One big difference: Netflix started out that way, YouTube has been completely free for almost a decade.
Not really a big difference, especially as the vast majority of the content will remain free on Youtube. I doubt the average user will even notice its arrival
One big difference: Netflix has always been subscription based, whereas YouTube has been completely free since its inception.
Almost a decade of free content and all of a sudden you have to pay for some of it? I don't see this working out so well...
BSkyB did this in 1993 with free-to-air satellite channels, as I mentioned beforehand. It worked out extremely well for them, as you may have noticed. However, this isn't a limited satellite TV spectrum we are dealing with, this is unlimited video-on-demand and there's room for many competitors out there on the Internet. Google should not become complacent on introducing and expanding pay VoD because they believe they are big enough to get away with it without collateral damage.
If there HAS to be "premium" content behind a paywall - why not simply split Youtube into two; Freetube (or stay as Youtube) and Paytube, and the 99% of the stuff you already watch will be on Freetube.
Are there any thoughts on Youtube/Google; Vimeo and so on actually forcing people to pay to upload their videos - maybe so they can remove the ads (although adblock does that very nicely)?
The New York Times have given more information on the plans Google are due to announce. First of all, the $1.99 a month price is for a single channel and is the minimum they could charge for content.
Secondly, it does mention that YouTube will roll out the subscription model to everyone whom has a channel on the website (I suspect after this 50 channel initial push), citing low levels of income from ad-supported free video content they post.
They also mention two options for channel providers whom go down the subscription route - subscription and ad-funded or subscription and ad-free.
The only thing I can see this working for is for for made for TV or cinema material.
If channel owners who don't have the above content try to do it, they'll strangle their own exposure.
I do suspect, however, that those channels that do host made for TV or cinema material (and charge for it) will probably try to eliminate any copyrighted material much more vigorously than they do now.
The New York Times have given more information on the plans Google are due to announce. First of all, the $1.99 a month price is for a single channel and is the minimum they could charge for content.
Secondly, it does mention that YouTube will roll out the subscription model to everyone whom has a channel on the website (I suspect after this 50 channel initial push), citing low levels of income from ad-supported free video content they post.
They also mention two options for channel providers whom go down the subscription route - subscription and ad-funded or subscription and ad-free.
Something new will pop up. That's the not the Youtube I recognise where people upload clips for fun or to advertise. That's a video on demand service. It may taint their product.
An additional thing to remember is that any UK based channel providing TV-like content will come under the jurisdiction of ATVOD, meaning they'll have to pay a fee and submit themselves to their rules.
YouTube is said to be loosing Google billions of Dollars each year in bandwidth costs. Many videos on YouTube aren't attractive to advertisers and those that are the advertising money doesn't cover the cost for those that aren't attractive. YouTube was meant to be commissioning programmes to attract advertisers but I guess that failed. There have been many video sharing websites that have closed because of high running costs.
I don't think this is going to end well for them. The kinds of videos I watch on YouTube are not worth paying for, even if it does equate to pennies.
A real shame as 85% of my time online is spent on YouTube and I've been a member since it first launched in 2005. I'm on there for hours every day, but if they make too much content paid-only, vloggers and reviewers etc. will just go elsewhere, and naturally, so will the viewers.
I don't think this is going to end well for them. The kinds of videos I watch on YouTube are not worth paying for, even if it does equate to pennies.
A real shame as 85% of my time online is spent on YouTube and I've been a member since it first launched in 2005. I'm on there for hours every day, but if they make too much content paid-only, vloggers and reviewers etc. will just go elsewhere, and naturally, so will the viewers.
Personally I don't use YouTube that much I mainly watch music videos using the VEVO service through YouTube or old TV programmes no longer on TV.
I would think the pay videos would be premium quality programmes and movies not the majority of videos
Oh how youtube has fallen from grace since it's early days. Back then there were no ads, no content removed, no stupid messages asking you to link personal information to your account, and a layout that wasn't a total cluster ****. Youtube really has gone down the toilet.
They'll sign their death warrant then. People will just go elsewhere, where it's free. Perhaps they'll try to manipulate google as a search engine so that it won't show other alternatives.... in which case, people will stop using that too, and use a different search engine.
