
YouTube Red, a $9.99 Site-Wide Ad-Free Subscription with Play Music - mayneack
http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/21/youtube-red/
======
Someone1234
Their branding is horrifying.

YouTube Red, Music Key, Google Android Play Music All Access Subscription,
etc.

Don't get me wrong, the actual service they provide is good, and Music Key
(advert free YouTube music videos) was a nice value add. This too will only
expand Music Key into other videos.

I do worry a little bit that long term Google Music subscribers will wind up
seeing price increases to pay for YouTube Red. If all I want is JUST Google
Music, then all I should have to pay for is JUST Google Music, and that is
fine today as there are no price increases, but ask me again when the first
price rise is announced a few months from now.

~~~
toxican
Okay, I'll say it. When I see "Red" and "Tube" so close together, my mind
jumps to the porn site, RedTube. They can't possibly have been ignorant of
this

~~~
thieving_magpie
Who's gonna be the one to bring that up in the branding meeting?

"And we're thinking we'll call it Youtube Red"

"Uh........... yknow that's... it's... i heard once that... nevermind".

~~~
zipwitch
It won't be a problem - Alphabet will just "make them an offer they can't
refuse" and within a year, RedTube will re-direct to Youtube Red. (The offer
being, let us buy your domain name for a reasonable price, or we'll sue you
out of existence.)

~~~
toxican
lol on what grounds could Google possibly sue RedTube? They don't own the word
"tube", which has been a reference to television since the beginning. I don't
think you know what you're talking about.

------
austenallred
WTF does this mean?

> And any creator who doesn’t sign the deal for YouTube Red will have their
> videos on the ad-free old-school YouTube hidden from view. That’s pretty
> harsh.

So YouTube is saying if you don't join their new subscription plan they will
just not display your videos on YouTube?

Edit: Just heard back. Yes, this is exactly what happened, and it's now going
into motion. If you are a YouTube creator and you don't agree to be a part of
this new service, your channel will removed and your videos won't appear in
search results. In other words, all of your videos are made "private" and
you're pretty much dead.

~~~
coldpie
Take it easy and wait for more info. All you've got to on is one line in a 3rd
party news article.

~~~
Blaaguuu
This isn't the first time Youtube has dramatically changed their terms, and
forced creators to basically accept them or leave, though... so it is pretty
easy to assume the worst when it comes to Youtube.

~~~
newjersey
The way I understand it, you can still host your videos. You just won't get
any revenues. That is completely fine by me.

~~~
jahmed
Yeah it's Alphabet's site. You play by their rules. Don't like it? Well
there's always other options.

------
nefitty
Is it just me, or does this service sound way too similar to Redtube?

~~~
ChuckMcM
That is the obvious connection. The interesting part is does Redtube sue them
for trademark infringement? Who gets the "red" and who gets the "tube" ? :-)

Frankly I'm surprised Google hasn't preemptively gone after them for
infringement.

~~~
milge
My guess is that Google can't. Tube was slang for boob tube or tv way before
youtube existed.

~~~
seiji
Facebook sues people for Face* names. Not an entirely unprecedented precedent.

The real problem is you never know when you'll be sued for going too far. The
only way to find out is to go too far and hope it doesn't happen. (like, the
existence of YouTube itself)

~~~
avinassh
> Facebook sues people for Face* names.

wow, can they do that? Any instances of past cases? So, does that mean if I
create a social network with `Face*` name, they can sue me?

~~~
seiji
[http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/26/technology/teachbook/](http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/26/technology/teachbook/)
is one case from the *Book part.

------
coldpie
What does this mean for content creators, I wonder? My understanding is
currently, if I block youtube ads, then the creators don't get paid for what
would have been a viewing. Does this mean if I sign up for $10/mo, then the
creators _do_ get paid, and I get to avoid ads? Sign me up.

~~~
dave_sullivan
You might be interested in a side project I've been working on:
[http://indiecult.tv](http://indiecult.tv)

It's basically what you describe, but the payments are also weighted by user
rating. I'm dealing with a chicken and egg problem on content, so there's not
much there, but keep an eye on it over the next couple of months...

~~~
djloche
This looks awesome. I'm not sure if you've tried a limited trial already, but
as someone on the creation side, I'd love to see & try the tools/system in
place before entering my credit card and paying for a subscription. Maybe you
can solve the content side of things by allowing filmmakers to earn credit
through uploading content. Eg. If I upload 5+ shorts or 1 longer length video
that pass a quick review, my next month is credited.

