YouTube is making 4K videos a Premium-only feature for some users

[Wasteman]

Watching 4k would imply the user pays for premium, and premium pays some out to creators instead of showing ads (depending on content watched)...

At least, that's my understanding. It's supposed to pay out better than ads.

This is correct assuming that most subscribers are premium users which is not the case. Putting a paywall between 4K content and audience will not send more money to content creators. Unless Google gives a larger percentage of the premium revenue to creators, I don't see a reason to keep uploading 4K content.

Perhaps if they limited all users to 480P, that would be more effective in pushing people to upgrade to Premium. Again, if content creators are not seeing an increase in their income, they have no incentive to continue uploading more than 1080P. The vast majority of videos are played on handheld devices.

 

[brucek]

I doubt content creators would go through the trouble of producing/uploading 4K content

... that hardly anyone sees either. Do creator reports include bandwidth watched in? I'd expect 4K is already tiny, and will drop to near zero if it has its own unique paywall.

I have seen the occasional YouTube video that benefitted strongly from 4K, usually some sort of well-made travel or nature clip. But that's a tiny fraction of all videos and I'd feel like an ***** paying for just that.

 

[dangh]

We need either competition or better splitting google, apple, ms into smaller companies.
No competition can win with google search and advertisement money.

 

[Uncle Al]

Can't say there is anything by Google that I would buy .... nope, nothing at all .....

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Gee it's still 6 months until April 1st.

Seriously they can shove that idea where all their other projects end up. I hope an alternative (not Chinese) pops up. Already the ads on Android, iOS and Android TV are a joke.

 

[sreams]

Lol, I usually watch at 720p on a laptop screen and I don't watch movies/shows from YT. 1080p on the rare times I put it on the TV.

Sucks for the people who are used to it, though.

People watching VHS tapes probably said something similar about 720p content.

 

[Edster]

I am unsure how is that supposed to attract people. Especially if is just paywalling existing features.

I am Premium member because I watch a lot of YT, has a long commute with limited data, has family that watch a lot of YT and stream music. If Premium didn't come with YT Music, I would not had subbed but as it is, the few extra dollars over a Spotify Prem sub and be able to cast videos ad-free easily is worth it. They need to bundle new things to get people interested. The Stadia thing, might be a good idea as I might had been interested in trying it, but is too late now.

4K was never even something I thought about for YT, most YTers simply don't shoot content that is eye candy so no one will really care. Heck, I would wager most footages shot are at no more than 4K raw anyway apart from the high budget channels; is quite clear when they do those zoomed in shots.

 

[brucek]

People watching VHS tapes probably said something similar about 720p content.

Yes, but they were saying that without having any real option for and probably never having seen 720 at all.

Where as plenty of people who own 4K capable devices right now regularly watch lots of content in sub-4K resolution, because they don't care, don't see the difference, don't want to use the bandwidth, don't want to spend more money (I.e., Netflix charges more for its 4K tier), don't want to use more system resources, etc etc.

 

[NumberSix]

Make it £2 a month and I'm in, at £11 a month though you can kiss my arse Google.

 

[whateversa]

The thing that annoys me the most about my Youtube subscription is that I still have to watch ads - which the content creators place in their videos. Its not always so simple to forward past that depending on how you are viewing the video. It's killing Youtube.

 

[Amamoh]

Gee it's still 6 months until April 1st.

Seriously they can shove that idea where all their other projects end up. I hope an alternative (not Chinese) pops up. Already the ads on Android, iOS and Android TV are a joke.

odysee.com

 

[Snazz]

I like free stuff as much as the next person and would love to see the end of Google's monopoly. But I'm also indifferent to the vast majority of YouTube content being 1080p/1440p/4K, even if I notice it without looking at the cog.

Google have likely figured that the consumers who actually do care are sufficiently-willing to subscribe to another service to maintain the "best experience". At least as long as it seems like a trivial expense compared to the cost of their 4K TV/monitor and capable internet connection.

 

[RudyBob]

What kind of a pleb are you?
Don't you have a monitor?
Do you only watch youtube on your phone?

What's a pleb?

 

[Neatfeatguy]

What's a pleb?

Usually used to define a lower class person, kind of slow and uncultured.

 

[sreams]

Yes, but they were saying that without having any real option for and probably never having seen 720 at all.

Where as plenty of people who own 4K capable devices right now regularly watch lots of content in sub-4K resolution, because they don't care, don't see the difference, don't want to use the bandwidth, don't want to spend more money (I.e., Netflix charges more for its 4K tier), don't want to use more system resources, etc etc.

The difference is massive on larger devices like TVs and large PC monitors.

 

[axiomatic13]

HA! No.

 

[Bamda]

Not surprised, it cost a lot of money to host those videoes.

 

[brucek]

The difference is massive on larger devices like TVs and large PC monitors.

The difference *can be* massive on larger devices (of which I have several, thank you), when the content was created to take advantage of it, when it was delivered as intended, and when the consumer chooses to consume it such a way that those advantages can be realized -- none of which is guaranteed.

Theoretical aside, in the real world, the vast majority of even living room TV content is not transmitted at greater than 1080p (and in reality the streams being called "1080" to the consumer are often smaller frame sizes when you look at the actual raw data); higher resolution formats like 4K Ultra HD Bluray have had limited success in gaining market share as consumers favor convenience and price over resolution; and the traditional living room TV is losing share fast to personal consumption on say mobile phones.

With all this working against it, the idea of putting 4K YouTube videos behind a paywall just feels to me like no one will pay, therefore no one will watch, therefore no one will bother producing.

 

[Wasteman]

With all this working against it, the idea of putting 4K YouTube videos behind a paywall just feels to me like no one will pay, therefore no one will watch, therefore no one will bother producing.

THIS!

 

[FuryX]

Once again 1440p is the sweetspot

 

[havok585]

Youtube will start to lose more and more viewers the greedier it gets, with it's intrusive ads everywhere and every minute, we need something greater than this pos.

 

[Phylop]

I already pay for YouTube Premium because I don't like ads. I still don't like this though. 4K should be for all. Next thing we know is they'll be bringing ads to Premium.