I’m not sure I see the problem. Is there a reason you expect to be able to use the service for free and even ad free?
I might only listen to a few songs a week. Is it fair that I have to sit through ads when I try to listen to them on Spotify? I don’t really want to pay for a subscription, especially because I already pay for YouTube. Clearly paying the full subscription cost for Spotify isn’t worth it in my case.
Edit: Don’t mean to sound like a smart ass. But as you can see, you can basically swap Spotify for YouTube in your argument. Spotify is just more valuable to you, which is fine. That doesn’t mean you should get the other thing free. Just like I shouldn’t expect to get Spotify ad free.
That’s where I disagree. YouTube got this big because it’s been free for so long, it practically squeezed out all of its competitors. Now that it no longer have competitors, YouTube started charging subscription, even raising the price now.
Also, you can’t exactly compare YouTube subscription with Spotify subscription, because Spotify got its content mostly by paying records companies. YouTube on the other hand got majority of its contents for free from their users, just like Reddit and Twitter. Even if you subscribe to YouTube premium, the majority of those video owners will never get any money from YouTube.
YouTube Music is more comparable to Spotify, but why bundle it with YouTube premium and raised the subscription price instead of offering it as a separate product and keep the base YouTube subscription cheap so it’ll make more sense for most people.
But YouTube still is free. This article isn’t about YouTube not being free, they’ve just increased the price of their subscription (like Netflix and Spotify do routinely). You just expect to get it for free and without ads. I’m confused at who you think is paying to store and stream all those videos if it was entirely free?
Going down the rabbit hole of YouTube getting it’s content for free is a slippery slope. I see what you’re saying, but YouTube is hosting and streaming that content for those content creators. That isn’t cheap. It’s a double edged sword. Because you likely wouldn’t know or have access to those content creators if they weren’t able to upload those videos to YouTube and not have to pay to provide that service themselves. Is it perfect, no. But name another completely free streaming service.
And I’d argue it’s not entirely comparable to Reddit and Twitter. Both in cost incurred to store and stream that data, and they pay those content creators who generate a lot of views. Again, another rabbit hole in terms of what payment is fair etc. But it’s not a fair comparison to put YouTube in the Twitter and Reddit bucket. It probably sits somewhere in between Spotify and those social platforms.
Edit: I forgot to point out the biggest issue with your comparison to Reddit and Twitter. You seem to forget that those platforms also have ads.
I’m not sure I see the problem. Is there a reason you expect to be able to use the service for free and even ad free?
I might only listen to a few songs a week. Is it fair that I have to sit through ads when I try to listen to them on Spotify? I don’t really want to pay for a subscription, especially because I already pay for YouTube. Clearly paying the full subscription cost for Spotify isn’t worth it in my case.
Edit: Don’t mean to sound like a smart ass. But as you can see, you can basically swap Spotify for YouTube in your argument. Spotify is just more valuable to you, which is fine. That doesn’t mean you should get the other thing free. Just like I shouldn’t expect to get Spotify ad free.
That’s where I disagree. YouTube got this big because it’s been free for so long, it practically squeezed out all of its competitors. Now that it no longer have competitors, YouTube started charging subscription, even raising the price now.
Also, you can’t exactly compare YouTube subscription with Spotify subscription, because Spotify got its content mostly by paying records companies. YouTube on the other hand got majority of its contents for free from their users, just like Reddit and Twitter. Even if you subscribe to YouTube premium, the majority of those video owners will never get any money from YouTube.
YouTube Music is more comparable to Spotify, but why bundle it with YouTube premium and raised the subscription price instead of offering it as a separate product and keep the base YouTube subscription cheap so it’ll make more sense for most people.
But YouTube still is free. This article isn’t about YouTube not being free, they’ve just increased the price of their subscription (like Netflix and Spotify do routinely). You just expect to get it for free and without ads. I’m confused at who you think is paying to store and stream all those videos if it was entirely free?
Going down the rabbit hole of YouTube getting it’s content for free is a slippery slope. I see what you’re saying, but YouTube is hosting and streaming that content for those content creators. That isn’t cheap. It’s a double edged sword. Because you likely wouldn’t know or have access to those content creators if they weren’t able to upload those videos to YouTube and not have to pay to provide that service themselves. Is it perfect, no. But name another completely free streaming service.
And I’d argue it’s not entirely comparable to Reddit and Twitter. Both in cost incurred to store and stream that data, and they pay those content creators who generate a lot of views. Again, another rabbit hole in terms of what payment is fair etc. But it’s not a fair comparison to put YouTube in the Twitter and Reddit bucket. It probably sits somewhere in between Spotify and those social platforms.
Edit: I forgot to point out the biggest issue with your comparison to Reddit and Twitter. You seem to forget that those platforms also have ads.