'YouTube Red' Ad-Free Subscription Service Launches in U.S. October 28

[Madmic23]

You completely misunderstood me. I'm not really arguing that issue. Google isn't exploiting anything. Google wants 'advertising' in the appstore? No - they want to make their App available to iOS members. Unfortunately, unless you're jailbroken, Google can't offer you their app with a sideloading option.

And I would have less of a problem with Apple charging a ONE time 30%. However, Apple wants to take 30% each month. After the customer has been acquired, why should Google have to continue to pay Apple. Isn't that Apple being profit driven? A good chunk of apps are less than 9.99. Apple gets a one time 30% on those purchases. Why do you feel that they are entitled to get 30% each month?

That's the problem I've always had with Apple's 30% when it comes to services. They do absolutely nothing to earn this money. For in app purchases, sure, no problem. Apple actually hosts that content on their servers, and you're essentially buying a thing from Apple.

But why should Netflix or YouTube give up 30% of their revenue? Make it a transaction fee, but make it like 2%.

 

[ke-iron]

You completely misunderstood me. I'm not really arguing that issue. Google isn't exploiting anything. Google wants 'advertising' in the appstore? No - they want to make their App available to iOS members. Unfortunately, unless you're jailbroken, Google can't offer you their app with a sideloading option.

And I would have less of a problem with Apple charging a ONE time 30%. However, Apple wants to take 30% each month. After the customer has been acquired, why should Google have to continue to pay Apple. Isn't that Apple being profit driven? A good chunk of apps are less than 9.99. Apple gets a one time 30% on those purchases. Why do you feel that they are entitled to get 30% each month?

Yes Google wants free advertising on the iOS App Store!
Google cares more about their pockets than their users which is why Apple doesn't make a stock iOS YouTube app anymore. People seemed to have forgotten how Google constantly made it hard for Apple to add newer features to their YouTube app, forcing apple to leave it crippled and outdated until they removed it. Google wanted their version of YouTube to be on the App Store with all the adds that comes with it.

The 30% Apple takes every month makes sense since it is recurring payment to use the service every month. The customer didn't become a Google customer for just one month, they became a customer for as long as they use the service, and since they were introduced to the service via the Apple App Store then yes Apple should be compensated for it. But that's between Apple and the companies who they hosts apps for. If they have a huge problem with it they need to take it up with Apple.

 

[Menel]

A "tax" for iOS? Seriously Google that is so thinly veiled. I don't use Youtube directly now, and certainly won't even think of using it in the future. Plus your app for the ATV is horrible and I hid it a long time ago. Does the app use flash too. lol.

It's to cover Apple's fees.
Other services do the same thing.

 

[MRU]

Oh Please....... go to hell. $10 a month, who are they kidding...?? Ought to be more like $10 a year. It isn't worth it or my time. The same goes for Apple Music.

Ad free youtube. Background / downloadable content for offline viewing and a Google Play Music subscription included in the price for 10 devices. $10 month for video & audio seems like a very good deal to me personally.

 

[samcraig]

Yes Google wants free advertising on the iOS App Store!
Google cares more about their pockets than their users which is why Apple doesn't make a stock iOS YouTube app anymore. People seemed to have forgotten how Google constantly made it hard for Apple to add newer features to their YouTube app, forcing apple to leave it crippled and outdated until they removed it. Google wanted their version of YouTube to be on the App Store with all the adds that comes with it.

The 30% Apple takes every month makes sense since it is recurring payment to use the service every month. The customer didn't become a Google customer for just one month, they became a customer for as long as they use the service, and since they were introduced to the service via the Apple App Store then yes Apple should be compensated for it. But that's between Apple and the companies who they hosts apps for. If they have a huge problem with it they need to take it up with Apple.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Google has a problem with it - so instead of pulling their app altogether, they are compensating for Apple's commission. Now you, as a customer can choose whether or not to use their service, pay the premium, or sign up via the web.

 

[ke-iron]

That's the problem I've always had with Apple's 30% when it comes to services. They do absolutely nothing to earn this money. For in app purchases, sure, no problem. Apple actually hosts that content on their servers, and you're essentially buying a thing from Apple.

But why should Netflix or YouTube give up 30% of their revenue? Make it a transaction fee, but make it like 2%.

They do nothing to earn the money? Just by advertising these apps on the App Store increases the customer base of these companies tremendously. In turn the company revenue soars so Apple should be compensated for it. 30% is what Apple takes and if companies have a problem with it they don't have to use Apple App Store platform simple as that. However they chose to use it and continuously use it, they want their apps on the App Store so they can continue to rake in more customers.

The problem I have is when companies increase their prices and pass it down to customers and try to blame Apple for it. It's just ridiculous. There are plenty other ways to advertise and aquire more customers but they love the revenue the App Store brings them.

 

[samcraig]

They do nothing to earn the money? Just by advertising these apps on the App Store increases the customer base of these companies tremendously. In turn the company revenue soars so Apple should be compensated for it. 30% is what Apple takes and if companies have a problem with it they don't have to use Apple App Store platform simple as that. However they chose to use it and continuously use it, they want their apps on the App Store so they can continue to rake in more customers.

The problem I have is when companies increase their prices and pass it down to customers and try to blame Apple for it. It's just ridiculous. There are plenty other ways to advertise and aquire more customers but they love the revenue the App Store brings them.

What advertising? Apple doesn't advertise the app. It's listed in the appstore with no special treatment. Like I said earlier - companies can choose to be in the appstore or not. They can also CHOOSE to charge whatever they want based on what they want to make on their product. You don't begrudge Apple for wanting to make a profit but Google is somehow "evil" for wanting to maximize their profits?

Do tell me how Google can advertise and acquire Apple customers without going through the app store? Oh sure - they can just have a web app - but really...

Apple has decided that they are charging a flat 30% rate - regardless of the app, service, etc. That's their right. However it's an arbitrary number they have chosen. They could easily charge services like netflix, etc 15% and probably wind up with a lot more revenue than driving more people to go OUTSIDE of the app store to sign up.

But that's there business decision. And Google's is to recoup their loss from going through the app store. 2 sides of the same coin...

 

[ke-iron]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Google has a problem with it - so instead of pulling their app altogether, they are compensating for Apple's commission. Now you, as a customer can choose whether or not to use their service, pay the premium, or sign up via the web.

Exactly my point, they are compensating for Apple commission. They want a product that brings in more money into their pockets hosted on the App Store for free.

Google will make tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions with all the users who will sign up via the App Store and you want apple to only charge a one time fee of 30% on the first transaction? Does that make sense to you?

You cannot expect to use another company platform to sell and advertise, make a profit and not pay them anything! Are you kidding me!?

The issue I have with it and why I said it isn't fair is because not all customers are savvy and know how to navigate to the web and sign up for these things. For some customers it's easier to use the App Store and sign up through apps as I explained in an earlier post. The attitude from these Companies passing on the extra buck to the customers is just disgusting and it's a way out from paying rent to Apple for a service that has a recurrent fee.

 

[samcraig]

Exactly my point, they are compensating for Apple commission. They want a product that brings in more money into their pockets hosted on the App Store for free.

Google will make tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions with all the users who will sign up via the App Store and you want apple to only charge a one time fee of 30% on the first transaction? Does that make sense to you?

You cannot expect to use another company platform to sell and advertise, make a profit and not pay them anything! Are you kidding me!?

The issue I have with it and why I said it isn't fair is because not all customers are savvy and know how to navigate to the web and sign up for these things. For some customers it's easier to use the App Store and sign up through apps as I explained in an earlier post. The attitude from these Companies passing on the extra buck to the customers is just disgusting and it's a way out from paying rent to Apple for a service that has a recurrent fee.

They are paying rent to Apple. They are also maintaining their profit margin. It's up to the consumer to vote if they want to pay and how they want to pay. My "problem" is that you want to maintain that Google is going for a money grab as if they aren't entitled to getting what they want for their product. Yet - it's OK for Apple to make money for providing their services. Both companies want to make as much profit as possible.

ETA: Google isn't making MORE money in the Apple Store. They are making the same amount that they would via web sign ups.

 

[ke-iron]

What advertising? Apple doesn't advertise the app. It's listed in the appstore with no special treatment. Like I said earlier - companies can choose to be in the appstore or not. They can also CHOOSE to charge whatever they want based on what they want to make on their product. You don't begrudge Apple for wanting to make a profit but Google is somehow "evil" for wanting to maximize their profits?

Do tell me how Google can advertise and acquire Apple customers without going through the app store? Oh sure - they can just have a web app - but really...

Apple has decided that they are charging a flat 30% rate - regardless of the app, service, etc. That's their right. However it's an arbitrary number they have chosen. They could easily charge services like netflix, etc 15% and probably wind up with a lot more revenue than driving more people to go OUTSIDE of the app store to sign up.

But that's there business decision. And Google's is to recoup their loss from going through the app store. 2 sides of the same coin...

Google can advertise without going through the AppStore by using the web. Most people use google.com for searches, they make tons of money from advertising and they are experts at it. They can figure it out.

The YouTube app is listed on the AppStore and while it may not always be on the front page or featured it is advertising a product or service they want people to use.

It is important to know I don't begrudge Apple because they haven't given me a reason to, and I'll give you an example: Apple pays higher royalties for music sold or rented on Apple Music yet the price of the service is $10 the same price as most other comparable services in line. They did not charge us $10.50 or $10.75 because they pay more money to the recording industry and artists. They sucked it up and kept it pushing. Google increases the prices and say oh well apple charges 30% rent so I will pass it on to you!

Apple asks for 30% and they have the right to ask for whatever they see fit since the App Store is their platform. However these companies have no shame in their tactics as shown and they do not care to pass the extra fees down to the customer. Their attitude is outright disgusting.

 

[samcraig]

Google can advertise without going through the AppStore by using the web. Most people use google.com for searches, they make tons of money from advertising and they are experts at it. They can figure it out.

The YouTube app is listed on the AppStore and while it may not always be on the front page or featured it is advertising a product or service they want people to use.

It is important to know I don't begrudge Apple because they haven't given me a reason to, and I'll give you an example: Apple pays higher royalties for music sold or rented on Apple Music yet the price of the service is $10 the same price as most other comparable services in line. They did not charge us $10.50 or $10.75 because they pay more money to the recording industry and artists. They sucked it up and kept it pushing. Google increases the prices and say oh well apple charges 30% rent so I will pass it on to you!

Apple asks for 30% and they have the right to ask for whatever they see fit since the App Store is their platform. However these companies have no shame in their tactics as shown and they do not care to pass the extra fees down to the customer. Their attitude is outright disgusting.

If you say so.

 

[ke-iron]

They are paying rent to Apple. They are also maintaining their profit margin. It's up to the consumer to vote if they want to pay and how they want to pay. My "problem" is that you want to maintain that Google is going for a money grab as if they aren't entitled to getting what they want for their product. Yet - it's OK for Apple to make money for providing their services. Both companies want to make as much profit as possible.

ETA: Google isn't making MORE money in the Apple Store. They are making the same amount that they would via web sign ups.

Of course it is ok for Apple to make money for providing their service. Do people set up shops in a mall for free?

I never said Google is making more money through their app via the App Store. Google chose the App Store to sell their product but they are charging more money for subscription because they have to pay rent to Apple. It is that simple. Yes they have other fees to pay such as royalties etc but you cannot expect to use someone store or mall in this case to sell something and not pay rent.

By selling at a higher price to offset the cost of rent and passing the extra to customers is lousy. And it's a shame that this is the kind of company some people want to protect.

 

[cdm283813]

The people here are unbelievable. I'm not sure who they hate more; Google or Samsung?

1. Super easy solution to bypass the $3 fee.
2. More value when compared to Apple Music.
3. Don't use it and move on. Keep doing what you've been doing.

I personally use YouTube on a daily basis especially when new products come out.

 

[nburwell]

I'll deal with ads. No thanks, Google.

 

[You are the One]

Ads on Youtube? Where?

 

[ke-iron]

The people here are unbelievable. I'm not sure who they hate more; Google or Samsung?

1. Super easy solution to bypass the $3 fee.
2. More value when compared to Apple Music.
3. Don't use it and move on. Keep doing what you've been doing.

I personally use YouTube on a daily basis especially when new products come out.

How have you come up with the assumption of this being more value compared to Apple Music?

Or you meant to say it's better suited for your use so it's more valuable to you?

 

[Gudi]

Making audio play in the background a monthly paid feature is pretty ridiculous...

No, it's a smart new business model called "software as a service". Now third party developers can take away core OS functions (like Printing, Sharing, Streaming..) and turn them into monthly paid services. Think about the possibilities! For a small fee of just $9.99/month you will soon be able to track your exact GPS location on a map or you can use Google Maps Red for free without knowing where you are. It's up to the customer to decide whether he sees value in such trivia.

 

[Wondercow]

If Google can offer a $500 32GB flagship with specs galore Apple should be able to offer 32GB in a $650 phone. No reason but pure greed

I'm not going to claim that Apple's reasoning isn't about their profits, but to say it's the only reason is false. Businesses seem to love the 16GB iPhone since, amongst other reasons, it doesn't allow their staff to clutter the devices with a lot of personal apps and data.

 

[KALLT]

Um, No.. just no.
I pay less than this for all the streaming I want on Netflix, with no ads either. And I get HIGH QUALITY, BIG BUDGET content there. Nearly ALL of youtube is user generated. Youtube pays next to nothing for this content, where as netflix pays for the content, pays to CREATE the great content they win awards for, AND all the streaming it takes to get it to me. Youtube pretty much only has to cover the streaming costs, and they want more money for it than Netflix!!! That is just wrong. I'd consider it at a $3-$4 price point, but $13 for iOS is F---ing rediculous.

Sorry, have you actually understood what Google offers here? Let me emphasise it for you: “Google has also bundled a Play Music subscription into YouTube Red on iOS and Android, providing access to both services for a combined $9.99 or $12.99 monthly payment. YouTube Red’s unlimited access to both streaming music, videos and more makes it an attractive competitor alongside rivals like Apple Music and Spotify.”

You thus get: unlimited music streaming, with the immediate access to tons of music videos of brand-new songs, you get ad-free access to the wealth of YouTube content with absolutely no advertising. $4 is ludicrous. $13 for iOS? When you want to subscribe within the iOS app, you get to pay that much. You are free to use Google’s website and pay less. Only Apple to blame for this stupid policy.

 

[Macyourdayy]

The 'tax' is Apple's cut. It is the 'Steve Jobs' tax. #thankssteve

Why don't you set up a shop and then let anyone sell their stuff from there while you pay rent and utilities? Why does eBay charge to sell stuff on their site? How dare they.

 

[BFskinnerPunk]

Making audio play in the background a monthly paid feature is pretty ridiculous...

Nope...wrong... actually, you get the full Google Play Music subscription AND all of the goodness from the youtube upgrade.

Google Music currently costs $9.99.... so now you get that with the YouTube stuff. Most other music streamers cost the same... but no youtube upgrade.

 

[MacBH928]

I was willing to pay.. but unfortunately only people living in the US matter, no one cares about the ones outside. The Download Video feature alone is worth the price to me.

Then they wonder why people pirate...they refuse to let people pay

 

[MRU]

I was willing to pay.. but unfortunately only people living in the US matter, no one cares about the ones outside. The Download Video feature alone is worth the price to me.

Then they wonder why people pirate...they refuse to let people pay

If you are outside of America you can sign up for a google play music subscription now. This will automatically grant you the current YouTube Music Key (which YouTube Red will replace) and will allow you to download music videos and of course ad free playback of them.

Background playback of videos when screen is off is supported only by Android devices currently for nearly All Videos if you have a YouTube Music Key.

I doubt it will take long before they add non music videos to mix after the initial US only phase seeing as it's their platform and content rights should be easier to deal with territory by territory.



-------
Oh and people pirate because they can. Statistics already show that Pirates will pirate something even if the price was ridiculously low. But that's a different argument and one not worth discussing here.

 

[MRU]

How have you come up with the assumption of this being more value compared to Apple Music?

Or you meant to say it's better suited for your use so it's more valuable to you?

Generally it is better value.

It gives you all access music subscription. (That's basically level with Apple)

But additionally - It allows you to have up to 10 devices for a start.

It's cross platform NOW

It works on the web / browser too

It comes with YouTube Music Key currently giving you ad free playback of Music content / videos and ability to download them onto your devices for offline viewing. This is worldwide NOW

It allows background audio of all videos on Android devices currently which will eventually expand to iOS

When TouTube Red rolls out it in USA and eventually worldwide it will allow same downloading and ad free playback for all your videos and again it's cross platform and available on the web.


Even if you don't use YouTube to argue it doesn't provide more bang for your buck as a subscription service generally is just nonsense. It clearly does.

 

[patent10021]

Does it have a loop function? If not, even more of a joke.