←back to thread

1034 points deryilz | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
labrador ◴[] No.44544639[source]
I'd gladly pay for YouTube without ads if I trusted that it would remain ad free, but the track record from various companies on this is not good.
replies(11): >>44544646 #>>44544655 #>>44544660 #>>44544691 #>>44544696 #>>44544706 #>>44544736 #>>44544799 #>>44545011 #>>44545106 #>>44545121 #
raincole ◴[] No.44545011[source]
Youtube premium has been ad-free for 10 years. What kind of track record do you need? 20 years? 100 years?
replies(3): >>44545087 #>>44547650 #>>44550307 #
vinyl7 ◴[] No.44545087[source]
Netflix and other streaming sites have ads on some paid subscriptions. First they start with ad free subs, then introduce ads and introduce a higher priced tier to get rid of ads
replies(2): >>44545307 #>>44545734 #
1. raincole ◴[] No.44545307[source]
So if one supermarket sold expired food, we should avoid another supermarket that has not been doing that for 10 years? Google/Youtube doesn't own Netflix. If anything, the reasonable response would be to unsub Netflix and sub its competitors, like, uh, Youtube.
replies(1): >>44547664 #
2. eviks ◴[] No.44547664[source]
No, if all the big supermarkets sell expired food from time to time to meet profitability expectations, there is no reason to believe one will be so unique as to be able to resist using the same industry standard, especially when it already has a much bigger expired food business