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

YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#81

Post by chillee »

munk-a wrote: post #79
vouaobrasil wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google should offer a paid tier like YouTube premium, but with the following feautures: (1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking (2) They would turn off ads for your OWN channel. So for example, if I have a channel and I pay for premium, then I should be able to TURN OFF ads so that OTHERS who view my channel don't see ads. If Google had these features, I would buy premium in a heartbeat.

YouTube premium's cost is unreasonable compared to the ad revenue they're missing out on. I personally don't mind covering the lost income from ads but I'm not going to pay simply to avoid being abused. And this model is repeated across quite a few ad-free services - Meta's program charges triple[1] what it earns per user, Reddit charges 150x[2] what it earns from advertising. Just let us pay your ad revenue and don'…

I think 40/year is the ARPU globally - the EU number is 71.52.

But it’s a bit worse than that, since users willing to pay for adblocking are disproportionately rich users, making them more valuable.

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#82

Post by jtthe13 »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #77
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the golden rule of anti-piracy measures: they never defeat pirates but do alienate your customers.

Netflix drm wants a word.

Not sure what you mean. It's pretty straightforward to get Netflix shows.

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#84

Post by taylodl »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #27
simbolit wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think controlling what the world watches via algorithms with no oversight whatsoever would be a valuable thing to have. But having that AND getting ad money is more valuable, of course, so they do it.

They also get all of your information/habits/etc.. It's pretty sweet being an all powerful tech company.

Which has what value, exactly? I see the value being for lining up the ads you're most likely to be relevant to you. It increases the amount they can charge advertisers, and you're seeing ads that are more relevant to you. Is there some other value in having this information?

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#85

Post by dspillett »

fluoridation wrote: post #66
dspillett wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the way the site and its ads are presented, and which ad-blocked is in use, that argument often falls flat because the blocked adverts still get counted as delivered as they leave the relevant server and are blocked from rendering client-side. Obviously this is not universally true (for example DNS based blocking stops the request for the ad content going through at all so if the counting is done at that…

>that argument often falls flat because the blocked adverts still get counted as delivered as they leave the relevant server and are blocked from rendering client-side And this counter-argument falls flat because YouTube must be able to detect which users are blocking ads in order to show them a message to disable ad blocking. If YouTube is detecting that situation and still counting blocked ads as delivered then the…

> YouTube must be able to detect which users are blocking ads in order to show them a message to disable ad blocking

They must be able to detect some blockers in order to show some users a message to disable ad blocking. They certainly aren't detecting mine, or are for some reason choosing not to show me the message.

> If YouTube is detecting that situation and still counting blocked ads as delivered then they're cheating their customers.

I'm sure they aren't cheating their customers in any way said customers can prove…

In order for their customers to have any confidence that they are getting better value from allowing blocking, as the previous assertion, YouTube would have to convincingly prove that they can detect a large majority of blocking and therefore account for it in how they charge for impressions.

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#86

Post by taylodl »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #51
IgorPartola wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not Vimeo?

It is a good option.

Technically, but not practically. None of the channels I subscribe to are on it. At the end of the day it's all about content. If YouTube had no content then I wouldn't be there.

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#87

Post by taylodl »

simbolit wrote: post #24
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even the die-hards will lose convenience, reverse engineering a custom WASM VM every time it's updated is massive work. And TPM checks are really hard to bypass. All that to watch a few videos without a 20 second ads? Not sure it's event worth it.

That's why you don't do it, but the die-hards do.

The die-hards aren't really doing it for any practical purpose, they're just doing it to show it can be done. Mainstream media have been ignoring. them for decades now and continue to make boatloads of money.

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#89

Post by DamnInteresting »

I deeply dislike advertising, but I am also willing to pay for services I value, so I am subscribed to YouTube Premium. But given how evil and greedy Google has become, I fully expect the "premium" service to eventually transition from no ads to "limited ads" (and that is the day I will cancel my account and walk away forever).

Re: YouTube's ban leads to a record number of users uninstalling their ad-blockers

#90

Post by fluoridation »

dspillett wrote: post #85
fluoridation wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that argument often falls flat because the blocked adverts still get counted as delivered as they leave the relevant server and are blocked from rendering client-side And this counter-argument falls flat because YouTube must be able to detect which users are blocking ads in order to show them a message to disable ad blocking. If YouTube is detecting that situation and still counting blocked ads as delivered then the…

> YouTube must be able to detect which users are blocking ads in order to show them a message to disable ad blocking They must be able to detect some blockers in order to show some users a message to disable ad blocking. They certainly aren't detecting mine, or are for some reason choosing not to show me the message. > If YouTube is detecting that situation and still counting blocked ads as delivered then they're che…

>They certainly aren't detecting mine, or are for some reason choosing not to show me the message.

If they can't detect your blocking then you would fall under case #1 above. If they can detect it but choose to allow it for whatever reason then it's not part of this discussion.

>In order for their customers to have any confidence that they are getting better value from allowing blocking, as the previous assertion, YouTube would have to convincingly prove that they can detect a large majority of blocking and therefore account for it in how they charge for impressions.

No, my assertion was that a site that doesn't forbid ad blockers should have a better conversion ratio than one that does, all else being equal, not a better ratio than another arbitrary one. Under the assumption that total_impressions = non_blocking_users * k:

total_impressions / non_blocking_users > total_impressions / (non_blocking_users + blocking_users)

This is true regardless of how large blocking_users is, both in absolute terms and compared to non_blocking users. Whether you can accurately measure blocking_users also doesn't matter.

Post reply on HN