Tag: YouTube

Project Crimson Update

With the end of my four month free trial looming, I am once again returning to reflecting on the successes and failures of Project Crimson, that is, my scheme to phase out buying MP3s in favor of using Google’s paid music subscription service. The rationale behind this was that it costs more to buy a single CD each month than it does to pay for a one month subscription to download however much music I feel like.

I was a bit worried that I wouldn’t actually use this on a day to day basis. I was wrong. I immensely enjoy having music to listen to while going about other tasks, and I especially enjoy having the ability to pull from a vast database in order to create a soundtrack for a specific task, such as being able to create a playlist of running cadences for my exercise routine, or what have you.

I have somewhere in the ballpark of three hundred songs currently compiled in one form or another on my various devices among the various google music applications. To claim that each of these is a song that I would otherwise purchase, and therefore another dollar saved, is slightly duplicitous, as my standards for downloading a song for free are understandably lower than my standards for spending money directly on individual songs.

As I said during the opening of this project, my purchasing of music is heavily biased towards those times when I am about to travel, because that is when I will be unable to access free online streaming, and hence when I will need to have whatever music I want to have be downloaded. At the beginning of summer I was looking at a shortlist that included somewhere in the ballpark of $100 worth of music; hence why I was willing to bend my rules against spending money on “Internet luxuries” like a premium account.

And for the record: Google’s music subscription is undoubtedly a luxury. Despite how much I have come to enjoy it, is not like paying for broadband or a cell phone, which, although strictly speaking, remain optional, are made effectively compulsory because of the way society now organizes itself. It is a luxury, like cable, or Netflix, or a newspaper subscription. All nice things to have, but also things that can, in most circumstances, be axed from a tight budget without life-changing implications.

Perhaps this is why I have such trouble coming to terms with Google’s music subscription service, even though I unreservedly enjoy it and think it improves my day to day life. I have always been taught to be scrupulous about expenses, particularly luxuries. I learnt from a young age that money is a finite and scarce resource, and squandering it is not just irresponsible, but morally repugnant.

On the other hand, I have never hesitated to spend when I felt there was an articulable need, and I have relatively few qualms about spending a little extra for a better product after I have been convinced to buy in the first place. I am content to pay extra, for example, for a better fitting or looking pair of jeans provided that they serve my purpose. At restaurants, once I have decided to eat, I am seldom bothered by the relative costs of menu items unless it comes down to a tie on taste. I am able to accept that life has expenses, and that in these expenses there are inevitable tradeoffs that involve the choice between a better experience and a better price.

Which brings me to the price point. Ten dollars a month is I think an interesting price point. It is just enough that I would consider it non-negligible. Ten dollars a month translates to a coffee every two or three weeks depending on the specifics of the order, which is just often enough that I can see it in concrete terms as a regular habit. It also translates to a hundred and twenty a year, which is just enough that I feel uncomfortable carrying around the cash in person and would probably make an extra trip to the bank, if I didn’t spend it on a nice Lego set as a Christmas gift. So, although the expense certainly doesn’t break the bank, it is just large enough to be awkward.

There is one metric I haven’t mentioned that probably plays a larger role in determining both the price offered, and whether or not individuals choose to purchase Google’s music subscription: the monetary value of my time otherwise lost to advertising. This is supposed to be the core feature of their subscription model, and I’m sure is the thing that most informs their pricing. There is a number somewhere that says how many hours of video I watch or listen (but mostly for my purposes listen), and there is a number that says exactly how many advertisements I would have been subjected to during this time. I don’t know whether it is possible for me as a consumer to find this number, at least in the United States.

In any case, using some very wild ballpark guesses, I come up with somewhere around three hours a month. This does assume that every time I could get an advertisement, I do, and that it’s one of the ones that takes up time when I’m listening rather than merely popping up somewhere on my screen. Then again, Google seems to have gotten it in their server that I’m one of those demographics that advertisers want to target, so there are times when I end up seeing more ads than video. Ten dollars to reclaim three hours of good, usable, first-world time is a shockingly good deal. It’s better than minimum wage anywhere I’ve ever lived.

Except there’s that troublesome word “usable”. The economics of opportunity cost assume that I’d be doing, or want to be doing, something else that’s worth that ten dollars. Comparing the cost per hour to minimum wage only works if I have a job that makes at least minimum wage (I don’t) and that I’d be doing it during the time saved (I wouldn’t). Moreover it assumes that these tasks are mutually exclusive. This is true sometimes, but not always, depending on precisely how annoying and distracting the advertisement is. But for the most part, I am free to work with my hands, eyes, and most of my brain on another tab on my computer while advertisements play in the background. This is, after all, what I already do with music.

Since I have already gone over most of the arguments in favor of Google’s subscription service, I will also mention one more that is somewhat compelling in my case: supporting the creative economy. For the people who make the online content, including both music and videos, that my enjoyment depends on, the new subscription model provides a boost in both income and stability that is, while not massive, certainly noticeable. It adds money to the pot. And while there are far better ways of supporting individual creators (like Patreon, hint hint), knowing that my consumer spending is economically enabling and incentivizing the kind of free, accessible, and diverse content that I most enjoy.

