5 ms·

YouTube locks 4K playback behind Premium subscriptions in latest test

39 points by rtavares 4y ago

diebeforei485 4y ago
This is reasonable. However, I don't like being forced to also pay for their music streaming service because I already pay for (and prefer) a different service.
- _fat_santa 4y ago
  If you watch a lot of youtube video's it's worth it for just the ad-free experience alone. I actually did some math a while back and figured out based on my hourly bill rate that it's technically costing me money to not pay for YT premium (that is the time spent watching ads times my bill rate was greater than the monthly subscription cost).
  - happymellon 4y ago
    Firefox gives me a great ad-free YouTube experience.
    - _fat_santa 4y ago
      If I only watched YT on the browser sure. But I mainly get it so I can go without ads on mobile and on my TV. Yes I know there are apps like Vanced but I personally find it worth it not have to always look for workarounds.
      - happymellon 4y ago
        I'm referring to watching it on mobile. Firefox lets me run YouTube in the background too. I don't watch YouTube on the TV. The experience is horrific.
    - throwaway5959 4y ago
      Yes but then creators and YouTube don’t get paid.
      - zamalek 4y ago
        I don't care about YouTube getting paid, but apparently YT Premium is lucrative for the creators (in comparison to ads). It's a very cheap way to support the people who make the content that you enjoy.
      - happymellon 4y ago
        I honestly was fine before when there was only one ad, but now that YouTube ads are as long as some of the clips I watch I generally avoid it. When people use YouTube, I'll use Firefox.
- Tijdreiziger 4y ago
  The Premium Lite subscription doesn’t include Music.
  - pledg 4y ago
    Seems to be a pilot and it available in all regions.
  - diebeforei485 4y ago
    Not available in my region (USA).
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  You're not really, it just doesn't cost YouTube any more in terms of licensing the music for their music streaming service than it does to clear the rights for YouTube Premium, so they literally may as well include it. A YouTube Premium lite is available in a few territories, but where it isn't that's because the music situation means it could cost single cents a month less than the full service and therefore isn't worth doing.
robertwt7 4y ago
Curious if any of the creator are actually getting something out of the premium if they're locking this...
- james-skemp 4y ago
  I haven't seen any recent numbers or information, but I believe Premium views do generate some amount of money for the video creator. I believe it shows as a different line item in their revenue dashboard. Super basic official answer: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en Edit: From a creator at https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/xv8k6n/i_have_youtube_premium_how_much_of_a_video_should/ https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/xv8k6n/i_have_yout... (so take it as you will): > Income from premium is distributed by your watchtime. YouTube takes a portion of your monthly fee and divides it between the videos you watched. You watch only a single creator, that creator will get all of it. You watch only few videos, those videos will earn a larger chunk each. You watch hundreds of videos, each video will only earn a small amount. You pay a lot for premium, more will be paid to creators. You use a vpn to buy premium from india or so, only a fraction of that payment will be distributed accordingly. > If you are not using premium creators get paid from advertisements that are actually watched. So either you have to watch the full advertisement, if it is shorter than 30 seconds, or at least 30 seconds from a longer advertisement, before you skip it. Skipping an advertisement after 5 - 29 seconds means no payout to the creator.
- PeterStuer 4y ago
  I have heard in the past one Premium viewer is about the same revenue for a creator as 6 non-premium viewers.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  IIRC, premium was a large part of the reason behind those wacky auto-generated kids streams that was in the news a couple years ago. Parents don't want their kids watching ads, so a good number of kids have premium accounts. Premium pays a lot better than ads, so targeting kids can be quite lucrative.
hulitu 4y ago
> YouTube locks 4K playback behind Premium subscriptions ... and HD behind compression.
- iso1631 4y ago
  Uncompressed 1080p60 video is on the order of 3gigabit a second
  - stoicjumbotron 4y ago
    Does Vimeo compresses the uploaded videos? I found their videos to be more "clearer" if that makes any sense.
    - anonuser123456 4y ago
      All video is compressed in a lossy manner.
      - iso1631 4y ago
        I have some 444 10 bit progressive files, you could argue that the mere act of sampling an analog domain is lossy, but if you accept a typical YUV422 as being non-lossy then I have a fair amount. But yes you're right that typically video today will be stored in the 150-250mbit range which is lossy. I imagine a typical youtuber will then compress that again out of their video editor to something like a 20mbit long-gop file and upload to youtube/vimeo. That platform then takes the original upload and makes a dozen or so versions and different frame sizes, bitrates and codecs to cater for different consumers
  - webinvest 4y ago
    Maybe he means lossy compression
    - iso1631 4y ago
      That 3gbit is already lossy compression (chroma subsampling, bit depth compromises, framerate and size compromises) You could store at a more usable bitrate - say 240mbit, and its even more lossy
kajaktum 4y ago
Can someone tell me how YouTube is supposed to make money without ads and premium service? No one has been able to give me a straight answer.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  The same way YouTube was making money from 2005 till today?
  - govg 4y ago
    Have they been profitable all this while though? They were operating at massive losses for a long while.
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      The fact that they chose to operate at a loss for decades in order to unfairly monopolize market share is their own self inflicted problem. You reap what you sow. I'm not paying YouTube/Google one single dime. They already monetize all my private data and viewing habits.
    - theptip 4y ago
      I think the right question is: are they free cash flow-positive? I don't know the numbers off the top of my head. "Operating at a loss" means different things to different people. Profit is an irrelevant metric for a company like YT that would reinvest every dollar of FCF into growth. (See Amazon for the well-fleshed out reasoning as to why this is so.)
- jterrys 4y ago
  Cute thought experiment: Google is notorious for snuffing products they consider unprofitable. Yet persisted with Youtube for 16 years. Why?
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Because owning the world's biggest video distribution monopoly was worth 16+ years of losses for them. Same like owning Twitter. They have almost no competition.
skyde 4y ago
this is risky move. lot of artist already moved to Vimeo because of quality in the past.
- jerlam 4y ago
  Vimeo is no longer trying to compete with YouTube. They are becoming a B2B solution: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979126/vimeo-patreon-creators-price-increase https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979126/vimeo-patreon-cr... You can build a creator career on YouTube, but on Vimeo you'll pay for the privilege.
PeterStuer 4y ago
I have a family Premium subscription. I'm sad this can not be the default YouTube experience for everybody as every time I see someone watching YT without a sub I do not understand how they can tolerate the barrage of advertising. Surely this attention economy model must be a loss for humanity as a whole, no?
- irthomasthomas 4y ago
  I just use ad blockers. I haven't a YouTube ad in years.
  - s__s 4y ago
    I couldn’t do that. There are some amazing content creators on YouTube, and to deny them of ad revenue for their hard work would feel very wrong.
    - irthomasthomas 4y ago
      That's not how revenue works on YouTube since about 10 years ago.
      - s__s 4y ago
        Interesting. Can you elaborate? Last I heard creator revenue is a direct result of total ad views. A quick google search would seem to confirm this is still the case.
        lesuorac 4y ago
        https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en > If you're a YouTube Premium member, you won't see ads, so we share your monthly membership fee with creators.
        faller_slive 4y ago
        I think he is talking about other revenue streams that most large creators use. Such as ads the creators place in their own videos, merchandise, and direct payments (Patreon, subscribe star, etc).

39 points by rtavares 4y ago

This is reasonable. However, I don't like being forced to also pay for their music streaming service because I already pay for (and prefer) a different service.

_fat_santa 4y ago
If you watch a lot of youtube video's it's worth it for just the ad-free experience alone. I actually did some math a while back and figured out based on my hourly bill rate that it's technically costing me money to not pay for YT premium (that is the time spent watching ads times my bill rate was greater than the monthly subscription cost).
- happymellon 4y ago
  Firefox gives me a great ad-free YouTube experience.
  - _fat_santa 4y ago
    If I only watched YT on the browser sure. But I mainly get it so I can go without ads on mobile and on my TV. Yes I know there are apps like Vanced but I personally find it worth it not have to always look for workarounds.
    - happymellon 4y ago
      I'm referring to watching it on mobile. Firefox lets me run YouTube in the background too. I don't watch YouTube on the TV. The experience is horrific.
  - throwaway5959 4y ago
    Yes but then creators and YouTube don’t get paid.
    - zamalek 4y ago
      I don't care about YouTube getting paid, but apparently YT Premium is lucrative for the creators (in comparison to ads). It's a very cheap way to support the people who make the content that you enjoy.
    - happymellon 4y ago
      I honestly was fine before when there was only one ad, but now that YouTube ads are as long as some of the clips I watch I generally avoid it. When people use YouTube, I'll use Firefox.
Tijdreiziger 4y ago
The Premium Lite subscription doesn’t include Music.
- pledg 4y ago
  Seems to be a pilot and it available in all regions.
- diebeforei485 4y ago
  Not available in my region (USA).
Mindwipe 4y ago
You're not really, it just doesn't cost YouTube any more in terms of licensing the music for their music streaming service than it does to clear the rights for YouTube Premium, so they literally may as well include it. A YouTube Premium lite is available in a few territories, but where it isn't that's because the music situation means it could cost single cents a month less than the full service and therefore isn't worth doing.

robertwt7 4y ago

Curious if any of the creator are actually getting something out of the premium if they're locking this...

