I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service.<p>Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal.<p>Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads.<p>Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss.<p>Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and you as a paying customer now have access to all videos without ads.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Edit:formatting, and if I see another option someone has in a subsequent comment I'll bubble it up.<p>Edit 2: From JoshTriplett <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10428378" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10428378</a><p>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".
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.
Serious question: What if I'm dead?<p>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?
Here's a statement I got from a YouTube spokesperson:<p>"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."
Does anyone know why content creators would <i>not</i> 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 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.<p>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.<p>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.
So let me get this straight, if I stay on the "free" youtube with my adblocker, I can continue to see all videos ad-free? Or only the non-red ones?
Is there any good reason for content creators to refuse to sign? It sounds like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue?<p>Sure, being forced to sign a contract is lame, but the new contract doesn't seem to harm them in any way.
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.<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7904509" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7904509</a>
> 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.<p>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. To the point I actually try to avoid using it.<p>I will also consciously avoid all companies who think that it is acceptable to interrupt randomly people with their messages.<p>I am fine with overlay ads and I would have been positively influenced with the same ads in overlay form that now are forced on me as video ads.<p>Sorry, but this is a short term strategy.
> But the coercion involved It sets an alarming precedent about how<p>This is supposed to be two sentences, or remove the "It" from the middle of the sentence.<p>How is it obvious grammatical and spelling errors make their way into these articles (and seemingly more common now-days)?<p>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.<p>It's not just TechCrunch, but a lot of tech press (there's a bias to my observation because I read predominately tech press).<p>It makes it feel as-if the general quality of journalism is declining.
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.
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.
Anyone know what the CPM of Youtube ads is?<p>I'm using an adblocker today. I'd <i>like</i> 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.<p>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?<p>1) Subscribers will view just as many videos; no bandwidth increase for Google there.<p>2) Subscribers still don't see ads<p>3) Creators on the subscription deal get traditional ad revenue for non-subscribers and a share of Red fees for subscribers<p>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<p>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.
Things I like: moving away from an ad supported model (ads are really horrid for content creators, even though it may seem otherwise).<p>Things I don't like: google treating creators like their personal property rather than putting more power in their hands.<p>Long term I'm not sure this is a good move for youtube, as it's likely to drive away and discourage content creators.
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...
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".
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?
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.<p>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.