Pinterest Stumbleupon Whatsapp

YouTube Red is a response to blocking ads, Amazon Local is no more, Android and Chrome OS will be united, Jeremy Clarkson shills for his new corporate overlords, and Duracell spoils Star Wars.

PewDiePie Defends YouTube Red

YouTube recently announced YouTube Red You Can Now Pay to Watch YouTube, The Dangers of Tesla Autopilot... [Tech News Digest] You Can Now Pay to Watch YouTube, The Dangers of Tesla Autopilot... [Tech News Digest] YouTube Red adds subscription fees, testing Tesla Autopilot, Android stops draining your battery, polling your friends on Twitter, Mythbusters stops busting myths, and Back to the Future in 90 seconds. Read More , a paid version of the video-sharing site priced at $9.99-per-month. Much has been written about YouTube Red since the launch, with our own Justin Dennis weighing in with reasons YouTube Red is bad for the YouTube community 4 Reasons YouTube Red Is Bad for the YouTube Community 4 Reasons YouTube Red Is Bad for the YouTube Community Google just announced YouTube Red. YouTube is a different kind of service with a big community. So, is YouTube Red good or bad for the video site in the long term? Read More . Now, PewDiePie, the most popular YouTuber in the world, has got involved.

In a blog post titled “Thoughts on YouTube Red“, PewDiePie (AKA Felix Kjellberg) gives his thoughts on YouTube Red. PewDiePie defends YouTube Red against the wave of haters, explaining why a paid service has become a necessary evil. The reason? People who use ad-blockers such as AdBlock and AdBlock Plus to remove the ads from the YouTube experience.

According to his statistics, around 40 percent of YouTube viewers now use ad-blocking software, which means neither YouTube or the content creators actually making the videos, are getting paid. Which is patently unfair. Is it any wonder, then, that YouTube decided to erect a paywall for premium content, which also removes the ads while still allowing everybody to get paid?

You may personally disagree with the idea of YouTube Red, and mistrust YouTube’s motives. However, the fact remains that the more people who block ads online Ad-Blockers Are Evil, Tinder Hates Vanity Fair... [Tech News Digest] Ad-Blockers Are Evil, Tinder Hates Vanity Fair... [Tech News Digest] Ad-blockers are costing us all, Tinder denies hooking people up, Rdio adds radio stations, Hulu hates binge-watchers, vote for the next free PS Plus game, and Amazon tugs on our heartstrings. Read More , the more services and sites will have to find other ways of making the money they need to even keep operating as businesses. YouTube Red is just the beginning, unless people who use ad-blockers come to their senses It's About Ethics in Stealing Games Journalism: Why AdBlock Needs to Die It's About Ethics in Stealing Games Journalism: Why AdBlock Needs to Die A simple, free browser plugin killed Joystiq – and is ruining the Internet. Read More .

Amazon Kills Local Daily Deals

Amazon is killing Amazon Local, its daily deals website which it launched in 2011. Amazon Local was launched a response to the popularity of Groupon and LivingSocial, but the daily deals scenario 3 Websites To Help You Find Daily Deals In Your City 3 Websites To Help You Find Daily Deals In Your City Read More seems to have been nothing but a passing fad. Amazon Local will cease to exist on December 18th, 2015.

Amazon Local may be going away, but, according to TechCrunch, all vouchers purchased until December 18th will be honored, and Amazon is continuing to sell vouchers right up until that date. Which, with the online retailer looking to clear its inventory, should mean there are bargains to be had.

Despite the closure of Amazon Local, Amazon is carrying on with its Deal of the Day, Gold Box Deals, and Kindle Daily Deals. The company stated, “We’ve learned a great deal from the daily deals business and will look for ways to apply these lessons in the future as we continue to innovate on behalf of our customers and merchants”.

Google Rolls Chrome OS Into Android

There are rumors swirling that Google is planning to fold Chrome OS into Android, choosing to focus on one mobile operating system rather than two. However, it seems the truth is a little more complicated than The Wall Street Journal originally reported.

