←back to thread

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

(iter.ca)
990 points smitop | 2 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.405s | source
Show context
ttyyzz ◴[20 Jun 25 18:06 UTC] No.44330288[source]▶
Having to pay for something so that's "less annoying" is the worst business model. YouTube Premium is very expensive. I had it for a while when I got a Pixel smartphone with a few months of YouTube Premium included. It was great. I also understand that streaming on this scale must entail incredibly high operating costs; the money has to come from somewhere. It's simply a dilemma. But there has to be a better way. Any ideas?
replies(8): >>44330305 #>>44330334 #>>44330460 #>>44333022 #>>44333268 #>>44333389 #>>44333482 #>>44333786 #
1. yugioh3 ◴[21 Jun 25 01:41 UTC] No.44333786[source]▶
Is it actually expensive though? Or does it just feel that way? A movie costs $15, or roughly 13 cents per minute of watch time.

The average daily YouTube watch time is north of 40 minutes per day for adults in the US. That's a penny per minute for YouTube... 11x cheaper than a movie.

replies(1): >>44333841 #
2. callc ◴[21 Jun 25 01:55 UTC] No.44333841[source]▶
It’s a psychological problem. Going from $0 to $1 is a mountain.

Starting a product or service at $30 / month sets expectations up front (no ad supported free tier)

This is an incompatible strategy with venture backed “get all the market share possible by offering services for free to crush competitors so we can have a monopoly to exploit later” mindset