james-skemp 4y ago
I haven't seen any recent numbers or information, but I believe Premium views do generate some amount of money for the video creator. I believe it shows as a different line item in their revenue dashboard. Super basic official answer: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en Edit: From a creator at https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/xv8k6n/i_have_youtube_premium_how_much_of_a_video_should/ https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/xv8k6n/i_have_yout... (so take it as you will): > Income from premium is distributed by your watchtime. YouTube takes a portion of your monthly fee and divides it between the videos you watched. You watch only a single creator, that creator will get all of it. You watch only few videos, those videos will earn a larger chunk each. You watch hundreds of videos, each video will only earn a small amount. You pay a lot for premium, more will be paid to creators. You use a vpn to buy premium from india or so, only a fraction of that payment will be distributed accordingly. > If you are not using premium creators get paid from advertisements that are actually watched. So either you have to watch the full advertisement, if it is shorter than 30 seconds, or at least 30 seconds from a longer advertisement, before you skip it. Skipping an advertisement after 5 - 29 seconds means no payout to the creator.
PeterStuer 4y ago
I have heard in the past one Premium viewer is about the same revenue for a creator as 6 non-premium viewers.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
IIRC, premium was a large part of the reason behind those wacky auto-generated kids streams that was in the news a couple years ago. Parents don't want their kids watching ads, so a good number of kids have premium accounts. Premium pays a lot better than ads, so targeting kids can be quite lucrative.

hulitu 4y ago

> YouTube locks 4K playback behind Premium subscriptions ... and HD behind compression.

iso1631 4y ago
Uncompressed 1080p60 video is on the order of 3gigabit a second
- stoicjumbotron 4y ago
  Does Vimeo compresses the uploaded videos? I found their videos to be more "clearer" if that makes any sense.
  - anonuser123456 4y ago
    All video is compressed in a lossy manner.
    - iso1631 4y ago
      I have some 444 10 bit progressive files, you could argue that the mere act of sampling an analog domain is lossy, but if you accept a typical YUV422 as being non-lossy then I have a fair amount. But yes you're right that typically video today will be stored in the 150-250mbit range which is lossy. I imagine a typical youtuber will then compress that again out of their video editor to something like a 20mbit long-gop file and upload to youtube/vimeo. That platform then takes the original upload and makes a dozen or so versions and different frame sizes, bitrates and codecs to cater for different consumers
- webinvest 4y ago
  Maybe he means lossy compression
  - iso1631 4y ago
    That 3gbit is already lossy compression (chroma subsampling, bit depth compromises, framerate and size compromises) You could store at a more usable bitrate - say 240mbit, and its even more lossy

kajaktum 4y ago

Can someone tell me how YouTube is supposed to make money without ads and premium service? No one has been able to give me a straight answer.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
The same way YouTube was making money from 2005 till today?
- govg 4y ago
  Have they been profitable all this while though? They were operating at massive losses for a long while.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    The fact that they chose to operate at a loss for decades in order to unfairly monopolize market share is their own self inflicted problem. You reap what you sow. I'm not paying YouTube/Google one single dime. They already monetize all my private data and viewing habits.
  - theptip 4y ago
    I think the right question is: are they free cash flow-positive? I don't know the numbers off the top of my head. "Operating at a loss" means different things to different people. Profit is an irrelevant metric for a company like YT that would reinvest every dollar of FCF into growth. (See Amazon for the well-fleshed out reasoning as to why this is so.)
jterrys 4y ago
Cute thought experiment: Google is notorious for snuffing products they consider unprofitable. Yet persisted with Youtube for 16 years. Why?
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  Because owning the world's biggest video distribution monopoly was worth 16+ years of losses for them. Same like owning Twitter. They have almost no competition.

skyde 4y ago

this is risky move. lot of artist already moved to Vimeo because of quality in the past.

jerlam 4y ago
Vimeo is no longer trying to compete with YouTube. They are becoming a B2B solution: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979126/vimeo-patreon-creators-price-increase https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979126/vimeo-patreon-cr... You can build a creator career on YouTube, but on Vimeo you'll pay for the privilege.

PeterStuer 4y ago

I have a family Premium subscription. I'm sad this can not be the default YouTube experience for everybody as every time I see someone watching YT without a sub I do not understand how they can tolerate the barrage of advertising. Surely this attention economy model must be a loss for humanity as a whole, no?

irthomasthomas 4y ago
I just use ad blockers. I haven't a YouTube ad in years.
- s__s 4y ago
  I couldn’t do that. There are some amazing content creators on YouTube, and to deny them of ad revenue for their hard work would feel very wrong.
  - irthomasthomas 4y ago
    That's not how revenue works on YouTube since about 10 years ago.
    - s__s 4y ago
      Interesting. Can you elaborate? Last I heard creator revenue is a direct result of total ad views. A quick google search would seem to confirm this is still the case.
      - lesuorac 4y ago
        https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en > If you're a YouTube Premium member, you won't see ads, so we share your monthly membership fee with creators.
      - faller_slive 4y ago
        I think he is talking about other revenue streams that most large creators use. Such as ads the creators place in their own videos, merchandise, and direct payments (Patreon, subscribe star, etc).