The WSJ suggests Google will unveil its new, single operating system, combining the best of both Android and Chrome OS, in 2017, with a preview arriving next year. However, Re/Code reports that while Android will start powering laptops, manufacturers can choose instead to stick with Chrome OS.

In truth, we doubt many (if any) manufacturers will choose Chrome OS over a new and improved (and seriously beefed-up) version of Android, so enjoy Chrome OS while you can. If Microsoft can make Windows 10 work across multiple devices Windows 10 Is the Last Version of Windows. Ever. Windows 10 Is the Last Version of Windows. Ever. Microsoft is sick of you not upgrading, and has a solution: Windows 10 will be the final "version" of Windows. Ever. This could mean that you will never again have to buy Windows. Read More , then we’re pretty sure Google can do the same for Android.

Jeremy Clarkson Shills for Amazon

Jeremy Clarkson is now a paid-up member of the Amazon army, with Amazon paying him and his cronies a small fortune to make the new Top Gear exclusively for Amazon Prime. But before actually making the new Top Gear, Clarkson wants to sell you something… an Amazon Fire Stick.

Judging by his hangdog expression throughout the ad, either Clarkson missed the clause in his contract requiring him to shill for Amazon, or they didn’t pay him enough to ride around on a Segway and sit on a sofa lightly roasting the BBC. Still, this performance isn’t as bad as these other celebrities selling their souls to tech companies 10 Celebrities Who Sold Their Souls to Tech Companies 10 Celebrities Who Sold Their Souls to Tech Companies Tech companies are always looking for ways to make their products more enticing, and bringing in celebrities is a classic way of doing that. Here are some entertaining (and annoying) examples. Read More .

Duracell Spoils Star Wars

[Possible Spoilers Ahead!]

And finally, Duracell may have just spoiled at least two things about Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Namely, that C-3PO has a red arm, and Rey has Jedi powers. Although we have now seen the final trailer for the new Star Wars, there is a lot of information being held back. Unfortunately, Duracell appears not to have got the memo.

In the new ad embedded above, Threepio’s red arm is revealed in full, and a girl dressed as Rey uses a Force push to get away from a couple of Imperial Stormtroopers. We still don’t know how C-3PO gets a red arm, or who Rey inherited her Jedi powers from, but Disney may just be losing control of the marketing monster it has unleashed onto the world. [H/T Polygon]

Your Views on Today’s Tech News

Do you agree with PewDiePie that YouTube Red is a necessary evil? Are you sorry to see the end of Amazon Local? Is Google right to kill (or at least wound) Chrome OS in favor of Android? Do you believe Jeremy Clarkson has ever seen an Amazon Fire Stick in his life? Has Duracell actually spoiled Star Wars: The Force Awakens?

Let us know your thoughts on the Tech News of the day by posting to the comments section below. Because a healthy discussion is always welcome.

  1. nalk20
    November 10, 2015 at 9:18 pm

    The legality of most of the videos uploaded on youtube as far as copyright goes makes the "content suppliers must get paid"-argument kind of hilarious, as far as I see it.

    Honestly, youtube was on the brink of shut down by injunction and going the way of Napster and similar services nanoseconds before Google bought the site.

    The only reason it still exists today is due to the copyright holders not wanting to get into a fight with the massive financial superpower that Google was and still is.

    But hey, maybe this paywall is to be seen as the first step towards Google going totally legit... :)

  2. Timothy Skinner
    November 8, 2015 at 5:28 am

    Most ads that are on content now are either full of sexual overtones, online dating, violent content, or occult content, all of which I want nothing to do with. I use an adblock for just that purpose - to block offensive content. If they had decent content in their ads then I wouldn't have to block them. They have only themselves to blame for the popularity of adblockers!

