YouTube Red has finally come to Australia. Google has announced an initial price of $9.99. Good for those who want to jump on it at launch.
It removes ads and allows users to save any video for offline playback. This is alongside a dedicated app for listening to music. Making this a pretty sweet deal as it doubles as a music streaming app.
Thanks. Revised.
Its showing $12.99 not $9.99?
@qtvinsta: what if you were buying prepaid credit with a discount .. (ie Coles has 25%off right now) the saving would be minor but still a saving.
Red Tube?
naughty naughty
Why? Looking at porn is naughty?
With a name like that, there has to be lots of free pr0n or it won't fly.
Can anyone update us with details? not keen to spend $9.99 to find out there is no pr0n.
And was just about to lose my mind… than I see it's monthly.
Yea they can shove it. Plenty of tweaks and browser addons that will do all this functionality for free
Yeah chrome has a heap of add ons
I was surprised to find one that actually works (with no negative side effects so far)
May I ask which add on is that?
Thanks
which one is that? Please share the love. :)
uBlock Origin plugin if you want to remove adds.
ProxFlow if you want to bypass "Not available in your country" nonsense.
I was surprised to find one that actually works (with no negative side effects so far)
I think reducing ad revenue for the video creators would be a negative side effect.
@eug: Yeah, unless they are sharing revenue from the subscriptions with the video creators then this is a fairly dodgy move by Youtube.
By signing up to YouTube Red you’ll also be supporting your favourite YouTube creators as the majority of the membership fee goes to them, just like with YouTube advertising revenue.
@Gravy: Linus from LinusTechTips told me that they actually make more off of YouTube Red revenue than ad revenue :)
@Lysander:
I disagree, it's like winning the lottery. Should people who deserve/need the money only win the lottery?
Google rewards people who are generating money for them, they are getting their share of the revenue.
The creator of one good video should not make $100,000+ for a bit of work while a nurse only get $70,000 for a year of hard, more important and difficult work.
Cool story comrade.
working smart > working hard
Bull. Lots of luck involved. It is like a casino. The only party that always wins is Google.
When you go to hospital next time, maybe think about it again.
Slightly different from lottery as Google always wins and has an influence who wins their lottery (by pushing and promoting certain videos). I already pay Google with my data they collect (and they collect a lot which they use to sell to advertisers and create ads targeted at me). That is sufficient payment.
Before ads Youtube worked fine. A lot of people create their content because they want to and they want to share.
The mentality of doing very little and striking it rich is what causes a lot of problems.
If you are prepared to work hard for all your life you deserve everything you get.
I am much more in favour of that kind of revenue generating if Google and the creators only got 1000 per video that generates revenue and the rest is donated to hospitals, schools, unis etc. in the creator's home country to enable more people to create content for youtube etc. and to give back to the community. Google still makes many billions through their other businesses.
I hate it when projects that worked fine without monetisation (such as Youtube) are taken over by corporations and they then tell us monetisation is necessary to run the service (which is not true as it was fine before). Those corporations think the people are really stupid to buy into this argument (sadly some do).
Anyway, I will avoid any such service including Youtube Red and am happy to have ads removed using VLC player.
pretty sure they will be.
If you are prepared to work hard for all your life you deserve everything you get.
And if you innovate and produce a marketable product you deserve everything you can negotiate for, whether you work "hard" or not.
@Lysander: The cost of running a service such as YouTube is not zero - it is quite substantial.
YouTube may have worked fine for you before ads, but somebody was paying some large bills for the servers + bandwidth. Without some kind of monetisation it would most likely have been shut down eventually.
Your idea of excessive profits being donated to good social causes like health and education already exists: it's called Tax. In theory a government will use tax money to pay for services that benefit society at large. If you want more money to go to essential services, I'd suggest you campaign for tougher laws around business tax and penalties on its avoidance.
I'm not arguing the system works perfectly as-is, but I don't think it's realistic to simply say this stuff works great without monetisation.
I already pay Google with my data they collect (and they collect a lot which they use to sell to advertisers and create ads targeted at me).
You remove ads with VLC player. If ads don't play, advertisers don't pay.
Before ads Youtube worked fine.
You have to build a user base first. After that, something has to pay for the servers, bandwidth, and staff costs of running YouTube.
I hate it when projects that worked fine without monetisation (such as Youtube) are taken over by corporations and they then tell us monetisation is necessary to run the service (which is not true as it was fine before).
Are you really of the opinion that it is possible to run a service like YouTube with no revenue?
What do you think will pay for the costs of running the service? Why do you think YouTube got so much money from investors in the early days which enabled the service to be free at the start?
Do you think firms like Sequoia Capital are charities who happily gave away millions of dollars to run youtube for free at the start without expecting anything in return?
