If you want to watch content on YouTube without ads, then you have just one official option: a subscription for YouTube Premium. For a price of about $14 per month, subscribers get an ad-free experience and some other benefits, including access to YouTube Music, background playback on mobile devices and also downloads.
Google introduced YouTube Premium Lite as a cheaper option in some regions. It is not entirely ad-free though, and up until now, did not support any of the extras that come with a Premium subscription.
This meant no options to download videos for offline playback or to play videos in the background on mobile.
This is changing though. Google announced today that downloads and background play are rolling out to Lite subscribers, for the most part. There is this little asterisk behind the feature that informs you that this is not unlocked for all videos.
Here are the details:
Advertisement: Still shows up on music content, Shorts, when searching or browsing.
Background play: Not available for Shorts or music content, or user-generated content that includes content from music partners.
Downloads: Not available for Shorts or music content, or user-generated content that includes content from music partners.
In other words, if you want to download regular videos or play these videos in the background on mobile, you are fine as a YouTube Lite subscriber. However, if you want to play music in the background or download your favorite songs, then you still can’t do it.
Not that great for many users. I would assume that many use background playback for music, but I could be wrong.
Ah, the never ending battle between YouTube and adblock users. If you lost the round-count then you are not alone. This time, users report that Google is hiding comments and video descriptions on YouTube, if a content blocker is used.
One such report comes from Reddit. The user writes that YouTube is not showing descriptions and comments anymore, if an adblocker is turned on.
It would be a new strategy, as Google focused on disabling video streaming entirely for users with content blockers in the past.
While many users might not miss the comments that much, it is another story for the video description, as it may include vital information or links. If you, for example, watch a cooking video, you may find the recipe in the description.
Tests on my own systems using different browsers returned no such blocking. It seems likely that Google is once again testing the waters or rolling out the change over time.
Some users affected by the change noted that reloading the webpage restored access to the description and the comment section. It is probably only a matter of time before filter lists will be updated to reflect the changes.
For now, it is recommended to refresh the page. If that does not work, I suggest using a different browser and / or content blocker. If all of that fails, try playing videos on third-party sites such as Bing Video.
I ran tests with Brave and uBlock Origin in several browsers, and did not run into any of the described issues.
If you thought holding your cyan ink cartridge hostage was the absolute peak of HP’s audacity, think again—they have finally found a way to bring that same “subscribe or suffer” energy to your actual PC.
This month, the tech giant launched its new gaming laptop subscription, a “hardware-as-a-service” pilot program that invites US gamers to lease gaming laptops for a monthly fee rather than buying the devices outright.
But before you get seduced by the low upfront cost, you need to see the numbers HP left off the slide deck: a pricing structure where you pay nearly the full retail price, carry the liability, and ultimately return the laptop with absolutely zero equity to show for it.
“Gaming as a Service”: The program at a glance
Let’s take a look at what subscribers get when they subscribe.
HP offers several gaming laptop tiers to choose from, starting with entry level laptops like the Victus 15 for about $50 per month and going up to the top tier Omen brand for about $130 per month.
To justify the cost, HP is offering the following services: 24/7 support, next-day replacements, full guarantee throughout the subscription period.
Upgrades are allowed after 12 consecutive months of payments for a laptop. In other words, subscribers can upgrade to other models each year.
HP pitches this as a cure for “upgrade anxiety”, claiming that gamers will never again have to worry about their computers becoming obsolete.
The financial reality: the math behind the offer
HP’s marking slides look great, because they compare small monthly numbers against the full retail price for the laptops. For just $130, gamers can start playing the latest and greatest games on a laptop with an Nvidia RTX 5080 video card.
However, if you run the math over the mandatory subscription period, which is 12 months, or beyond, you will notice that HP is the only beneficiary here.
The “Subscriber” vs. The “Owner” comparison
Time
Subscription ($130/mo)
Purchase ($2500)
Remark
Day 1
$130
$2500
Year 1
$1560
$2500
Year 2
$3120
$2500
Break-even in the second year.
Year 3
$4680
$2500
Overpaying.
The trap: The subscription premium kicks in around month 19 and it gets worse from then on. It is also worth noting that owning a device also means resell rights. While you won’t get the paid $2500 for the gaming laptop, you might get $1000 or even more for it after two years.