  3. Gabriel A. Hansen
    November 4, 2015 at 7:47 pm

    Im not mad at the paywall im mad that you cant give money directly to the people you like and are subscribed to, besides im not even a US citizen so i dont even have youtube red yet.
    Of course Pewdiepie is gonna cater to this, as youtube red only pays depending on how many times youve watched a video from a certain channel, hes very popular and makes a lot of weekly videos. This is barely even beneficial to those who only make a video once a week or more (even for the small channels that make 3 videos a week) as people like pewdiepie will hog up the largest % of Red money per user.

  4. David Hays
    November 4, 2015 at 7:29 pm

    Come to my senses?!? Really?!!

    I have no problem with sites getting paid or for that matter watching an ad to make that happen.

    I paid a lot of money for my computer system, so why should I allow adware to infect it with malware.

    If sites who use adware to finance themselves won't do something to stop malware infections through the use of adware, then I have to do something to stop it myself and am left with no choice but to block the adware.

  5. Jack Gold
    November 4, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    Well I had some thoughts on this topic but I guess the all-powerful moderators, from whom I've never heard up until yesterday when I was informed "they" were reviewing said topical thoughts, decided my voice must be silenced.

    I thought MUO was a little more unbiased than that. Guess I thought wrong.

  6. Herban Lyrix
    November 4, 2015 at 3:30 am

    I don`t know why folks continue to say that the internet is free, last time I looked at my TWC bill that was far from the case! I think that the websites should be getting a cut from the companies that provide the internet service, but that`s just my opinion. As for Ad-Block you`re DaMn right I`m using it! After losing both a laptop & a desktop PC to some Malware from some ad-related infections I`m not taking any chances. None of the sites that hosted the ads that caused the damage to my computers would replace `em so I`m sorry I don`t feel bad for using Ad-Block Plus...

    To me YouTube reminds me of the music & movie industries somewhat when it comes to this decision to create YouTube Red. I mean c`mon Ad-Blockers have been around for how long now? They sure aren`t new inventions, so why didn`t they take the necessary steps to foresee that folks would be using them? Just like when CD-R`s & DVD-R`s were first introduced, the music & movie industries were too naive to do something like say reduce the price of the albums & movies. Technology seems to get the best of these folks which is kind of weird when ya really think about it...

    I get what ads do for sites, but until there is some sort of regulation my use of Ad-Block Plus isn`t going to change. I mean think about it, if the commercials on cable TV did things like destroy your TV & DVD players some how I am almost certain that there would be some lawsuits & a lot of folks would just resort to on-demand services, Net Flix, Hulu & the like. Ad-Blockers aren`t the reason for YouTube Red, YouTube`s failure to protect their brand is! I understand why they created it, but they`re not really offering enough to justify the price that they are charging. I mean I can already view YouTube ad-free & I can also download any video that I choose so I don`t need YouTube Red. The exclusive content just isn`t worth the money either. Now if they reduced the cost to say $2.99-4.99 then it wouldn`t be such a big deal...

  7. Mark Boelte
    November 3, 2015 at 11:07 pm

    Ads don't bother me. Ads that start a video automatically , pop across my screen so I have to close them, that take up over 1/3 to 1/2 of a 30 inch screen, that take forever to open so the site is sooooooooo sloooooooowwwwwww that I cannot stand to stay there......
    If YouTube and other sites policed the ads to stop abusive advertisers, this situation would not happen. I have not yet begun using ad blocking software, but if I have to pay for content, I will start.

  8. Keith E Gatling
    November 3, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    I don't mind watching ads. It's the price I pay for getting to see things for free.

    However...when I have to watch an ad in order to watch an ad, or when the ads are so intrusive that they slow down the computer, enough is enough!

    And by the way, one thing that I think I'll like about YouTube Red is the ability to watch videos offline...even if I'm only able to save them for 30 days. A lot of teachers who are sitting behind firewalls will love that too.

    Finally...we're getting back the ability to download YouTube videos...if only temporarily.

