Most active commenters
  • account42(11)
  • mschuster91(5)
  • filoleg(4)
  • UnreachableCode(4)
  • LtWorf(4)
  • muppetman(4)
  • timewizard(3)
  • openplatypus(3)
  • tcfhgj(3)
  • wat10000(3)

←back to thread

713 points greenburger | 139 comments | | HN request time: 1.281s | source | bottom
Show context
mrtksn ◴[] No.44289633[source]
Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services?

I just don't want to believe that our services have to be paid for through proxy by giving huge cut to 3rd parties. The quality goes down both as UX and as core content, our attention span is destroyed, our privacy is violated and our political power is being stolen as content gets curated by those who extract money by giving us the "free" services.

It's simply very inefficient. IMHO we should go back to pay for what you use, this can't go on forever. There must be way to turn everything into a paid service where you get what you paid for and have your lives enhanced instead of monetized by proxy.

replies(32): >>44289645 #>>44289703 #>>44289718 #>>44289745 #>>44289761 #>>44289772 #>>44289802 #>>44290036 #>>44293255 #>>44293334 #>>44293379 #>>44294057 #>>44294163 #>>44294406 #>>44294408 #>>44294581 #>>44294594 #>>44294635 #>>44295476 #>>44295719 #>>44295781 #>>44295934 #>>44296021 #>>44296753 #>>44297076 #>>44297147 #>>44297258 #>>44297386 #>>44297435 #>>44297650 #>>44300018 #>>44301446 #
1. filoleg ◴[] No.44289745[source]
I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk. And I am saying this as someone who genuinely believes in the “small fee instead of paying with ad exposure” approach.

The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many people in the “a fee instead of ads” crowd consumes YT for hours a day, but so far I’ve only met one person (not counting myself) who actually pays for YT Premium.

And yes, a major chunk of the people I talked about this with were FAANG engineers, so it isn’t like they cannot afford it. But it felt like they were more interested in complaining about the ad-funded-services landscape and muse on their stances around it, as opposed to actually putting their money where their mouth is.

All I can say is, I am not paying for YT Premium out of some ideological standpoint or love for Google (not even close). It has genuinely been just worth it for me many times over in the exact practical ways I was expecting it to.

replies(24): >>44289829 #>>44289995 #>>44290997 #>>44291006 #>>44293221 #>>44293235 #>>44293238 #>>44293263 #>>44293271 #>>44293277 #>>44293316 #>>44293328 #>>44293370 #>>44293395 #>>44293551 #>>44293830 #>>44294002 #>>44294048 #>>44294167 #>>44295364 #>>44295699 #>>44296209 #>>44296473 #>>44308245 #
2. Workaccount2 ◴[] No.44289829[source]
By far the choice of most marginally savvy and above internet users is an ad-model where they themselves ad-block. Which somehow is spun to be morally righteous.
replies(4): >>44293256 #>>44293336 #>>44293386 #>>44295692 #
3. mschuster91 ◴[] No.44289995[source]
> I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk.

That's because micropayments are still fucking annoying to do on both sides of any transaction:

- credit cards: cheap-ish at scale (2-5%), but users don't want to give random apps their CC details and integrating with Stripe/Paypal/whatever has the cost of UX flow break due to account details and 2FA compliance bullshit. In addition, every service paid-for by CC has the problem that only people with a CC can pay for it (so people in countries like Europe where "classic" bank accounts prevail are out of luck, and so are people in countries deemed too poor and/or fraud-affiliated are locked out entirely), and you gotta deal with tax and other regulatory compliance around handling payments as well. Oh and people will try to use your service to validate stolen payment credentials because a 1$ charge (especially for a well known service like Whatsapp) is most likely to be ignored by the accountholder even if fraudulent in nature, which in turn will lead to issues with chargebacks or, worst case, getting dropped entirely by the payment processor.

- in-app purchases: expensive (30% cut for the platform provider), serious headache to do when a significant chunk of the user base doesn't run phones with properly licensed Google Play Store (e.g. Huawei who aren't allowed to embed Play Store on their phones)

- bank transfer: possible, but restricted to the economic zones where there's enough customer base to justify the expenses of setting up a local company with a bank account (i.e. US, EU, India, possibly China), and transaction fees from the banks may end up being >>50% of the transaction's face value at such low amounts

- crxptxcurrency: even more of a hassle for customers to acquire, questionable legality / KYC issues, no realtime authorization due to mandatory waiting time for mining to confirm transactions

- pay by phone bill, premium numbers: possible, but need bureaucracy in each country, fraud / "my kid did it" complaints will run rampant, premium number calls are by default blocked in most if not all modern phone contracts ever since the early '00s and "dialer" fraud malware, difficult to associate with customer's phone number in the backend

In the end, if you truly want to capture a global audience with microtransaction payments, be prepared to deal with a loooooooooooooooooot of bullshit just to get started.

Long story short, we desperately need a global government effort to standardize payments at low fees. There's absolutely zero reason why banks and other intermediaries should be allowed to skim off more than 5% of any kind of transaction. ZERO.

replies(1): >>44292376 #
4. throw0101c ◴[] No.44290997[source]
> I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk.

Depends on the price.

I'm guessing lots of folks are paying $1/month to Apple to upgrade from the free 5GB tier of iCloud storage to get to the 50GB tier.

WhatsApp charged people $1 per year before being acquired by Facebook:

* https://venturebeat.com/mobile/whatsapp-subscription/

Supposedly about a billion people paid for that at the time. Even if they went to $1 per month, that'd be fairly cheap (and WhatsApp ran fairly lean, personnel-wise: fifty FTEs).

replies(2): >>44291149 #>>44291269 #
5. cameldrv ◴[] No.44291006[source]
I know lots of people that pay for YT premium. Lots of people pay for Spotify too. I even pay for Kagi.
replies(5): >>44293215 #>>44294045 #>>44294242 #>>44295753 #>>44301267 #
6. filoleg ◴[] No.44291149[source]
Not to dismiss your point about pricing numbers (as it is valid and makes sense to me), but I don’t think iCloud comparison is that applicable to my argument, given there is no option to pay for larger iCloud storage with ad exposure.

What I was talking about was paying by being exposed to ads vs. paying directly, and increased iCloud storage has no former option.

7. toast0 ◴[] No.44291269[source]
> Supposedly about a billion people paid for that at the time.

(I worked for WhatsApp from 2011-2019)

From that article, user count was about 900 Million when the fee was ended; user count was about 450 M in Feb 2014 when the acquisition was announced [1]. Either way, it is a mistake to think everyone was paying.

A) Some people still had lifetime accounts from when the app was $1 for iPhone, or from the typical late December limited time free for iPhone promotions. Windows Phone got marked as lifetime for a while due to a bug/oversight that took a while to get noticed.

