×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

YouTube Music Subscription Details Leak

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the hitting-some-of-the-right-notes dept.

Youtube 71

Several readers sent word that Android Police has leaked details about YouTube's upcoming subscription service, Music Key. The benefits for users will include ad-free music, offline playback, and audio-only streams. It's expected to cost $10 per month. "Of course, one of Music Key's major value propositions is that users will have access not just to official discographies, but to concert footage, covers, and remixes. Play Music already houses some remixes and covers, but YouTube as a platform is significantly more open and workable for derivative content — the platform is much easier to add content to, and user discoverability is substantially different from Play Music." Others note Google still has to negotiate terms with many independent musicians, who could subsequently see their work blocked if they aren't willing to play by Google's rules.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The subscription cancer spreads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47707423)

What, ad revenue wasn't enough?

Re:The subscription cancer spreads (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 3 months ago | (#47707503)

I would rather pay than listen to ads. I already pay a subscription to di.fm/sky.fm. I use them a lot and subscription gets me better quality and no ads. I would even get hulu plus if they were ad free.

Re:The subscription cancer spreads (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47707671)

Then what about this: I'd rather not pay these assholes and listen to all their music anyway. So I think that's what I'll do. And as a bonus, I'll help everyone I know do that too. In fact, I'll do everything I can to make these suckers loose money.

Re:The subscription cancer spreads (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 4 months ago | (#47708259)

Well, it is easier for me to pay them, than find other means. I would rather pay them. I do honestly think they are providing a good service. I can have VLC adblock their ads, but their premium service also has higher quality streams. (I am assuming we are still talking about di.fm/sky.fm)

Why paying for what you can have FOR FREE ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47710807)

I use AdBlock Plus and I don't see any ads, anywhere. Neither in the form of videos, nor of banners. I barely remember what "ads" look like. And I use Firefox's DownloadHelper to download any videos I want. Subscription price? $ 0.00.

Re:The subscription cancer spreads (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 months ago | (#47707533)

I'm fine with subscriptions. I would rather pay $5/mo to RDIO for access to their massive library than buy music. What could that $60/yr get me? Four CDs? No thanks.

On the other hand, they're all missing a lot of content, too. It's frustrating to really want one chunk of music and simply not be able to get it. And, of course, no subscription service gives you Led Zep or Beatles and AC/DC and so on, it seems.

I just don't know that I'd give Youtube $10/mo. Double the price.. for what is probably a weaker selection (and one that is probably geared more toward Gaga, Bieber, PewDiePie fans).

Plus, Youtube means Youtube/Google interface. Fuck that. RDIO isn't great, but at least it wasn't designed by Google's interface guys. *shudder*

Are you Kidding Me (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 3 months ago | (#47707657)

at least it wasn't designed by Google's interface guys. *shudder*

...are you kidding me. Chrome the desktop version has become the one to follow even by Firefox own incredible debut, but its mobile interface it truly a thing of great beauty. In fact the reality is Google bland web page interface is one of the reasons it became a dominate search engine. Even their older interfaces are functional I bought a clone of the now retired "News & Weather" app simply because it was so useful. The only exceptions are the surprisingly awful Finance Application on Android and the Images Google mobile version which is missing basic functionality...but these are exceptions to the rule.

Re:Are you Kidding Me (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 months ago | (#47707805)

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Chrome has definitely become the interface driver; I now find that more and more interfaces are difficult to navigate with poor vision, whether it be eyesight in general, low-light situations, glare situations, etc.

The Chrome UI is definitely different, and sheds a lot of cruft that was just there for legacy's sake, but the result is something that is only really an improvement if you're under 35 and operating in optimal lighting conditions.

Human Interface Design has gone downhill a lot in the last decade, with designers thinking they know better than what came before, instead of learning from it like previous generations did. That doesn't mean that there aren't good new design ideas coming out, just that as a whole, the implementation sucks for the majority of people for the majority of use cases. It attempts to get people to conform to the design instead.

Re:Are you Kidding Me (3, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | about 4 months ago | (#47708497)

I agree that Chrome browser has a generally pleasant interface (to the point that other browsers feel cluttered, to me). However, look at everything else Google touches. It's always cluttered, clunky, and misleading. G+, youtube, youtube mobile clients, youtube clients on consoles and roku and other devices. Google Docs. Even Gmail to a degree. Google has two things that are pleasing as interfaces: Chrome and Google.com's main page. Everything else feels like an engineer tossed it together in a day after working on the backend for two years.

