Comment by GaryBluto
3 months ago
It's kind of shocking to me that so many people would download an app like this and sign in using their actual YouTube account.
3 months ago
It's kind of shocking to me that so many people would download an app like this and sign in using their actual YouTube account.
It's not just cost and ads. It's having the possibility to reduce attempts to manipulate my inner reptile brain. With various clients, you can disable shorts, recommended, you have sponsorblock, you can replace youtube-face-thumbs with actual thumbs and get crowd-sourced titles that better reflect the contents.
I also don't need to manually go set speed to 1.75x and enable subs in english, it's a one-time setting. _Further_ I can download a video locally, for whatever reason (later viewing, bw throttling, risk of deletion, etc).
As if that weren't enough, I don't have to watch videos logged in, my client is just set up to download my select channels.
I now see zero use of a youtube account.
It has a far better user interface than the official YT interface. And that interface can be heavily customized to your exact preferences.
My wife has YT Premium, and we find ourselves watching YT in SmartTube just because the interface is so much better.
Same here, we also both have YT Premium and use SmartTube. Our dislike of "Shorts" pushed everywhere in the YT app is what got us to switch to SmartTube. We watch Youtube on our 65" TV via Chromecast, so shorts are just really a crap experience and we do not want to see them at all. SmartTube lets us eliminate them, as well as all the other awesome UI customization makes it a far superior experience.
The cost of being brainwashed by ads and sponsor slots is also high.
Even with YouTube Premium you don’t get the feature set you get with SmartTube. The sponsor block integration on my TV is brilliant.
I think it's more shocking to people how much YouTube Premium costs.
Is $14 dollars for ad-free, unlimited access to literally billions of videos really a steep price? Personally if I were to get rid of all but one of my media subscriptions I would stick with this one, since it's got everything - entertainment, education, inspiration, you name it.
$14 is two days worth of living in my country for your average man on the street, among many other similar places. Imagine if you had to pay $200 to watch YouTube, that's how much these services cost for us.
They refuse to correct for purchasing power parity and are left with nothing in the end. Steam seems to do very well in comparison.
(I don't watch YouTube even for free, but practically everybody I know does without paying anything, and it makes a lot of sense).
3 replies →
I am not going to watch billions of Videos.
Its not entirely ad free, just fewer ads, AFAIK sponsored segments remain so there are still ads, sometimes quite lengthy ones.
$14/month is $168 an year, and if you subscribe to multiple other video services the annual total is going to be quite high.
18 replies →
When the alternative is the exact same thing you describe but for $0 dollars, then yes.
1 reply →
Not to mention included YouTube Music. It's one of the few subs I pay for, because I watch a _lot_ of YouTube on the TV. And also like to have it in the background for "Podcast" style videos where the video is really only an accompaniment.
5 replies →
14 dollars a month for a decade is $1680.
To save $1680 I'd prefer to just use an adblocker (which I have done for the past decade)
9 replies →
That's extremely subjective, but I'd rather save that $14 a month towards retirement. And if YouTube was only available with ads... well, that's no videos for me, maybe for the better, I would waste less time.
11 replies →
That's a very generous characterization of what most YouTube content is.
My experience is that you are basically paying to remove the official ads from your disguised ads.
The various algorithm tweaks for engagement these past few years and the introduction of shorts have significantly degraded the content quality and many good channels have just thrown the towel.
1 reply →
Listen, I only make about $350-$400 a week after taxes and deductions. So, yes, $14 a month is a LOT. With my income, even $5 can and does break the bank if I'm not careful. Not everyone has a SWE's salary.
$14 dollars better spent on liberapay
For something that was previously free with only unintrusive ads, yes.
>ad-free
hasn't been in over a year
9 replies →
> for ad-free
Most youtube content being disguised ads, this cannot be true.
I hate google, and I refuse to give them any money.
Thanks for paying $14/month to support my ad-free yt-dlp archive, shmuck.
1 reply →
$14 and I still have to run several plugins just to make the site actually usable. No thanks.
It's >12x the ad revenue they bring in per monthly-active YouTube user (suggesting they'd still be happy with a much lower price), and the price has increased 75% in the last decade (compared to the 40% real inflation over that period, suggesting they intend to continue increasing the price till public backlash or other effects reduce their total revenue). Plus they're boiling the frog, slowly adding ads back in to music and shorts for premium users, and we'll see how far that initiative goes.
4 replies →
I have premium but also this app. It has SponsorBlock and better UI customization than the official one.
Sometimes people download it because there's no alternative. E.g. the YT app is not available in the play store in their country on that specific hardware, so the only way to be able to view YT is to use an alternative app like this one.
> the only way to be able to view YT
Surely you can use a web browser?
The user experience accessing YouTube through a web browser on a TV (the main target audience for SmartTube) is less than ideal.
TV and set-top box browsers tend to be slow and fiddly to use from a TV remote. (And often running on underpowered hardware).
Its such a good client. With the YT Roku app, if you change playback speed, quality will drop to 720p or lower. SmartTube lets me watch at full 1080p with 1.5x speed.
No ads is of course a big plus too.
You can install it on Roku?
No, I'm referring to SmartTube on an Nvidia shield. The YT Roku app from Google is hot garbage.
I really couldn't care less about me youtube account
I can't help but think that this is a "I have nothing to hide" argument. It's quite sisyphean to keep accounts perfectly segregated, therefore there's always a chance that personal information can be traced back and pieced together; which, in turn, has "boring-old security" implications: i.e., now someone possibly knows your habbits and times when you are at work
my "personal" information there is as personal as my profile here
YouTube accounts and Google accounts have been one in the same since 2009.
Many people have had multiple gmail accounts since 2004.
I have a gmail account used solely for google store and Android TV related verifications that's unlike other business, personal, registration, or spam email accounts.
The TV's in the house, smart wifi devices, and guest wifi accounts are on separate subnets, the NAS hosted media has limited read only keyhole access accounts for TV apps to use.
Whether it's SmartTube or any other app (iView, SBSOnline, Netflix, etc) it's wise to assume that anyone can be comprised by malware to sniff traffic for (say) bank account passwords, host bots for DDOS or mining, etc.
You don't use a dedicated account for youtube?
Obligatory call to free yourselves from having GMail as your (only) main email and especially to not tie it to YT or other unrelated services.
I can absolutely imagine my YT accounts at some point getting banned for using adblock, some stupid private upload or some comment.
1 reply →
one AND the same
how does this matter?
6 replies →
thats super cool! some people care a lot, some people dont care at all. what a strange world.
Google Account.
Not Youtube account.
Technically correct but somewhat misleading. The app in question only asked for the following Google account permissions:
Why?