B) Enforcement was limited. A lot of users wouldn't have had a payment method that WhatsApp could accept; demanding payment when there's no way to pay isn't good for anybody. For a long time, we didn't even implement payment enforcement; we'd go through and extend subscriptions for a year, initially by manual script, then through automation. When we did build payment enforcement, I think we only set it on for Spain and maybe the US. Everywhere else would get the reminders that the account was going to expire, and then on the day of, it would silently extend the account and not bug you again for a while. Even where payment enforcement was on, it would only lock you out for I think a week, then your account would be extended and maybe you'd pay next time.

Adding on, for a lot of users, the hassle of paying $1 is a bigger deal than the actual $1; but so for people in lower income countries, it's both --- a) it's hard to pay $1 to a US country for a large number of people, b) there are countries with significant number of people living on a dollar a day; I don't think it's reasonable to ask them to forgo a days worth of living to pay for a messenger.

I don't remember numbers, and there's not a lot of financial reporting, because WhatsApp numbers are so small compared to the rest of FB/Meta, but there's a first half 2014 report [2] that shows revenue of $15M. Assuming payments are even over the year (probably not a good assumption, but we don't have good numbers), that'd be maybe 30 Million paying users (some users bought multiple years though), or less than 10%.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-26266689

[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114...

replies(5): >>44293281 #>>44293452 #>>44293831 #>>44293899 #>>44294121 #
8. UnreachableCode ◴[] No.44292376[source]
Europe isn't a country. And we have credit cards here.
replies(1): >>44293306 #
9. yapyap ◴[] No.44293215[source]
Spotify I get because the Spotify free experience is HORRID.

Youtube is also moving into that direction.

replies(2): >>44293330 #>>44293390 #
10. LtWorf ◴[] No.44293221[source]
Amazon prime had a lot of customers but they started to put ads to paying customers as well.

So the alternative seems to be "free, with ads" or "paid, with ads"

replies(2): >>44293295 #>>44308584 #
11. maplant ◴[] No.44293235[source]
I pay for YT Premium and Protonmail. Very happy to do so.
12. ElijahLynn ◴[] No.44293238[source]
Paying for YT Premium is a no brainer. Especially for someone like myself with ADHD.

I love paying for ad-removal. Take. My. Money.

replies(1): >>44293920 #
13. johncessna ◴[] No.44293256[source]
Morally Righteous? I think it's more they don't have to so they don't. It's like the DVR days where you'd just fast forward ads. It wasn't a moral high ground, it was just easy to do and was better than the alternative.
replies(2): >>44293784 #>>44294977 #
14. xigoi ◴[] No.44293263[source]
I don’t want to pay for YouTube because the official app, even without ads, has a much worse UX than Tubular.
15. kalaksi ◴[] No.44293271[source]
I don't use YT much, but if I did and paid for premium, I'd assume they'd still track me, monetize the data and utilize dark patterns and enshittified UX.

What I mean is that, IMO, ads by themselves are only a small part of the puzzle. Paying for YT premium doesn't sound enticing if it only gets rid of the ad part and not the surveillance machinery.

I do pay for my email that does no tracking and has good UX. I allow ads on duckduckgo because they actually respect my privacy and don't try to trick me all the time. I also pay for Spotify premium and have donated to Signal and Mozilla, but I won't support the likes of Google and Meta.

replies(1): >>44293878 #
16. Guest9081239812 ◴[] No.44293277[source]
My site has about 30k active registered users a day. The vast majority are long term members that have been on the site for years, so they're quite dedicated to the service. Even so, only about 50 of them pay to remove advertising.
replies(2): >>44293363 #>>44293366 #
17. eddythompson80 ◴[] No.44293281{3}[source]
> Windows Phone got marked as lifetime for a while due to a bug/oversight that took a while to get noticed.

Huh, is that what it was... I had a Windows Phone 2012-2013 and I think I signed up for WhatsApp on it and I remember chatting with a friend on it and he was talking about the $1 per year thing and I went to check, and it said I have lifetime and I was confused how I ended up with that, but was using it so lightly that I didn't bother to look into why. I figured maybe there was a promotion the day I signed up or something.

replies(1): >>44294026 #
18. tehjoker ◴[] No.44293295[source]
We could also have public services.
19. dgfitz ◴[] No.44293306{3}[source]
Wow. Way to flippantly shit on the paragraphs of explanation they gave of their own free time.

Europe though, yeah they’re killing it.

replies(2): >>44294041 #>>44296917 #
20. wvh ◴[] No.44293316[source]
I am conflicted because to some extent, paying for some of these services feels like paying a blackmailer, spying on you, holding a whole ecosystem hostage and even jeopardising mental health and the public discourse.

I pay for email and some other services. Some other services, not so much. I find it hard to support some companies financially because I don't agree with their basic modus operandi. It's not the money; it's who it goes to.

If only we could convince large crowds to choose more free alternatives.

replies(1): >>44293597 #
21. nkrisc ◴[] No.44293328[source]
Taking the YouTube example, and many others like it, I only use it because it is free.

If YouTube was subscription only, hypothetically, I would just not use it, and my life would be same as it is now.

There are a great many services that are nice to have, but very few I would bother paying for out of my wallet. Given the choice of paying for them or not using them, I would just walk away from most of them.

replies(4): >>44293410 #>>44293439 #>>44294786 #>>44303242 #
22. jobigoud ◴[] No.44293330{3}[source]
I think a good amount of people pay for Youtube just to be able to listen to audio with the screen off, which is a completely artificial restriction they added to the free version.

Such a strange business model, making the free version below acceptable.

replies(2): >>44293388 #>>44294855 #
23. x0x0 ◴[] No.44293336[source]
I accidentally browsed a site without ads this morning from my work profile.

Literally on the first link I clicked on on cbs the advertiser somehow figured out how to make my browser redirect to some super-sketchy site saying I was the 5 billionth google search and won blah blah blah.

Browsing without adblock is an unacceptable security risk so long as google et all refuse to audit and comprehensively secure the code they demand to run on my laptop.

24. stavros ◴[] No.44293363[source]
How much do you make per user on ads, and how much is the subscription?
replies(1): >>44293727 #
25. cookie_monsta ◴[] No.44293366[source]
This is really interesting. Can you say how much it costs the user to remove ads?
26. timewizard ◴[] No.44293370[source]
> crowd is mostly all-talk.

I want to pay the small fee, through a simple to use portal, that makes it obvious how to cancel, and if I'm being obligated to a multi month term or not. I also want my payment card details to be perfectly secure and for none of my private information or usage to be sold to third parties.

> who actually pays for YT Premium.

Have you ever asked them "why don't you?" Or "what would it take to get you to pay?" Or even, "would you take a free month to see if it's worth it?"

Point being I don't think the problem is nearly as black and white as you've apparently surmised.

replies(1): >>44293702 #
27. pydry ◴[] No.44293386[source]
Once google's shareholders have wet their beak, the on-campus sushi bars and manicurists and $400k pay packets are paid for and the Taylor Swifts of the world are paid off there isnt much left of your subscription to pay for the long tail of content creators who dont have Taylor Swift's leverage.

Which is why many of them say things like "skip these ads if you like Im not getting any of it" or "Im here primarily for exposure, I make my money elsewhere".

replies(1): >>44294720 #
28. timewizard ◴[] No.44293388{4}[source]
> Such a strange business model, making the free version below acceptable.

That's because the core product is not anywhere near worth what they charge for it. The youtube interface is a nightmare for users and creators alike. I have very little controls over what I do and don't see, how I can filter or search for content, or how I can search for new content. History of both videos and comments are effectively non existent and impossible to reasonably search or archive.

It's not a service so much as it is a copyright clearinghouse.

If they had an actual experience with worthwhile features to offer then they wouldn't have to artificially degrade the free experience to convince you.

replies(1): >>44294363 #
29. Hoasi ◴[] No.44293390{3}[source]
It's unclear to me how the paid Spotify experience compares with free, but you still get ads with the paid one. Also, you need to curate heavily because Spotify's algorithm will push certain types of content. If you listen to a podcast once, it is hard to get rid of it, as it will keep popping into your feed, or whatever they call their interface.
replies(3): >>44293596 #>>44293937 #>>44361978 #
30. ◴[] No.44293395[source]
31. scrivanodev ◴[] No.44293410[source]
What would you replace YouTube with? To my its educational value is unmatched. I owe so much of my learning to it.
replies(5): >>44293436 #>>44293550 #>>44293846 #>>44293933 #>>44294263 #
32. hiq ◴[] No.44293436{3}[source]
What did you learn thanks to it?
replies(2): >>44293839 #>>44295424 #
33. halfcat ◴[] No.44293439[source]
On the flip side, I’ll pay $10/month for 10 streaming services I never use (and have forgotten about), but on a Saturday night if a movie isn’t available and I have to pay $3.99 to rent it I never pay that. Instead I’ll drive to the corner store and spend $20 on snacks, and come home and watch YouTube with ads.

People are curious creatures indeed.

replies(1): >>44293776 #
34. pmontra ◴[] No.44293452{3}[source]
This is the story from the point of view of a user:

One day the app asked me to pay. It was less than 1 Euro per year, I think. I never associated a credit card to the app store (Android) so I did not pay and waited to see what would happen.

It kept asking for money for a few days but it kept working, so I thought they were not serious about it. Then it stopped asking. It started asking for money again after a few months but I remembered what happened before so I waited again. It kept working and eventually stopped asking for money. This pattern repeated a few times until maybe the time FB bought it.

I believe that if it stopped working people would have switched en masse to another app, maybe Telegram? We also had Viber and probably FB messenger too.

Switches happened many times in the 90s and early 2000s. I remember AIM, ICQ, MSN, then Skype. Whole networks of people moved to the next one or used more than one to message different friends. WhatsApp never had a chance to earn money directly from its users IMHO.

35. nkrisc ◴[] No.44293550{3}[source]
I don't know what I would replace YouTube with, because YouTube is free so I have never needed to consider alternatives.

But for the most part - probably nothing. For everything else, it'd just be either some other free option, or like going back to the internet of the early 2000s, which would be good and bad in its own ways.

36. austhrow743 ◴[] No.44293551[source]
Surely it has to be somewhat ideological given that adblockers exist? Have you seen your high paid engineer friends actually watching the ads?

I would rather pay a fee than watch ads, but as long as “do neither of those” is an option I’ll be picking that. If they remove that as an option I’ll either pay or not watch YouTube.

Probably not watch.

I pay for email, and was paying for search until something about the way kagi integrates with safari annoyed me. I’ve been paying more for a seedbox than Netflix costs for longer than Netflix has existed. That’s part for ad avoidance as in it initially replaced free to air tv but ad avoidance is just one factor in the best experience for my time and money trade off I’m trying to make. So i know I’m willing to both pay for things i can get ad supported from Google and also pay for a better media experience.

When it comes to that best experience for my time and money trade off though, even with money being set at zero, the vast majority of the YouTube i watch is already in the negative. Most things i watch on there, i regret the cost of just the time it took to watch the content before ads or money even gets in to it.

Which i think is a big part of the issue with ad supported internet going fee based. YouTube and so many ad supported sites and games are already just super low value and derive most of their consumption not from people making intentional lifestyle choices of “i want to be the kind of person who watches garbage all day while playing crap” but rather people making bad short term vs long term trade offs and falling in to holes of recommendations and fun looking thumbnails.

Paying for something leads to asking yourself “is this worth $x?” And i know that for at least myself $x is a large negative number. I’d pay more than the current cost of YouTube premium to definitely NOT be able to watch YouTube.

37. openplatypus ◴[] No.44293596{4}[source]
Omg I literally puke with Shopify ads in podcasts.

Whats the point of paid, premium service like Spotify if I keep being served those stupid, dishonest and bordeline illegally deceiving Shopify ads every 15 minutes.

replies(1): >>44293913 #
38. sigotirandolas ◴[] No.44293597[source]
To be devil's advocate, this is the kind of all-talk argument the parent was referring to. Once the paid option is available, people will demand it to be [cheaper / better / someone else] and still not pay.

While I don't love my money going to Google, I find YouTube's overall quality astronomically higher than Instagram/Twitter/TikTok/etc. and the amount of censorship/"moderation"/controversy has been relatively limited. When I find something I really want to keep I have always been able to download it without much trouble.

replies(2): >>44298570 #>>44302851 #
39. michaelt ◴[] No.44293702[source]
Good news: Youtube Premium is trivial to cancel, comes with no multi-month obligations, and if you don't trust Google with your credit card you can pay for it with Google Play gift cards.
40. Guest9081239812 ◴[] No.44293727{3}[source]
It only generates about 15k a year in ad revenue. It's fairly low revenue because:

1. Users are spread around the world. This isn't a site with 70% US visitors.

2. The majority of users run ad block, and this continues to rise.

3. Ad rates plummet each year. I earn about 5x less on the site now, than in the past, with the same number of active users, and 3x as many advertisements.

I've tried all the major advertising networks. I setup header bidding and signed direct deals with large networks, such as AppNexus, Amazon, Yahoo, AOL, etc. At the end of the day, ads do not pay well for my audience.

Users can pay $3/mo to remove advertising. Yes, I'm aware that's $36/yr, when the average registered user is generating less than $0.50/yr in ad revenue. About 30% of paying users choose to pay higher than $3/mo for no additional benefit (they can pay any amount they wish). I also have some individuals that have paid thousands of dollars.

What would happen if I offered a $1/yr plan for an ad free experience, so it's more inline with ad revenues? I honestly don't know, but I would guess I would lose a few of the $3/mo paying users, and gain less than 100 users paying $1/yr, so it would likely be net negative.

replies(2): >>44294015 #>>44308339 #
41. danillonunes ◴[] No.44293776{3}[source]
I paid like $2 to rent a movie about three years ago and didn't watched it entirely and boy it still hurts.
42. card_zero ◴[] No.44293784{3}[source]
Dutifully watching the ads doesn't seem moral either, it seems insane.
43. nytesky ◴[] No.44293830[source]
YT Premium is pretty expensive. I think it costs as much for one user for a multi-device plan on Netflix?

They don’t create nor curate much content.

I am curious about the poster who has learned so much from YouTube — I have tried learning many topics from science to programming to home repairs, and finding a quality program can be very challenging, and there are a lot of programs which are actually elaborate sales pitches.

replies(2): >>44293925 #>>44298929 #
44. neves ◴[] No.44293831{3}[source]
Time to make it a public app and remove it from the private sector.
45. LtWorf ◴[] No.44293839{4}[source]
How to open my computer
46. nytesky ◴[] No.44293846{3}[source]
Can you elaborate on your learning journey? How did you separate out the worthless content from quality education programs? Very few Unis post lectures anymore, so it’s all hit or miss for me.
replies(1): >>44307180 #
47. acheron ◴[] No.44293878[source]
Exactly. The earlier post is overlooking the insanity of giving Google money, and acting as if they wouldn’t just track you harder now that you have to be logged in with an account connected to your real identity and a credit card. I wouldn’t pay for YouTube for the same reason I wouldn’t pay for Gmail. But I’m happy to pay for another email provider.
48. KoolKat23 ◴[] No.44293899{3}[source]
If I recall right, WhatsApp tookaway our lifetime subscriptions like a year after buying it, saying it wasn't necessary or something and put everyone all on the same plan.
49. TingPing ◴[] No.44293913{5}[source]
Because the ad has literally nothing to do with Spotify? Podcasters can say or sell whatever.
replies(1): >>44295916 #
50. LtWorf ◴[] No.44293920[source]
Everyone else just uses newpipe, mpv, and so on
replies(1): >>44294632 #
51. qwerpy ◴[] No.44293925[source]
There's great content on YouTube but there's a lot of garbage. AI-generated slop, clickbait thumbnails/titles that actually don't payout, sales pitches, and plain old low-quality garbage. The lack of a thumbs down really makes it hard to avoid these. I realize that thumbs down is also used to punish "wrong" political viewpoints and companies, so it's a hard problem. But as a viewer who never uploads content, it only makes my experience worse.
replies(3): >>44294316 #>>44294379 #>>44298975 #
52. mac-mc ◴[] No.44293933{3}[source]
IMO if youtube was an actual paid service, I would also expect a lot of the advertiser driven demonitization actions to go away when your in paid mode, but it isn't so I still miss out on a lot of potentially interesting topics or things that could be talked about, but are not, due to the chilling effects of the demonitization & deboosting police.
replies(1): >>44294663 #
53. qwerpy ◴[] No.44293937{4}[source]
I rage quit my Spotify subscription after my first "sponsored" in the mobile app. Some people may tolerate ads in their paid subscriptions but many of us won't.
54. rconti ◴[] No.44294002[source]
I'm about to start paying for YouTube for the first time ever. Of course, they make it complicated because I don't actually want their bundled music service. And the "lite" version says most videos are ad-free. But what's preventing them from changing that deal the day after I sign up? And of course, once I become a customer, now I'm hooked, and I'm subject to their arbitrary price increases.

Of course, as a "free" customer I'm already subject to their whims whenever they decide to add another advertising layer.

replies(1): >>44294178 #
55. tobias3 ◴[] No.44294015{4}[source]
This illustrates a bit the price discrimination "problem" that is solved via ads. With ads, higher-income people probably earn you more money automatically.

With the fee to remove advertising, you'd need to use all the price discrimination tricks to maximize revenue. E.g., have sales, have discount codes, etc., and it would still not be close to the price discrimination possible via ads.

I also wonder what the income of OP's bubble was when they were not paying for WhatsApp.

56. toast0 ◴[] No.44294026{4}[source]
You're welcome. :) IIRC, the check was written so that if the platform was one of the enumerated platforms (android, s60, s40, bb) give a 1 year, otherwise give a lifetime, which was intended to be iPhone gets lifetime, but then windows phone happened.

IIRC, you had to have signed up with windows phone, switching phones to windows phone wouldn't grant you lifetime (switching to iPhone while the app was paid on iOS would; a delay on that was added to avoid abuse of borrow your friend's iPhone, re-register and then switch back).

57. wheybags ◴[] No.44294041{4}[source]
Why should anyone appreciate paragraphs of text from someone who thinks Europeans can't use payment cards? What reason would I have to presume the content of said paragraphs is better informed, given they have trivially disprovable rubbish up front?
replies(2): >>44296338 #>>44296340 #
58. tensor ◴[] No.44294045[source]
I'm honestly pretty damn pissed that even though I pay for the top tier of Spotify I still now get ads in podcasts on the platform. Yes, I can skip them for now, but when you're driving that's not always easy, and I have no doubt the "you can't skip them" is coming.

Absolute bullshit.

59. kwijibob ◴[] No.44294048[source]
YouTube announced in March that they have 125 million premium subscribers.

I think they are carefully riding the balance between being free for the masses with ads while milking those who have the funds to get rid of ads.

I reckon they will continue to increase their subscriber base where other streaming services are plateuing.

Certainly, YouTube Premium has been worth it for me. A big quality of life improver.

https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/20-years-125-million-sub...

60. dieortin ◴[] No.44294121{3}[source]
> When we did build payment enforcement, I think we only set it on for Spain and maybe the US.

Can I ask why Spain specifically?

replies(1): >>44294192 #
61. tcfhgj ◴[] No.44294167[source]
I am not interested in paying Google for anything. It's a company too big and powerful through immoral business (ads)

I block all ads and wish commercial ads would cease to exist even though it would mean I couldn't use somethings anymore without payment.

replies(1): >>44296832 #
62. tcfhgj ◴[] No.44294178[source]
Don't start, please
63. toast0 ◴[] No.44294192{4}[source]
IIRC, user count / population was very high and users were likely to have payment methods we could accept, and $1/year is not a significant amount for most residents of Spain. I don't remember if maybe Spain had a high voluntary payment rate too?

The US never had a high user count, but it was chosen because US tech journalism sets the narrative. If you want people to pay around the world, convince US tech journalists that payment enforcement is on, and the knowledge that you need to pay filters through the world in a way that it doesn't by just enforcing payment in Spain.

See also: the invisibility of Nokia phones when they pissed off US carriers with SIP clients and left the US market; despite being the top selling phone manufacture of both feature phones and smart phones, there were no media stories about them.

64. Marsymars ◴[] No.44294242[source]
Getting my work to pay for Kagi was an easy conversation compared to how I’d imagine me asking them to pay for YouTube or Spotify would go.
65. appreciatorBus ◴[] No.44294263{3}[source]
YouTube's educational value can be unmatched, but it doesn't follow that 99% of time spent on YouTube is educational or even useful.

I'd bet the ratio of time I have spent legit learning something useful vs just using it as distraction/entertainment ("educational" channels are often just entertainment for nerds like us)/background, it has to be something like 1000 to 1. I wouldn't need to replace the 999 at all. I guess I would read books a bit more, probably get a lot more done on personal projects, go out a bit more etc.

Not clear at all my life would be worse off except in that pinch where I need to know how to disassemble & fix the thing, right now.

66. Karrot_Kream ◴[] No.44294316{3}[source]
There's a "I don't want to see content like this" option you can signal on content and I find it works quite well
replies(1): >>44295353 #
67. wat10000 ◴[] No.44294363{5}[source]
I feel the exact opposite. YouTube is the only streaming service I pay for, and it's well worth it. I have no trouble finding things I want to watch and there's a huge amount of it. Other services don't have nearly as much good stuff, and it's too hard to find among the crap.
replies(1): >>44295632 #
68. wat10000 ◴[] No.44294379{3}[source]
My recommended feed mostly consists of chess, machining, Mario Maker, fighter jets, and assorted other things like that, which is exactly what I want to see. There's some dumb stuff in there, but it's easy to skip over and it learns to recommend what I actually watch. And there is a thumbs-down button, at least for me.
69. ElijahLynn ◴[] No.44294632{3}[source]
I value good content, or maybe it's not even that good, but it's valuable. I appreciate paying people for their time to make things that teach me new things.
replies(1): >>44295866 #
70. kalleboo ◴[] No.44294663{4}[source]
> it isn't

It is though. Videos with "limited ads" (as it's technically called in YouTube Studio) applied to them still get paid out of Premium views.

replies(1): >>44362911 #
71. Workaccount2 ◴[] No.44294720{3}[source]
Youtube has a 55/45 (creator/google) split with content creators. YT premium views also pay substantially more. Most of the money youtube makes goes to creators.
replies(1): >>44308544 #
72. anon-3988 ◴[] No.44294786[source]
This would be fine if you also don't use Adblock. You can't say I use the bakery for free as long as I have the backdoor access key and therefore "free".
replies(1): >>44308290 #
73. ThatPlayer ◴[] No.44294855{4}[source]
It makes sense because YouTube's income is from being paid to deliver video ads. They can't fulfill that if the screen is off.

I believe they are rolling out audio ads.

74. ndriscoll ◴[] No.44294977{3}[source]
I do actually think that putting ads in front of children at least is immoral, and it is neglectful not to block ads for kids in the same way that it is to just hand them an unfiltered violence-and-porn device.

It's probably at least irresponsible to not block ads for an elderly parent who's starting to experience cognitive decline.

75. bigstrat2003 ◴[] No.44295353{4}[source]
If only they would respect that when you tell them to hide shorts. Drives me crazy that they utterly refuse to let you turn those off.
replies(1): >>44295507 #
76. bigstrat2003 ◴[] No.44295364[source]
The problem with YT premium is that they simply do not have content worth paying for. Even the very best content (say, videos where people give music lessons) is not actually something I would pay for. I don't mind paying for a streaming service - I pay for Netflix and will for the foreseeable future. But that's because Netflix has stuff where I actively want to watch it and would miss it if it was gone; YT does not.
replies(1): >>44295429 #
77. dh2022 ◴[] No.44295424{4}[source]
I did learn how to diagnose car problems and how to fix them. these were relatively minor tasks - replace the spark plugs and replace light bulbs. Also Subaru Forester has a problem if the battery gets disconnected too long-I found out about that and what to do about it on YouTube. I also learned how to cook some foods.

That being said, lately YT has way too many ads for my liking; thus I am using Reddit more and more for these things.

78. rhines ◴[] No.44295429[source]
Depends on your perspective I guess, personally I find YT far more valuable than any streaming platform. University lectures from hundreds of professors, conference recordings, music videos, millions of independent creators covering nearly any niche you could think of - YouTube's service of hosting that and making it available is worth so much more to me than whatever shows Neflix currently has on rotation.

But since I have the option to not pay, I don't. If it was paywalled I'd be willing to pay probably 3-5x what a normal streaming service charges though.

replies(1): >>44308574 #
79. boldlybold ◴[] No.44295507{5}[source]
Get a browser extension that does it, I finally looked for one after clicking the "not interested" button one too many times.
replies(1): >>44295805 #
80. timewizard ◴[] No.44295632{6}[source]
Managing subscriptions and blocking (or unblocking) channels are subpar. Watch history, search history and comment history are all afterthoughts and it shows. Managing playlists and watching through playlists are unusual and glitchy. Search filters are weak. The audio only experience is just a gaping hole in the video player.

Youtube music is fine-ish. Search is pretty weak and prefers recommendations over results. The controls for playlist Play, Play with Shuffle, and Play with Autoadd are fairly confusing especially between the app and the desktop version. Creating and managing multiple playlists is a frustrating experience and not thought out at all. It constantly feeling the need to change the album art on my playlists.

You pay to not be annoyed. You're not paying for a "premium" product in any way.

replies(1): >>44298728 #
81. tjpnz ◴[] No.44295692[source]
Given the downright illegal tactics adtech companies like Google and Meta resort to it has become morally righteous.
82. muppetman ◴[] No.44295699[source]
I pay for YT Premium. Not because I care for stupid videos, but because you get YT Music for free with it... Spotify is the hottest of garbage in my opinion, constantly trying to push podcasts at me. Why more people don't cancel Spotify and just pay for YT Premium - you get ad-free videos and all the music of Spotify. Plus with YT Music you can upload your own FLAC/MP3s to it, so all that odd werid music you've got that isn't on Spotify you can have anywhere you're logged into your YT Music account.
replies(4): >>44295817 #>>44296138 #>>44296652 #>>44301037 #
83. whoisyc ◴[] No.44295753[source]
Kagi has a little over 50k paying users.

Hacker news has 5 million monthly unique users [1].