Oh how youtube has fallen from grace since it's early days. Back then there were no ads, no content removed, no stupid messages asking you to link personal information to your account, and a layout that wasn't a total cluster ****. Youtube really has gone down the toilet.
This.
If it weren't for the "hidden gems" type content of old TV shows and rare movies I would not even acknowledge the site. It's been going downhill at a rapid pace since Google took it over and seems to get worse every few months as they continue to make pointless changes which nobody wants.
If not for the wealth of rarities which would be lost, I'd not be sorry to see Youtube go and something else take over which is more about the user and less of a big business.
As if they don't make enough money already from advertising, greedy buggers!
They don't make enough from advertising because advertisers wouldn't want to advertise on some videos. To name just a few of their costs YouTube's bandwidth costs are extremely high and videos are stored on servers that need to be powered and maintained.
Oh how youtube has fallen from grace since it's early days. Back then there were no ads, no content removed, no stupid messages asking you to link personal information to your account, and a layout that wasn't a total cluster ****. Youtube really has gone down the toilet.
Such a model is completely untenable even for a company as large as Google to maintain.
Downloading and watching things such as test card and ceefax clips accompanied by music, old radio station jingle clips, interludes and tv channel idents are great.
It's a great reminder of our past watching and listening habits.
Nobody should be forced to fork out £100 per year to google for the privilege.
Comments
Plus the thread title is sort of correct, there are going to be videos on Youtube behind a paywall....
One big difference: Netflix has always been subscription based, whereas YouTube has been completely free since its inception.
Almost a decade of free content and all of a sudden you have to pay for some of it? I don't see this working out so well...
Not really a big difference, especially as the vast majority of the content will remain free on Youtube. I doubt the average user will even notice its arrival
Are there any thoughts on Youtube/Google; Vimeo and so on actually forcing people to pay to upload their videos - maybe so they can remove the ads (although adblock does that very nicely)?
Secondly, it does mention that YouTube will roll out the subscription model to everyone whom has a channel on the website (I suspect after this 50 channel initial push), citing low levels of income from ad-supported free video content they post.
They also mention two options for channel providers whom go down the subscription route - subscription and ad-funded or subscription and ad-free.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/business/media/youtube-said-to-be-planning-a-subscription-option.html
If channel owners who don't have the above content try to do it, they'll strangle their own exposure.
I do suspect, however, that those channels that do host made for TV or cinema material (and charge for it) will probably try to eliminate any copyrighted material much more vigorously than they do now.
Something new will pop up. That's the not the Youtube I recognise where people upload clips for fun or to advertise. That's a video on demand service. It may taint their product.
Looks like this loser doesn't have much time left. :cool:
Nurses in Broadmoor should have restricted his internet access.
I think a paywall would be the death knell of Youtube. A paywall-free competitor would simply move ahead of them.
A real shame as 85% of my time online is spent on YouTube and I've been a member since it first launched in 2005. I'm on there for hours every day, but if they make too much content paid-only, vloggers and reviewers etc. will just go elsewhere, and naturally, so will the viewers.
That's an example of why advertisers don't want to advertise on some videos because they don't want to be associated with such videos
Personally I don't use YouTube that much I mainly watch music videos using the VEVO service through YouTube or old TV programmes no longer on TV.
I would think the pay videos would be premium quality programmes and movies not the majority of videos
Keep the standard users channels free of charge.
This.
If it weren't for the "hidden gems" type content of old TV shows and rare movies I would not even acknowledge the site. It's been going downhill at a rapid pace since Google took it over and seems to get worse every few months as they continue to make pointless changes which nobody wants.
If not for the wealth of rarities which would be lost, I'd not be sorry to see Youtube go and something else take over which is more about the user and less of a big business.
They don't make enough from advertising because advertisers wouldn't want to advertise on some videos. To name just a few of their costs YouTube's bandwidth costs are extremely high and videos are stored on servers that need to be powered and maintained.
Such a model is completely untenable even for a company as large as Google to maintain.
It's a great reminder of our past watching and listening habits.
Nobody should be forced to fork out £100 per year to google for the privilege.