  9. Vincent Ferrero
    November 3, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    So let me get this straight. YouTube instituting a paid tier is good because Google and the content providers need to make money. But someone being hired to advertise for Amazon makes him a shill who is selling his soul? How do we decide who gets to do what they feel necessary to make a living and who is a soulless shill for wanting to make a living?

  10. Roman Podolyan
    November 3, 2015 at 11:18 am

    It's a two-side game.

    ) It's legal to not watch ads in the real world :)
    ) Nobody asked me if I want watch the ads, so I don't ask nobody if I want to remove them.
    ) I'm on Internet since 1998, I'm using ad-blocker since 1999 and it looks like the world survived it.
    ) I'm living not in the first world country, I'm living in Third world one, with average monthy salary like $200. Do you think many people with salaries like that or even lower are going to buy anything you are going to sell?
    Do you think they are going to buy any access behind a paywall?

    Life goes on.
    With blogs or without them.
    So if somebody wants to live behind a paywall, I can live with that, but I'm going to continue to block ads as they just waste my time and attention in attempts to sell me things I never going to buy.
    Blocking ads is resistance: someone wants push to you something you don't want and not going to buy, and you resist.

    But I think I could live with which less intrusive ads as other people suggests — put your ads in some sidebar in some common font (like newspaper headlines), make them easier to ignore — and always remember that most probably I'm not going to buy anything from you anyway, so showing me ads is wasting Earth and Sun resources anyway.

  11. Michael Greensmith
    November 3, 2015 at 6:32 am

    It is definitely the amount of ads and the way they are forced on you. You tube used to be for the average Joe Blow to put up something about their life, hobbies, things of interest.....now it's all becoming too professional...where has the fun gone out of this? I hope another company puts up a free video service so we can post again without all the widgets!

  12. Matt Lansell
    November 3, 2015 at 5:41 am

    Wow, scapegoat much MUO? Blaming adblockers for youtube going commercial is the same pathetic argument as movie houses blaming movie pirates for bumping up prices. Both are missing the point that they are FORCING CONSUMERS TO ACCESS MEDIA IN WAYS THEY DON'T WANT. Movie/TV pirates download their thing illegally primarily so they can consume it in the way they want - it's been shown that when you improve methods of access and charge reasonable (from the consumer's point of view) prices that piracy decreases.

    The same thing goes with Youtube adverts... noone wants to sit through an advert just to watch a clip of something or other so of course they block it - hell if we WANTED to watch advertising we'd turn on the TV! If they couldn't block the advertising, chances are some new service would spring up with a different model to supplant Youtube - because seriously, 40% of Youtube's viewers standing up and saying "We don't like the advertising you're pushing on us" is a seriously large number, big enough to pay attention to and big enough to be worth someone else trying to capture by doing it differently.

    This is nothing short of Google (or is it Alphabet now?) commercialising a service that's become a "standard" in order to make money, and finding a scapegoat so they don't look like the money grubbing a-holes they are.

  13. Jennifer Roberson
    November 3, 2015 at 5:07 am

    The only reason I use an adblocker now is because my autistic brother will go into a meltdown because of how many ads he has to go through just to watch a video.

  14. Rajib Ghosh
    November 3, 2015 at 4:32 am

    Blaming AdBlock for a Corporate's decision to go commercial? Sounds illogical to me.

    Case 1: Wannabe boyband wants some eyeballs. They will do anything to get them. Put up their music-videos for free. Pay to drag more eyeballs from other sites to theirs. They don't care about cash-burn or revenue; gaining the critical mass is highest priority. They aren't going to complain about revenue loss from their Ads not showing.

    Case 2: Popular boyband wants even more eyeballs. Again, gaining critical mass is key and they are willing to burn money to snuff out the wannabes.

    Case 3: Half-way There blog-owner is making pennies via AdSense and his livelihood is at risk from Ad-Blocking. Ask any person who uses AdSense to generate pennies. They will tell you that the way to generate Dollars is to conduct seminars on how to make pennies using AdSense. Most AdSense members have realized that they can make tons more money via affiliate links instead of waiting for Google to pay them 0.01% of what it collects from the advertiser. Sure AdBlocking makes a little dent, but for the successful guys, it's not a big enough dent. What worries them more is that invisible ads means they have to work harder at SEO.

