muck it up enough to spawn rivals, but close. They really just won't be able to help themselves.
Still, give them credit: making money off other peoples content is a lucrative business, as apple has shown.
The profit motive is showing its true colors. It'd be a very tough argument to claim that "YouTube Red" is playing a vital role in Google's attempt to organize the world's data. It's purely a grab for revenue/profit.
Netflix (as well as HBO, and many others) already has commercial free streaming movies. HULU (as well as others) now has commercial free streaming tv. Content wise, what YouTube brings to the table is the user generated content, and YouTube Red does not seem to be centered around user generated content. I'd say user generated content is caught up in the mix, if anything. Google could index HULU and Netflix instead of creating YouTube Red.
Also, it is a false choice to say, given the assumption of ad-free services, I should either have to pay for ads or Google should take a loss in revenue. There are many other business models, such as P2P, that could facilitate ad-free user generated content channels.
The rub? P2P doesn't work too well with commercial content generation. And so, we find ourselves back to ads vs subscriptions, and back to the revenue grab.
When talent at Google is working on YouTube Red, it's not working on other problems. I can think of many other problems I'd rather see Google working on, given their core competencies.
>*The profit motive is showing its true colors. It'd be a very tough argument to claim that "YouTube Red" is playing a vital role in Google's attempt to organize the world's data.
YouTube Red seems less like a "profit grab" and more like a defensive move. I'm sure Google would love to continue its current model of 50% of all ad revenue. From what I've gathered its (1) Google's top creators exploring other options such as Vessel (subscription music service) and (2) YouTube's need to provide a regular/more predictable revenue stream to their partners. The Ad model doesn't seem to work well if your most of your viewers are outside the United States.
I guess I was saying, back up even more, why the heck, given Google's stated mission of "Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful", are they in this part of the market at all. Especially given, as you (I believe correctly) pointed out they need to put up pay walls to adapt to the changing landscape and in the process make unavailable any content that doesn't conform to their revenue goals. "YouTube Red" doesn't seem to conform to their mission of making all of the world's info accessible and useful. That word 'all' is important, since they constantly stress that point. And here, they are compromising exactly that point.
$10 poses an interesting decision in comparison to Spotify.
Spotify is a dedicated music app in comparison, and is designed that way. The catalog isn't as big as YouTube's, but YouTube isn't designed for the user to catalog their personal music.
Youtube provides ad-free video, but I don't think the ad's are very intrusive for videos compared to listening to music, where it can definitely be annoying.
> Spotify is a dedicated music app in comparison, and is designed that way. The catalog isn't as big as YouTube's, but YouTube isn't designed for the user to catalog their personal music.
OTOH, Google Play Music is also a music app, and designed for the user to catalog all their personal music, and is already free, and the subscription that includes unlimited streaming of the Google Play Music catalog is rolled included with the new Youtube Red subscription.
I recently trialed both Google Play Music and Spotify. While pricing is the same, I found that for my needs Google had a better offering - being able to upload my personal library was something I definitely wanted, and the radios/suggestions seem to give me more of what I want than Spotify did.
To me, this is a no-brainer if you're paying for spotify. Google music is at least as good as spotify (and better in many ways) at the same price. If you want to pay $10/mo for music streaming, you now can get ad-free youtube for no extra money if you choose google music instead of spotify.
How Pewdiepie became a billionaire and everyone making a
living off 1M views a month went broke.
(At least that's what will happen if their royalties are based on aggregate subscription revenue & views rather than per subscriber views, a la Spotify)
Almost like MTV in the 80s when they actually played music videos. Then Netflix can slowly roll in the terrible reality TV and we can repeat history once more :)
It looks like some movies will also be available, as well as new original content[1][2]. This is shaping up to look like a netflix + spotify all in one package.
Certainly this is also an attempt to curb the pervasiveness of adblocking by providing the ad-free option.
I like this. Although a lot of great content is, and should be, freely available on the web, I also would like to see more subscription based content creation and viewing.
Google Play movies, TV, and books is getting to be convenient enough so I am using it more (I just bought the BBC 'Worricker Trilogy', one of the best shows we have watched in years).
While subscribing to a service like this, plus Hulu no commercials version, Internet version of HBO Go, and Netflix may seem a little expensive, it basically covers all entertainment costs except for buying books.
Is this the trend? Of moving the Internet into subscription based as-free? At some point I suspect ads will just be removed altogether and we'll have an entirely subscription based model.
I wonder if the YouTube platform payout is less than the Google Music Key platform payout.
Over time, and via the Sony hack, I think being suspicious of distribution platforms and major labels is warranted. So far, they tend to like non-disclosure based agreements which freeze out independents as much as possible.
Considering the "artists hate streaming" bad publicity that seems pretty consistent, I think if YouTube Red was going to be a real improvement and fiscally more rewarding for artists, they should put that in big type somewhere.
Either the article doesn't make it clear or I'm bad at reading, and the YT Red site itself just tells me it's not available in my country: I assume this is $10 US a month?
This sounds pretty awesome and as soon as it comes to my country I will subscribe. HOWEVER, I hope they come up with a family subscription or that the Play Music family subscription covers it. Because the main reason I want the ads gone is for the sake of my kids.
Does this give google legal ground to make an argument that ad blockers enable piracy? If "ad free content" exists, but you have to pay for it, then is it piracy to get the "ad free content" without paying for it?
People don't want to see ads, and they don't with this. Google makes the money they were already making from ads. And content creators are getting the money they would have gotten from ads. They probably make even more since people are not ad blocking and cutting down their income.
It seems less profit motivated, and more motivated at giving people what they want. If people don't want to pay they don't have to.
This move is good in general. When big sites offer ways to pay, I think the idea becomes more mainstream and it'll be easier for new services to actually charge enough to survive.
There are those of us that don't want to see ads but still want to support content creators. This is potentially a win-win on that front, while an ad blocker is not.
Do you mean a backdoor into a sub-only revenue model for YouTube? You already had to pay for a Play Music subscription. The only part about it that was free was radio mode.
This is dumb on so many levels. The name, the branding, the backstabbing of the content creators, the availability restrictions. Of course, they are Google, they can get away with this. Deeply uninspiring.
Google seems to be trying a bunch of different things to leverage this downright stupid mentality embedded in a subset of the Internet population that YouTube is a platform for music (sans video). It's not Google's fault that folks are using YouTube as strictly a music service, but here we are. I don't really know how I'd solve this problem either, but if I have to regress to using YouTube to listen to music, it's going to piss me off (why oh why would I stream video if I'm just using the audio)?
I just fear the majority is never going to take the short hop over to Google Music (or whatever app Google offers strictly for music), and I'm going to get stuck needlessly using YouTube related apps/platforms.
The word "stupid" has no valuable meaning in rational discourse, so I've appropriated it in this case to mean, "evokes a negative emotional reaction."
I hope this wasn't too harmful to the conversation, though it seems to have caused damage to the sensibilities of multiple people already. I'd edit, but I think at this point it's hardly worth the effort.
It does, but there's no technical reason to even involve YouTube at all; there's simply no way Google on the backend would rather split the audio off of the video than just play the audio from an album directly.
YouTube Red, Music Key, Google Android Play Music All Access Subscription, etc.
Don't get me wrong, the actual service they provide is good, and Music Key (advert free YouTube music videos) was a nice value add. This too will only expand Music Key into other videos.
I do worry a little bit that long term Google Music subscribers will wind up seeing price increases to pay for YouTube Red. If all I want is JUST Google Music, then all I should have to pay for is JUST Google Music, and that is fine today as there are no price increases, but ask me again when the first price rise is announced a few months from now.