Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube to stop 30-second unskippable ads

campaignlive.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: YouTube to stop 30-second unskippable ads

#121

Post by fjdlwlv »

kyrra wrote: post #102
Karunamon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crossfit might kill you, but as a user there's no practical downside to ad blocking. Faster web? Less chance of malware? Less annoyance? Heck, a product marketed as doing all of those things could probably be sold all on its own if not for the meta-irony of an ad for an ad blocker. Seriously though, this is a good thing. Everybody needs to know about and install one. It should be considered a part of basic internet l…

The downside: all content starts becoming premium or paid content. Or it disappears behind all together. Without ads, YouTube would not exist in its current form. Though something like vimeo make take over, not everyone wants to pay to host their content.

Naw, content becomes filled with native ads

Re: YouTube to stop 30-second unskippable ads

#122

Post by fjdlwlv »

ue_ wrote: post #113
Veratyr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're right, and I already paid for it with my ISP. No, you paid for bandwidth from your ISP to you. Your ISP doesn't pay anyone else for traffic. YouTube also has to pay your ISP and that cost is made up from ads.

I don't see why it's my responsibility to see Youtube makes money. If they didn't want me to consume the content, they would have a model in which you can't view the content without subscribing for a fee. And yet Google knows about adblockers and continues this model, suggesting that they are fine with people skipping the ads. I assume you do not download things you do not want, so I am merely doing the same thing. B…

Yeah and my supermarket is totally cool with me shoplifting because they haven't stopped me yet.

Re: YouTube to stop 30-second unskippable ads

#123

Post by ue_ »

fjdlwlv wrote: post #122
ue_ wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why it's my responsibility to see Youtube makes money. If they didn't want me to consume the content, they would have a model in which you can't view the content without subscribing for a fee. And yet Google knows about adblockers and continues this model, suggesting that they are fine with people skipping the ads. I assume you do not download things you do not want, so I am merely doing the same thing. B…

Yeah and my supermarket is totally cool with me shoplifting because they haven't stopped me yet.

The supermarket is obviously not cool with you shoplifting beacuse they have security guards that try to stop you from doing it, and they call the police when it happens.

Re: YouTube to stop 30-second unskippable ads

#124

Post by vonuebelgarten »

dukeluke wrote: post #95
vonuebelgarten wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they could make the ads indistinguishable from the actual video (in the html), or even splice the videos into one stream. And make ads unsuitable for the most egregious attacks on privacy, simple plain tracking or even as distribution channel for malware. Curiously, this nuclear option will make things better than the current situation.

I don't understand. What do you mean by this?

> I don't understand. What do you mean by this?

Ads embedded in the video stream (i.e. "burnt" as one with subtitles) can't be blocked but also can't deliver any active content (JS, Flash, etc) used for tracking or infecting users.

Re: YouTube to stop 30-second unskippable ads

#125

Post by Veratyr »

icebraining wrote: post #108
Veratyr wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look, my time is valuable. Clearly your time isn't valuable, as you spend it watching content you value at $0. If the content you watched and hence the time you spent watching it actually held value to you, you would be happy to pay the meagre $10/mo subscription fee.

I assume you spend most of your income of water, right? After all, it's the most indispensable element of out lives. Also, as it was pointed out in this thread, less than 10% of the world population has access to those subscriptions.

> I assume you spend most of your income of water, right? After all, it's the most indispensable element of out lives.

Water is a commodity, it doesn't require you to contribute for it to be available, it's ubiquitous and cheap. I pay less than I value it at, yes, as a price has been set and there's no method or reason to pay more for it.

YouTube content however is not a commodity and the amount of money that goes into it affects the quality and quantity of content available. Throw $10m at water, you get nothing meaningfully better. Throw $10m at YouTube creators, you get a new major original series or a few small ones.

> Also, as it was pointed out in this thread, less than 10% of the world population has access to those subscriptions.

And they can pay for it with ads.

The price for the content has been set. You can choose to pay for it or you can choose to essentially steal it.

Re: YouTube to stop 30-second unskippable ads

#127

Post by pkroll »

baldfat wrote: post #32
coldpie wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see some stats or analysis from a YouTube content creator about views from Red subscribers. Has anyone put out anything like that?

20 times higher payout per viewer. "“I can now clearly determine how much Red views are worth vs normal views. If I did my math correctly, since Red started, a Red view is on average worth 20x that of a normal ad view. This calculation is based on taking the total revenue the channel has generated via Red and dividing it by the total number of Red views since Red was first launched, then multiplying that number by 10…

I couldn't stay on that page for more than a few seconds before the insane, random animation background made me physically recoil.

Re: YouTube to stop 30-second unskippable ads

#128

Post by Veratyr »

ue_ wrote: post #113
Veratyr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're right, and I already paid for it with my ISP. No, you paid for bandwidth from your ISP to you. Your ISP doesn't pay anyone else for traffic. YouTube also has to pay your ISP and that cost is made up from ads.

I don't see why it's my responsibility to see Youtube makes money. If they didn't want me to consume the content, they would have a model in which you can't view the content without subscribing for a fee. And yet Google knows about adblockers and continues this model, suggesting that they are fine with people skipping the ads. I assume you do not download things you do not want, so I am merely doing the same thing. B…

> I don't see why it's my responsibility to see Youtube makes money.

It's not your responsibility to make YouTube profitable but if you enjoy the content, it's in your best interest to contribute to it, whether it be through watching ads or subscribing. The service needs some amount of money just to cover bandwidth and maintenance but more importantly, most of the money from those ads/subscriptions goes to the people who make the content you watch, many of whom can't do so without that money. Those people also can't choose to block adblockers.

> If they didn't want me to consume the content, they would have a model in which you can't view the content without subscribing for a fee.

They do. It's called ads. You can't watch the video until you watch the ads.

> And yet Google knows about adblockers and continues this model, suggesting that they are fine with people skipping the ads.

Or they don't want to get into an arms race just yet.

> I assume you do not download things you do not want, so I am merely doing the same thing.

The download of the thing you don't want here is the payment, not the product. Most of us do pay for things we want.

> I believe it's fine for me to access whatever information that people release.

What's your profession? I believe it's okay for me to promise you payment in exchange for your work then take it without payment.

Re: YouTube to stop 30-second unskippable ads

#129

Post by skinnymuch »

wnevets wrote: post #61
skinnymuch wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only seen info on it not being profitable assuming you actually account for its actual bandwidth, etc. Do you know where you may have seen it's profitable?

Looks like I was kinda wrong. http://www.investors.com/news/technology/youtube-valuation-s... > But is YouTube profitable? Google has never said. Nor does it disclose viewership data or other financial metrics beyond a few broad statements. > “There’s substantial uncertainty, particularly over the profit levels at YouTube, whether it’s break-even or if they're doing modest operating margins," RBC Capital analyst Mark…

Yeah interesting but we will likely never get anything close to a number.
Post reply on HN