~~~
dave_sullivan
Thanks!

Yes, some kind of trial or even a free plan is where I'm looking.

It's got a HN-type karma system built into it, both the content and the
comments. So if you boil it down to its essence, it's almost a reddit
(preferably HN) for video with a netflix-esque interface.

So maybe it's free to post and view video links, free to upload content
directly (which you can earn money from), but costs to view hosted content
(which then pays the uploaders). Free user's views don't count towards payable
totals, but paid user's do. That's the plan I'm leaning towards, actually.

------
jbob2000
Get ready to get burned folks. It starts ad-free, just like Hulu. And then
they add one or two ads during christmas time. And then during black friday.
Then they add a small skippable add at the beginning of movies. This is how
google is going to get you to pay for the same service they offer for free
today. It won't stay ad free forever.

~~~
serge2k
Then I cancel. Same as if Netflix moves to ads. I'll buy Hulu when they offer
ad free stuff.

Will gladly pay for ad free.

If I pay the subscription fee on my desktop do I have to pay extra because I
use iOS? That's not an in app purchase.

~~~
daxelrod
Hulu does offer an ad free option now:
[http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials](http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials)

~~~
serge2k
Nice! I'll look into that and probably sign up. Assuming it's not crippled or
anything.

edit: and now the question becomes do I want to add showtime. hmm

My TV is getting expensive against

Netflix 8 HBO 15 Hulu 12 Showtime 9 AIV 99/year

52 dollars a month. Covers most of the shows I like though. Unlike Cable this
(pretty much) ad free and on demand. I think it's worth it.

------
grubles
>However, iOS users will be charged $12.99 to cover Apple’s in-app purchase
tax.

The Apple Tax[0] strikes again!

[0][https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Apple_tax](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Apple_tax)

~~~
Retric
Not so much, this is just Google making an anti iOS play as Netflix for
example trivially avoids the 'tax'.

~~~
Someone1234
Don't Apple take a 30% cut if someone signs up via them? So this isn't an
anti-Apple play, this is Google charging Apple users the same as everyone else
(from Google's perspective, they get $9.99 from Apple/non-Apple users),
essentially they're passing on an Apple "convenience fee" to Apple's users.

~~~
carlob
If you pay cash vs credit card you usually pay the same amount, but the seller
makes less money from the credit card sale because of fees.

~~~
dragonwriter
> If you pay cash vs credit card you usually pay the same amount, but the
> seller makes less money from the credit card sale because of fees.

And they have more labor costs associated with dealing with cash. Whether
that's a net win for cash or net loss depends on the particular market that
the retailer is in.

------
captn3m0
Not available outside the US:

>YouTube Red is available in the U.S. If you leave the U.S., you won’t be able
to save videos offline, videos won’t play in the background, and you will see
ads. Any videos that you’ve saved offline before leaving the U.S., will
continue to be available offline for 30 days.

~~~
MichaelGG
Which also means not always available _inside_ the US, as Google's geo IP has
to be the worst I've experienced. In Denver, they located me as being in
France. After a while that got fixed. Now Google thinks I'm in Hungary.
Despite multiple requests to fix it, it remains the same over months They
could even automate it to some extent just by pinging. Use speed-of-light to
determine that my system definitely cannot be in Europe.

A lot of things do not properly de-localize, when you select English or no
customization. Menu text, alt text, logos, etc. all remain localized. It's a
terrible implementation.

Chrome was (is?) worse. It'd "auto detect" the language to use based on IP,
then refuse to remove it once running. So you'd have an English OS, sending
"en" in the Accept-Language language header, and Chrome would decide you
actually wanted Spanish or Russian or whatever, using .ru sites, etc.

~~~
swagswag
google thinks I am in bangladesh

~~~
pavs
Hey man, we should meet up. I am actually in bangladesh.

------
ljoshua
If I subscribe, will it remove the preroll ads while watching YouTube on Apple
TV? Because I like to occasionally set up playlists of educational content for
my kids to watch for a bit, but far too often an inappropriate ad has played
in the middle of the playlist, driving me nuts.

~~~
bosdev
Just out of curiosity, what are examples of inappropriate ads? Is it a subject
matter issue?

~~~
DanBC
Sometimes there are ads for alcohol or gambling on video clearly aimed at
children. This is probably not legal in UK, and it's something I'm going to
raise with regulators next year.

