31–40 of 68 posts
The fight between G and alternative front ends reminds me of the over engineered solution by NYC MTA to prevent people from hopping the turnstile.
They invested some millions of dollars into building and deploying the system. Only for the system to be a very mild deterrent which can be easily fooled.
Google really needs to revamp their YouTube model. I'd sign up for an embedding API with a low user fee (~$0.50) and generous low volume (free) and reasonable high volume (>50k requests/month at $0.01/1k). Ad free, of course, because YouTube ads are probably not great money makers for small businesses, hence the awful commercials we see pushed and successful creators reliance on in-video promotions.
YouTube streamed 21,885,984,000,000 minutes of content in 2023 and made $31.5 billion, which works out to an average of $0.0014 cents per minute. If you'd be willing to pay more than that to watch videos I am sure they'd take your money.
this happens every few weeks. wait for the update, or contribute
Going through the linked issue, it seems that the fix has already been merged and should be part of the next invidious release. But it still is a fact that Google is trying to limit access to YouTube through alternatives like yt-dlp and invidious by constantly trying to break stuff.
If you're taking a walk in the forest, you don't care if you're crushing insects under your feet. You do nothing to deliberately crush them, but you don't walk extremely slowly all the time in case there's an insect nearby.
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39882455
Google really needs to revamp their YouTube model. I'd sign up for an embedding API with a low user fee (~$0.50) and generous low volume (free) and reasonable high volume (>50k requests/month at $0.01/1k). Ad free, of course, because YouTube ads are probably not great money makers for small businesses, hence the awful commercials we see pushed and successful creators reliance on in-video promotions.
YouTube streamed 21,885,984,000,000 minutes of content in 2023 and made $31.5 billion, which works out to an average of $0.0014 cents per minute. If you'd be willing to pay more than that to watch videos I am sure they'd take your money.
I don't really care what Google attributes to YouTube indirect or direct revenue and costs on their P&L in the context of average revenue, costs, and approximate minutes streamed, since the marginal costs are ridiculously cheap.
There is a lot of value in Google adopting the first mover advantage in a Bernoulli market. I'd imagine shareholders care about that a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube streamed 21,885,984,000,000 minutes of content in 2023 and made $31.5 billion, which works out to an average of $0.0014 cents per minute. If you'd be willing to pay more than that to watch videos I am sure they'd take your money.
Given your numbers, you are off by 100x. 31.5 billion / 21,885,984,000,000 minutes is 0.14 ct/minute.
Wolfram Alpha helpfully formatted it as "0.14" and I missed the cent sign. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2431.5+billion+%2F+21%...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given your numbers, you are off by 100x. 31.5 billion / 21,885,984,000,000 minutes is 0.14 ct/minute.
You are correct, thank you. I've updated the post. Wolfram Alpha helpfully formatted it as "0.14" and I missed the cent sign. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2431.5+billion+%2F+21%...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube streamed 21,885,984,000,000 minutes of content in 2023 and made $31.5 billion, which works out to an average of $0.0014 cents per minute. If you'd be willing to pay more than that to watch videos I am sure they'd take your money.
Perhaps you didn't catch my comment's assertions. I stated the model and approximate values I'd be willing pay, given that most creators take in in-stream paid promotions already (above and beyond YT ads) and that general YouTube ads have poor power/are garbage/have low signal to noise ratios. I don't really care what Google attributes to YouTube indirect or direct revenue and costs on their P&L in the context of ave…
No I understood it perfectly, it is just absurd. You lack power, leverage, or influence over Google so the only lever you have to make a better deal is by offering more money than you are currently to get the terms you'd like.
yt-dlp is still working for me, and when/if Google ever break that, I'll stop watching youtube.
How are you using it? If you come across a youtube link, do you run yt-dlp on the command line and then watch the downloaded file in a media player? Asking because I'm too lazy for that, and interested to know if there is some fancier way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you didn't catch my comment's assertions. I stated the model and approximate values I'd be willing pay, given that most creators take in in-stream paid promotions already (above and beyond YT ads) and that general YouTube ads have poor power/are garbage/have low signal to noise ratios. I don't really care what Google attributes to YouTube indirect or direct revenue and costs on their P&L in the context of ave…
> Perhaps you didn't catch my comment's assertions. I stated the model and approximate values I'd be willing pay No I understood it perfectly, it is just absurd. You lack power, leverage, or influence over Google so the only lever you have to make a better deal is by offering more money than you are currently to get the terms you'd like.
They should still rethink their model, regardless.