Total costs are even more in favor of buying over subscribing because of that. If that would not all be bad-deal-worthy enough, there are cancellation fees.
The “Gotcha” Clause: Cancellation Fees
It might actually make sense to subscribe for a month or two, maybe to continue gaming while your main PC or laptop is being repaired or to bridge a short period of months.
However, the subscription does not allow short term rentals. You can only cancel for free in the first 30 days. Afterwards, you pay hefty fines if you want to get out early. Starting with day 31, you pay a termination fee.
How much? As much as you would have paid anyway for the entire year. That is a more than $1400 for the premium gaming laptop, if you decide to cancel in the second month. Cancelling is only free after the initial year. If a subscriber would have that much money lying around, it would even make less sense to rent and not buy a laptop outright.
Conclusion
HP’s OMEN Gaming Subscription is a fascinating experiment in the “Netflix-ification” of hardware, but for the vast majority of gamers, the math simply refuses to behave. It solves a problem—upfront cost—that traditional 0 percent financing already solved years ago, but it does so by stripping you of the only thing that makes a $3,000 purchase palatable: ownership.
When you subscribe to Spotify, you accept that you own no music because the library is infinite. When you subscribe to an HP laptop, the library is one single machine that sits on your desk, depreciating while you pay full price for it every two years.
The allure of an annual upgrade is undeniable. Who doesn’t want the newest RTX card the moment it launches? But HP is banking on you valuing that convenience at a 100 percent markup. They are betting that you will look at the monthly payment, ignore the long-term total, and sign away your right to resell, modify, or keep your hardware.
My advice: Don’t do it, unless you need the services that HP is offering, especially the next-day replacement deal. If you need a gaming rig but can’t afford one outright, consider buying used or looking for a system in a more suitable price range.
Don’t let your gaming rig become another monthly bill that you pay forever but never own.
It usually happens in the first five seconds: you click on a video expecting the familiar, expressive voice of your favorite creator, only to be greeted by the flat, sterile drone of a synthetic narrator. That Japanese video game trailer? Has a voice over that sounds like a bored car salesmen from the Midwest.
If you watch YouTube content in different languages, there is a good chance that you encountered the video hosting site’s auto-dubbing feature before.
The idea is simple: To make content available to a wider audience, YouTube is giving creators access to tools that translate speech into other languages. This, according to YouTube, makes videos more accessible.
However, if you speak multiple languages or prefer to watch videos in the original language, you may have run into the problem that YouTube picked an AI-powered translation for you regardless.
YouTube announced an extension of AI dubbing on the platform recently. The feature is now available to creators worldwide and in eight languages. Expect this to increase further in the coming years.
What you can do about it
Google has implemented two options for YouTube users. One works for individual videos and requires no account, the other for all videos, but requires an account.
Third-party solutions, in the form of extensions, are also available.
The Quick Fix (Per Video)
YouTube shows the original language and all dubbed languages when you open the Audio Track setting. (Image Source: vidlQ / YouTube)
If you are watching a video and hear an AI voice, you can switch back to the original voice immediately.
Pro: Works without account.
Con: Needs to be done for each video, preferences are not saved.
Here are the steps:
Click/Tap the Gear Icon (Settings) on the video player.
Select Audio Track.
Choose the option labeled Original (e.g., “English (Original)” or “Japanese (Original)”).
The Permanent Fix (Account Settings)
If you are signed in, add languages that you never want YouTube to dub using AI.
A new YouTube setting enables you to set all languages that you understand (or do not want dubbed).
Pros: Works for all videos.
Cons: Not a true “never” option. Requires a YouTube account and using it all the time.
Here are the steps:
Go to the YouTube Settings.
Select Playback and performance.
Look for “Preferred languages“ or “Add or edit languages“.
Select all the languages you speak/understand/don’t want dubbed.
The browser extensions
Extensions offer best of both worlds: they do not require an account and they work for any video that you encounter. Set once and forget.
Here is a short selection of extensions that you may want to try:
YouTube Anti Translate (Chrome / Firefox) – The extension disables the automatic translation of YouTube titles, audio, or descriptions using AI. Works automatically, open source extension.
