Qutting YouTube

[Myrtonos]

1. I know that, but I did read the term IP based email somewhere. An email address given to you by an ISP is not in my experience what is meant by a free email address. As I said, some sites do require users to specify non-free email addresses upon joining.
2. By specifying an non-free email address, such as a work or university one, that provides some confirmation of identiny, chaging it afterwards does not indicate otherwise.
3. What is WSJ? One question that still isn't answered is this, if that subscription model works offline, why not online?
4. But you only asking payment if they are monetising off work, which makes them just like subscriber supported radio and TV stations, only that ads are displayed to non-subscribers.

 

[Prolescum]

1. A free email service is defined by its cost. I gave you an example earlier why your limitation was not useful. Search term: Spamhaus
2. I already gave examples as to why that isn't a practical requirement.
3. The Wall Street Journal. If you don't understand the difference between an offline and an online business model, you aren't qualified to run a business at all. Search term: Video Hosting Sites.
4. Few, if any, will pay for a subscription to an amateur content provider, particularly given the free services (free for both content creators and users alike) that are already established. Search terms: Vimeo, Daily Motion, YouTube.

I'm not poo-pooing your idea for any other reason than it's fundamentally flawed.

Sent from my tepholome

 

[IBSpify]

The difference between online and offline subscription vs non subscription based models is that your comparison is flawed. HBO can charge a subscription because they are providing content that the non subscription based channels do not, if had the same lineup as NBC and just didn't air adds and instead charged a subscription, then nobody would get HBO.

The same goes for satellite radio, they provide content that you can not get on terrestrial radio, whether it be niche music genre's or specific talk personalities.

For a subscription model to work for a video hosting site you need to be able to offer something that the free versions are not in terms of content, not just "no adds"

 

[Myrtonos]

Here's a question, think about why one might subscribe to YT channel if one still sees the same content as a non-subscriber. Similarly, there are free to air radio stations that are subscriber supported, why might someone subscribe to them if it costs money and doesn't give acces to extra content? All those notifications would be what you get in return for the fee on revenue earning channels. Your comparison between HBO (whatever that is) and NBC makes me wish that all light programming material were restrictied to cable and satillite, fewer free to air TV channels, better resolution.
As I said, some sites such as Neogaf do require non-free (work, university, ISP based) email addresses to be specified upon account creation, if they can do that, that surely sites that charge fees on account creation could also charge extra for using a non-free one.

 

[Prolescum]

Here's a question, think about why one might subscribe to YT channel if one still sees the same content as a non-subscriber.

One need only click through to a channel to see a contributor's content.

Similarly, there are free to air radio stations that are subscriber supported, why might someone subscribe to them it it costs money and doesn't give acces to extra content?

You're still comparing apples and oranges.

As I said, some sites such as Neogaf do require non-free (work, university, ISP based) email addresses to be specified upon account creation, if they can do that, that surely sites that charge fees on account creation could also charge extra for using a non-free one.

I don't dispute that some organisations may place that requirement on its users, I dispute the utility of the requirement in your proposition.

Why do you think micro-payments, despite being talked about for a decade, still aren't widely used?

Because the web doesn't work the same way as the real world.
Let us look at a real-world example: Newspapers are struggling because people can easily obtain their news from elsewhere, often the horse's mouth, whether that's organisations that have since cropped up using free platforms like TYT on YouTube, or a direct feed from Twitter. At no cost. Outside of a few specific sites (like the WSJ whose bespoke content differs from, say, The Guardian), subscription models are unworkable on the web. The same applies to your proposal.

Sent from my tepholome

 

[Myrtonos]

Well, yes if you paid for a subscription, then you would get in return a reduction in the number of clicks to see a contributers content, and email notifications of new videos, and no advertising alongside videos. How is subcriber supported free-to-air station still different? You get their magazine in return for subscribing.

I've never heard of micro-payments and didn't realise that they've been talked about for so long. Remember, if a one time fee is charged on account creation, we filter out those who aren't serious about say, observing copyright laws, and other terms of use.

 

[IBSpify]

Well, yes if you paid for a subscription, then you would get in return a reduction in the number of clicks to see a contributers content, and email notifications of new videos, and no advertising alongside videos.