Given how hacker news constantly complain about google’s decline and the constant virtue signaling on the need to pay for software, you would expect a sizable chunk of the users (the vocal ones, at least) here pay for Kagi. And yet we are here. GP is absolutely right about it being all-talk.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33454140

replies(1): >>44296224 #
84. spaqin ◴[] No.44295805{6}[source]
If you're at getting a browser extension level, you're not too far off from also getting an adblocker and not having to pay for premium.
85. anshumankmr ◴[] No.44295817[source]
Its baffling how bad YT Music reccomendations are for me though (personally). My personal email account is something I have had since 2008 and there is probably history going back till then and even then somehow YT Music just gives bad reccomendations
replies(1): >>44296483 #
86. LtWorf ◴[] No.44295866{4}[source]
Then pay for their patreon. Paying youtube just makes google money.
87. openplatypus ◴[] No.44295916{6}[source]
Spotify has enough power to say that podcasters should have ad free feed for premium subscribers or get deplatfromed. Obviously I would expect Spotify to pay podcasters.

The idea of paid, premium service with ads is ridiculous.

replies(1): >>44296646 #
88. daveoc64 ◴[] No.44296138[source]
I pay for both YouTube Premium and Spotify Premium, because I don't think that Google's music offerings have ever been that good.

There's no desktop app for YouTube Music for starters.

replies(1): >>44296500 #
89. MaxikCZ ◴[] No.44296209[source]
> met one person [...] who actually pays for YT Premium.

I dont like that while the ad revenue barely extracts a dollar from me, my subscription suddenly expects $10-30 per month regardless of my usage.

Thats not "we need to charge you to continue our services", thats "we need to charge you and then 20x times again just because we can".

90. sundarurfriend ◴[] No.44296224{3}[source]
In general, 95% of users in any site are passive lurkers. So that leaves Hacker News with 250k active monthly users that comment and engage (which is likely still a massive overestimate). Of those, in the wide variety of comments and discussions, complaints about search and google in particular are again about 5% at most (being generous with numbers once more). That leaves us with 12500 people on HN who should potentially pay for Kagi. Seems like four times that many are doing it by your numbers.
91. mschuster91 ◴[] No.44296338{5}[source]
> Why should anyone appreciate paragraphs of text from someone who thinks Europeans can't use payment cards?

I'm German, so I'm basing my statement on almost 34 years of living here. In case you want some more details from an actual bank, read this [1].

Basically, we don't need credit cards, not even for renting cars, because we have robust regulation and our own national cashless payment schemes plus SEPA. Direct debit is just fine for us.

[1] https://n26.com/en-de/blog/taboo-of-credit

92. frm88 ◴[] No.44296340{5}[source]
You might want to have a look at the usage stats of payment cards (here specifically credit cards) globally. You would realise that usage is low in Europe, compared to the US. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/people_with_credit.... Most payments are done with regular banking and/or bank specific cards. The latter are not accepted by online platforms, the former has indeed transfer fees in many countries. The grandparents explanations are valid.
replies(3): >>44296822 #>>44296905 #>>44298167 #
93. worldsayshi ◴[] No.44296473[source]
Solving this properly probably means solving how to pay for open source. I think it needs a somewhat complex scheme of pooling money together into an ad-hoc fund like entity and distributing it to service providers by someone elected for the task.
replies(1): >>44308506 #
94. muppetman ◴[] No.44296483{3}[source]
Yea, recommendations aren't great, but then Spotify wasn't much good either. This is an area where I hope their work in AI can help. Instead they seem to be focusing on stupid integrations like in the Play Store - now I can ask the Play Store about an app... wtf?
95. muppetman ◴[] No.44296500{3}[source]
What would you want/need a desktop app for? If you use Chrome (and yes, I'm aware some people use Firefox) you can install it as an App that way, so it appears in your start menu/finder. It can cast to your local devices etc.

I can't think of a single reason I'd want/need a standalone app over having the Chrome version of the app, which to all intents and purposes appears as a standalone app anyway.

So I'm curious, what's the use-case for a Desktop App to stream music? Even with the webapp you can download music for offline play.

96. piva00 ◴[] No.44296646{7}[source]
> Obviously I would expect Spotify to pay podcasters.

Are you willing to pay more for your subscription so that Spotify can also pay podcasters? Because that's what you are asking, it won't ever be able to dilute even more the royalties pot, you'd need to pay more for your subscription so that podcasters can also be paid.

replies(1): >>44296761 #
97. piva00 ◴[] No.44296652[source]
I pay for both because YT Music sucks, a lot.
98. openplatypus ◴[] No.44296761{8}[source]
If I can avoid retarded Shopify ads, I would seriously consider. It would be nice change from bunch of individual Patreon subscriptions.
99. shrx ◴[] No.44296822{6}[source]
"Bank specific cards" are actually debit cards. As an EU-based end user I see basically no practical difference between the two (I have both a MasterCard credit card and a Visa debit card), except that many US-based online stores' payment processors refuse to work with a debit card.
replies(2): >>44297406 #>>44308668 #
100. ivell ◴[] No.44296832[source]
I can understand weapons industry or alcohol industry as being immoral. However I do not understand how ads are immoral. It is annoying for some, while for some it is informative. Businesses inform the public about their services through ads.

Or do you mean how Google implemented its ads?

replies(3): >>44301226 #>>44302245 #>>44308419 #
101. UnreachableCode ◴[] No.44296905{6}[source]
>The latter are not accepted by online platforms

This is not true.

replies(1): >>44297390 #
102. UnreachableCode ◴[] No.44296917{4}[source]
>Way to flippantly shit on

o_O

103. mschuster91 ◴[] No.44297390{7}[source]
Depends! If you only have a classic Girocard in Germany, iDEAL in Netherlands, Przelewy24/BLIK in Poland, Bancontact in Belgium for example, you will only be able to use it on services that support them. Amazon and PayPal support these schemes (as well as SEPA Direct Debit), but other than these, it's rare for non-domestic services to be accepted.

International payments are a huge huge goddamn mess and I do not envy anyone who has to deal with their peculiarities.

replies(1): >>44298492 #
104. mschuster91 ◴[] No.44297406{7}[source]
> "Bank specific cards" are actually debit cards.

Yes, but not necessarily MasterCard/Visa debit cards. Germany's Girocard for example is a national debit card scheme that does not use any of the American grifters. Unfortunately, it's being phased out in favor of MC/Visa because the EU fee cap on national schemes is much lower than for MC/Visa and so banks can make more money off of you.

