No, you see this is different from when google puts their headquarter in a different country to where they are working to pay less taxes because that’s … uh … just pay your 17 bucks and stop complaining.
Absolutely correct decision. YouTube is just so incredibly poor. They really need money guys. In fact, we should set up a donations page to support this great organization that totally respects its users and artists while being very strict against spam, dangerous misinformation and state funded propaganda! /s
That there are such wild variations in price between countries shows how little that subscription is correlated to any actual costs.
At best subscribers in richest countries are subsidizing poorer ones, but most probably, Google is just trying to maximize the amount of money they can extract from everyone’s pocket. The repeated seemingly random price hikes seem to confirm this hypothesis. It’s just the MBAs enforcing terminal stage capitalism and ruining everything that is good.
Not approving of any corporate behaviours here, but extracting the maximum price a market will bear has been the basis of pricing and supply/demand since such concepts existed which is at least 250 years.
I don’t disagree but it seems to me it’s going crescendo, with de facto monopolies running the show and buying anything that could be an obstacle, be it other companies or policymakers.
So if it makes sense to charge people in India 1/4 the people in the US why can’t we pretend we are in India? People travel to other continents for healthcare.
Yeah, there’s no real costs, because in this case it’s a cost of “lost opportunity” in advertising.
As a rich westerner, your eyeballs are worth more than some rickshaw driver in deepest darkest India, because you have more money to fritter away on nonsense.
Never understood how the third world pricing logic holds up for things like video games, since the hardware to play them costs pretty much the same no matter where you are.
Generally an Unpopular opinion, but I think this should include creator ads (or at least an option per creator to support them by turning on their own ads).
Defaulted to off , I don’t want to watch a random videos AG1 ad. That said there are a couple creators I watch I would be willing to enable theirs strictly to support them.
Because if I’m paying for ad removal it should be complete ad removal.
I don’t think it’s an unpopular opinion, but I’m not sure how YouTube can deal with it best. There’s sponsor block, but it’s relying on crowdsourced data.
Generally an Unpopular opinion
You’re 100% correct though. Sponsors are exactly (long) ads and I have no personal problem skipping them after paying $17 a month for premium. If a creator has a problem with that they should take it up with Google. I’m paying for ad free, and that’s what I expect.
If sponsorblock breaks I will be reevaluating my premium sub. Not that it will have a meaningful impact on Google or anything, but I’m just fucking sick of ads and am not going to pay to remove them and still get ads delivered to me.
The link I posted said this:
In the U.S., Google charges individual users $14 per month for YouTube Premium, which limits ads and offers a few additional features.
So it ‘limits ads’ which means there are still ads.
It’s a poorly worded article. YouTube premium “limits ads” as in being completely ad free (besides in-video sponsorships). YouTube hasn’t gone down that route yet.
