Should We Pay To Watch YouTube Videos?:

Total posts: [61]
1
2 3
I believe this is a fair question. I've been hearing talk about this.

On one hand, Google has thousands of videos posted on YouTube. If one dollar was paid for every time someone watched every clip, Google would have millions of dollars just roll in.

On the other hand, that begs the question of how the customers will be able to pay.

So, I guess the question is...should this be considered a good thing or a bad thing?
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
Should we have to pay for YouTube?

I think that if you had to pay to watch YouTube, people would quickly migrate to another video-sharing service. Besides, isn't YouTube already rolling in cash through advertising revenue?

edited 17th Jun '12 5:03:59 AM by Talby

3 TheBatPencil17th Jun 2012 05:06:22 AM from Glasgow, Scotland , Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
There's really no need for it, is there? There's nothing to suggest that Google need MOAR PROFIT from it and in any event it'll just turn away users.

Also, 64p per video is daylight robbery.

edited 17th Jun '12 5:07:29 AM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
4 Carciofus17th Jun 2012 05:10:41 AM from Alpha Tucanae I
Is that cake frosting?
One dollar per video is far too much: it would vastly, vastly exceeds Google's costs. And since youtube is certainly not the only video streaming and uploading service, although it is the most popular, if Google did that it would find itself outcompeted very quickly.

This said, I am not a fan of advertising-based services, and I am not opposed in principle to paying for something like youtube. It would have to be something subscription-based, though — you pay a (reasonable) sum, and then you watch what you want for a whole year.

edited 17th Jun '12 5:11:25 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

What's Gravity Falls.
YouTube would die amazingly fast and be forever be known for having made the worst possible business decision in decades.

When something is free, you attract the largest audience possible: people who don't want to pay but want entertainment. Even if it's a dollar per video, that is ridiculous. Think of how many videos you watch in a day - Let's Plays, TV episodes, "hey check this out" friendly suggestions, educational videos, etc. Imagine paying a dollar for every video you saw.

A dollar per vid is just a generally dumb value. Even a dime per video would be dumb, and a penny might get away with it. Google has plenty of profits as it is, and they would only lose money to unhappy internet folk if they put a price on video watching.
I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -Wanderlustwarrior
7 Steven17th Jun 2012 08:53:55 AM from MY PANTS , Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
The guy who face palms
If Google wanted to be hated by the planet Earth, then sure, go for it.
Mario Kart 8 TV Tropes Tourney Group: 3089-1771-2781 (DLC courses) 6728-1950-8250 (without DLC tracks)
Flying Dutchman
While I have no doubt that YouTube would die a terrible death if it tried to make people pay to use it, it may be running out of options in that regard. Apparently the exponential growth of content on the site is unfathomably large—something like sixty hours of video added every minute, last I heard—so they'll either be forced to make people pay to retain server capacity or they'll simply need to start purging the servers of old videos with few views.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

9 Barkey17th Jun 2012 09:09:45 AM from Bunker 051 , Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
War Profiteer
I use youtube a lot. If it costed me money, I would stop using it.
The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.
10 Carciofus17th Jun 2012 10:08:39 AM from Alpha Tucanae I
Is that cake frosting?
What if it cost you something along the lines of "pay five dollars, and you can use youtube for a year"?
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

11 Balmung17th Jun 2012 10:10:46 AM from Omaha, Nebraska , Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
TsunderAI
Nope. Not a dime. Google is rolling in advertising money.
12 Steven17th Jun 2012 10:30:36 AM from MY PANTS , Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
The guy who face palms
Google makes jillions of dollars in their other countless services. To charge people to watch videos online would mean Google was in DEEP financial trouble....or just want more money.

edited 17th Jun '12 10:30:55 AM by Steven

Mario Kart 8 TV Tropes Tourney Group: 3089-1771-2781 (DLC courses) 6728-1950-8250 (without DLC tracks)
13 Carciofus17th Jun 2012 10:32:22 AM from Alpha Tucanae I
Is that cake frosting?
Even so, if they make no money with youtube, why should they offer that service? It's not like they are under any obligation to do so...

I'm actually vaguely socialistic: but as things stand now, "we just want to make more money" is a perfectly legitimate reason for a company to axe a product or to increase its price.

edited 17th Jun '12 10:33:45 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Space Wizard
so they'll either be forced to make people pay to retain server capacity or they'll simply need to start purging the servers of old videos with few views.
Have you ever seen one of Google's server farms? Basically warehouses full of rigs.