After all of this wavering, my inclination is to probably just keep paying for my subscription. After all, I enjoy it. I enjoy having it. I don’t have a particularly pressing need for those ten dollars a month, and I can always cancel if that changes. I am still on the fence about this conclusion. But for the time being, I have come to the tentative conclusion to keep using it.

Technological Overhaul

As my summer travels draw nearer, and my phone increasingly refuses to do my bidding when I require it, my attention has been increasingly drawn to adopting new components in my technological routine.

First, I need a new phone. While I could hypothetically squeeze another three, or maybe even six months out of it, at some point the temporary savings made by prolonging the inevitable only serve to make my life harder, which is kind of the opposite of the role that a smartphone is supposed to fulfill.

Specifically, I have two problems with my current phone. The first is battery life. I rely on my phone as a foundation on which to organize my medical routine and life support, and so when my phone fails me, things get bad quite quickly. While I’m not the most active person, I do need my phone to be capable of going eighteen hours on a single charge without dying. I don’t think this is totally unreasonable, given that it was the standard that my phone held to when I first got it. But with time and use, the time that a full charge lasts for has slowly diminished to a point where I am only scrapping by if I give my phone a mid day top off.

The second problem is memory. Admittedly, this is at least partially self-inflicted, as I thought at the time that I got my phone that I would replace it in a year or so. But then the iPhone 6 line turned out to be not what I was looking for (my 5S is already cramped in my jean pocket, so anything bigger is a problem) and I couldn’t bring myself to buy a new phone that wasn’t the newest, with the fastest chip, and so on). Subsequently, we got to a point where, today, if I want to download an app, I have to find another one to delete. Same for podcasts, music, and the like.

I’ve been able to strategically avoid this problem for most of winter into spring primarily by not being away from home wifi and chargers for more than a few days. This doesn’t exactly work for my summer itinerary, however, which includes places that don’t have easy access to streaming and charging, like the woods. This leaves me with a frustrating choice: either I can double down on my current stopgap measures and carry around portable chargers, try to shift major downloads to my iPad (something that would cause disproportionate distress and hardship) and so fourth, or I can bite the bullet and switch over to a new phone.

The main thing that has prevented me from making this leap already is the agonizing decision over which new model to pick. Back in the days when all iPhones were essentially identical except for memory, and later, color, it was a relatively simple matter. Now, I have to factor in size, chip, camera, and how much I value having a headphone jack versus how much I value having the newest and shiniest mode. Previously I had told myself that I would be content to purchase a newer version of my current phone with a better battery and larger memory. However, committing myself to purchase what is currently the oldest model still offered as my phone for the next several years is a difficult pill to swallow.

In a related vein, during my usual cost analysis which I conduct for all nonessential purchases, I came to an interesting revelation. The amount which I was prepared to spend in order to ensure that I could still access the same music which I had been streaming from YouTube while offline in the woods would vastly exceed the cost to subscribe to YouTube Red, which, allegedly, would allow me to download playlists to my phone.

Now, I have never tried YouTube Red, or any other paid streaming service. For that matter, neither I nor anyone in my family have ever paid for any kind of media subscription service (aside from paying for TV and Internet, obviously). This approach is viewed as bafflingly backwards by my friends, who are still trying to convince me to move past my grudges against Steam and Netflix. To my household, however, the notion of paying money for something that doesn’t include some physical good or deed of ownership is absurd. The notion of paying money for something that can be obtained for free is downright heretical. It’s worth noting that a disproportionate share of my family is from an economics background, academically.

Still, the math is pretty compelling. Much as I might loath the idea of not owning physical copies of my music (an idea that is quickly becoming reality regardless of my personal behavior), if we assume that my main motivations for purchasing music in the first place are to support creators I like, and to make sure I still have access to them in those edge cases where direct and constant internet access are untenable, YouTube Red seems, at least on paper, to accomplish both of those goals at a cost which is, if not lower, then at least comparable in the short and intermediate terms. And of course, there is the tangential benefit that I can listen to a far wider variety on a regular basis than if I kept to purchasing music outright.

As if to try and pounce on this temptation, YouTube has launched a new extended free trial offer: three months instead of the regular one. Naturally, a closer examination of the fine print is in order, but it appears that the only catch is signing up for automatically renewing subscription. Assuming that this is indeed the case, this may well prove enough to lure me in, at least for the trial period.

The extended free trial has a signup deadline of July 4th, which incidentally is about a week after the deadline by which I will need to have made arrangements for a new phone, or else lump it with my current one for the purposes of my summer travels. At present I am leaning towards the idea that I will move forward with both of these plans under the auspicious title of “Project Crimson”. Though it would be a trial by fire for a new technological routine, the potential benefits are certainly enticing.