Did anyone actually read the linked wiki in full? It’s basically saying “if there are embedded ads in certain live (likely sports) content we carry you may see them even on an ad-free plan because we don’t have an alternative. Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free’”
I’m all for consumer awareness but I’m begging everyone to stop freaking out over prosaic non-issues like this.
> Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free’”
Yes I see that as an ad. Do you not? Does anyone not? And if I'm on the highest paying ad free plan, what are they promoting to me?
I strongly agree, and it frustrates me when people and companies claim that advertising their own products "doesn't count." I cancelled my YouTube Premium plan because of ads. These are all the ads they permit on Premium, despite advertising everywhere that Premium removes all ads:
* Ads in YouTube feeds for other google products and services.
* Ads underneath videos for products from the channel owner.
* Sponsorships within videos from the channel owner.
* Advertising overlays (supported IN THE APP BY GOOGLE) for products and services from the channel owner.
* Email advertisements for Google products and services.
* Community post advertisements from channel owners which show up in the YouTube feed.
I contacted support to enquire and they state these are not considered advertising.
I don’t mind the in video sponsors. Some are good (ok map men ones are good), but crucially it’s not really something YouTube could directly block. They could put terms and conditions in place, but you’re driving product placement and it becomes a slippery slope.
Howver recently I’ve noticed adverts for “membership” for channels, and that is getting me close to picking my youtube habit.
Same with Spotify and advertising concerts, but that seems to have gone away for me after I complained.
Sadly even the bbc does adverts on iPlayer. You used to be able to instantly skip them, but then in a big (internal) fanfare some idiot decided they could make them not skippable and increase some metrics and then get a promotion.
YouTube actually does block sponsor spots in videos if you have Premium. They call it "Skip Ahead" and don't really talk about sponsor spots, but practically speaking it's 9/10 just the "skip sponsor segment" button.
I remember about 10-15 years ago YouTube actually did try to ban sponsor spots in videos, but the backlash from creators was strong enough that they walked that back to "ok well we'll allow sponsor spots but you can't just insert the sponsor's own ad, it's gotta be your ad read and B-roll".
Most of the UI features that YT added over the last few years can be thought of as a way to skip sponsor ads. e.g., thumbnail previews on the seek bar, the little histogram on the seek bar, auto-chapter detection, and playing at 2x when you click and hold on the video.
They make it slightly easier to find the end of a sponsor segment, while still requiring me to manually interact with the video. As an ad blocker I score that either F+ or D-.
I'm pretty sure that skip ahead is deliberately broken to satisfy advertisers.
Sponsorblock has zero issue jumping to the precise moment after the sponsor vs jump ahead always leaves just enough time to still hear the name of the sponsor.
Yes it tends to work one at a time, but some videos have two sponsor segments and it doesn’t work the second time. I assumed it skipped to where people often skip to.
that's not blocking though. It's allowing you to skip over the areas people commonly skip in videos where they take the data from everyone. I get them at sponsor slots of course, but also intros often. Because it's not removing it entirely, I would not consider that blocking.
The parent’s characterization is fine. 9/10 times (more in my own experience) it is the functional equivalent of a sponsor blocker. That it technically isn’t that specifically is immaterial, because if it works, that’s because people are skipping the sponsor segments in large enough quantities for it to easily become that.
That said, I don’t think YouTube owes it to Premium subscribers to add a sponsor block. That’s part of the video’s content as it was provided to YouTube, and YouTube never advertised YouTube Premium as something which will block in-video sponsor reads. This is part of how YouTubers make a living & a Premium sub doesn’t replace the money they receive for those the way it does for YouTube’s own ads.
It’s such a great feature, and I see why YouTube gates it to Premium.
Once you’ve transitioned from an ad-watching customer to a paid one, YouTube actually turns into something that treats your product experience and satisfaction as important.
It’s fascinating how it switches that off for non-paying users. Not a lot of companies’ services do that so obviously and blatantly.
In other words, when YouTube is being watched for free, they have that typical engagement incentive: keep you watching as long as possible, watch as many ads as possible, etc.
When you’re paying? Who cares, skip the content if you want. Use Gemini to summarize it, we don’t care if you watch the video.
I worked on Prime during the rollout of Prime Video and shortly after (maybe a year or so) pre-roll for other Prime Video content was inserted. I brought it up in a meeting with our org (but the Amazon Video team wasn’t present) and one of our business guys shrugged it off as not interrupting content, blah, blah, blah. I said the agreement was ad-free content, not uninterrupted content. The conversation stopped and nothing was done.
I worked on backend subscription management and the implementation of benefits. The team that business guy worked on was the group eventually at the center of the predatory subscription issue (I can’t say whether they were still around when that happened or not).
>* Ads underneath videos for products from the channel owner.
>
>* Sponsorships within videos from the channel owner.
I actually agree this is a bit annoying, but also the alternative is Google banning Youtubers from finding their own advertising partners, which I'm sure people would hate.
I'm sure content creators would hate it because they would make less money. Billions of YouTube users around the world would be very happy.
To be clear, I'm not opposed to the practise, as long as that's clear up front. YouTube advertises Premium as an ad free experience, and in reality it's full of ads.
Do they not have a little sponsor skip thing? Where like if many people skip a segment, itll pop up like hey, wanna skip? I mean, thats about all they can do besides forcing youtubers to disclose exact segment lengths which would concretely hurt them whereas this provides a little sort of breathing room, or just straight up ban them, both of which would dramatically hurt the platform.
I understand they have an opt-out feature now. With positive interaction one can skip one sponsored segment (which works most of the time). The problem is that it's not automated. It required digging one's phone out of their pocket, or reaching for the remote. That's still really annoying. To point: it's still full of ads, even if they have the skip button now.
YouTube could tell content creators not to include sponsorships. The terms are long and onerous. Of course content creators would be upset and they would make less money. Ultimately my issue is that YouTube advertises an ad free experience with Premium and it still has a LOT of ads.
I'm in favour of people making money from their work. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way. IMDB, Duolingo and Wikipedia have encouraged the model of using unpaid labour.
YouTube isn't paying people properly, despite its vast revenues. At least with sponsorship the people themselves make some money.
I'm not saying this is the way to go, but damn do I miss the old internet where passionate people presented information for free, at worst showing an affiliate link for an information-related book.
> I'm in favour of people making money from their work.
That's completely fair. YouTube offers content creators many ways to do this. For example, they can put content behind a paywall. They can ask for donations. They can ask for memberships. Members get all kinds of fun perks. The part I have an issue with is YouTube advertising an ad free experience with Premium and then allowing content creators to fill their videos with ads.
> YouTube isn't paying people properly
I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly, and not allowing content creators to shit all over viewers. That's pitting the little guys against each other while Google laughs all the way to the bank.
>I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly
The solution is proper competition to google. Because Youtube is pretty much the one true monopoly out there. But as we all know, video hosting alone is very,very, very expensive. It really is something you need to be a billion dollar company to do, and Youtube wasn't profitable until like... 2 years ago?
So I tolerate the user ad reads as the best compromise because nothing else would work. I don't think Youtube is a model where Google is being greedy so much as practical. At least not in how it monetizes creators (there's plenty of hostile means they do to creators as is, but the monetary structure seems fine).
> To be clear, I'm not opposed to the practise, as long as that's clear up front. YouTube advertises Premium as an ad free experience, and in reality it's full of ads.
I think it's clear. I don't want YouTube going in and editing movies and creator videos removing any form of advertising. Maybe you want them deleting that content. But the average person realizes what Premium means by no ads. Being obtuse or willfully ignorant isn't reasonable.
no it wouldn't, such things are straight up illegal in most places? You have to clearly disclose ads + have clear distinction between ad content and rest of content. A bunch of youtubers have gotten in trouble for this?
Pro tip. Ublock origin gets you that mostly ad-free experience you were hoping for. Donate the money you save from the YouTube premium sub to ublock origin instead.
uBlock Origin + SponsorBlock is the only way YouTube is even remotely watchable these days. Even still, it's not really worth it. I frequently find it better to spend my time doing anything else.
I mean, the stuff that's in the video is not really under Google's control.
Are you suggesting that the burden should be on channel owners to upload variations of their videos that don't include sponsor blocks? That's a bit onerous. My commercial agreement is with YouTube, not with the video creator.
If you don't like ads from creators, don't watch those channels?
YT Premium does provide the "skip ahead" functionality that almost always jumps over sponsor blocks.
I will say I've been a YT Premium subscriber for years and I've never seen any ads for other Google services in my feed, and I don't get advert emails either.
> I mean, the stuff that's in the video is not really under Google's control.
It is completely within Google's control. They have a hundred pages of terms of services, dictating everything the content creators may and may not do and say, down to individual words, symbols, and opinions. If Google wanted to, they could tell content creators to stop adding sponsorships. I understand you'd make less money.
> If you don't like ads from creators, don't watch those channels?
I stopped paying YouTube and I use SponsorBlock now. You're not entitled to my time or attention or money.
The problem is ultimately that Google advertises an ad free experience, which it's not. I'd be willing to pay for an ad free experience.
I'd pay $20 / month for a Youtube subscription with no ads or sponsored content. Unfortunately even with sideloading on iOS there's no alternative live youtube vanced.
It helps but I understand that it's not automatic. Is that correct? If so it significantly undermines the functionality. SponesorBlock automatically removes ads. Meaning I don't have to scramble to open my phone or find the remote every time I don't want to hear/see an ad. That opt-out UX likely means most people ultimately watch the sponsored content.
It could be that this is a phased approach so as not to anger their creators too much.
For me personally it is as easy as pressing one button on the remote. But I don't put on videos in the background very often.