Storage is no problem for them, only maybe the energy costs.
Programming and surgery have a lot of things in common: Don't start removing colons until you know what you're doing.
Isn't the fact that we have to often watch a 15-30 second (or more, though we can usually skip the longer ads) enough of a cost to watch a YouTube video?

I'm sure Google is making far more than 1 cent on video ads.
16 Carciofus17th Jun 2012 10:37:35 AM from Alpha Tucanae I
Is that cake frosting?
Do we? I cannot say that I ever found an ad on a youtube video. Perhaps it's a matter of different regions?
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

17 Steven17th Jun 2012 10:38:28 AM from MY PANTS , Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
The guy who face palms
@Carciofus

It's also a good way to piss off the consumers and have them flock elsewhere for the same service. You forget Google does more than just searches and videos. They have many other things they offer and they do make money elsewhere that allows them to offer many services to people for free.

Hell, just look at Team Fortress 2. It became a free to play game because Valve made so much money from their in game store that they are able to support the game without having to charge people to buy the game.
Mario Kart 8 TV Tropes Tourney Group: 3089-1771-2781 (DLC courses) 6728-1950-8250 (without DLC tracks)
I'm an Eaglelander. Perhaps it's different elsewhere?

Seems like any vid with more than 200K views has at least a popup ad, and possibly a video ad as well.
19 Steven17th Jun 2012 10:41:02 AM from MY PANTS , Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
The guy who face palms
I also know some people whose videos are popular enough can choose to enable ads on their videos.
Mario Kart 8 TV Tropes Tourney Group: 3089-1771-2781 (DLC courses) 6728-1950-8250 (without DLC tracks)
Flying Dutchman
Have you ever seen one of Google's server farms? Basically warehouses full of rigs.

Storage is no problem for them, only maybe the energy costs.

Yes, but the exponential growth of YouTube is obscene. I think they really do have a long-term hosting problem in terms of space.

EDIT: Original post that was here was supposed to be for a different thread, obviously. My apologies.

edited 17th Jun '12 11:18:54 AM by DerelictVessel

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

21 Pykrete17th Jun 2012 11:17:57 AM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
Do we? I cannot say that I ever found an ad on a youtube video. Perhaps it's a matter of different regions?

Probably. Hell, I've seen ads longer than the actual video, and when they were doing the whole "pick one of these three ads before we show you your video", there was a point where two of them were half-hour infomercials.
22 Inhopelessguy17th Jun 2012 11:30:49 AM from Inside the Hopey Tree , Relationship Status: One Is The Loneliest Number
Part of the LIGHTS Army
We get YouTube adverts in Britain.

Although Google occasionally seems to suffer from Everywhere Is America and give me adverts for things I cannot buy because they're impossible to get here.

But anyway, IIRC, YouTube is a loss-maker for Google. However, like mentioned, Google make shit-tonnes from everywhere else that they can afford to subsidise it. Plus, they pay video uploaders too, IIRC.

I somehow forgot the Hopey-tree existed for a brief second. And just think, for that brief second, my soul knew peace. - Makeyejr
Space Wizard
Yes, but the exponential growth of YouTube is obscene. I think they really do have a long-term hosting problem in terms of space.
Well, if you're thinking long-term then you also have to take the decreasing costs of storage media and their increasing capacity into account.
Programming and surgery have a lot of things in common: Don't start removing colons until you know what you're doing.
24 Inhopelessguy17th Jun 2012 11:44:51 AM from Inside the Hopey Tree , Relationship Status: One Is The Loneliest Number
Part of the LIGHTS Army
[up] Indeed. 320 GB of hard drive cost me 70 in 2009. 1 TB of hard drive costs me 50 last week. Obviously, that's a basic level, but if portable hard drives increase in capacity by 6 times, and yet have such a low comparative price, then the only problem with servers is finding the physical spaces.
I somehow forgot the Hopey-tree existed for a brief second. And just think, for that brief second, my soul knew peace. - Makeyejr
Flying Dutchman
Well, if you're thinking long-term then you also have to take the decreasing costs of storage media and their increasing capacity into account.

Can the expansion of storage device capacity relative to size come into par with upwards of sixty hours of video a minute?

EDIT: I mean, I just think the sheer enormity of YouTube is being ignored here.

It is estimated that in 2007 YouTube consumed as much bandwidth as the entire Internet in 2000.

edited 17th Jun '12 11:59:00 AM by DerelictVessel

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"


Total posts: 61
1
2 3