• FelixCress@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 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
              ·
              7 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
                ·
                7 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
                  6 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.