Worth noting is that there are thousands of high quality YouTube channels without any sponsored content. So those are effectively completely ad free with Premium.
That's like complaining you purchased netflix subscriptiomn without ads and saw a product placement ad in a movie. I guess you want netflix to not show the movie, start cutting up the movie or ask that the movie be remade without any products.
YouTube sponsor segments are not subtle “place a Coke can facing the camera” integrations. They are dedicated ad segments with scripted (typically by the advertiser) promotions, often entirely unrelated to the video or channel.
To the end user they are indistinguishable from other video ads on the platform except the ad read is often (not always) done by the creator.
I don’t have hard data on the ratio but it’s not uncommon for a 10 minute video to have 1-2 minutes of full-interrupt ad segments embedded in the video.
I’ve been a paying customer of Dropbox’s consumer plan for over a decade. Each time I visit their website I am greeted with a full page modal ad asking me to upgrade to a different plan I have no use for.
I’ve dismissed it every time. I don’t mind being shown that ad once. But it bothers me that they don’t care enough about my experience using their product to provide a “never show this again” option.
Or just use some metrics to know that if I dismiss it 50 times then maybe I’m not interested.
This is a bigger problem than it may appear. The business lifecycle is well understood, whereby a company innovates, expands, and then when it has a sufficiently large customer base, it monetises. I.e. it enshitifies its products - making them more expensive over time relative to the value. This process is death by a thousand cuts. A PM might see that having the modal you hate show every time you load the site increases conversion by 3%. That's $1M ARR you just made the company! Wow! You get a bonus and a promotion! The problem is you erode customer sentiment by some undefined unit. Many people think NPS measures this, but it doesn't. That measures how many people love and hate the product. It omits the vast majority of people in the middle. They just add it to the increasing list of annoyances until one day there are so many annoyances that they leave. At that time it's very difficult for the company to understand why the user churned. It wasn't any one thing. It was a concerted effort over years to squeeze every cent out of the user at minimum cost.
> At that time it's very difficult for the company to understand why the user churned. It wasn't any one thing.
It's very easy to know for people inside the company who actually care about the product and for their clients. It is really hard for directors and VP that anything they understand are numbers.
If I say "hey this modal/pop up is making customers angry" they are going to ask how much they care (is there even an unit for that?) and how much revenue is lost. The only way for them to handle a project is creating a goal for next Q and assigning people, when in most cases what you need is actually the opposite.
The problem is not that no one knows how to fix it, the problem is that managers organize around big problems and become useless at improving the small things or details. They become blind. It happened to me 100 times. They do not want things to be fixed unless there's a clear revenue increase, which is stupid.
I get super bent out of shape when Apple TV+ advertises shows before the one I am trying to watch; even sometimes advertising the show that I am trying to watch itself and spoiling things.
I have actually cancelled my subscription because of this.
I've talked to Apple support about this. Their website says...
Apple Originals are always commercial-free.
But you are forced to watch ads for other shows before viewing an Apple original. The support person said that because the ads are before the show you are trying to watch, that the show itself is indeed commercial-free. Language lawyering at its finest.
My journey went from downloading movies and TV shows to paying for Netflix, Apple, and Prime. Then back to torrents to avoid all the trailers and ads and curated feed. It's so peaceful now.
Yeah, I actually canceled Netflix when they started making it impossible to look at the available shows without seeing previews of each of them. I am trying to leisurely decide what I want to watch, not have 15 different actors scream catchphrases at me.
I agree. I noticed recently an ad directly inside of 1Password. I’ve paid for a 1Password subscription since 2013, and have had a family plan for many years. I know the company changed hands several years back after AgileBits sold to VC, but this type of disrespect caused me to cancel my membership. There are plenty of alternatives that haven’t turned their focus to the “Enterprise” and aren’t trying to extract as much money as possible from their paying customers.
What would you say is comparable experience wise to 1Password? I’ve found particularly the 1Password Family plan there’s not really a good alternative of rolling with KeepassX, Bitwarden, etc.
The answer could be nothing and I still respect the choice to speak with your wallet.
Bitwarden, while not quite as polished, works well. If you have your own server at home you can even self-host, which I do. It's an open source server side app called Vaultwarden [https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden] which connects to the Bitwarden app.
I think the iCloud password manager also works pretty well, provided you're using Apple products.
I grew up with the Disney channel on cable as a kid in the 90s. Disney channel at that time was ad-free except for cross-promotions for other Disney channel shows, most of which I (as a kid who liked the Disney channel) wanted to know more about. I have HBO Now/max/go/whatever and before most shows there’s a skippable promo for HBO stuff. So yeah, I don’t think this is new and Disney+ as it is now is way more ad-free than either of those, so I’m not surprised they are trying to nudge the status quo back to a historical equilibrium; it’s just what these companies do
I’ll always pay more to see fewer ads. My kids see far, far, far fewer ads than I and my peers did growing up watching linear TV in the 90s and I’m going to keep it that way. If Disney+ gets in the way of that I’ll stop paying them and stop using their service, easy as that.
Anyone that doesn't see the obvious play here probably wasn't alive when cable was the "ad free" tv option.
These media companies cannot help themselves. Advert money is very tantalizing and they'll always want to find ways to sneak it in whenever and wherever they can.
> My kids see far, far, far fewer ads than I and my peers did growing up
But now these are targeted ads based on browsing data for ad profiles linked to your IP and devices. IMO just a few of these are far worse than the general run of commercials we used to have on TV. Corporations obviously think so too otherwise we would still have that.
I remember those days, and when Cartoon Network was the same. I didn't mind it then because, like you, I found the promos were a great way to know what was on the channel at different times. Especially in the age before on-screen guides.
But there are a few crucial differences between then and now: The ad spots were there to keep the timetables accurate, which is no longer necessary. They also served as a way to let you know what else was on the channel, which again is no longer necessary because that app opens to a menu of all available programming. And, now this is the important part, back then I wasn't specifically paying for ad-free access.
Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is, my Jellyfin server is about to get much more use.
You are implying something false. That he’s suggesting thats not an ad. Hes not suggesting that at all.
What he’s suggesting is that that’s very different from Disney gating or interspersing movies with ads. Which it is. You may disagree with that but you’re strawmanning him.
The BBC in the UK makes a great play of having "no ads" but 6Music (their indie music station) has constant cross-promotions interrupting the music, sometimes for jarring TV murder shows. Cross-promotion is just as annoying as ads for insurance, I hate it!
Yeah, those kinds of ads are always aggravating to me because you’re not even making money by showing them to me. They feel like a display of power more than anything else.
Yes I see those, and adverts for other services (watch this program etc) as adverts.
I don’t see adverts embedded in content as adverts. Be sure I’m watching the World Cup on bbc and see an advert on the players shirt doesn’t mean I want my money back, I’d rather we had no adverts, but it’s not unreasonable.
People turned a blind eye to Apple advertising it's own services in it's products for years. I saw people defend here, on HN. So, while yes, it's advertising, Disney is far from the first to do this.
I'm not saying it's right, only that people who claim to be opposed to ads are accepting of the type of ads we are discussing.
> if I'm on the highest paying ad free plan, what are they promoting to me?
I'm assuming they aren't showing you ads for the plan you are on.
An add, but no more than catching a glimps of a restaurant long after one has ordered. When standing in a shop it is normal to see prices for other products on offer.
One of the most egregious examples of this that's happened to me was with the DVD set of the second or third season of Mad Men. One of the unskippable pre-menu ads was for the next season.
And I didn't know what to say. Either I like the series and I'm going to buy the next season or I don't and I won't.
I may be an outlier but I don't really mind being shown a relatively short ad before watching something. I'm almost never really paying attention yet anyways. Like yes, I'd prefer it not to exist but it doesn't cause me to get into a fit of rage.
But ads in the middle of something I'm watching? Fuck right off with that.
In case folks aren't aware, Disney tried to avoid an allergy-related wrongful death lawsuit from a restaurant at Disney Springs (large publicly available outdoor mall that doesn't even require tickets) because a couple had a Disney+ streaming trial:
>they clearly would have tried to use it in any situation where they had potential liability.
That's just how lawyers work. They'll try to invoke any defense that's vaguely applicable, just like any plaintiff lawyer will try to invoke any cause of action that's vaguely applicable, like the plaintiffs in this exact case.
The TOS argument was so awful it deserves some kind of bonus loss, but let's put that aside for now.
Let's say I paint a fence, and my neighbor complains I ruined a particular segment that shouldn't have been painted. Why can't I argue that this segment was on my property and that my neighbor gave permission to use that paint on all segments on their property?
Let's say there's a 15% chance the survey was wrong about the fence location, and a 15% chance the court disagrees with how I'm interpreting the agreement. If I can use both arguments I have a 2% chance of losing, which seems fair to me. Both arguments are reasonable, so why should I have to risk it on only one?
When I watch motorcycle races live on Peacock with my no-ab subscription they just go quiet for the commercial breaks that other providers/plans run. No announcers or on screen displays, but it does keep a live feed or the race. So the whole "we don’t have an alternative" part I do take exception with.
fwiw... I believe Peacock is also allowed to run ads during live events, but at least during my motorcycle races they do not. a couple seasons ago they would go to a peacock banner and not show anything during the commercial breaks, but at some point they switched to just showing the raw video.
They already run ads for Disney parks, Hulu, ESPN, and other Disney owned content in the Premium tier. They just call them promos or sponsorships in the prior agreement.
The new agreement allegedly introduces a third term “advertisements”.
> We’ve clarified that all Service Plans may include: (i) promotional content, (ii) sponsorships, and (iii) advertisements before/after playback of Content and in channels, live/as-live, special events, and any third-party services content.
