BBC, Channel 4 Say No Plans to Charge YouTube Users

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Jane McEntegart
Contributor

Jane McEntegart is a writer, editor, and marketing communications professional with 17 years of experience in the technology industry. She has written about a wide range of technology topics, including smartphones, tablets, and game consoles. Her articles have been published in Tom's Guide, Tom's Hardware, MobileSyrup, and Edge Up.

  • abbadon_34
    "and so it begins..."
    Reply
  • JOSHSKORN
    But what about FOX? Yeah...I wouldn't pay for that, either.
    Reply
  • Aoyagi
    $2 a month is nothing if it removes the ad and featured content infestation, but I doubt something that good would come out of Google.
    Reply
  • CrArC
    10776181 said:
    $2 a month is nothing if it removes the ad and featured content infestation, but I doubt something that good would come out of Google.

    The problem is where we draw the line. I have to admit I'm even considering the idea of $2 a month as appealing if it removed ALL ads and improved performance. But then we've just enabled a subscription model for a currently free website. It's a downhill slope. More and more premium channels as posters are attracted to the higher returns. More and more crap on the free side of things.

    YouTube has no real competition so we'd be trusting Google's "not-quite-evil" attitude towards customers to mediate the process and prevent YouTube from being destroyed from the inside out. I'm not sure it's worth the risk.
    Reply
  • Aoyagi
    10776284 said:
    The problem is where we draw the line. I have to admit I'm even considering the idea of $2 a month as appealing if it removed ALL ads and improved performance. But then we've just enabled a subscription model for a currently free website. It's a downhill slope. More and more premium channels as posters are attracted to the higher returns. More and more crap on the free side of things.

    YouTube has no real competition so we'd be trusting Google's "not-quite-evil" attitude towards customers to mediate the process and prevent YouTube from being destroyed from the inside out. I'm not sure it's worth the risk.

    Well, Google would most likely have to regulate this. If they were not-that-evil, they would have an option to pay a small global subscription which would remove ads and add customization. Then again, I'm currently doing this with Extendtube and AdBlock+ so they probably get no money from me whatsoever. But if it turned bad, well, at least there would be room for a proper competition. Sadly, it would most likely be another untrustworthy company, like Microsoft, Apple or even Facebook.

    It's all going to hell.
    Reply
  • viper666
    >not using ad-block plus to remove ALL ads from youtube
    Reply
  • you'll be hard pressed to get people to pay a fee for something that's been free forever.
    Reply