• FelixCress@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    That’s precisely what I meant. For so many hours it may as well be worth it. Not for an occasional user.

    • no banana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yeah, I wasn’t trying to be rude though I get that the pic without context came off pretty odd. I was just trying to illustrate to others how it would actually be worth not having ads blasted in your face for 7000 hours.

      If premium turns ad-supported I will re-evaluate my decision, of course.

      • FelixCress@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I was just trying to illustrate to others how it would actually be worth not having ads blasted in your face

        Yes, 100%. It is all matter of the context. If I was using YouTube at least the same number of hours as netflix (at least - as YouTube does not create anything themselves) I would definitely consider it. Or if the price was much, much lower than netflix.

        • no banana@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Another part of the equation for me is that the creators get a larger piece of the cash pie. YouTube still gets their cut from the premium membership, just as it does with ads. But the piece that otherwise goes to the the ad budget goes to the creator instead.