Anyway, I will avoid any such service including Youtube Red and am happy to have ads removed using VLC player.
The only people you're hurting are the creators of the videos you watch.
Making a video is not innovation.
Making an innovative video is innovation.
You don't seem to value entertainment against healthcare, but the market disagrees.
Ever heard of Wikipedia and Wikimedia? Works with donations and volunteering.
Heh, here you are saying you will not pay for ad-free youtube (plus google play music), or even allow video creators to earn income from your view by blocking ads.
Will people with the same mindset as you donate to youtube? Will there be enough people donating to youtube to keep it running?
You seem to have an idealistic view of things. The real world doesn't work like that.
I wonder whether you think it is more important to watch a nice video or to get the right medication when you are in hospital for example.
The market is willing to pay for entertainment but when healthcare costs go up everybody screams. Is entertainment more important than one's health?
Sadly, you are right and it seems the market thinks so if one looks at p[eople's propensity to pay for things.
What is an innovative video?
The fact that innovation is not part of the requirement for copyright protection shows you that videos are hardly innovative. Originality is but anything is original these days (at least in the legal sense).
I wonder whether you think it is more important to watch a nice video or to get the right medication when you are in hospital for example.
Why do you have a computer? You should have donated the money you spent on it, along with all the games you've paid for, to a hospital. Do you think your gaming pleasure is more important than a nurse's salary?
Is entertainment more important than one's health?
Is your entertainment more important that one's health?
@eug:
I donate regularly to them. Volunteer my time and skills, too. Also volunteer those things locally.
I am not against spending money and rewarding people - I just DO NOT like to be forced and have this DICTATED to me.
@eug:
All the games I got are from bundles where I can donate ALL proceeds to charity. Computer is a throwaway recycled computer.
My entertainment is NOT more important than anyone's health.
I volunteer a lot and sacrifice salary in order to do so. What about you? Any volunteering? Any sacrifice? Any donations? Easy to attack but let's now talk about you if you want to go down that route.
@eug:
To block the ads is exactly why I use VLC. That is the sole point.
People create without money - plenty. See Wikipedia, Wikimedia and other real world initiatives.
I have a PC to do my work, too. Sadly I need a PC for that.
I just DO NOT like to be forced and have this DICTATED to me.
What is forcing you? ¬_¬
If you don't like the product choose not to consume it. :/
chrome is a botnet
I just DO NOT like to be forced and have this DICTATED to me.
How exactly is YouTube forcing you to use them?
If you don't like how they operate, rather than steal content, you should just stop using it. Why is your enjoyment more important than the content creator's income stream?
Computer is a throwaway recycled computer. My entertainment is NOT more important than anyone's health.
So why did you keep it for your own use? Going by your high moral standards, you should have sold it and donated the proceeds to your local hospital. Is your own personal entertainment more important than someone's health? Is it more important for you to play a game or to get the right medication when you are in a hospital?
My entertainment is NOT more important than anyone's health.
So why are you spending money on your entertainment, rather than donating it all to a nurse?
I volunteer a lot and sacrifice salary in order to do so. What about you?
Heh, you have no idea. I'm not one to tell everyone about it publicly though.
But this isn't about me, it's about you. You're the one who started this.
You think YouTube can run just as it is, relying solely on donations.
You are unaware that YouTube was free at the start because they were funded by venture capitalists. They are not a charity - they never intended to provide a free service forever.
You continually bring up nurses salaries and health care, saying that it's more important than people's entertainment. Yet you yourself spend money on your own entertainment. Why is your entertainment more important than other people's entertainment?
You think content creators should not be rewarded too highly for their work. If they produce a popular video, they should only be rewarded up to a small figure that you determine.
You dislike the amount of money that YouTube pays to popular content creators. So you steal the content instead by blocking ad revenue. No moral qualms there.
People create without money - plenty. See Wikipedia, Wikimedia and other real world initiatives.
How much have you donated to Wikipedia? Would you donate the same amount regularly to YouTube? You're already denying them revenue as it is.
@eug:
No one wanted the computer hence it was on the scrap. Ever tried selling an old computer (like 6 years old which cost $200 new?)
I am not spending money on any entertainment. Where do you get that from?
YouTube was fine before Google. Why do you think Google is some kind of saviour or benevolent force?
How do you know what Youtube was meant to be?
I never said I determine the figure but it should be kept in relationship to other professions, qualifications needed for those professions, and the responsibility that one has in these professions. If you do not understand that, that's OK. Just really sad that you appear not to be able to make a distinction between things that are essential and important and those that are not.
I am not stealing anything. Your argument goes both ways. Content creators know about all the apps and add-on's out there. If you want to make sure you get money for every view out there, do not put it on Youtube but submit it to a service with a full paywall.
