• RIP YouTube: New YouTube App Code Shows Pay To View Is On The Way
    72 replies, posted
[url]http://gizmodo.com/5986585/new-youtube-app-code-shows-pay%20to%20view-is-on-the-way?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews[/url] YouTube 2005-2013
Would seriously shoot themselves in the foot if they did this. Hope they don't.
My credit card is ready.
a couple of strings aren't proof of anything, wow. [editline]26th February 2013[/editline] at most you can assume that they've thought about it.
This SH is pretty speculative. This may only manifest itself in people putting movies and TV shows on youtube on paid channels. Nobody is going to pay for anything less
[QUOTE=Ziron;39722106]My credit card is ready.[/QUOTE] And what's left of it will be blasted out a cannon.
Going to have to wait and see what payment models they actually roll out with before I panic. The average Joe isn't going to make a subscription fee channel. I imagine that's going to reserved for band channels, studio channels and the like. Youtube users can make plenty of money on advertising alone.
Maybe they just do this to compensate the problems they for with the german GEMA for example, tons of music videos are blocked because the gema demands ridicilous amounts of money for that, so letting the user pay in order to make them able to play these blocked videos in their country would be ok. However, the fact that they do it for whole channels propbably opposes that idea.
If this paves the way for high quality YouTube series, I'm alright with it. You'll see the army of reply girl whores trying to milk this, but without much success if any. I'm sure Ray William Johnson will become a millionaire off of it, but the loss of subscribers and alienation of viewers should be enough to prevent most other channels from following.
Wasn't there a thread a while ago suggesting this would be opt-in for certain channels, and wasn't a big deal whatsoever
I think it'd be a form of replacing the need for tv and tv subscriptions rather than making you pay for existing channels.
I think selling Youtube to Google was a really bad idea and in other things as well, the site is such a joke, the code is old crappy shitty buggy adobe flash, not to mention censorship. The inventors simply didn't care enough about the concequences, I wouldn't be so dumb, I wouldn't sell it at all. Selling it to some kind of community public project such as wikipedia but it would take donations, which I think should work considering the popularity of the site.
This is most likely for the opt-in thing where big channels can have have their content require some form of premium account, and I assume they make some pennies from each view on their videos.
[QUOTE=Stewox;39722169]Selling it to some kind of community public project such as wikipedia but it would take donations, which I think should work considering the popularity of the site.[/QUOTE] Problem is that there are much fewer Wikipedia articles than there are Youtube videos, and Youtube videos take up hundreds of times more bandwidth than Wikipedia's text stubs. Keeping it running would require a [I]lot[/I] of donations.
It's probably because you can already pay for films on youtube. [url]http://www.youtube.com/user/YouTubeMoviesGB?feature=gb_ch_rec[/url]
Wasn't this already in? I stumbled upon some dreamworks videos that I couldn't view, and I found you actually have to pay a "rent" to view them.
What sort of "high quality" content? What channels would remain free? Where the hell am I gonna watch Freeman's Mind and Red v. Blue?
The kiddies'll pay anything to watch their precious PewDiePie or whatever dipshit's popular now.
google's not stupid. they know youtube is a cornerstone of a lot of people's daily lives. they will not fuck with the infrastructure like this. at most it will be an opt-in for certain channels, if it happens at all
We've had this thread before. You're all completely retarded if you think this isn't Opt-in.
It's more than likely going to only be for recently aired TV programs or a stream like a political speech or something.
One possible use I could see from this is the few musicians who were on the fence about having their videos up on YT putting them on a pay-per-view channel. The ones who believe Youtube is robbing them of money they'd be getting from people buying albums/singles.
Nothing to worry about, I can live without any horrible videos from dipshits like PewDiePie.
I don't think it's a bad thing per se. Perhaps youtube will become something like Netflix but available world-wide, with both free, user generated content, and TV series and movies you pay for.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;39722098]Would seriously shoot themselves in the foot if they did this. Hope they don't.[/QUOTE]they will
It's going to work. People will always pay for things they don't need.
If these channels have better, more professional content, fine, but I'm not going to pay for the average YouTuber, their channel may be interesting, and I'm happy to sit through ads to earn them a few pence, but I don't feel that I should pay for it.
They could do it like those live streaming sites, where you can choose to pay a little money to a channel you like, basically donating to them.
This isn't really bad for YouTube as much as it is for some of the people who decide to opt in, really. I can't say I'm too bothered by this.
[QUOTE=Aetna;39722418]It's going to work. People will always pay for things they don't need.[/QUOTE] You forget one of the main features of the internet is how free nearly everything is. Plenty of people don't have the ability to even pay for things online. The moment any sort of paywall is put up, people drop off. It's best for only specific audiences, likely older viewers who have income and don't mind paying a bit. The point of this system is for big big channels and do this this professionally, have editors, and dedicated staff to create internet TV basically. Revision 3, Machinima, RoosterTeeth, etc. It's going to likely be a channel specific. A group like Machinima could make a channel like Prime, which is a series, but not all that frequent, and make it normal advertisement based. And then they could open up a more frequent channel with daily animations, news, etc all AD free and they can likely set their own rate of maybe 1-2 dollars per month or something. This is for channels that have a very solid schedule for uploads and provide something that is probably very unique. I'd pay a few bucks per month for a few channels on youtube if they were more consistent. Youtube is looking to build it's own TV replacement.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.