questionswould you pay for youtube?

vote-for45vote-against
vote-for32vote-against

no, I hardly use it now so why would I pay

vote-for27vote-against

Absolutely not. Hard to imagine a scenario where I would change my mind.

vote-for23vote-against

I'd be fine with paying for content that's worth the price, like the new season of Arrested Development.

If you're talking about "channels" as in users' channels that are currently free then no.

vote-for17vote-against

No way. A small fee to make Youtube ad-free? Perhaps. But beyond that no chance.

vote-for16vote-against

We all know that Google needs the money.

Sorry, I just through out my back laughing.

vote-for12vote-against

@morriea: Upvote for the humor I see behind your statement, but if this were going to happen I imagine a portion of the money would actually be going to the people behind the channel. Read the question as "would you pay to subscribe to Geek and Sundry?", or fill in whatever your favorite channel might be. When phrased that way, my answer changes slightly. It changes from an immediate "Hell no, are you drunk or something?", instead provoking some thought. After said thought, I still believe the answer is no. YouTube as a delivery mechanism still needs a lot of tweaking before I would subscribe to a pay channel. Would I pay $1.99/month for Geek and Sundry? Ehhh...perhaps. Let's address the infrastructure first before answering the question though. In my specific case that means a YouTube app for the TiVo that doesn't suck.

vote-for11vote-against

I won't say categorically that I'd never pay for a subscription to some channel, but I at the moment I can't think of any reason at all that I would do so.

vote-for10vote-against

@stile99: Oh, lordy! You've explained exactly how I feel, before I figured out how I feel. That's spooky. Cool, but spooky.

vote-for11vote-against

I agree with @natedogg828:
@thedogma: no kidding the ads were layered last time I checked.

@natedogg828: Was natedogg213 used?

vote-for10vote-against

@caffeine_dude: since there are many of us natedogg's out there on the interent I went with my birthdate of August 28 to come up with my username. and a double call out in one post...I must really be in trouble now

vote-for8vote-against

Not for the typical YT content, it's mostly garbage.
If they run with this, it should effectively shut down the likes of HULU.

j5 j5
vote-for7vote-against

I can't imagine what they'd offer that I'd be willing to pay for. But, we shall see.

From what little I've heard, they're trying to jump into the streaming market with Netflix and Hulu. Is that true?

vote-for6vote-against

I don't visit YouTube with enough regularity to really judge, which is sort of on the face of it a "no". But there are two things I do visit YouTube for. One is when I hear a snatch of song on the radio that catches my interest and I want to hear it through before buying it, I go to YouTube. But I wouldn't pay for that. The other is that sometimes I will spend a couple of hours watching movie previews. I love movie previews. If there were a channel (and I'd imagine there probably is) that was just a huge stockpile of upcoming movie trailers and great ones from movies past I'd be willing to pay a couple of bucks a month for that.

vote-for8vote-against

Nah. Youtube is a fun place to waste a few minutes, look at some cute kittens or people falling off things. But I've yet to see any content there that was actually worth money. I guess it can't be completely dismissed until we know what the channels contain, but let's face it, 4 channels would be the same cost ($8) as a month of Hulu Plus, which has tons of professional content including popular shows and feature films. It seems impossible that whatever youtube would offer would match that.

Google used to be one of my favourite tech companies, but they've done a lot of really boneheaded stuff lately (closing Google Reader, trying to get people on Youtube to use their real names, pushing Google+ when it's clearly never taken off, and now this!) In only a year or so they've gone from one of the world's smartest companies to pretty clueless.

vote-for3vote-against

@starblind: That's funny. I finally setup a Google+ account to test a g+ button I put on a website and they held it up because they weren't sure I was a real person. I guess it is taking off swimmingly or else they couldn't be so picky.

vote-for7vote-against

No.
Once in a while I just go look for cute videos of puppies or something to entertain myself for a bit.
Or occasionally to see a demonstration of some product or process that I have an interest in.
But generally, there just isn't enough there that I care enough about to pay for it.

PS--Speaking of adorable puppy videos; you just can't watch this without saying ahhhh (make sure sound is up)

http://youtu.be/jCnAjel02lM

vote-for4vote-against

Not in a million years! Well...Maybe...If there were more Kitten Videos...theres NEVER enough of those...

vote-for6vote-against

Google can suck the big one, there is no way that I would pay $1.99/month/channel. If they go that route, it only would push someone else to do something similar for cheaper.

vote-for3vote-against

I would be willing to pay $1 a month to never see ads again.

vote-for7vote-against

If they start charging for content it might also make them more vulnerable to copyright infringement suits. You pretty much can't shoot a video or take a photo without some level of copyright infringement. Every indoor photo I take at home includes someone's art in the background, for example. YouTube is filled with violations. So many people add music to their home videos, and lots of people are using clips of video as well.

vote-for2vote-against

@thedogma: I agree. If the fee is small and it is ad free, I might pay.

I refuse to pay for Hulu prime because the ads are still there.

vote-for2vote-against

Some channels like Epic Mealtime, Freddie Wong, and Rhett and Link may be worth a dollar to me to pay to see there stuff, but two? Not really. I mean, I like some of the more popular channels on Youtube, but these people got big on the site through their talents and hard work alone, not because Youtube threw money at them. So why should I pay Youtube for something that some one else did?

vote-for2vote-against

Last I remember, over 48 hours of video content was uploaded every hour of every day. That requires a what seems like infinite amount of bandwidth and storage to be able to keep up with the demand.

There will come a point when the ad revenue does not meet the expense of keeping all of the servers, network equipment, data centers, employee salaries, etc. (not to mention legal fees and dealing with copyright infringement)

I can see YouTube eventually being a pay-to-view website period (and still having ads pop up). Similar to paying for Cable Television.

Population is increasing.. YouTube is one of the most visited websites on the world wide web, and bandwidth cost money.

Does it suck? Yes... Will I pay for YouTube service? Probably.