In general you should probably allow people to opt out of alcohol ads.

Or violent films.

It's weird that the film has an age rating; the ad has an age rating; the
content has a much younger age rating; but YouTube can't see that many parents
don't want an 18 / 15 movie ad on content they're showing to their children.

~~~
strictnein
That's why Youtube Kids for the iPad/iPhone is nice. None of that. Does that
not exist on AppleTV?

------
millstone
> And any creator who doesn’t sign the deal for YouTube Red will have their
> videos on the ad-free old-school YouTube hidden from view.

Does this mean that if I subscribe, I will see less content on YouTube?

~~~
ljoshua
Or does it mean that if you _don 't_ subscribe that you'll see less content?

------
chambo622
The fact that this is included with Google Play Music is awesome, and really
represents a great value for ten bucks a month (or $8 for long time
customers).

Also, 'Red' is a much better name than 'Music Key.'

~~~
striking
Except "YouTube Red" sounds a little like "RedTube" which is a different kind
of video streaming site.

~~~
torbit
eh, if you visit redtube enough, it becomes a brand name. For those that don't
use redtube it sounds like they copied the "tube" from youtube.

------
quaunaut
The real killer app here is the ability to play videos in the background as
music for your phone. Most of my favorite music isn't available on
Spotify/Apple Music/etc, but quite a bit of it is on Youtube.

It'd be interesting if they UI of this got good enough to employ it as a
streaming replacement.

~~~
sb8244
You can sort of do this today on ios by clicking play on the slide up after it
stopping. I never knew it was trying to prevent listening because it works
once you hit play.

~~~
randyrand
There are also some good jailbreaks for this too

------
fumar
Link to the actual source: [http://youtube-
global.blogspot.com/2015/10/red.html](http://youtube-
global.blogspot.com/2015/10/red.html)

------
bluthru
>YouTube Red will also offer Background Play, so you can close the app while
continuing to listen to the audio of whatever you were watching as you use
your phone.

What a joke. This should be a standard feature.

iOS users: You can play audio in the background by playing a video in Safari,
swiping up to open control center, pressing play, and then double-tapping the
home button to go to another app. The only restriction is that you can't use
Safari while the video is playing.

~~~
eco
I believe it's that way because of the rights issues. They can show ads while
songs are playing to pay the copyright holder of the song but if your display
is off then there is no ads and thus no revenue to share.

------
sharkweek
How does this new ad-free version of YouTube pay content creators?

If I upload a video to YouTube under the pretense that based on ad clicks I
make money, how does YouTube showing my videos ad-free get me paid? I have
read the official press release and a few articles but am not finding any news
on these details.

~~~
strictnein
It's in the article folks.

> "YouTube Red will split subscription revenue with the rights holders of
> content people consume through the service. YouTube managed to sign-on most
> of the independent creators, record labels, TV networks, and movie studios
> to the program. A YouTube exec told reporters at today’s launch event that
> YouTube is paying out “the vast, vast majority of revenue”."

~~~
shostack
"the vast, vast majority of revenue"

...for now. You don't boil a frog by turning the heat up all the way. Once you
get people fully locked in and dependent on your platform by having both
content AND viewership, you can have much greater ability to change
agreements/pricing until there is a viable competitor.

~~~
meesterdude
Yup. The content creators will be an audience subject to exploit that cannot
simply jump ship: a year or two from now, they'll make less and google will
make more, because that's capitalism folks.

~~~
Artistry121
The cost of switching is very low for both viewers and content producers.

Producers: Upload content to new service -> Change comments on youtube videos
and post an explanation of the change soon to occur -> hope your audience
likes your brand enough to trust/use another website

Consumers: Search google or yahoo or duckduckgo for your favorite producer
when you don't find them on youtube -> find them on other site -> watch

This adds a lot of value to Youtube for me and has solidified my move to
Google's services - being able to easily stream a playlist of youtube videos
ad free during parties and support creators without viewing ads is a benefit.

It does not go directly with Google's mission to catalog all the world's
information - or at least in the way of making that information more
accessible to everyone (since some content producers will be put off by this).

------
tucif
From the FAQ:

> "As an added bonus, your YouTube Red membership includes a free subscription
> to Google Play Music, with access to its extensive catalog of music. If
> you’re already a Google Play Music subscriber, you’ll receive a free YouTube
> Red membership."[0]

That's an interesting way to bootstrap their paying userbase.

[0][https://www.youtube.com/red](https://www.youtube.com/red)

------
ariwilson
I've been using this service for a little bit and it's been fantastic. Ad-free
viewing on my desktop has increased my YouTube viewing by probably 50% because
I know I'm just going to see the content I want to see. Other notable features
include Chromecast no-ads support (makes your YouTube parties much better) and
offline downloads of long videos (finally can catch up on all those feature-
length amateur films).

