I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service.
Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal.
Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads.
Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss.
Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and you as a paying customer now have access to all videos without ads.
Really, for Google it's a loose loose situation, someone is going to be pissed one way or another, or they loose money. What would you do? Eat the loss? Easy to say, but hard to do. So they picked the one that benefits both them and their paying users (if you ignore the fact that a portion of youtube is going to go dark) at the same time.
Option 5: move ad based content to a new medium that isn't youtube so that content creators aren't tied to a single service for hosting.... But I only mention that because this is Hacker News and it's what I think we'd all want to be done, but Google isn't going to create that service.
Edit:formatting, and if I see another option someone has in a subsequent comment I'll bubble it up.
Option 6: take advantage of whatever "we can change this agreement at any time" term in the partner agreement to just say "this is our new approach to getting revenue, and we'll give you a cut of that just like we give you a cut of ads".
Yah, Google did the right thing here. You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads", and you can't say "if you subscribe you see less videos".
They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or loose revenue sharing status.
Well, you could say "this service has no ads" and then include ads. Hulu did. People just may not like it or respect you for it.
Hulu 'No Commercials' Plan: "A small number of shows are not included in our No Commercials plan due to streaming rights. But we’ve still made them available to you uninterrupted. They will just play with a short commercial before and after each episode. These shows are: Grey’s Anatomy, Once Upon A Time, Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Scandal, Grimm, New Girl, and How To Get Away With Murder. "
- they reserve the right to add to this list over time
> You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads"
That's exactly what Hulu did with their new "ad-free" option. There are a handful of shows they couldn't license with no ads, so they have a pre-roll ad, and a disclaimer about why.
When you sign up they have a clear disclaimer underneath that list the shows, tells you why they have to show ads, and states that it an ad before and after.
Didn't care about any of those shows so I signed up. Seems reasonable and fair. Hopefully they will get a chance to change the licensing at some point.
Out of curiosity, is there some reason a 15sec preroll on 7 shows is so off putting? Are they some of the main things you'd watch? Is it the principle of ads in an "ad free plan"?
If some videos don't go ad-free, then it just makes it really unclear what you're buying, when you are paying money to get rid of ads. It is much less confusing if paying money to get rid of ads, actually gets rid of ads.
* I'm paying for ad-free (in this hypothetical - I'm actually content with the above post mentioning that they clearly tell which shows are exceptions in advance), so yes, ads bother me.
* Why do ads bother me? It's a combination of: ads tend to pander to the lowest elements of the psyche/society; ads are explicitly manipulative - I don't enjoy exposing myself to manipulative people, why seek out or even tolerate this sort of exposure?; ads are disruptive to the experience I'm trying to have (pacing/tone/subject matter); ads consume time, something I have a limited capacity of.
* I stopped watching cable TV in college (some 15-20 years ago), and I immediately found I felt "smarter", more focused, with more available time, and (as a con) less in touch with the common zeitgeist (an experience somewhat similar to not following facebook or twitter today). This, despite the fact that I still "wasted" plenty of time watching movies and shows. As Netflix became prevalent (first in DVD, then in streaming) I found I could remain entertained without exposure to ads.
As I relied on the web for more news/entertainment, I found that ad blockers vastly improved the experience. Perhaps I've been oversensitized to the topic, but I usually find I'm more than willing to pay to get my experience ad-free, as the experience is just better then.
I've been frustrated at things like Huluplus and Youtube where I previously didn't have an ad-free option, despite my willingness to pay for such, so I have little doubt that frustration combines with the earlier sensitivity to make me more bullheaded on the topic.
Wanting things to be ad free can be a strong response to the overwhelming amount of ads that we are presented with every day. These advertisements program us unconsciously and often to our detriment, so yes it is important for there to be an option to remove all advertising for a price.
I feel a strong motivation to punish companies who commit bait & switch product promotions. Don't promote ad-free premium service to me, then send me ads.
> and you can't say "if you subscribe you see less videos"
But you do get less videos though. So they really either should say that, or figure out a better way... while the latter may be an unreasonable request, the former not so much.
Just because Google is forcing everybody's hand doesn't mean everybody will follow suit. My channel certainly won't, simply because I don't like how they're doing this - to hell if I lose viewership because of it.
PS: downvotes for facts without any actual explanation is really lame.
Yes, it is (not my personal channel obviously). And I couldn't care less how they ask me, I care about how it affects the users. And frankly, your thinly veiled attempt to defend them asking me if I'm unhappy that they "didn't wine & dine" with me is utterly disgusting. This is a bad move for users and a bad move for content creators.
