I don't see any technical specification in the article, but if they inject the ad at the start of the video, making it part of the video itself, would make possible to just skip it using video controls. To avoid user skippin ad thru video controls there should be client-side script blocking it, so an ad-blocker can use this to tell apart an ad from the video itself.
That sounds correct for me. It is possible for them to switch to a system where everyone can manually skip past the ad in the video stream but adblockers are useless (by not sending and indication of the ad to the client), but I don’t see that happening since most people don’t use adblockers and letting all of them easily skip past every ad is probably bad for profits.
There's already addons that can recognize in-video sponsored content and skip, if youtube splices in ads into the video stream these addons will still work (although depending on how strict server side logic is, they may have to pause when the buffer runs out until the time of the ad length has passed)
It doesn't recognize the sponsor sections. The community does that. I don't believe there is any tool right now that can automatically detect the sponsor sections.
Honestly it would be trivial for them to make the video controls server side too and simply not accept fast forward commands from the client during the ad.
We might be in a "Download and edit to watch ad-free" world with this change.
Seems too much, really. Even if they do such a terrible thing, would they not expose a "report ad" or "see the product" buttons? Video buffer is still locally downloaded.
It's not literally part of the video, exactly because of what you describe. They are separate streams that get injected into the player before the normal video. You can't skip them or interact with them in any way (pretty sure it also breaks any purchase links etc). Piped or Invidious don't have them, ytdl also doesn't download them.
As of now, afaik, you won't see them if your account wasn't selected for the experiment, if you are in incognito mode (with uBO on) or if you have uBlock Origin (and other adblockers) off (you'll see the normal ads and then the video).
I believe this describes them altering the ad host at load time for the page. DNS blocking of ad serving hosts only work if the hostname stays predictable, so just having dynamically named hosts that change in the loading of the page would make blocking more difficult.
Example: 1234.youtube-ads.com is blocked by AdBlockerX. 5678.youtube-ads-xyz.com is not on the blocklist, so is let through. All they have to do is cycle host or domain names to beat DNS blocking for the most part.
Previously, injecting hostnames live for EACH page load had two big issues:
DNS propagation is SLOW. Creating a new host or domain and having it live globally on multiple root servers can take hours, sometimes days.
Live form injection of something like this takes compute, and is normally set as part of a static template.
They're just banking on making more money from increased ad revenue to offset the technical challenges of doing this, and offsetting the extra cost of compute. They're also betting that the free adblocking tools will not spend the extra effort to constantly update and ship blocklist changes with updated hosts. I guarantee some simple logic will be able to beat this with client-side blocklist updating though (ie: tool to read the page code and block ad hosts). It'll be tricky, probably have some false positives here and there, but effective.
As long as the naming pattern is distinct from important domains you can still block it based on pattern matching. They need to obfuscate ad domains and other hosting domains the same way.
Creating subdomains is quite fast because the request goes right through when it's unknown to caches, it's updates when you reuse existing ones that causes trouble with lag.
I've tested making new subdomains, it's literally minutes in real life. Sure, in some pathological case it might be hours, but it's not actually going to happen realistically.
It's probably going to be like twitch. I'm sure they'll eventually succeed in making it so you can stream videos without watching ads but they'll never be able to stop people from downloading the video and skipping the ad in vlc.
I am excited. This will break my YouTube addiction.
It'll only affect me when I need to fix something I'm unfamiliar with, and it'llead creators to using other platforms for that kind of material, and lower the barrier to entry.
I don't know why Google is shooting themselves in the foot like this. I mean, it'll be profitable in the short run, yes, but this will almost certainly be devastating to their bottom line in the long run if it works as planned.
devastating to their bottom line in the long run if it works as planned.
Google knows their service is addictive and is banking on people being willing to eat an unlimited amount of shit in order to watch a bald man from Vancouver spend 12 minutes talking about his Peloton ride that morning. Realistically, they are probably right. There is no competition to YouTube. Hasn't been for years. And there probably never will be ever again. Capitalism trends towards natural monopolies as infrastructure and complexity of operations makes startup costs prohibitive.
How it works is that once you start getting these Server Side Ads (SSA), Youtube will create a sort of queue of videos in place of your usual video, with the first few being ads that can't be skipped and have a red bar (not yellow) and in the end you'll get your video. They are not literally part of the original video stream, they are separate streams that get injected as if they were the original video. It's called SSAP, and I've been experiencing it from the last weekend. In the meantime, they've pretty much broken their player to implement this.
