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

YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

androidpolice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#751

Post by jamesnorden »

haburka wrote: post #301
kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…

I don’t understand why this is top comment. Ads on youtube are skippable after a few seconds and you can pay to not watch them. It’s weird to conflate that with some adspam website, which may have a ton of flashy ads and a video. However, more importantly, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Ads enable content creators to get paid. Frankly, youtube barely eeks out a profit. When you block ads instead of paying to…

>it’s simply theft

Me watching a video of a creator I don't like 50 times without ads so he loses money with every view, that's how it works right?

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#753

Post by jraby3 »

mcpackieh wrote: post #309

I block ads because they're psychological warfare that corporations wage against me. I don't care how unobtrusive the ads are. I don't care if the ads don't track me. I grew up changing the channel on TV when ads came on, and ripping adverts out of magazines before sitting down to read them. I vote for billboard bans whenever I can. I have zero tolerance for ads of any sort. Advertisers have no morals, they're comple…

Money from ads provides a lot of free services.

Email, TV, various websites, etc use ad money in part to pay for and provide content.

Usually seems like a decent trade off. Not always but most of the time.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#754

Post by chakintosh »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…

> This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads.

I am willing to give Youtube money just to get rid of the ads once and for all, especially on my TV ... But I can't because Premium isn't available in my country.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#755

Post by the8472 »

mcpackieh wrote: post #309

I block ads because they're psychological warfare that corporations wage against me. I don't care how unobtrusive the ads are. I don't care if the ads don't track me. I grew up changing the channel on TV when ads came on, and ripping adverts out of magazines before sitting down to read them. I vote for billboard bans whenever I can. I have zero tolerance for ads of any sort. Advertisers have no morals, they're comple…

In an ideal world a heavily modified form of ads could provide societal value. As a way to spread awareness that a problem has been solved, that there is someone who can provide actual utility.

E.g. I recently talked to an acquaintance about cooking and told them there's a kitchen utensil that would solve a problem they were describing.

Ads should be performed by 3rd parties (a mix of reviews and match-making?) that get paid by both the customer and the company whenever they facilitate a useful transaction. And pay the customer when they took up their time with useless information (thus incentivizing getting out of there way when they're not doing their job).

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#756

Post by throwaway2037 »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…

I like this post. I agree. One thing I notice with print (not online), the ads don't move. So much easier on the eyes!

You said that you subscribe to premium. Quick Google search says about 120 USD per year. What do you get for 10 USD per month?

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#757

Post by timmg »

RandomBK wrote: post #105

I feel this was the inevitable outcome of the increased availability/popularity/awareness of ad blockers - a tragedy of the commons scenario that's set us on an escalating feedback loop that won't end well for anyone involved. EDIT: I do wonder if the price point of youtube premium is too high to capture an audience that simply doesn't want ads but doesn't care about any other features. $6/mo feels higher than the ty…

> EDIT2: While I don't know youtube's average revenue per user, both Facebook and Google's ARPU for the NA segment is ~$100-$200/y, which would put $6/mo quite close to the replacement cost of lost ads revenue.

$100/12 = $8.33

$200/12 = $16.66

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#758

Post by Panoramix »

weeblewobble wrote: post #154
sircastor wrote: post #115

So YouTube is going to make it impossible to watch without ads. Reddit's communities are going dark because Reddit (essentially) wants more ad revenue. Facebook and Instagram have been plastered with ads for longer than they haven't. And we're just a short hop from ads being "Attention required" with eyeballs tracked. I wonder if there's a possibility that this will shake Youtube from it's dominance.

Nah Reddit is pretty much back to normal. The protest is over. There are a few big subreddits like r/interestingasfuck that are still closed, but these are more like meme channels than communities. People can just get the same dozen gifs a day from r/damnthatsinteresting, r/whoadude, etc.

Didn't their valuation dropped in half? An effort to marginally increase profits cost them billions in the end.

Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers

#759

Post by 7952 »

ianbutler wrote: post #470
kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…

I recently unblocked ads on a website that I use semi frequently in an effort to contribute to them as they had crossed my threshold for something I feel I should pay for. The page erupted into animation and sound. I immediately turned my blocker back on. Sorry website, you're quite useful but I won't subject myself to that.

My local newspaper is just unusable without a blocker. Multiple megabytes of ads and dozens of trackers all trying to load in a random sequence. You start reading a story and the site just loads something and moves the text.
Post reply on HN