> And I couldn't care less how they ask me, I care about how it affects the users. And frankly, your thinly veiled attempt to defend them asking me if I'm unhappy that they "didn't wine & dine" with me is utterly disgusting. This is a bad move for users and a bad move for content creators.
Why? You haven't yet explained what's bad about it.
> Blindly defending Google is very passé, you know.
Blindly attacking Google, however, is very hip these days.
No, they simply don't. At best you are using circular logic. At worst you don't explain anything.
Again: Forcing content creators into this, is the only sensible option. It's the user-friendliest too, because why the fuck would I pay for an ads-free subscription service, if I then have to watch ads? So, as it's friendly to the users (i.e. the non-content-creators), the only way forcing content creators into the deal could be construed as not user friendly is if it would have any negative effect on content creators.
What is this negative effect? Because I simply can't see any. Why would any content creator be against signing this deal, what are the specific reasons? And your answer can neither be "because it's bad for the users" (it isn't), nor "because they are forcing me to do it". Because that's only sensible and also what every business does all the time, including the place where you shop for groceries. Terms and conditions change and if you don't accept the changes your contract becomes void and you are no longer able to use a service. Any service that ever changes their rules.
Or seems to me that this is a pro-user action. People are gradually using ad-blockers because video ads are fucking annoying. People (like myself and my wife) are also using YouTube downloaders to have some content available offline. YouTube Red is exactly what I wanted and if it didn't happen, oh well, I can go back to being a pirate.
If you looked at my comment history you'd see I'm extremely against ad-driven business models so I welcome the idea of this subscription service. What I don't welcome is how they go about it. Forcing your channels to adopt your policy and silently removing videos you could have accessed yesterday is awful.
And you seem to forget that users are often content creators as well on youtube. This is akin to saying "This doesn't affect users on our website, just a subset of them".
I think it will make YouTube much smaller - if a channel has been abandoned then content is also gone. Too bad, I like to see lectures and documentaries, or some old and forgotten music, so all this will also go ...
Maybe they want all the rarely viewed videos gone so that they can cut on storage costs?
Also if you ripped and posted some old disk then you are not holding any rights so this content is also gone.
At least a few years ago, thinner media catalog with deeper viewership ends up being better financially. Some friends and I looked at what it'd take to put up a competing service and there's a lot of cost in all the CDN traffic, when a video gets dropped off from a regional distribution node then has to be pulled again from storage. I'm sure YouTube don't need to worry about it so much, but a higher eyeball-per-MB means more ad revenue per MB and lower infrastructure costs, I think.
(Off Topic Aside: Does anyone have a theory on why "loose" and "lose" are so often confused? I swear I didn't notice people doing this until this century.)
Could Google simply say to creators: "if you sign this you won't get any revenue sharing from red users but you'll still get your quota from free users."
Gives them a financial incentive to sign up but allows them to opt out without making google eat the loss.
They could have a modified version of Option 2, which is make the ad supported videos discoverable if the user chooses to allow id. They could also have a button to 'tell the content creator to support ad free mode'. It would essentially spam them into supporting it though.
Pay content creators who don't participate and are on monetised accounts as if the Red views had been seeing adverts, show adverts to everyone else.
I'd extract money from the red customers for the no advert feature, who would be more invested in the feature because their favourite channels would be on it. The Red customers would extract value from viewing that user's content. I'd still be getting paid for the adverts seen by everyone else. The content creator would still getting paid.
I honestly don't see any loser in that besides the content creator maybe not getting as big a cut as they would have if they chose to take the deal. If the Red deal was better than the ad-content deal then I'd be better off treating creators that way and letting them opt-out.
> Pay content creators who don't participate and are on monetised accounts as if the Red views had been seeing adverts, show adverts to everyone else.
Doesn't Google's ability to do that depend on the details of the old agreement? Does anyone know those details?
I could imagine an agreement along the following lines:
1. YouTube will show ads on all of creator's videos.
2. YouTube will pay creator based on some formula (in terms of ad revenue, plays, etc.).
Nothing in that would let YouTube (a) not show ads on the creator's videos or (b) pay the creator based on the hypothetical revenue the ad they didn't show would have earned. YouTube could try to get content owners to sign onto a new agreement that included that, but, um...
I'd imagine that Google has acquired a right, rather than a duty, to serve advertising through their partnership agreement and in trade has given partners a right to some of the money from that. Certainly I wouldn't impose a duty upon myself unless I absolutely had to - and Google is likely to have had the majority of the leverage in any individual negotiation.
In any case though, I imagine that the agreement would be far more acceptable given an only slightly modified version of business as usual as the alternative, than it would given an ultimatum between this and death.
