Now this is what you call a subscription worth the money. Being able to download and rewatch a few videos (not many have great rewatchability, for me an occasional comedy free of propaganda) without poor connections and constant buffering (when there is no reason other then petty politics) is a must. Granted you can already easily do this with many Firefox extensions. What would make me bite is the ability to watch certain channels from their first video and in the correct chronological order as well as better suggestions; their algorithms have a tendency to try to either suggest rewatching earlier content or tempt people back to the typical low-quality mainstream nonsense. I'm also curious how they manage compensation and how it compares to traditional sources of revenue for content producers.

John

Smart, but until they start treating myself and other webmasters with respect then I will continue with my adblock and internet download manager to take videos off the site when I want.

Techcrunch has some info about the revenue sharing, and it looks heavy-handed.

Today YouTube confirmed that any “partner” creator who earns a cut of ad revenue but doesn’t agree to sign its revenue share deal for its new YouTube Red $9.99 ad-free subscription will have their videos hidden from public view on both the ad-supported and ad-free tiers. That includes videos by popular comedians, musicians, game commentators, and DIY instructors, though not the average person that uploads clips.

It’s a tough pill to swallow that makes YouTube look like a bully. Though turning existing fans into paid subscribers instead of free viewers could earn creators more than the ad revenue, forcing them into the deal seems heavy-handed. YouTube Will Completely Remove Videos Of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal [techcrunch.com]

Wow! They are getting very desperate now... This is the beginning of the end of Google. They tried sucking more and more cash out of webmasters wallets and now it's making them look like a huge a**hole to the general public too.

Over the years I've been baffled that Microsoft and of Apple couldn't get their crap together to offer a competitor. Imagine running a competitor free business. For this, I wonder a few things. First, I think for sure this is going to mean some other option crops up. Opens the door for a competitor. I wonder if this puts ad blockers in a new light legally speaking. I also wonder about all those episodes of say, america's funniest home video suddenly has more legal issues with there being a subscription service. I get that it's still free (with ads), but I just wonder because it's another wrinkle. Also now I wonder if this put the incentive on caring less about those who are not subscribers and this will result is free loaders getting more and more and then more ads on videos. Gradual of course. It would make sense. So ad blocking technology for YouTube rises. Interesting stuff on this.

This is the beginning of the end of Google.

Doubtful.

Over the years I've been baffled that Microsoft and of Apple couldn't get their crap together to offer a competitor

These guys have been so busy stirring their own pot to really notice anything else that goes on outside of their own bottom line.
They aren't equipped to, or aren't really very prepared to offer anything for free -- Their business model prevents them from having the ability to scale or innovate.

Essentially, Microsoft and Apple are stuck in their own mire of corporate rule as it relates to their bottom line. Google has been the only one lately to throw their cares to the wind and venture into the open source world.

Don't wait for the other big guys to run any kind of competition with Google as it might relate to YouTube -- It will be a come from behind little guy with enough guts to not sell out, running on a crowd sourced shoestring, eating burgers and drinking bottled water that'll prove itself as a worthy competitor in the end.

you all know the youtube story. youtube was based on copyright violation from day one. the founders uploading copyrighted material en masse and just before the platform would have to be shut down because of the legal issues, google bought in..

while also letting you save videos to watch offline

i was never a strong believer in this sharing culture thing - at least, there's no money in it. google realizes the market value of the possession of digital products. people still want to own, it's in our nature.

so google continues to extort their content suppliers. what they did with webmasters, they now carry on with youtube starlets. squeezing out the money, and because of their monopoly no one will do anything against it.

Pay to play. Cable. Bundled. Under One Roof.

Broadcasting moved to the web. Inverted in the players pay while the advertisers reap.

The funny thing is that 9.99 a month sounds cheap.

But these days, who has 9.99 a month for amusement?

Might look like nickel and dime compared to bundled cable, but it ain't as bundled cable is already in free fall for fail.

Real world economics are getting in the way. On this one, I think g is five years late and still a dollar short.

(note: Early subscriber services such as Netflix, Spotify, Hulu, etc. are report DOWN this quarter. The Real World ... dollars in pocket ... are beginning to appear. Why? Too many places that inet access at speed sufficient just ain't that cheap.)

Oh, last remark: "If you don't sign we don't show your stuff, free or paid" just means they killed the golden goose (new product).

As a musician, producer of graphics, film, art, etc. I and about 100,000 others will say "kiss my a$$".

Actually I disagree tangor. The vast majority of the producers will say Yes because they have no choice. And they have no choice because there is no alternative medium for them to showcase their media in a cheap and easy-to-do manner. Not to mention there is no other place with even a fraction of Youtube's users.

What Google does with Youtube however is something they will do with the search engine in time. From one point onwards it will be Search with Google.com - for just 0.99 a month and people would gladly pay up.

Have yet to see a pig sprout wings, but I'm willing to be convinced!

Nutterum is right - the people they are targeting for this service clearly make an income from the following they have generated on YouTube. They won't simply take no money vs getting paid, even if it does undercut them. We don't know what the widespread youtuber point of view on this is yet.

because they have no choice

Hollowood (sic) thought the same, too. Hence the rise of Indies. G and YT will force that transition on the web. Don't doubt that.

So basically it's another adblocker that they get the end user to pay them for. They are removing my ads from my videos. Once again the publisher gets screwed.

How else do you think they made an extra $1000000000+ last year for the same quarter? Ripping off webmasters wasn't enough, now they have to go and rip off publishers who create quality content and built up their own following.

Publishers should show google the middle finger and move thier content to "daily motion"...

[faq.dailymotion.com...]

If only dailymotion could handle the traffic. See this is the thing. Someone, somewhere will be the end of this money squeezing fiasco. Until then however, Youtube is just to big to fail as they have the hardware, software and monetarization all figured out for them. Maybe in another 10 years the technology will become advanced enough for some startup to get an entirely new model of video playing/sharing/monetizing (perhaps via mobile..who knows). Now what the 99% of the producers should do is take it and get paid.

I can see a future for an "indie" consortium being created. When? How? Who? Not sure, but this gag by g will certainly urge some producers to seek other avenues of presentation. And probably sooner than later.

After all, CLOUD services are too dang cheap these days.

I going to go counter popular and likely sign up. It's more for the music aspect (for which I know nothing about at this point). If the music aspect of the $10 is legit, then I may just do this. I would think it's going against the grain, but I'm cool with that sometimes. As I found out with Adsense and Google organic traffic, being dependent on one "thing" is a bad business model. All the Tubers raking it in? I send you my condolences. I've been there, done that. Tubers may not be immune afterall. I have no sympathy at this point.

The vast majority of the producers will say Yes because they have no choice.

Didn't I just read somewhere that ESPN called their bluff?

According to a report on the BBC, YouTube is to pay creators for their content while the free trial is running. I couldn't see it any other way, after all, it's YouTube/Google that's offering the free trial, not the content producers.
[bbc.co.uk...]

Paying to remove the ads is a form of ad blocking, and as an advertiser, i'm not sure how that circle will be squared with a prospectively smaller audience.