An individual plan now cost $15.99 per month, and the free tier comes with buggy ads.
See full article...
See full article...
YouTube increases Premium price again, says 90-second unskippable ads are a bug
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I have YT Premium and Google TV for the family ATV. I’d happily pay more if they’d find a way to combine them with a little discount to soften the hit.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
It's unbearable to watch with ads and they know it. Even when you pay to be ad free channels are free to show ads anyway and many do. Google knows there is no real alternative to you tube so in the midst of a terrible economy, on behalf of a criminal president they gave money to, they raise the prices. Basically a big FU from Google to everyone.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Of course, we want to support creators, and generally I pay for good and services...
But there's a limit. Once the ads become so obnoxious and numerous you can't even reliably use it for educational plans, and they start working into the products you ARE paying for, and they jack up the prices again...
Well, let's just say I understand why someone(tm) might go with a browser extension to solve the problem.
(And to be clear, if Youtube went back to their original ad model, jpg and gif banners off to the side that are out of the way and don't detract from what you're trying to do, I wouldn't have issues with them at all. I only block the obnoxious stuff, and am entirely fine with a few ad banners chasing along the side like a dog excited to see me. It's the difference between a passive billboard, and an absolute gigantic glowing screen showing a 30 second commercial to everyone on the highway. The former is just background noise, the latter is a 30 car pileup.
And yes, I know that advertisers want the latter because it's more "effective". I don't care about effectiveness, and secondly, at the end of the day, if everyone's limited to the same old fashioned ads, they're still on a level playing ground. Everyone inventing these more and more invasive tech are of course trying to reach MORE than their competition, but it's just running as fast as they can to stand still.
But there's a limit. Once the ads become so obnoxious and numerous you can't even reliably use it for educational plans, and they start working into the products you ARE paying for, and they jack up the prices again...
Well, let's just say I understand why someone(tm) might go with a browser extension to solve the problem.
(And to be clear, if Youtube went back to their original ad model, jpg and gif banners off to the side that are out of the way and don't detract from what you're trying to do, I wouldn't have issues with them at all. I only block the obnoxious stuff, and am entirely fine with a few ad banners chasing along the side like a dog excited to see me. It's the difference between a passive billboard, and an absolute gigantic glowing screen showing a 30 second commercial to everyone on the highway. The former is just background noise, the latter is a 30 car pileup.
And yes, I know that advertisers want the latter because it's more "effective". I don't care about effectiveness, and secondly, at the end of the day, if everyone's limited to the same old fashioned ads, they're still on a level playing ground. Everyone inventing these more and more invasive tech are of course trying to reach MORE than their competition, but it's just running as fast as they can to stand still.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Article doesn't mention it's WAY more expensive in Europe AND no yearly discounts there either!
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I don’t know how people can watch youtube beyond a video on how to maintain a lawnmower or coffee maker the few times a year you need to disassemble one. And even then it’s only because those companies refuse to host their own videos for their own products. Youtube is google an google sucks, and is by far the hardest tech company to pihole. It’s freaking scary how hard it is.
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
jonbob_newcastle
Ars Praetorian
Premium Lite gets rid of “most video ads” - £10.49 ($14)
Premium - £17 ($23)
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
Most of my YouTube watching is in the living room on my AppleTV, so adblockers aren't an option there to begin with.
But the price they're charging for Premium is just too damn much. I'd be willing to pay no more than $5 to make ads go away. And I bet I'm not the only one. Until then, I just endure them.
But the price they're charging for Premium is just too damn much. I'd be willing to pay no more than $5 to make ads go away. And I bet I'm not the only one. Until then, I just endure them.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
The following rant-adjcent post may be somewhat off-topic? I'm not sure... but here it is anyways:
- - -
Not specific to YouTube (in fact, I haven't seen this from YouTube yet) but many sites have started openly classifying tracker-blocking software as ad blockers. The oh-so-helpful instructions about how to turn off ad-blockers (and thereby be permitted to view their content) have started to list the common tracker blockers as well. Along with, of course, the standard complaints about how blocking ads is not only selfish and unfair but also may destroy their economic viability.
This conflation of tracker managing software with ad blockers is of course a misleading and dishonest one.
I personally don't use an ad-blocker, because I am willing -- as a matter of general principle -- to accept ad views in exchange for "free" content, as a fair and honest exchange, as long as the ads themselves are reasonable and "well behaved" (ie. not excessive and not malware).