Yeah, there's ways around this. It's just that most of the ublock origin blocking specific code, isn't reusable here and the team will need to start over to deal with this new tactic/approach from Google.
The cure might eventually be worse than the disease though. If not now, or tomorrow, then the next day.
I'll let the ublock team carve demonic sigils into me and sacrifice my grandma if that's what it escalates to, I'd sooner lose YouTube entirely than sit through those ads
So, how will content creators be reimbursed for the long hours they put into creating YouTube videos? There are honest people out there who made content creation their job. I say that to express I'm not talking about content farms, clickbait creators or "Mr. Beast" types - those are all media companies, although they also have bills to pay.
I love this mentality. This idea that forcing someone who hates ads to watch a bunch of ads somehow magically makes more wealth happen. The whole thing is a bubble desperately trying not to burst by basically forcing more ads in more places where it actually makes very little difference.
I wonder if creators are actually going to get paid any better if YouTube forces more people to watch ads on their channels. My bet is not.
Ad-revenue is literally how content creators get paid. If you're using an adblocker (like me) then you're freeriding. They're not getting any money from us viewing their videos.
Nobody is forcing anyone to watch ads. That's the alternative available to people who don't want to pay. The other alternative is premium membership. Which ever you choose makes money for the creators. Blocking ads doesn't.
I hate ads just as much as the next guy but this mentality of expecting to get content for free is ridiculous. That's unbelieveably narrow sighted and self-centered thinking. If subscribtion based business model was the norm instead of ads-based then we'd have none of the issues that come with targeted advertising. On the other hand if one thinks google is evil company and don't want to give them money then stop using their products. Damn hypocrites..
Ad-revenue is literally how content creators get paid
Great. If YouTube removes viewers’ abilities to block ads, resulting in more ads watched, will content creators get an increase in pay?
Again, I doubt it.
I hate ads just as much as the next guy but this mentality of expecting to get content for free is ridiculous. That's unbelieveably narrow sighted and self-centered thinking
You’ve missed the whole point. Ads exist to encourage people to spend money on products, therefore companies profit from paying for advertisements.
Where does the profit come from if someone who doesn’t deal with ads is forced to watch an ad? Do you think that person is just going to decide to spend money?
Secondly, if a creator adds a 1-2m sequence in their video to talk about a sponsor, no one is tracked, no one knows any better if uninterested viewers skip past it, and it’s usually very relevant to that creator’s target audience. I have zero qualms with such a system, and sometimes it’s actually really entertaining.
Morals or not, this is Google scraping at the bottom of the barrel to invent value where there is VERY little to be had. Data-invasive, targeted advertising is superfluous and needs to die.
Where does the profit come from if someone who doesn’t deal with ads is forced to watch an ad?
The creator gets paid for people watching the ads, not for buying the product. For the most part the point of ads is to increase brand recognition which in turn increases sales. Ads work wether you think they do or not. It's among the most studied economic fields. There's a good reason companies spend a ton of money on advertising. More people seeing ads = more sales. I too like to tell myself a story about how I'm immune to ads but I know I'm not.
Data-invasive, targeted advertising is superfluous and needs to die.
I agree. The alternative is paying for the service eg. subscribtion based business model.
Targeted or not - I'm not going to watch ads. If it's a bad service like Instagram I'm just going to stop using it but in the case of YouTube if they manage to make adblocking sufficiently difficult and inconvenient then I'm going to buy premium. I can't blame them for wanting to get rid of freeriders. If I was them I would probably want to too. Blocking ads is like piracy; I participate in it but it cannot be morally justified. I'm effectively stealing.
Creators do get paid a share of the ad impressions. Many also are completely open about it and post videos of how well their videos did and how much money they earned from monetized videos, i. e. videos with ads - this is also why you hear many avoiding e. g. swear words, since YT's auto detection will then flag their video for de-monetization.
But funny enough, that's not what I said at all. The cost of running YouTube and the cost of the creators must be paid (plus creating an incentive to produce high quality content in the first place). That can be achieved by ads or by offering a subscription.
My original question still stands: if you were to build a video streaming platform tomorrow, what would your model for financing operation and content creation be?
Do adblocked videos prevent creators from having another view registered for a monetized video?