    Case 4: Technical Experiment has now become the de-facto video-streaming site. Site owners think it's time to cash-in. Are they gonna wait for pennies to flow via PPC campaigns that their customers are running? No - they are gonna go premium. In fact, an Ad-Free premium service will quickly become Ad-filled premium service within a year and the reason that will be given is that "it's too expensive to run on user-subscription revenue alone".

    We have all seen the phenomenon of Free-to-Air -> Pay-to-See -> Pay-more-to-see -> Pay-to-see-FTA -> Can't-pay-anymore in conventional broadcast. It's the story of natural evolution of businesses. Why will it not be true of digital-media?

  15. Tramond Roper
    November 3, 2015 at 3:24 am

    You think people are going to support youtube red? hahahahahah

  16. Bob Klahn
    November 3, 2015 at 2:55 am

    The gist of the comments on YouTube Red match my complaint. I'll let the ads in if they are reasonable, but I want zero popups, zero self starting videos, and a hell of a lot less intrusion in general.

    I should not have to keep closing ads, and please try not to offend me in general.

    Keep it reasonable or I may go back to watching TV.

  17. Perry F. Bruns
    November 3, 2015 at 1:25 am

    For me, it's as simple as this: I don't have a problem when ads ask for my time. That's the way TV has worked. It's when the ads ruin the user interface and use my wireless data that I have a problem. Some ads also push lesser computers' resources too hard (or even mine if I have too many tabs open), and some even contain malware (though that doesn't seem to be as much of an issue on YouTube, I have seen it on sites as normally innocuous as CNN).

    Reform ads or lose revenue.

    • Bob Klahn
      November 3, 2015 at 2:49 am

      You beat me to it, and for the same problems. I often just shut down the process that delivers the ad. Which works for services other than Youtube where all I want is to read it.

      Let no video run without my permission. Until then I'll do my damn best to shut down the adds.

      • Michael Tunnell
        November 3, 2015 at 6:08 am

        @Perry - I agree with the user interface, wireless data and malware issue but Youtube is not an example of any of those. Some might argue on the data but if you are seriously watching videos on mobile data you are already saying you don't care about data usage since videos are the largest user of data by far.

        Fundamentally, I agree though. Websites should be kind to their users with reasonable ads and users should be kind to the websites by allowing the ads to load for free content.

        @Bob - your response seems to be the opposite of what Perry was saying. You said you do your "damn best to shut down ads". I probably misunderstood what you meant but how is that similar?

        Bob, you won't let any video run without your permission? Do you permit video advertisements? If no, then you certainly should.

        I'd argue that you should also allow ads to display when all you "want is to read it" because how do you expect the website providing the content for you to read to make money if people block the way in which the make money from you reading it?

        I agree that many websites have gone way too far with the ads these days but ads in general are ethical.

  18. Colonel Angus
    November 3, 2015 at 1:20 am

    I use an adblocker without shame, and will continue to do so as necessary. I have no problem with static ads, but will not subject myself to bouncing or autoplaying annoyances. I disable adblocking for sites that don't assault my senses. Don't want me to block? Have some respect for your site's visitors.

    • Michael Tunnell
      November 3, 2015 at 5:59 am

      You seem to be an ethical blocker but I have two responses based on your comment.

      Why do you have a problem with advertisements at the beginning of Youtube videos? You chose to play something so you expected something to play thus the autoplaying annoyance doesn't really apply. The 5 second skip option also negates the wasting time annoyance.

      How can you tell if a site is not assaulting your senses if you are blocking by default? Do you turn the blocker off for each site you go to? If your argument is turning the blocker off based on appreciation of content then I get that but how can you know that they don't "assault the senses" if you block by default?