YouTube Audio Selector (Chrome) — Set preferred languages for YouTube to make sure that they are never AI-translated.
What about you? Did you encounter AI dubbed videos on YouTube before?
Google is tightening its grip on one of YouTube Premium’s most coveted feature, officially patching a long-standing loophole that allowed Android users to enjoy background playback through third-party browsers without a subscription.
By implementing new technical restrictions, the search giant tries to neutralize workarounds in popular browsers like Brave and Vivaldi that previously bypassed the paywall by tricking the site into playing audio while the screen was off or the app minimized.
This latest crackdown draws a firm line in the sand: if you want to keep the music playing while you multitask on mobile, Google expects you to pay for the privilege. After trying to hinder content-blockers for years and blocking vital extensions in Chrome for Android, the company seems to have found another target for its thumbscrew tactics.
Google made several features exclusive to paying YouTube Premium subscribers when it launched the plan. Premium subscribers get several benefits, including an ad-free experience on the site. Another benefit is background playback on Android.
Google tries to block background play workarounds
Give it a try. Open YouTube in Chrome for Android, play any video, and switch to another app or turn off the screen. The effect? Video playback stops. Not great, considering that many devices turn off the display automatically after a short period of inactivity. Listening to a video while napping? Forget it.
That is where third-party browsers and other tools came into play. Fire up Brave, Vivaldi or several other browsers, and you will notice that video playback continued, even while the YouTube tab was in the background.
This loophole is reportedly being closed. I tested several browsers and found some to be working — Brave — and others not at the time — Vivaldi — but that does not mean that you will experience the same.
Google, clearly, is after Premium subscribers only. If your favorite way of listening to YouTube videos no longer works, you might buy Premium after all to regain the function. Some users might try and find other workarounds, like downloading videos first to play them locally. This works, but it requires more steps before a video can be played.
Google seems to have confirmed the change to various news outlets, including Android Authority. This is the statement from a Google spokesperson according to the site:
Background playback is a feature intended to be exclusive for YouTube Premium members. While some non-Premium users may have previously been able to access this through mobile web browsers in certain scenarios, we have updated the experience to ensure consistency across all our platforms.
There you go. If you can’t play YouTube videos in the background anymore on Android, it is Google that you need to blame. There is a good chance that this is the start of yet another cat-and-mouse game. Browsers and tools might find ways around this, which are then closed or torpedoed by Google again.
X-user Squirrel Mort posted a plea for help a few days ago on the site, stating that their Xbox account got hacked, the email address replaced, and that Microsoft Security stated that they could not restore account access.
I've had my @Microsoft account since @Xbox 360 spent thousands on games then got hacked the hacker replaced my email with a different email @msftsecurity says they cant give me back my account @jronald@satyanadella@XboxP3 is there anything you can do?
The gamer claims that games equaling thousands were added to the account since the Xbox 360 days.
Note that the information comes from a report on X. Microsoft has not posted an official response yet, which makes it possible that the story could be fake. However, something like this has happened in the past and can surely happen today.
The hacker, reportedly, managed to gain access to the Xbox account and changed personal information, including the main email address used for the account. While the user does not provide any more details, it is likely that the password has been changed in the process as well.
The X-user claims that the new email address points to a service in Russia.
Can Microsoft reinstate the account? It surely has the means to do so. It could ask for verification, e.g., payment information or usage information, which the owner of the account may be able to provide, but the hacker can’t likely.
The incident highlights a major issue in today’s digital world. Since digital goods are linked to an account, losing access to that account means that you will lose access to all the content. It does not need to be a hack either for that scenario to happen.
The service itself could ban the account. This happened in the past numerous times, sometimes when a forbidden word was written in chat, at other times, because of a false positive.
While the comfort of using digital goods is understandable, users need to be aware of the implications. Most only realize these when they run into issues like the one described by the user on X.
While there is no definitive protection against losing access, users can, at the very least, protect their accounts with the strongest supported security protections.
This includes picking a secure password and enabling two-factor authentication. There is no definition of strong when it comes to passwords, but make it very long, avoid single dictionary words or phrases, and include upper- and lower-case characters, numbers and special characters.
