141–150 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> on either my phone or my tablet (where I don't have access to AdBlock) I think it's amazing you're putting up with devices that work against you. If my phone would force me to watch ads I would get a new phone tomorrow.
Your phone doesn't force you to watch ads. Youtube (which has nothing to do with your phone) forces you to watch ads (if you don't have an adblocker)
As a content consumer I see this as a positive thing for me. A few months ago when YouTube decided to auto-add ads on all videos, my watch time on YouTube decreased by more than 50% since I consume all video content on either my phone or my tablet (where I don't have access to AdBlock), and I find the amount of ads I have to go through to watch a video so annoying that I'd rather not watch it at all. As a result I sp…
It's the same with sites that require javascript to view: I'm sure the content might be good if I whitelisted it - but most the time it's my cue to realize I'm procrastinating and should get back to creating rather than consuming!
Why not pay for Youtube Premium? We're often talking about how we would gladly pay to keep a sustainable product going on but people are outraged that a _free_ service is increasing monetization through ads. I think Youtube is great, it's where I find a lot of content, I use it a lot and not seeing ads makes a huge difference. Plus, Youtube Music is great value for the price.
- YouTube Music is awful, not a halfway decent product to replace the good Play Music.
- Stopped sending emails for video uploads (I know, I'm weird)
- "Premier" videos started to be shown in the RSS feeds. So now I am notified of stuff I can't even watch yet.
- Half the time videos just play at 360p even though I have never had a second of buffering on my 500Mpbs connection.
I think there were a couple of other things that were bugging me. But when they dropped the email notifications and the RSS feeds were terrible it was the last straw for me.
I would gladly pay if I felt that they were providing a good service and it was getting better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Examples? Happy to be proven wrong on this.
For longer videos, YouTube tends to put not just an ad or two at the beginning, but also in the middle of the video. It can be pretty jarring to be listening to a quiet video, and then 10 minutes in, an obnoxiously loud ad starts playing. No idea if the creators opt in to this “feature” (I bet they don’t; it’s probably either all or nothing with ads), but it definitely exists.
As a content consumer I see this as a positive thing for me. A few months ago when YouTube decided to auto-add ads on all videos, my watch time on YouTube decreased by more than 50% since I consume all video content on either my phone or my tablet (where I don't have access to AdBlock), and I find the amount of ads I have to go through to watch a video so annoying that I'd rather not watch it at all. As a result I sp…
> on either my phone or my tablet (where I don't have access to AdBlock) I think it's amazing you're putting up with devices that work against you. If my phone would force me to watch ads I would get a new phone tomorrow.
Nowadays I just don't have that time. And the bad guys have evolved from mischievous to felonious (and I have a lot more to lose. I still harp on privacy and security, but now I do it behind a couple of walled gardens. I love that my devices "just work."
I know it's a trade off, and I'm certainly fighting for more regulations of FAANG. And I am supporting the FOSS/open device movement, and look forward to the next phase where those "just work".
I always kind of predicted that services like YouTube will eventually end up just like cable TV when it comes to ads (formerly known as "commercials"). I think even services that you pay for (like Netflix) will eventually get there. I was at my parents house the other day and they watch a lot of cable TV. The amount of commercials was shocking since I'm so used to streaming. I kept thinking "why do we still have to w…
They have the legal right to do this of course but we don't have to like it and the impact on the market and can choose against them if you believe that their content is not worth commercials and rising prices.
Original comment:
The wording of this isn't 100% crystal clear but I have a feeling this article might be making this out to be way worse than it is.
I have 10k subs on YouTube and made a decision not to run ads on my channel from the beginning because I care more about the viewing experience than profiting.
Technically I'm in the YouTube Partner Program and I choose not to turn on monetization for my videos. Monetization is basically a checkbox you can turn on and off for each video and then if you enable it, you choose some information about how the ads are shown.
Going by the TOS update's wording, it sounds like if you're in the YPP then your videos will have not have these new ads placed in them if you choose to disable monetization for a video.
It sounds like it's only going to affect channels who have a handful of subs and views, in which case you were making $0 guaranteed anyways because you couldn't turn monetization on due to not being in the YPP. The only difference now is YouTube will make some money off your views which seems reasonable since they are hosting it for free, and realistically it'll be pennies at best if you have a small channel with 15 views per video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your phone doesn't force you to watch ads. Youtube (which has nothing to do with your phone) forces you to watch ads (if you don't have an adblocker)
Youtube doesn't force you to watch ads. Pay for Youtube Premium and you will see no ads.
I feel like YouTube as we knew it before is probably going to come to an end soon. Between youtube ads, ad reads, sponsors, patreon plugs and merch ads, it is either going to wind up looking like cable tv or it is going to die and make way for some paid service. I saw a video with a sponsor, a separate THREE MINUTE ad read for some stupid mobile game AND 2 youtube ads. The video was 10 minutes. I understand video cre…
And would that really be a bad thing?
Social media sites and content hosting services like YouTube have become like the old book publishers and record labels. They provide a largely fungible middleman service to the creators who generate the real value by creating new material, yet somehow for a long time they've wound up keeping the lion's share of the financial benefits.
It's natural that creators will push back, whether through things like sponsored placements or through other revenue schemes like Patreon. But even if it's just providing storage, distribution and possibly discoverability to the creators, the host service still has bills to pay and needs to make enough revenue somewhere to be a viable business.
The ideal outcome, IMHO, would be to separate the hosting/distribution from the discoverability, have hosting services that charge real money for providing a real service and effectively compete for the best content creators, and have the equivalent of search engines or recommendation systems to help people find the content, whoever is hosting it. The latter could still operate on some sort of ad-based scheme, without interfering with delivery of the main content itself. In short, I'd like to see a return to a more decentralised system, where the content creators are the driving force, and the intermediaries have to provide their fungible services in a competitive market without becoming the de facto controlling entities for the whole system. See also: self-published writing, music, etc.