Earlier quoted context omitted.
Red is only available to a minuscule fraction of the world population, namely United States, Australia, Mexico, New Zealand and South Korea.
I would guess that's where the majority of youtube's users are. Kinda deceptive to use "world population" when that includes places like China where youtube isn't available
Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
481–490 of 504 posts
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google are the one who made me install AdBlocker. I was tired of getting the same obnoxious and annoying unskippable 30 seconds ad for a long series of 45 seconds videos on youtube.
Pay for YT Red?
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly doubt Google has thought of this. Their modus operandi appears to be (1) launch edgy experimental stuff, (2) forget it exists, (3) be reminded it exists, (4) ruin it by killing it or rewriting it.
I can't shake the feeling that virtually every product decision at Google is made by an engineer.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say "what's good for Google is good for the internet", I said, in effect, "what's good for the internet is good for Google". And please do refrain from fixing my posts for me, I am perfectly capable of expressing my opinions without your assistance.
> what's good for the internet is good for Google This presumes complete congruence between these two sets, which is precisely what is being criticized above. How exactly is: " The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. " If true, good f…
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#485How does this bode for anti-trust protections?
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#486Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what's good for the internet is good for Google This presumes complete congruence between these two sets, which is precisely what is being criticized above. How exactly is: " The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. " If true, good f…
Or that 'what is good for the internet' is a subset of 'what is good for Google'. Language is murky but that's a more reasonable interpretation.