For two-factor authentication, I recommend using a local solution using an app like Aegis, which is open source and available for Android. Windows, Mac, and iOS users may check out Proton Authenticator, which is also free to use.
This puts a second layer of defense around the account. Even if a criminal manages to gain access to the username and password, they would still also need access to the two-factor authentication code, that gets generated by the app. Unless they also happen to have access to the mobile device or app, or manage to obtain the code through social engineering, they won’t be able to access the account.
Now You: How do you protect your online accounts? Do you use two-factor authentication or even security keys? Feel free to leave a comment down below.
Streaming has taken the world by storm and while the current path has diverged significantly from the glorious idea of paying for a single subscription to gain access to all content there is, it is still on the rise apparently, despite the fragmentation of content and rise of ads.
However, the rise of digital media in general, including games, has not really been all that beneficial to us users. Certainly, there are advantages. As soon as you pay, you gain access to the new game, movie or TV show. You do not even have to leave the house anymore or wait days for a delivery to reach your door.
The downside to digital media has been discussed at length. It boils down to the following strong points:
You do not own the digital content anymore, which means that it can be taken away from you at any time.
You can’t resale the content either anymore, unless you sell the entire account, which the terms forbid.
You can play, watch or listen, even if there is no Internet or services go down. Games are special, as more and more do not include the full game on the disc or card.
If they ban your account, you lose access to everything.
Granted, there have been just a few cases where companies removed access. Amazon, for example, removed access to the digital books 1984 and Animal Farm back in 2009 because of a dispute over copyright and rights. It did refund the books, but the removal sparked a larger discussion about ownership and potential censorship.
With that in mind, I have followed a simple principle ever since digital content started to appear online: never buy, unless there is no other option. Try to avoid, if digital is the only option.
Movies and TV shows: I buy DVD, Blu-Ray or 4K. Not that I buy many new films or shows, as I find them mostly boring and intellectually at the bottom of the barrel. I did buy several old movies that I missed or wanted to watch again, many of which are not even available at streaming services.
Games: For consoles, I buy physical online. Not all games get physical releases anymore, or only in certain regions. I buy those, if they support a language that I understand. As for digital games, I try to avoid them as best as I can. If I can’t resist, I buy during sales.
Music: CDs and records only. I can listen to songs for free on various sites, which is fine. When I like something in particular or want to support the artist, I buy the CD or record.
Physical products have the advantage that I can resell them. Does not happen too often, but I did sell a few PS5 games after I finished them or was done with them. If I would have bought them digitally, they would still be collecting dust in my virtual games library.
I can also lend them, so that a friend can play a game or my parents can watch a movie or show that I bought.
The trend, however, is moving heavily towards digital. With each new console generation, the discussion whether to include an optical drive or card-slot comes up again. Companies want to move to digital only, because it eliminates the second hand market. If you want to play a game or see a movie, you need to buy it yourself. No more lending or reselling, which increases their revenue, they rightfully believe.
Consumers are on the receiving end. While the majority does not seem to mind the trend, especially if reselling or lending is not needed, users who do prefer physical will face a hard decision in the next decade or so.
What about you? Do you buy digital or physical mainly? Feel free to leave a comment down below.
If you use a Fire TV device by Amazon, then you know that you may install third-party Android apps on the device that are not provided via Amazon’s official App Store. This is an excellent option to install apps that you may want to use, like streaming apps or YouTube frontend clients that get rid of all the annoyances.
However, Amazon announced this year that it is going to disable certain apps on the Fire TV devices of customers without giving customers any say in the matter.
Amazon claims that it only disables apps “that are identified as using or providing access to unlicensed content”. In other words, Amazon targets apps that provide users with free access to streaming content that is restricted in some way or another.
A prime example are apps that give you access to sports streams that are not available for free. Amazon has a FAQ-website up that answers some questions that customers may have. It covers topics such as refunds (not really) to exceptions (none).
Put simple, Amazon will disable any application that it has on its list, which it keeps private. Customers should receive warnings next time they try to load an app that is on the list. The only options at this point are to close the app or to uninstall it.