Granted, this is but one man's opinion. Maybe everyone else loves these interfaces...?

Re:Are you Kidding Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47716145)

You think gmail is cluttered?
Have you even seen other email clients?

Email is a complex beast. Honestly I think gmail is pretty simple for all the things it does.
It's no wonder that every other webmail client nowadays tries to emulate them.

They didn't take over the web on account of their generous space offering alone. That part was matched by their competition in no time, what was hard to replicate was a decent web client.

Whats wrong with Subscription (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 3 months ago | (#47707547)

What, ad revenue wasn't enough?

Personally I have been baffled why Google hasn't heavily promoted its own sales of songs on youtube over that of itunes.That said I cannot help but think that Google is better company for not relying on Advertising Revenue alone...in fact it has been reducing it for some time.

iTunes-only artists (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47707799)

Personally I have been baffled why Google hasn't heavily promoted its own sales of songs on youtube over that of itunes.

Because there are plenty of bands whose music is for sale on iTunes Store but not Google Play. For example, last time I checked, "Bück dich" by Rammstein was on iTunes Store (US) but not on Google Play (US).

Re:iTunes-only artists (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47709767)

Just cause its theme fits better with Apple than Google.

(for those that don't speak German, "bück dich" means "bend over")

Every iPhone poops because it isn't an Android (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47711523)

Sure it doesn't mean "bend over and give us all your personal information," like having to disclose your real name in a Google+ public profile in order to be allowed to comment on a YouTube video? Or perhaps it just means birthday [ytmnd.com] .

Which brings me to a song by Bad Lip Reading [amazon.com] with lyrics "Everybody poops and if they don't they're an Android and should be destroyed." This is sold on iTunes but also on Amazon, which also runs an Android app store. I'm not sure with which platform this song's theme fits. On the one hand, "Android [...] should be destroyed" fits in with the dream of Steve Jobs to go thermonuclear on Android. On the other hand, the implication that every other smartphone OS "poops" could be taken either way.

Re:Every iPhone poops because it isn't an Android (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47712797)

Well... allow me to translate the lyrics and you tell me, ok?

Bend over, I command you
turn your visage away from me
I don't care about your face
bend over

A biped on all fours
I take him for a walk
ambling down the hallway
I'm disappointed

It gets better, but I don't know how many kids or Apple fanboys are watching. ;)

Re:Whats wrong with Subscription (1)

0ld_d0g (923931) | about 4 months ago | (#47710429)

.in fact it has been reducing it for some time.

Yes, only 90+% of their revenue is from advertising.

Why would anyone pay for music on Youtube? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47707469)

You can just watch and share the music videos people post which is one of the only reasons why I used Youtube in the first place.

Problem loading page (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47707737)

The benefits for users will include [...] offline playback

You can just watch and share the music videos people post

Good luck doing so while offline.

Re:Problem loading page (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47707921)

The benefits for users will include [...] offline playback

You can just watch and share the music videos people post

Good luck doing so while offline.

Yes, that would be impossible. *looks around with shifty eyes*

Slippery path (2)

bobjr94 (1120555) | about 3 months ago | (#47707531)

There are many websites now you copy and paste a youtube link, then gives you an mp3 file. And there are browser ad-ons that download full videos for later viewing and can also do conversion to mp3 audio. Anyway, I don't like how this is sounding, next youtube will want money to view videos in HD or some other type of premium feature. Thats how XM radio started, you pay a low price for ad free music, then after several years more and more channels started playing ads and prices went up.

Re:Slippery path (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 3 months ago | (#47707549)

Thats how XM radio started, you pay a low price for ad free music, then after several years more and more channels started playing ads and prices went up.

Counter anecdote is di.fm/sky.fm. Prices have gone up, but not significantly. No ads after several years,

Re:Slippery path (2)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#47707675)

and how much time is it taking you to copy and paste dozens of hundreds of links?

Re:Slippery path (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 4 months ago | (#47708781)

You are really overestimating the amount of work that could be required. Applications like Couchpotato for movies make it as simple as visit IMDB and you can quickly queue up an entire artist's career with just a few quick clicks. Headphones is similar for music, but not quite the same. I don't imagine it would be too hard to something similar to Couchpotato once an organized source becomes readily available.

