Would you pay to watch YouTube?

[Gmash]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/business/google-subscriptions-youtube-videos/

I mostly use YouTube for music or to watch phone reviews and such. If they start charging to watch music videos I think it would be very short sighted. Many times I have checked out bands on YouTube then bought their music if I liked it. If they start charging for that I can live without YouTube. If it is really just to compete with Netflix, that's fine, but once this starts, it will be a slippery slope. Expect to be nickel and dimed to death.

 

[XplosiV]

Hell no. I'm not a fan of youtube at the best of times, the number of times I use it in a year I can count on my two hands.

If the aim is like you said, pay to view music/movies, then they should let you have a free preview at least.

 

[zuben el genub]

Something like the BBC channel for documentaries.

 

[pbf98]

Ever since google acquired it I have liked it less and less with each update they roll out. I will not pay for watching youtube some of the adds are already annoying enough to not want to use youtube.. I get that it allows people to make money on their videos, but do they really have to have an add in the middle of a 10min video?

 

[Bob Maxey]

No, I would not pay.

I would go to the free video site the millions of users would start using because they know users will not likely pay for YT.

When it arrives, that is.

And it likely would arise.

 

[saptech]

I probably wouldn't pay to watch it. Nothing it have for me to want to pay for.

 

[Mehta23]

If it means to have to pay to watch films on it, fair enough.

If it means to have to pay to watch music videos, or any other kind of video, it's taking it a bit far

 

[Simonna]

Hahaha, no, Youtube is not worth my cash

 

[Bearsyzf]

I would not pay to use Youtube, i barely use it now and it's free.

 

[MoodyBlues]

I'm already paying for it--in a way. I have DirecTV, but I only have one HD receiver; that TV has On Demand and YouTube available on it--and YouTube is AMAZING on it vs on 'normal' ways of viewing it (computer, smartphone, etc.). No stuttering, no skipping, no pausing, no waiting for buffering...just smooth, continuous play. It's really enjoyable under those circumstances. But would I PAY pay for it? I don't think so. There's nothing there I can't live without.

 

[jefboyardee]

Most of the few youtubes I watch lead off with advertising, so they’re already making money on them. Reminds me of paying for cable TV so I can watch ads on TV.

 

[LilacBleeds]

I wouldn't pay for it

 

[Gmash]

It won't just be movies. I think they have that already. Some of the partners so far are The Onion, WWE wrestling, and some gamers network. Personally, I've never subscribed to a YouTube channel, not even sure how that works, but I could see a paid Vevo music channel or for example, a Phonedog channel. Best thing about YouTube for me is some of the obscure live performances you would never find anywhere else. If they start having official paid music channels, expect the copyright cops to start being more aggressive about taking down free music that regular people post on there.

 

[LilBit]

I would not.

 

[mikedt]

I would happily pay $30 a month to see dogs playing pianos and skateboarding cats.

 

[BigCiX]

If the fee was a one time fee of a dollar then yeah.

 

[Mehta23]

If the fee was a one time fee of a dollar then yeah.

Yeah, I'd be almost down with that. Or a really small yearly fee...

TO be honest, I don't reeally mind the ads at the beginning of a video... I only mind when I hit the back button by mistake and I have to watch it again..

 

[9to5cynic]

Not I. (Except maybe Keyboard Cat )

 

[Gmash]

It's not a one time fee, or pay per video, it's a monthly subscription for each individual "channel" that STARTS at $1.99 per month. That could add up fast.

From the article:

The move, which has been in the works for months, could be
announced as early as this week. It will apply to as many as 50
YouTube channels, people familiar with the plan say. Viewers will be
able to subscribe to each channel for as little as $1.99 a month.

 

[ScandaLeX]

I would happily pay $30 a month to see dogs playing pianos and skateboarding cats.

LOL!!!

It's not a one time fee, or pay per video, it's a monthly subscription for each individual "channel" that STARTS at $1.99 per month. That could add up fast.

From the article:

The move, which has been in the works for months, could be
announced as early as this week. It will apply to as many as 50
YouTube channels, people familiar with the plan say. Viewers will be
able to subscribe to each channel for as little as $1.99 a month.

How does this affect channels already subscribed too?

 

[general eclect]

They're talking about only fifty channels that are commercila operations, the smaller 'personal' channels run by individual amateurs (like myself, bluepov's channel - YouTube) won't, as far as I can see, be affected.

 

[Ricky Babalu]

Short answer: NO

 

[Gmash]

Well, it has started, who knows where it will end. Here is a list of the first 54 paid channels.

YouTube

 

[general eclect]

Still can't see it spreading beyond commercial enterprises to the amateurs...

 

[Gmash]

The only thing I care about is the music. If the record labels start charging for their content, they will have incentive to have all of the free music pulled.