I say allegedly because I haven’t received any communication from Disney yet but various reporting refers to email people in European markets have received.
I feel like they stopped doing that, but there was definitively ads for other movies and shows because some movies on Disney+, but I haven't seen it in a while. It was pretty badly done, because you'd get confused and assume you'd started the wrong movie, so maybe they rolled it back?
The quoted text is identical to what I have received in an email from Disney+. I only tend to get a month at a time when I want to watch a given show, but if paying doesn't remove adverts, I'm not going to pay.
It sucks that Disney+ cancelled Bobba Fett and other great Star Wars series. One month at a time makes sense especially with the lack of new content that I want.
Ads embedded on the playing field? Sure. Billboards visible or sponsor logos on uniforms? I get it. Actual commercials? This is a solved issue for decades, there are "alternatives" as others have pointed out. This is a "Boiling frog" situation.
A lot of the ads on the field and perimeter are themselves inpainted. And becoming more and more offensive over time, with animation and flashing and such as technical capabilities improve and viewers become accustomed and don’t revolt.
No, there's nothing really to do. They aren't producing the feed, they're essentially hosting a stream from another broadcaster.
For instance, if you have Paramount+, you can watch sports broadcast by your local CBS station through it. That station is going to be running commercials, Paramount+ has no input on it. The most they can do is run ads over their ads.
I'm assuming there's something similar with Disney+. You can watch your local ABC broadcast or ESPN broadcast of a game, but you're just getting that broadcast as being currently aired.
But even for broadcasts wholly owned and controlled by a streaming platform, like Thursday Night Football on Prime, there are just times when it would be dead air. I don't entirely mind commercials in that instance. Nothing else is going on.
Let’s reverse the situation, they were able to add ads to sport events, so they can definitely remove ads and show the main event cameras if they wanted to. But they’re picking up showing ads indirectly through some other service.
I noted that the streaming service, like Paramount+, would be able to overlay their own ads over the broadcasted commercials, but they won't have control over the cameras. That's on the broadcast station, they're the ones controlling the remote production.
Paramount+ can only rebroadcast what my local CBS affiliate is broadcasting.
I think only Netflix and Prime have deals to actually produce sports broadcasts.
Does uBlock work on commercials aired as part of a stream/broadcast? I don't mean where they interrupt the stream and insert an ad, I mean that it's part of the video produced.
I genuinely don't know and am asking out of curiosity.
I'm unsure. I believe I've seen Telemundo at certain events, but they could have deals to rebroadcast and they'd have the same options as Paramount+. They can run ads over the broadcast ads and swap the audio feed with their own. The broadcast feed should have at the very least; a video feed, a crowd/stadium audio feed, and the commentary audio feed. So they could just not rebroadcast the commentary audio and replace it with their own.
Our research shows that people with peanut allergies buy a lot of candy bars. We want to tap into that market, so we make a product call NoPeanutBars. But making them in a dedicated peanut-free facility costs a lot of money and extra work, and we really can't figure out how to do it. So we just put a disclaimer on the back that says NoPeanutBars may actually contain peanuts. What's the big deal? We don't put the peanuts in there on purpose!
I don't mind self-ads especially if its like "Hey we're releasing this new movie in 2 weeks, are you aware?" just so long as I can skip them after the first time, and they are pre-cached when I open the app so you can download my movie / show in the background while this one plays. Guess I'm being wishful about good engineering. ;)
I'll be clear that no I didn't - I read the announcement when Disney+ emailed it to me with no further context, plus adding this disclaimer was the reason for the email. So I disagree that this is our fault.
They mailed me too, and I did read it in full. There's a link right there in the e-mail. I read it, and understood it's not at all what everyone here is claiming.
Well they do have an alternative. ESPN and I'm sure plenty of other live events will often play ads. But if you have a pihole or some issue that causes the ad not to play, the screen will just display something like, "Ad cannot be loaded. Event will resume in 1 minute and xx seconds."
Is that a GREAT alternative to seeing an ad? Nope. But in many peoples opions it sbetter than being force fed the same ads over and over when you paid for an ad free service.
And if you read the wiki in full you will see it also is talking about preroll content. I dont HATE the HBO pre roll ads for their own shows that play before I start an episode but it is still an ad. Its for content I might actually enjoy instead of for paper towels or insurance but it is still an ad. This is something that is entirely optional and that disney/hulu has decided doesnt count as an ad.
I'd argue that since TiVo, if you're showing ads because "we don't have an alternative", you actually want to show ads or at least won't make any effort to implement a 20 year old technology for the sake of convenience.
When you select play on the media, does that media play, or some other bullshit get inserted first?
Call it what you want, if it's serving me content I didn't ask for, I'm not happy about it, especially if I'm paying extra for them to not do that explicit thing.
They could. They won't, because those ads are probably - if you excuse a little Claudish - the load-bearing part of the contract that allows them to show the content in the first place.
(More cynical take: the ads are the whole point, the content itself is just a vector to get those ads in front of people, and prime them to be receptive.)
1. Now you just have a blank screen. Sure some people might like that but others will think there's an issue with the stream.
2. They're purchasing the rights to show the sports stuff, not actually producing it themselves and removing the ads would make the cost of the rights astronomical.
Even when expensive linear TV packages were the norm, they still came with ads. With live TV paying has never negated the need for ads.
1. There doesn’t have to be a blank screen. Major League Baseball’s streaming service, for example, plays highlights or a placeholder video saying a commercial break is in progress.
2. What? They own ESPN which is producing the content, right?
Baseball literally has an ad-free tier for its live streaming service. I’m sure it’s not the only live service that does.
None of your points seem well considered. Why run interference for these companies?
I'm not familiar with MLB, only with NBA. But even their "ad-free" really isn't - there are still ad banners inside the arenas, on the court itself, and on the jerseys, the announcers often read ads ("this segment was brought to you by ..."), and if there is arena feed during the regular breaks, the in-arena events like a half-court shot are often sponsored as well. Plus there's standard service ads that announce next games.
Unless MLB blurs/bleeps all of these, it's not really ad-free.
1. I hate the MLB one the most. I'm international so maybe it works differently but each season they come up with these horrible clips that they play on repeat. Sometimes it's a little short history snippet or this season some stuff about food. Problem is they have minimal content and so many breaks that by day two of the season they're tortuous. I'd rather have ads.
2. It probably depends on what sports we're talking about. Again, I'm thinking internationally where they've started showing La Liga this season.
> 1. Now you just have a blank screen. Sure some people might like that but others will think there's an issue with the stream.
NASCAR has a separate feed for international broadcasts without their ads. During the ad break they'll just show an overhead camera or maybe an in car camera.
Yeah I'm familiar with that. I guess it all depends on the sport and country. Ads during the sport is quite unusual in the UK for example so we get that NASCAR feed where the camera continues with no commentary during US ad breaks. We also have a cool setup for Indycar where a local UK commentator jumps in to talk over the feed while the US goes to a break. For MLB (on their own league pass product) we get a blank screen or non-ad montage thing in between innings (although as I mentioned in another comment that's its own kind of hell).
Those are definitely ads and definitely not what I want out of a streaming service I am paying for. This is why I don't use Amazon Prime Video much, even Apple TVs subtle ads for other programs are distasteful and I get Apple TV for free, it still pisses me off.
In every large org, including disney, there are people who will fuck with you to the full extent of the terms and laws if they think it can increase profit... they do not care about quality, experience, or morals. I've fought these people about marketing emails at dozens of orgs as a consultant.
I guarantee they will eventually use this to show more ads. The goldfish grows to fit its bowl.
That's why I don't really care that much about terms and conditions. Just because they say they can doesn't mean that they will, conversely, the writing can be misleading to anyone who isn't a specialized lawyer, so most people can't really tell what the terms and condition let them do anyways.
I usually go for reputation and precedent rather then legalese. And in the case of Disney, they had ads in their video tapes and DVDs, so I don't need to read the user agreement to know that it has a good chance to come to Disney+, whatever the legal pathway is.
look we know 99% of people hate being tracked but we need the data to see if 0.1% or 0.5% people are clicking the links, you've got to be a team player here
> Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free
I don't like when I press play and an advertisement starts for some other freshly released content on the same platform.
Boohoo the billion dollar giant can't do the same thing that regional sports have been doing for the last 20! years with the likes of NFL and Baseball.
Words matter. Words in advertising should matter. The slope is ice when we allow corporations to wordsmith around what they sell you.
Advertising is just a front for the surveillance capitalism/state and the one of foundation to the digital prison system. Of course they want ads on your devices.
It's worse than that. Advertising is a vector for dumping who-knows-what into our minds. Would you let random corporate sponsors put whatever they wanted into your food after you'd already put in the work to choose what you're eating?
To me, my time has value, and my thoughts have more. A party whose goal is to interfere with both, and who actively schemes to interfere with the integrity of both is not merely greedy, they are a hostile actor.
There are a few cases of ads that might not be practical to remove, though most of that would be more like sponsors and ad content that is a part of the show. You can certainly get live sports without ads, though you will of course still have the pauses in the game that allow the ads in the first place. But it's not unusual to see e.g. the halftime in soccer filled with analysis on public television that doesn't allow ads in that circumstance.
In most of these cases, you will see a place like D+ carry the same announcers as the TV station. Here Inbet it would be ESPN crews. So having a different, special crew just for ad breaks would not be exactly great. And given the density of ads in, say, the Super Bowl, you would be hard pressed making this a good experience.
If you pay to avoid ads, you are merely letting them know that you have disposable income to spend on this sort of stuff. You're doing their job for them by segmenting yourself into the upper echelons of the market.
At some point, some shareholder value maximizing CEO is going to show up and notice how much money he's leaving on the table by not advertising to all of those people full of disposable income.
This is part of why last year I mostly switched to just borrowing DVDs from my public library. Avoiding ads by not paying seems to do the trick rather nicely. The quality and variety is better than what I can find on any one streaming service, too.
Every year it gets more and more important to learn how to not be sucked in by a small amount of convenience. "Capitalism" has figured out how to abuse your desire for maximum convenience. You need to figure out what your price is for it, and stick to it like glue.
The funny thing is the sooner you get off of some particular convenience treadmill the easier it is to stay off.
The funny thing is, it may be less convenient but it's also more enjoyable.
Endlessly scrolling some algorithmic feed hunting for something to watch can be done without getting off the couch, but it isn't actually fun. Walking to the library with my family to return a stack of books and movies and check out some new stuff is one of the highlights of our weekend.
For anyone who's wondering where to start, I'd like to suggest that your library probably has a copy of WALL-E.
You're not wrong. But the only solutions appear to be varying levels of being a free-rider, which means the thing you like probably gets deleted anyway when it's deemed unprofitable. The long-term solution is probably to only consume locally-made goods and content, public-domain content, or vintage goods.
You can cancel a subscription. That's how subscriptions work. That means that any future changes is not a concern for current offerings.
And I can't understand why hackers never acknowledge this.
I can put gas in the tank of my car. In the future, they might lower the quality of the gas - or even make it more expensive! That doesn't change anything about the gas that I will currently put in my car.
> you have disposable income to spend on this sort of stuff
Advertisers already know that a hundred percent of the population have $20 in disposable monthly income, because they can pay with credit. So they don't learn anything new.
They increased yearly subscription just two months ago, from €139 to €159. Those €20 alone should pay for the ads. And Disney+ is already by far the most expensive subscription of all, while providing very limited content. This is completely out of touch.
Really, people don't pay for 'ad free' .. rather, they do, but what they really want is 'interruption free', which I think is why Disney+ promoting their own content as part a stream is essentially perceived as an 'ad'. I personally think it should be considerd an ad regardless of it being your own content or not. I don't care if it's someone else's , or your content, it's an advert for that content.
Something I really dislike about modern consumer products is that companies simply don’t care if their decisions leave their customers embittered and feeling negatively about their decisions. It seems like that used to be a salient factor in how firms designed, sold and pitched their wares.
I think this is the single biggest change making everything worse. Lots of businesses used to care about their own products, since quality and brand image seemed like obviously important things. As the machine ran, and we got better and better at collecting and analyzing data, it became clear that the customer's view of you and your product didn't matter as much as we thought, and in fact it matters less and less the more businesses converge on that idea. But businesses still mostly cared about their own products, because they are run by humans, who tend to care about what they make naturally. However, eventually market forces pushed out normal humans.
Lately I've been helping my mom downsize. She's got boxes and boxes of household goods that she held on to because it belonged to her mother or grandmother or great aunt or whoever. Basically just, when the time came to clean out the old house, dump the kitchen cabinets into a box, put the box in the basement, and leave it there for 40 years.
And the thing that's struck me is how much of this stuff is cheaply made and barely holds together. Sure, there's the occasional well-built item that resembles the stuff I'm used to seeing in antique stores. But mostly I'm just getting a lesson in how much survivorship bias informs my perception of 20th century consumer products.
If anything the real trend is the shift to plastic, which can be more durable but is also more prone to complete instead of partial failure and generally isn't repairable. e.g. a tin measuring cup might dent easily, but can also be bent back into shape. A plastic one probably won't suffer anything more than a scratch when you drop it, but when it finally does crack that's the end of it.
Speaking of plastic, so many people nostalgically remember Tupperware as a quality product that's much nicer than what you can get nowadays. But the truth is it was a multi-level marketing scam and their products were often contaminated with heavy metals. It used to be a lot easier to prop up a brand image in the pre-Internet days, when consumers largely couldn't talk to each other en masse like we do nowadays.
Say what you want about tupperware, but I just bought a set of ancient tupperware from a thrift store and even the second hand quality of it beats anything I have bought in the last 20 years hands down.
Those cases are high-profile, and much more common than they should have been, but not common in the context of all products. They are examples of the type of decision-making that I am claiming has increased across the board. Also, those cases are mostly enormous-harm-vs-enormous-profit, whereas now that the same attitude is everywhere, most of the cases are just "make the thing worse", which is way less dramatic but ten thousand times more common.
There was much more than just the high profile egregious cases though.
Most food adulteration is a quality issue more than a safety problem.
Buy old peas but put a little green coloring in is almost the exact same thinking as let’s replace the metal gears with plastic ones to save a dollar per item. The vast majority of companies doing that didn’t kill or seriously injure anyone.
They've done the calculation. They'll lose X income because of subscribers who leave, and they'll get Y extra income from the ones who remain. If X < Y then implement policy.
Companies increasingly no longer even care about income.
They care about what boosts investor confidence.
So even if implementing a policy lowers operative income, if the growth in stock value offsets this, aka. number-go-up == true, the policy is implemented.
The irony is, the PE of lots of tech companies implies 30+ years to earn back your money. Some of these companies enshittify at a rate higher than being in existence within 30 years. So I am curious how this will end up.
30 years doesn't matter; 90 days does. If you can make enough money back over that period by enshittifying the company, you do it, even if that means selling the thing whole.
It's almost as if making companies responsible for performance of their stock backfired to the tune of "a measure that becomes the goal ceases to be a good measure".
There's always competition for the consumer dollar, unless you are the only business selling necessities for survival such as electricity, gas, food, and such.
Even with the lack of competition, shouldn't you have at least some pride on the product your offering? That's really what gets me every time, the fact that many companies actually don't really care about their product and clearly doesn't take any pride in it.
The people making the movies and shows, writes, actors, production crew, all of those, probably do care, but in the management layers at Disney, Netflix, HBO, you name it, they don't seem care about the actual product. While the hell would you work at e.g. Disney, if you don't care about movies, cartoons and stories?
No, why should they have pride? Having pride is more expensive than not having it, and the ones with pride have been naturally selected out of the market. The people making the movies don't care either, haven't you seen all the complaints about Hollywood becoming a slop factory?
I don't think it's that. Most people simply don't care.
I'd stop paying them, but it always amazes me just how unbothered the average person is to watch 3 minutes of ads for 10 mins of content. Especially when it comes to platforms like YouTube.
I think this might be a miscalculation on disney's behalf unless they don't turn it on, on the childrens profiles. Like, I'll watch 5 sections of gaming adds on the last episode of reacher because I'm too cheap to pay the extra 29 dkr before I cancel my subscription anyway, but I canceled Disney the monent they added the advertising to things my children were watching. It wasn't even real advertising, just testing the waters where they'd put a 40ish second add for one of their own movies that you could skip, but I don't want that for my children.
It used to be that the goal of a company was to compete in a market and gain value through performance in that market over the long term.
In the 1990s, several CEOs, including Jack Welch, realized how exactly things work. Namely, most shares are held by retirement and pension plans who employ entire companies' worth of people to find a way to diversify and hedge, and the reporting period for their earnings is 90 days. You had major chunks of corporate capital held by people who couldn't really care less about anything other than the line going up, and any way to do so within three months was valid.
Once a company has achieved a certain market position, the long-term and non-financial aspects of holding shares (pride in the company, an interest in the market they competed in, etc.) are unimportant, and the customer's opinion stops mattering as much. You can assume that enough customers will stay around through sheer inertia no matter what you do, and that includes breaking up the company and selling it for scrap.
Since most shareholders aren't really attached to any one company's holdings, they plan for customers to leave when companies do anti-consumer things, and if a company is broken up, they just take the earnings per share on that break-up and plow it into something else that sounds like it'd be profitable.
You have to do business with people who are operating in a spot below that market position if you really want them to care about pleasing you as a customer.
Without copyright, almost none of the content would get produced, especially in this digital age of zero-cost copying, and “they” (the companies) wouldn’t exist.
Copyrights are such constrained monopolies, though. More or less on the same level as how Nike has a monopoly on Air Jordans, but not on shoes in general.
One of the most interesting things about media consumerism is the extent to which people fail to realize that watching something else is always an option.
That's beyond hyperbolic. Yes there has been consolidation in the mainstream media industry, but I still have better access to more distribution channels than I did in the early 2000s. Especially when it comes to indie stuff.
It depends on the product though. The problem with streaming is that structurally, you have competition (other streaming services) but content wise not so much. If you want to watch Foundation, you need Apple tv. Netflix might have another good SciFi series, but it's not foundation... same for any other movie or series... in a way, people are more open to accept these terms because they want to watch their favorite show. So there is no real competition. And they get away with it because customers accept it.
Of course there is competition: "piracy". The thing streaming was supposed to (mostly) eliminate by being "legal", easy, not too expensive, ad-free and easy to use while offering a wealth of things to see and hear. It even worked, for a while, in some places. Then they limited what could be seen and heard because of corporate politicking. Then the price went up, just a bit. Then more movies and artists suddenly went dark. Prices were raised again. Terms of use were changed allowing "limited" advertising where there was none before. Prices went up again while disallowing that TV upstairs to partake without buying another subscription. More ads, fewer things to see and hear, price rises, rinse and repeat.
What is that I see in the distance? A ship, right? They hail me, "Ahoy matey, come aboard, arrrrrrrrrrr...."
This is, however, part of why we're trending towards mandatory ID verification to use the internet+ attempts to illegalize encryption and consumer VPNs.
VPNs only help you with Bittorrent piracy. The kind where you buy a set-top box is still most easily caught by a police officer seeing you using the box, or selling you the box, not by anything they can do on the internet.