Re:Slippery path (1)

beanMosheen (981339) | about 4 months ago | (#47712051)

You don't have to copy and paste anything. Just save them to a playlist and most apps will ripp the entire list in one click.

Re:Slippery path (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47707915)

Other than the rebroadcasted major market channels KIIS and Z100 on channels 11 and 12, what music channels are playing commercials?

Channel 76 and below (except 11/12) are all still commercial free. I can't speak for 77-79 (kids), and some of the 140+ Latino channels, but...

What music channels, exactly, are playing commercials on XM?

Re:Slippery path (1)

mordenkhai (1167617) | about 4 months ago | (#47708625)

In my 3 month trial, I didn't hear commercials on any music stations. Just all the talk, news and comedy channels have commercials. Which is why I passed on paying.

Re:Slippery path (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 4 months ago | (#47708865)

They aren't commercials, but I hate the DJs between songs. I just wish they would play songs, one after another. I don't care about whatever drivel they want to talk about as if they were real DJs.

And while I know you said music stations, if you ever go to one of the talk stations, commercials are awful. ESPN radio seems to be about 50/50 mix between actual talk and commercials. I understand SiriusXM doesn't have control over ESPN's inserted ads, but the ones that SiriusXM plays in the spots where local affiliates would insert local ads....argh. Get rich quick schemes, shady testosterone supplements, trucking company help-wanted ads, and franchise opportunities are just awful.

Re:Slippery path (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 4 months ago | (#47713167)

I'm not fond of the length of time that the DJ's talk either. At most, "Thanks was X by Y, and he'll be in New York on Tuesday. Now here's Z." At most. They tend to prattle on. :/

I simply wanted to counter the argument that the poster above made that "ad free music" had gone away on XM/Sirius. It hasn't.

FWIW, most of the channels I listen to are long-form talk, and most of the commercials are large blocks at the ends of the hours. ...and yes, they're all lowest-common-denominator sort of ads, but that's what you're going to get on the format.

Re:Slippery path (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 4 months ago | (#47713529)

None of those complaints addressed the original claims: commercial free stations that started playing commercials.

And while the trucking company ads can get annoying, I'd be willing to bet a huge proportion of truckers have Sirus and/or XM in the cab (having been one myself).

Re:Slippery path (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 4 months ago | (#47713515)

Other than the rebroadcasted major market channels KIIS and Z100 on channels 11 and 12, what music channels are playing commercials?

Channel 76 and below (except 11/12) are all still commercial free. I can't speak for 77-79 (kids), and some of the 140+ Latino channels, but...

What music channels, exactly, are playing commercials on XM?

Stop screwing up the nerdrage with pointless facts.

Re:Slippery path (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47710911)

Google didn't buy YouTube to provide the internet with a free video service forever. They've been trying to think of a way to generate a profit with the service since they bought it in 2006. Quite frankly I'm surprised it's taken them this long to come up with the subscription model.

You can already see this happening with popular channels. Someone creates a channel, becomes popular, and then monetizes it with ads.

Don't like ads? Then go use another video streaming service. In my opinion Vimeo is one of the best out there, but regardless of how nice the site design is it will never become popular without content.

Better (legal) way to get ad-free YouTube music: (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 3 months ago | (#47707565)

Buy a Nintendo Wii-U and use the (stock) free YouTube app. As a bonus, you also get a Nintendo Wii-U.

Re:Better (legal) way to get ad-free YouTube music (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47707761)

The benefits for users will include [...] offline playback

Buy a Nintendo Wii-U and use the (stock) free YouTube app.

I thought YouTube just errored out and displayed "The content owner has not made this video available on mobile" on an attempt to view a monetized video on a platform that doesn't enforce ad viewing. Besides, good luck carrying your Wii U with you and using it offline.

Re:Better (legal) way to get ad-free YouTube music (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 3 months ago | (#47707817)

Unavailability for using it offline is a valid point, however the former issue about videos "not being available on mobile" is not a problem while using the stock YouTube app. While its possible that is an issue that was fixed/patched more recently than I have tested, I suspect you're confusing the behavior of the stock Wii-U YouTube app with surfing to youtube.com directly with the stock Wii-U browser, which is problematic on any site requiring Flash versions later than about 7.x or 8.x - similar to the stock browser on the previous generation Wii.

Non-monetized platforms (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47708195)

however the former issue about videos "not being available on mobile" is not a problem while using the stock YouTube app.

