This service seems squarely aimed at mobile users- blocking ads and allowing YouTube to play in the background are two functionalities that are already enabled on desktop (with the addition of a browser-based adblocker). I'll be honest, it took me a minute or two to wrap my head around paying money to block ads on YouTube since I already do that with a browser extension.<p>Is YouTube really that popular on mobile? With Netflix and Spotify already having mobile apps I don't see many people paying $10 a month for the ability to skip ads and play YouTube music in the background. And as for "exclusive YouTube content" it makes zero sense to have the same monthly fee as Netflix and somehow think that PewDiePie is going to compete with Orange is the New Black or House of Cards.
Google should consider lumping in membership of Contributor in with YouTube Red for the $10 a month fee. That would be a great product - (Google) ad-free web plus ad-free YouTube that works in the background on mobile devices and offline (as long as you download the video first).<p>I'd be more likely to pay for that than the two services separately. This feels a little too close to the scenario where you're paying every advertising network in the world a subscription each month.<p><a href="https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/</a>
My main question is: How is my money distributed? If I only watch a single video in a given month, will that creator get my $10 (usually called "subscriber share model") will my money go into a big pool which is distributed equally by clicks, in which case the creator of my favorite video will get almost nothing?
My nieces love pewdiepie... Easy xmas gift.<p>I watch a few short series on youtube while working... it's a fine medium for content. 10 bucks seems steep to me... but I also don't pay for cable.<p>I can see this working.
I guess I don't understand what's supposed to be so great about this. Youtube is going to the cable subscription model. Hooray?<p>Everyone knows that the next few years is about consumers "cutting the cord" from cable bundles so they can pay the same amount for bundled streaming services. So Youtube is joining the list of paid streaming services. Not surprising, or exciting.<p>Everyone already seems to acknowledge that paid streaming services will go the same way cable TV went: first you're paying for no ads, but in a few years you're paying with ads, too. This goes beyond "not exciting" and right to "bad for consumers."<p>The only big question for me is, if "information wants to be free" really is baked into the digital world... who's going to do to Youtube, what Youtube did to cable TV?
What are they going to do about the ads creators do inside their videos? Unless they ban "This video is supported by..." type content inside videos there will still be ads, just not Youtube separate ads. And banning those ads will probably end many channels who rely on them to make up for Youtube's pretty lousy ad pay-out.
I signed up early for Google Play Music and got it at £7.99 instead of £9.99 - if they keep that price and add this I think I'll be pretty pleased.
>"I make a little bit of money from ads, not much, but something," she recently explained. The real money these days is in product placement"
Why doesn't Google just buy <a href="https://famebit.com/" rel="nofollow">https://famebit.com/</a> ?