Financial Times: YouTube to launch paid channel subscriptions very soon

A report from the Finanacial Times is claiming that Google might launch paid Youtube channels as soon as this week. Users will be able to sign-up for a subscription to access "specialist" channels.

The report quotes an unnamed source that also mentions that Google has been working on this for months and that once launched subscriptions will start at about $2 per month. A Youtube spokesperson half-confirmed this story by speaking to Mashable:

We have nothing to announce at this time, but we're looking into creating a subscription platform that could bring even more great content to YouTube for our users to enjoy and provide our creators with another vehicle to generate revenue from their content, beyond the rental and ad-supported models we offer.

Of course, this isn't the first time we've heard such a rumor. Youtube has been heading towards a premium channel model for quite a while and rumors of subscriptions have been around for years but this time we might actually see it happen.

Source: FT Via: Mashable | Image via Youtube

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

AdDuplex report: Nokia dominates WP ecosystem; low-end devices selling well

Next Story

Windows Phone 8 update soon to be tested by carriers

28 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

They'd likely be better offering a 'ad-free' tubes experience IMO. I am honestly in awe when I see the magic my adblocking and url redirection does when I use another system and happen to fall upon youtube.

THIS, my friends, is the sole reason for google going against whole industry and initiate their crusade against H264 and (F)RAND.

YouTube has buffering issues. Most videos won't load without stopping for the buffer to catch up, unless 360/480p, while I can stream 720/1080p content from Netflix or Vimeo and never have these problems. I certainly hope Google can resolve these buffering issues, because I'd be upset if it performed the same if I were paying to access the service.

I have absolutely no problem with Youtube.

Using IE 10 on windows 8. geForce 670 gpu. Bell Sympatico as ISP. Never buffering. Video start almost as soon as the page is loaded even for 1080 quality.

Had no problem watching BSG Blood and Chrome on youtube in fact it was a very pleasant exp the quality of the stream was really good.

My only problem with it is when i change the quality sometime it bugs and the video stop and wont start again. It doesn't happen often though. Just wish i could set Youtube to default at the highest quality possible.

I don't believe it's the provider packet shaping the traffic.
I have seen the same exact problem from different providers at home and work.
From home I have 60Mbps cable connection from Roadrunner and at work we have 100Mbps+ fiber. I've seen the same exact issue from both locations.

In particular and recently, I tried streaming the (1080p) version of the Man of Steel trailer, both at work and home. Both of them stopped and buffered multiple times while watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...&v=T6DJcgm3wNY&hd=1

Edited by ahinson, May 6 2013, 8:35pm :

ahinson said,
I don't believe it's the provider packet shaping the traffic.
I have seen the same exact problem from different providers at home and work.
From home I have 60Mbps cable connection from Roadrunner and at work we have 100Mbps+ fiber. I've seen the same exact issue from both locations.

In particular and recently, I tried streaming the (1080p) version of the Man of Steel trailer, both at work and home. Both of them stopped and buffered multiple times while watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...&v=T6DJcgm3wNY&hd=1


I just tried it a moment ago and it played fine. In the past it didn't.

C'mon, it is not that Youtube will stop the free service instead, Youtube is just adding a new service (that is optional) so, i don't find any problem about it.

I do... Youtube wasn't set out to be a direct monetisation service and I hate it when service providers trap you with content and then say they are offering paid stuff. In literally no time you will go broke having to find some decent content because people will stop focusing on the content but rather on the money. I see a dim future.

ingramator said,
In literally no time you will go broke having to find some decent content because people will stop focusing on the content but rather on the money. I see a dim future.

This. Shame no one else can see it beyond the "want cable alternative now" mindset. This is really going to change t

Personally this could be a great idea if done correctly, giving small people an easy route into making a career for themselves in media. But will they follow some sort of Netflix model or would people subscribe to a specific channel.

Edited by Gaffney, May 6 2013, 12:06pm :

ingramator said,
Pfft career this is nothing more than a scandal for Google to screw more money out of people...

just like any other company. whats your point?
you think Microsoft and Apple dont screw more money out of people

usuz said,

just like any other company. whats your point?
you think Microsoft and Apple dont screw more money out of people

Lol of course they do but it would be like Instagram making you pay to view content that was otherwise free. Its not cool to lure people in with a free service only to start making people pay...

But you pay for Netflix, you pay for movies, you pay for TV. Instagram doesn't take a lot of work and you can't produce a lot of good content. Some youtube producers upload hours of video every week that attracts millions of views.

ingramator said,

Lol of course they do but it would be like Instagram making you pay to view content that was otherwise free. Its not cool to lure people in with a free service only to start making people pay...


how do you know what they are providing for subscription?
this is like netflix subscription at least that's the rumor. you want all movies and tv shows for free? they aren't free in the first place. you have no idea what you are talking about

I'm happy to watch an advert at the beginning, have an advert pop-up, or have banners around a video rather than pay to watch one.

jren207 said,
I'm happy to watch an advert at the beginning, have an advert pop-up, or have banners around a video rather than pay to watch one.

I was happy, but now it's beyond a joke, there is more ads on a youtube web page than anything else...

I'm guessing the majority of the "fee" will go to the content provider (of course google will take their piece of it)... sounds like a delivery platform for pay-to-view media.

dvb2000 said,
good luck with that google, you won't be getting a cent from me.

Maybe you can start charging for G+ too?

What is wrong with charging? if big names like HBO start to make their 'US Only' shows internationally accessible then I'm more than happy to pay a few dollars to watch programmes I can't get on television in my own country. Time for the US entertain industry to wake up and realise there are people out side the US willing and able to pay for content if only they provided a way for it to be accessed.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

What is wrong with charging? if big names like HBO start to make their 'US Only' shows internationally accessible then I'm more than happy to pay a few dollars to watch programmes I can't get on television in my own country. Time for the US entertain industry to wake up and realise there are people out side the US willing and able to pay for content if only they provided a way for it to be accessed.


Don't be stupid, they'll block it from other countries, just you watch, this will be another half decent idea that flops because companies are too idiotic and stupid to use it right, like vevo, instead of using vevo they just outright block videos with certain songs in various countries.

Yes, because offering premium subscription options on a streaming video site (which is something that has been going around for years) is definitely akin to charging users to use a social network.

Well done, son.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

What is wrong with charging? if big names like HBO start to make their 'US Only' shows internationally accessible then I'm more than happy to pay a few dollars to watch programmes I can't get on television in my own country.

This + 1000