And why would I want to pay for this when i get all of that for free from youtube?

How is subcriber supported free-to-air station still different? You get their magazine in return for subscribing.

I am not aware of the business model your speaking of, the closest i can think of is public broadcasting, which is heavily subsidized by the government so it's not like they are able to cover their costs with the donations

I've never heard of micro-payments and didn't realise that they've been talked about for so long. Remember, if a one time fee is charged on account creation, we filter out those who aren't serious about say, observing copyright laws, and other terms of use.

And by now creating a charge for people to provide content you also lessen the amount of content that your site will have, further lessening any incentive for someone to want to pay money to see the content that is on the site. So the question is, why would anybody pay money and use your site instead of one of the free alternatives?

 

[Myrtonos]

And why would I want to pay for this when i get all of that for free from youtube?

A more appropriate question is why woud youtube give it for free even on revenue earning channels when one does pay for it offline, as in subscribing to radio and TV stations.

I am not aware of the business model your speaking of, the closest i can think of is public broadcasting, which is heavily subsidized by the government so it's not like they are able to cover their costs with the donations

I gave an example here in Melbourne, and linked to it, though on the previous page, so I'll link again, 3RRR, which does not appear to be a "public" broadcaster.

And by now creating a charge for people to provide content you also lessen the amount of content that your site will have, further lessening any incentive for someone to want to pay money to see the content that is on the site. So the question is, why would anybody pay money and use your site instead of one of the free alternatives?

Don't forget that Youtube is paying for the decision to allow free signup. As I said before, the Something Awful forums charge a one time fee on account creation, and they are the ninth largest internet forum. If we make logged in users pay for the hosting, we mostly lessen content that would not be allowed anyway, YouTube has been integrated with Google+, which is why I quit, this site would not. One reason why people might pay is fewer advertisments and because they are less likely to be sharing the site with those not serious about complying with terms of use.

 

[Prolescum]

A more appropriate question is why woud youtube give it for free even on revenue earning channels when one does pay for it offline, as in subscribing to radio and TV stations.

That is not the right question to be asking, in my view.

They do do it. That is the reality. Why they do (answered already - to generate content creators thereby increasing their users/eyes on the ads), is a little redundant.

I gave an example here in Melbourne, and linked to it, though on the previous page, so I'll link again, 3RRR, which does not appear to be a "public" broadcaster.

It costs money to apply and to use radio or television frequencies, a lot of it. You're renting a limited commodity.
The web is an inherently different medium.

Don't forget that Youtube is paying for the decision to allow free signup.

...and is backed with Google dollars. Have you ever heard of the term, 'loss leader'? There's a reason Google's own original video service is moribund.

As I said before, the Something Awful forums charge a one time fee on account creation, and they are the ninth largest internet forum. If we make logged in users pay for the hosting

Sorry chap, but subscriptions won't pay for the hosting. I already noted this. Every gigabyte of video stored will increase the cost.

we mostly lessen content that would not be allowed anyway

It would likely still appear, though. Pirates don't care.

YouTube has been integrated with Google+, which is why I quit, this site would not.

So on your site you'd also limit people from easily sharing the content on their preferred social media platform?

One reason why people might pay is fewer advertisments and because they are less likely to be sharing the site with those not serious about complying with terms of use.

That's two reasons. I've already noted the uselessness of the first (if ads annoy you, you probably use an adblocker), and the second really doesn't matter; if pirates find it useful, they'll use it regardless, and I don't think you can make that call with regards to whom a creator may share it with (they could have a large and, more importantly, diverse following).

Sent from my tepholome

 

[Myrtonos]

I gave an example here in Melbourne, and linked to it, though on the previous page, so I'll link again, 3RRR, which does not appear to be a "public" broadcaster.

It costs money to apply and to use radio or television frequencies, a lot of it. You're renting a limited commodity.
The web is an inherently different medium.

What is different about the web, it costs money to host a website just as it costs money to apply and use radio frequencies.

Don't forget that Youtube is paying for the decision to allow free signup.

...and is backed with Google dollars. Have you ever heard of the term, 'loss leader'? There's a reason Google's own original video service is moribund.

No, I've never heard of that term, I thought Google's own original video service was taken down because of YouTube's popularity, and because google brought it.

As I said before, the Something Awful forums charge a one time fee on account creation, and they are the ninth largest internet forum. If we make logged in users pay for the hosting

Sorry chap, but subscriptions won't pay for the hosting. I already noted this. Every gigabyte of video stored will increase the cost.

we mostly lessen content that would not be allowed anyway

It would likely still appear, though. Pirates don't care.

That text you quoted did not mention subscription fees, but account activation fees, they are different. If one paid good money for an account on such a site and you got banned, such as for piracy, defamation, revealing personal information and/or anything else that either does not comply with site policy or applicable law, depending in which is stricter, wouldn't one feel one is wasting money?

By the way, while setting my account to private, I did discover that paid subscriptions do exist.

YouTube has been integrated with Google+, which is why I quit, this site would not.

So on your site you'd also limit people from easily sharing the content on their preferred social media platform?

One reason why people might pay is fewer advertisments and because they are less likely to be sharing the site with those not serious about complying with terms of use.

That's two reasons. I've already noted the uselessness of the first (if ads annoy you, you probably use an adblocker), and the second really doesn't matter; if pirates find it useful, they'll use it regardless, and I don't think you can make that call with regards to whom a creator may share it with (they could have a large and, more importantly, diverse following).

And YouTube has not been intergated with other social media platforms, only with google+, one has to have a Google+ account in order to comment so I've heard.

True that one would not buy an account for the first reason alone, but one still gets more in return from creating an account that just blocking out the ads (without an ad blocker). The point is, since the logged in user has paid for the hosting, ads that also pay for it don't need to be displayed to them.

 

[Prolescum]

The spectrum used for TV and radio costs millions of... Fuck it.

I have no idea why I am figuratively battering my head against a metaphorical brick wall...

Go forth and make your website. Take no notice of anything anyone says to you about how dumb or unworkable an idea it is because you are absolutely right that people will use it, respect it, and pay for it. You will lose no money, nor any pride, and everyone who would've laughed at you will be patting you on the back with gleams of respect in their eyes, shining through the tears of remorse for their doubt.

That's what you want to hear, right?

Should probably ask for me to delete this thread so no one can read the myriad issues that a few disgruntled nobodies pretended were important.

Sent from my tepholome

 

[Prolescum]

Apologies for the rant, there's no need for it.

 

[Myrtonos]

Another site where logged in users are to pay for the hosting is Ricochet.com, in this case, the membership fee is reoccuring rather than initial like on the something awful forums, yet advertisments are displayed even to logged in users. So it exists on two forums, why not on a social media site?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I do not understand all the fuss about the new YouTube format. I think the comment section is by far improved. I would much rather use it then the old comment section YouTube provided. I was also able to set my YouTube account as separate from my gmail; it was easy to do. Could you explain exactly your problem with YouTube, besides it is different from what you are used to?

I also do not think someone is going to pay to use something that is already free and established. If you truly wanted to get this idea off the ground, you would have to steal away some of the very big names from YouTube. Otherwise, your idea is dead in the water.

 

[Myrtonos]

Integration with google+ does not just make it different. I'm have no interest in using google+, so the integration made me quit.

YouTube is hosted in the USA, and originated there, in the most left wing state of the most free country in the world, to my knowledge the only one were the "right" to bear arms is protected by the constitution, and many big names come from elsewhere, would a video sharing site hosted in the EU attract more European vloggers, for example.

As stated before, free account creation comes at the expense of higher running costs relative to what one earns and noise to content ratio is simply too high for many of us. As stated before, paid account creation does exist on the ninth largest internet forum, where it has been done sine 2001, before YouTube even existed. But idea was not taken up on YouTube, and they are paying for that decision, in terms of earning less than the bandwidth bills, and poor content to noise ratio.

And at least one well known vlogger has posted before on this site, and she has issues with YouTube's content to noise ratio, at least once noting that serious discussion is rare on YouTube, and she doesn't like removing comments or blocking people. And she wound not want to live anywhere in the states.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Integration with google+ does not just make it different. I'm have no interest in using google+, so the integration made me quit.