Will this also affect frontends for services that get rid of advertisement? It is too early to say and even if that is not the case right now, the infrastructure is in place to add any app to the block list at any time.
Now You: do you use a streaming device or stick, like the Fire TV sticks? If so, did you install third-party apps on the device that are not offered via the official store?
How many videos do you get when you open the YouTube homepage on your device? When I do open YouTube in any browser I get zero, because I have turned off the YouTube history and Google decided it would push users into signing in to an account by disabling the generic feed of videos that it was showing previously to anonymous users.
However, even if you sign in, your mileage may vary depending on device, application and the screen of the device. It is clear that Google seems to be interested in showing less and less videos on the homepage of YouTube.
Turns out, someone predicted that this would happen in early 2025 already, stating back then that YouTube would soon — in the same year — display just a single video on its homepage on his main device, a 32″ 1440p display.
Back in early 2025, YouTube showed five videos and a big ad on the homepage, a stark contrast to the 30 videos and zero ads that YouTube showed back in 2019.
When the same author opened YouTube this month on Apple TV, he was greeted with a layout that showed just two thumbnails, one of them being an ad.
So, just one video remained on the homescreen as predicted. Here is where it gets crazy: he is now predicting that Google won’t show a single video going forward on YouTube’s above the fold homepage (but likely a big ad for something).
The approach is similar to how Google turned Google Search into a vessel for delivering ads to visitors rather than sites. For some queries at least, Google shows zero organic links above the fold. Only ads, lots of them. The first organic result may show up on the second page.
Any other website would get penalized into oblivion by Google for doing so, but the same rules that Google applies to websites don’t apply to Google itself.
I’m less and less interested in YouTube because of Google’s stance of making the live of users who are not signed in miserable.
Anyway, what is your take on this and more importantly, how many ads and videos do you see on the YouTube homepage currently?
When asked about their preference regarding streaming media, with or without ads, most users would like pick the latter. I would go even so far to claim that many dislike ads with a passion. However, when you add a monetary component to the question, things get interesting.
Get the cheaper, but ad-powered streaming option, or pay more, but save up on time and get rid of the ads?
It appears that the strategy of companies like Disney, Amazon, or Netflix is paying them huge dividends already. Ad-powered streaming subscriptions are pushing to new highs every financial quarter, it appears, and there does not seem to be any slowing down either.
Introduced just a few years ago, ad-supported plans make up a sizeable portion of total subscribers for major streaming platforms.
Netflix: last figure is 190 million users who use an ad-powered plan, but uses new metric.
Disney: about 164 million, does include Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ however.
Amazon: 315 million
Netflix introduced a new metric for its ad-powered plan recently. Previously, the company counted subscriptions only, which, according to the last report for which the company used the metric, was 94 million. The new report looks at household numbers as well.
Regardless, about a third of Netflix subscriptions seem to be ad-powered. For Amazon, it is even more. The reason is simple: Amazon decided to make all Prime Video subscriptions ad-powered. If you do not want ads, you have to pay Amazon a few extra bucks to avoid them. Most users apparently don’t.
Even more interesting, Amazon boasted in its last earnings call that it managed to boost subscribers from 200 million in 2024 to the-now 315 million.
Four out of ten Netflix subscribers pick the ad-powered plan, according to Netflix. Disney is likely seeing signups in a similar range.
Why are ad-powered plans growing? The most likely, and simple, answer is: because they are cheaper. Much cheaper in fact. The Standard with Ads plan of Netflix USA costs subscribers around $8 per month. The cheapest ad-free plan costs more than double at around $18 per month. If you want 4K, it is thrice as much at around $25 per month.
While subscribers of the Premium plan get some benefits that the other two plans do not support, notably 4K, Spatial Audio and HDR support, the only differentiating factor that matters between Standard with Ads and Standard is the advertisement.
Disney pricing is very similar in this regard, albeit considerably below the twice as expensive mark. The Disney+, Hulu Bundle, both with ads, costs around $13 per month. Without ads, the price rises to around $20.
While the “with ads” plans will likely become more expensive as time passes, there does not seem to be an end to their growth yet.
Now You: Are you subscribed to an ad-powered plan? Or do you prefer plans without ads, or no plans at all? Feel free to leave a comment down below.