I don’t know how to do a video platform. If I had the time and skill, I’d rather make a FOSS, federated platform for creators/studios to host and finance however they want. Odds are they would never be as egregious as YouTube is being, and I’d be less inclined to skip their ads.
Individually, no. But each view not generating ad revenue does still generate streaming costs. If no one would pay Google to host their ads on YT, I doubt they'd keep the platform online.
Now don't get me wrong, the threshold at which Google decides that the ratio of adblocked to regular viewers is exceeding their business model is most likely based on corporate greed, and the recent crackdowns on ad blocking are due to the same reason. I think they're doing fine and there is no need for the recent initiative - but it would be equally dishonest claiming running a platform the size and outreach of YouTube could be done without large investments, one way or the other.
Individually, no. But each view not generating ad revenue does still generate streaming costs. If no one would pay Google to host their ads on YT, I doubt they'd keep the platform online.
Well this kind of renders the whole “if you don’t watch the ads, content creators can’y get paid” morality approach meaningless, don’t you think?
Where is the money supposed to come from? Companies pay Google to put up ads expecting a return on the investment. If Google starts forcing people who inherently avoid advertisements to watch advertisements, what value is that actually supposed generate for either of Google’s customers? I’d just walk away from the screen like I do with regular television.
I don't think that was ever a moral issue. We're talking about large corporations in a capitalist setting, moral is not something to bring up in that discussion.
Also, no one said end users are morally obliged to watch ads. The gist is: some kind of revenue stream must exist so that the operator of the platform keeps it running and the creators are enabled to create content.
A paid subscription is a perfectly valid alternative, as are platforms like Nebula, which use that exact model of paid subscriptions. Patreon is a bit tricky since it only serves the content creator. Google famously shut down all kinds of projects without any consideration for their users, I have no doubt they'd pull the trigger on YouTube if it would serve them.
In a perfect world, ads should not exist at all. It took us decades to even regulate ads that are obviously harmful (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, ads propagating body issues via heavily manipulated images etc.), none of that should be forced down people's throats.
Unfortunately, however, we don't live in a utopia, but in a capitalist hellscape, so when I talk to people, I actually want to know their practical ideas of keeping the show running.
Currently, I couldn't recommend anyone to not run an adblocker, the internet would become unusable due to how intrusive and downright dangerous ads have become, both in content for certain audiences, and as networks to deliver malware.
Simple answers just longing for the good old days of the small web are nothing more than nostalgia and willfully ignore how the internet and the society using it have changed. That's not a practical or remotely useful answer.
We are watching the system change as we speak, and I came here to discuss alternatives. I did not ask a moral question, although I do absolutely believe that people creating high quality content should be paid for their time. I genuinely want to know what people's ideas and beliefs are and how they think the system will continue to work.
It might have sounded like that at first, but I'm not actually shilling for a company trying to increase ad revenue, and I do hate what current ads have become.
Ads should not manipulate or downright endanger people, and there are also cases where we need to find a different mechanism to deliver ads to people entirely - if a podcast (for me, that means mostly audio dramas) advertises itself as immersive and is not on a platform where I can get an ad-free experience, I simply won't be able to listen to it. Being immersed into a supernatural, cosmic horror doesn't go well with hearing about how I should switch my business page to SquareSpace.
I was fine with the "watch these 3 relevant ads in sequence and we leave you alone for the rest of the movie" concept, for example. That to me looks like an indirect form of payment, it's transparent (no obnoxious product placement) and I can enjoy the rest of whatever media I'm consuming in peace.
Content creators should move to a platform that isn't pushing far-right radicalization to kids watching video game streamers if they'd like me to pay for a premium account.
Should you then in turn also not consume content on YouTube at all? If so, great, you're basically not affected by this discussion at all.
As for the topic itself: YouTube definitely has its share of problems, e. g. ElsaGate, unskippable ads in front of emergency medical advice, automated copyright strikes that are incredibly easy to abuse etc., but all those things are completely off topic.
No. They make money if they find a sponsor. I also skip over those sponsors' ads but the sponsors don't know that or they accept a certain fraction of people not watching their ads. I just don't watch ads. If, in the future, that means I cannot watch my favourite tubers' content, well too bad, I'll watch some ad-free netflix series or read a book or whatever. But one thing is certain: I'll rather light my dick on fire than watching ads. I even joined a class action lawsuit against amazon because they want to make me watch ads without my consent.