It was some time ago when I used the stock YouTube apps for Android and iOS. I don't currently own a Wii U on which to test, but I have read a policy document [google.com] stating that YouTube allows the partner uploader or a Content ID claimant to block videos from being viewed on "non-monetized platforms". Does "1-800-KIRBYCIDE" [youtube.com] , a popular fan video for "Doctor Online" by Zeromancer, play on Wii U?

Re:Non-monetized platforms (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 4 months ago | (#47708321)

I didn't check yet, but that video doesn't even show an ad on PC... most youtube videos in question with ads are the ones with copyrighted songs. You just spamming a malware-laden flash video or something?

Re:Non-monetized platforms (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 4 months ago | (#47708379)

Sorry, I apologize for accusing you of phishing/malware distribution. Yes, it plays fine on the Wii-U stock YouTube app for me at least as of just now when I checked it. It also plays fine on my Linux box, in both cases with no ads. I can summarize from this that you can't conflate the Wii-U YouTube app's behavior with that of mobile devices, though I guess its technically unclear whether that is a hardware issue or a difference in YouTube policy at this point. (Note that despite alot of derisive commentary about the Wii-U performance capabilities floating around the internet, its NOT, technically, ARM hardware, which might pose actually different technical issues vs Android/iPhones)

Re:Non-monetized platforms (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47708587)

Yes, the Wii U has an ARM processor used as an I/O processor, but games actually run on a separate multi-core application processor derived from a PowerPC G3. Conceptually it resembles the ARM9/ARM7 setup of the DS, PowerPC/ARM setup of the original Wii, or the big.LITTLE setup [wikipedia.org] that ARM is trying to push in mobile.

But I was referring only to YouTube policy. Thanks for testing the video.

Re:Non-monetized platforms (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 4 months ago | (#47708641)

I think that in reference to my original post, I only regarded YouTube policy as relevant in to videos with ads attached by default, which I *do* get on my Linux box still when visiting youtube.com, just like on Windows. So far I have *not* found any ads on *any* videos through the Wii-U YouTube app, nor have I found any videos that will refuse to play on the Wii-U app that do play on the Linux box, even ones that show ads on the Linux box.

Re:Non-monetized platforms (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 4 months ago | (#47708855)

Its also worth noting, now that I understand where your actual concern lies, the ARM chip in the controller isn't actually used to decode video. The whole point of the custom 5ghz wireless connection from the main console is in fact so that it can stream full-framerate decoded video TO the screen on the controller, in case the console itself is not connected to an actual TV display directly (or if it is simply off - as it is designed to be optional for most purposes) though when you use the stock web browser to surf to typical flash websites, its common to see really badly written javascript-based browser detection erroneously misidentify you as a mobile platform based on browser/flash version. The YouTube app I suspect specifically exists to combat this issue. Some stuff *does* run almost entirely within the controller (the silly TVii app thing comes to mind) and it runs notably enough slower that its obvious its doing so. TVii however, does not carry video.

Re:Non-monetized platforms (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 4 months ago | (#47709119)

Sigh, but now that I test a few other videos I'd tested before there are some ads now, so I guess i'm just wrong and they simply originally didn't have ads. Nevermind me, sorry.

Re:Better (legal) way to get ad-free YouTube music (1)

Zynder (2773551) | about 3 months ago | (#47707765)

You say all of that like it's a good thing. The problem is you end up with a Wii-U!

Too late (1)

gatfirls (1315141) | about 3 months ago | (#47707593)

Sorry google, you missed the bus on the music thing. Play Music is a flop because it's competing in a saturated market where everyone has picked a pony already. Unless you're gonna offer some earth shattering new thing Music Key will be a (relative) flop also.

Google is Early; Rich; Everywhere (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 3 months ago | (#47707697)

Sorry google, you missed the bus on the music thing.

Except the reverse is true. Music subscriptions are not on most peoples radar. Google hold a dominant position in the largest OS in the world on the most popular music devices in the world, and ownes the largest (Music) Video Site (in fact that is the whole point about the indie artist dispute) on the most used music player in the world. It is a market of few large players, and a large player like Google is eg. Microsoft with Xbox.

The only real question is how do they do it without bringing into question antitrust concerns.

Re:Google is Early; Rich; Everywhere (1)

gatfirls (1315141) | about 3 months ago | (#47707777)

I kinda thought that same thing with Google+.

