YouTube Set to Introduce Paid Subscriptions

While this development seems both reasonable and overdue I'd prefer it to challenge the whole "channel" concept as well.

One of the most annoying aspects of traditional TV is that I'm not interested in 95% of the content offered on any specific channel, I want to pay for specific shows rather than whole channels.

Granted, with a distribution system like YouTube it's likely we'll see far more focused channels but even so...

 

Isn't it a little late? The youtube brand is synonymous with free now.

Still, let's see how it goes. Not sure how they intend to secure it all knowing the nature of the internet.

 

Does this mean that I'll have to pay to download the Hitler parodies?
There's nothing that that guy doesn't have an opinion on!

 

I hate youtube.

 

I guess it's ok if
1) they don't shove it down my throat
2) doesn't interfere with my normal youtube experience
3) only specific stuff would require a subscription, like a TV series or movie

If I even once would stumble upon a "you need a paid subscription to view this" I'd be pretty willing to consider alternatives to youtube...
Also, if they plan on charging money for channels with video quality on par with today's "top" youtubers... that's just lol, I'm expecting real quality stuff, content wise that is.

 

Remember back in the day when there were no ads in the videos until google put them there? Seriously, all google needs to do is reduce uploads. It won't save enough money to remove ads but it ought to save enough to not have a paid subscription.

There is WAY too much useless crap out there (such as baby videos and vlogs). There's also way too many duplicates of videos. People don't tend to remove stuff so every little fruitless video posted is wasting space.

I feel like google should add a delete system where if a video is 75% disliked and has a certain ratio of views, it gets automatically deleted (or at least privatized).

 

Storage is cheap (though not infinite). It's the traffic that asks for the heavy bill. I've noticed that there's definitely a disparity between popular videos/channels and the rest of the content, in terms of buffering wait times.

 

Right but according to google, 3 hours of video is uploaded every minute. Considering most people upload in 360p or higher, that's a LOT of data and traffic just for uploading. Besides, the more drives they add, the more systems they need. The more systems they need, the more likely something will fail. I doubt the servers they use are the most power efficient products on the market too.

The stupid thing is they could have whole computers where they contain nothing but lame videos nobody watches, and because google can't just guess if a video will be viral, they have to pay good money for a system that can handle the requests whether it will or not. So the amount of useless uploads does in fact cost them a big chunk of cash, but like I said, it wouldn't be enough to remove ads.

 

dittouke2:

 

1. why?

2. what are you hobbies other than pc tech?

 

thus the downfall of youtube.

 

Hardly the downfall, streaming is the future unfortunately, this is just a little late.

Should of done this years ago when there was less competition in the VOD markets.

As per above, live HD sports would interest me, sports TV channels are expensive and tend to be filled with lots you never watch, something that catered to one sport could be ideal.

 

youtube makes money off of every single video on their site through site advertisements. they dont need video ads or banner ads in the videos to make money so it doesnt really matter to them. well it does. but they could buy a petabyte of storage and make their money back and then some from the contents of those drives.

the same reason why i think their entry into the isp game is brilliant as well. "hey we make money from people browsing the internet through adsense and youtube, etc. lets connect more people to the internet to give us more money." if you think about it if done at a good enough pace the installation of cables for their internet service will pay for itself as the customers browse the internet.

edit- and the faster they browse the more content they can view as well which means more money for google. and better competition for internet service so everyone benefits

 

no problem at all, if they don't start bombarding the non-subscription videos with ads every 2 seconds it's fine.

probably pr0n!

 

They already have movies you can pay for, which hardly anyone buys. I suppose this is going to be more for bigger names like Fox or the like to try and reel in more money through uploading shows, as if there isn't enough family guy clips uploaded now. Which I wouldn't care about cause I wouldn't watch that stuff anyway. I suppose the Smosh/PewDiePie money whores might try to use it as well to increase their small fortunes, in which I hope it backfires them into the poorhouse when their subscribers don't have the money to throw at them. "hey guys watch me play this game you all have been wanting me to play in the PAID SUBSCRIPTIONS SUB BOX!"

Basically, it really doesn't affect me cause I won't be watching anything that wants a subscription fee.

 

I agree but if you haven't noticed, many of the "youtubers" (meaning, people who regularly submit videos on youtube only) get a ridiculous amount of hatred and complaints just for LIKING a product; they're accused of being sellouts whether they were sponsoring the product or not. If they ask for a paid subscription, that would make them lose most of their fanbase.

 

Nah, they get 12 blind fan comments for every truthful "hate" comment. I don't think it's that they wouldn't throw money at these people, it's more that their fanbases are probably kids without a source of income (HELLO Machinima speaking of) I'm guessing overall they're not going to get too far with this, but it's going to be pretty painful to watch them try.

 

Streaming per channel, and even per show is the future guys, time to get used to it and accept it.

Right now, I can't watch shows like Game of Thrones because I have to subscribe to cable, then HBO, and then I'll watch it via HBO Go anyway.

Lets cut out the middle man, and the 150 channels I don't need nor care about, and let me pay for the two shows I do want to watch.

Doing this, offering pay-per-channel, gets a watcher like me watching where I can't now. And more and more people are opting to forgo cable in lieu of online streaming.

The people who I speak to in my office, only a handful of them still have cable subscriptions, and its only because they're held in by one or two shows.

Regardless of what the blind can't see, this is the future of watching literally everything. Will places like HBO switch immediately? Of course not. But once this, or a similar service, doesn't have to be youtube, catches on? And people drop their cable because they're entertained just as well, for cheaper online? Yeah, HBO and the like will scramble to get involved.