LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Subscription charges are likely to be between $1 and $5 per month.
Read more.Subscription charges are likely to be between $1 and $5 per month.
Paid channels on YT are fine in my book, just as long as some of the existing content isn't "persuaded" to move to them, and no adverts on the paid-for content. The latter really annoys me about some Android apps - you pay for them and they put up ads too.
Career status: still enjoying my new career in DevOps, but it's keeping me busy...
It would be really lame though if all these media companies charge subscriptions just to listen/watch music and music videos... Especially since you would need multiple subscriptions for different music labels etc...
And there is no doubt that these companies have already thought about this. It's just another way to squeeze money out of the public.
It would also alienate 99% of viewers.
"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams.
I do think it's a good idea though! It would help fund talented individuals to keep producing great entertainment. I imagine it is quite expensive to produce quality videos. Also having some well-known satellite channels that you can view all over the world without a hefty satellite subscription would be a plus!
However as I said it does allow greedy media companies to needlessly charge for content like music videos. It's not like they don't already have money piling in from record sales, downloads and events...
"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams.
First para - good point. It also might be a way for stuff that's not "commercial" enough to get done. Bit of a bug bear of mine that there's perfectly popular shows that get cancelled because they're not "commercially appealing" so none of the US networks pick them up.Originally Posted by smithy1158
Not that bothered about the music video's angle. I can't remember I saw a video for a current track and thought "oo, I'd like to see that again". Then again, I don't go in for these "live concert" DVD's much either.
Career status: still enjoying my new career in DevOps, but it's keeping me busy...
Sounds like the "Cocaine Dealers Business Model" I read in the Financial Times.
Get people hooked by offering free goods, kill off the competition, then slowly make the addicts pay knowing full well they have no alternative but to pay if they still want any similiar level of high.
Not that I'm bothered, I wont subscribe to watch the usual uploaded rubbish since I rarely watch it now while it's free, but if they are offering premium shows that are original like HBO and Sky Atlantic do, then I'll happily subscribe to a series.
I'm sure it will be cheaper than NetFlix / LoveFilm / Sky and I'll be able to choose what to subscribe to and what not depending on MY preferences, not just what they can get blicenses for.
It will be interesting to see how it develops with possibility of good ways forward
I rewrote the title
"Youtube will lose 90% of its users in Q2 2013"
Couldn't agree more.
This reminds me of eBay a bit. At the beginning, it was a proper site for people getting rid of all the toot they didn't want, at reasonable prices. Now you can't get to the toot for Businesses hawking their wares at inflated prices.
We'll end up with click->pay to see this->back->click->well done, have 30 seconds, click here to see the full video, and pay for it.->switch off and go watch telly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote