151–160 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not remotely true.
I was going to try to make the monopoly argument but then realized I only think youtube is a monopoly because I don't use tiktok. It is just an oligopoly like most other sectors.
And then I realised people primarily consume shorts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I'm not pro YouTube, I think it's fine for companies to decide how to monetise their product, including things which were originally free. If you don't like free services, stop using them
>If you don't like free services, stop using them Problem is, there's no real alternative for YouTube. It's a monopoly.
It's only a matter of time before the entire YouTube catalog transitions to DRM-encrypted video that you can only watch on Google-sanctioned devices. They're probably doing the math on how to make the platform at least as profitable with a drastically lower DAU count, since alienating users now seems to be their top priority.
Oh, absolutely. If someone is not seeing this writing on the wall, they must be blind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, so list which websites I can use to watch all kinds of content that I can find on YouTube. Vimeo? It's basically dead. DailyMotion? It could've been an alternative, but they've recently deleted most old videos. Peertube? Nice idea in theory, but lack of content.
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Tiktok all fulfil the 'whatever topic I am interested in this second, there are videos about it' property, though admittedly they do not have near as much meritorious long-form content as YouTube.
What a waste of resources. Imagine employing some of the most brilliant engineers on the planet and allocating man-hours towards artificially worsening the experience for your userbase in order to blackmail them into paying you, and giving them back what they had in the first place. At least this is a loosing game for Google, since this is client side behaviour.
> Imagine employing some of the most brilliant engineers on the planet Maybe we should stop with that tired fallacious rhetoric? Just because you work at a massive company doesn’t make you “brilliant”.
The irony of your comment of accusing them of using fallacious rhetoric, is that your reply uses one of the most common fallacies of all: strawman fallacy
Imagine trying to take a basic browser function we’ve all taken for granted for decades and attempt to paywall it as ‘Background playback is a feature intended to be exclusive for YouTube Premium members.’ Get fucked. I vote we remove API access to any focus state information. Fuck you google.
> Imagine trying to take a basic browser function we’ve all taken for granted for decades What basic browser function is that? Video playback with the video tag? It's only been around for about 15 years and mainstream for 10 years.
* tangiential rambling old-person side-note: RealPlayer was a weird early example of a piece of software that was actually _better_ on Linux: The windoze version was notorious for also installing a thousand other pieces of spyware/adware and other trash, taking over your system and making it worse, to the point that people avoided it like the plague... But none of that crapware supported Linux, so the Linux version was just this relatively clean player that came as a self-contained, easy to install rpm and worked pretty well. I used to use RealPlayer a fair bit back in my early Linux days. When I used to tie an onion my belt, which was the style at the time.
If you want something lighter for Firefox Android. There is also the Background Video Player extension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice - you’ve just increased significantly power consumption of your browser! Browsers will “slow down” various aspects of pages when they’re not visible, like animations or timers, to save on battery usage on laptops or phones. Even if your remove explicit APIs for backgrounding, pages can still use heuristics to detect anyway.
The user should be making the choice - not the website. The website could be informed about being backgrounded, if the user chooses to. But the user should have the priority in the decision chain - their choice overrides any that the website makes. That is what it means to have control over your own computing.
Ah, see, there's the problem. The corpo apologists in the room don't want you to have that. The hardware you bought; err, licensed; to them, is their playground.
What a waste of resources. Imagine employing some of the most brilliant engineers on the planet and allocating man-hours towards artificially worsening the experience for your userbase in order to blackmail them into paying you, and giving them back what they had in the first place. At least this is a loosing game for Google, since this is client side behaviour.
While I'm not pro YouTube, I think it's fine for companies to decide how to monetise their product, including things which were originally free. If you don't like free services, stop using them
That's not monetization that's exploitation.
Would you feel the same if your phone suddenly updated so that your camera records in half quality unless you start paying monthly? It's their product, they can monetize it how they like.
I can't believe I'd ever find myself shilling for Google of all companies, but how is it sustainable from a creator's point of view if the viewer neither pays for a subscription nor looks at the ads?