  19. Robert Backlund
    November 3, 2015 at 12:36 am

    I already am a paid subscriber to both Netfilx as well as Amazon Prime, Netflix only cost about $8.00/month and an Amazon Prime membership in the US cost $99/year that breaks down to just $10.00/month. With this annual $99 subscription cost you get free 2 day shipping and an increasing number of items are free same day shipping, Amazon Prime Video as well as the Amazon Prime Music streaming services. Google is dreaming if they think I would even remotely consider paying them $120 annually for so called exclusive YouTube content that at the moment is probably made up of junk that PewDiePie puts out. If the addition of content that Google has managed for the various Google TV devices and smart TV's is any indication of how much that 10 bucks is going to get you it will take them years if ever to even approach the content that Netflix and Amazon currently have for their Video streaming services. I used to be a subscriber to Pandora One radio until they raised their prices and went to a damn monthly payment system from being able to pay one time each year. It was going to cost me around $50/year for Pandora One and I discovered that Amazon Music is far superior to them in every way so since I was going to be paying for some sort of Music service that would cost around $50/year or more I consider my Amazon Prime membership to in reality only cost me $50/year because I can do without any other paid service and I get everything from Amazon. The one thing that also makes Amazon's Video and Music service better than everyone at the moment is for the millions of subscribers who do not have unlimited data plans on their cell phones and tablets you can download as many videos or as much music as can fit on your devices storage when you are at home or some other place where you have a WIFI connection. Then when you are out and about you can play this content locally without incurring any 4G bandwidth issues.
    Perhaps the new Youtube Red spells the eventual death for Youtube, yes I would miss not having Youtube however as I already have far more viewing options than necessary I would not loose any sleep over it. If the real reason (which I doubt) for this implementation of YouTube Red is too many people who block adds then to me the best way for Google to have addressed this would have been if ad blockers were present then when someone tried to play a video all they would get would be a black screen with a link explaining why they are not seeing the video. I use FireFox web browser and most of the add blockers that I have used have an entry in a menu where it is really easy to temporally disable the plugin. Frankly the adds I encounter on YouTube to me are not offensive. I am retired and I remember TV back in the days before cable and in most places you had at most 3 maybe 4 channels to watch and all of them had commercials. What I find offensive is paying Verizion FIOS around $160/month for my internet and TV service and having never ending commercials on the extremely over priced cable tv.

  20. Jonathan McRobert
    November 3, 2015 at 12:34 am

    I don't really care if they want to throw a hissy fit over ad blockers. Whoever decided that it was OK for advertisers to be given carte blanche and that we would be forced to watch their crap? I gave up television because of ads. It would be just as easy to give up YouTube.

    Advertising is NOT free speech. It's simply another way to make a profit.

    • Michael Tunnell
      November 3, 2015 at 5:55 am

      Advertising is free speech, please explain how it isn't. Advertising is also a necessity because if people don't know about something how can they use/consume it. The internet has made that even harder because of all of the noise. Advertising is a good thing as long as it is not abused. Youtube also doesn't force people to watch ads, aka the 5 second skip button.

  21. hdb
    November 3, 2015 at 12:24 am

    Poor Google, not making enough money. I hate to be sarcastic but I'm not paying to use YouTube or any site that demands money for common service the bulk of which is user generated and ad supported. The Internet has devolved into a pay on demand service.
    Ordinary blocks of ads don't bother me - I can choose to look or not look. Pop ups are annoying. And in-your-face ads are like bot calls on a phone. More than annoying.
    Amazon tracks me everywhere I go.
    I am looking forward to the new Firefox tomorrow. It is supposed to stop this crap without addons. We'll see...

    • Michael Tunnell
      November 3, 2015 at 5:53 am

      They don't demand it though, the Red service is optional. A lot of people are calling it a paywall but 99.9% of the content does not have access limited to Red subscribers so there isn't a paywall. This means that this approach is not on demand type service at all.