We're just standing by and watch our dependence on American grifter megacompanies larger every day.

replies(1): >>44308683 #
105. wheybags ◴[] No.44298167{6}[source]
I've lived in the EU my entire life, in three different countries. I have visited and have friends in many more countries. Literally everybody I know has either a visa or mastercard debit card. Yes, people dont use credit cards specifically, they use debit cards, but it literally does not matter, the infrastructure is the same. Seeing ignorant Americans talk about Europe online like it's some backwater that doesn't even have card payment, is frankly offensive.
replies(1): >>44300670 #
106. UnreachableCode ◴[] No.44298492{8}[source]
Right, I think I understand the nuance of your original point more now. As a Brit, with Visa, MasterCard and Amex, this is really a non-issue.
107. anton-c ◴[] No.44298570{3}[source]
I agree with the premise of your argument but just have to point out we seem to have been given 'unalived' and a few other new terms thanks to youtubes aggressive demonetization. They haven't been amazing on censorship but still probably better than those others.

Now whether someone who is putting out an opinion should care about getting paid is another thing, but it kills your video traffic usually too.

108. wat10000 ◴[] No.44298728{7}[source]
And? Yeah, I’m paying to get rid of ads. Of course I am. I like watching the stuff, I hate ads, and it’s well worth the price to get rid of them.
109. anton-c ◴[] No.44298929[source]
I'm not sure there's a ton of real full programs on YouTube that would really leave you with, say, a college level understanding of something. No doubt there's some, but it's def not the norm. Even for those courses you lack the ability to interact with the instructor.

Learning on YouTube 10 yrs ago meant supplementing your guitar skills cuz you didn't have a teacher. Or learning how a compressor works so you can use it yourself in music. It was always supplemental tidbits from numerous creators that helped me hone skills. Learned a ton about tools and woodworking too, but it was always me working for awhile then going back to get more information. Much more difficult to do in like, biology(probably don't have a bio lab) or a high risk repair like plumbing.

Pretty much any computer skill is going to have a cache of resources where filtering out trash is going to be the harder part. There are fantastic coding and modeling guides from very experienced people. Most financial things you should be very wary of except top professionals with proven credentials.

Asking a community who their favorite creators are can be a good place to start.

I bought one 14 part video course and the resources/assets it had were more valuable than the info. I exercise caution with that stuff now.

And I entirely agree YouTube asks too much for premium.

110. anton-c ◴[] No.44298975{3}[source]
Well when normal news like NBC just got immediate front page stuff with super low engagement people downvoted the crap outta it because it was showing such preferential treatment. Feels like they deserved it, they bought their way in.

Little did we know how far YouTube would go for them.

111. mschuster91 ◴[] No.44300670{7}[source]
German here. As I've written in another comment in the thread [1], Europe as a whole has markedly lower adoption for the international credit/debit cards than the US, as most countries have had their own schemes for decades (e.g. Germany's Girocard) so there was no need in practice to get one of the international ones. For vacation, we were used to going to money exchanges anyway so there was no need to get a bank card that worked outside of one's primary country.

And even for those who have credit cards, they are "pay in full at the end of each month" cards, not American-style revolving credit cards. And stuff like the "cashback" cards of Americans, that's also not very common here since the "cashbacks" are actually paid for by the merchant on top of the interchange fee - but there's an EU law that places a hard cap of IIRC 1% on the merchant fees, so there is barely any way for banks to incentivise people to use credit cards.

And on the bank side, here in Europe we also don't really have that "debt holders can just sell off defaulted debts" thing, so banks can't offload the risk of defaults to someone else. And if that's not enough, we also got very strict laws on who can get approved for a credit card and for which limits - stuff like 20 year olds with 20, 30k of credit card debt are truly rare unless the parents of said young people are rich enough to back such a massive CC limit.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44296338

replies(1): >>44308716 #
112. sebastiennight ◴[] No.44301037[source]
> you can upload your own FLAC/MP3s to it, so all that odd werid music you've got that isn't on Spotify you can have anywhere you're logged into your YT Music account.

FYI you can also do this with Spotify[0].

[Ø]: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/

replies(1): >>44302357 #
113. int_19h ◴[] No.44301226{3}[source]
You may disagree on this, but many people believe that the current state of affairs wrt online ads (i.e. massive privacy violations and using ads to get people literally addicted) in general is the inevitable end result of any predominantly ad-supported ecosystem.
114. int_19h ◴[] No.44301267[source]
I pay for Kagi and Fastmail. I used to have YT Premium, but given that Google and Meta are both abusive monopolies that shouldn't exist in the first place, I don't see any ethical problems with circumventing their paywalls where possible, and if it it incurs measurable economic damage to them, so much the better.
115. tcfhgj ◴[] No.44302245{3}[source]
Commercial unrequested ads in general, they are designed to manipulate you to make you buy products you wouldn't have bought otherwise.

Additionally, a related negative side effect is consumerism.

116. muppetman ◴[] No.44302357{3}[source]
I don't think that's the same, is it? That's just Spotify letting you play files on your local device. With YT Music you upload them from one device to the YT Music cloud, and then any device can access them/stream from the YT Cloud. You can't upload your music to Spotify, only use it to access media that's stored locally on your device.
replies(1): >>44302448 #
117. sebastiennight ◴[] No.44302448{4}[source]
Last time I tried, I was able to load the local file on desktop, and then sync that playlist on mobile (to listen to the "desktop song" on mobile even when offline). So I'd argue it provided similar functionality.
replies(1): >>44303134 #
118. wvh ◴[] No.44302851{3}[source]
I got divorced last year, had a rough period, watched some self-help videos, Youtube found out and started increasingly serving unwanted content. I did not appreciate the attempt at pushing my proverbial buttons. I do not need gender war content when I look for a guitar review. Youtube is excellent and has replaced television for me the last 10 years. But I just don't trust or want an algorithm trying to hook me, and I'm generally already old and wise enough to unplug when I need to. To me, this goes a bit beyond being choosy. I don't want to be profiled.
replies(1): >>44304209 #
119. unsignedint ◴[] No.44303134{5}[source]
Spotify seems to rely more on cross-device sync. As the name of the feature suggests, it depends on having the actual media file stored locally. In contrast, YouTube Music stores everything in the cloud.

Local files work fine if you're always playing music on devices you own and that have local storage. But if you're using media devices like a Chromecast (unless you're casting directly from a device that has access to the local files), or on machines where you don’t have sync privileges—like a work computer—YouTube Music will work, but Spotify won’t.

120. fireflash38 ◴[] No.44303242[source]
The biggest problem with paid services is that they are often not satisfied with just being paid. Why not add small ads for your own services - you're just letting users know what's available to them. Then why not an ad when you're not actively watching. Then it's constant obtrusive ads. Then it's a pay even fucking more to remove ads. Then it's ads even on the no ads tier.

It's more money. Why would they refuse more money? It's so fucking frustrating too.

