cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/40372957

fyi:

  • https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp lets you download videos (from youtube and also hundreds of other sites)
  • for desktop, https://mpv.io/ is free and lets you watch youtube (or any other video) at even more and faster speeds than youtube premium does, among many other features
  • for android, https://newpipe.net/ lets you play youtube in the background (and download videos, and block ads, ...)
  • https://ublockorigin.com/ blocks ads everywhere (and yes it does still work on youtube, at least in firefox anyway)
screenshot of youtube saying "Watch in faster playback speeds with Premium"

all 86 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 138 points 10 months ago (17 children)

I am not against paying for services to unlock extra features, but I utterly despise the way YouTube premium is entirely composed of features we had but they took away.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -41 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    How would you suggest they get people to pay?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 87 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Come up with new features that people would be willing to pay for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -29 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    How is that any different from shifting existing features to premium? If you aren't paying you're lucky to get anything.

    I dont pay and I ad block everything. I'm surprised I can use the site at all. These features are nice to haves and not core to using YouTube.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    Lucky to get anything? YouTube couldnt even have grown at all if it was a paid product from the start. People made it into the success it is, by using it, because it was free.

    Now when its a monopoly, they do a bait and switch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    So because they started off offering something for free they owe us? Its still free, there has been no bait and switch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    Yeah. They owe us, they owe their content creators, they owe the tax payers who built and power the platform upon which their platform sits. They sure ain't paying their fair share.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Some artists making content are practically their own little PBS stations or something, I’m with ya!

    Would it be more palatable if they told us using adblock w/o premium was “robbing creators of one-hundredth of a cent each time” or something? If I’m not mistaken there is a connection between content creator payouts and that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago*

    I dont pay and I ad block everything. I’m surprised I can use the site at all.

    3 billion active viewers is what makes up the majority of Alphabet's stock value. The revenue from ads, donation extortion, and premium are peanuts. That's why youtube will never go full paywall or hard ban ad blocker users.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    People pay for features they want. YouTube did a bait and switch and launched their service with all the features that were expected, such as running in the background, no ads, fast forwarding and everything else.

    Now when the service is a monopoly, they are removing features instead of adding things that are worth extra money.

    Its a bait and switch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    The cost of running YouTube is constantly growing. New features cost extra to develop and maintain. Monetizing existing features lessens the burden and allows the platform to keep providing their core service for free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    Youtube is owned by Google, market cap of 3.7 trillion dollars, third richest company in the America.

    3.7 trillion is 62 million times the average American salary.

    Lets pray together they will be able to manage their bills this month.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    Why are you comparing the market cap of a company that runs multiple services for billions of users to the average American salary. That really shows where your brain is at and why you keep landing on the conclusion that this is unfair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe the example was a poor one, but the idea was to show that these companies have so much money, that im not going to feel sympathy for them needing even more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    Ok let's take a look at the numbers. They might be unreasonable I dont know.

    I couldn't find YouTube's profit or net income. So I'm going off the 2024 net income for alphabet which was 100b

    YouTube is considered to be about 30% of alphabets valuation.

    Let's assume YouTube's net income 2024 was 30b

    Now they have 2.54 billion users. Divide that up and its about $12 profit per user and that is in their best year due to the election driving massive 30% increases in traffic and ad revenue.

    I think $12 profit per user per year is reasonable margins.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Play video in background

    Was such a shamelessly sleazy was to try and twist arms into using their service. Nevermind that it just spawned a thousand different 3rd party tools for getting around this annoying limiter. It just felt like a huge red flag, indicating they were going to use their native app to be fucking annoying to their clients going forward.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    I don't understand. I play videos in the background all the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Not on free YouTube you don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    Maybe an issue with your browser then? Which one do you use?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    The background play is removed on cell phones. It used to be possible, but they removed it, only so they could charge money for enabling it again. I doubt they removed it from desktop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    For anyone wondering, only 4x speed is behind premium:

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Who's got enough hours in the day to only watch reaction videos of teenagers eating foreign chocolate bars at only double speed?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I'm aware that this is a joke, but it's also my point. Those types of videos are usually sped up already. How on earth can someone digest anything from a video in 4x speed?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I know right. I always alter the speed. I watch nearly everything at 1.25 speed because it shortens my viewing time without missing any content and I almost never even notice the difference. With really slow talkers I can get to to 1.75 speed. I almost never go to 2x. I can't imagine 4x. There is one guy I have to actually show down to 0.75 speed to digest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    You have to work up to higher speeds and use headphones. Start at 1.5x and increase by .25 until you get to 3x, thats usually my max but if the video doesn't have sound then 4x seems reasonable like for Odd Tinkering and Primitive Technology

