631–640 of 844 posts
I have this moment when I have to use Youtube on my phone for some reason (such as a tutorial for how to fix something), and get blasted with 3 ads for a 1 minute video. I would never use it for long periods without an ad blocker.
Firefox for Android supports uBlock Origin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, if you owned YouTube with an overhead of tens of millions of dollars per year, how would you monetize it without ads/commercials, just to even keep up with operational costs?
I'm honestly appalled by the price for YouTube Premium. It's $15/month. That's the same as HBO Max, almost twice of Disney+ and more expensive than F1TV or Showtime which come in around $10. Per month this is 50% more than Prime! Only my UltraHD Netflix plan is more expensive. This price to me is outrageous, given that Google, unlike everyone else listed here, doesn't provide any of the content and their services is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once sent a link to a news article to a friend at work. He became angry at me because the link I had sent him was to a malware-infested shit site. It wasn't, but the ads in the site I had intended to send had taken over his browser and made it indistinguishable from a malware link. That's how showing ads on your site is abuse of the user.
You've just shifted the goalposts significantly and did not really reply in good faith. Showing ads is very different from linking to malware. Especially on YouTube the amount of malware is probably very low since everything is sandboxed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few years ago I was eating in an indian restaurant and I noticed a muted TV on the wall playing MKBHD's review of some drone. I was very confused why would they decide to show that. As I was eating the video ended and I realised the full review was an ad that played inside a 10 hour atmospheric video the restaurant intended to play. I found it pretty smart, because I can imagine myself succumbing to watching a full…
Strange that MKBHD (an ad funded media of sorta itself) would pay to get people to watch the content. What's the reasoning here? Additional reach for a sponsored video?
The site appears to be hugged to death...but the thrust of the idea seems pretty obvious on the surface...I'd add that it also probably follows financial, if not technically savvy groups. The person with a $50 Walmart Burner phone's experience will be a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT from the person with the $1100 smartphone with ad blocking turned on.
Thankfully, with android, firefox still has addon support so ublock origin can still be used regardless of price point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you ignore that YT has a subscription business model along side the ad-based one..
Subscribing to what amounts to a search+CDN video w/ads service wholesale isn't even in the same ballpark as throwing money directly at the creators you want to support. The salient point is YouTube/Alphabet has completely missed the opportunity of facilitating Patreon-style commerce, despite being best positioned to do so. But instead of enabling creators to receive money directly from audiences, an advertising jugg…
I wanted to show a video on YouTube to a friend. He passed me his cellphone. I searched and found the video and then something very strange happened: a completely unrelated something started playing. I said "Sorry I don't know what is this. This has nothing to do with what I wanted to show you." He then explained me that was just an advertisement and the video would play soon. People are used to abuse. My internet is…
Just curious, if you owned YouTube with an overhead of tens of millions of dollars per year, how would you monetize it without ads/commercials, just to even keep up with operational costs?
Also, YouTube has a data trove of metrics that interest advertisers. Why not selling those? You have a commercial page that let’s say sells clothes and you want to upload a video to target women aged 18-25. Here’s the data to show you what you need to do, and we’ll charge you $15k to give you a detailed report. Brands would go bananas for metrics like these.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has to be the most unpopular opinion so far I have a few questions for you 1. How long have you been doing this ? 2. What do you think of other (not just monetization) ways ads are bad as in bloating the web, privacy and security issues ? 3. What if you truly need to access a website but it has too many ads ? You give up ? Use adblock ? Continue with ads ?
Fortunately goverment and b2c things like banks and insurance dont show ads, tho they are probably selling your data
The Cook County (Illinois) Assessor used to have them. There's a new assessor now, and a new web site design, but you can still see the space for the banner ad on archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20130708043842/http://www.cookco...
As for banks, yes, some banks to have ads for other companies on their web sites. I see them when I pay my bills online. Not all, but some.
Advertising has gone absolutely bonkers and filled the web with complete trash SEO farms with 40 links to some shitty slideshow
I don't believe the web would have caught on like it did if this current condition was v1.0
I wonder how much the website designer even views their own site. It's astounding anyone would approve of this. It now represents the brand as extremely low quality
No one likes ads, but the belief that you're owed content for free is absurd.