Also, if I put content up that I created and hence contribute to the site, then how am I stealing if I look at content someone else has put up with no expectation of payment?
You obviously are a Google fanboy which is fine. Just do not expect everybody to like what they are and do. Plenty of examples of Google breaking the law, especially in Europe in relation to data protection where Google steals data and profits from it.
Also, you forget that only a few people who contribute to YouTube are being paid. Even if they want to be paid, GOOGLE decides who will. I guess you think that is fair. The great majority of content creators get nothing from Youtube and Google gets all ad revenue and profits from the variety of free content created. One of my friends works in their legal department and I have seen the contracts, policies and conditions.
If any local business tried to trade in a similar fashion I am sure they would be torn apart here.
Over and out. I'd rather spend my time helping people than arguing with a fanboy.
Let's just agree to disagree and move on. You use Youtube and pay, and I either do not use it and don't pay or only use those parts that do not have ads in which case no revenue is lost.
@eug:
To your final question: Yes, I would if I thought it was worth it. Give about $20 a month to Wikipedia, Wikimedia etc. even though I hardly use it as I think it is useful and worthwhile project that serves the community and mankind. And I would happily give the same to any platform which distributes fairly to all content creators as even those videos that are not watched millions of times, create a great variety and make YT more attractive as a whole so even though Google decides not to pay them anything they should get a fair share. I would not pay if the platform gets anymore than their costs and a moderate amount of profit. Surely not a 50:50 or 60:40 split.
And I like to give voluntarily, not because someone tells me to. Again, if you do not know the distinction I feel sad for you.
Ever tried selling an old computer (like 6 years old which cost $200 new?)
Yes. Even $50 is money that the poor nurse who only earns $70k can use.
I am not spending money on any entertainment. Where do you get that from?
How much does it cost in electricity to run your computer?
Have you bought any of the games you've posted in your deals?
Since you're super-concerned about nurses salaries, any time you spend playing games or watching TV could be time used to earn money to donate to nurses.
The point is, you seem to think that nobody should be paid higher than a nurse who "only gets $70,000 a year". You shouldn't be wasting your time on frivolous things like entertaining yourself if nurses are in such dire straits. After all, what's more important - entertainment or one's health?
YouTube was fine before Google.
You seem unaware about what VC firms do and why they do it. It's all about profit.
Why do you think Google is some kind of saviour or benevolent force?
Please point out where I said that.
How do you know what Youtube was meant to be?
YouTube started their ad program before Google bought them. They never asked for donations. Something has to pay for the huge hosting and bandwidth costs. Things don't magically get paid for in the real world.
YouTube was only officially launched after a VC firm invested millions of dollars to keep it running long enough to build a user base. VC firms are not charities or altruistic entities; they do not donate millions of dollars a year to a purely-entertainment website and not expect a return.
I never said I determine the figure but it should be kept in relationship to other professions, qualifications needed for those professions, and the responsibility that one has in these professions.
So they should be paid the same as TV and movie actors then?
I am not stealing anything.
It's interesting how humans can readily point out the faults in others while being oblivious to their own.
End result: You're taking something for nothing. There's a word for that.
Content creators know about all the apps and add-on's out there. If you want to make sure you get money for every view out there, do not put it on Youtube but submit it to a service with a full paywall.
Movie production companies know all about about rips and torrents, yet they still sell movies on bluray and DVDs. Are they being silly for doing that?
Also, if I put content up that I created and hence contribute to the site, then how am I stealing if I look at content someone else has put up with no expectation of payment?
If you only watch videos by content creators that are unmonetized, you will then be stealing from YouTube who has to pay for the staff and infrastructure to host those videos. You might think that's OK since Google is rich, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's stealing by denying ad revenue.
Also, you forget that only a few people who contribute to YouTube are being paid.
Just a few? Like 6-7 people? You might want to check your list again.
Youtube and Google gets all ad revenue and profits from the variety of free content created.
You seem to be forgetting that it costs a huge amount of money to run the massive infrastructure that hosts YouTube. That, and Google is a business, not a charity. It is perfectly OK for them to make some money. Nobody is forcing anyone to upload free content to YouTube.
One of my friends works in their legal department and I have seen the contracts, policies and conditions.
Right. Larry Page is my bestest friend in the world and he showed me all the contracts, policies, and conditions that YouTube has. I read all of them cover-to-cover one day when I was bored and concluded that YouTube is a service that generates revenue with ads, they don't force anybody to use them, they pay content creators who sign up to get paid, and it costs a lot of money to run.
Let's just agree to disagree and move on. You use Youtube and pay, and I either do not use it and don't pay or only use those parts that do not have ads in which case no revenue is lost.
Sure, do whatever you want. Block ads, don't block ads, we are all free to do what we want. Just read through the whole discussion again - I'm not trying to get you to pay anything or stop blocking ads.