Option 6: take advantage of whatever "we can change this agreement at any time" term in the partner agreement to just say "this is our new approach to getting revenue, and we'll give you a cut of that just like we give you a cut of ads".
I'm guessing that when large corporations sign agreements with each other, they don't include the clause "we can change this agreement at any time". Only powerless end-users are expected to agree to that one.
Most contracts without a specified end date or condition have some variation of that term, to allow for discontinuation of services/products, pricing changes and other issues. These terms often have some guarantee of advance notice before a change is made, but not always. Generally companies believe that their business partners/ suppliers/customers will act ethically; when your counterparty does act unethically, a contract is of little solace anyway.
A typical example of this type of contract would be a shipping contract, which usually does not guarantee pricing. Another example would be electronic components, which are well-specified, but whose mask (implementation on silicon) can be changed at any time (and notice may or may not be given).
I have a feeling that this is a "Kinect" moment for Google and they'll reverse the decision in a few days.
The potential backlash is just too big, if you don't sign up you do not get revenue from the views that will push pretty much any YT contributor to sign the deal if the amount of YT subscribers gets even to single digits as a percentage of the total YT userbase.
Not all views are equal already, views from non-western countries generate little to no revenue as they either do not show ads at all or at a very low rate, the people that do generate ad revenue are people from countries that most likely won't mind getting the subscription and can afford it so even a small percentage of them moving to YTRed can have a drastic effect on the revenue of YT contributors which will force them to sign.
So option 7 and the reasonable one will be show videos, there's almost no loss for YT (many ISP's cache YT videos to save money which reduces YT bandwidth costs) but don't give money to contributors, they already don't get money if people use adblock, why would this be any different?
I'm reasonably certain that subscription paying viewers will earn the creators more per user than US-based free/ad customers, as is the case for Spotify.
This feels more like a 'we are switching, it will benefit everyone, but everyone needs to be on board or this wont work' move.
Option 7: Full-time Youtube authors with decent-sized subscriber bases should switch to Patreon for their income. The CPM for Youtube ads is not great and tons of Youtube viewers use ad blockers anyway.
Option 7: Remove all pre-video ads from YouTube and return it to the way it was, dropping the idea of monetizing the world's largest creative platform.
Edit: False dichotomy. Monetization does not necessitate ads. But you get what I meant.
Since running YouTube isn't cheap and Google isn't a charity, that seems practically equivalent to shutting down YouTube altogether (after some reasonable notice period).
How about show you videos from creators who don't sign the deal, don't show ads, pay the virtual ad revenue, keep the subscription share. I bet the share of subscription revenue is greater than the ad revenue.
How about: Show videos from creators who don't sign, but without any ads for anyone. I presume this would mean those creators wouldn't get any revenue at all.
All of these will probably mean Facebook might have an opportunity in Videos. Recently Youtube screwed up with Gaming which cannot compete even close with Twitch, older attempts to provide a premium service also failed now this is just pissing off everybody.
First of all it's only available in US :) second the comment system is weak compared to Twitch not to mention that they will never be able to make a community around it like Twitch did.
youtube gaming website is all javascript, and was probably only tested on chrome :/ Doesnt work at all in my browser, s in blank page. On the other hand twitch just works, so why bother?
Well, sure, you could not roll out a new revenue model that millions of users are interested in because of some holdout content creators [1], but, um, somehow I don't think that's how that meeting would go...
It's harder for me to get upset at instances of alleged corporate bullying when the result is clearly pro-user. If YouTube allowed video authors to opt out of Red, their only reasonable option (short of turning into a charity for said authors) would be to show Red subscribers those videos with ads. For a user, a service that's only "mostly" ad-free is only a pale imitation of the real thing - especially if labels decide to opt out en masse as a bargaining chip, and "mostly" starts to look a lot more like "largely" or "partly". Not a good way for Google to keep subscribers (who might turn to ad blockers instead), obnoxious for subscribers, and probably ultimately detrimental to the creators.
It's "pro user" unless it starts to limit new content, which is possible. Many videos are actually on YouTube without ads because they are stored as tutorials, etc. I get why Google wouldn't want to keep hosting them but it could mean a reduction in content.
I'm not sure the new deal affects those uploaders. The deal only affects people who are monetizing today via Ads and don't want to monetize from the Red subscription.
If you are just uploading tutorials, you can just opt out of being a "YouTube Partner" altogether.
This is the part that I don't understand - because I don't know what the language like 'YouTube Partner' means... I know of a lot of YouTube creators who monetize many of their videos with ads, but when they have small 'announcement' videos, and other videos which don't really contribute to the primary drive of their channel, they don't monetize them - does this mean those 'partners' have to go all-or-nothing, and either monetize all of their videos or none? Because that is what it sounds like, and what makes me upset.
