I’m torn because fuck ads, but also YouTube is probably the most expensive website on earth to run (just the website itself, obviously a shipping company with a website will cost more.) Video is just obscenely expensive to store and they let free accounts upload 4k and keep it private.
I honestly don’t know the solution here because YouTube being free is amazing, but they’ve literally never made money. I think a business model like nebula is more sustainable, but it sucks for those that can’t afford it.
(To head off any arguments, I’m pro piracy, I just can’t blame YouTube to trying to stop people)
If the ads weren’t so intrusive I wouldn’t mind nearly as much. As it is, if you don’t block them, you’re watching ads as much as you’re watching content. In-line ads would be better I think, but forcing an ad before the video is annoying as hell.
True. Back in 2011 they didn’t bother me at all. I think the issue is once everyone started using ad blockers they had to start squeezing the schmucks that weren’t.
That and they started allowing unrestricted 4k uploads. That imo is their main issue with money.
I understand where the “everyone using adblockers, makes it worse for those who don’t” argument comes from, and it generally makes sense. But I also have my suspicions that the expectations of infinite growth in publicly traded companies would probably have made it happen, even if nobody used adblockers. That being said, as someone who is giving YouTube money every month to not have ads, there’s a reasonable argument that I’m enabling their bad behavior.
Fully agree on the 4k uploads thing though, and it also seems to be hurting the bitrate of lower resolutions. Up until around 2021 I primarily watched and preferred 480p when watching on tablets and sometimes even lower on my phone, for me it was a good balance of lower data usage and acceptable image quality. They’ve cut the bitrate so much at the low end though now, that sometimes even on a small phone screen I have to watch at 720p just to keep things from looking like they were recorded off a video conference from the early 2010s. Maybe 720p just is the new 480p and it’s using a similar amount of bandwidth, but it feels like they’re chasing the “bigger number better” crowd, rather than just defaulting to a reasonable resolution, with a high enough bitrate that most people won’t feel the need to adjust it.
It feels like we should have solved this issue a decade ago with bittorrent.
A website is just a frontend for a fileserver, so why are we not distributing these files across the globe, where we all volunteer a bit of storage and bandwidth to services we want to use.
Websites really need be nothing more than indexes and trackers which serve up a list of peers who are hosting the files we want.
Youtube itself might not be making a profit, but I double Google as a whole isn’t by having YouTube. They keep you in their ecosystem longer, and that’s good for them regardless of if you’re watching ads.
Another sane take. Seriously, a breath of fresh air after seeing people on both Reddit and Lemmy talking about this with the entitlement of the average r/ChoosingBeggars post
Meh, YouTube has been profitable for years now despite all the people using adblockers. They aren’t hurting for money anymore. I pay for it but I wish they’d separate out YouTube music from the sub because YTM sucks ass.
So if they stop people from skipping ads and the people then stop watching altogether, what’s the difference? They’d save on some bandwidth but look less inviting to advertisers since they have less viewers.
We need a new internet, one free from corporations.
I’m torn because fuck ads, but also YouTube is probably the most expensive website on earth to run (just the website itself, obviously a shipping company with a website will cost more.) Video is just obscenely expensive to store and they let free accounts upload 4k and keep it private.
I honestly don’t know the solution here because YouTube being free is amazing, but they’ve literally never made money. I think a business model like nebula is more sustainable, but it sucks for those that can’t afford it.
(To head off any arguments, I’m pro piracy, I just can’t blame YouTube to trying to stop people)
If the ads weren’t so intrusive I wouldn’t mind nearly as much. As it is, if you don’t block them, you’re watching ads as much as you’re watching content. In-line ads would be better I think, but forcing an ad before the video is annoying as hell.
True. Back in 2011 they didn’t bother me at all. I think the issue is once everyone started using ad blockers they had to start squeezing the schmucks that weren’t.
That and they started allowing unrestricted 4k uploads. That imo is their main issue with money.
I understand where the “everyone using adblockers, makes it worse for those who don’t” argument comes from, and it generally makes sense. But I also have my suspicions that the expectations of infinite growth in publicly traded companies would probably have made it happen, even if nobody used adblockers. That being said, as someone who is giving YouTube money every month to not have ads, there’s a reasonable argument that I’m enabling their bad behavior.
Fully agree on the 4k uploads thing though, and it also seems to be hurting the bitrate of lower resolutions. Up until around 2021 I primarily watched and preferred 480p when watching on tablets and sometimes even lower on my phone, for me it was a good balance of lower data usage and acceptable image quality. They’ve cut the bitrate so much at the low end though now, that sometimes even on a small phone screen I have to watch at 720p just to keep things from looking like they were recorded off a video conference from the early 2010s. Maybe 720p just is the new 480p and it’s using a similar amount of bandwidth, but it feels like they’re chasing the “bigger number better” crowd, rather than just defaulting to a reasonable resolution, with a high enough bitrate that most people won’t feel the need to adjust it.
It feels like we should have solved this issue a decade ago with bittorrent.
A website is just a frontend for a fileserver, so why are we not distributing these files across the globe, where we all volunteer a bit of storage and bandwidth to services we want to use.
Websites really need be nothing more than indexes and trackers which serve up a list of peers who are hosting the files we want.
I doubt a p2p network would be able to match YouTube:s current performance.
How would the content creators get rewarded in that system? Some of the YouTube ad money goes to the channel the ad is shown on.
It’s harder to profit from that, so obviously that’s not the direction things went.
To be fair, they aren’t exactly profiting from the current strategy.
Youtube itself might not be making a profit, but I double Google as a whole isn’t by having YouTube. They keep you in their ecosystem longer, and that’s good for them regardless of if you’re watching ads.
Because have you ever stumbled upon dead torrents? I see this more as a backup method to relieve the load rather than the only one.
(Wish I had a perma-online SBC to seed my torrents btw)
Another sane take. Seriously, a breath of fresh air after seeing people on both Reddit and Lemmy talking about this with the entitlement of the average r/ChoosingBeggars post
Meh, YouTube has been profitable for years now despite all the people using adblockers. They aren’t hurting for money anymore. I pay for it but I wish they’d separate out YouTube music from the sub because YTM sucks ass.
So if they stop people from skipping ads and the people then stop watching altogether, what’s the difference? They’d save on some bandwidth but look less inviting to advertisers since they have less viewers.
We need a new internet, one free from corporations.