Tell me what is your problem with Google+? Outside of using the comment section for YouTube, I have not used Google+. To me, it does not seem like such a big deal that I would have to quit a site because of it.

YouTube is hosted in the USA, and originated there, in the most left wing state of the most free country in the world, to my knowledge the only one were the "right" to bear arms is protected by the constitution, and many big names come from elsewhere, would a video sharing site hosted in the EU attract more European vloggers, for example.

Daily Motion is another video sharing website that is not hosted in the U.S. If that is your actual problem with YouTube, than why not use that site. I think Daily Motion is horrific, but that might be because I am so used to using YouTube.

As stated before, free account creation comes at the expense of higher running costs relative to what one earns and noise to content ratio is simply too high for many of us. As stated before, paid account creation does exist on the ninth largest internet forum, where it has been done sine 2001, before YouTube even existed. But idea was not taken up on YouTube, and they are paying for that decision, in terms of earning less than the bandwidth bills, and poor content to noise ratio.

Do you truly believe YouTube would be as large as it is now if they started out as a paying site? It appears to me that the reason YouTube is so large is that it is free. I remember when YouTube first started; there was nothing on there that I would have wanted to pay for. There is actually very little I would pay for right now as well.

And at least one well known vlogger has posted before on this site, and she has issues with YouTube's content to noise ratio, at least once noting that serious discussion is rare on YouTube, and she doesn't like removing comments or blocking people. And she wound not want to live anywhere in the states.

What well-known vlogger has posted on this site about the issues of YouTube? I must have missed that because I did not see it. I would like to see that post.

 

[Myrtonos]

Tell me what is your problem with Google+? Outside of using the comment section for YouTube, I have not used Google+. To me, it does not seem like such a big deal that I would have to quit a site because of it.

I have tried explaining it, but I'm not going to be on google+ just to use the comments section

Daily Motion is another video sharing website that is not hosted in the U.S. If that is your actual problem with YouTube, than why not use that site. I think Daily Motion is horrific, but that might be because I am so used to using YouTube.

I knew of Daily Motion, but had no idea where they were hosted. That's only one problem, not the only one. Let me ask you something, if you want to host any videos of yours online, wouldn't you rather host them in you own country or even next door than halfway round the world?

Do you truly believe YouTube would be as large as it is now if they started out as a paying site? It appears to me that the reason YouTube is so large is that it is free. I remember when YouTube first started; there was nothing on there that I would have wanted to pay for. There is actually very little I would pay for right now as well.

And maybe YouTube would not be as large as it is now if they kept out more of those pirates, terms of use and community guideline violators. I would not suggest paying for viewing videos, only creating accounts and additional channels. If each newcomer, and each user setting up a new channel paid for a portion of the (initial) hosting costs, then those who get banned for things like piracy would perceive a waste of money.

And at least one well known vlogger has posted before on this site, and she has issues with YouTube's content to noise ratio, at least once noting that serious discussion is rare on YouTube, and she doesn't like removing comments or blocking people. And she wound not want to live anywhere in the states.

What well-known vlogger has posted on this site about the issues of YouTube? I must have missed that because I did not see it. I would like to see that post.

How many (well known) vloggers have posted on this site, let alone meet the criteria I mentioned? I don't think she posted anything like that on this site, but she has said it in a few of her videos and comments.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I have tried explaining it, but I'm not going to be on google+ just to use the comments section

I must have missed that explanation, but if you do not want to explain again, that is fine.

I knew of Daily Motion, but had no idea where they were hosted. That's only one problem, not the only one. Let me ask you something, if you want to host any videos of yours online, wouldn't you rather host them in you own country or even next door than halfway round the world?

To be frank, I would not care where my videos were hosted. I live in the U.S. and I use this website after all.

And maybe YouTube would not be as large as it is now if they kept out more of those pirates, terms of use and community guideline violators. I would not suggest paying for viewing videos, only creating accounts and additional channels. If each newcomer, and each user setting up a new channel paid for a portion of the (initial) hosting costs, then those who get banned for things like piracy would perceive a waste of money.

Again, why would someone want to use a website they have to pay for when YouTube is already there and they can join with no charge?