But if you're paying for Netflix, why wouldn't you simply pay for a premium account that doesn't show you the ads? Is the content from your favorite YouTubers really that bad in comparison? I'll admit, for me, it's absolutely the opposite.
I am subscribed to amazon prime, mainly because of the benefits I have regarding shopping. I might cancel that subscription however. I am really annoyed right now because they changed their return policy and they try to force ads on me while at the same time reporting their modt profitable quarter.
To be honest, I don't think I would mind ad supported YouTube. For me, it's the obvious scam ads that Google makes it really hard and obtuse to report that made me block them indiscriminately.
If it was regulated like TV commercials are, I don't think I would've minded too much. Twitch has basically no scam ads in my experience, I just get a lot of gaming-related advertising which makes sense for a gaming-centric streaming site. Quality over quantity (at least by advertising standards, lol.)
Of course, this is just YouTube and Twitch. The rest of the Internet is pretty fucking awful and they'll need to clean up how advertising is handled before people even think about giving up their adblockers. Yeah, ads are annoying, but people gotta eat.
You are right of course, and I would like to make this point clearer for others in this thread: Nebula can only survive if people pay more than Nebula spends on getting them to subscribe in the first place (think ads etc.) , and if the annual streaming costs are covered (those were a little more than $250.000 / year last I checked).
The tool that works best for getting people to subscribe is direct advertisement by the creators (Click like and subscribe), so Nebula is heavily investing in creator sponsorships, around $5 million a year.
That is the platform supporting the creators via direct sponsorships.
Now that this is out of the way, I'm still not satisfied with the answer. First of all, I wanted to shed light on what, apart from decisions based on moral beliefs and political stance, would be different for you as an end user. Don't get me wrong, those are perfectly valid reasons and in the end, I do believe every decision comes with a certain amount of politics attached to it, but I think those reasons won't sway the masses.
Let me make it clear: overall, I like Nebula as a platform much better than Google as a company. I do not know enough about Nebula as a company to comment on how they will evolve over time. I'd personally love if all my favorite creators. would switch to a platform where I can support them in a more direct fashion by paying a parent entity vs. each creator individually, and where me and people I care about are never exposed to ads.
I really don't care, most YouTubers I watch use Patreon and Twitch subscriptions for the bulk of their finances, think they buy candy with the pennies YouTube sends them.
I occasionally buy merch from them, that's my support.
I think the unskippable and autoplaying ads are the point for me where I start actively finding ways to avoid ads. Anything that tries to force itself in front of my eyes or eclipses the actual content is kind of a no go.
It's not that Youtube creators don't deserve to be compensated (many if whom provide content to YT for free just to share, let's remember) it's that Google needs to find less obnoxious means of serving ads.
I'd be really curious to see the actual numbers of how much Google gets in revenue from YT and how much actually goes to paying creators. I'm betting the ratio is not as slim as they make it sound.
Most content creators don't make money from ads. Google keeps on changing the rules to be able to monitize or keep monitizing their own videos. Google has put ads on videos when the creator did not reach the requirements to make money on ads.
This is why creators have sponsorahips, affliate links, their own merch, Patreon, or OnlyFans. They also use Youtube more as an ad platform for their other social media accounts like Instagram and Tiktok. Depending on the content some creators get paid more on Tiktok.
Yeah, if you listen to any content creator talk about sponsorship revenues it basically eclipses all other form of revenue for them.
I think it was Pokimane who got tired of people donating money and then being assholes if she wasn't basically gushing over them for hours, so she just went "You know what, I don't actually need your Twitch dontations." and just turned them off.
Content creators make thousands of dollars per sponsorship deal minimum if they have a decent amount of viewers. Bigger creators like Ludwig get millions for some deals (Redbull gives him a crapload of money for product placement, for example).
The examples you cited are not individuals. Both Pokimane and Ludwig are basically media companies at this point in time.
And yes, the amount of money you get from YouTube is a lot less, although I'm being told major YouTubers have direct platform deals. But that's not the issue:
In order to even get those lucrative sponsorships, you need the reach of a major platform in order to build an audience - that's not happening without e. g. YouTube.
Yeah, but content creators haven't deplatformed off YouTube. The closest might be streaming services like Nebula, but even those have subscriptions.
YouTube pays little to content creators for hosting the content, but they also pay for hosting the content. I can't think of a case where content creators would pay to host their videos for others to watch for free without ads or a subscription.