That is the internet equivalent of fare dodging. Some people are doing it? Not that much of a problem. More people are doing it? See, they'll say it's not worth it anymore to produce expensive shows and movies. And that's it.
I'd rather see a healthy physical media culture again. Hard to enshitify that.
The fare-dodging example is valid for recent movies and music but it falters for older stuff where "older" means "older than the original copyright term", i.e. between 18 and 21 years. Beyond that it is more comparable to charging a wind-fee to sailing boats or a current-fee to river runners: taking money for a common good. Copyright has been extended and extended again just to keep people from drawing a cartoon mouse or singing a birthday song and that makes current copyright terms just as piratical as the self-styled internet pirates who have no qualms about releasing movies the day they are premiered.
Here's a fix: bring copyright terms back to something sensible, say 15 years. After that point copyrighted material is free to use for non-commercial purposes. For commercial purposes you still need a licence for another 10-15 years. Beyond that it becomes public domain, no licence required.
This is an argument for not pirating indie games or books from smaller authors. There's no way Disney sees people pirating and just stops making content. It is all they know how to do
They should start making good quality products and charging a price people are willing to pay then. Do you realise piracy is just about the only leverage consumers have here?
It's not unprecedented either. Basically every time in history that the common people got rights, it was a reaction to the common people ceasing to give the nobles what the nobles needed, forcing them to the bargaining table.
But there will still be demand for content, and people who are willing to pay for a non-enshittified experience. Piracy is essentially the consumer bargaining chip in an era of unprecedented centralization and monopoly power.
Totally false. The competition is in what shows people watch. The Pit not available on Netflix? Oh well, I’ll watch something else. There’s plenty of content. People are not subscribing to BritBox just to watch one show the heard was good.
Companies are profit machines that chase where money is. They grow like weeds in fertile spots.
It's on consumers to chose where to water, and consumers consistently chose the cheapest most immediately convenient shit. The Yin to "Corporations are all about profit" is the Yang of "Consumers are all about minimizing spend"
I can tell you with confidence that if you leave the consumer market and go to the commercial market (and especially the defense market), where they worship quality and reliability instead of "absolute cheapest option", the amount of enshitification and deceit drops dramatically, and you end up with some really solid (and expensive!) products. Consumers want an oven that costs $600. Restaurants pay $6,000 for theirs.
Also all of the subscription services now have such draconian IP checks, that the false positives for password sharing have become super annoying. Every time I have to prove that I am me.
Literally netflix, disney+, nytimes have become so annoying to use that I had to cancel.
When we first got Disney + it was a winner in our house, then kids loved what they could watch, there was good family viewing too, and then was a few good shows that my wife and I were interested.
Lately, it has been right down our list. I think my daughter still watches it on occasion, but nothing of note that I want to watch. If we didn't get it for free with our bank account, I'd cancel it. And with adverts, I'd be cancelling in a heartbeat.
Juggling subscriptions has become really expensive lately - but the only one I value is Netflix, but even then I don't feel I get great value from it, we seem to watch far less TV or films this year.
Always cancel immediately after you sign up. Treat all streamers as one-month-at-a-time purchases and you’ll realize how much you’ve been paying for that you weren’t using.
I recently switched to the Netflix sub with ads. Totally worth it. The non-ads packages are ridiculously expensive now and the ads they show are few and far between.
long time Netflix user, my experience using Netflix with ads is the opposite. I find watching anything on Netflix unbearable due to frequent ads. I’m about to pull the plug
The point of capitalism is to accumulate resources and to indefinitely seek growth in a finite world. It means making things cheaper to produce (e.g. via dematerialization, automation, cheap labor through immigration or globalization, mass production, intensive agriculture, self check out, cheaper ingredients for recipes, lowering standards, etc.) and generating higher revenues (e.g. via subscription services, ads, selling your data, shrinkflation, reducing everything to the lowest common denominator to appeal to the masses rather than the niche, etc.).
Even more than being the point of the game they cannot survive without it due to higher stakes and competition.
A comorbidity ridden cancer we might hope to find a cure for someday.
It's like paying for cable back in the day but you also get ads. The sheer audacity they think they can get away with because they consider themselves having a monopoly.
Kinda, but the back catalog has never been bigger or more valuable. There is good stuff from every era, and it only accumulates. What happens when the viewing mix is 10% new stuff, 90% classics?
The joke's on them and they probably don't even know it.
Remember that Disney owns the ABC TV broadcast network.
With this move, the regular TV news that has been streaming from abcnews.com and local affiliates for years has finally become inaccessible from all my Windows 11 PCs. This is using clean Windows with Edge only, no 3rd party apps or ad blockers, not relying on anything but good old Windows & Edge to handle security & privacy as well as they can.
Pre-recorded clips still play but not live news any more from ABC News or local station websites.
The same old PCs that played abcnews just fine until recently, and still play everything else at all resolutions.
The live internet streams were regular TV news with regular TV ads as always on their regular websites. No broadcast sports or entertainment programs were included, on the web those time slots were replaced by things like public interest programs from ABC studios. Including the same number of ads as the scheduled in-house news programs.
This hurts the advertisers more than anybody, Disney has now abruptly cut off countless web users who have always been just fine with the traditional 24/7 ads on the ad-supported news, apparently so Disney+ fans can be made more comfortable with any ads being eased in to paid premium programming. Just because they are on the same internet, that's a lot of collateral damage.
If I was an advertiser I would be hitting the ceiling and demanding far lower ad fees from Disney than there was a couple weeks ago. Now that casual random internet viewers have been kicked off the news stream in countless numbers.
Are we going to buy insurance after seeing the same ad multiple times per day every day? No.
Ask yourself who's paying for ads, who gets paid for ads, who owns both those companies or conglomerates, and how whoever controls the ads controls the content.
In South Africa (and I imagine other countries) they're currently force migrating subscribers over to a "new" app (at least on iOS and tvOS) and your profiles with their respective watchlists is left behind in the old app, no way to migrate / import it into the new one. This isn't even mentioned on their FAQ for the process. A absolutely terrible user experience.
On the bright side the "new" app (which I assume is actually the same as used in the US) seems to not have the following annoying issues of the old one:
- It was impossible to enable auto play on a "kids" profile. As my kids can't use a remote yet I had their profile set to "adult".
- An episode would never be marked as "fully" watched, but this wasn't just a mild annoyance, it would "break" autoplay when re-watching a series because when it started auto playing a next episode which was previously watched, it would "continue" from where you had watched upto (minus about 30 seconds). This results in it cycling through the last 30 seconds of every episode of a show. The easiest way around this I found was to make a new profile every now and again for the kids.
This comes across to me as judgmental (and you don’t know the situation of my kids and their screen time), my view is to each their own, it’s an option you can turn on/off as per your own preference.
I've worked for one of these companies as it rolled out a new app. Surprisingly, it didn't seem malicious. It was just platform/framework churn + "we need to unify all these apps into one common codebase"
I don't really mind their unification efforts making me have to install a new app which for me on its own is only a minor annoyance and absolutely not worth getting at all upset about.
It's that they made no effort to bring over profiles and their associated watchlists, "continue watching" is my most used section of all the streaming apps (which they love moving every time I relaunch the app, but that's a different topic) and they didn't even apologize for essentially throwing away years' worth of tracking what the last episode I watched was.
The thing people fail to appreciate about media empires is there is no ad/not-ad distinction: it is all an ad, either for other products or for more of the same media.
HBO, on their “ad-free” tier shows ads for their own content before almost everything. I reached out to support about this and they said they don’t count those as ads.
These companies are all scum. They shift definitions and make the service worse. I won’t be renewing my subscription to HBO over this (I’m upset I bought a whole year), and I won’t be opting for Disney+ in the future either, as it sounds like they are doing similar things (and more).
To me, “no ads” means “no ads”. I’m done with these technical definitions people come up with in board rooms to subvert customer expectations and erode product quality.
PSA: Soon german brand AVM will have dns blocking of advertising right in their routers (fritz box). Search the web for Fritz!OS 8.40 if you are interested.
At the movies I can grab popcorn while the ads play. And usually the ads are for other movies, often enough topical. Watching an action movie, get ads for more action movies.
If ads are playing on the TV, they inject themselves into your home. Especially kids now wanting to buy or watch that you didn’t get to vet.
i don't think i've ever seen a discussion about movie theaters online where people weren't complaining about preroll ads, going back a good 20 years when this started to happen :)
Working in video ads has validated that I basically never pay for video or music services. 90% of dev time is spent optimizing the monetization path while the playback path needs to be good enough.
Anecdotally, appleTV never remembers which episode I was watching or the timestamp in the episode. I'm def not paying for the opportunity to yell at my TV.
That said, IMO this is the only business model for streaming companies and content owners to see bucketloads of money, so it sticks. Also, free tier makes for easy entry.
But I would gladly pay $10/month for a seamless streaming experience (app and playback) where I just select a couple of titles at a time. Similar to the mail version of netflix, but without snail mail.
At this point, streaming a known catalog is a text-book system, albeit expensive in terms of distro and bandwidth.
I don't bother paying for ad-free versions of any video service. At some point some analyst will say "but you could make $.000000000000001 more per share if you just put in a few ads" and that will be the end of it being truly ad-free.
Is it anti-consumer? Absolutely. Is finding ways to cut-in ads in a service marketed as "ad-free" arguably fraud? Yes. Does any of this matter so long as number go up and retirement funds keep raking in the money? No.