There are some amazing youtube content creators who cannot sign this new deal due to the fact that they are now deceased. Is their legacy going to be lost forever because they can't sign up posthumously?
On this note, does anyone know of specific channels that are likely to disappear because their creators are either dead or unwilling to accept the new terms? I will archive all of them. You can also email me.
Here's a statement I got from a YouTube spokesperson:
"Creators have been asking us to launch a subscription service -- so that, combined with user demand, is why we built the service and why the overwhelming majority of our partners, representing over 98% of the content watched on YouTube, have signed up. Videos of partners who don’t update their terms will be made private in the US at launch because we think It isn't fair to ask a fan to pay $9.99 for a service that has less content than a free service."
Why exactly would there be less content with YouTube Red if the "partners" didn't switch over? I guess I also don't understand why the TOS of the partner program enable them to unlist the video, but not sign them up for the program.
As the top comment (and others) point out, Youtube can't show paying customers ad-filled videos, so they would have to avoid showing those videos altogether. At that point they'd be asking users to pay for a service that has fewer videos than the free tier.
Does anyone know why content creators would not sign up to get ad money from the red subscription? Even if google wasn't threatening anything by not doing it, why wouldn't you take it? Are they afraid that red subscription revenue is going to be less than typical ad revenue?
I can imagine bigger viewers do get a lot of ad revenue
A big problem could be with the revenue share model. Speculating here, but if it works like spotify (you get a part of the pot relative to number of views), then its susceptible to a lot of distortion. For example, if people watches one video 100k times and people watch your vid 100k times, then you'll get less than if the other video didn't exist.
If it works like Google contributor though (sites get money per visit based solely on number of visits to their site), then I don't know how this changes much..
Well, a lot of the creators are from very small communities. I personally can't afford to pay Youtube 10$ a month just to watch those people (I can't even afford cable). That means I don't get to watch them now, as far as I can figure. Likely, they will now stop those channels. Some of them do get revenue from the ads, at least enough to buy equipment and support the side hobby. Without that, those channels are gone, at least I think that's the down-low on this. I think it'll drop their fan bases by orders of magnitude, and hence, they no longer exist.
If none of your viewers pay for a Red subscription, then there is zero change from the current state of affairs, right? You get whatever the ad revenue share is.
I guarantee this is going to force some of the top content creators off of YouTube. Many have been close to leaving for a while anyway, since other sites offer better rev share terms.
Many of those guys also syndicate out to a larger number of sites already, so losing YT revenue may hurt in the short term, but they'll probably end up taking their audiences with them.
But yeah, this is a huge deal and it's going to reshape the business of online video into more of a subscription model. I just don't know if that's a good thing for YouTube.
any examples? not to mention all other sites offer almost zero eyeballs, only way to get people to watch your videos there is to redirect people yourself. YT has a huge network effect.
Vessel, DailyMotion, AOL -- among others. Unless you've built a huge audience, video content is actually pretty commoditized at this point.
Nearly all of the most popular YouTube channels are owned by a handful of media mega-conglomerates (think ComcastNBC, Liberty Media, TimeWarner, CBS, etc.) These companies are big enough to start their own sites and throw serious marketing dollars behind them -- which they are starting to do in an attempt to get more favorable rev share terms from YouTube. The content companies want a 70/30 split on ad revenue, and YouTube's standard deal is 55/45.
I think YouTube underestimates the influence that old media money can have. These guys will throw a million bucks a year (though it usually doesn't even take that much) at a rising YouTube star as long as they keep producing 2-3 videos a week, and through syndication and advertising deals they can turn a nice profit on the content. They've bought up most of the talent on YouTube (because it's really hard to turn down that kind of money when you're a broke 20 year old making YouTube videos in your bedroom), and once they get the syndication pipelines fully worked out, YouTube will be just one of many sites with the same commoditized content.
I wish I was able to say more about this, but I'm bound by confidentiality agreements. But it should suffice to say that the old media players are coming back with a vengeance, and it's not going to be pretty for YouTube over the next few years. But it should work out ok for consumers.
I am wondering about this as well. What is going to happen to my favorite small channels? There are a lot of them with very few, but dedicated fan bases. Can I still watch those with having to fork over 10$/month?
Yes, of course. It is up to the channel, not the average user, to decide whether to accept red money or not.
If that channel decides to not take the red money, then their videos will essentially be hidden - you can still find them, but you have to go directly to their page and not through search or something.
I've been wondering when the day would come that youtube simply interleaves ad content into the videos and bypasses adblock. Perhaps they haven't done it in the past to avoid user backlash. Now they can simply say "upgrade to red to get back to an ad free experience".
IMO You underestimate the tiny amount of effort to the large payoff with adblocking.. What will come along is an adblocker which skips around the ad parts of the video automatically.
I'm assuming the ad is seamlessly part of the video - probably there will always be some way to determine that there is an ad but also there would end up being an arms-race about it so I would expect it would prohibitively expensive for ad-blockers to block ads that are just part of the video being streamed.
Remember Youtube's object is not to get rid of ALL ad-blockers, it is make the use of ad-blockers really uncomfortable for the MAJORITY of the internet users.
Her biggest objection was that Google was purporting to tell her when she could or couldn't release a new song on various music services. It seems they've backed down on that. Google claims they were never asking for that, while Keating claims they quietly changed the terms.
She also objects to Google dictating a very narrow range of options for how she interacts with people who use her music. She doesn't like the "stick ads on all of it" option that Google is steering her toward, because that's not a strong enough enough response to people who are using her music commercially without licensing it, but also she would rather not stick ads on her fans.
> It sounds like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue?
If you produce content which is of average or above length. If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under the revenue sharing model.
It's also unclear what happens to your share of revenue if you have sponsored content.
> If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under the revenue sharing model.
I'm not sure that's true. The revenue split is based on total watch time, so shorter videos will make less per view. However, short informative videos would presumably tend to be more popular than long, uninformative videos, leading to a much larger view count and a greater total watch time.
We saw precisely this same argument before [1]. This isn't Youtube removing videos. This is labels playing brinksmanship games with Youtube over licensing terms, and Youtube isn't backing down.
Is this bullying behavior from Youtube? Maybe, maybe not. I'm disincentivized to believe so, based on the fact that the same argument came up in the same couched language just over a year ago.
> This is labels playing brinksmanship games with Youtube
While labels certainly need taking down a peg, this isn't just about labels; much smaller channels can take part in the YouTube partner program. I've seen channels with just a few thousand subscribers get offered partner status.
That said, I don't see any issue with this; YouTube is offering an ad-free option, and that only works if it means no ads, not fewer ads.
> 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.
Except now your favorite content is still not on the ad-free service. If me subscribing to Red was based on content X being available, removing the content entirely is not going to make me subscribe. that's stupid.
What I don't understand and I missed it if anyone mentioned but why wouldn't video creators want to participate? Is there less revenue involved then or something?
> Youtube has become stupidly aggressive with its video ads in my region.
The video ads are part of the problem, the sidebar ads can be pretty rank, too. Hi, YouTube, have you considered that maybe when I want to watch an opera clip or a "how things work" video with my 8 year old I don't want gorey traffic ads, booze ads, or "buy a Russian bride" sidebars?
Same here, I have kids, and used to show them legal content on Youtube. Now I download everything because YouTube was showing horror movie ads between episodes.
> But the coercion involved It sets an alarming precedent about how
This is supposed to be two sentences, or remove the "It" from the middle of the sentence.
How is it obvious grammatical and spelling errors make their way into these articles (and seemingly more common now-days)?
These are professional writers, with professional editing staff - however it often feels the article is a first-draft written in one go and then published with zero review.
It's not just TechCrunch, but a lot of tech press (there's a bias to my observation because I read predominately tech press).
It makes it feel as-if the general quality of journalism is declining.
> It makes it feel as-if the general quality of journalism is declining.
How much did you pay for a newspaper subscription thirty years ago? How much did you pay to read this article?
The quality of journalism is declining, because the money is disappearing. News providers are producing more and more content for less and less money. The only way they can do that is by cutting corners.
I'm actually kind of surprised that the YouTube terms of service require a new agreement and aren't structured in a way that would allow them to make changes like this unilaterally.
I think the revenue sharing parts probably don't allow for unilateral changes because it affects actual businesses. Even the top creators are businesses in and of themselves, which don't want to have the way they make a living taken out from under them.
YouTube Red, So I am likely not making it into the signature box any time soon with wanting to start a channel that I have been thinking about for the last 5 years and now that I am retired and have the time, this comes along. Like many other people with the same thought all now in going up in smoke, or in the crapper. I have been working on videos for the last five years along the same format as the late Huel Houser with his California Gold Series. Only taking it a few miles down the road capturing all or at least the most of my motorcycle adventures with interviews of people along the way in as far off the path as I can find. Who are they and what do they have to say or do. So all of that said this YouTube Red thing Orwell was being an optimist this is like having big brother looking down your throat to see what you had for lunch. If you piss of the status quo you get the dubious honor of being privatized or canceled all together. Seriously who wants to shell out 1200 bucks a year to watch the little guy. Not me I want premium shit. I quit watching The boob Tube due to commercials and pay view crap. It is costly enough a month for the internet ad the price you pay for watching streaming video? That cost is what 180 220 a month for the a few gigs and exceed you plan and well you know. Add now add another 10 bucks a month. There is my tear in the beer, my bitch and moan, my two cents. I do not expect to lead you on this quest cause there simply is now enough of us hold outs to wage a war, as for the battle we are out gunned out numbered out classed, well shit we are just out. Don't follow me I'm lost ball high weeds. I'm just a funky old bastard bitching about the assertion of power and control over what was "WAS" free media. thats all stick a fork in me I'm done.
I'm using an adblocker today. I'd like to support the channels I like, but probably not if the $10/month is more than 10x what they're losing from not-watching-ads today.
Ignoring, for a second, that I'm pretty sure none of my favored channels have partner status anyway.
Someone help me out here because I'm not getting it. Why does it matter if the creator is part of the subscription deal? If they're not, just don't pay them their cut of the revenue income?
1) Subscribers will view just as many videos; no bandwidth increase for Google there.
2) Subscribers still don't see ads
3) Creators on the subscription deal get traditional ad revenue for non-subscribers and a share of Red fees for subscribers
4) Creators NOT on the subscription deal still get ad revenue for non-subscribers, but completely forfeit any share of the Red fees for subscribers
Where is Google or the subscriber losing out in that scenario? It's only the creators who don't want part of that deal, as their ad impressions drop proportionately.
I'm going to have to see how close I can get to doing without youtube anymore. There's a lot of useless timesink to it, multiplied by so many of us humans who could be doing something more fulfilling, more gratifying, healthier.
That's unfortunate because not all partners are able to agree to the new terms. Some of them have passed away. It saddens me to think that their videos will now be hidden because of a change in policy.
Either someone else now has authority over the estate such as to continue to be collecting a check from YouTube, or the channel is no longer a partner channel and just is automatically part of the new system. I don't think any channels will just go dark because the original owner passed away.
YouTube Red is not a choice for creators. If you're a partner, you have to agree to the new terms or you're de-listed (videos go private). If you're not a partner, just a regular creator, then you're just part of YouTube Red. You don't get a choice.
I would assume that "no longer active YouTube partner" is an oxymoron.
The Hacker News summary is slightly misleading (as is the TechCrunch headline it's sourced from). YouTube will be marking private the content of YouTube partners who don't sign on to the new YouTube Red TOS. Since being a YouTube Partner is an active interaction with YouTube, I'm pretty sure the set of dead YouTube partners is a set of size 0.
This seems like it would be the worst time to launch a competitor. You'd be saying "check out this new site, it's like YouTube but we brought back the ads".
If this new contract is actually an issue, it'll still take a little while for people to understand the downsides, and that's when you want to launch your "creator-friendly YouTube" or whatever.
You could wait for the problems to get worse to launch it, or you could offer a working platform now [if you had it] and switch to a totally-free model. As long as you have capital, burn through it to pay for everything until you have enough users. Then, after a year or two, introduce ads, or a subscription fee, or sell product placement or something.
I still don't get why product placement isn't used in place of ads. It could bring in tons of money, possibly more than ads, for the most popular youtube channels.
There's lots of product placement, but YouTube doesn't get any of that money. Companies go straight to the channels when they want to advertise. I don't think YouTube could get away with a contract that gave themselves a cut of this money.
How does exclusivity there work? Probably most content on YouTube is only uploaded there by the creators but that doesn't stop Facebook being covered in stuff stolen from there - if vessel got popular wouldn't the same happen?
While it can definitely be perceived as bullying, what reason would someone have not to want to support the new mode? They will get revenue from their content, and that revenue doesn't get killed by ad blockers either. Where is the down side?
Yeah, unlike youtube who are giving you the option to remove ads, we'll put twice the ads on everything! Please invest in my startup, advee (it's like teevee, but with ads!).
Slight tangent - I almost exclusively use Kodi (formerly XBMC) to watch youtube videos and I never see ads. I guess it's only a matter of time until they patch that hole though...
It would make my heart skip a beat if venture capitalists left this market completely to the pirates. they tend to provide a better service (compare Youtube to channelPEAR/Kodi)
Google has a de-facto monopoly position in this market (spotify for user generated videos and user generated videos in general). I think this deal should be subject to a FRAND regulation, like patents.
I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".
I'm great with then than, it's its, even effect affect. But Loose vs Lose I constantly get wrong. Something about a single/double o changing the s to a z sound just isn't working for me.