But for some reason (I can't imagine why
) I feel rather differently about overly inquisitive trackers. I don't mind (or at least, don't object to) the deal of being presented adverts to "pay" for viewing content. But having God-knows-who (usually multiple parties) peering over my shoulder and recording every site, every click, on every page (and maybe every paragraph) and every like or share, to compile a profile that is easily exploited by any party that can be bothered to take advantage of that data -- that not only creeps me out, but strikes me as bad for society in general.So I've installed Privacy Badger, kindly provided for free by the EFF. (I think Firefox also has some similar feature, but I rely on Privacy Badger.) Note that Privacy Badger doesn't block all the trackers, just the ones that are for one reason or another problematic and/or intrusive on user privacy.
The fact that blocking the dubious trackers just happens to result in the majority of ads not being displayed on my screen is not the intended result, but certainly doesn't bother me either. That's just a bonus
. After all the web site is still perfectly free to show me their ads -- I won't block them -- but is not free to spy on me. If they choose to, they can show me ads, but stalking me online is a totally different matter.Too bad if these web sites and the advertising industry would prefer to track and profile me. Maybe they even take this modus operandi for granted. But I have a right to reasonable privacy. And if that's not good enough for them, I can usually find the same or close-enough content elsewhere. And if they lie to their audience and try to present tracking as merely a necessary part of serving advertisements, that only strengthens my motivation to simply not bother with that site and to go elsewhere instead.
Last edited:
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
I don't believe that today's online advertising is "more effective"... at least, not in terms of advertising, a.k.a. reaching the target audience and potential customers.
I think that in reality, the present model of online advertising is the way it is because it's "more effective" at scooping up advertising fees. It serves the advertising companies better than it serves the customers (whether "customer" is understood to be the buyer or the vendor of the product/service being advertised).
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I watch more YT content than anything else. I have some news or educational or whatever video running in the back ground all day. These price hikes are getting harder to swallow though and Google is pretty nasty to their paying customers to boot. Here's just one example.
It used to be that in-line, linked, videos detected that you were a YT sub and provided a "Watch on YouTube" button. Clicking that button would, of course, open a YT tab and play the video. Now you have to click the player, which runs an ad before a "YouTube" button appears.
It's dirty AF and pisses me off every time I have to deal with it.
It used to be that in-line, linked, videos detected that you were a YT sub and provided a "Watch on YouTube" button. Clicking that button would, of course, open a YT tab and play the video. Now you have to click the player, which runs an ad before a "YouTube" button appears.
It's dirty AF and pisses me off every time I have to deal with it.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
More content is uploaded to YouTube per hour than any human could watch. The vast majority of YouTube content gets fewer than 100 views.
No, not really. Video hosting and serving infra is quite different, to the point that YouTube has its own query engine optimized for spelunking video- and channel-associated data.
Vastly higher hosting costs, in perpetuity. Want to watch a YouTube video from 16 years ago? Go ahead.
Want to watch a Hulu episode from 7 years ago? It might not be available, despite having been a "Hulu Original."
Price hikes still suck, tho.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
I'd never knowingly give Google money, so I honestly have no idea - what exactly are people paying for? Is it regular YT videos without ads, or do they have shows and movies on the subscription tier?
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Did you miss the part where they made more profit than ever last year, but feel the need to raise prices anyway?
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
stop using the youtube app on your phone and just use brave browser on a computer. it will save you hundreds of dollars and hours of your time.
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
Well, money isn't really money anymore so, I guess... it just gets hard to keep track of things, that's all.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
it's both i think. the deal is better in the us coz you get nfl etc. R.O.W just gets ad free.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
They pay the creators a cut if the creators hustle enough. You need to both publish at a minimum frequency and accumulate a minimum amount of viewing hours on your content to even become eligible for monetising your content on YT.
Everyone else gets ads slapped on their videos with zero control over it.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
"Sponsored" doesn't mean the creator was sponsored to make the video. It means Youtube was paid to show you the video. They're just ads with extra steps.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
That seems like a weird way to do things, when you can just use one of the many YT download plugins that grab videos much faster than real time, and don't include ads at all.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Who blocks the blockers?
Seriously, it must be fun and tedious to be on the YouTube Anti-Ad-Blocker Blocking Team. Some of the workarounds they see are probably clever, but the backlash must be annoying.
I also think about you every time I update or rotate the AdBlocker. Nothing personal, I just don’t care about amazing new ___ or the truly insane drug commercials.
Seriously, it must be fun and tedious to be on the YouTube Anti-Ad-Blocker Blocking Team. Some of the workarounds they see are probably clever, but the backlash must be annoying.
