←back to thread

713 points greenburger | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.017s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
muppetman ◴[] No.44302357[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 #
1. sebastiennight ◴[] No.44302448[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 #
2. unsignedint ◴[] No.44303134[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.