How many (well known) vloggers have posted on this site, let alone meet the criteria I mentioned? I don't think she posted anything like that on this site, but she has said it in a few of her videos and comments.

I must have misread your post; I thought you meant a well-known vlogger posted something on this forum. I know some of the people I am subscribed to were outraged about the changes. However, the vast majority of the people I am subscribed to did say anything. Their silence on the matter is not a support of the changes, but it does not seem anyone who was doing anything of value on YouTube has quit. I wonder why that is?

 

[Myrtonos]

I knew of Daily Motion, but had no idea where they were hosted. That's only one problem, not the only one. Let me ask you something, if you want to host any videos of yours online, wouldn't you rather host them in you own country or even next door than halfway round the world?

To be frank, I would not care where my videos were hosted. I live in the U.S. and I use this website after all.

But you are not hosting any recorded media here, just posting comments. You obviously not here to host your blog, media, wiki, or any other kind of website of yours.

And maybe YouTube would not be as large as it is now if they kept out more of those pirates, terms of use and community guideline violators. I would not suggest paying for viewing videos, only creating accounts and additional channels. If each newcomer, and each user setting up a new channel paid for a portion of the (initial) hosting costs, then those who get banned for things like piracy would perceive a waste of money.

Again, why would someone want to use a website they have to pay for when YouTube is already there and they can join with no charge?

Reasons would include higher content to noise ratio, and not wanting to use google+ at all, not even the comment section for YouTube.
Actually, a more important question would be, why did founders of sites like YouTube decide to allow joining with no charge given that free video hosting did not previously exist or at least was not widespread, that the Something Awful forums already charged a one time fee per account (currently $9.95US), and the aforementioned consequences, like low content to noise ratio, high rates of terms of use and community guidelines violation, and earning less than what the site costs to run?

Is there anyone here registered on Something Awful or any other site with paid rather than free account creation?

I must have misread your post; I thought you meant a well-known vlogger posted something on this forum. I know some of the people I am subscribed to were outraged about the changes. However, the vast majority of the people I am subscribed to did say anything. Their silence on the matter is not a support of the changes, but it does not seem anyone who was doing anything of value on YouTube has quit. I wonder why that is?

What I meant is that that vlogger has posted in these forums, and that (as she has said elsewhere) has had issues with the content to noise ratio on YT, and yet she doesn't like blocking people or removing comments.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

But you are not hosting any recorded media here, just posting comments. You obviously not here to host your blog, media, wiki, or any other kind of website of yours.

You must have missed where it says Blogger below my handle. click on my signature and have a read of my blog found on this website. Again, I do not care and I do not see why anyone would care where their content is being hosted at. The world is flat when it comes to matters such as this. 

Reasons would include higher content to noise ratio, and not wanting to use google+ at all, not even the comment section for YouTube.

Okay. However, if those are problems, one could always post videos to YouTube, close their comment section, and embed the videos in a forum like this. There are ways around both of those problems, if indeed they are problems, that cost nothing. 

Actually, a more important question would be, why did founders of sites like YouTube decide to allow joining with no charge given that free video hosting did not previously exist or at least was not widespread, that the Something Awful forums already charged a one time fee per account (currently $9.95US), and the aforementioned consequences, like low content to noise ratio, high rates of terms of use and community guidelines violation, and earning less than what the site costs to run?

My guess would be because they were not assholes and wanted everyone to be able to enjoy their site. Charging a fee, no matter how low you think it might be, can and does exclude people from your sites experience. It could also be they were competing against other video sharing sites and their model of free access won out in the end. 

Is there anyone here registered on Something Awful or any other site with paid rather than free account creation?

Netflix for their actual movies and television shows. And to be honest, it is mostly for their DVD selection I am interested in, the streaming is just a bonus. All other forms of media I use are free. 

What I meant is that that vlogger has posted in these forums, and that (as she has said elsewhere) has had issues with the content to noise ratio on YT, and yet she doesn't like blocking people or removing comments.

You obviously did not read the section from me you quoted above this. I already acknowledged this point, pointed out that a few of the people I follow on YouTube did the same, yet none of them have quit. You would think that if you actually believed in this plan, you would contact these contributors and try your idea out. In order for your idea to succeed, you will need several of the big names from YouTube to follow you.