121. p1anecrazy ◴[] No.44304209{4}[source]
You can pay for an ad-free experience and switch off your watching history to avoid being preyed upon by the algorithm. That’s what I do.
replies(1): >>44350081 #
122. scrivanodev ◴[] No.44307180{4}[source]
I have completely disabled the history feature, so when I navigate to the homepage there's no "recommended" content. I rely on search exclusively to find what I need. Also I don't have the YouTube app installed, if I need it I just use the browser. This helps minimising the distractions a lot.

As for content, it depends what you're looking for. For me, I'm mostly into maths and physics and there are so many channels and lecture series that were immensely helpful. For example, I recently went through this playlist on Lie Groups [0].

[0] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN_4R2IuNuuRgJb00X2J53Iq9...

123. account42 ◴[] No.44308245[source]
$13.99 /month is hardly a small fee IMO. But more importantly it's an arbitrary price point set by Google. Pretending that people are not willing to pay just because they choose not to accept a particular set of conditions is dishonest.
124. account42 ◴[] No.44308290{3}[source]
Let's imagine if there was a free bakery though. But being free they were always struggling and sometimes the bread was a bit late. Then BigBakeryCo moves into town and also provides free bread as long as you also take one of their magazines and promise to read it. Not most people will go to BigBakeryCo because their funds from selling magazine space means they can provide a more professional service. Now there is almost no one going to the original free bakery so the owner decides to close shop. Suddenly your only option for free bread is BigBakeryCo. Now BigBakeryCo complains that people are throwing their magazines into the trash without reading them and people like you call out those people for taking advantage of poor BigBakeryCo.

The truth is that Youtube is a parasite. They don't create free content, they have inserted themselves between regular people creating free videos and you and are demanding that you pay them for access to what would have existed without them.

replies(1): >>44315961 #
125. account42 ◴[] No.44308339{4}[source]
So you are overcharging paid users by over 500% and complaining that not many take that deal? See that's the problem with all these "people won't pay for ad-free services" arguments. It almost always boils down this kind of abusive pricing.

And honestly, what you could make from users through ads is not what I care about. You are making zero from me through ads because I block them everywhere and that is not negotiable. A reasonable price would be costs + modest margin not how much you could grab out of my pocket.

replies(1): >>44314709 #
126. account42 ◴[] No.44308419{3}[source]
Would you tolerate a human being following you around, telling you to buy things you don't need and that you are worth less if you don't. That's what ads do, except it's not just one person but a whole team of professional psychologists that know just what buttons to push to make you cave in. Pretending that they are simply businesses informing you is beyond dishonest.
127. account42 ◴[] No.44308506[source]
If only society had a structure like that, for taking care of things that need to be done for the benefit of everyone.
replies(1): >>44372078 #
128. account42 ◴[] No.44308544{4}[source]
With some creators. Casual uploaders (which IMO produce the majority of worthwhile videos) don't get squat. The "professional content creators" produce watered down crap that I close as soon as I see the youtube-face thumbnail designed to game the algorithm.
129. account42 ◴[] No.44308574{3}[source]
University professors are already (often publicly) funded and should be sharing videos on university infrastructure, not ad-funded commercial platforms.
130. account42 ◴[] No.44308584[source]
They also bundled the prime delivery with the prime video streaming for double the price of what either one cost before.
131. account42 ◴[] No.44308668{7}[source]
> except that many US-based online stores' payment processors refuse to work with a debit card

I have never encountered even that. My debit card also works great for in-person payments in the US, with the only exception perhaps being rentals.

132. account42 ◴[] No.44308683{8}[source]
I literally do not know anyone without an EMV-based payment method, usually Visa or MasterCard. I have also never used the Girocard my bank provides in addition to the Visa debit- (and in the past actual credit-) card.

I also see more people paying with their phone/smartwatch than any physical card these days.

133. account42 ◴[] No.44308716{8}[source]
> For vacation, we were used to going to money exchanges anyway so there was no need to get a bank card that worked outside of one's primary country.

Strong disagree, being able to withdraw cash at corner stores or pay with cards directly beats having to guess how much cash you need to exchange beforehand. And a number German banks have offered free credit or debit cards for decades.

> And even for those who have credit cards, they are "pay in full at the end of each month" cards, not American-style revolving credit cards. And stuff like the "cashback" cards of Americans, that's also not very common here since the "cashbacks" are actually paid for by the merchant on top of the interchange fee - but there's an EU law that places a hard cap of IIRC 1% on the merchant fees, so there is barely any way for banks to incentivise people to use credit cards.

True but that doesn't affect their usefulness as payment methods - EU customers can largely pay with "credit" cards just fine.

134. Guest9081239812 ◴[] No.44314709{5}[source]
I'm a little confused where you're trying to go with this comment. I develop and maintain a service that has been used by millions of people. I make less net profit than a part-time McDonald's employee. Is this not "costs + modest margin"? Where is the abusive pricing?
135. willywanker ◴[] No.44315961{4}[source]
Only if you consider hosting the entire infrastructure for concurrent video streaming to millions of users as 'inserting themselves'. Before Youtube there was no way to distribute your home video to a large audience beyond sending the entire physical video file (too large to email, for starters) and the recipients having to deal with whatever mostly proprietary formats it had to be made in.

From the viewers' side, there was no place to go and browse videos, you were limited to short embedded clips or had to download the entire file first.

Youtube was a game changer when it first appeared and Google hadn't yet acquired it.

136. filoleg ◴[] No.44350081{5}[source]
> You can [...] switch off your watching history

Yup, and, for those who don't know, you can toggle an option in your Google account settings to do the same for your recommendations in search and for any Google-served ads you will see on all websites.

Disclaimer: I tried that with the ads, and ended up reverting that setting after a few days. Even if my personalized ads were hit or miss, non-personalized ads were just nightmare fuel of the most random things ever that I absolutely had no interest in and felt actually annoyed upon seeing.

137. filoleg ◴[] No.44361978{4}[source]
Just to clarify for those who might've been as confused as I was upon reading that, this seems to be a thing with podcasts on Spotify. I only ever used it for music, so I genuinely had no idea (as I am yet to encounter a single ad while listening to music in around a decade of subbed usage)
138. mac-mc ◴[] No.44362911{5}[source]
Creators avoid making their videos tagged as such because it significantly reduces their reach and promotion by the algorithm. So it doesn't matter if you still get paid by premium views, the chilling effect still exists.
139. worldsayshi ◴[] No.44372078{3}[source]
I think it's a very different problem than what welfare usually solves for us. Paying a doctor to treat patients is different from paying someone to build an MRI machine. We don't pay individual engineers there.

So I don't think solving such complex problems within a welfare system is a solved problem at all.

In Sweden we pride ourselves in health care for everyone. But we are quite bad at buying software systems for our welfare institutions.