301–310 of 433 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any mention of getting anything in that comment, I just see a refusal to give google money.
not giving google money is quite an odd "principle"
It sounds like a reasonable principle to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another option is to require Chrome for playback outside of authenticated apps, and lock Chrome down. TBH baking it into the video stream is probably the easiest path. The whole video doesn't have to be re-encoded if the ad is spliced in. This is a "soft lockdown" since the ad can theoretically be manually skipped by the user, but its probably good enough.
baking into the video stream loses their ability to auction off ads in realtime to customize ads per viewer based on all of the analytics they've hoovered up on that viewer. they aren't doing the hoovering to go back to old school pre-determined ad placement
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another option is to require Chrome for playback outside of authenticated apps, and lock Chrome down. TBH baking it into the video stream is probably the easiest path. The whole video doesn't have to be re-encoded if the ad is spliced in. This is a "soft lockdown" since the ad can theoretically be manually skipped by the user, but its probably good enough.
I wonder when they’ll completely forgo HTML and will just start serving giant polymorphic/obfuscated WebAssembly blob that would perform all the rendering
If you have a VPN with a Ukraine location, you can set it to there and purchase YouTube Premium for ~$2.70/month. That's what I just ended up doing. I use Mullvad as my vpn provider.
not sure why youtube premium asks me `CA$12.99` (canadian dollars?) with mullvad & youtube location set to Ukraine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you had willingly jumped from ad block to premium any time in the last 5 years would you still feel alienated? Reacting to google blocking ad-blockers as a reason not to subscribe to premium is just rationalizing not paying creators for content. I personally don't even remember what ads are like on Youtube and have zero idea how they've changed since the Youtube Red days.
I had Red through my google play music subscription but then they turned music into a YouTube nonsense app that removed features I liked and tripled the costs. I'd subscribe to YouTube premium if it didn't bundle a music subscription and associated cost.
According to this article, when Youtube red was introduced in October 2015, it was $9.99/month. It's now $13.99/month. That's a 40% increase. If you adjust $9.99 in October 2015 for inflation to September 2023, it's $12.93/month. So inflation-adjusted, the price increased 8.2% from 2015 to now.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/21/9566973/youtube-red-ad-f...
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=9.99&year1=201...
Disclosure: I work at Google but not on Youtube.
The real adblocker is people uploading their videos to s3 (or s3 compatible) in the first place :-) Youtube was revolutionary when it came out but now it doesn’t offer much other than discoverablity. Since you need to work hard to be discovered anyway you can do that via X (etc.) Just need some people to make the tools so average jo can do it.
Just get an FTP account and mount it locally with curlftpfs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless, YouTube Premium puts way more money in creators' pockets than ads and is more reliable.
If that is so, YouTube should incentivize creators to promote YouTube premium instead of them having to advertise for dubious VPN services.
Do you think Youtube wants creators to do that? Youtube doesn't get a cut of that revenue, whereas Youtube does get a cut of regular Youtube ad revenue and Premium revenue.
Disclosure: I work at Google but not on Youtube, and am just speculating here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This, in turn, will spawn user scripts which work around the detection. Any client-side solution will be an arms race between Google and user script/adblock devs. The only real way to prevent it is to withhold the video stream from the CDN until the client has streamed the full ad and/or bake it into the video stream. My impression is that Twitch does this for its live streams (although not VODs).
Another option is to require Chrome for playback outside of authenticated apps, and lock Chrome down. TBH baking it into the video stream is probably the easiest path. The whole video doesn't have to be re-encoded if the ad is spliced in. This is a "soft lockdown" since the ad can theoretically be manually skipped by the user, but its probably good enough.
I really hope that that would be enough to finally coax the antitrust regulators into doing something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this is what you are looking for: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37873749 But I also recommend purchasing YouTube Premium if you watch a decent amount. I find it to be a great value.
I'd buy it, but $14/m is way too much for no ads imo. Especially since this is a "free" service where the justification for me paying X$/m is because i have to offset the ads i would have otherwise watched. You're (Youtube, not OP hah) telling me i provided $14/m in ad revenue? Of course not. I'd insta-buy if i could just pay to skip any ads i actually would have watched. Give me a stat showing me how many ads i miss…
Google actually had a system like that in the past, but it wasn't for Youtube, it was for other ads around the web. I used it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
Disclosure: I work at Google, but not speaking authoritatively.