I also think about you every time I update or rotate the AdBlocker. Nothing personal, I just don’t care about amazing new ___ or the truly insane drug commercials.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I don't watch a lot of YouTube to begin with, but a couple months ago I did submit to the exhortations of one of the folks I subscribe to and tried out a subscription to Nebula. It's a hand-curated selection of creator accounts, rather than the immense free-for-all of YouTube, so it's really only useful if you have any interest in the video essays, comedy specials, cinema experiments, or wacky game shows produced by the couple hundred people/organizations they've picked to be on the service, but I will say it's nice to bypass the 2020s Big Tech ecosystem and get ad-free video with no strings attached, knowing that my subscription fee is going directly to the person I see onscreen and their production staff.
This isn't a Nebula ad, and like I said, it's only a good idea if you already know you want to support at least one of the participants (I'll probably renew after my discounted trial year, but who knows), but I just wanted to point out that there are other options if you want ad-free viewing in a possibly-sustainable media environment. Curiosity Stream (which I had for a couple years) has lots of cool science and tech-related documentaries! Heck, just skim through this convenient rundown from a more-reliable-than-not tech news site only half a year ago.
https://meincmagazine.com/gadgets/2025/08/these-are-the-best-streaming-services-you-arent-watching/
This isn't a Nebula ad, and like I said, it's only a good idea if you already know you want to support at least one of the participants (I'll probably renew after my discounted trial year, but who knows), but I just wanted to point out that there are other options if you want ad-free viewing in a possibly-sustainable media environment. Curiosity Stream (which I had for a couple years) has lots of cool science and tech-related documentaries! Heck, just skim through this convenient rundown from a more-reliable-than-not tech news site only half a year ago.
https://meincmagazine.com/gadgets/2025/08/these-are-the-best-streaming-services-you-arent-watching/
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
jonbob_newcastle
Ars Praetorian
It’s to remove ads in regular videos, and enable downloading and background playback.
There are some films and TV shows available PPV on YT, and there used to be a thing called YouTube TV but neither are covered by ‘YouTube Premium’. Funny how they use “premium” to mean “not completely covered in shit”.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I'm not watching ads attached to videos. I'm blocking sponsor segments in videos. My computer, my rules. Their bottom line, their problem. End of story.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
I have a pile of unread books. Reading them seems to make me happier than watching videos on the internet. Just have to push back against the addictive impulse to watch one more.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Are they still delivering the content from those light users? They they've gotta pay the bills somehow.
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
What does that have to do with "ads are a scam because they're on other people's content?" Ars is running Ads on this content that you and me are creating. Sure, most of the draw might be the big names on the bylines or the articles, but there is definitely a lot of traffic coming to make comments. Is Ars a scam?
Yeah, Google makes money from YouTube. Big fucking shocker. However, I appreciate that the people I watch get paid to make their content. They wouldn't do it otherwise. That's why I pay for YouTube and Nebula. I like a lot of this small creator content that wouldn't exist without YouTube.
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
YouTube TV is basically an Internet-based cable package, and very much still exists.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I will not pay for youtube.
I will not watch ads on youtube.
If those are the only two options available, I simply won't watch youtube.
I will not watch ads on youtube.
If those are the only two options available, I simply won't watch youtube.
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
Same here. Day 1 Google Music All-Access subscription which morphed into YouTube Premium. Will never cancel this $8 deal as we’ll never see any streaming service this cheap again.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Yeah that's insanely convoluted when yt-dlp exists.
Plus they're bitching about something that doesn't exist? YT Premium users don't get any ads. That's the point.
I feel like I've really been an asshole to Fatesrider recently, but god damn man, you can't keep being this wrong.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Shhhh. If Google finds out they forgot to raise our rates, I'm going to find you guys and break your kneecaps.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I know uBlock Origin used to work but then it didn't some months ago. Then I tried the Brave browser to only watch YouTube. So far, it works perfectly. Google seems to determined to kill YouTube. If they break Brave, then I'll gain back hours of my time when I quit watching. Many of the YouTube channels I watch have built in ads for sponsors. The keyboard shortcuts to skip back or ahead are J, L, for 10 seconds and Home, End for 5 seconds.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
So far smart tube with sponsor block does the trick. If that ever stops I'll just do what I did with Prime video and stop watching.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Another reason for switching from Chrome when I saw this
LinkedIn Hidden Code Secretly Searches Your Browser for Installed Extensions
I stopped using Chrome a long time ago.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)