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 50 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    It’s why there’s like a second or two of a delay before the video plays when I watch on a browser with uBO. The connection isn’t slow, they’re just purposely slowing it down.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    Typical. Take it away, then charge to bring it back.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago (18 children)

    Because where would we be if we couldn‘t CONSUME ENDLESS SLOP AT FOUR TIMES SPEED?! Seriously who needs this? This is sickening.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Slop comment aside, a lot of people with ADHD listen to videos at 1.5x or more speed because that’s how their brain works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I watch a bunch of channels that are mostly talking and are 20+ minutes. I always put it on 1.5x speed and its barely noticeable and you get used to it. It saves me time without any loss of what was being shown so I consider it a win.

    1 question, this feature already exists for non paying costumers, does this mean its going to be a pay for option only soon? That will piss me off...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago*

    I think it trains your brain to be even more impatient and when you talk to people in real life, you will think everyone is slow and annoying.

    Reading a book is probably hard for your brain too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Try watching videos by "explaining computers". Actually pretty good content (mostly on single board computers like raspberry pi), but he talks glacially. Normally I watch at 1.5x, this channel is one of just a few where I need to up it to 2x.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I usually just skip to the part where he reveals the price of the amazingly cheap sbc, then click off when it's definitely not cheap.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    When you think about it, it’s not really that different from learning to read faster, which is a valued skill.

    (There’s an argument to be made that for many things you’d be better off reading rather than watching YouTube vids at 4x but let’s not focus on that.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Have you seen people who complain about written jnfo his video info? Its because they can read thr info faster than listening to it be said. But if you speed it up to 2x or 3x then it becomes the same as reading in terms of time. You get used to it over time. I can't listen to anything at 1x speed anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I’ve thought about dipping my toes into this but I don’t want to start getting antsy when people talk IRL

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Do NOT do it. I dont think the time saved is worth it. It hasnt changed irl stuff for me but any media feels painfully slow. I had to listen to a 1hr video conference with a group on 1x speed and I felt like I was being tortured. I had to refocused myself every sentence because i couldn't hold attention on sentences that were being said so slowly.

    If you want to consume info fast then reading is way better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    PipePipe still works

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    How does playing videos faster than x1 affect creators i actually want to watch? The Spiffing Brit did a thing a while ago about doubling their view time (and thus engagement) by having people watch the videos at 1/2 speed. If that was true it makes sense that watching it at 2x would only count as a half watch even if you watched all of it.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    My boss uses a VPN and some other clandestine methods to subscribe via India, so he pays the equivalent of about £3 per month for premium.

    I gave it a try, but could never quite manage. You need to fully turn off location services, use an Indian registered Gmail and pay via a credit card of some kind. I think you also need a registered address, but he just used one for a random hotel in Bangladesh.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Got a 3 month free trial of it, honestly love the things I used to have. But it still stutters like shit and is a garbage feed of shit I don't watch. I will not be paying when it's used up.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago*

    even better adblock. unless they aggressively go after anti-adblock, like preventing the page from loading there arnt getting new subscribers.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I pay for premium to get rid of ads. Not convinced that adblockers will be a permanent and privacy friendly option but havent really explored it. But anything faster than maybe 2.35x is unintelligible, and not worth usint due to sound "tearing" issues (youtube lets you adjust it in 0.05x increments)

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago
    [–] -1 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    I've never liked YouTube.

    I didn't watch it when it was free. I didn't watch it when it had ads. I don't watch it now. It is bad. Most of the content on it is bad.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Super hot take that.

    You do realise that there isn't just one kind of content right?

    Not trying to change your mind, I just feel like that's a very narrow minded view of what is a vast wealth of human knowledge in video form.

    I mainly watch tech/science stuff, super interesting and definitely has taught me stuff. Theres years worth of educational content on there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I feel like you can both be right, the sheer number of videos can have years of educational content while still being mostly SEO influencers and money leeching junk. If you go on it with a completely fresh account you're going to see a bunch of brain rot before you tune your algorithm into good content.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    I never really liked youtube. But you've got to admit that sometimes, when you have a very niche tech problem, there is always one indian making just the right video for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    YouTube is the only subscription I maintain month to month. Its worth the 13 bucks for no ads, and a music service (to me)

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    Same, the algorithm seems to do recommendations a little better too but that might be my imagination. I dont pay for streaming services and my neighbors let me piggyback off their wifi so yt is my only internet expense.

  • source
  • parent
  • 13 comments in c/aboringdystopia@mander.xyz view that post
    [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    How about fuck YouTube! I'll give my money to the grocery store conglomerate !

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    Ehhhhhh. I don't love youtube plus but a giant expensive service charging money seems pretty reasonable.

    Video hosting all content imagineable is costly.

    I'm unsure how being asked to pay for an expensive product is dystopian.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

    google's offer to accept payment for these "features"^[these aren't really even features: google is offering to disable anti-features which they are choosing to impose on people.] (each and every one of them) is predicated on their assumption that many people are not in control of the software on their own computers.

    they haven't completely won the war yet, but the extent to which their assumption is correct is imo pretty dystopian.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    That feels dystopian in the same way that a car mechanics offering services like brake pad replacements is dystopian, which is to say, a pretty big stretch. My uncle and his buddies would giggle, a la, Hank Hill if anyone suggested taking that stuff to a mechanic. But for 90% of people, that's the norm.

    We've chosen to spend our time on other skills, just as some people are happy to spend their time not learning the intricacies of software on their computers.

    To each their own I suppose!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    the war on general-purpose computing isn't akin to car mechanics offering services. if you want a car analogy (😬) it is more like car manufacturers attempting to restrict which roads which cars are allowed to drive on (and selling license keys to enable access to other roads).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    A road analogy only works if it's their private road which youtube maintains at the cost of hundreds of millions a year.

    Why on Earth does youtube owe you unfettered access to its product? What nonsense is that?

    Not offering a service, on their own product, is not a "war on general-purpose computing" and to claim so is pretty darn childish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    A road analogy only works if it’s their private road which youtube maintains

    Their desire to restrict how you interact with their "free" service necessitates eliminating your fundamental ability to tell your computer what to do - not just for "their private road", but in general. This is what the "war on general computation" is about. (I assume you haven't watched the talk linked in my earlier comment? there is also a transcript here...)

    To be clear, they have not won this war yet - which is why all of the software linked in the body of this post is still able to exist! But, they are continuing to move in that direction and offerings like YouTube Premium are predicated on their (correct) assumption that, for many people, having agency over their own computers' behavior is already unimaginable.

    So, re: your earlier comment:

    That feels dystopian in the same way that a car mechanics offering services like brake pad replacements is dystopian, which is to say, a pretty big stretch. My uncle and his buddies would giggle, a la, Hank Hill if anyone suggested taking that stuff to a mechanic. But for 90% of people, that’s the norm.

    I'd say this not at all like car mechanics existing and offering brake pad replacement service. Rather, it is akin to it being made intentionally more difficult and/or outright illegal to replace one's own brake pads - and also to have them replaced by any local mechanic who does not pay a recurring fee to the company that manufactured the car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    Kid, a private service can offer you what it wants. Youtube doesn't owe you the ability to watch its videos however you want for free.

    Their desire to restrict how you interact with their “free” service necessitates eliminating your fundamental ability to tell your computer what to do - not just for “their private road”, but in general.

    When youtube takes away the programs on YOUR computer, you'll have a point. But restricting how you get to interact with THEIR stuff is different.

    There is difference between "what you would like" and "what you are owed."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I would be fine with that, but they are actively removing features we got for free before and put them behind the paywall. And they also actively ignore the wishes of the community. Nobody wants auto-translated video titles and autogenerated dubs without an official way to disable them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    But why are we owed that stuff for free?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    We are not. Those features were already free and require no maintenance nor development. Now they are getting paywalled.

    Today you use your calculator on the phone for free. Tomorrow it can be paywalled. You are not owed free stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    You are not owed free stuff.

    Thank you. I have no idea why people are surprised that a service that costs hundreds of millions to run would start trying to monetize itself.

    Youtube is as free to shutdown as it is to restrict access to its wares.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago

    Not trying to be an ass but I'd rather it get feature locked than ban my ass for adblock.

  • source