~~~
thesimpsons1022
did you just never use ad-block or something?

~~~
ariwilson
I like to support content creators. And no, I don't want to have to sign up
for the Patreon accounts of every single YouTube user I like the videos of.

~~~
beagle3
Unless you really liked being tracked, cataloged and analyzed, I recommend you
use ad blocking even though you're using YouTube Red.

It's not advertising. It's advertracking. YouTube red removes the
"advertising" part, but the "tracking" part stays. (Yes, Google could, and
probably do, track you through an adblocker while you are on YouTube. But why
tracking easy for them and everyone else?)

------
tolmasky
_> "However, iOS users will be charged $12.99 to cover Apple’s in-app purchase
tax"_

I thought Apple specifically didn't allow this.

~~~
kllrnohj
I don't think Apple gets a say over it. The already got sued & lost about
price fixing on eBooks, I don't think they're going to try their hand at price
fixing again.

Also practically what could Apple even do? Kick YouTube off of the AppStore?
That'd just hurt Apple as well.

------
GigabyteCoin
They're going to have to do something about uBlock Origin blocking youtube
video ads flawlessly before this ever takes off imho.

I installed uBlock a few weeks ago and only recently realized I haven't seen a
single youtube video ad since then.

~~~
darkstar999
Not entirely. There are platforms such as Google TV that can't block ads.

~~~
Cub3
My chromecast doesn't block ads, i'll pay for the service specifically for
this

~~~
GigabyteCoin
Instead of paying $9.99 monthly (forever) why not just buy one of those "TV on
a stick" devices [0] (a one time purchase) and run a web browser+uBlock?

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-on-a-
stick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-on-a-stick)

~~~
darkstar999
Because the experience and usability of a chromecast is much MUCH better than
what you are suggesting.

------
meesterdude
Overall this is a good idea - the fact that google is the one behind it
doesn't give me any fuzzies though. They will always want to make more money
from it - that's why they started with ads in the first place, and are now
trying to go subscription.

My guess is this goes alright in the short term, in the long term they cluster
fuck it, lest we not forget the Google+ fiasco. Probably won't muck it up
enough to spawn rivals, but close. They really just won't be able to help
themselves.

Still, give them credit: making money off other peoples content is a lucrative
business, as apple has shown.

------
oneJob
The profit motive is showing its true colors. It'd be a very tough argument to
claim that "YouTube Red" is playing a vital role in Google's attempt to
organize the world's data. It's purely a grab for revenue/profit.

Netflix (as well as HBO, and many others) already has commercial free
streaming movies. HULU (as well as others) now has commercial free streaming
tv. Content wise, what YouTube brings to the table is the user generated
content, and YouTube Red does not seem to be centered around user generated
content. I'd say user generated content is caught up in the mix, if anything.
Google could index HULU and Netflix instead of creating YouTube Red.

Also, it is a false choice to say, given the assumption of ad-free services, I
should either have to pay for ads or Google should take a loss in revenue.
There are many other business models, such as P2P, that could facilitate ad-
free user generated content channels.

The rub? P2P doesn't work too well with commercial content generation. And so,
we find ourselves back to ads vs subscriptions, and back to the revenue grab.

When talent at Google is working on YouTube Red, it's not working on other
problems. I can think of many other problems I'd rather see Google working on,
given their core competencies.

~~~
nemothekid
>*The profit motive is showing its true colors. It'd be a very tough argument
to claim that "YouTube Red" is playing a vital role in Google's attempt to
organize the world's data.

YouTube Red seems less like a "profit grab" and more like a defensive move.
I'm sure Google would love to continue its current model of 50% of all ad
revenue. From what I've gathered its (1) Google's top creators exploring other
options such as Vessel (subscription music service) and (2) YouTube's need to
provide a regular/more predictable revenue stream to their partners. The Ad
model doesn't seem to work well if your most of your viewers are outside the
United States.

~~~
oneJob
I guess I was saying, back up even more, why the heck, given Google's stated
mission of "Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make
it universally accessible and useful", are they in this part of the market at
all. Especially given, as you (I believe correctly) pointed out they need to
put up pay walls to adapt to the changing landscape and in the process make
_unavailable_ any content that doesn't conform to their revenue goals.
"YouTube Red" doesn't seem to conform to their mission of making _all_ of the
world's info accessible and useful. That word 'all' is important, since they
constantly stress that point. And here, they are compromising exactly that
point.

footnote regarding _all_ : [http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-targeting-all-
the-worlds...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-targeting-all-the-worlds-
content-and-all-your-information/)

------
softyeti
$10 poses an interesting decision in comparison to Spotify.

Spotify is a dedicated music app in comparison, and is designed that way. The
catalog isn't as big as YouTube's, but YouTube isn't designed for the user to
catalog their personal music.

Youtube provides ad-free video, but I don't think the ad's are very intrusive
for videos compared to listening to music, where it can definitely be
annoying.

~~~
eertami
I recently trialed both Google Play Music and Spotify. While pricing is the
same, I found that for my needs Google had a better offering - being able to
upload my personal library was something I definitely wanted, and the
radios/suggestions seem to give me more of what I want than Spotify did.

~~~
lmedinas
Spotify gets releases much sooner and better curation imho.

------
tehwebguy
Headline 1 year from now:

    
    
        How Pewdiepie became a billionaire and everyone making a
        living off 1M views a month went broke.
    

(At least that's what will happen if their royalties are based on aggregate
subscription revenue & views rather than per subscriber views, a la Spotify)

------
jasonsync
Yes,

I wish Netflix had music videos channels, and for an extra $5/month optional
Spotify audio channels built in.

~~~
copperx
That would be awesome. The rebirth of MTV. Properly done.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
Almost like MTV in the 80s when they actually played music videos. Then
Netflix can slowly roll in the terrible reality TV and we can repeat history
once more :)

------
linksbro
It looks like some movies will also be available, as well as new original
content[1][2]. This is shaping up to look like a netflix + spotify all in one
package.

Certainly this is also an attempt to curb the pervasiveness of adblocking by
providing the ad-free option.

[1] [https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/home/youtube-red-
bl...](https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/home/youtube-red-blogpost) [2]
[https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/youtube-
originals/y...](https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/youtube-
originals/youtube-red-originals-blogpost)

~~~
IanCal
That would be very nice, as on the screenshot it says "save offline". Being
able to download some episodes before getting on the train would be nice.

------
mark_l_watson
I like this. Although a lot of great content is, and should be, freely
available on the web, I also would like to see more subscription based content
creation and viewing.

Google Play movies, TV, and books is getting to be convenient enough so I am
using it more (I just bought the BBC 'Worricker Trilogy', one of the best
shows we have watched in years).

While subscribing to a service like this, plus Hulu no commercials version,
Internet version of HBO Go, and Netflix may seem a little expensive, it
basically covers all entertainment costs except for buying books.

------
personjerry
Is this the trend? Of moving the Internet into subscription based as-free? At
some point I suspect ads will just be removed altogether and we'll have an
entirely subscription based model.

~~~
DavideNL
> At some point I suspect ads will just be removed altogether and we'll have
> an entirely subscription based model.

I certainly hope so. Enough with the ad torture...

------
6stringmerc
I wonder if the YouTube platform payout is less than the Google Music Key
platform payout.

Over time, and via the Sony hack, I think being suspicious of distribution
platforms and major labels is warranted. So far, they tend to like non-
disclosure based agreements which freeze out independents as much as possible.

Considering the "artists hate streaming" bad publicity that seems pretty
consistent, I think if YouTube Red was going to be a real improvement and
fiscally more rewarding for artists, they should put that in big type
somewhere.

------
nathanb
Either the article doesn't make it clear or I'm bad at reading, and the YT Red
site itself just tells me it's not available in my country: I assume this is
$10 US a month?

------
mschuster91
Wow. Took them long enough, but I really appreciate a big site experimenting
with replacing ads by _real_ money.

Of course, Google has a pretty solid process for low-amount online payments,
though.

------
kenjackson
Is that $9.99/month? The site doesn't say (AFAICT). That seems WAY expensive.
I'd happily pay $20/year, but not $10/month -- not even close.

~~~
eco
It's the same price as Spotify. Since you get the entire Google Play Music
library with it it seems to be priced very competitively.

------
jmpeax
It's $9.99 per-month, where in the article the word "month" doesn't appear
once. Great journalism there techcrunch.

------
scoot
_" iOS users will be charged $12.99 to cover Apple’s in-app purchase tax."_

If that's true, it looks like someone in google got their math wrong.

Apple will take 30% of $12.99, i.e. $3.90, leaving google with only $9.09, not
the $9.99 they're expecting.

The correct price to "cover Apple’s in-app purchase tax." is $14.27.

------
zmmmmm
This sounds pretty awesome and as soon as it comes to my country I will
subscribe. HOWEVER, I hope they come up with a family subscription or that the
Play Music family subscription covers it. Because the main reason I want the
ads gone is for the sake of my kids.

------
chatmasta
Does this give google legal ground to make an argument that ad blockers enable
piracy? If "ad free content" exists, but you have to pay for it, then is it
piracy to get the "ad free content" _without_ paying for it?

------
dpweb
Block ads, that can be done already. I think the real value is Background
Play.

------
grandalf
I would have signed up for this but I finally got fed up and installed
adblock.

------
makecheck
Why didn't they call it YouTunes? :)

This move is good in general. When big sites offer ways to pay, I think the
idea becomes more mainstream and it'll be easier for new services to actually
charge enough to survive.

------
sjg007
Does it turn off ads in the mobile app and in you tube kids?

------
arrowgunz
The original subscription page:
[https://www.youtube.com/red](https://www.youtube.com/red)

------
task_queue
Another thing on the internet I'm not paying for.

------
raykaye47
Or you could just download Adblock Plus for free...

~~~
bsilvereagle
There are those of us that don't want to see ads but still want to support
content creators. This is potentially a win-win on that front, while an ad
blocker is not.

~~~
userbinator
There are many other ways to "support content creators", like... ask them if
they have Paypal or similar and donate to them directly that way.

------
wnevets
> If you’re already a Google Play Music subscriber, you’ll receive a free
> YouTube Red membership.

Ok good. This is simply a bonus feature for me then.

------
voidr
Sounds too similar to Vodafone Red, it doesn't feel like these people did
their research when coming up with this branding.

------
aluhut
Good. Time for a new popular video platform.

------
dogma1138
If this would include access to paid YT videos I think this would rock but
currently it isn't stated if it would.

------
corndoge
$9.99 per year? Per month? Per millenium?

~~~
striking
month

------
adrianlmm
Was YouTube gaming even succesful? I think the YouTube Brand is overused and
has lost value.

------
mandeepj
My first thought was - "What? Are they starting a subscription for porn?"

------
kozukumi
Ha for a second I thought Google/YouTube were getting into the porn business!

------
scotty2992
You can use Playlist Buddy to convert your Spotify playlists to YouTube Red.

------
adultSwim
I would happily pay ten bucks a month for youtube. Hurray!

------
smegel
A month for those annoyed by this frustrating omission.

------
anonbanker
Youtube is ripe for disruption right now. All these attempts to monetize will
simply drive their users elsewhere.

------
ninjakeyboard
"RedTube" makes this something akin to product mis-placement.

------
itistoday2
Major kudos to Google for re-aligning its income source with users! RedTube
confusion be damned, this is a great win for users!

------
BasDirks
This is dumb on so many levels. The name, the branding, the backstabbing of
the content creators, the availability restrictions. Of course, they are
Google, they can get away with this. Deeply uninspiring.

------
Laaw
Google seems to be trying a bunch of different things to leverage this
downright _stupid_ mentality embedded in a subset of the Internet population
that YouTube is a platform for music (sans video). It's not Google's fault
that folks are using YouTube as strictly a music service, but here we are. I
don't really know how I'd solve this problem either, but if I have to regress
to using YouTube to listen to music, it's going to piss me off (why oh why
would I stream video if I'm just using the audio)?

I just fear the majority is never going to take the short hop over to Google
Music (or whatever app Google offers strictly for music), and I'm going to get
stuck needlessly using YouTube related apps/platforms.

~~~
oldmanjay
There is a vast gulf between not using things the way you prefer and being
stupid.

~~~
Laaw
The word "stupid" has no valuable meaning in rational discourse, so I've
appropriated it in this case to mean, "evokes a negative emotional reaction."

I hope this wasn't too harmful to the conversation, though it seems to have
caused damage to the sensibilities of multiple people already. I'd edit, but I
think at this point it's hardly worth the effort.