What's most valuable to Google is the user data. Google is still able to get a lot of user data even if blockers are on. Ads are really just a way to get even more data. If you click an ad 10 times and buy something just 1 time, that information is more valuable than the ability to put ads in front of you.
I said one was more valuable. That doesn't mean they don't go well together.
Anyway you can use data to nudge users. For example, Google can change search result orders. They can promote one company/research/ideology/party to the top and demote others.
Finding out where certain people are important for law enforcement or press.
Stores give out free wifi to track your MAC address and see where you go in stores. They sell this data, use it to track theives, or use it for better product placement.
Anyway you can use data to nudge users. For example, Google can change search result orders. They can promote one company/research/ideology/party to the top and demote others.
This is advertising.
Finding out where certain people are important for law enforcement or press.
This service isn't that valuable, and extracting the value required is going to be a PR nightmare.
Stores give out free wifi to track your MAC address and see where you go in stores. They sell this data, use it to track theives, or use it for better product placement.
I've no contract with them, I've not made any purchases. They post something online for anyone to see.
They are completely free of locking their content behind a paywall, there are plenty of platforms for that.
But I want to make my first statement clear: no every single thing any human being does has to be done just for the sole purpose of getting an economical profit. That would be the death of humanity.
I still remember 90s internet when we had tons of websites with lots of content that was just there because the creators were fans of such content, no further intentions. Barely any ads or monetization whatsoever. The 'shark' mentality is killing internet.
Sure. But nobody had to invest multiple hours each day into maintaining their Geocities page - there are only so many animated GIFs you could load over a modem connection anyway. Also, are we really comparing the hosting expenses of fucking YouTube with static 90s fan pages?
People expect edited videos from content creators these days. Even someone filming a hobby in their home shop will get barked at for having bad audio quality, if, this week for once, they forgot to charge the batteries on their wireless Rode lavalier mic.
That's why so many content creators do have e. g. Patreon. Many of them are providing peeks behind the scenes and create transparency to show how much effort a single video takes, and even individuals often hire someone to do the video edits for them.
If you're fine watching unedited, 5-10 minute videos that can be churned out with next to no effort, all good. I'm really into 40-90 minute long videos and personally view YouTube as an alternative to obtain the content type I prefer, but I'd rather not sacrifice quality. I also prefer creators who provide a serialized format and upload a video every week - in that way, I guess I'm old fashioned.
This type of content is impossible to make without financial support, which I'll gladly provide one way or the other. However, how much the average person can afford in terms of monthly subscription fees is certainly limited, so a company offering access to multiple creators for a flat subscription fee is absolutely reasonable.
People expect edited videos from content creators these days.
They do not, look how popular meme compilation are.
Even someone filming a hobby in their home shop will get barked at for having bad audio quality, if, this week for once, they forgot to charge the batteries on their wireless Rode lavalier mic.
Hater will hate, welcome to the internet.
If you're fine watching unedited, 5-10 minute videos that can be churned out with next to no effort, all good. I'm really into 40-90 minute long videos and personally view YouTube as an alternative to obtain the content type I prefer, but I'd rather not sacrifice quality.
This type of content is impossible to make without financial support,
Also, are we really comparing the hosting expenses of fucking YouTube with static 90s fan pages?
There were much edited 40-90 minute video before there were ad on youtube. There were high quality page long essay on internet before youtube exist. Do not need ad or revenue or money support to get your content.
In 90s people did thing because passion. Now because passion and money. Still can make thing only because passion, never got impossible.
I've seen people who make money from YouTube, and I've no interest in seeing them continue to get paid. If somebody actually makes something worth paying for, they can take their shit to Netflix or whoever. They aren't going to pay some manchild to yell at videogames all day.
I have seen plenty of people who make excellent content and who I'd consider to be decent human beings. I also used to believe that YouTube was a cesspool hosting only crap, and I think it was via some new hobbies that I discovered the decent offerings.
That by the way is why I explicitly mentioned channels and personalities I'd like to exclude from my claim that creators that should receive financial support to be able to keep creating content.
You realize you could watch every ad on every video a creator puts out for a year and generate them less than a coffee, yeah? If you care go give them 5 dollars.
Fuck, an integrated donation/payment thing on YouTube would go so much farther for Google's profit than ads ever would as well!
You realize I mentioned in several other comments in this thread that I am pretty aware of the financial structures involved in content creation on various platforms? That's also a fallacy, as thousands or millions are watching a given video and it's not on me alone to generate the required financial support, so the value my ad impressions generate is proportional to that number.
You realize I mentioned why donations made by individuals, to individuals, are not ideal and not sustainable? How many creators can a single individual support? Let's say I am interested in 70 creators, should my media consumption cost me $350 a month, or should the cost be divided by all their subscribers and ideally be fairly managed by a platform?
I do care, and I do support content creators with my money directly, thank you. I also happen to have paid subscriptions, although as my other comment mentions, out of necessity, not because I believe that to be an ideal situation (in the case of YouTube, specifically).
YouTube introducing a KoFi - like donation button with minimal UX threshold and minimal processing fees with the benefits going directly to the creator? I fully support that idea.
It could've been. You and me probably would've blocked ads regardless of their content for various reasons, but I'd imagine that Google wouldn't have reached this critical mass prompting this scheme if their ads were properly vetted.
The technologically literate capable of installing ad blockers are the minority, and those who'd do it out of principle are a smaller subset of those
Not scam ads, intrusive ads. A decade ago i read cracked and the only ads were non intrusive sidebar ads or a banner at the top. They didn't play music, they didn't interrupt what i was doing, they just existed. Google, being the near complete monopoly it is, could easily force the standard to return to that and many people would never even go looking for adblockers.
Oh man, I wonder why no one ever thought of randomly injecting ads into content before? What geniuses they must have working at YouTube. I can’t even comprehend the big-brainedness. I’m sure people will love it.
The whole point of having ads be separate from the video is for youtube to easily distance itself from malicious ads. If an ad is malicious it can easily be reported and taken out of commission. But if ads are now part of the video, what stops an ad from being an ISIS beheading clip in the middle of a video made for children? If there is still a way to still report it, then there is a way to recognize the ad.
Also how will this interfere with creators? Editing a video and giving it a proper pace is already a huge challenge. But now ads can just be automaticaly cut into it without the creators control? That's gonna fuck up so many quality channels. That's already a big problem with the current system, bit at least you can skip or block them.
The ads are not part of the stored video file, they are sent in as chunks of the stream in place of the actual video. When the ad is done, the regular video starts playing again. They are not “editing in” anything to be permanently stored as part of an uploaded video.
But presumably with the new system, your computer will just receive a continuous bitstream with ads embedded in them. What was previously happening on your machine through HTML or JavaScript and was detectable by ad blockers, will now happen on YouTube servers beholind the scenes.
We used to just get up and do the dishes while whatever injected nonsense interupted what we were watching on TV. And when it became too much we turned to DVDs or piracy. Then streaming was the "savior" until whoever funded it realized that more users do not equal more money. And now we are almost back to square one. This is just played out at this point. Google/Yt/TIktok etc are just betting on the addictive nature of instant gratification to survive.
At some point, I think, all the effords of adblocking (grayjay, newpipe, sponsorblock, ublock) will seem impractical when a download (and maybe now scan to cut out ads and sponsor segments) will achive the same. And then peer to peer is the most practical way to share that instead of redoing all the work. Until downloading is hindered too much and someone somewhere just has OBS with some adhoc script on top running 24/7 to capture youtube videos. The conversation of when is adblocking piracy etc seems to me to be coming to a natural end (at least as far as legalilties go).
One saving grace the internet has bestowed on media is that it is easier to follow creators and fund their work (if you can afford it).
I'll be curious to see where this ends up going, as I doubt the community will take this lying down.
The few times I've had to go without an Ad blocker, I've seen just how bad the Ads have gotten - they're almost the same as regular TV Ad breaks now!
... And then YouTube Premium is just not a good deal in my eyes, £12.99 a month is an awful lot to pay just to not see Ads.
The majority of of people using it will most definitely take it lying down as they're most likely not tech savvy enough to install a browser extension on a laptop if the only thing on the page was a large red install button.
That's why I specified the community, as in the more tech savy folks that would care about this, because I know that the wider public is surprisingly tech illiterate
And then YouTube Premium is just not a good deal in my eyes, £12.99 a month is an awful lot to pay just to not see Ads.
I think this includes YouTube music (at least in my market it does) which makes it fairly good value for money if you already subscribe to a music streaming app.