They should have spelled it looze instead :(
Edit: Decided to check the etymology to see who came up with that spelling. Apparently lose is related to lost and loss, maybe that will help me remember. I hope so.
When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.
I'm usually into this whole language relativism thing, but this doesn't seem right. In fact, your final point about it being possible that it meant loose-as-in-release is exactly why this is confusing. "Lose" is (probably?) what was meant, while "loose" kinda-sorta works, but isn't quite right, so now it's confusing!
Is it confusing? Or were you able to tell from context what the user meant? I suspect, given the language ability you've displayed here, that you had no trouble discerning the meaning the user was attempting to convey.
Language is not a series of rules to follow, it's a loose confederecy of conventions we used with each other to get our point across.
Look, I'm a hard-core descriptive linguistics kind of guy, but it doesn't preclude language mistakes, even common ones. "Loose" might someday become an accepted alternate spelling for "lose", but it isn't yet.
True. But what do we gain in the meantime by quibbling over typographical errors? Did anyone really read this fellow's comment and go, 'wait, what? That doesn't make any sense. I can't make heads or tails of this person's sentence.'I have hard time believing so. And, if the situation is as the parent comment described --- 'this error is made consistently upstream' -- then we're looking at the collapse of loose/lose probably in the same timeframe as 'they're/their/there' and 'to/too/two'.
My main point is that language is not a static set of do's and don't's. It lives. If you need someone to clarify, ask them! But pointing your teacher's baton at them and saying, 'you're using your language wrong' is a waste of life.
But, then again, I'm sure this user will never "misspell" (an hilarious notion, given how recently spelling was standardized to start!) that word again, so perhaps my fervor has backfired.
> what do we gain in the meantime by quibbling over typographical errors? Did anyone really read this fellow's comment and go, 'wait, what? That doesn't make any sense.
Nothing. There wasn't really a reason for whoever pointed it out to do so. On one hand it's a common error, so it's very noticeable—but on the other, it's a common error, so people know what was really meant.
> And, if the situation is as the parent comment described --- 'this error is made consistently upstream' -- then we're looking at the collapse of loose/lose probably in the same timeframe as 'they're/their/there' and 'to/too/two'.
Yeah, that seems reasonable. One thing your other examples have going for them, though, is that if you use the incorrect spelling, it's (almost) always obvious from context which is correct, but I can imagine there are more situations that lose and loose could both be correct.
> My main point is that language is not a static set of do's and don't's. It lives. If you need someone to clarify, ask them! But pointing your teacher's baton at them and saying, 'you're using your language wrong' is a waste of life.
Agreed 100%
> so perhaps my fervor has backfired.
Meh. I see so many "they is always plural!" or "literally meaning figuratively is a recent error!" or "language never changes!" or other prescriptive garbage, that it's a nice change of pace to see someone a bit too far on the descriptive side :-)
You're confusing language and orthography. The posters above didn't use an incorrect word in place of the usual one, they used the correct word and spelled it wrong.
As such, the only way language could change to accommodate this usage would be if "loose" became an alternate spelling for "lose". Whether the verb "loose" makes sense in context is neither here not there - it's not what the speakers were trying to say.
>"As such, the only way language could change to accommodate this usage would be if "loose" became an alternate spelling for "lose"
The comment I replied to mentioned that the mistake had been made "consistently upstream" -- I took this to mean that he has seen this mistake made multiple times by multiple people, which would indicate an alternate spelling has emerged, or that the two words have come to be spelled the same way.
And the comment about loose as a verb was a reference to the fact that the correction was not even necessary -- we can all get by with each other's occasional errors in typing. In this case, the error was so minor it didn't even affect the meaning of the sentence.
I'm a firm believer in avoiding any correction to adult speech, typing or spoken. People will use/abuse/misspell words no matter what, and pointing them out is merely an exercise in self-superiority.
> I took this to mean that he has seen this mistake made multiple times by multiple people, which would indicate an alternate spelling has emerged
"I've seen this happen many times" doesn't mean a new spelling has emerged, by several orders of magnitude. If my pals and I decided to go wander around online forums, spelling "fish" with -sch, that wouldn't make it magically correct.
It wouldn't make it standard, but I argue that if the person you mean to receive the message recieves it using that combination of letters, what's considered "correct" by x number of people is irrelevant.
Hence "correcting" someone when you knew what they meant is absurd.
> In this case, the error was so minor it didn't even affect the meaning of the sentence.
"Loose loose situation" doesn't mean anything. People understood the meaning because they could guess what error had been made, not because the two words are so similar as to be interchangeable.