I'm just intrigued at how you're so against youtube paying creators of popular videos lots of money, how you keep bringing up poor nurses, how you think content creators (quite a few of which YouTube is their full-time job) should not be able to earn a lot of income (they should be capped with the remainder donated to nurses/schools/etc instead. What about your salary?), your high-horse comments like "is it more important to watch a video or to get the right medication when you are in hospital" and "Is entertainment more important than one's health?" (while you spend time and money on your own entertainment), how you think a site like YouTube can run indefinitely without monetisation, and how you're unhappy about somehow being "forced" and "dictated" by Google to pay the creators of the content you're entertaining yourself with - so instead you just steal it and have no qualms about it.
And I would happily give the same to any platform which distributes fairly to all content creators as even those videos that are not watched millions of times,
So you're saying you will happily give money to any platform which distributes fairly, but in the meantime you have no qualms about stealing revenue from existing content creators and hosting services rather than allowing ads that don't really cost you anything?
@DreadEmperor: Not all of them are on Patreon though. Doing both Red and Patreon would be the best I suppose.
Developing a cure for HIV
I'm confused… are we talking about nurses or virologists? Something something credit to the technicians as opposed to the engineers.. follow that with a something something instant gratification and deluded philanthropy.
If you want to cure anything you must invest in R & D. And if you're really pining for some form of medical messiah you need to look more towards someone like Dr. Salk as opposed to a handful of nurses, and instead turn your apparent animosity towards people like the 'anti vaxers'. Whooping cough anyone?
Just examples. Anything in the medical field is more worthwhile if it helps people be healthy and live longer than the mash=up of funny cat videos or playing a game and talking while doing it (again, just examples - I am aware there are videos other than that).
@foxmulder: may I ask how you do that? I've been copying the url manually the entire time - takes a little longer than I'd like.
cheers.
Sorry, which browser extension blocks ads on my phone and gives me Google Play Music?
You can't get browser extensions on your mobile phone, silly!
@tranqme:
But funnily enough if you have a Windows phone you can get either mytube or metrotube and avoid ads, save content locally, and steam audio only.
Funny you can't do it on an Android phone without the subscription…
Root your phone and you can download AdAway to block ads, doesn't give you google play music though. Cheers
@tomkun01: Mind elaborating? I've just moved back to Android and miss background audio streaming from YouTube. Firefox works OK in the background but can be a bit unreliable at times, an alternative would be awesome
I'm against annoying and intrusive website ads, but YouTube is an excellent service that is offered for free.
If you like the content, why not support the creators?
Plus this removes the ads on other devices such as the Roku.
Well until now, YouTube Red wasn't available in Australia
So the only way to watch it without ads before now, was to use browser plugins
They can block adds on mobile too? And you can get access to Google music for free through a plugin?
You missed the includes Google Play Music part, huh?
damn :-( I was about to pop on this.
If it works the same as it does in the US, the YouTube Red subscription also gives you a subscription to Google Play Music, so I wouldn't instantly dismiss it.
cheaper than spotify , is google play music as good at finding new music as spotify?
I don't think so going by what I've read online.
I originally had a google play music subscription for $11.99 a month and I got an email today saying the price of my subscription is now $9.99 and YouTube red is included and changes will be activated automatically
You dont even need this if you have a jailbroken iPhone. Nice post btw
Thanks Op, but, who in their right mind subscribes to Utubes?
Good point. As previously mentioned,any Chrome extensions do the job of YouTube Red for free. However some may like this.
True point. Seems to suit or compliment well with those using Google play already.
Really, they give you access YouTube Red exclusive movies? How?
Do note that you also get access to Google Play Music for the price. So instead of paying $11.99 for Spotify you could pay $9.99 for YouTube Red + GPM.
This. I see it as a sweetener for a Play Music all access subscription over Spotify.
yeah, I use play music so i've been hanging out for red to arrive in australia as a "free" addon.
background play and add free play on the chromecast are winners for me
Very nice.
I purchased the 6 month gift subscription deal for Google Music at 50% off in Feb (thought I saw it on OZB but couldnt find it - http://www.androidauthority.com/google-play-music-gift-67306…) and I've automatically been given access with $9.99 billing starting from August when my 6 month subscription runs out. Very happy!
You did. The current gift subscriptions still work out to $11.99/month though. I wonder it'll get updated.
@downcomesthenight: Nah, I couldn't find it with OzB's search feature either! I googled it instead. :)
I would imagine their main customers are mobile phone browsers - no app to block ads and the ability to play videos on the background (ie switch the screen off), which would have made listening to podcasts while I was overseas much more enjoyable :(
listen while screen off is a big plus for me (exercise while listening to lectures etc)
isn't it YoutubeRed?