I use ublock on my phone as well. I set it up to play through FF and never access the YouTube app. Did it for my gf when she complained of ads, and then did it for my self it was so easy.
I don't remember the last time I saw an ad between us.
I don't watch YT from phone much, but I find Newpipe for videos to be a better experience than browser (it is also much lighter). And similarly Innertune for music.
Because Netflix didn't dismantle the capitalism machine.
Capitalism can never fully disrupt itself. It's always cyclical. If bundling eventually made it more money, then it will eventually return. If the response to that is to innovate something that gets around that form of bundling, then that "disrupts" the market, in the short term, only for the market to settle back to bundles.
Because as long as the idea makes more money in a capitalistic society, it will never die.
They get the most money by just donating trivial amounts to their Patreon. That should be the standard. I assure you $5 one time to a creator is more than they'd ever make off you with Ad revenue.
Content creators get nothing from a subscription To YouTube premium.
This is not true. If you're a free user they're getting a share of the ad-revenue. If you're a premium user they're getting share of the membership fee. The more videos you watch from a creator the more they earn.
Also. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to run a video hosting platform? Especially at the scale of YouTube. There's a good reason Lemmy doesn't have videos.
I don’t care. I don’t wanna watch ads, ever. The point is, YouTube will never be able to stop ad blockers. They can try, and the only ones who get hurt on the content creators.
Edit: and whining, “boo-hoo for the trillion dollar megacorp!” Isn’t going to elicit any sympathies
It is expensive, but it's hard to quantify that expense for a cloud provider like Google. They're liable to use their market prices for cloud services to justify the "cost" when they want to make it look more expensive than it is. They're already building a cdn for all their other services as well, so YouTube's cost is baked into that.
Reddit, by comparison actually pays for cloud hosting for all it's video services and so pays out the ass.
peertube exists. it's activitypub. lemmy is the reddit-like interface to activitypub. but the fediverse definitely has video. it even has live streaming through OwnCast (though i think peertube has livestreaming scheduled to be implemented as well)
I'm not informed enough to know how peertube works but running it is not free either. Nor is running a lemmy instance. Lemm.ee for example has a limit even on the size of images you can upload despite the fact that hosting images is orders of magnitude less bandwith and storage requiring than videos.
despite the fact that hosting images is orders of magnitude less bandwith and storage requiring than videos.
In general, yes, when comparing images/video of the same resolution. But if I compare an 8k image to a low quality video with low FPS, I can easily get a few minutes worth of video compared to that one picture.
As you said, it definitely costs money to keep these services running. What's also important is how well they are able to compress the video/images into a smaller size without losing out on too much quality.
Additionally, with the way ML models have made their way into frame generation (such as DLSS) I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing a new compressed format that removes frames from a video (if they haven't started doing it already).
Very little most likely. I was reading some of what the sponsorblock dev had to say about this and the tone seemed to be “meh, there will be a way around this”.
My gut reaction is that this won't work long-term. Users on youtube often point to specific timestamps in a video in comments or link to specific timestamps when sharing videos, meaning there needs to be some way to identify the timestamp excluding ads. And if there's a way to do that there's a way to detect ads.
Of course, there's always the chance they just scrap these features despite how useful they are and how commonly they're used; they've done similar before.
Feedback across the Firefox and YouTube subreddits highlighted that it could break timestamped video links and chapter markers. However, YouTube knows the length of the ads it would inject, and can offset subsequent timestamps suitably.
The move also adds a layer of unnecessary complexity in saving Premium viewers from these ads. If they are added server-side, the YouTube client would have to auto-skip them for Premium members, but that also means ad segment info will be relayed to the client, opening up a window of opportunity for ad blockers to use the same information meant for Premium subscribers and skip injected ads automatically.
The ads won’t be baked in beforehand, they’ll be injected into the stream in real time. Videos are broken into chunks and sent over HTTP, they’ll just put ad chunks in during playback. There is no need to re-encode anything. If you deep link to a timestamp, the video just starts from that timestamp as normal. If you are a Premium user, the server just never injects the ads.
But you are correct that the client needs to be aware that ads are happening, so they can be indicated on screen, and so click-throughs are activated.
This is why Chrome went to Manifest v3 - so you can’t have any code looking for ad signals running on the page to try to counter it.
Surely at the server side it knows the premium status of the user it is supplying the video to, so just wouldn't insert the ads? I don't see why that would need to be client side.
