71–80 of 95 posts
How does one become "no longer commercially viable" for youtube?
e.g. using their own web server, p2p network or other centralized/walled (hosted) services.
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.
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…
Yet his videos get tens and hundreds of thousands of views (occasionally even millions), and are 15-20 minutes each (even Jim Sterling must play to the algorithm). 3-4 of such videos every week have to represent the very definition of commercially not viable for Google.
As much as I dislike this, they are a business. Running servers and streams is not free. The great conondrum of software...
And yet, Google gets very good prices for servers from OEMs. Instead of terminating people without saying a word, and then stonewalling them, they could've just demanded payment for the service.
What does termination of your account mean? Are we talking losing your email/gmail account?
If the Markiplier situation is any indication, then your entire google account, gmail and all. https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1193216884197314560
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This doesn't make sense. Anyone can watch YouTube without an account. So even if they terminated a consumer using adblocking it wouldn't change anything for Google. there are means to identify (and block) unique users without them needing to have an account. Heck, there's even means to identify the usage of an ad-blocker and/or youtube-dl and to refuse to provide the video for such cases.
I see the point but that's a cat and mouse game. Google would invest far more resources to block those users than it was worth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, Google gets very good prices for servers from OEMs. Instead of terminating people without saying a word, and then stonewalling them, they could've just demanded payment for the service.
They build their own servers. They are an OEM.