      I don't mind ads either if they don't track me. I wish there were an addon that only blocked the evil trackers and not the ethical ads. Privacy Badger is close but not perfect.

  22. Maddy Madison
    November 2, 2015 at 11:53 pm

    Honestly, I don't understand why everyone is so up in arms about this. You either die a free service, or live long enough to become a payed subscription platform.

    As far as the ads go, they were there long before YouTube RED and if you're in the 99% of people that will not be getting YT RED, then it will still remain the same for you before it was even announced. Maybe the content creators aren't too happy about this, but from the viewers end, nothing has changed. I for one am definitely not getting it because watching a 30 second ad does not bother me.

    What they need to do though is find a way to put an end to fake views. Websites like Wizish.com that sell YouTube views at dirt cheap prices are making the search results turn all funky... Many may think fake views do not do anything, but having a high retention watch time helps videos to rank higher in search results... i.e. people can rank their garbage videos above ones that are actually of good quality.

    Also, YouTube, how about fixing the comment sections? Half the time I leave a comment it doesn't even show up...

  23. Matt Sledge Edwards
    November 2, 2015 at 11:37 pm

    I certainly hope the writer of this article isn't hypocritical enough to fast forward through the adverts when he records a TV show on a commercial channel.

    • Michael Tunnell
      November 3, 2015 at 5:49 am

      That's very different because you are in fact paying for the content through your tv subscription. If all of the shows were free to watch and you still skipped the commercials then yes that would be hypocritical but the way it exists now, it's not.

  24. Patricia Levy
    November 2, 2015 at 6:01 pm

    A big problem with Amazon Local is that the deals were rarely in the area. I'm in California, but most of the deals offered were on the east coast.

  25. likefun butnot
    November 2, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    Ad blocking is not theft. Ad blocking is a sensible precaution against malware. One certainly can argue that Youtube's ads are better vetted than those on many other web sites, but I see no reason to make an exclusion for any single site as long as advertising is implemented via third-party brokers and fourth-party advertisers. If a site can't be bothered to hosts its own ads and assume full responsibility for the safety of its content, there's no reason for anyone, anywhere to stop blocking ads.

    Furthermore, many full time Youtube channel owners have a tip jar or Patreon or somesuch. Some also sell merchandise. Supporting such a creator directly with $1 or $5 in a single contribution is more valuable to that creator than years worth of individual ad impressions. If you like somebody, give 'em a couple bucks. You're doing more to help than hundreds of ad-seeing viewers anyway.

  26. James Howde
    November 2, 2015 at 2:23 pm

    Yes I can see that Adblockers will drive more sites to adopt some form of paywall - and I'm fine with that, it's up to site owners what access rules they want to have. I'm equally accepting if a site wants to make it a condition that people visiting the site don't block the ads.

    However I also think a lot of people over-estimate themselves and will be unpleasantly surprised to find how few other people think their views are worth paying actual money for.

  27. Tom Willoughby
    November 2, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    I'm not against the idea of YouTube Red, I'm against the implementation.

    The lack of communication prior to release shows how little that they respect their creators. This is combined with the extreme lack of evidence as to the effectiveness of the system and how much the creators can actually expect to be compensated under the new system.

    YouTube cannot survive without creators, yet they seem blind to how much a move like this could affect them, to the point that it is possible that some full-time creators might not be able to continue producing content.

    Basically, YouTube needs to start communicating and seeking feedback before pulling something as big as this, especially considering the free trials that will affect creators far more than Google.

  28. fcd76218
    November 2, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    "YouTube Red is just the beginning"
    I wonder how long it will take Alphabet to deep-six YouTubeRed because of insufficient subscriptions. Or will Alphabet continue to operate it at a deficit?

    What if you set up a paywall and very few come?

    • Michael Tunnell
      November 3, 2015 at 5:47 am

      There isn't much of a pay wall considering 99% of all of the content is viewable by people who are not subscribers. Paywalls limit access to the content, this does not except for a tiny amount.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *