YouTube testing 1080p setting with higher bitrate

[Vorastra]

I don't think anyone is happy about it, rather understanding that this is how business works..

I have doubts considering how people so easily accept that they're paying for things that used to be free.

Like how you just handwaved away 1080p quality that everyone had, now being reintroduced as super special new feature behind a paywall.

 

[newby_investor]

I have doubts considering how people so easily accept that they're paying for things that used to be free.

Like how you just handwaved away 1080p quality that everyone had, now being reintroduced as super special new feature behind a paywall.

I realise that I'm possibly biting off more than I can chew by stepping into this discussion but...

should YouTube have been free at all in the first place?

That has been the model of most internet start-ups, actually. Provide something free, grow users to bazillions, figure out how to actually make a sustainable business of it later on. Usually that involves advertising which incorporates all sorts of shady information collection practices.

IMO youtube provides a heck of a lot of value for next to no money at all.
I'm personally quite happy with a free, ad-subsidised, sucky features tier, and the premium experience being kept behind a paywall. Come on now, R72/m is basically nothing. I pay it happily: as many woodwork videos as I can possibly want, the kids don't complain about ads when they watch Masha and the Bear, and it's less than the cost of one takeaway lunch.

If they need to adjust the balance of what is free vs what's paid, in order to make the business sustainable, that's just fine by me.

 

[Nerhzelok]

I have doubts considering how people so easily accept that they're paying for things that used to be free.

Like how you just handwaved away 1080p quality that everyone had, now being reintroduced as super special new feature behind a paywall.

I didn't handwave it away as if it was insignificant.
In fact, lowering the bitrate of 1080p videos could've had a net-positive outcome in that it likely reduced bandwidth costs to YouTube and increased accessibility (think countries with higher internet costs) with a negligible impact on video quality.

Also, no one is saying it's a super special new feature.

To be honest, you seem really emotional on this matter and the discussion is becoming circular so I'll move on.

 

[backstreetboy]

YouTube Red, which is what Premium was called for years, literally used to be a joke online because of how useless it was. Especially the "free" music service they bundled which was dogsht.

Yeah no Google Play Music was superior to everything else. Nothing wrong with the new YT Music for me as well.

 

[Polymathic]

I have doubts considering how people so easily accept that they're paying for things that used to be free.

Like how you just handwaved away 1080p quality that everyone had, now being reintroduced as super special new feature behind a paywall.

Source for when they downgraded 1080p?

 

[Y'all Qaeda]

Which has been exasperated by YT adding more and more ads.

Do you see the point.

That they are monetising a service that they created and ran free for many years?

I don't agree with how they screw the creators, but in terms of charging for better quality and no ads - why not? The other video providers do it as well.

 

[Vorastra]

I don't agree with how they screw the creators,

Despite YouTube Premium getting more and more popular, still we see YTers complaining more now than before and taking more and more 3rd part sponsors.
Weird isn't it.

but in terms of charging for better quality and no ads - why not? The other video providers do it as well.

Did I say that at all.

I said YT is reducing the quality of features, then reintroducing them as new super special nice features for paying customers and pretending like you're getting something.

 

[Vorastra]

Jirre, lots of okes just missing the point, ne.

Then again, when your brain is in justify-purchase mode, what can I expect.

Don't worry. As YT starts adding higher premium tiers, and they will, eventually you okes will learn.

 

[newby_investor]

Don't worry. As YT starts adding higher premium tiers, and they will, eventually you okes will learn.

Learn what exactly?

At each stage it's a cost-benefit analysis. Same as DSTV premium, or your morning coffee or whatever.
Does the value that I'm getting justify the price? Yes? then buy it.
No? Then don't. Stop using it.

It's not as though 1080p high-bitrate streaming is a basic human right or anything.

 

[backstreetboy]

Jirre, lots of okes just missing the point, ne.

Then again, when your brain is in justify-purchase mode, what can I expect.

Don't worry. As YT starts adding higher premium tiers, and they will, eventually you okes will learn.

 

[Y'all Qaeda]

I said YT is reducing the quality of features, then reintroducing them as new super special nice features for paying customers and pretending like you're getting something.

If we're being honest, I would do the same. YT is a free service at it's core, whilst having an expensive infrastruture set up. I don't envy anyone trying to make it make more business sense - I say that having not looked at their financials and assuming they are still operating on non-existant margins or loss - whilst not alienating the user base. They kinda have a monopoly as well though, so as long as the changes are slow enough, people won't jump ship or create a market for an alternative.

 

[Johnatan56]

Sure, 1080p's bitrate took a backpeddle during COVID, never brought it back up, now they're charging for a higher bitrate.

I still don't really see any issue, 2k, 4k and 8k exist, there's more and more content being added, they still need to make money. And they're "testing" it, whether or not it sticks is based on the feedback and if it makes business sense to do so. I believe my point still stands. A business needs to adapt to continue thriving.

Incorrect, they did not decrease the quality of 1080p.
They reduced the default playback bitrate, so e.g. 720p instead of whatever the max your connection could handle.

The new premium is a higher bitrate 1080p offered on top of the current 1080p.

 

[Nerhzelok]

Incorrect, they did not decrease the quality of 1080p.
They reduced the default playback bitrate, so e.g. 720p instead of whatever the max your connection could handle.

The new premium is a higher bitrate 1080p offered on top of the current 1080p.

Thanks for the correction, though I'm not making the claim, just basing my response on earlier posts and used 1080p as an example.