YouTube to Launch New Music Subscription Service in March (bloomberg.com) 59
An anonymous reader shares a report: YouTube plans to introduce a paid music service in March, according to people familiar with the matter, a third attempt by parent company Alphabet Inc. to catch up with rivals Spotify and Apple. The new service could help appease record-industry executives who have pushed for more revenue from YouTube. Warner Music Group, one of the world's three major record labels, has already signed on, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private talks. YouTube is also in talks with the two others, Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group, and Merlin, a consortium of independent labels, the people said.
I already use this (Score:1)
It's called converting the mp4 video of whatever song I want to mp3 and not paying a cent biiiiiiiiiitches
Re:Give money to google? (Score:4, Insightful)
How Well did You-Tube Red do?
Being that You-Tube has a tenancy to de-monetize videos on a whim. I don't feel Google would be trusted to actually fairly pay royalties of users of the service.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a way to tell "YouTube Red" the 1st choice?
* (x) Stop fucking pestering me. I didn't sign up for your free trial last month, and I don't want to EVER sign up for it.
* ( ) No Thanks
* ( ) 1 month Free Trial
Re: (Score:2)
Demonetized video don't get ad revenue but they still get YouTube Red money.
Re: (Score:1)
Google Play Music? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
IKR, I already pay for the Youtube Red/Google Play Music bundle. Does this new service mean, they are separating the two?
Blah (Score:2, Informative)
People need to understand that it's the giant major labels that are pushing for this. They're the ones raking in the money while the artists are making 1/100 1/1000 of a cent per stream. For independent unsigned artists that release albums on their own are screwed even more because the revenue go to these record companies even though the independent artists have absolutely nothing to do with these labels.
Service called "Cat, please get back into the bag" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
YouTube has too many directives to be effective (Score:5, Insightful)
It wants to be the everything to online video. It is a destination for the casual viewer because anyone can upload anything and is therefore useful of viral stuff or breaking news. It's a destination for the new media crowd because it allow them a place to create and grow an audience. It mostly missed the boat on game voyeurism but is trying to catch up there.
It's also important for music because MTV et al shit the bed and moved into more profitable arena of reality television. It's a place for new musicians to debut and a place for existing musicians to expand their audience and to interact with their current one.
However, and this is the tricky part, it requires YouTube to be really good at getting those videos in front of people. This is where having all of those directives comes to mess things up. You have advertisers who have ideas of who they want to be put in front of. You have the aforementioned audience who want more of the same sorts of things they're already watching. And you have the new people wanting an audience. What Alphabet/Google/YouTube has learned in the past few years is that you can't please everyone at the same time and please anyone in the process.
Discovery is a mess and hasn't got any better that it was five years ago when the algorithm took over their front page. It's arguably worse.
So moving music away from YouTube prime might be a good answer for the record labels, but that pretty much guarantees it's not good for anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like the CEO is rudderless with no clue of understanding the site, and has no understanding of why people went to youtube in the first place. On top of that it seems like they want to crash the entire site with no survivors. Look at the bullshit over PDP and the adpocalypse which was actually nothing. But people were making complaints and flagging actual pro-terrorism videos, weird videos of preteen kids doing various things with entire comment sections full of pedo-comments, and they did nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
What Alphabet/Google/YouTube has learned in the past few years is that you can't please everyone at the same time and please anyone in the process.
Boy, they're failing hard. Alexa lists 21 [alexa.com] sites in the category "Video Sharing". On the global list YouTube is #2 worldwide, next is Vimeo and DailyMotion at #132 and #133, both trending down from a year ago. The fourth place is held by vidmax.com, a site I've never heard of ranked #38,260. Is this another /.-ism where Microsoft and Intel are failing because Linux/ARM netbooks? I'm sure that at any time there are many creators, users and advertisers leaving YouTube because they got their panties in a bunch
Re: (Score:1)
It mostly missed the boat on game voyeurism but is trying to catch up there.
? So what's the most popular site ATM to get your video game walkthrus/demos?
What will this do to independent musicians? (Score:2)
I don't use Apple, because I'm not an idoit. (Score:1, Troll)
Why the fuck would I lock myself into an computing eco-system that keeps forces me to buy over priced crappy hardware and over prices services that I will never want to use to begin with? So towards that, yeah. I don't know exactly what Apple music has it it's catalog and I never will. Because Apple as a company can get fucked and die in a fire.
But beyond that I fucking hated Spotify for the same reason I hate Apple in general. A closed Ecosystem that required me to use an app to listen to music. And
Re: (Score:1)
What you call a "closed Ecosystem" others might call "All Inclusive". Many people don't want to have to deal with third party add ons.
Re: (Score:2)
/Oblg. in B4 YT music apocalypse ...
> As pretty much everyone already knows many people use YouTube to play music in the background while doing various things.
Yup, everyone knows that except these schmucks (suits) trying to monetize every last nickel and dime from every music video which is going to end up destroying what made it great in the first place.
People freely share music is a cornerstone of society. Hell, that's part of the reason YT exists -- convenience of free music. There is literally no w
Google loves stealing everyone's music (Score:1)
Google loves stealing everyone's music, and then charging you listen to it, all while Google profits billions from the stolen music
Re: (Score:1)
Don't they have problems already? (Score:2)
Shouldn't they fix those problems before adding to the pile? Said no one at the board meeting apparently.
Coming From (Score:2)
The let's find more ways we can undermine the platform department. If they want to charge more for the "red" service I have now, I'll simply unsubscribe and throw my money towards Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm already paying for YouTube Red. Do I need to pay another $10/month for a service I'm paying for right now? If this is the case, I'll keep YT Red, but I may just toss cash at Amazon so I can have it scan my music library and have it available on all my devices.
More Confusing product lineups from Google (Score:3)
So we have Google Play Music. We have YouTube Red. And they are creating ANOTHER subscription music service?
The new service, internally referred to as Remix, would include Spotify-like on-demand streaming and would incorporate elements from YouTube, such as video clips, the people said. YouTube has reached out to artists to seek their help in promoting the new service, one of the people said.
Both of their existing services have on-demand streaming and video clips. One thing that's a pretty rule rule of the internet: people aren't going to suddenly pay for something that they've been getting for free for a decade. Regardless of how snazzy you might make it.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Play kicks Spotify's ass.
I agree. I have a family subscription.
At the end of the day, there's just the music. If I can get that reliably with a decent interface there's not a whole lot more to can do to make it better. The issue here is marketing, and possibly price. It's not the quality of the service.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Google's big enough to implement that policy, and it'll shut up the whiney marketing departments that complain that they don't want their vegan mean substitute ad played during a hunting video (or whatever).
If they keep kowtowing to advertisers, the entire platform could fall apart, or at least expose itself to serious competition.
I don't understand. Google makes its money by serving up targeting advertisements. How is that "kowtowing"? It's their business model.
Re: (Score:2)
If you submit ads to YouTube, they will universally be shown on all YouTube videos. You can't choose countries, ethics, subject matter, or complain about being "inappropriately" shown.
I think you have quite a lot of customization possible when you post an ad, including "content exclusion". In fact, Google and others are having issues because they give a little to much control (ex: exclude black people).
Re: (Score:2)
Then advertisers will just stop advertising there. There is more content on the Internet than ads to be served with said content.
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome (Score:2)
I can't wait to decline this over and over in my phone's Youtube app!