Microsoft with Xbox is not really analogous. They came out with a completely new device with new games. Music Key (sounds like) just another content delivery service.

Who knows maybe they will bring something new to the table.

Re:Google is Early; Rich; Everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47713365)

omg Slashdot's biggest Google fanboy back in action! hello tuppe666. Look at all the incorrect stuff you're spouting!

Comp. for Apple Itunes - Will it hurt the stock? (1)

CANADIANINVESTORS.CA (3790967) | about 3 months ago | (#47708071)

Re:Comp. for Apple Itunes - Will it hurt the stock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47708223)

Worth reading

I subscribe to live365 (1)

dwywit (1109409) | about 3 months ago | (#47707651)

~USD70 per annum for ad-free listening. I'd be happy to pay double that if and ONLY if the extra went straight to artists, i.e. not via licencing/royalty agents.

You can listen to most of the stations for free, if you're happy to hear the ads.

Unfortunately, their recent website re-design is dreadful. I play it via an eeePC, and the website does not scale very well to a small screen. The standalone player for Windows is OK, but the android app doesn't behave - long connect times, lots of dropouts and crashes. It keeps playing after you tap the "stop" button, and won't terminate until you force stop the app. I can cope with that because there's lots of great music across dozens of genres and thousands of stations.

I'll stick with adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47707667)

I'd gladly pay if it was anyone but Google.

Music is too easy to pirate, sorry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47707701)

I would have listened to ads for the convenience though. Oh well.

Re:Music is too easy to pirate, sorry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47707841)

You don't even need to pirate; stream music to disk from one of the streaming services, then ask someone like iTunes for the higher quality copy of the song. Nowhere do you agree not to do it, and you can automate most of the steps. Added bonus is that the artists likely get some of the money paid from both the streaming service and the upconversion service. Downside is that they likely don't get enough, the labels get most (plus some usage data) and the listed services aren't really set up to be profitable via these methods, so you're counting on others to be paying the fees/clicking the ads so you can freeload.

Lossless (1)

Prune (557140) | about 3 months ago | (#47707859)

Apologies in advance if this was answered in TFA, but are they planning to provide lossless formats as an option? I'm hoping to avoid having to rip my large CD collection to FLAC due to the amount of time that would take, and would gladly pay decent prices to a service or sale that offers lossless. Recommendations are welcome.

Re:Lossless (2)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 4 months ago | (#47708143)

if $ 0.00 is decent enough, try TPB; most of the stuff there is available as FLAC.

Re:Lossless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47710159)

For some values of "most".

I mean, modern rock, electronic or pop is easy to find there or other torrent sites. Classical to some degree. Music from other countries, not to suggest in other languages... less. Strange music? By coindicence only.

I live in a country with decent musical selections in libraries so I borrow more obscure artists' CDs and rip them.

Ten frickin' dollars per month fo music? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 3 months ago | (#47707867)

If I'm only paying nine dollars to watch movies and TV shows on Netflix, why is music costing more than that?

The old media companies better wake up real fucking soon, otherwise they're history.

Re:Ten frickin' dollars per month fo music? (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about 3 months ago | (#47707889)

The library is probably substantial, and that involves a lot of licensing expenses. Netflix is probably paying less for licensing, and offering a much more narrow selection.

Precursor to charging for Youtube itself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47707963)

If it is successful won't they charge for Youtube itself?
ow.ly/AvA15

Re:Precursor to charging for Youtube itself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47707981)

http://tinyurl.com/ko2vocp

NEGATIVE FOR APPLE's Stock PRICE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47708015)

Does this mean it will impact Apple's stock price?

http://tinyurl.com/ko2vocp

Who wants YouTube when there's (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 3 months ago | (#47708087)

TPB.

Re:Who wants YouTube when there's (1)

gatfirls (1315141) | about 4 months ago | (#47708221)

The people who don't feel like paying 2500$ per song after the fact.

Capitol v. Thomas (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47708237)

Someone who doesn't want to become the next Jammie Thomas [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Who wants YouTube when there's (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | about 4 months ago | (#47708341)

My friends and I enjoy sharing old music videos with one another and Youtube has been great for finding these, especially early new-wave/gothrock from the early 80s. Many european bands failed to "make it over" and it's like finding a treasure box.. Part of me wants to start ripping these old finds before they come down in the pursuit of money just so I have them around.

