YouTube Now Charging Up to $10 a Month to View Select Channels
YouTube is reportedly going to start charging money for access to select video channels, although the exact details have yet to be announced. In this brief but lively discussion, our experts ponder the eternal question: What would it take to get you to pay for a YouTube channel?
Follow @dealnews for the latest roundups, price trend info, and stories. You can also sign up for an email alert for all dealnews features.
Please note that, although prices sometimes fluctuate or expire
unexpectedly, all products and deals mentioned in this feature were
available at the lowest total price we could find at the time of
publication (unless otherwise specified).
You might also like
This doesn't really impact anything. All you have to do is look for the songs we want and not pay for the channels that you have to pay for. Sooner or later they'll have to take it off if they see we aren't using those channels. It's just like gas prices. It's low, everyone uses it, then it goes up, no one uses it, then it goes back down.
I guess we need to come up with a new 'YouTube' to get the old YouTube back. It is ridiculous that we have to pay for parts of YouTube now, when they make their money by advertisers. Goes to show you how greed takes over.
I think it stinks but i knew sooner or later someone would start charging for the videos on their service. So what now i have to pay to see video of grumpy cat? I did try and watch and old episodes of the avengers that was on about a year or so and now they want to charge me money to see reruns
It depends on the offerings & the intrusiveness of the ads, but based on what I've seen thus far, I'm not very tempted. Add something like BBC iPlayer for $4.99 (or less, preferably) & I'll consider it.
I certainly would never pay-but truth is: If someone is stupid enough to
pay then free enterprise dictates that You Tube would charge. It's supply and
demand...if their subscribers dry up then they simply quit charging.
The only thing they will get from me is my $.02 cents.
I don't have cable, so if YouTube or someone had come up with a good replacement at a low price like this it would have been worth considering. If they had devised blockbuster original content - something on par with LOST or Game of Thrones - many would have subscribed, although many like myself would just stay with free content.
However the offerings shown are laughable and bilboBagit just pointed out subscribing doesn't even remove the ads. Netflix offers more, is cheaper, and in my book still isn't worth paying for compared to free hulu.
I just have to wonder if something else is coming. Google just seems too smart to fail this badly.
Ahem ... ...
NO FREAKING WAY.
I hope I was not unclear.
With numerous other alternatives that show much, much, much better content (almost always at a lower cost than that described in the article), you'll never see me paying to watch pulp fiction, homemade, and third rate productions. You'll have to pry my HTPC remote from my cold dead fingers first.
Again, I hope I was not unclear.
YouTube just want to double-dip, get money from advertisers AND viewers!! Enough with the constant breaking down of products/services into smaller parts and charging for each. Before we know it we'll be paying for the milk we add to our coffee at Starbucks, or maybe even have to pay rent to have a chair to sit on!
I don't want to pay for anything that has commercials.
i don't want to pay for a service that has only part of a TV series.
I don't want to pay for a dozen different services to get the content I want.
That brings me to pay-per-view and I don't want to pay more than $.25 per hour for that.
You say that's not enough income to produce the shows. I say the moguls of TV and Hollywood will need to adjust to a new reality.
Of course not! All this will do is to provide a platform for a new entrant into the on-line video world, or boost one that already exists. Just look at the way JCPenny is back-tracking after the former Apple CEO totally ruined their business model!
I am against paying for any internet based content. I am old enough to remember that the internet was invented expressly for the sharing of information, not for profit. "Subscription" services are not new, we have had them in the form of newspapers and magazines for over 100 years. However, it has come to my attention that there is a concerted effort to get people hooked on certain things that are computer based, like Microsoft Office for example, then after we have tied our life to it, it becomes a "subscription" service where by you will in the future no longer be able to buy a product, but will have to be satisfied with renting a license to "subscribe" to it. I wonder how long it will be before private citizens can no longer buy their own house and property, but will only instead be allowed to purchase 1 year "subscriptions" (leases) of property that is only allowed to be owned and profited from by large companies? Think about it, kids.
If the content is worth it, then sure. Kind of a silly question. Even the users below would break down and pay if there was something that exclusive to one of their their niche interests, compelling enough, that doesn't make it on cable, was of high enough quality, and was unavailable elsewise, then of course they would shell out 99 cents or whatever.
I think most people misunderstand this new product model. It's not as though YouTube plans on asking you pay for Keybord Cat or Soruce Fed or Tobuscus videos. This would be another tier of more polished content.
Paying for this would be no different than paying for cable, Netflix, or Hulu Plus.