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

YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 237 posts

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#201

Post by netsharc »

isaacremuant wrote: post #186
netsharc wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least it's optional.. YouTube thinks if you're accessing from country X, you want the video titles in language X. Utter fucking geniuses. I say "thinks", it sometimes does this and sometimes doesn't. And there's no "Leave the fucking titles alone" option anywhere... Reminds me of IMDb pulling the same genius move of "Hey, here's the title of that movie as it was released in the region we've geolocated you in!"

It's not optional. It auto dubs stuff assuming no one in the world speaks more than one language or would rather listen to original audio with subs

Optional in the sense that there's a way to switch it back after a "wtF?! @#%$#@ you YouTube!!!"...

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#202

Post by ta1243 »

INTPenis wrote: post #7

In my circle, piracy is making a comeback. We're tired of having to hunt down streaming services, and be extorted for hundreds of euro a month, just to see ads for their own programs. Streaming was fun for a while, but as always these greedy execs are ruining it.

In the 90s we clamoured for being able to subscribe to what we want rather than a single

We broadly have that now.

I subscribe to Youtube, Spotify, Netflix, Disney, Apple, Paramount, BBC. Only Apple and BBC force adverts on me, and Apple I'll be cancelling because of it. I keep BBC more out of moral reasons as I think it's a net good for the UK.

The monthly cost is very reasonable to me, inflation wise its about the same as I paid for BBC and Sky in the 90s.

Last night we wanted to watch the 2012 Les Mis film, £3.50 to rent it from Apple. In the 90s, inflation adjusted, it cost £8 to rent the tape.

If I can subscribe to watch something without adverts, I will. If I can buy or rent it, I will.

If I can't do that though, then I'll get it elsewhere.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#203

Post by ta1243 »

CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #45
Barbing wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher price, 1080p cap, no account sharing… that’s one thing. But the content issue is just so dumb (and I’m not blaming Netflix). I suppose next we will have a new streaming service for each film and show.

Let me pay $0.1 for each episode I watch, make everything available and route to the right entity that should be paid and then offer one cross-platform client that everyone pooled their efforts into. And since we're dreaming, make it a open collaboration with a FOSS client too. I'd predict most of the piracy would again disappear quickly as long as it's better, faster and has virtually everything people wanna watch.…

In 1999 I paid (inflation adjusted) $20 per episode in DS9

If you are only wiling to pay 10 cents then that's a major problem - viewing figures just aren't that high any more. A modern scifi show would need 100 million viewers to cover the production budget at 10 cents a person

The post popular scripted show on US TV - George and Mindy - gets about 5-6 million viewers when it's on for free. At 10c/episode or $2 for the year that would be $10m for the entire season. TV costs a lot more than that to produce.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#204

Post by ta1243 »

bombcar wrote: post #190
netdevphoenix wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Was fine when it was just Netflix, had mostly everything This was problematic too. Centralisation is never good in the long-term. Surely, we would have learned that from traditional media, AWS outages or autocratic structures. Humanity as so much to learn still

Centralized marketplaces can work, but it’s hard to maintain those (there is one Centralized Internet, not many various internets, for example). A subscription service that “covers all” like we usually get with music would be quite nice, even if it was only “older” shows after a year or so.

There isn't one centralised internet, its thousands of autonomous systems which connect to each other using a common language.

Now sure, some companies try hard to centralise it and own it, this leads to a more fragile ecosystem.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#205

Post by ta1243 »

menshiki wrote: post #156
qwertox wrote: post #154

Don't worry, Google will find a way to break it so badly that heavy users will stop using it frequenty. AI translation forced even on those who know the language are just a example of what they fail to understand and don't bother to discuss internally.

YouTube's automatic and forced AI translation has to be the worst feature of this decade.

I wonder what proportion of decisions makers in youtube speak more than one language on a regular basis. I suspect it's near-zero.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#206

Post by ta1243 »

benbristow wrote: post #6
analog8374 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't like conspiracy theories? You prefer everybody agrees with the truth?

Conspiracy theories nowadays are about a year away from being conspiracy fact. Digital ID is being HEAVILY pushed by the Labour government in the UK. Scary times.

I'm not convinced something that's been tried multiple times on and off in the UK (last time ID cards were being brought in - by Labour and the 2006 act - it was cancelled by the coalition), and happens in many countries, is a "conspiracy theory"

Who exactly is conspiring and what exactly are they conspiring for?

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#207

Post by j-kent »

We're going back to discs. Rerouting a fraction of the money we spent on streaming services buys a lot of DVDs/BluRays. Plus it stopped the brain rot dead in its tracks. The family TV was turning into a constant stream of YT shorts AI voices non-stop talk shouting over 3 vids of brainrot.

I own the tv, yet have no way of just blocking yt shorts, or even easily blocking the YT app on the tv. So YT is blocked at the router level.

edit: a word

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#208

Post by mortsnort »

softwaredoug wrote: post #21

My personal theory on this is prestige TV is in a recession. After Game of thrones season 8, people wonder why they should invest into a show when there’s a high chance it won’t pay off. Even for a good show it can feel like work. That plus the high cost for studios and over abundance of supply, meant studios pulled back. Instead we’re seeing a reemergence of low effort TV. And YouTube plays nicely into that. At some…

https://www.statsignificant.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-tvs-g...

This is a pretty well known fact. Netflix is the best example. They created the prestige streaming market with House of Cards, and now they're primarily using algorithms to create low-cost reality shows and cheap disaster documentaries.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#209

Post by The_President »

j-kent wrote: post #207

We're going back to discs. Rerouting a fraction of the money we spent on streaming services buys a lot of DVDs/BluRays. Plus it stopped the brain rot dead in its tracks. The family TV was turning into a constant stream of YT shorts AI voices non-stop talk shouting over 3 vids of brainrot. I own the tv, yet have no way of just blocking yt shorts, or even easily blocking the YT app on the tv. So YT is blocked at the ro…

[dead]

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#210

Post by JR1427 »

speak_plainly wrote: post #24

There was a time when the algorithm was truly amazing and the recommendations were smart, spot-on, and mostly high quality. I don't know what happened but you have to search now for decent content. The recommendations part of YouTube just seems to give me old content or will show me things I've already watched. Despite it feeling almost user-hostile, I still use Youtube,

I really wish their was a setting to tune feed "volatility". This also drive me crazy.

Sometimes I'll be marking something as "not interested", but that time with it spent auto-playing is enough for my feed to turn in to the stuff I just said I wasn't interested in.

Post reply on HN