2057
YouTube's plan backfires, people are installing better ad blockers (www.androidauthority.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
485 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemdro.id/post/2883134 (!android@lemdro.id)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

They'd absolutely 100% be losing money with a $2 ad free tier. Ads make significantly more than that per user per month. Same with your """solution""" for higher res video. Bandwidth is goddamn expensive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I agree, but they'd get a large number of users to subscribe.

    And then maybe they wouldn't complain when they raised the price to $3. And a few months later maybe $3.50. Then $5.

    A few years ago, people wouldn't have paid over $15 for a standard Netflix tier without 4K. But the way to boil a frog is to make them nice and comfy in lukewarm water, then keep increasing the temperature slowly... So even if they lose money, maybe a low price for the ad-free YouTube could make sense, from a business perspective.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Every time Netflix rises prices it makes it to the news (let alone all the drama on twitter/reddit/etc), I don't know what frog boiling you're talking about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Yet they keep posting more and more profits. Subscriber count has only increased despite the content being lower quality and prices being higher. The fact that we don't like them increasing the prices doesn't mean it isn't working for them.

    I'm not arguing it will work forever, but for now, it's been a viable strategy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent