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

YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#31

Post by varelaz »

joosters wrote: post #25
mic47 wrote: post #11

This might be actually a good thing. Say that you are a user, which uploads a LOT of large videos that almost nobody is watching, apart from your small cabal, and you restrict ads on them (AFAIK was possible in past, not sure if it is now). In such case, you get quite good service for free, and you cost YouTube quite a lot of money for storage. I see that YouTube have following options: 1.) Show more ads elsewhere (s…

I doubt these kind of users cost YouTube all that much. What I guess they are worried about are people who upload controversial videos who then run adverts alongside them, and those advertisers get very upset about the content that they are being associated with. That's the kind of thing that can really cost YouTube money & effort (they might have to have a real person take phone calls from the annoyed advertiser, sh…

I think as everywhere 90% of money Youtube gets from 3-10% of content. That looks like cost optimization. They spend money for requests (displaying video) and storage. Even if storage is 30% of their cost and they can remove 10% of biggest never displayed videos they can save 3% of overall costs, which is huge improvement on very concurrent market. Video ads right now the most expensive and most fast growing market.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#32

Post by pharke »

mic47 wrote: post #11

This might be actually a good thing. Say that you are a user, which uploads a LOT of large videos that almost nobody is watching, apart from your small cabal, and you restrict ads on them (AFAIK was possible in past, not sure if it is now). In such case, you get quite good service for free, and you cost YouTube quite a lot of money for storage. I see that YouTube have following options: 1.) Show more ads elsewhere (s…

I'm worried that while this sounds plausible at first it also seems to run directly counter to how many of the most popular channels on YouTube got their start. Most times when I've been a subscriber to a channel before it took off, the channel always begins with a small, tight knit group of fans that appreciate the content being created. The channel owner may not even run ads and sometimes doesn't have the sense or skill to edit their videos down. The channel will exist in this state for quite some time before it begins to attract more attention. How many promising channels are going to be strangled in the cradle by a poorly calibrated algorithm that thinks they aren't commercially viable?

I'm afraid that if a policy to terminate channels early and often is pursued then we will end up with a YouTube entirely populated by channels that just seek to maximize engagement at the expense of quality. This is sad but YouTube has been on the decline for some time, there is still a lot good about it but they seem to be intent on transforming it into the antithesis of what made it successful in the first place. Same old story.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#33

Post by vkizl »

madiathomas wrote: post #21

I skip all YouTube adverts that are longer than 15 seconds and never click on any advert when searching. I am probably considered "commercially unviable", even though a company I own 100%, pays Google thousands of dollars every year to use Google Suite and Google Cloud Engine. I don't see a reason for my personal account to be commercially viable.

I haven't watched an ad on youtube in like ten years. They are probably very upset at me.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#35

Post by coldtea »

mic47 wrote: post #11

This might be actually a good thing. Say that you are a user, which uploads a LOT of large videos that almost nobody is watching, apart from your small cabal, and you restrict ads on them (AFAIK was possible in past, not sure if it is now). In such case, you get quite good service for free, and you cost YouTube quite a lot of money for storage. I see that YouTube have following options: 1.) Show more ads elsewhere (s…

It's also an arbitrary hammer to censor videos regardless of size etc...

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#36

Post by utf985 »

mic47 wrote: post #11

This might be actually a good thing. Say that you are a user, which uploads a LOT of large videos that almost nobody is watching, apart from your small cabal, and you restrict ads on them (AFAIK was possible in past, not sure if it is now). In such case, you get quite good service for free, and you cost YouTube quite a lot of money for storage. I see that YouTube have following options: 1.) Show more ads elsewhere (s…

How is this a good thing? Obscure and/or old archive footage which usually doesnt get that many views is one of the best things about YT.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#37

Post by nissarup »

alpaca128 wrote: post #24
nissarup wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Not now. But that could change.

I don't think this will change. Yes, they already require an account for the YT app. But if they block access altogether without an account then they also break all youtube links for unregistered users, motivating people to find alternatives for sharing accessible video links online. I doubt Google wants to take that risk.

I hope it won't change. But they can make watching without an account less desirable; less bandwidth, more ads, no access to newly uploaded videos, first 30s. free, etc.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#39

Post by blisterpeanuts »

sornaensis wrote: post #26

Good, maybe this signals the leveling off and impending implosion of ad revenue. Internet 3.0 cannot arrive fast enough... I am tired of all these giant sites de facto controlling information repositories and communications channels because they have ad-sponsored inertia.

What do you envision internet 3.0 to look like? Some kind of shared, distributed blockchain thing with no centralized repositories and control, with micro-revenue flowing to each provider?
Post reply on HN