Can’t even seek through songs.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only so long as Google decides to continue serving content for free to people who contribute nothing to their bottom line, which isn’t guaranteed to last.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ultimately, there’s no real way to get around the fact that operating huge platforms like YouTube that serve hundreds of millions of people every day comes with very significant costs, and someone has to pay them. Either users pay them directly, advertisers pay them in exchange for ad space, or investors pay them in exchange for the ability to control the platform for whatever purpose they want.

          Given that, I’m personally pretty happy to settle on direct subscription fees. For the sheer amount of content you get, I don’t think it’s really that unreasonable, though I am of course speaking as someone in a position where I can afford them.

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      An argument could easily be made for Spotify as well. There are plenty of options for streaming music for free to your device with download support. Just about anything can be done for free if people are willing.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, for now. YouTube is cracking down on ad-blockers, don’t think they’ll let those free tools work forever…