the users do get paid though, although i’m sure it’s a fraction of what youtube makes.
Hmmm. $20 a month for the big budget action of Westworld, or $20 a month for a cooking show filmed in someone’s basement. Decisions, decisions.
To be fair, YouTube has far more variety and far more content overall. Personally, I have seen pretty much anything worth watching on the major streaming services. My wife and I can just ignore any top 200 list of shows or movies because we have already seen it all and anything we haven’t seen doesn’t look interesting to us. We just have to wait for new shows to come out.
YouTube though. It’s functionally unlimited considering the length of a human lifespan.
For some insight, a quick Google search says that Netflix has about 4 years of content if you sat down and watched everything they have to offer. Meanwhile, YouTube has about 18,000 years of content.
I’ve never been one to really get into the loop of watching YouTube endlessly. It’s felt like my use has been more like a search engine.
For me it’s not really been a great source of entertainment. At best background noise. Quantity of hours is a useless metric for me when most of it is stuff that feels like unnecessary content. I think it’s most telling that what makes YouTube watchable for me is sponsorblock with one of my most used functions skip to highlight, and blocktube to block the popular channels that dominate search results. And lately youtubetranscript to just save myself time watching and overly long 10+ minute long segment in favor of quickly skimming over the words.
I feel the algorithm promoting long videos has ruined the quality with now more videos trying to fit that minimum length.
I’d pay more for YouTube rather than HBO/Netflix. There’s much more content that interests me on YouTube.
I sleep to lectures on youtube so I probably clock up a lot of hours a day and ads would ruin that forever - so I pay
but i do enjoy a lot of creator channels too, so it’s worth it for that as well. plus i really fucking hate ads.
part of me also thinks - it must cost a bomb to deliver that much data and storage, plus the bandwidth for 4k video at any time, plus paying the people who make content. some of them are millionaires, youtuber is kind of a career and it’s not all in-video endorsements.
at some point, someone has to pay, and it’s the advertisers paying to access me, or it’s me paying. i’d rather pay. i’d prefer it if it was free but i kind of get that it’s not. I couldn’t pay to host youtube and develop the platform and have everyone watch free.
Or $20 for thousands of different channels of all kinds of content.
At least be honest about it.
How much of those channels are actually quality content let alone manage to keep the attention of viewers to watch an entire video? It’s like a cable services advertising that it has thousands of channels. Videos that manage to hold my attention even for 10 minutes on YouTube has been rare, and mostly aided by 2x speeds to shorten it down by half.
I’m sorry but I find this deeply comic and I can’t stop giggle
At the same time, clickbait has always existed. There’s a reason trash emerged from tv to become his own subgenre
We actually don’t know what percentage they’re making. They can tell you how much they’re paid, but no one but Google can tell you how much of the subscription cost goes to them versus Google.
This was maybe 5 or so years ago, but I remember Game Grumps did mention something along the lines of how they get more from someone watching their video on YouTube premium vs someone who watches their videos with ads playing.
It’s still not a ton of info, and I’m not sure if it’s still true. Or maybe it’s different for every channel or something.
It’s such a low number most people would be disgusted.
We’re talking a few bucks for a million views.
