Get ready to pay to see 4K video on YouTube
YouTube viewers may have to pay if they want high-resolution streams in future, as the video service is testing limiting 4K video resolution to Premium subscribers.
A number of users discovered in September that the option to play a YouTube video at 2,160p was restricted, accompanied by text claiming it was a "Premium" feature and to "Tap to upgrade" to it. The change allowed viewing of video at 1,440p and lower, but 4K was off limits for some people.
On Sunday, YouTube's Twitter account confirmed that affected users are "part of our experiment to know better the feature preferences Premium & non-Premium viewers." YouTube didn't formally announce the changes before they were introduced, but did request for feedback about it.
It is unknown how many people are affected by the change, nor if it will be rolled out to all non-paying users, but it could be a major alteration to the service in multiple ways.
The most obvious one is that more people could sign up for the $11.99 YouTube Premium subscription to get 4K playback. YouTube Premium provides ad-free viewing, as well as YouTube Music Premium, downloadable videos, and the ability to play videos in the background on the iPhone and iPad.
Aside from bringing in money to YouTube, the change could also save the service money. High bandwidth requirements of 4K video could mean a reduction in cost if free users are limited to lower resolutions.
The burden of video streaming isn't only being felt by YouTube. Netflix, which already limits 4K to more costly plans, has worked to increase revenues by cracking down on password sharing and introducing an ad-supported tier.
YouTube has previously tested a cheaper ad-free "Premium Lite" tier of service, providing video streams but without the extra Premium level benefits.
Read on AppleInsider
A number of users discovered in September that the option to play a YouTube video at 2,160p was restricted, accompanied by text claiming it was a "Premium" feature and to "Tap to upgrade" to it. The change allowed viewing of video at 1,440p and lower, but 4K was off limits for some people.
On Sunday, YouTube's Twitter account confirmed that affected users are "part of our experiment to know better the feature preferences Premium & non-Premium viewers." YouTube didn't formally announce the changes before they were introduced, but did request for feedback about it.
hi! it looks like your part of our experiment to know better the feature preferences Premium & non-Premium viewers. if you have more thoughts in mind, you can share it here so we can make improvements: https://t.co/P97P6LUQmf
-- TeamYouTube (@TeamYouTube)
It is unknown how many people are affected by the change, nor if it will be rolled out to all non-paying users, but it could be a major alteration to the service in multiple ways.
The most obvious one is that more people could sign up for the $11.99 YouTube Premium subscription to get 4K playback. YouTube Premium provides ad-free viewing, as well as YouTube Music Premium, downloadable videos, and the ability to play videos in the background on the iPhone and iPad.
Aside from bringing in money to YouTube, the change could also save the service money. High bandwidth requirements of 4K video could mean a reduction in cost if free users are limited to lower resolutions.
The burden of video streaming isn't only being felt by YouTube. Netflix, which already limits 4K to more costly plans, has worked to increase revenues by cracking down on password sharing and introducing an ad-supported tier.
YouTube has previously tested a cheaper ad-free "Premium Lite" tier of service, providing video streams but without the extra Premium level benefits.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
An alternative would be for Apple to create a similar service, ad-free, pay-for-use service for a reasonable amount or money that would go to paying the video originators. This could be an extension of AppleTV+.
PS - I work in streaming media. Rarely does the business rational match the technological capability or cost. It’s typically something else — usually screwing over a competitor.
The “garbage to good” ratio on YouTube is waaaaaaaaaaay too high on the “garbage” side for me to ever consider a subscription; even the lowest tier ($5/month) is equal to what I pay for a couple of different streaming services (Apple TV+ and Acorn TV, as two examples) that offer ZERO ads and much higher-quality content with a much higher ratio of content I enjoy.
The worst part is that Google is extorting both viewers and creators here: they will undoubtedly offer some creators the opportunity to make 4K available to non-subscribers … for a fee. Luckily for me, among the best things you can find on YouTube are podcasts … which never needed to be 4K in the first place. I’ll miss some of the Naturescape type stuff, but paying $144 a year (plus tax) for 4K is DOA for me.
The one positive thing I have to say is that at least they're not surveying a sample population with leading questions like "how much would you pay for feature x" but instead watching the actual behaviour of their users.
"I don't watch anything on YouTube that I'm dying to pay money to watch in glorious 4K."
Yes, 4K drone videos are very cool! I can also find those on Vimeo, which is actually a more appropriate venue to showcase that kind of content.