211–220 of 237 posts
My youtube experience: - open video - 2 unskippable ads - click somewhere in the video to skip the creator's sponsor section (more ads) - 2 more unskippable ads - video plays, the original audio was automagically replaced by a dogshit 1995 tier "ai" dub - it's not the part I wanted to see, click somewhere else - 2 more unskippable ads At that point I spent 5 minutes watching ads and forgot why I came here...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YT has a bad tendency for over-recommending. I watch one video about stock market and my next ten videos are about stock picking from random guys. I also immediately get advertisements for crypto platforms! The only time I appreciate over-recommendations is when I search for old standup videos of Dave Attell, George Carlin, and others and it suggests more of these gems.
I recommend turning off the watch history. It means the only recommendations you get are related to the video you're currently watching. It's not perfect but it's a lot better.
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…
> 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. GoT was going downhill way before the final season. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by investing in a show. TV watching should be enjoyable, you dont have to watch things you dont like hoping for a payoff later on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why so much? Plex is a pretty light-weight system as long as transcoding is avoided or it has hardware transcoding available to use. And wrangling Usenet is a fairly simple affair on vaguely modern PC hardware, too. So all of that stuff runs in the background on the same desktop Linux box that I also use for everything else. Am I doing it wrong?
As "lightweight" as it is, you don't even need Plex or a "media server" software. My "media server" has been "files on an NFS share" which has worked for me for the last 15-20 years.
- Each member of my family gets their watch progress individually tracked down to how many minutes they made it into each video, across devices.
- The server's GPU automatically transcodes video into the best format for the device, display resolution, and available bandwidth. Very helpful for streaming stuff off the home server while away from home to optimize battery life and bandwidth.
- Automatically pulling subtitles from opensubtitles. Very handy if you have a multingual family who enjoys foreign media shows together. The paid streaming services are mostly abysmal at subtitling.
- A soft reason: My family members are seriously impressed by how nice the web UI is compared to Amazon Prime Video, Peacock, etc. It's literally opened their eyes to how software doesn't have to be bad - capitalism makes software bad over time.
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.…
Piracy is the answer... though, it's aa couple extra hoops to jump through... using a seedbox over self-hosting that is. I should probably just have a script that does an rsync to my local NAS every few minutes to make it slightly easier... already have a watch script to upload .torrent files to the seedbox.
My youtube experience: - open video - 2 unskippable ads - click somewhere in the video to skip the creator's sponsor section (more ads) - 2 more unskippable ads - video plays, the original audio was automagically replaced by a dogshit 1995 tier "ai" dub - it's not the part I wanted to see, click somewhere else - 2 more unskippable ads At that point I spent 5 minutes watching ads and forgot why I came here...
My experience - ublock lite. Haven't seen an add for ages. Watch two seconds of creator's sponsor section then skip to next bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, depends. Pirates these days need to burn hardware keys for 4K, so only sponsored or high-popularity stuff gets it. Everything else gets 1080p, though some groups do upscaling to try and make up for it. If the content has a Blu-ray release, the pirated content will usually be better than the stream. But you could also purchase the Blu-ray yourself. Anyway, pirating is illegal. I totally respect it for those who ca…
I'll pay 100 USD a month for an 'everything' subscription. That option doesn't exist, and piracy is by far the best option outside of that.
Amazon Prime used to have each season of each show separated, for example... Hulu and Hulu Live TV mess with each other, and fragment older episodes... Disney+ is a pain to use.. Paramount/CBS breaks with the PiHole... they all kinda suck in so many ways. I actually pay for YouTube ad free, it covers music as well... and I tend to watch from the couch. I've started using Rumble a little more, but the TV UX leaves a lot of room for improvement. Similar for Pepperbox and other alt streaming options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just let me buy an MP4 legally for $5 and I will buy every movie.
This is a good point. I paid many movies on iTunes, and there's no way to access that content anymore, certaily not from my Linux (main) machines. Also, people who "bought" 1984 on Amazon only to see it disappear from their Kindle will not have been amused. Nobody likes to have things they spend money on cluttered across 20+ services with changing subscription fees and licensing terms. It's a mess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's totally possible? They've done it with Spotify for music. No reason the same shouldn't be done for films and TV.
Are we seriously praising Spotify's business model and affect on the creator market? Not to mention they're up to $12/month. Creating movies and shows is significantly more expensive than music, so it makes sense the price to a catalogue would be scaled by an order of magnitude. Not to mention the increased costs for digital providers for storage, bandwidth, and compute requirements. I'm, of course, more than happy t…
The breaking point is generally around 3-4 of the paid streaming services... many people are going to have Amazon as a baseline for shipping... then you get shoved D+ with every kind of bundling (Verizon, etc) under the sum, then Hulu may or may not be attached... People pay for Netflix out of legacy... that doesn't leave much room for Peacock, Paramount+, AppleTV, etc, etc. It's just easier to say f*ck it and pirate.
Hulu was great for the first couple years... minimal ads, new tv shows same or next day. Then the partners all dropped out with greed as primary motivators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Companies and countries are doing their darnedest to break the Internet up into separate, smaller networks.