And this explains a lot about what happened... (4, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | about 4 months ago | (#47708285)

... a couple months ago. Youtube made a huge push in collaboration with the major record labels to set up deals with the major labels and de-prioritize or remove videos from independent artists. This push was questioned at the time, but Google/Youtube was wise to hide the *reason* for a couple month so as to 'disconnect' the two concepts from the non-diligent news reader.

Do no evil? How about "Do profit, f*** you". Why did youtube force all users to have accounts? Why is youtube turning into one commercial after another? Why is google more interested in the interests of big money corporate business than the interests of its viewers and its original content providers? By 'original content providers', I'm talking about how Youtube got its start (and still so up until recently) from user-generated content. Youtube made widely available the videos that used to be mass e-mailed around to friends. And now? What is this? A walled garden from the very people pretending to support the open-internet and wild-west style of the internet that surfers of the 90s are trying to remember. Google/Youtube is a liar. Money trumps 'good', and thus 'evil' prevails. They need to change their motto before they start being laughed at like Fox News - Fair and Balanced.

Re:And this explains a lot about what happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47710459)

Well, they're an advertising company. Of course they're going to want to extract as much money as possible. Subscription business models aren't exactly new, but people have realized that having their customers on some kind of subscription treadmill is much easier than creating a product and selling it. Google historically has mostly failed to make any kind of decent money selling non-subscription products. Companies of that size know that even if people bitch about it, in the end, they have to suck it up and hand over their money. (See: Adobe CC fiasco)

Youtube is an unusable mess of shitty unskippable commercials (thank heavens for adblock). So, okay, they get to control what goes on their website, and I get to control what comes through my network cable using the internet service that I paid for. I already block their shitty analytics stuff that consumes CPU and memory resources that I pay for.

A: Because it disrupts the flow of a message (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 4 months ago | (#47710649)

Q: Why is starting a comment in the Subject: line incredibly irritating?

Re:And this explains a lot about what happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47711735)

Why did youtube force all users to have accounts?

They didn't. I use YouTube just fine without one. Never had one, probably never will. From my understanding, you only need an account to upload, not to watch.

Why is youtube turning into one commercial after another?

I've never seen an ad on YouTube on any of my regular computers. Occasionally on my phone, but I don't use YouTube much on my phone. See also: Why you should just use AdBlock and to hell with everyone else. If you're too attached to a browser that doesn't have an AdBlock extension, then that's your own damned fault. Thanks for paying my way.

Why is google more interested in the interests of big money corporate business than the interests of its viewers and its original content providers?

Hmm... that's a tough one. Oh, wait, no it's not.

Youtube made widely available the videos that used to be mass e-mailed around to friends. And now? What is this? A walled garden from the very people pretending to support the open-internet and wild-west style of the internet that surfers of the 90s are trying to remember.

I get your point, but it's not valid. The videos that used to be spammed around by bored old people with nothing better to do aren't the ones that they're taking down due to copyright violations (whether real or alleged). And it's not much of a walled garden, since everything is still available to everybody. This is just an ad-free playlist management and music suggestion service. And since I've already pointed out that half of that is possible without a subscription already if you just point a middle finger at Google, then what exactly is the fuss?

Re:And this explains a lot about what happened... (1)

joocemann (1273720) | about 4 months ago | (#47717991)

Sorry that I didn't specify. By 'require accounts', I meant to interact. And so to make comments you are required to have an account attached. This wasn't the case in the past. Anonymity is gone. Why does this matter? Sometimes people reach out to each other anonymously about serious things that they are afraid to voice with a more obvious traceable identity.

Saying that everyone should use adblock plus doesn't address the point I made at all. What you provided was a band-aid to the issue I brought up. I use adblock plus, too. That's not the point.

As I said before, and for which most people with a memory can agree, Youtube is/was based on user generated content more than content from big business. When I was talking about Youtube's recent policies pushing independent artists off, I was *not* talking about copyright violations. That is a separate issue. Please read up. There's a lot that you're assuming isn't happening in your response. They truly are reducing access and producing a walled garden. You just haven't read enough lately to know about it.

Lossless/flac formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47709619)

No paid subscription until they provide that.

MP3 sucks even though my ears can't realize that.

Leak? More like Advert. (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 4 months ago | (#47710759)

YouTube Music Subscription Viral Marketing

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?