Governed by rules, yes, but not so strict as to resist change or so esoteric as to require such fervent pedantics. After all, written language is speech made into symbols, not outright invented independently. I still can't figure what the use is in lecturing a person on spelling. Are we concerned for the person's job prospects? For his standing in the world of online discussion forums? This from someone who "doesn't want to be a nazi" about spelling. If that's the case, why correct the commenter at all?
loose
lo͞os
adjective
1.
not firmly or tightly fixed in place; detached or able to be detached.
"a loose tooth"
synonyms: not fixed in place, not secure, unsecured, unattached; More
2.
(of a garment) not fitting tightly or closely.
"she slipped into a loose T-shirt and shorts"
synonyms: baggy, generously cut, slack, roomy; More
verb
1.
set free; release.
"the hounds have been loosed"
Since language is ultimately a social contract between speakers attempting to convey meaning, you'll need some people to agree with you on that before we can call it a change. But you're welcome to try :)
Facebook is stomping on GooTube's video dominance by A) not showing ads, B) auto-running Facebook hosted videos while forcing a click for YouTube hosted ones, and C) offering content creators quite a bit better terms, apparently.
So, Google has to do something to monetize before somebody coughs to the fact that YouTube's numbers are dropping.
However Facebook requires potential viewers to log-in to view videos, which completely nullifies their service as a spontaneous click-link-and-watch option. Also prevents embedding.
Remember that well under half of the Internet's population have a Facebook account.
> which completely nullifies their service as a spontaneous click-link-and-watch option
Agreed. I, personally, can't stand Facebook. However, most of the people I know who create videos now only upload to Facebook so I had to make a Facebook account. The eyeballs follow the content. So, the question is, "Why are the content creators ignoring YouTube?"
And, actually, with pre-roll ads, YouTube did a good job of wiping out spontaneous already. It's not unusual for me to to click link, ad starts, close tab. I doubt it's coincidence that .gifv started taking off after pre-roll YouTube ads became ubiquitous (before you'd just link the YouTube video).
Ironic how Twitter, who turned their backs on developers years ago, are now forced to backpedal now that they are in decline. The same day, YouTube turns their back on content creators. A preview of things to come?
How is YouTube turning their backs on content creators?
I find it surprising that HN, a community full of people using ad-blockers to watch YouTube, would be against this. And on every freaking article discussing ad-blockers we decry the impossibility of paying a subscription instead. Well here's the subscription. And in the long run I'm sure it will benefit content authors as well.
But then Google is in a position like damned if they do, damned if they don't.
At this point all the content on youtube is corporate sponsored or belongs to a handful of super-creators that make all the ad revenue. Why they even call it "you" tube at this point is beyond me, should just go full sponsored content and be done with it.
It's hilarious, open YouTube in a private window of your browser of choice, and look at what they serve up, try and find something that isn't from a media company, music label, or PewDiePie.
I just did (incognito window, vpn on) and i see several videos from creators with less than 1000 subscribers[1][2][3]. I'd say they aren't "super-creators"... In fact the 3rd one has only a handful of videos most of them with under 1000 views.
Wow, well done sir. I don't suppose you're at a location where the music mafia (a.k.a Vevo) wouldn't want their content going? I have no idea what those locations would be, just curious if maybe that's a factor.
Of course, what Youtube shows to an annonymous viewer is the lowest denominator, most popular content; of course those will be from the super creators.
The question we should be asking, is how much of Youtube's revenue comes from the longtail of their content (and how much that longtail acts as a funnel into their service).
Very good question that would be hard to get a solid answer to. Though if we're going to go with the lowest denominator, that's also likely going to be the people least likely to block ads, and most likely to view the same videos (likely music) over and over and over. That's just the assumptions I make about people who listen to music on youtube though and may be entirely wrong.
Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal.
Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads.
Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss.
Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and you as a paying customer now have access to all videos without ads.
Really, for Google it's a loose loose situation, someone is going to be pissed one way or another, or they loose money. What would you do? Eat the loss? Easy to say, but hard to do. So they picked the one that benefits both them and their paying users (if you ignore the fact that a portion of youtube is going to go dark) at the same time.
Option 5: move ad based content to a new medium that isn't youtube so that content creators aren't tied to a single service for hosting.... But I only mention that because this is Hacker News and it's what I think we'd all want to be done, but Google isn't going to create that service.
Edit:formatting, and if I see another option someone has in a subsequent comment I'll bubble it up.
Edit 2: From JoshTriplett https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10428378
Option 6: take advantage of whatever "we can change this agreement at any time" term in the partner agreement to just say "this is our new approach to getting revenue, and we'll give you a cut of that just like we give you a cut of ads".