Use BBC from abroad and you see scam ads and the "which bar would you move to save the king" crap. They're not morally above this, only legally within the UK
That's sad. I do not want my money to go into ads anywhere. I decided
that for my own life, I can do well without propaganda, aka ads. I can
not kill ads in reallife, e. g. if a poster shows this on some house,
but I can most definitely get rid of it on the www, which I do. Ublock
origin is the bare minimum (I can also use it via thorium actually, so
via the adChrome code base, but I'd love to be able to de-google myself
as well - the sooner the better. Sadly I still depend on Google too much,
which does not make me happy. Now that Google ruined its search engine,
though, I am looking for viable alternatives. The other search engines
are really bad though, although I have increasingly noticed that I get
different search results, e. g. qwant shows other things than Google,
and in some cases better results using the same search query, which was
interesting. Sooner or later I can completely abandon the crap that is
modern google search).
Taking the cash from a bank deprives others of the money. Duplicating a video doesn’t deprive another person of anything.
Piracy is simple: when you make your product more convenient than piracy, people use it. Steam is popular for a reason - no crap, enormous game selection.. it’s just better than pirating. Netflix used to be the same - great selection, no ads.. now look: terrible selection and price is too high.
The production crew is getting peanuts anyway. If one out of 100 people donates them some money, they come out ahead.
Also maybe it's their job to come up with a business model that everyone doesn't hate. If they'd just syndicate to all streaming platforms, piracy wouldn't be a problem for them.
>Duplicating a video doesn’t deprive another person of anything
This was the claim. I said what I said to point out that if everyone acted on this belief for a feature film, there would be a thousand people who ultimately don't get compensated for their work.
You are right: not everyone is able or willing to pirate. Piracy is only able to exist because of these people who pay for art. That's definitely true, and definitely different than the claim that no one is being deprived of anything.
They are deprived of the payment they asked for in exchange for someone viewing their work.
Also, "the pirate was never going to pay" is a far more imaginary thing here; it's an unproven claim (especially since it's often paired with "pirates would pay if it was cheaper/more convenient to access).
Regardless, it's a particularly arrogant kind of entitlement for you to violate someone's terms to enjoy their thing while telling them you think it's worthless.
The changes are intended to cover the ads that are in pre-existing non-removable content. Nothing is changing, they're just making it clear that this is happening (or perhaps more unclear, judging by the response here).
I’m all for consumer awareness but I’m begging everyone to stop freaking out over prosaic non-issues like this.
Yes I see that as an ad. Do you not? Does anyone not? And if I'm on the highest paying ad free plan, what are they promoting to me?
* Ads in YouTube feeds for other google products and services.
* Ads underneath videos for products from the channel owner.
* Sponsorships within videos from the channel owner.
* Advertising overlays (supported IN THE APP BY GOOGLE) for products and services from the channel owner.
* Email advertisements for Google products and services.
* Community post advertisements from channel owners which show up in the YouTube feed.
I contacted support to enquire and they state these are not considered advertising.
Howver recently I’ve noticed adverts for “membership” for channels, and that is getting me close to picking my youtube habit. Same with Spotify and advertising concerts, but that seems to have gone away for me after I complained.
Sadly even the bbc does adverts on iPlayer. You used to be able to instantly skip them, but then in a big (internal) fanfare some idiot decided they could make them not skippable and increase some metrics and then get a promotion.
I remember about 10-15 years ago YouTube actually did try to ban sponsor spots in videos, but the backlash from creators was strong enough that they walked that back to "ok well we'll allow sponsor spots but you can't just insert the sponsor's own ad, it's gotta be your ad read and B-roll".
Sponsorblock has zero issue jumping to the precise moment after the sponsor vs jump ahead always leaves just enough time to still hear the name of the sponsor.
That said, I don’t think YouTube owes it to Premium subscribers to add a sponsor block. That’s part of the video’s content as it was provided to YouTube, and YouTube never advertised YouTube Premium as something which will block in-video sponsor reads. This is part of how YouTubers make a living & a Premium sub doesn’t replace the money they receive for those the way it does for YouTube’s own ads.
Once you’ve transitioned from an ad-watching customer to a paid one, YouTube actually turns into something that treats your product experience and satisfaction as important.
It’s fascinating how it switches that off for non-paying users. Not a lot of companies’ services do that so obviously and blatantly.
In other words, when YouTube is being watched for free, they have that typical engagement incentive: keep you watching as long as possible, watch as many ads as possible, etc.
When you’re paying? Who cares, skip the content if you want. Use Gemini to summarize it, we don’t care if you watch the video.
If they don't want people watching videos without logging in, they should gate them behind a login screen rather than fucking with their users.
I worked on backend subscription management and the implementation of benefits. The team that business guy worked on was the group eventually at the center of the predatory subscription issue (I can’t say whether they were still around when that happened or not).
I actually agree this is a bit annoying, but also the alternative is Google banning Youtubers from finding their own advertising partners, which I'm sure people would hate.
To be clear, I'm not opposed to the practise, as long as that's clear up front. YouTube advertises Premium as an ad free experience, and in reality it's full of ads.
If they couldn't make money, 80% of the content worth watching would not be produced.
Premium works for me. Is it perfect, no. But there's that saying about perfect being the enemy of good.
YouTube could tell content creators not to include sponsorships. The terms are long and onerous. Of course content creators would be upset and they would make less money. Ultimately my issue is that YouTube advertises an ad free experience with Premium and it still has a LOT of ads.
YouTube isn't paying people properly, despite its vast revenues. At least with sponsorship the people themselves make some money.
Unpaid cooperation of human to generate knowledge or entertainment predates YouTube by tens of thousands years.
That's completely fair. YouTube offers content creators many ways to do this. For example, they can put content behind a paywall. They can ask for donations. They can ask for memberships. Members get all kinds of fun perks. The part I have an issue with is YouTube advertising an ad free experience with Premium and then allowing content creators to fill their videos with ads.
> YouTube isn't paying people properly
I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly, and not allowing content creators to shit all over viewers. That's pitting the little guys against each other while Google laughs all the way to the bank.
The solution is proper competition to google. Because Youtube is pretty much the one true monopoly out there. But as we all know, video hosting alone is very,very, very expensive. It really is something you need to be a billion dollar company to do, and Youtube wasn't profitable until like... 2 years ago?
So I tolerate the user ad reads as the best compromise because nothing else would work. I don't think Youtube is a model where Google is being greedy so much as practical. At least not in how it monetizes creators (there's plenty of hostile means they do to creators as is, but the monetary structure seems fine).
I think it's clear. I don't want YouTube going in and editing movies and creator videos removing any form of advertising. Maybe you want them deleting that content. But the average person realizes what Premium means by no ads. Being obtuse or willfully ignorant isn't reasonable.
Let’s freaking do it.
And the real annoyance with YouTube Premium is that the UI is still full of engagement dark patterns.
That would make a great title for a write-up of your experience.
Get a Fire Axe. Put it in the TV. Enjoy life.
Are you suggesting that the burden should be on channel owners to upload variations of their videos that don't include sponsor blocks? That's a bit onerous. My commercial agreement is with YouTube, not with the video creator.
If you don't like ads from creators, don't watch those channels?
YT Premium does provide the "skip ahead" functionality that almost always jumps over sponsor blocks.
I will say I've been a YT Premium subscriber for years and I've never seen any ads for other Google services in my feed, and I don't get advert emails either.
It is completely within Google's control. They have a hundred pages of terms of services, dictating everything the content creators may and may not do and say, down to individual words, symbols, and opinions. If Google wanted to, they could tell content creators to stop adding sponsorships. I understand you'd make less money.
> If you don't like ads from creators, don't watch those channels?
I stopped paying YouTube and I use SponsorBlock now. You're not entitled to my time or attention or money.
The problem is ultimately that Google advertises an ad free experience, which it's not. I'd be willing to pay for an ad free experience.
It always gets more expensive for a lesser enshittified version, removed/fucked with features to keep a bloated product team employed
And any ads underneath a video is at least not shown in the Roku YouTube player, nor are ad overlays as far as I know, since I've never seen one.
It could be that this is a phased approach so as not to anger their creators too much.
Worth noting is that there are thousands of high quality YouTube channels without any sponsored content. So those are effectively completely ad free with Premium.
To the end user they are indistinguishable from other video ads on the platform except the ad read is often (not always) done by the creator.
I don’t have hard data on the ratio but it’s not uncommon for a 10 minute video to have 1-2 minutes of full-interrupt ad segments embedded in the video.
I’ve dismissed it every time. I don’t mind being shown that ad once. But it bothers me that they don’t care enough about my experience using their product to provide a “never show this again” option.
Or just use some metrics to know that if I dismiss it 50 times then maybe I’m not interested.
It's very easy to know for people inside the company who actually care about the product and for their clients. It is really hard for directors and VP that anything they understand are numbers.
If I say "hey this modal/pop up is making customers angry" they are going to ask how much they care (is there even an unit for that?) and how much revenue is lost. The only way for them to handle a project is creating a goal for next Q and assigning people, when in most cases what you need is actually the opposite.
The problem is not that no one knows how to fix it, the problem is that managers organize around big problems and become useless at improving the small things or details. They become blind. It happened to me 100 times. They do not want things to be fixed unless there's a clear revenue increase, which is stupid.
I have actually cancelled my subscription because of this.
The answer could be nothing and I still respect the choice to speak with your wallet.
I think the iCloud password manager also works pretty well, provided you're using Apple products.
I’ll always pay more to see fewer ads. My kids see far, far, far fewer ads than I and my peers did growing up watching linear TV in the 90s and I’m going to keep it that way. If Disney+ gets in the way of that I’ll stop paying them and stop using their service, easy as that.
These media companies cannot help themselves. Advert money is very tantalizing and they'll always want to find ways to sneak it in whenever and wherever they can.
But now these are targeted ads based on browsing data for ad profiles linked to your IP and devices. IMO just a few of these are far worse than the general run of commercials we used to have on TV. Corporations obviously think so too otherwise we would still have that.
But there are a few crucial differences between then and now: The ad spots were there to keep the timetables accurate, which is no longer necessary. They also served as a way to let you know what else was on the channel, which again is no longer necessary because that app opens to a menu of all available programming. And, now this is the important part, back then I wasn't specifically paying for ad-free access.
Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is, my Jellyfin server is about to get much more use.
You are implying something false. That he’s suggesting thats not an ad. Hes not suggesting that at all.
What he’s suggesting is that that’s very different from Disney gating or interspersing movies with ads. Which it is. You may disagree with that but you’re strawmanning him.
I don’t see adverts embedded in content as adverts. Be sure I’m watching the World Cup on bbc and see an advert on the players shirt doesn’t mean I want my money back, I’d rather we had no adverts, but it’s not unreasonable.
People turned a blind eye to Apple advertising it's own services in it's products for years. I saw people defend here, on HN. So, while yes, it's advertising, Disney is far from the first to do this.
I'm not saying it's right, only that people who claim to be opposed to ads are accepting of the type of ads we are discussing.
> if I'm on the highest paying ad free plan, what are they promoting to me?
I'm assuming they aren't showing you ads for the plan you are on.
And I didn't know what to say. Either I like the series and I'm going to buy the next season or I don't and I won't.
But ads in the middle of something I'm watching? Fuck right off with that.
Why would anyone give them the benefit of the doubt?
[0] https://lawcouncil.au/international-law/ils-insights/tangled...
In case folks aren't aware, Disney tried to avoid an allergy-related wrongful death lawsuit from a restaurant at Disney Springs (large publicly available outdoor mall that doesn't even require tickets) because a couple had a Disney+ streaming trial:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go
That's just how lawyers work. They'll try to invoke any defense that's vaguely applicable, just like any plaintiff lawyer will try to invoke any cause of action that's vaguely applicable, like the plaintiffs in this exact case.
The TOS argument was so awful it deserves some kind of bonus loss, but let's put that aside for now.
Let's say I paint a fence, and my neighbor complains I ruined a particular segment that shouldn't have been painted. Why can't I argue that this segment was on my property and that my neighbor gave permission to use that paint on all segments on their property?
Let's say there's a 15% chance the survey was wrong about the fence location, and a 15% chance the court disagrees with how I'm interpreting the agreement. If I can use both arguments I have a 2% chance of losing, which seems fair to me. Both arguments are reasonable, so why should I have to risk it on only one?
fwiw... I believe Peacock is also allowed to run ads during live events, but at least during my motorcycle races they do not. a couple seasons ago they would go to a peacock banner and not show anything during the commercial breaks, but at some point they switched to just showing the raw video.
The new agreement allegedly introduces a third term “advertisements”.
> We’ve clarified that all Service Plans may include: (i) promotional content, (ii) sponsorships, and (iii) advertisements before/after playback of Content and in channels, live/as-live, special events, and any third-party services content.
I say allegedly because I haven’t received any communication from Disney yet but various reporting refers to email people in European markets have received.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tv/articles/disney-putti...
Ads embedded on the playing field? Sure. Billboards visible or sponsor logos on uniforms? I get it. Actual commercials? This is a solved issue for decades, there are "alternatives" as others have pointed out. This is a "Boiling frog" situation.
To be honest if I'm paying for no ads I'd be expect to have an option to blur that crap on inpaint it with AI.
Monitors and TVs should have this option.
For instance, if you have Paramount+, you can watch sports broadcast by your local CBS station through it. That station is going to be running commercials, Paramount+ has no input on it. The most they can do is run ads over their ads.
I'm assuming there's something similar with Disney+. You can watch your local ABC broadcast or ESPN broadcast of a game, but you're just getting that broadcast as being currently aired.
But even for broadcasts wholly owned and controlled by a streaming platform, like Thursday Night Football on Prime, there are just times when it would be dead air. I don't entirely mind commercials in that instance. Nothing else is going on.
I noted that the streaming service, like Paramount+, would be able to overlay their own ads over the broadcasted commercials, but they won't have control over the cameras. That's on the broadcast station, they're the ones controlling the remote production.
Paramount+ can only rebroadcast what my local CBS affiliate is broadcasting.
I think only Netflix and Prime have deals to actually produce sports broadcasts.
I genuinely don't know and am asking out of curiosity.
Is that a GREAT alternative to seeing an ad? Nope. But in many peoples opions it sbetter than being force fed the same ads over and over when you paid for an ad free service.
And if you read the wiki in full you will see it also is talking about preroll content. I dont HATE the HBO pre roll ads for their own shows that play before I start an episode but it is still an ad. Its for content I might actually enjoy instead of for paper towels or insurance but it is still an ad. This is something that is entirely optional and that disney/hulu has decided doesnt count as an ad.
Call it what you want, if it's serving me content I didn't ask for, I'm not happy about it, especially if I'm paying extra for them to not do that explicit thing.
Sheesh ... they're a big company. This should be easy.
(More cynical take: the ads are the whole point, the content itself is just a vector to get those ads in front of people, and prime them to be receptive.)
1. Now you just have a blank screen. Sure some people might like that but others will think there's an issue with the stream.
2. They're purchasing the rights to show the sports stuff, not actually producing it themselves and removing the ads would make the cost of the rights astronomical.
Even when expensive linear TV packages were the norm, they still came with ads. With live TV paying has never negated the need for ads.
2. What? They own ESPN which is producing the content, right?
Baseball literally has an ad-free tier for its live streaming service. I’m sure it’s not the only live service that does.
None of your points seem well considered. Why run interference for these companies?
Unless MLB blurs/bleeps all of these, it's not really ad-free.
2. It probably depends on what sports we're talking about. Again, I'm thinking internationally where they've started showing La Liga this season.
NASCAR has a separate feed for international broadcasts without their ads. During the ad break they'll just show an overhead camera or maybe an in car camera.
I guarantee they will eventually use this to show more ads. The goldfish grows to fit its bowl.
I usually go for reputation and precedent rather then legalese. And in the case of Disney, they had ads in their video tapes and DVDs, so I don't need to read the user agreement to know that it has a good chance to come to Disney+, whatever the legal pathway is.
And it will be true because the only way to defeat these people is actually being an asshole.
I don't like when I press play and an advertisement starts for some other freshly released content on the same platform.
Words matter. Words in advertising should matter. The slope is ice when we allow corporations to wordsmith around what they sell you.
To me, my time has value, and my thoughts have more. A party whose goal is to interfere with both, and who actively schemes to interfere with the integrity of both is not merely greedy, they are a hostile actor.
This fight was lost at least a decade ago. Everything must now be a constant source of outrage
And ads for their own services are still ads.
If you pay to avoid ads, you are merely letting them know that you have disposable income to spend on this sort of stuff. You're doing their job for them by segmenting yourself into the upper echelons of the market.
At some point, some shareholder value maximizing CEO is going to show up and notice how much money he's leaving on the table by not advertising to all of those people full of disposable income.
My local library has access to Kanopy, Libby, and Blackstone. And as a Canadian, I've got CBC gem as well.
The available library of films, documentaries, books, and so forth is enormous. All bereft of ads, and mostly bereft of slop.
https://ninelives.karawynnlong.com/p/the-coming-enshittifica...
The funny thing is the sooner you get off of some particular convenience treadmill the easier it is to stay off.
Endlessly scrolling some algorithmic feed hunting for something to watch can be done without getting off the couch, but it isn't actually fun. Walking to the library with my family to return a stack of books and movies and check out some new stuff is one of the highlights of our weekend.
For anyone who's wondering where to start, I'd like to suggest that your library probably has a copy of WALL-E.
And the difference from the current situation is?
And I can't understand why hackers never acknowledge this.
I can put gas in the tank of my car. In the future, they might lower the quality of the gas - or even make it more expensive! That doesn't change anything about the gas that I will currently put in my car.
> you have disposable income to spend on this sort of stuff
Advertisers already know that a hundred percent of the population have $20 in disposable monthly income, because they can pay with credit. So they don't learn anything new.
Lately I've been helping my mom downsize. She's got boxes and boxes of household goods that she held on to because it belonged to her mother or grandmother or great aunt or whoever. Basically just, when the time came to clean out the old house, dump the kitchen cabinets into a box, put the box in the basement, and leave it there for 40 years.
And the thing that's struck me is how much of this stuff is cheaply made and barely holds together. Sure, there's the occasional well-built item that resembles the stuff I'm used to seeing in antique stores. But mostly I'm just getting a lesson in how much survivorship bias informs my perception of 20th century consumer products.
If anything the real trend is the shift to plastic, which can be more durable but is also more prone to complete instead of partial failure and generally isn't repairable. e.g. a tin measuring cup might dent easily, but can also be bent back into shape. A plastic one probably won't suffer anything more than a scratch when you drop it, but when it finally does crack that's the end of it.
Speaking of plastic, so many people nostalgically remember Tupperware as a quality product that's much nicer than what you can get nowadays. But the truth is it was a multi-level marketing scam and their products were often contaminated with heavy metals. It used to be a lot easier to prop up a brand image in the pre-Internet days, when consumers largely couldn't talk to each other en masse like we do nowadays.
And before the FDA existed, companies were perfectly willing to put formaldehyde in milk, mercury in candy, and arsenic in vegetables.
Most food adulteration is a quality issue more than a safety problem.
Buy old peas but put a little green coloring in is almost the exact same thinking as let’s replace the metal gears with plastic ones to save a dollar per item. The vast majority of companies doing that didn’t kill or seriously injure anyone.
Companies have always been doing this.
They care about what boosts investor confidence.
So even if implementing a policy lowers operative income, if the growth in stock value offsets this, aka. number-go-up == true, the policy is implemented.
Consumers exist as a resource to consume. You hold the same mental position in their minds as the cheap plastic packaging they had to purchase.
The people making the movies and shows, writes, actors, production crew, all of those, probably do care, but in the management layers at Disney, Netflix, HBO, you name it, they don't seem care about the actual product. While the hell would you work at e.g. Disney, if you don't care about movies, cartoons and stories?
I'd stop paying them, but it always amazes me just how unbothered the average person is to watch 3 minutes of ads for 10 mins of content. Especially when it comes to platforms like YouTube.
I doubt I'm unique.
In the 1990s, several CEOs, including Jack Welch, realized how exactly things work. Namely, most shares are held by retirement and pension plans who employ entire companies' worth of people to find a way to diversify and hedge, and the reporting period for their earnings is 90 days. You had major chunks of corporate capital held by people who couldn't really care less about anything other than the line going up, and any way to do so within three months was valid.
Once a company has achieved a certain market position, the long-term and non-financial aspects of holding shares (pride in the company, an interest in the market they competed in, etc.) are unimportant, and the customer's opinion stops mattering as much. You can assume that enough customers will stay around through sheer inertia no matter what you do, and that includes breaking up the company and selling it for scrap.
Since most shareholders aren't really attached to any one company's holdings, they plan for customers to leave when companies do anti-consumer things, and if a company is broken up, they just take the earnings per share on that break-up and plow it into something else that sounds like it'd be profitable.
You have to do business with people who are operating in a spot below that market position if you really want them to care about pleasing you as a customer.
Abolish copyright and I guarantee they will completely change their attitude.
One of the most interesting things about media consumerism is the extent to which people fail to realize that watching something else is always an option.
watching nothing and going outside or barefoot is the real alternative
What is that I see in the distance? A ship, right? They hail me, "Ahoy matey, come aboard, arrrrrrrrrrr...."
I'd rather see a healthy physical media culture again. Hard to enshitify that.
Here's a fix: bring copyright terms back to something sensible, say 15 years. After that point copyrighted material is free to use for non-commercial purposes. For commercial purposes you still need a licence for another 10-15 years. Beyond that it becomes public domain, no licence required.
It's not unprecedented either. Basically every time in history that the common people got rights, it was a reaction to the common people ceasing to give the nobles what the nobles needed, forcing them to the bargaining table.
But there will still be demand for content, and people who are willing to pay for a non-enshittified experience. Piracy is essentially the consumer bargaining chip in an era of unprecedented centralization and monopoly power.
Totally false. The competition is in what shows people watch. The Pit not available on Netflix? Oh well, I’ll watch something else. There’s plenty of content. People are not subscribing to BritBox just to watch one show the heard was good.
E.g this survey: https://www.nexttv.com/news/a-hit-driven-biz-40-of-consumers...
"40% of Consumers Sign Up For an SVOD Service to Watch a Specific Show"
Or this Ipsos survey:
https://www.marketingcharts.com/digital/video-235725
[...]almost 4 in 10 (38%) agree that they often subscribe to a channel to watch a specific show[...]
It's on consumers to chose where to water, and consumers consistently chose the cheapest most immediately convenient shit. The Yin to "Corporations are all about profit" is the Yang of "Consumers are all about minimizing spend"
I can tell you with confidence that if you leave the consumer market and go to the commercial market (and especially the defense market), where they worship quality and reliability instead of "absolute cheapest option", the amount of enshitification and deceit drops dramatically, and you end up with some really solid (and expensive!) products. Consumers want an oven that costs $600. Restaurants pay $6,000 for theirs.
For each service you feel that's enshittified, ask yourself how many real competitors they have.
Literally netflix, disney+, nytimes have become so annoying to use that I had to cancel.
Lately, it has been right down our list. I think my daughter still watches it on occasion, but nothing of note that I want to watch. If we didn't get it for free with our bank account, I'd cancel it. And with adverts, I'd be cancelling in a heartbeat.
Juggling subscriptions has become really expensive lately - but the only one I value is Netflix, but even then I don't feel I get great value from it, we seem to watch far less TV or films this year.
Even more than being the point of the game they cannot survive without it due to higher stakes and competition.
A comorbidity ridden cancer we might hope to find a cure for someday.
Now they're one of the worst. Hard to watch anything on there.
When the alternatives are free and a better product (no ads and easier to use) it seems odd to expect people to pay for something less convenient.
The amount of ads I see in life compared to the 90s is still drastically reduced.
Remember that Disney owns the ABC TV broadcast network.
With this move, the regular TV news that has been streaming from abcnews.com and local affiliates for years has finally become inaccessible from all my Windows 11 PCs. This is using clean Windows with Edge only, no 3rd party apps or ad blockers, not relying on anything but good old Windows & Edge to handle security & privacy as well as they can.
Pre-recorded clips still play but not live news any more from ABC News or local station websites.
The same old PCs that played abcnews just fine until recently, and still play everything else at all resolutions.
The live internet streams were regular TV news with regular TV ads as always on their regular websites. No broadcast sports or entertainment programs were included, on the web those time slots were replaced by things like public interest programs from ABC studios. Including the same number of ads as the scheduled in-house news programs.
This hurts the advertisers more than anybody, Disney has now abruptly cut off countless web users who have always been just fine with the traditional 24/7 ads on the ad-supported news, apparently so Disney+ fans can be made more comfortable with any ads being eased in to paid premium programming. Just because they are on the same internet, that's a lot of collateral damage.
If I was an advertiser I would be hitting the ceiling and demanding far lower ad fees from Disney than there was a couple weeks ago. Now that casual random internet viewers have been kicked off the news stream in countless numbers.
Are we going to buy insurance after seeing the same ad multiple times per day every day? No.
Ask yourself who's paying for ads, who gets paid for ads, who owns both those companies or conglomerates, and how whoever controls the ads controls the content.
On the bright side the "new" app (which I assume is actually the same as used in the US) seems to not have the following annoying issues of the old one:
- It was impossible to enable auto play on a "kids" profile. As my kids can't use a remote yet I had their profile set to "adult".
- An episode would never be marked as "fully" watched, but this wasn't just a mild annoyance, it would "break" autoplay when re-watching a series because when it started auto playing a next episode which was previously watched, it would "continue" from where you had watched upto (minus about 30 seconds). This results in it cycling through the last 30 seconds of every episode of a show. The easiest way around this I found was to make a new profile every now and again for the kids.
It's that they made no effort to bring over profiles and their associated watchlists, "continue watching" is my most used section of all the streaming apps (which they love moving every time I relaunch the app, but that's a different topic) and they didn't even apologize for essentially throwing away years' worth of tracking what the last episode I watched was.
The thing people fail to appreciate about media empires is there is no ad/not-ad distinction: it is all an ad, either for other products or for more of the same media.
These companies are all scum. They shift definitions and make the service worse. I won’t be renewing my subscription to HBO over this (I’m upset I bought a whole year), and I won’t be opting for Disney+ in the future either, as it sounds like they are doing similar things (and more).
To me, “no ads” means “no ads”. I’m done with these technical definitions people come up with in board rooms to subvert customer expectations and erode product quality.
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Disney-New-user-agreement-allow...
As far as I can tell, this new user agreement only applies to Germany, at least for now.
If ads are playing on the TV, they inject themselves into your home. Especially kids now wanting to buy or watch that you didn’t get to vet.
Anecdotally, appleTV never remembers which episode I was watching or the timestamp in the episode. I'm def not paying for the opportunity to yell at my TV.
That said, IMO this is the only business model for streaming companies and content owners to see bucketloads of money, so it sticks. Also, free tier makes for easy entry.
But I would gladly pay $10/month for a seamless streaming experience (app and playback) where I just select a couple of titles at a time. Similar to the mail version of netflix, but without snail mail.
At this point, streaming a known catalog is a text-book system, albeit expensive in terms of distro and bandwidth.
That’s what all cable news, reality TV, game shows and sports channels are!
I don't bother paying for ad-free versions of any video service. At some point some analyst will say "but you could make $.000000000000001 more per share if you just put in a few ads" and that will be the end of it being truly ad-free.
Is it anti-consumer? Absolutely. Is finding ways to cut-in ads in a service marketed as "ad-free" arguably fraud? Yes. Does any of this matter so long as number go up and retirement funds keep raking in the money? No.
Piracy is simple: when you make your product more convenient than piracy, people use it. Steam is popular for a reason - no crap, enormous game selection.. it’s just better than pirating. Netflix used to be the same - great selection, no ads.. now look: terrible selection and price is too high.
Also maybe it's their job to come up with a business model that everyone doesn't hate. If they'd just syndicate to all streaming platforms, piracy wouldn't be a problem for them.
1000 people on a feature film, you're looking at about $70 million in salary. That's peanuts to you?
> If one out of 100 people donates them some money, they come out ahead.
In other words, you're conceding the point that they would be deprived of something if everyone pirates their work.
This was the claim. I said what I said to point out that if everyone acted on this belief for a feature film, there would be a thousand people who ultimately don't get compensated for their work.
You are right: not everyone is able or willing to pirate. Piracy is only able to exist because of these people who pay for art. That's definitely true, and definitely different than the claim that no one is being deprived of anything.
Also, "the pirate was never going to pay" is a far more imaginary thing here; it's an unproven claim (especially since it's often paired with "pirates would pay if it was cheaper/more convenient to access).
Regardless, it's a particularly arrogant kind of entitlement for you to violate someone's terms to enjoy their thing while telling them you think it's worthless.
The changes are intended to cover the ads that are in pre-existing non-removable content. Nothing is changing, they're just making it clear that this is happening (or perhaps more unclear, judging by the response here).