Live data from Hacker News

Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers

standard.co.uk

91–92 of 92 posts

Re: Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers

#91
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They stay unprofitable forever individually but they stay on YouTube instead of making another video site popular, which on the whole is better for YouTube.

But that isn't an as big deal as it sounds. Many use TikTok for example, but TikTok barely pays anything to creators so anyone who gets big on TikTok moves to YouTube to make money. As long as you make the most money at YouTube that will keep happening, and all those ads is why people make so much money making videos on YouTube. This leads to an Apple situation where Apple doesn't have the most users but most of the…

I would agree with that if most of the costs of YouTube were paying the creators, but my guess is they're not. If YouTube gives, for example, Vimeo the chance to become big enough and they just happen to be more efficient than YouTube and also decide to pay the creators just a little bit more than YouTube, isn't it even a tiny bit reasonable that maybe Vimeo could gradually replace YouTube in the future?

Of course Vimeo would have to fight off adblockers too to compete in money extraction with YouTube but that's not my point, my point is that YouTube now has a monopoly and any actions that threaten that, such as strongarming people into watching 3 preroll unskippable ads, are in my opinion silly and self-defeating.

They're just too greedy. If they made the price of YouTube Premium something reasonable ($1 or $2 a month instead of $14 or whatever it is) they would get a lot more subscribers and probably even get more revenue. $1 or $2 is not worth spending even 10 minutes digging in obfuscated JavaScript to fix an adblocker, so this whole thing would go a lot smoother for them if they charged that. Even if $14 is not a lot people just don't want to pay that much.

Re: Google admits cracking down on people using ad blockers

#92
post #50
post #8

The free ride is over. I feel like the only reason this is upsetting to people is because it seemed to be free for so long. If you give someone a free meal every day for 15 years, and then suddenly take it away, they'll be pretty upset. But nobody ever asked why the food was free? It costs to make and it costs to deliver. Google have datacenters all over the world and we still expect the food to be free. They literal…

"the only reason this is upsetting to people is because it seemed to be free for so long" The issue, at least to me, is that Google has a sort of monopoly on >99% of content on Youtube. They provide virtually nothing[0] to content creators other than free †⸸ video hosting, and in return they get to gatekeep the content itself. All of the cost is offloaded onto the consumer, and there is little to no incentive (arguab…

> why should Google be the only party who gets to deliver other people's content

They're not? I don't know why you mention this. If the creator of a video decided to only make their video available on YouTube, that's their decision.

Post reply on HN