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

YouTube will now show ads on all videos even if creators don’t want them

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 783 posts

Re: YouTube will now show ads on all videos even if creators don’t want them

#671

Post by Supermancho »

RandallBrown wrote: post #669
Supermancho wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That just comes off as entitled. Youtube is providing free bandwidth, hosting, and advertising for his patreon. Youtube has been promoting that you can do that since 2008 - https://techcrunch.com/2008/03/12/youtube-the-platform/ - so maybe "entitled" isn't the word. It's expected because the capability has been promoted. However, in the same article you'll note this little tidbit: In general if a video is uploaded…

> Of course, it is not exactly free. The videos will also be available on YouTube, where Google will make money from any associated ads. It is not clear how the ad revenue will be split, or even if it will be. The article you posted doesn't mention that YouTube is promoting ad-free hosting that the creator doesn't have to pay for.

> The article you posted doesn't mention that YouTube is promoting ad-free hosting that the creator doesn't have to pay for.

The article from 2008 doesn't mention that butterflys might be appearing across the video randomly either. How is what they didn't specifically say (or imply) relevant? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I thought the messages from that far back was interesting, which hedged toward this eventual practice.

Re: YouTube will now show ads on all videos even if creators don’t want them

#672

Post by RandallBrown »

Supermancho wrote: post #671
RandallBrown wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, it is not exactly free. The videos will also be available on YouTube, where Google will make money from any associated ads. It is not clear how the ad revenue will be split, or even if it will be. The article you posted doesn't mention that YouTube is promoting ad-free hosting that the creator doesn't have to pay for.

> The article you posted doesn't mention that YouTube is promoting ad-free hosting that the creator doesn't have to pay for. The article from 2008 doesn't mention that butterflys might be appearing across the video randomly either. How is what they didn't specifically say (or imply) relevant? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I thought the messages from that far back was interesting, which hedged toward th…

I thought you you were saying that YouTube has been marketing ad free video hosting since 2008 and the article was the evidence of that.

I must have misunderstood.

Re: YouTube will now show ads on all videos even if creators don’t want them

#673

Post by 6510 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #426
MereInterest wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, though most of the videos I watch these days either have explicit sponsor mentions, or I support though patreon. My general feel on adblock is that it is a reasonable step against an abusive advertising industry. That it harms creators is the side effect of the advertising industry's overreach, and is not a moral fault of the end user for acting in self-defense.

Nevermind the fact that for the vast majority of creators, their advertising revenue is 100% up to the whims of some bullshit black box "AI" algorithm on whether they are worthy of money they earned or not. Most of the valuable youtube creators don't care much about their ad revenue and prefer to curate out of band sponsorships and patreon. And if I wanted to actually support them, I'd invest in them through patreon,…

You wrote something that is completely obvious to anyone but some how its surprising what little thought I had put into it... I'm calling it: "Employed by robots" because it goes well with the "Trial by robots". Just those 2 make for "Governed by robots".

We still have some humans in the board room who could theoretically switch things off just like the switched them on but its somewhat naive to think their job description allows for it.

This leaves only governments. I could see myself write government automation even while fully aware of the above. If the pay is right, nice coworkers, interesting stack. ~rolls eyes~

Re: YouTube will now show ads on all videos even if creators don’t want them

#674

Post by lmm »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #578
Lambdanaut wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They always had to add ads at some point, hosting video, and the bandwidth and transcoding that goes with it, is incredibly expensive, not to mention the dev time going into creating such a massive platform. This isn't about covering expenses that they couldn't afford otherwise. This is about making enormously rich people even richer.

>This isn't about covering expenses that they couldn't afford otherwise. This is about making enormously rich people even richer. So you truly believe people should be entitled to free video hosting? It literally costs money to host content. If you make the platform no money, Youtube has no obligation to keep you around. Just because I pay for my groceries doesn't mean you get yours for free. Just because one person…

YouTube made it big encouraging that wide range of creators to come to their platform, then once they've established their monopoly they turn around and kick off the ones that are inconvenient for them. That feels immoral.

Re: YouTube will now show ads on all videos even if creators don’t want them

#675

Post by bluGill »

dmoy wrote: post #516
mac01021 wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched to Fastmail 2 months ago. It's been painless so far.

Is fastmail free now?

No, you should never entrust your personal data to something free. They keep the customer happy, so if you are not the customer you can't be surprised if they don't keep you happy.

I've been on fast mail for 10 years or so. I'm happy.

Re: YouTube will now show ads on all videos even if creators don’t want them

#677

Post by bluGill »

alisonkisk wrote: post #651
watwut wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about hundreda of video hosting sites. I know aboit two: youtube and twitch. I tried something else maybe twice. I am pretty representative for typical user. Typical user turns on yoitube and only things in there exists.

Typical users aren't relevant here. We're talking about Patreon supporters, people who gave money to a single creator and want an ad free video. They can click a link to vimeo.

But they need to know first. Who looks for something new on viemo? Sure if someone points you to them you will look, but do you go there just to see if there is anything interesting when you are bored?

Re: YouTube will now show ads on all videos even if creators don’t want them

#678

Post by vultour »

helmholtz wrote: post #165
leipert wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been using a different mail provider for 5 years. Just the other month google deleted my gmail account (had it set up to delete after a year of no-login) It is quite easy to migrate: 1. get a new mail account 2. forward everything from your gmail account 3. sort everything GMail into a separate folder in your new account 4. slowly change email addresses in accounts and let people know your new address. I think after…

Might I ask what password manager you use? And what do you do when you need to access websites from a machine that isn't yours? Also, did you consider the single-point-of-failure argument? I would like to know your opinion on that.

Keepass with the password database stored in Dropbox. If I need to log in on a new machine I check the password on my phone.

Re: YouTube will now show ads on all videos even if creators don’t want them

#679

Post by mod »

puranjay wrote: post #295
bsd44 wrote: post #118

As a content consumer I see this as a positive thing for me. A few months ago when YouTube decided to auto-add ads on all videos, my watch time on YouTube decreased by more than 50% since I consume all video content on either my phone or my tablet (where I don't have access to AdBlock), and I find the amount of ads I have to go through to watch a video so annoying that I'd rather not watch it at all. As a result I sp…

20 second unskippable ads about cat food (I don't have a cat) to watch a 1 minute video. No thanks YouTube!

Watch the ads, start the video, pause the video for a few minutes, come back and get shown fresh ads.

Re: YouTube will now show ads on all videos even if creators don’t want them

#680

Post by neltnerb »

wolco2 wrote: post #492
neltnerb wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they didn't show ads I doubt they would have cared as much about time shifting and ad skipping would never have been relevant. Sure would have helped them avoid collapsing. Let's not pretend they weren't incredibly hostile to watching shows you're paying for already, when you want to and without the ads you paid to avoid, even though they didn't need to even build any infrastructure for it. Add the rest of their a…

Those time shifting shows appear on broadcast tv across the nation in different time zones. They are not cable channels but broadcast channels appearing in cable. A tv antenia will pick them up. The timeshifting is the tv stations defense of segmenting their ad market and protecting against local viewer loss that targets ads to markets. If you in New York watch Denver's version two things happen. New York loses viewe…

Sorry, there must be some overlapping terminology.

I mean time shifting as in what devices such as TiVo did where they would record your shows for you and allow them to play them back whenever you wanted. For some reason Cable companies really hated this idea, presumably because... ads I guess?

I think that if they simply hadn't fought against people trying to basically turn what they already provided into something more like Netflix, those tools would exist and be built with a cable package as a backend.

They provide all the shows in a datastream that they would otherwise provide via cable, let other people deal with paying for developing devices to make it easier to use, and price it more reasonably so that it can compete with a Netflix. I don't know if they'd be able to, but since they own the pipes and own the FCC it seems more likely than not. But they'd be doing a lot better than they seem to be now, they just priced themselves out of the market once networks realized that people would just download their content for free if it was too inconvenient to watch. Better a little than nothing...

Post reply on HN